Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3606) to increase American job creation and economic growth by improving access to the public capital markets for emerging growth companies.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, it is clear that jobs and the economy are issue number one for our constituents. Many of them don't see the recovery. Even though professional economists may see it, it is clearly the slowest and weakest recovery in the postwar era. We still have now 3 full years of 8-plus percent unemployment, half of our population now being classified as either low income or in poverty. Again, our constituents are demanding jobs.

Public policy makes a difference. Republicans have many disagreements with our President over public policy. We disagree with the $11 trillion of additional debt that he has put into his budget. We disagree with the $1.9 trillion in new job-killing tax increases he wants to impose, much of it on small businesses. We disagree--we believe the Keystone pipeline, with its 20,000 shovel-ready jobs, should be approved. We believe these policies harm job growth and the economy.

But, Mr. Chairman, we have a rare occasion today, and that is there is something that we do agree on. We have found an opportunity to work on a bipartisan basis, on common ground, with the President of the United States. The President said:

It is time to cut away the redtape that prevents too many rapidly growing start-up companies from raising capital and going public.

House Republicans agree, and thus we are happy to bring to the floor, on a bipartisan basis, the JOBS Act.

The President has issued his Statement of Administration Policy endorsing this legislation. Again, a rare occurrence, and I believe it's something that our constituents would like to see us do. They want to see us stand on principle, but they also want to see us compromise on policies to advance those principles. And so this is a bill that will give these emerging growth companies--again, perhaps the future Googles, perhaps the future Apples, the future Home Depots and the future Starbucks--that opportunity to begin to access equity capital where the hurdles, the redtape, and the cost burdens have been too high.

We know that, of many of the root causes of the economic debacle we had, clearly this was an economy that was overleveraged. So we in the Congress need to do whatever we can to enable the start-up companies, the job engines of America, to be able to access the equity markets, not just the debt markets. So this is a bill most of which has been previously approved by large majorities either in the Financial Services Committee or on the floor.

I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher) for his leadership, Chairman Bachus, Leader Cantor, and the ranking member, Mr. Frank from Massachusetts. The American people want to see jobs, hope, and opportunity. So let's pass the JOBS Act, and let's pass it now.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I now would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to say that the American people care about jobs and economic growth, not a John Grisham novel of intrigue. Either the gentleman, the ranking member, likes the policy--in which case, he can vote for it. If he doesn't like the policy, he can vote against it. The President of the United States apparently supports it.

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher), the author of the JOBS Act.

I yield myself 10 seconds just to say that President Reagan once said there's no limit to what the American people can achieve if they don't mind who gets the credit. We seem to hear the ranking member say, if I and my friends can't take credit, we're going to pick up our toys and go home. All of us can take credit if we will support the JOBS Act.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), the chair of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee.

Madam Chair, I ask that the gentleman's words be taken down.

I yield myself 10 seconds just to say the gentlelady alluded to the gentleman from Massachusetts for bringing something to our attention. What he brought to our attention is that he violated House rules and is prohibited from speaking the rest of the day when the rest of the Chamber wishes to promote jobs for the American people.

At this time, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).

I yield myself 10 seconds simply to respond to my friend that we have tried the President's jobs bill, the stimulus, the health care package, Dodd-Frank; and yet we still have the highest duration of 8 percent-plus unemployment since the Great Depression. Here's at least a bipartisan bill we can work on, and I look forward to that today.

At this point, I will yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), the chairman of the Capital Markets Subcommittee.

Madam Chair, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

Madam Chairman, at this time, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the vice chairman of the Capital Markets Subcommittee, one of the prime authors of this bill, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).

Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, again, jobs and growing the economy is what our constituents care about. Again, we are unfortunately and regrettably in the midst of the slowest and weakest recovery in the postwar era. And, in fact, many of my constituents, they don't feel the recovery. They don't see it. They still know many of their friends, neighbors, and family members remain unemployed. That's why the number one priority of House Republicans has been to grow this economy and create more jobs. That is why House Republicans have a plan for America's job creators.

Now, Madam Chair, it's very difficult, very difficult, to find common ground in this institution, as we all know. Regrettably, the vast majority of these bills are stacked up like cordwood in the United States Senate. They won't take them up. We've tried many of the President's ideas. For 2 years we tried every single one of his ideas. We tried the stimulus program, which helped stimulate the national debt to the level it is today. We tried the President's health care plan that we were told would help grow jobs and the economy. Dodd-Frank, our financial institutions--the big get bigger, the small get smaller, and the taxpayer gets poorer.

We disagreed with those policies, and so we have tried to find common ground. We heard the distinguished minority whip lament that the bill didn't do more. This is the common ground we can find with our friends on the other side of the aisle. It's important. It's not as important as repealing the President's health care program, which is absolutely strangling our small businesses. It's not as important as turning back so much of the red tape that impacts every single small business in America by enacting the REINS Act to ensure that Congress, not the unelected bureaucracy, controls whether or not we impose job-killing regulations on our small business enterprises. But it's still an important bill nonetheless. It's a bill that will allow these emerging growth companies, again, perhaps the Googles of tomorrow and the Apples of tomorrow, to be able to access vital equity capital. And so it's an important piece of legislation. I wish it did more.

I wish my friends from the other side of the aisle would acknowledge that we have tried many of their partisan ideas, and they haven't worked. But here's at least a bipartisan idea where we have worked with the President. We have his support right here--right here--Madam Chair, where the President of the United States supports this legislation. So I'm happy that at least one portion of the House Republican plan for America's job creators stands a very good chance of being turned into law and that the American people will see that we continue to work to find that common ground.

So I'm happy, again, to be able to encourage my colleagues to support this today. I look forward to the day that the President can sign this into law.

At this time, Madam Chair, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Chairman, might I inquire how much time I have remaining.

In that case, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to yield exactly that 1 minute to the prime author of the JOBS Act, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment; although I'm not opposed to the amendment.

I want to commend, again, the gentleman from Tennessee and the gentleman from Delaware for this amendment that I believe helps improve the underlying amendment with some technical corrections. I would urge all Members to adopt it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to claim the time in opposition, although I'm not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to encourage the House to support the amendment from the gentleman from North Carolina. I believe it to be very straightforward, very simple, very common sense to ensure that there is an inflation adjustment that is applied to the underlying bill.

I think that it's helpful. I urge, again, all Members to adopt it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, again, the people of America care about jobs, they care about economic growth. Although we've had some recent improvement in our monthly unemployment figures, when we add in those who are working part-time who would prefer to be working full-time, and when we add in those who, frankly, have just given up and left the labor force, we know that the true unemployment rate in America is closer to 15.3 percent.

We know that the job engine of America is small business. And every big business had to start out as a small business.

I respect the gentleman's contribution to the bill. And this is about line drawing. I understand that. I respect his opinion. I know the professional background from which he has come. But I feel like his amendment would take this bill in the complete opposite direction of where we need to take this policy for emerging growth companies.

He used the example of Spirit Airlines. I don't have the figure at my fingertips, but I believe their market cap was in excess of what is provided for in the underlying bill, so I believe, again, they would not have qualified for the exemption in the first place.

