Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, we know our Nation faces very serious threats overseas, but we also have a very serious domestic threat as well, and that is our national debt, a debt that has increased more in the last 3 years on a nominal basis than in the previous 200. Thus, the Budget Control Act. The Budget Control Act, because, as the chairman of the House Budget Committee pointed out, the supercommittee--on which I served, as did the ranking member--did not prove so super, we are staring into the face of a sequester.

So I would like to not only compliment the chairman of the House Budget Committee for his leadership in bringing an alternative to this very, I believe, destructive sequester that still maintains the deficit reduction levels of the Budget Control Act, but I also want to compliment the Democrat ranking member for also offering an alternative plan. It is one I disagree with, one that, by my reckoning, includes 73 percent tax increases. But he should be applauded, and House Democrats should be applauded at least for recognizing the draconian defense cuts that could do real damage to our national security. As Secretary Panetta has said, the sequester ``will do real damage to our security, our troops and their families, and our military's ability to protect our Nation.''

But although I compliment the ranking member, I find it more challenging to compliment the Democrat Senate Majority Leader. Senator Reid has said: I'm not going to back off sequestration. That's what he has said. Thus, we are looking at a 10 percent real cut in our national defense.

Madam Speaker, I also picked up Monday's edition of The Washington Post--not exactly known as a bastion of conservative thought--and I read the headline: ``Democrats Threaten to Go Over Fiscal Cliff if GOP Fails to Raise Taxes.''

So on the one hand, again, this is a very simple piece of legislation that I have coauthored with the chairman of the House Budget Committee. It simply says: Mr. President, since under sequestration you get to call a lot of the shots--according to the Congressional Budget Office ``the administration's OMB has sole authority to determine whether a sequestration is required, and if so the proportional allocations of any necessary cuts''--all this is saying: Mr. President, show us your hand, show us your plan. Let the American people know what the true impact is going to be on our national defense, on our economy, on a number of vital services, because you have the discretion. That's all this bill does. But I fear, to some extent, it may mask another agenda on what the debate is really about.

Madam Speaker, I need not tell you we continue to face the weakest, slowest recovery in the post-war era, and there are some who seem to have an ideological passion for raising taxes on the American people. An earlier speaker got up in an earlier debate and said that the largest small business group in America, the National Federation of Independent Business, has just released a new study saying that the President's tax plan will cost 710,000 jobs--jobs of working families-- and those same working families will see their wages fall by 1.8 percent.

So why would we want to raise taxes on anybody in this economy? Well, someone pointed out, well, we need to reduce the deficit--and we do. But, Madam Speaker, if you do the math and give the President the top increasing tax rates in the top two tax brackets, not only does it destroy jobs; it's about 2 to 3 percent of his 10-year spending budget. So it harms jobs, and it doesn't solve the problem. I fear it is diversion from the failed policies that we have seen from this administration that has created the worst unemployment crisis since the Great Depression.

But I would hope that we would at least have a growing consensus that we shouldn't decimate national defense, and there should at least be transparency. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Sequestration Transparency Act.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I've heard so many of my Democrat colleagues come to the floor and question why are we here to vote to repeal the President's health care program. Let me offer a few reasons.

Number one, the American people don't want it. The longer people have to know this bill, the more intense they are in wanting to see it repealed.

Reason number two is we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle that the Supreme Court said it was constitutional. Well, the $5 trillion of additional debt that they and President Obama have foisted on the American people, it's constitutional, but, Madam Speaker, it is not wise.

Seniors know that the President's health care program cut a half a trillion dollars out of Medicare. The Independent Payment Advisory Board is 1 of 159 boards, commissions, and programs that will get between Americans and their doctors. The Independent Payment Advisory Board, they're there to help ration health care for seniors. That's another reason.

I just heard the distinguished leader of the Democrat Party saying we should be talking about jobs and the economy. Madam Speaker, these are the very same people who told us the stimulus bill would help jobs, would help the economy. The stimulus bill was not a jobs bill. Repeal of ObamaCare is a jobs bill.

Talk to any small business person across America that has 40, 45 workers, and they will tell you: We're not going to go to 50. We're not going to do that. We're not going to hire those extra people.

Talk to a tool and die manufacturer like I have in my district in Jacksonville, Texas. Half of their business comes from the medical device industry. You know what? He told me that ObamaCare, with the medical device tax, is going to force him to lay off workers.

The employer mandate costs jobs. The Congressional Budget Office, which the gentleman from Maryland just cited, they, themselves, said this will cost 800,000 jobs. Private economists say it will cost 1 to 2 million jobs. The Chamber of Commerce just did a survey of small businesses. Seventy-four percent said this makes it more difficult to hire.

So after the President just turned in his 41st straight month of 8 percent-plus unemployment, the worst jobs and economic performance since the Great Depression, maybe it's time for a true jobs bill, Madam Speaker, and a true jobs bill is to repeal ObamaCare. The American people do not want it. We can't afford it. Job creators are losing jobs.

Let's repeal it, and repeal it today.

Mr. Speaker, I am humbled today to recognize Lance Corporal Jeffrey Knight for his service to our country. Lance Corporal Knight was a combat engineer for the United States Marine Corps, who was severely injured while serving in Afghanistan in June of 2011, resulting in the loss of both legs and one hand. Currently undergoing treatment at Brooke Army Medical Center, Lance Corporal Knight takes great pride in the fact that no other soldier was hurt under his watch.

Thanks to the selfless sacrifice of Lance Corporal Knight and others like him, my children will sleep in a safer and freer America tonight. As a father, as a congressman, and as an American, I am honored to offer this small token of gratitude to Lance Corporal Knight for his brave service to our nation. As Ronald Reagan once said, ``We will always remember, we will always be proud, we will always be ready, so we may always be free.''

On behalf of the constituents of the Fifth District of Texas, I extend prayers and best wishes to LCpl Knight for a speedy recovery.

Mr. Speaker, I am humbled today to recognize Captain R. Scott McKee for his service to our country. In 1987, he enlisted in the Army as an airborne paratrooper at the age of 17 and was soon accepted into Georgia Military College, where he was commissioned as a second lieutenant in 1991.

After his commission as a lieutenant, he served as an operations officer and tank platoon leader with the 1st Battalion, 66th Armored Regiment at Fort Hood, Texas. While at Fort Hood, then-First Lieutenant McKee deployed to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In Cuba, he served as a Quick Reaction Force platoon leader in support of Operation Sea Signal, responsible for the security and safety of over 2,000 Haitian and Cuban migrants and U.S. personnel on the base.

Upon leaving active duty, Captain McKee enrolled at Texas Wesleyan School of Law, attending classes at night while working full-time. In 2008, he was elected to serve as the Henderson County District Attorney, taking office on January 1, 2009.

A year after assuming office, Captain McKee mobilized with the Army National Guard's 3rd Battalion, 256th Light Infantry Regiment for a deployment to Iraq on January 4, 2010. During his deployment to Iraq, Captain McKee served as the infantry operations officer for the battalion and planned over 1,200 combat missions throughout Iraq, participating in many of them.

While in Iraq, Captain McKee was awarded the Bronze Star for his actions and performance in a combat zone. He was also awarded the Louisiana War Cross by the Adjutant General of the State of Louisiana.

Captain McKee currently serves as the commander of Company A, 3rd Battalion, 156th Infantry Regiment, Louisiana National Guard out of Fort Polk, Louisiana. He and his wife, Ashley, have three children, Stuart, Ryan, and Ranger.

As the Member of Congress for the Fifth District of Texas in the United States House of Representatives, it is my honor to recognize Captain McKee for his service to our nation in uniform and to the citizens of Henderson County as the District Attorney.

Mr. Speaker, I am humbled today to recognize Lieutenant Colonel Robert Roach for his service to our country. Lieutenant Colonel Roach joined the United States Army Air Forces as an Aviation Cadet in November of 1942, was called to active duty in January of 1945, and beginning at age 21, piloted his B 17 through 35 missions into Germany during World War II.

During one of these missions, his plane was hit by ground fire. Fearful that they would not make it, he ordered his crew to bail out. Thankfully, he survived and continued to serve--retiring after 28 years in the Air Force and Air Force Reserve.

As the Member of Congress for the Fifth District of Texas in the United States House of Representatives, it is my honor to recognize Lieutenant Colonel Roach for his service and acts of bravery that allow us the freedoms we enjoy today.