But we want to provide this on-ramp for emerging growth companies, so, again, we can find tomorrow's Google, we can find tomorrow's Apple. And yes, this is drawing some lines in the sand, but it's clearly not a line that seems to be of great concern to the President.

We all know that the White House issues the Statement of Administration Policy, and when they have concerns about provisions in a piece of legislation, they have never been shy or reticent to share that with us. As I read the Statement of Administration Policy, the President doesn't seem to have a problem with where that line has been drawn.

I would also point out that the companion legislation on the Senate side, S. 1933, introduced by Senator Schumer of New York, Democrat, also has a gross revenue test of $1 billion. And so it appears that the President supports this. Senator Schumer supports this. This is bipartisan support for this $1 billion figure. I think at this particular time in our Nation's history the American people demand we err on the side of creating jobs and economic growth.

So, again, I respect the gentleman for his amendment, but I would urge that it be rejected.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

If the time of the gentleman from Connecticut has expired, in that case, Mr. Chairman, I will yield the remainder of the time to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).

I claim time in opposition.

I'm not, frankly, certain I'm in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment, and I appreciate her bringing it to the floor.

If she would yield for a question, I'm just trying to understand the purpose of her amendment, and what is the deficiency in the underlying bill that she seeks to address with this amendment would be that question.

I would be happy to yield to the gentlelady.

I'm inquiring as to the perceived deficiency in the underlying bill that you seek to address with your amendment, and I would be happy to yield to my friend from Texas.

I have one other question for the gentlelady.

On the 3-year period, I'm just curious as to the thought or purpose behind that particular selection of a 3-year period.

I'd be once again be happy to yield to my friend, the gentlelady from Texas.

I thank the gentlelady for her responses.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Is the gentlelady yielding?

Yes, the gentlelady was very perceptive in her hearing. I was contemplating the answers that the gentlelady gave. At this time, I do not intend to oppose the amendment.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, again, when we add in those who want full-time work and yet have part-time work, those who have given up and have left the labor force, those who have been unemployed for weeks and months on end, we know that the true unemployment rate in America is, regrettably, close to 15.3 percent.

Jobs is the number one concern, jobs and the economic growth of the American people, and it has to be our number one concern as well. And as ever well-intentioned as the gentleman

from Minnesota's amendment is, it is not one particular regulatory burden; it is the cumulative impact of them all that is inhibiting job growth in America today.

Anytime I talk to small business people in the Fifth District of Texas, which I have the honor and privilege of representing, and whether I'm talking to small business people or, frankly, to Fortune 50 CEOs, this is what they tell me: it is the government red tape. Now, it doesn't mean all regulation is bad, but we have to look at the cumulative impact, particularly in the midst of what our constituents view as a crisis.

John Mackey, cofounder and CEO of Whole Foods Market:

In some cases, regulations have gone too far, and it really

makes it difficult for small businesses. There's too much

bureaucracy and red tape. Taxes on businesses are very high.

So we're not creating the enabling conditions that allow

businesses to get started.

Again, on a bipartisan piece of legislation that is supported by the President of the United States, most of the provisions have been overwhelmingly supported either on the House floor or in the Financial Services Committee. Regrettably, the gentleman from Minnesota's amendment takes a huge step backwards and makes it more difficult for these emerging growth companies to get started.

Now, I understand his particular concern on Say on Pay, but I would note that emerging growth companies still have to disclose their executive compensation arrangements to shareholders in their SEC filings in the same way that the SEC requires for smaller reporting companies. How many votes do you want to compel shareholders to take, particularly on emerging growth companies?

We could require votes on patent filings. We could require votes on the retention of the accounting firm. Maybe we could require it on the acquisition of real estate. Perhaps shareholders should be compelled to vote to ratify any particular union contract. Maybe we should compel a vote on the IT system. We could go to the ridiculous. Maybe we have to have shareholder votes to choose between Coke and Pepsi in the break room, or as to whether or not the coffee is organically grown or not organically grown. What is the company logo?

At some point, it begs the question: Are we here to stand up for shareholder value or for somebody's subjective, personal values, which I respect, but which, again, can harm emerging growth companies as they're trying to grow jobs and the economy.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides, please?

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).

Mr. Chairman, every single regulation imposes some type of financial burden on a company that cannot be used to create a job.

If this was a concern, why don't we find it listed in the Statement of Administration Policy. It's not a concern of the President. Let's work together and pass this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we've had a vigorous debate over some amendments that were accepted, others that we thought were unwise. Frankly, this one, Mr. Chairman, we believe would simply gut the entire bill. You know, Mr. Chairman, you cannot sue your way into job growth. You are not going to be able to sue your way into economic growth.

This amendment takes us a huge, huge step in the opposite direction. The practical impact of the amendment from the gentlelady from California is to essentially squash any of the reporting that would take place on these emerging growth companies for imposing the prospectus level of liability imputed to the communications of the research reports.

I mean, in order to get onto this IPO on-ramp in order for the small growth companies to access our equity market, there has to be the research which is published. Without it, without it, the accredited investors will probably never know of the existence of the companies in the first place. I would point out that many of the concerns should have already been addressed.

Number one, all these emerging growth companies are still liable for the Global Research Analyst Settlement of 2003, which established a comprehensive set of rules that sever the link between investment banking and research activities, section 501 of Sarbanes-Oxley, which requires the research analysts and broker-dealers to disclose all potential conflicts of interest, Regulation AC, stock exchange-listing standards, FINRA codes of conduct, and the list goes on and on and on.

And so again, Mr. Chairman, to add yet another level of liability, one that we are told would simply have an incredibly dampening impact on the existence of these research reports, for all intents and purposes this would simply gut the bill. I suppose it would be an early evening in the House if we accepted it, but everything that Members of both sides of the aisle have worked for would be for naught.

Again, if this was a concern of the administration, why wasn't it listed in their Statement of Administration Policy where they always list their concern?

The President would like to see this passed. We would like to see it passed. There is bipartisan support in the Senate.

I would urge a strong rejection of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire of the Chair how much time I have remaining.

In that case, I will yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), the chairman of the Capital Markets Subcommittee.

I rise to claim time in opposition.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman of the Capital Markets Subcommittee, Mr. Garrett.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

At this time, I will yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).

I yield myself the balance of the time.

I would just say to my friend, the gentlelady from Texas will have to settle for batting .500, as I supported her earlier amendment, but I have to rise in opposition to this one. The very purpose of an accredited investor is to

identify the class of individuals who have greater capacity to handle risk, do not require the enhanced protections. Her amendment would unnecessarily restrict capital formation and consequently job growth. I urge its rejection, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I have some good news for the gentleman from Virginia. The very issue that he cares to study has already been studied. In January of 2011, Democrat CFTC Commissioner Michael Dunn said:

To date, CFTC staff has been unable to find any reliable

economic analysis to support either the contention that

excessive speculation is affecting the markets we regulate or

that position limits will prevent excessive speculation. With

such a lack of concrete economic evidence, my fear is that,

at best, position limits are a cure for a disease that does

not exist or at worst a placebo for one that does.

A similar study has been conducted by the Federal Trade Commission.

Mr. Chairman, if we're going to be in the business of conducting studies, perhaps we should study why this administration has had over 3 years to study the Keystone pipeline and still refuses to allow more energy to come to America for Americans. Now, apparently, in a reversal, the President has decided that if the energy can hitchhike from

Canada successfully to the Red River, the northern border of Texas, he'll allow it to get to the refineries on the gulf coast. Otherwise, no energy.

Shouldn't, on the road to American energy independence, we ought to at least go through the road of North American energy independence. These are 20,000 shovel-ready jobs--and I know the administration gets confused at what is a shovel-ready job--but 20,000 shovel ready jobs, and yet it's rejected by this administration. Why? Well, because this is an administration that has essentially declared war on carbon-based industry, thus is trying to increase prices of energy for small businesses, for struggling American families, for hardworking taxpayers. Please don't take my word for it; take the word of the Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu: ``Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of Europe.''

Well, again, I've got good news for the administration: they're doing a wonderful job. They have us on the road to increasing energy levels to the price of Europe, and the consequent unemployment that goes with it, and the consequence of having the fewest business start-ups in almost two complete decades. So, the matter that the gentleman cares to study has already been studied. It has already been studied.

I also recall a time when these people were called investors, and we actually welcomed them into the market. I suspect that it is fear of this administration's energy policies that is causing these prices to skyrocket even further. As bad as they are today, people know they're going to be even worse.

So I would urge a rejection of this amendment that takes this bill in the complete opposite direction that it needs to be going.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 572 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of this rule and obviously the underlying bill. House Resolution 572 provides a structured rule for H.R. 3606, that Jumpstart Our Business Startups, or what we also call the JOBS Act. The bill was introduced on December 8, 2011, by my friend, a bright young man who is one of the

brand-new leaders of our conference, a freshman, the gentleman from Tennessee, Stephen Fincher, and was ordered reported by Chairman Bachus and the Committee on Financial Services on February 16, 2012, by a near-unanimous vote of 54 1.

Members on both sides of the aisle have had an opportunity and will have opportunities to submit perfecting ideas. Thank goodness the Rules Committee allows this sort of thing to happen now that Republicans are in charge. The structured rule before us allows for 17 amendments, Mr. Speaker: 13 from Democrats, 3 from Republicans, and one which is a bipartisan amendment, meaning that Republican and Democrat Members of this House have a chance to work together on legislation for jobs for our country.

The chairman of the Rules Committee, David Dreier, has once again allowed the House to work its will through this important legislation by allowing us to have a rule not only where Members of Congress can come and share their ideas with the Rules Committee but, once again, have them made in order so they can come down on the floor, express their ideas, work with colleagues to perfect the legislation and then to vote for the bill, because they were a part of it. Those are ideas that I think are good for this body. David Dreier, as chairman of the committee, deeply believes this is the way the floor should operate.

Today, we're going to consider a package of commonsense job-creating bills that stand out for a unique reason, and that unique reason is the President of the United States now supports what we're doing, also. Unfortunately, Senate Democrats have yet to give their blessing on this bill and the package that's included. So we're just going to have to do the best we can and then hope for the best. Maybe the Senate will decide they want to take action on bills that will not only better enable our country to have jobs and job creation, but also a chance to work for the best interests of the American people.

House Republicans are on the floor again today, as we have been doing now for a year and a few months, to persistently make the case about job creation, why jobs are important to our country, why the Congress should be all about trying to work with the free enterprise system, work with Members of Congress who see the big need for jobs, not only at home, but all across this country in every single State so that we can have job creation as a major goal of what this Congress and hopefully the President would be for. Over 30 bills that we've already passed through this body over the last year and a couple months await consideration by Senate Democrats. That means that this body, just like the bills we are going to handle today, we have been on the floor for a year talking about jobs, job creation, the way we can aid and abet the free enterprise system, investors, and opportunities back home. Those bills are waiting over in the Senate, and today we're simply going to add to that.

The big difference is the President has now said, You guys have got a good idea. The day the President agrees with House Republicans and House Democrats is a great day for our country. So, the good news out of Washington today is Stephen Fincher had a good idea the President agrees with, and we're going to do something about that.

Our economy has a credit problem, too, Mr. Speaker, not just a jobs problem. Companies are unable to receive the credit they need to grow their businesses, and as banks and other traditional credit providers face stricter Federal restrictions by the Obama administration, it decreases the ability for lending to take place, and companies that need lending and cash and capital available to them are looking for innovative funding mechanisms that will provide the liquidity necessary so they can keep their businesses current, so they can expand their business, so they can meet the needs of the marketplace. This administration continues to promote policies that slow economic growth and make it more difficult for businesses and, in particular, small business, to obtain capital and have a source of funding. Republicans believe that we must create an environment that changes that, that encourages investment in small business. Small business, as we know, is really the engine of our economy and really the national job creator. The underlying bill does just that.

The JOBS Act consists of numerous pro-growth provisions, and I would like to talk about those because it's important for us to remind our colleagues that a pro-growth bill or a pro-growth environment that our free enterprise system would be involved in encourages not just the creation of capital, but also the ability of that formation of capital to make jobs in America to come about as a result of that.

This bill from Congressman Fincher creates a new category of what's called emerging growth companies that will reduce costs for small companies to go public. Great idea.

There is legislation from our majority whip, Kevin McCarthy from California, that will allow small businesses to advertise for the purpose of soliciting capital from potential investors. In other words, this was not allowed by law. Small companies that have great ideas need the opportunity to advertise in the marketplace and have people see that there are good ideas. Kevin McCarthy is right.

A bill from Congressman McHenry from North Carolina would allow what is called crowdfunding for initial public offerings under $1 million. In other words, it opens up the ability to gather more capital to come in. And Congressman McHenry is right, we need to utilize market-based solutions, and we need to make it legal.

There are two bills from Congressman Schweikert from Arizona: one that would allow more businesses to go public, gathering investment and growth, and a second bill which raises the threshold number of shareholders required from mandatory Securities and Exchange Commission registration for all companies.

And finally, there is a bill by Congressman Quayle from Arizona which increases the threshold number of shareholders permitted to invest in community banks; in other words, bringing more investors to an important part of our economy, and that is called community banks, banks that exist for the purpose of trying to make our communities, local communities, stronger and better.

The banks and small businesses of the district which I represent, the 32nd Congressional District of Texas, which is primarily Dallas, Richardson, Addison, and Irving, Texas, consistently describe to me about how they have an inability to raise capital investment, not due to a lack of willing investors, but as a result of burdensome regulations that are placed on them by the Federal Government. Oftentimes we discuss the need for the SEC limit on individual investors, and we know that it restricts their ability to raise funds through community participation in local business creation. I am proud to tell them now that, as a result of this bill today and the legislation included, help is on the way.

These important changes not only provide businesses with the necessary ability to expand, but also they provide individuals with new mechanisms to invest and grow with their own personal assets in companies that they know best.