I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

It is important for us to remember why we are here. We are here because the President's policies have failed--a trillion-dollar deficit, a second trillion-dollar deficit, a third trillion-dollar deficit, and now a fourth trillion-dollar deficit--putting the Nation on the road to bankruptcy. That's why we have a reconciliation bill before us.

I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about deep cuts. The deepest cuts that are happening in America today are to the family budgets of breadwinners who are either unemployed or underemployed due to the

economic policies of this administration. We just got the news last month: the third month in a row where job growth is down. We're not even keeping pace. We have the lowest labor force participation rate in 30 years because, Mr. Speaker, people have given up on the Obama economy. Those are the deep cuts that truly count.

Republicans have a plan for America's job creators. We want to get this economy going; and as we do, as people go back to work, they will get off of the welfare checks and onto the paychecks. That's what counts. So Republicans have brought forth a reconciliation plan that says, You know what? Maybe we ought to quit spending money we don't have, and maybe this will help provide part of the confidence that job creators need to put America back to work.

I am very proud of the work that was done on the Financial Services Committee, among other things, to end the perpetual Wall Street bailout fund that was put in by the Democrats in the Dodd-Frank bill, because if you lose your ability to fail in America, you lose your ability to succeed, and the American people are tired of the bailouts.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Canseco).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining 1\1/2\ minutes.

The American people know that after the Nation's first, second, third, and now fourth trillion-dollar deficit--the American people know after the worst employment record in 30 years--that the problem is with the President's economic policies. Ultimately, the debate comes down to this: Do we have a debt crisis because Washington spends too much or because the American people are undertaxed?

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say a nation can tax its way into economic growth, that it can tax its way into economic prosperity. They want to impose taxes on 40 percent of the income on small businesses, and they somehow think they will create more jobs.

Mr. Speaker, if you gave them every job-harming tax increase that they have asked for, it would be roughly 16 percent of the additional $11 trillion of debt that the President wants to put on this economy, our children and our grandchildren. The American people know we can do better. It is time to quit spending money we don't have for jobs the stimulus program never creates.

I'm proud to be a part of this reconciliation package which will save the draconian cuts that are aimed at our warfighters and their families and be able to begin the process of ensuring that a great Nation lives within its means and that we can give the next generation greater hope, greater opportunity, greater economic growth.

I urge all my colleagues to support this reconciliation bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize the outstanding achievement of the Trinity Valley Community College Lady Cardinals as the 2012 National Junior College Athletics Association (NJCAA) Division I Women's Basketball Champions. This marks the 6th NJCAA Championship for the Lady Cardinals.

In a 69 to 55 victory, the Lady Cards closed out their season with a perfect 36-0 record. That kind of differential is remarkable and a true testament to the great coaching staff of Co-Head Coaches Kenya and Michael Landers, Assistant Coach Courtney Simmons, and Coaching Assistant Jeremy Bonin. Trinity Valley Community College President Dr. Glendon Forgey, faculty, staff, and students are to be commended for their continued contributions to success both on the court and in the classroom.

Team members include: ShaQuita Arnick, Jenea Barrett, Starr Breedlove, ShaKayla Caples, Taneshia Davis, Keuna Flax, Brittney Gill, Ashley Jones, Breanna Lewis, Alice Robinson, and Keiana Vines.

On behalf of the citizens of Athens and the Fifth District of Texas, I am honored to be able to recognize the Lady Cardinals in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to take a moment to honor the life of Mr. Henry Madgwick of Terrell, Texas. Henry, known to those closest to him as Harry, passed away on March 10, 2012.

Harry was born on May 16, 1923 in Hampshire, England to William Henry and Emma Mary Madgwick. At 16 years of age, Harry volunteered for Home Guard, which was a defense organization in the United Kingdom during World War II. Soon after joining the Home Guard, Harry was drafted into the Royal Air Force (RAF) as a cadet and at 17 years of age was made a squad leader in the Air Training Corps (ATC).

The Lend-Lease Act was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 11, 1941. The President described the Lend-Lease Act as ``helping to put out the fire in your neighbor's house before your own house caught fire and burned down.'' During World War II, thousands of British pilots learned to fly at six civilian training schools in the United States. The first and largest of the schools, known as the No. 1 British Flying Training School (BFTS), was in Terrell, Texas, located in Kaufman County. After the United States entered the war, American Aviation Cadets also trained at the school. More than 2,000 Royal Air Force and American Army Air Force pilots earned their wings in the skies over North Texas between 1941 and 1945 to help our nation achieve victory--including Harry, who arrived in 1944.

Harry met his soon-to-be wife, Kate Weatherford, in Terrell while training. Once the war ended and Harry was discharged from the military, he returned to Terrell and lived there for the rest of his life. Kate and Harry were married for 47 years until her passing in 1993. In 1995, he remarried to Kate Marriot Sanders, a widow of another RAF pilot who was trained at the No. 1 BFTS in Terrell. She passed away in 2001.

Harry was a fixture in Terrell, having served as Mayor, Chairman of the Baseball Committee, Director of Terrell Youth Council, the Terrell Park Board, and countless other boards and committees in the community. In 1974, he was named the Terrell Rotary Club Citizen of the Year. Most notably, though, Harry could always be found working as the President of the BFTS Museum. The BFTS Museum, located at the site of the No. 1 BFTS, was dear to Harry's heart. He had a wealth of knowledge and passion for the BFTS and has left a historic legacy for not only the city of Terrell, but for two grateful nations.

On behalf of the citizens of Terrell and the Fifth District of Texas, I am honored to recognize the life of Mr. Henry Madgwick and recognize the lasting impact he had on the Terrell community and this country.

I thank the chairman for yielding, and I especially thank him for his national leadership on this pressing issue of the national debt.

Mr. Chairman, last week, Secretary Geithner came up to Capitol Hill to warn of the threat to the American economy of the European debt crisis. Now, Mr. Chairman, the American people know that the greater threat to the American economy is the American debt crisis. We face the absolute worst debt crisis in America's history, and yet it has been almost 3 years since both House and Senate Democrats have submitted a budget--almost 3 full years.

Now, to his credit, the President has submitted a budget. To his shame, it adds $11 trillion to our national debt on top of the $5 trillion that he has already imposed of additional national debt. Mr. Chairman, everyone knows that the spending trajectory of the Federal Government is unsustainable. And what does our President do in his budget? He takes an unsustainable spending trajectory and doubles down. He makes it more unsustainable, which makes it unconscionable. Perhaps worst of all, Mr. Chairman, even though he knows what the drivers of our national insolvency are, he refuses to deal with them.

But don't take my word for it. Listen to the editorial pages of major U.S. newspapers, many of which are pretty liberal in their orientations.

The Boston Herald writes:

President Barack Obama has apparently decided that he is

not going to be part of the solution to the Nation's enormous

deficit, which would make him, yes, part of the problem.

The LA Times:

It's past time for the administration to lay out a credible

plan for bringing the deficit and debt under control. Sadly,

Obama's budget proposal shows that he would rather wait until

after the election to have that reckoning.

USA Today:

The best test of a budget proposal these days is whether it

reins in the national debt. The election year budget

President Obama sent to Congress on Monday fails that test.

It's pretty clear the President's policies have failed and are hampering our economic recovery. Because they have failed, regrettably, our President has resorted to the politics of division and envy, which is fairly evident in his budget. He has not appealed to the better angels of our disposition and not to the noblest aspirations of our fellow citizens. Instead, he appeals to their basic instincts.

The Nation is truly, truly at a crossroads between two very, very different paths. The President's path is one of crushing, unsustainable debt; a massive tax increase on struggling families and small business; and, most troubling, a diminished future for our children and grandchildren. In short, it is the road to becoming a European-style social democracy of the 21st century.

Mr. Chairman, it is past time to quit spending money we don't have. It is past time to quit borrowing almost 40 cents on the dollar, much of it from the Chinese, so we can just turn around and send the bill to our children and our grandchildren.

Where the President and other Democrats have failed to lead, House Republicans, under the leadership of our Budget chairman, Paul Ryan, have acted. We have a vastly different path for America's future. It is a path of opportunity. It is a path for economic growth. It is the path to prosperity, and it is the path of fiscal sustainability that, over time, not just reduces the national debt but will pay it off.

Number one, let's look at the differences. Our budget would absolutely prevent the President's single largest tax increase in American history, $1.9 trillion of new taxes to be imposed upon our job creators and other hardworking Americans. And you know what's ironic, Mr. Chairman? Even if you gave the President every single job-hampering tax increase he's asked for, it's about 16, maybe 17 percent of the $11 trillion he wants to add to the national debt. You can't tax your way out of this problem, Mr. Chairman.