The rules adjusted in the underlying bill have proven restrictive to economic growth, so we've got to adjust these problems in the marketplace and come up with new and creative ideas. We must push these constructive proposals without political delay. This is why Members of this body, including, I believe, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), support this bill. The reason why we can work together is to make sure we push constructive ideas that are good for people back home.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation is still in crisis. We do not have enough jobs. We are in a dwindling marketplace because of the excessive number of rules and regulations that have been passed by prior Congresses. With unemployment persistently over 8 percent, we cannot continue the failed policies of government spending, rules, and regulations, and the inability to pass laws that help job creation to overcome these problems. The underlying bill will do exactly that. It will help foster not only an environment, but provide the underpinning through law that will allow the private sector to more fully participate.

The future success of our economy rests in the hands of small, private business, not the Federal Government. What we are doing today is unleashing their potential so that they can focus on the things that they do best. This is part of having a Republican majority: pro business, pro economic development for jobs, the formation of capital, and the ability for American entrepreneurship to flourish. The result is going to be an economic environment that promotes growth and generates more revenue for the Federal Government.

I am delighted not only to be on the floor once again talking about economic growth, but once again trying to act as a soundpiece for the American people who are asking the United States Congress to please understand the plight that we are in, to please help work on what will help the free enterprise system job creation.

So today as we are on the floor, we offer a hearty reminder to the American people that there are people who get what this is about. That's partially why this Republican majority has been and will continue to be successful. We will push for reform, a pro-growth environment, and the opportunity to help people back home, instead of with a handout, to give them the ability to do things on their own.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this fair rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I remind the gentleman that the Republican minority leader, Mr. McConnell, has been asking for some 30 jobs bills to at least go through committee or to be on the floor, and I do not think that a jobs bill would be a problem for a Republican to object to.

So I would once again advise the gentleman that I think my statement was correct. The Senate minority leader has asked for every single one of these 30 bills that have been passed by the House to be debated and voted on, and Republicans have pledged their support of all 30.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman, my friend, Mr. Polis, for not only coming to our defense and aid in this but also aiming for things that people all across this country need, and it's called action by Congress for jobs.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the young gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).

Well, I'm not seeking recognition, but I would say that the gentleman from Arizona has a good bill, and I encourage you to read it.

Mr. Speaker, just so you know, the gentleman is correct, and I appreciate his viewpoint of this.

This is a copy of Mr. Quayle's bill right here. It's about one-third of a page long. It's a good idea that says we're going to increase the number of people who can invest in a community bank. I hope that should not require us to have to go back and do too much thinking about how great this would be. We're trying to perfect, instead of by just having an amendment, to allow all Members to take part in these things with their good ideas.

So I do take that what the gentleman said is correct, but good ideas are part of this bill. That should be what we're about here on the floor, just as an amendment that may not have gone through.

I wish I could. I'm out of time. I've got a whole bunch of speakers. But I appreciate the gentleman. He'll have plenty of time.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from New York makes a good point about the President's jobs bill, except it picks winners and losers, and has hundreds of billions of dollars of tax increases that will continue to kill the free enterprise system, along with the other administrative things that this President is doing to the free enterprise system. So this body will not, will not pass hundreds of billions of dollars of tax increases and then say we're trying to help people doing that.

The President, I'm sure, is entitled to his own beliefs. We're going to do the things which work, that empower the free enterprise system.

Speaking of working and empowering the free enterprise system, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), who has brought great ideas to this bill and they are included in this.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a man who I believe is one of the clearest thinkers in this Congress. He is a person who studies well, applies logic, and comes out with a deduction for making things better for people who are not in this town, but rather people who are the real part of America.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I thank the gentleman for asking.

We did have one person who we believe is attempting to get here, to run here; but I would at this time tell you he is not here. So I would encourage the gentleman to go ahead and close as he would choose, and I would then do the same.

I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, to hear the gentleman's strong voice, not only as an entrepreneur before he came to Congress, but in Mr. Polis' dustup as he speaks in the Rules Committee in which he talks about America wanting to have a bright future, he is the father of a new young son, and he looks forward to the day that his son will have a bright future in this country. I appreciate his words today. He is also correct that we do not create jobs in this town, as it is the free enterprise system that does that. Yet with that comes an equal recognition that this town gets in the way of jobs and job creation.

Our taxes are preparing to be raised. The President, the Democratic Party are all about raising taxes on entrepreneurs, and people who get up and go to work every day, and small business, and taking away a Tax Code that benefits women, in particular married women, with the marriage penalty, as well as job creation through incentives that might deal with depreciation. All of these things are part of a pro-growth jobs package, and unfortunately, this House is not together on that. This House is having to, as the gentleman Mr. Pence said, make incremental progress as we move forward.

Mr. Speaker, this body is big enough to be able to recognize that this country is in trouble. I don't care if you live in Orlando, Florida, or in Pensacola, Florida, or whether you live in Dallas, Texas, or whether you live in California. The needs of this great Nation are about job creation and about ensuring in a competitive marketplace that we keep jobs, that we have ample credit that's available, that we have new ideas like we're handling today in this bill, but that we also go to some old ideas, one of which is, when you tax companies or when you tax something, you get less of it.

What the President of the United States and the Democratic Party want to do is to tax America--the free enterprise system--to pick winners and losers and then try to call that ``new revenue'' to this country when, in fact, all it does is offset it with higher unemployment.

We need a pro-growth economy. We need a pro-growth agenda from the United States Congress. It's not just the House but the Senate, also. We need the President of the United States to understand that his temptation to talk about economic growth should be about job creation, not just about picking winners and losers. We need someone who will bring this country together, not attack our free enterprise system, not stand up in front of people and say that we can work together but then not actually become responsible enough to become engaged in legislation that will pass so that we can make this country stronger.

The Republican Party is here today, leading this bill on the floor. We've got

a rule which allows for 17 amendments--13 from Democrats, 3 from Republicans, 1 bipartisan. Once again, our Speaker, John Boehner, and the gentleman from California, David Dreier, who is the chairman of the Rules Committee, are intensely interested in having this House work in a bipartisan fashion, but making progress for the American people. The American people expect us and want us to do better. Today is a chance to work together, pass a bill, put it across the aisle to the Senate, and ask them to please join us in making life better for Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I hope all of my colleagues support this rule. It's a great rule. It does the right thing. The underlying legislation is wonderful, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of this bill, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have worked long and hard on a number of these bills.

In my remarks today, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the good, the bad, and the ugly: the good that these bills can do to free up our capital markets, but the bad and the ugly of issues that are more substantial to job creation and the fiscal integrity of our country, which this Congress continues to ignore.

First, to respond to my colleague from Texas who several times blamed one particular party in the Senate for advancing these bills, I would just like to remind my colleague that many of these bills are sponsored by Democrats in the Senate. It's not Democrats or Republicans in the Senate; it is the Senate that needs to pass this. And as we know, the Senate requires 60 votes. So I would hope that the gentleman from Texas would amend his future remarks and call upon the Senate to pass the JOBS Act rather than just the Democrats in the Senate, of course recognizing that Republican votes are needed to reach the necessary 60 votes to advance any legislation.

I am happy to yield.

Will the gentleman amend his remarks?

Reclaiming my time, again, just as many of them are sponsored by Democrats as by Republicans. It will take votes from both sides to get to 60 votes. I think they can do that. And many of these bills before the House have had 400 votes, 90 percent of this body. Hopefully, they will command similarly large supermajorities in the Senate, comprised of both Democrats, many of whom sponsored these bills, and Republicans, who may be opposed to certain elements but hopefully, in the name of moving the country forward, will pass this JOBS Act.

Here's what this bill will do.

First of all, it's not a JOBS Act, per se. The JOBS name is an acronym. It actually is called Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, or JOBSA, but I guess JOBS sounds better. But what it really affects is capital markets. It is really a capital market bill. It is a good bill. It has several components that have already passed the House. My colleague from Texas outlined several of them. I want to explain why they are so important.

First and foremost, it makes it easier for many small companies to go public. It rolls back some of the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations that were put in place in 2002 for small and medium-cap companies. Again, when you're looking at the compliance cost of Sarbanes-Oxley, they don't scale with the business. So it's de minimis for a $10 billion business, but it's substantial and, in fact, a deterrent to accessing the capital markets for a $100 million or a $300 million business. So this, in fact, rolls them back in a very thoughtful way.

And I would further call for reexamination, of course, of the requirements for businesses of all sizes, but this will allow many small and mid-cap businesses to access the public capital markets.

In addition, it allows people to invest in start-ups, a concept that's called crowdfunding, which is very exciting. Of course, heretofore, essentially, investing in start-ups has been restricted to what are called accredited investors. Now, an accredited investor is not just some investor that goes through some process of getting accredited; it's basically somebody who's wealthy. They have to be worth several million dollars; and then, all of a sudden, they're accredited.

Now, we all know that some wealthy people are poor investors and some are good investors. One's wealth has nothing to do with how accredited or how good an investor one is. And families who are worth $100,000 or families that are worth $300,000 are perfectly within their rights under current law to go to Las Vegas or Atlantic City and bet their entire lifesavings on one roll of the dice; and yet they're not allowed, under current law, to invest in start-ups.

So, we, with this bill, would allow families of all means to invest in start-up companies, some of which will work out and some of which will not. American families will enter this being aware of the risks. But, again, it is their money, they earned it, they've paid taxes on it, and they should be able to invest it and/or gamble it as they see fit.

Another thing we do under this bill is increase the number of shareholders that is required for mandatory registration with the FCC from 500 to 1,000. This is very important because many companies use stock options, which is a good practice. It gets the employees to own part of the company, to own part of the fruits of their labor, and to have some of the upside on the equity. But companies have effectively been limited on this because once they have 500 shareholders, they're forced to file as public. So we're allowing them to stay private longer, as the need fits them, and not have to scale back on their option policy with their employees. Inevitably, some of those options get exercised, and employees become outright owners over time. This would prevent them from being forced into a backdoor IPO.

In addition, we, again, allow community banks to raise additional capital. We remove some of the requirements around that. Community banks are important lenders in our community; and that's an important step, as well, towards allowing capital to flow more freely.

So, in sum, the several bills, most of which have already passed this House, that we are packaging in the JOBS Act, this act that we're doing here today, are good bills that will free up the capital markets. And, yes, in the medium and long term, there will likely be some jobs created, because where will that capital go? It will flow to businesses that will encourage job growth. This is not something that happens overnight, but this is something that happens as a fruit of the investment. Some of these start-ups that are funded through crowdfunding might, in fact, be employers of 1,000 people in 5 years or 10 years. And that's what's so exciting about the potential of these mechanisms to create value in the economy.

But what are we not doing? And what would be a real jobs bill? In my opinion, there's really several things that are holding back our private sector recovery. First and foremost is our budget deficit and the questions about the

fiscal integrity of this country. This Congress continues to avoid taking action on a default scenario under which debt as a percentage of GDP would rise from about 70 percent where it is now to about 200 percent of our GDP by 2040, a far worse situation than many of the fiscally beleaguered nations in Europe that are currently undertaking bailouts.

This is widely known on both sides of the aisle, and, in fact, the solution is widely known, as well. There are several that have been presented. There's a bipartisan group that emerged from the Senate, including Democrats and Republicans, that proposed a plan to reduce the deficit as a percentage of GDP down to 1.9 percent by 2021. There's been a similar effort on behalf of the Bowles-Simpson Commission, again, to rein in fiscal spending so that debt as a percentage of GDP would be 35 percent instead of 200 percent by 2040.

This Congress has not advanced either and, in fact, quite to the contrary, has passed an operational budget that only serves to continue these deficits through the next 10 years. Again, giving fiscal certainty around the integrity of our Nation would do a lot more to free up capital and improve the flow of capital and credit markets and create jobs than these relatively minor, but still important, bills that we're considering here today.

The other reform that would create a lot more jobs in this bill, and I think would better be called a Jobs Act, if they could come up with a fancy acronym for it, is business tax reform.

I'd like to submit to the Record a recent report from the White House and the Department of the Treasury on a framework for business tax reform.

Introduction

America's system of business taxation is in need of reform.

The United States has a relatively narrow corporate tax base

compared to other countries--a tax base reduced by loopholes,

tax expenditures, and tax planning. This is combined with a

statutory corporate tax rate that will soon be the highest

among advanced countries. As a result of this combination of

a relatively narrow tax base and a high statutory tax rate,

the U.S. tax system is uncompetitive and inefficient. The

system distorts choices such as where to produce, what to

invest in, how to finance a business, and what business form

to use. And it does too little to encourage job creation and

investment in the United States while allowing firms to

benefit from incentives to locate production and shift

profits overseas. The system is also too complicated--

especially for America's small businesses.

For these reasons, the President is committed to reform

that will support the competitiveness of American

businesses--large and small--and increase incentives to

invest and hire in the United States by lowering rates,

cutting tax expenditures, and reducing complexity; while

being fiscally responsible.

This report presents the President's Framework for business

tax reform. In laying out this Framework, the President

recognizes that tax reform will take time, require work on a

bipartisan basis, and benefit from additional feedback from

stakeholders and experts. To start that process, this report

outlines what the President believes should be five key

elements of business tax reform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), an author of key provisions of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, we'll offer an amendment to the rule to provide that, immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up Mr. Bishop's bill, H.R. 1748, the Taxpayer and Gas Price Relief Act and that would simply do it, in addition to this bill, with broad bipartisan support. I know there is also broad bipartisan concern about gas prices, a very substantial issue that many on my side of the aisle, Mr. Bishop included, would like to do something about so that American consumers have more of their money to take home.

So to talk about his proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Texas has any remaining speakers.

Thank you.

I will certainly extend the courtesy to the gentleman. If the gentleman in his closing wants to yield some time to his speaker, I will not object to that.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill here today is a good bill, an important bill. It's not a job solution for our country. It's not a jobs bill. In fact, I think the frustration of some is that to a certain extent it represents the spinning of the wheels that has typified this Congress in that most of these bills have actually already passed this House. That being said, if packaging them together and passing them again and trying to put pressure on the Senate to pass it is a constructive step towards making them law, then let's do it. I think a strong bipartisan vote of support will help do that. President Obama said he will sign this bill.