So we know it's the middle-income who will end up paying this.

Second point: we repealed the President's failed health care program, the one that we now understand is going to cost almost $2 trillion, the one that now the Congressional Budget Office tells us will cost almost 2 million jobs, and the one that creates the Independent Payment Advisory Board, as the chairman has said, that includes 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who will begin making health care decisions for our seniors, like my 79-year-old mother, my 83-year-old father. You know, if one of them needs a hip replacement, if one of them needs a heart bypass, I want that decision to be made between them and their doctor, not the 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who have one, and only one, purpose, and that is to impose price controls and ration the quality and access to health care for our seniors.

You know, I hear the buzz line, but it seems to me that ends Medicare as we know it. Looting $500 billion out of Medicare to pay for the President's health care, that seems to end Medicare as we know it. Putting a global price cap, that seems to end Medicare as we know it. And most of all--since we've heard from the trustees of the Medicare and Social Security trust fund that it's going broke--allowing it to go broke, which our friends on the other side of the aisle do, seems to me to be ending Medicare as we know it.

Our budget will end the road to bankruptcy by controlling spending. Under the President's budget, spending has gone from its traditional 20 percent of our economy to 24 percent, and it's on its way to 40 percent over the course of the next generation. Our budget will control spending and limit government so we can have unlimited opportunity.

What is this debate truly about, Mr. Chairman? Here's what I think it's about. And I have shared this correspondence with my colleagues before. I heard from the Calhoun family in Winnsboro, Texas, about this debt. And he wrote me:

Congressman, I have never felt so embarrassed and ashamed

about anything I have done in my life as I do about leaving

this mess in the laps of Tyler and Caitlynn, my precious

grandkids. I have written both of them a heartfelt apology

for them to read when they get old enough to understand what

I allowed our country's governing authority to do to them.

Mr. Chairman, we have no greater moral responsibility than to preserve the blessings of liberty and opportunity for this gentleman's grandchildren and the next generation. It's what we do. We are Americans. We're not just operating on borrowed money. We're operating on borrowed time.

Two paths. Two choices. One duty. I hope history records that we acted worthy of ourselves, that we acted worthy of our forefathers, that we acted worthy of this great Republic for which so many have sacrificed over the years.

No more borrowed time. No more borrowed money. Let's seize the moment in history. Let's adopt the Republican Path to Prosperity budget.

Mr. Chairman, regrettably the President's policies have failed and continue to harm our economy.

We were told if we would pass the stimulus plan, unemployment would never exceed 8 percent, and instead it's exceeded 8 percent for 37 straight months. We were told that the President would cut the deficit in half, and instead we have the worst debt in our Nation's history. We were told he would take steps to reduce the price of oil, and instead gas prices have doubled at the pump. One more of his policies

that has failed is clearly his health care plan.

We were told that it would create jobs, but instead every day I hear from job creators in the Fifth District of Texas who write me things like:

ObamaCare will put a tremendous burden on my company. I

can't put a 5-year plan in place. I therefore have to

withhold cash for expansion.

I also hear things like:

I could start two companies and hire multiple people, but

based on this administration and the lack of facts with

ObamaCare, I will continue to sit and wait.

We know now that the Congressional Budget Office says that the health care plan will cost us almost a million jobs from this economy.

We were also told that if we pass this that health care would be more affordable and lower premiums, but instead the Congressional Budget Office now tells us that the new benefit mandates will force premiums to rise in the individual market by $2,100 per family.

Any way you look at it, the President's health care law is harming job growth; it's harming our economy. But perhaps even more ominously, it's the infamous Independent Payment Advisory Board, section 3403 of the act, that will harm our seniors.

The IPAB is going to be comprised of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats handpicked by the President. Their sole job is going to be to ration health care to our seniors and impose Federal price controls. This will undoubtedly slash senior access to doctors and to other providers. They literally will be making decisions about the health of our loved ones, our parents, and our grandparents.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services actuary has confirmed that large reductions in Medicare payment rates to physicians would likely have serious implications for beneficiary access to care utilization, intensity, and quality of services.

Mr. Chairman, when it comes to my parents, both of whom are on Medicare, no government acronym, no government bureaucrat, no government board can ever substitute for the good judgment of their chosen family doctor. That's why today I'm proud to stand with my colleagues here to vote to repeal the IPAB.