I call upon my colleagues of both sides of the aisle to support these bills. These bills help free up our capital markets in positive and constructive ways by allowing small investors the same opportunities as large investors, allowing companies a little bit more flexibility on remaining private over who their investors are, allowing small and mid- cap companies easier access to public marketplaces. This in turn makes it easier for venture capitalists and angel funders to invest in start- up companies, knowing that there's a better prospect of an exit should they succeed at smaller mid-cap stages.

We all know there's a number of contributing factors to the decrease in public offerings that have occurred over the last 10 years, a trend that I think is beginning to reverse. One of those aspects--certainly not the only aspect--is the excess regulation that we abolish through this act. Other things include simply the appetite of the capital markets for public offerings at any given time and other legal and administrative risks that are not dealt with in this bill that perhaps call for additional legislation.

This is not by any stretch of the imagination a recovery or a jobs bill, but these are very constructive steps that, again, cycling our wheels, yes, we've already passed. We are passing two new ones as well. Let's package them together; let's put pressure on the Senate to send them to President Obama's desk where he has said he will sign these bills.

But let us not, in our effort to continue to push these important pieces of legislation for capital formation, forget that our country faces even more important critical risks before us. We need to get serious about growing our economy, and we need to work hard in a bipartisan basis to implement real tax reform legislation, tax reform that would create a more competitive Tax Code, allowing companies to reinvest in their growth rather than taking their money in an arbitrary way or encouraging them to distort the economic reality and the allocation of resources by having certain tax preferences for industries that may be in or out of favor of government officials. Let's allow companies to invest in their own growth and encourage private sector job creation and have real corporate tax reform as the President has proposed and the chair of the Ways and Means Committee, Chairman Camp, has proposed and many on both sides of the aisle have proposed.

I call upon our House to move forward a bill that will fundamentally make American businesses more competitive and that, Mr. Speaker, we can call a jobs act.

What else can we call a jobs act? We can call a jobs act doing something about our national deficit, the fact that the current fiscal integrity of our Nation is at stake if we do not take action. Over the next 10 to 15 years, yes, our Nation faces an immense financial crisis.

We need a balanced approach, a big, bold and balanced approach, as has been outlined by both the Gang of Six and the Bowles-Simpson Commission. There are a number of people on both sides of the aisle who have been calling for real deficit reduction, and yet this House has not reduced the deficit and has continued to pass and operate, in fact, under a budget that simply continues these record deficits for the next 10 years.

Providing that certainty around the fiscal integrity of our country-- to allow for long-term borrowing, to ensure that businesses have access to capital and predictability over time--will, again, do more to create jobs and grow our economy than will freeing up the capital markets around a few key areas that these bills accomplish.

So, yes, these bills are an important step in the right direction, including the only one truly new bill before us--the others have already been passed by this House. This is a good package, a good package which is a first start to rebuilding our economy. But even after they're enacted, there is nothing that instantaneously happens. They have to be implemented, and credited investors have to start buying private securities and start-ups. It will be several years before this can translate into actual job growth, which it will, and produce meaningful results. Again, corporate tax reform and showing some interest among this body in actually balancing our budget deficit would send an indication now to the marketplace that would immediately lead to job growth.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the previous question into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to defeat the previous question.

These are important bills, and I strongly support the underlying bill. I encourage its passage, and again encourage my colleagues to be fully aware that, by passing this bill, we are not creating a single job. Yes, by pressuring the Senate and by getting the bill to Obama's desk, it can eventually lead to the enhancement of our capital markets and some job creation, but this doesn't get us off the hook.

Passing this bill and not balancing the budget deficit, as this Congress is currently doing, as well as passing this bill and not reforming our Tax Code by making it more in line with the international standard, is not a recipe for American competitiveness or jobs. In fact, this bill alone, if it means the absence of balancing our budget and the absence of making our Tax Code competitive, is just an anti- jobs bill. You can't bail out a sinking ship. This country needs fundamental change. We need to balance our budget deficit. We need corporate tax reform. We need individual tax reform.

I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take those items up. Yes, it is a small positive measure to help free up capital flow, particularly for start-ups and small- and mid-cap companies. Let's pass this jobs bill now. I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Let me acknowledge, first of all, the combined efforts that have generated this approach to putting Americans back to work. Let me acknowledge the manager that is on the floor, Congresswoman Waters, for her enormous leadership on many of these issues, as well as the ranking member of the full committee; Mr. Frank, who certainly has served and exercised his willingness to deal with questions of these markets; and, of course, my friend from Texas who is managing this and is, again, I hope working with us in a bipartisan way on some very serious matters.

Again, let me emphasize that the most effective way to reduce our deficit is to put Americans back to work. My amendment in this legislation deals with acknowledging that the emerging companies under this legislation--provides for 5 years from the date of the EGC's initial public offering; 2, the date an EGC has $1 billion in annual growth; and then the date the EGC becomes ``a large accelerated filer,'' which is defined by the Securities and Exchange; a number of provisions to, in essence, help small businesses. This is an important principle. But my amendment adds a requirement that a company would not be considered an emerging growth company, an EGC, if it has issued more than $1 billion in nonconvertible debt over the prior 3 years.

Let me suggest that we are doing better than many of us might think. Many aspects of this bill, for example, will help community banks, which will help other small businesses. But if we look to the economy as we speak, the private sector unemployment has grown for 23 straight months, the economy has grown for 10 straight quarters, overall business investment is going up, corporate profits are up, as are investments in equipment and software, and exports have been a source of growth.

But emerging growth of small businesses needs the extra push, because when you think of the backbone of America, you think of small businesses. As a matter of fact, it is not uncommon for a company to be financed with debt as opposed to equity, and that while $1 billion is not what it used to be, it is still a pretty substantial sum of money.

So what I am saying is I want to help small businesses, but I also want to ensure that we do not expand this legislation where it is not actually helping those smaller emergent growth companies that truly are in need. For years, both Wall Street and big banks lacked the requisite government and oversight

accountability, and I believe that it is important to ensure continued oversight but continued help for these particular companies.

With that, I'd ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman.

I like the concept of emerging growth, and I think the concept is to build these businesses up, to give them greater opportunities. What I am suggesting is that, the amendment suggests that if you have issued more than a billion dollars, you have grown sufficiently to have an additional standard or a different standard. This particular amendment suggests that we have a framework for emerging growth.

I'd tell my good friend, it is not 3 years.

I thought that was an appropriate framework for a billion dollars. If you spread it out over a period of time, that's $300 million to $400 million a year.

Let me just say that I think the concept is so important, to my friend from Texas, that a friendly modification would be welcomed in the timeframe. But I think the billion dollars is an appropriate standard, if you will, for trying to ensure that we really do boost and give latitude to emerging growth companies.

Let me just conclude my remarks, and if I might, let me yield to the gentleman, because I did not hear him clearly. Let me yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I'd like to raise the question, I did not hear your support or opposition to this initiative.

I'm hoping for a good bipartisan effort here, but I am yielding to the gentleman.

The gentleman is very kind.

So let me just say, as my leader on the floor was trying to get an inquiry about it--and you always take a gift quickly and you say ``thank you''--I think that this will add to the confidence of this legislation.

And as I indicated, though this is not specifically to this point, I want to make sure that we're helping community banks provide more lending and access to small businesses. I want to make sure that we, under the definition of this bill, help emerging growth companies, as well, be stronger and, as well, to be part of the creation of jobs putting Americans back to work.

With that, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer my amendment No. 4 to H.R. 3606 ``The Reopening American Capital Markets to Emerging Growth Companies Act of 2011.'' My amendment would create a five-year ``on-ramp'' for smaller companies to comply with certain provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank.

In the bill, Emerging Growth Companies are exempted from certain regulatory requirements until the earliest of three dates: (1) five years from the date of the EGC's initial public offering; (2) the date an EGC has $1 billion in annual gross revenue; or (3) the date an EGC becomes a ``large accelerated filer, which is defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a company that has a worldwide public float of $700 million or more.

H.R. 3606 thus provides temporary regulatory relief to small companies, which encourages them to go public, yet ensures their eventual compliance with regulatory requirements as they grow larger.

I agree in principle that it is important to modernize and improve the ability of a company to raise capital in today's environment, but I am concerned H.R. 3606 goes beyond what is necessary at the expense of protecting the investor.

My amendment adds a requirement that a company would NOT be considered an ``emerging growth company'' (EGC) if it has issued more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt over the prior three years.

As a matter of fact, it is not uncommon for a company to be financed with debt as opposed to equity, and that while $1 billion dollars is not what it used to be---it is still a pretty substantial sum of money. Frankly, Mr. Chair, a company that size needs to have some oversight to protect the public.

For years, both Wall Street and big banks lacked the requisite government oversight and accountability. Relying on Wall Street and big banks to police themselves resulted in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, the loss of 8 million jobs, failed businesses, a drop in housing prices, and wiped out personal savings.

We must restore responsibility and accountability in our financial system to give Americans confidence that there is a system in place that works for and protects them. We must create a sound foundation to grow the economy and create jobs.

To wit--this debt financing might be tax deductible, whereas the equity financing typically is not--which gives debt financing a distinct advantage.

H.R. 3606 encourages emerging growth companies (EGCs) to access the public capital markets by temporarily exempting EGCs from some registration procedures, prohibitions on initial public offering (IPO) communications, and independent audits of internal controls over financial reporting, among other exemptions.

I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment to H.R. 3606 that adds a requirement that a company not be considered to be as an ``emerging growth company,'' if it has issued more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt over the prior three years.

Mr. Chair, let's continue to protect the investing public.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I thank the chairman very much.

I started my earlier discussion with a previous amendment by suggesting that our underlying premise or the goal should be to reduce the deficit and to put America back to work. This concept of emerging growth opportunities or emerging growth companies is, in fact, I believe, a viable step of doing so.

I do want to remind my colleagues again that overall business investment is growing, corporate profits are up, as are investments in equipment and software. Exports have been a source of strength. We're working very hard to ensure that we reinvigorate manufacturing. We want to make it in America. We want to bring companies back home, and certainly we want to encourage investment. Private sector employment has grown for 23 months, and the economy has grown for 10 straight quarters.

My amendment is to discuss the fine distinctions between those who are very sophisticated and those who are not. My amendment narrows the permissible exemption to allow oral or written communications with potential investors who are qualified institutional investors, but it omits accredited investors from this exemption in the name of investor protection. That is simply to say that we know that the accredited investors are less, if you will, able with the information that they have to compete with what we have classified as qualified institutional investors.

The idea of this amendment is to ensure that an accredited investor would not be considered a qualified investor and therefore be taken advantage of. Under the bill, the commonly known test-the-waters provision would amend the Securities Act of 1933 to expand the range of permissible prefiling communication to sophisticated institutional investors to allow emerging growth companies to determine whether qualified institutional or accredited investors might have an interest in a contemplated securities offering.

Mine is an amendment simply being concerned about the accredited investors and whether or not there is the equal playing field alongside of the qualified institutional investors, which you would expect would have far more sophistication in making determinations about investments. It is simply an effort to provide extra protection for those who will now be out in the marketplace under these emerging growth concepts.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

Mr. Chairman, let me just maintain that this is a simple premise of protecting the less sophisticated investor, and I have no desire to not see jobs being created or the opportunity for emerging growth entities to have access to opportunities for investment. It is quite clear that qualified institutional investors are far more sophisticated than the accredited investors' status, and so I can't get clearer than that, trying to make sure that we protect those.

And as we noted for the Democrats who served on the Financial Services Committee, they made certain statements, if you would, to ensure that we have the greatest amount of protection for those who we want to see having greater opportunities.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I happily yield back my time and ask my colleagues to support this very simple amendment that seeks to protect accredited investors.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer my amendment # 7 to H.R. 3606 ``The Reopening American Capital Markets to Emerging Growth Companies Act of 2011.'' This amendment strikes language in the bill that allows an emerging growth company or its underwriter to communicate with ``institutions that are accredited investors.''

H.R. 3606 would exempt certain regulatory requirements until the earliest of three dates: (1) five years from the date of the EGC's initial public offering; (2) the date an EGC has $1 billion in annual gross revenue; or (3) the date an EGC becomes a ``large accelerated filer, which is defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a company that has a worldwide public float of $700 million or more.

The bill thus provides temporary regulatory relief to small companies, which encourages them to go public, yet ensures their eventual compliance with regulatory requirements as they grow larger.

My amendment narrows the permissible exemption to allow oral or written communications with potential investors who are ``qualified institutional investors,'' but omits ``accredited investors from this exemption, in the name of investor protection.''

For example, this amendment would ensure that an accredited investor would not be considered a qualified institutional investor and therefore would not be able to engage in certain types of investments.

Under the bill, the commonly known ``test the waters provision,'' would amend the Securities Act of 1933 to expand the range of permissible pre-filing communications to sophisticated institutional investors to allow Emerging Growth Companies (EGCs) to determine whether qualified institutional or accredited investors might have an interest in a contemplated securities offering.

I believe that while many Accredited Investors are sophisticated and prosperous, and meet the brokerage firm requirements for alternative investments.

My amendment is merely a continuation of the investor protection theme of Dodd-Frank. Specifically, investors that lack the necessary capital to absorb the losses that can arise when investing in an Emerging Growth Company.

Moreover, I would note that many qualified institutional investors have a minimum of $1 billion to invest, which simply may not be the case with accredited investors. My sentiments are similar to those expressed by my Democratic colleagues on the Financial Services Committee: that they and Republicans share the desire to create an accessible, robust and efficient capital market for the benefit of small businesses and investors, alike.

I too, expect that as H.R. 3606 moves forward, further refinements will be adopted to ensure that investor protections are not sacrificed.

Again, as my Democratic colleagues on the Financial Services Committee stated:

H.R. 3606 encourages emerging growth companies (EGCs) to

access the public capital markets by temporarily exempting

EGCs from some registration procedures, prohibitions on

initial public offering (IPO) communications, and independent

audits of internal controls over financial reporting, among

other exemptions.