Once again, we need to repeal the President's health care plan and do it today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3606 and insert extraneous material thereon.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I guess the threshold question I have to ask is: How does this amendment help jump-start business start-ups?

What this amendment does is require one more disclosure report. Much of

this, frankly, I do not believe to be germane to the underlying bill, but it is here before us. Nonetheless, it is one more regulatory burden. It is one more cost imposed upon our job creators. It is one more piece of red tape when already the Small Business Administration under the Obama administration has reported the total regulatory cost amounts to $1.75 trillion annually, which is enough money for businesses to provide 35 million private sector jobs with an average salary of $50,000. The same report from the Obama administration's Small Business Administration has reported that 64 percent of all new jobs in the past 15 years have come from small business. Yet these small businesses face an annual regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee.

So, again, I begin to wonder. I know every single report, every single study, every single regulation has, perhaps, some beneficial purpose, but the cumulative impact of them all, Madam Chair, is hurting our businesses.

According to a recent Chamber of Commerce small business survey, 78 percent of small businesses surveyed report that taxation, regulation, legislation from Washington is what is making it harder for their firms to hire more individuals. What we understand from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, a division of OMB, is that during the first 3 years of the President's administration, we have seen a 95 percent increase in the average number of completed regulations deemed economically significant to our economy--almost double. The administration has currently proposed 3,118 regulations. Again, at what point do you begin to say enough is enough?

I understand the purpose of the gentleman's amendment, but I think we know that we have lost far too many jobs overseas. It's not a matter of documenting the symptom; it's getting to the disease. What is the root cause? Well, we know what the root cause is. The root cause is too much red tape. It's bills like the President's health care plan, which is an anathema to small businesses across the land--2,000 pages of legislation that have promulgated even more regulations. Talk to any small business person in America, and the person will cite the President's health care program as something that is inhibiting job growth.

This regulatory burden almost doubles economically significant regulations imposed. That's what's chasing jobs overseas--taxation. The President is proposing $1.9 trillion more in taxes, much of it to fall upon small businesses; and we wonder why we're losing jobs overseas? That's what needs to be documented--not the fact that it's happening, but the root causes. That would be more worthy of a study.

At this point, the purpose of this bill is to help bring more companies on to this IPO on-ramp. This is at cross-purposes, and I would urge my colleagues to defeat this.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

In that case, Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).

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

Madam Chair, this, again, the underlying piece of legislation is a piece of legislation that is designed to ensure that small businesses have an on-ramp to equity financing into the IPO market. Let's recall again, why are we seeing so few IPOs? Why are we continuing in this 8 percent-plus unemployment environment for over 3 years, the longest period of sustained high unemployment since the Great Depression?

Well, I listen closely to businesspeople in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. I listen to other job creators around America, and here's what I hear.

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 business are very high. So

we're not creating the enabling conditions that allow

businesses to get started.

We're trying to cut away red tape with this JOBS Act.

Andrew Puzder, CEO, CKE Restaurants:

Government just doesn't understand how much uncertainty it

creates in the economy when it attempts to regulate what the

private sector does, and it really doesn't understand what

the private sector does.

Bernie Marcus, cofounder, former CEO of Home Depot:

Having built a small business into a big one, I can tell

you that today the impediments that the government imposes

are almost impossible to deal with. Home Depot would have

never succeeded if we tried to start it today.

Let me repeat that, Madam Chair. Home Depot would never have succeeded if we tried to start it today.

Every day you see rules and regulations from a group of Washington bureaucrats who know nothing about running a business, and I mean every day. It's become stifling.

If you're a small businessman, the only way to deal with it is to work harder, put in more hours, and let people go. When you consider that something like 70 percent of the American people work for small businesses, you are talking about a big economic impact.

Just three voices, Madam Chair, from America's job creators. Again, it's not a real secret why we've had a dearth of IPOs.

I understand the gentlelady's amendment is to have the SEC issue a report, number one. I would also note, since these are public filings, we ourselves, as Members of Congress, will have no trouble whatsoever understanding how many companies will go public in the next year.

I understand the gentlelady's argument, I respect that, but, again, it's just one more reporting burden that, frankly, is being placed on the SEC. Now, we've had a debate, and the ranking member has brought up many times he's unhappy with the level of funding that the SEC has received. In fact, I would note, however, that even the President of the United States in his budget is not trying to give the SEC what they have requested.