Democrats agree in principle that it is important to

modernize and improve the ability of a company to raise

capital in today's environment, but are concerned H.R. 3606

goes beyond what is necessary at the expense of protecting

the investor.

I encourage my colleagues to vote for this consumer and investor- friendly amendment.

Let me say to my good friend from Texas, I'm going to look forward to working with him on the previous amendment that simply was misconstrued, and we certainly want to respect those who have a million dollars outside their window, but we also want to ensure that we have protection for those less sophisticated investors.

The amendment that I have before me, likewise, has an intent to allow the SEC not to be plagued by frivolous filings. But I want to work with the committee going forward, and so I will not pursue this amendment. And, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment No. 8 at this time.

I will conclude by saying I like batting .500, and I will continue to work with this committee on these important issues.

I yield myself 4 minutes.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 3606, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act.

Before I begin my remarks, I would like to thank Chairman Bachus, Chairman Garrett and, certainly, Ranking Member Frank for their assistance and support on this bill. We were able to work in a bipartisan manner on this bill in our committee, passing many of the provisions in the bill with strong bipartisan majorities.

H.R. 3606 is an omnibus package of small business capital formation bills, some of which we already passed through the House back in November. I was pleased to work with Representative McCarthy on a provision now included in the bill to amend securities law in order to remove the prohibition on general solicitation, or general advertising, for the Office of Securities made under rule 506 of regulation D if those securities are only sold to accredited investors.

Last year, I worked with Representative McHenry to add critical investor protection provisions to this crowdfunding bill, which previously passed the House and is now included in this package. I was also pleased to support the provision from Representative Schweikert to allow companies to raise more funds through the Regulation A process and another provision to raise minimum shareholder thresholds at which companies must register their securities with the SEC.

On the title of this bill, which deals with the emerging growth companies, the IPOs, I support the goal of this legislation, and I hope that many of the amendments offered today on this title are accepted, including my own, which is dealing with the provision of research. Again, I am supportive of this legislation, but I think that more investor protection provisions are needed.

Why did we work together to get this legislation passed?

We worked from both sides of the aisle because we are all concerned about job creation and access to capital. We have gone through a recession in this country, starting with the loans that were made in the subprime market in 2003 to 2007. We almost reached a depression, and we destroyed the housing industry in this country. So we are all working to try and not only get the housing industry revitalized, but we are also working to make sure that our small businesses have access to capital and, thus, job creation.

I am very pleased that we were able to work together on this legislation despite the fact that what Mr. Frank brought to our attention today is the kind of effort that could interfere with attempts to have bipartisanship on some of these legislative attempts that we have made. What Congressman Frank brought to our attention was that title VI of the bill, a provision that was drafted by Representative Himes, with the support of Republicans, seems to have been bare minimally reworked and rebranded as a Representative Quayle bill.

While I support the provision, I think that taking Mr. Himes' work product undermines the spirit of bipartisanship and the cooperation that was otherwise demonstrated by this bill.

Do I like every one of these bills 100 percent? No, I don't. I have some concerns and I have some questions. I even have some uncertainty when we talk about crowdfunding. I want to make sure that we're protecting the investors. I want to make sure that the proper research is isolated from the underwriters who have connections to those people that they're writing the bills for.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

To sum up this bill, it will make it just a bit easier for some companies to raise funds in our capital markets, enabling them to grow their businesses. But make no mistake, I believe that this Congress still needs to do more on jobs. In addition to these legislative changes that enable capital formation, we need to keep teachers, police officers, and firefighters on the job; extend unemployment insurance for laid-off workers; and revitalize neighborhoods devastated by foreclosures.

A truly comprehensive approach is needed to get Americans working again, and I hope my colleagues are willing to work with me on these issues.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Steny Hoyer.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).

Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.

To the Members of this House and to those who are listening to this debate, you've heard this described as a jobs bill. In my earlier remarks, I, too, described this as a jobs bill. You've heard us talk about job creation, access to capital, ways by which we can support small businesses in general but IPOs in particular. You heard us talk about crowdfunding and creative means by which we can help to invigorate this economy. And so certainly this is a jobs bill. But then you heard some reference to the President's jobs bill by our minority whip, Mr. Steny Hoyer, who talked about a comprehensive approach.

Make no mistake, this jobs bill is important, and I certainly hope that it will help to stimulate the economy in ways that all of us thought that it could. However, when you take a look at this compared to the President's comprehensive legislation, then you understand what Mr. Steny Hoyer was talking about.

Mr. Steny Hoyer was talking about the President's comprehensive jobs bill that would do some very important things. It talked about job sharing. It will make sure that our teachers and our firefighters are kept on the job. It talks about school construction. It talks about aid to community college and comprehensive efforts to provide tax credits for small businesses.

So, you see, we would like everybody to understand that we're not abandoning a comprehensive effort to do real job creation and access to capital and support for small businesses. We're trying to take every opportunity, every step, as it has been mentioned time and time again.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Continuing the comparison between the two efforts, as has been said over and over again today, we certainly have joined in a bipartisan fashion to move this bill. Even though I am not sure and some of our Members are not sure that everything that's in all of these bills is what we absolutely understand and we're willing to say we know that it will help, it will help to deal with this economy in ways that we want it to, but we are willing to take a chance. We're willing to try.

Now, when you compare this with the President's comprehensive jobs bill, then you can see this is only one effort; and in comparison, it's a small effort in comparison to what the President has proposed. And so, let us not forget, we still have work to do. We still have to be concerned about the unacceptably high unemployment rate. As we speak today, the unemployment rate is still in excess of 8 percent.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would like for us all to recognize that we are taking a step that we are constantly accused of not being able to do, and that is move something in a bipartisan fashion.

I'm appreciative for my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle who have been so cooperative, and I'm appreciative for the leadership that has been provided on this side of the aisle. But we still must remember that unemployment is unacceptably high. We must remember that we must have a comprehensive approach. We must remember that the President has presented us with a comprehensive, realistic approach by which we can stimulate this economy, create jobs, support education and our schools, and help the unemployed in ways that they are desperately waiting for.

With that, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I offer my amendment today in the spirit of improving the underlying bill in the area of investor protection with regard to the provisions of research provisions in title I.

First, my amendment attempts to mitigate against potentially damaging conflicts of interest between the people who will profit from an emerging growth company's IPO and the people who write research about such IPOs. This amendment provides that if a broker or a dealer is underwriting an IPO and also providing research to the public about that IPO, those research reports need to be filed with the SEC and underwriters need to be held to stricter liability for their comments.

Second, this amendment provides that if emerging growth companies are communicating orally or in writing with potential investors before or following an offering, they need to file those communications with the

May I inquire as to how much time I have left.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

Mr. Chairman, I join with Mr. Capuano in saying that we don't normally agree with the Chamber of Commerce. As a matter of fact, this may be the first time that I've agreed with the Chamber of Commerce. But you have also the Council of Institutional Investors that is warning us about this research problem that we have unless we clear it up.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.