But what the ranking member has said:

Studies are not done for free by the SEC. I think we have

got a further burdening of the SEC with more work. Given the

current decision to restrict SEC funding, I will be much more

careful about burdening them with studies which will

inevitably come at the expense of more important duties.

Again it's a debate. Does the SEC have the right amount of resources, too much, too many? I don't know, that's a legitimate debate.

But, apparently, he thought strongly enough that we should not be burdening the SEC with further burdens at this time. For all of those reasons, I would urge that we defeat the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Among other reasons I think we should oppose this amendment, number one, I'm not sure what we're going to learn in 1 year. We didn't get into this terrible environment of high unemployment overnight. Frankly, it took 3 years of the burdens that this administration has placed on small businesses. I don't know if we are going to get out of it overnight. So, number one, I don't believe that 1 year is particularly helpful.

But, again, we can have a debate about the root causes. We're already going to know which companies go public. And at some point in time you have to say are the benefits to be derived from the report, from the regulation, worth the cost? I simply don't see it, Madam Chair. Again, I urge defeat of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the bill.

Madam Chair, I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa for bringing this amendment to the floor. I suspect, given that the SEC already has a fairly comprehensive Web site, they probably would have done the proper job in outreach on small business issues. But as important as the JOBS Act is, his amendment is helpful to the underlying bill. I also want to thank him for working with us to tailor his amendment to the underlying bill. Again, it is my expectation

that the SEC would do this job. This will help ensure that all the benefits of this act will be known throughout the small-business community. I urge adoption of the gentleman's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Again, I wish to urge adoption of the gentleman's amendment. Madam Chair, I would note that this is the last amendment that we will be debating. So, again, I want to use this opportunity to urge all of my colleagues to support the JOBS Act. We again know that jobs, economic growth, the state of our economy continue to be the most pressing issues we are facing in the Nation today. These are foremost in the minds of our constituents.

I want to thank the Republican leader, the gentleman from Virginia, for his leadership in bringing this effort to the floor. I certainly want to thank the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Bachus of Alabama, and the prime author of the legislation, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher), who has been very active in this debate. I also want to thank the Representatives, my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, for working with us again. It is challenging, most challenging, to find areas of consensus, and most challenging to find the ability to move bipartisan legislation. I think this is a day, a moment, that can be celebrated by all Members. It certainly doesn't do what we would totally like done on our side of the aisle, and I'm sure my friends on the other side of the aisle have the same thing to say.

But it is a step in the right direction for allowing more start-ups to access equity capital to create more jobs for a Nation in desperate need of more job growth and more economic growth.

Again, we know the President in his Statement of Administration Policy has indicated a desire to sign this piece of legislation, and I look forward to the President having that opportunity. I hope it is not our last opportunity to work on a bipartisan basis in this Congress and in this year. It is certainly a good start and something I believe the American people will celebrate.

I want to urge adoption of the gentleman's amendment; I want to urge all of my colleagues to support the bill; and let's find ways to grow this economy and get America back to work.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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.

I yield back 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 yield back the balance of my time.

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 yield back the balance of my time.

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?

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

In that case, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).

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

Regrettably, the ranking member is not here because he chose to violate House rules, and his speaking privileges were denied for the rest of the day. But during our committee markup, he said:

First of all, studies are not done for free by the SEC.

Given the current decision to restrict SEC funding, I will be

much more careful about burdening them with studies which

will inevitably come at the expense of more important duties.

One more reason to oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Madam Speaker, the President's policies have failed and, indeed, made our economy worse. For three straight years, unemployment has been above 8 percent, and the Congressional Budget Office predicts now that will last through 2014, the worst period of sustained high unemployment since the Great Depression.

America has a deficit of jobs because America's job creators have a deficit of confidence in this administration. New business startups are at an almost 17-year low, and that's why House Republicans have a plan for America's job creators that will help ease the President's job- killing policies.

Our plan will continue to unfold this week when the House votes on the actual JOBS Act to help small businesses and entrepreneurs access vital equity capital and put Americans back to work. The bill does exactly what the President's own job council recommends. It's time, for once, to work together to pass the bipartisan JOBS Act and give the American people the jobs and recovery they deserve.