Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I came here to compliment the two gentlemen who have spoken on this bill, who are the cosponsors of a bipartisan bill.

When I first heard about this legislation, I thought, like most legislation this year, it won't go anywhere. I thought it may pass the House, but it may not pass the Senate. I understand that with this particular legislation, that our Senate colleagues are waiting for it and they're ready to act upon it.

Mr. Scott brought up, I think, a salient point when he said that we're having many banks and credit unions who are struggling, because when people don't have jobs, they can't pay back their loans. Our banks and credit unions are trying to cope with the added expense of more regulation. Particularly at a time like that, but at any time, for people to take advantage of a statute that is intended to protect the American people is really audacity and greed in its purest sense.

I'm an attorney, and I can tell you that 999 out of 1,000 attorneys or former attorneys would absolutely be enraged to find that very few of their colleagues are taking advantage of Regulation E and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to sue these institutions on lawsuits that are totally against the public interest, and particularly are against the interests of those living in low-income areas and high-crime areas. The people in those areas are coping with so much that to add to that, having an ATM machine removed from that location or from a low-income area, just adds another expense for people who have very little means of financing their life today. That's what's happening.

Either the vandals themselves are going and vandalizing the sticker that we've all seen--we've all used an ATM. We've all seen the sticker there. We probably didn't notice the sticker there because what really caught our attention is when we get on the screen and we see that same notice, but that notice actually on the screen requires us to affirmatively say ``yes,'' we will agree to it. So people today probably don't even notice that sticker. The few people who noticed that sticker and took advantage of it were people that were up to no good, people that were willing to bring what some of us would call a ``frivolous lawsuit.''

These lawsuits can ask for a half million dollars worth of damages. And because it is actually a statutory failure to have it, these lawsuits sometimes result in a $100,000 or $200,000 judgment. They're also resulting in these ATMs not being located in areas that are subject to vandalism. Of course, almost any area could be subject to it, but we've penalized those Americans who are least able to afford to travel a greater distance for the convenience of an AMT machine.

As Mr. Luetkemeyer and Mr. Scott said, people come up; they scrape it off. Some of these appear to be well-organized efforts by the very people that bring the lawsuit to go out and do these in an organized manner among hundreds of machines. They then come in and file a class action.

Mr. Luetkemeyer, at one time, was a banker in a small Missouri community. And in most cases, particularly a small credit union or a community bank or a local bank, they can't afford to battle these for $50,000 or $100,000--it actually may be a big law firm bringing these lawsuits--so they settle them for $50,000. This will put an end to that.

Let me tell you, no one on the Financial Services Committee expressed any doubt about this legislation. I don't think anyone would, other than those people who are complicit in vandalizing these machines and making money on what we sometimes called ``unintended consequences.'' I tell you, it certainly was unintended. If we had, in our imagination, sat down for days and said what is the worst thing that could happen by requiring us to put a sticker on as well as electronic notice, we would have never come up with this. We would have never come up with the ingenuity of some people to take advantage of the law. But that's what's happened here.

Today, I think, unanimously, hopefully, we're going to shut the door on this practice and send this bill over to the Senate, particularly for areas where there is high vandalism in our rural communities. We're going to set a wrong right.

Let me say that this is a model for how this Congress ought to operate, of coming together, having a consensus, coming up with good, commonsense legislation that benefits the public and reduces unnecessary costs and puts what I consider and I think is criminal behavior out of business. We're going to put some criminals out of business with this legislation.

Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr. Scott, and all Members who are cosponsoring this bill, I commend each and every one of you.

Madam Speaker, first let me commend Chairman Mica on behalf of this Congress and the American people for the fine work that you and your committee have done on this bill. We'll build more roads with less money and cut through red tape and expedite projects.

I also want to associate myself with the words of Don Young, our former chairman, and of Mr. Miller from California. You cannot have-- the leading country in the world cannot have a Third World infrastructure. And unless we find new funding sources, we will continue to fall behind, and we will continue to have those potholes and bottlenecks.

Now, I want to move to the National Flood Insurance program which is a part of this bill. It also is a win for the American people. This House over a year ago approved comprehensive flood insurance, risk based, that would reduce the cost and bring many benefits to the program. Last week, the Senate sent us a bill which is essentially the bill we sent them over a year ago. It's a bipartisan bill. It was a lot of hard work and input from Members. We passed it overwhelmingly in the Financial Services Committee and overwhelmingly on the floor of this House. I would like to commend Chairwoman Biggert for her fine work. Her name is on this bill, and there's a reason for that. She worked harder than anyone in this Congress to deliver a good bill. It's a 5- year bill, and it will begin to make up for the deficit of $17.5 billion that this program has as a result of those hurricanes back in 2005.

I would like to commend the Illinois delegation and the California delegation under Mr. Shimkus and Mr. Costa who, sadly, is retiring this year. This bill takes care to balance costs and communities that use their own funds. I urge Members to pass this bill. It's a good bill. It includes many good provisions, and I'm proud to say that the Financial Services Committee and its members have been a part of this effort.

As the legislation to reauthorize and reform the National Flood Insurance Program heads to the President's desk, I would like to acknowledge the time, effort, and wisdom that four members of the Financial Services Committee staff provided to create this positive outcome. These staff members were able to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate bills--working through a host of complex, highly technical issues--in less than one week. The efforts of Clinton Jones, Tallman Johnson, Ed Skala, and Nicole Austin helped all of us to achieve this very beneficial outcome for the American taxpayer, and I thank them for their service to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, first I want to commend Transportation Committee Chairman Mica, Subcommittee Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member Rahall and others for their hard work on the needed transportation and infrastructure improvements in this bill.

I also want to take the time to comment on provisions in this bill regarding reauthorization and reform of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

Today we're doing something we haven't done since 2004: provide a long-term reauthorization with meaningful reforms for the National Flood Insurance Program. Since September 2008, the NFIP has been extended 17 times and the program has lapsed four times during that same time period, creating needless uncertainty in the residential and commercial real estate sectors in communities across the country.

Over a year ago the Financial Services Committee and then the House, in a bipartisan display of cooperation, overwhelmingly passed a five- year flood insurance bill with comprehensive reforms and savings for the taxpayers. This week the Senate approved our legislation.

This bipartisan bill represents the hard work and input of many members, and I especially

want to thank Housing Subcommittee Chairwoman Biggert for her leadership in getting us to this point.

This bill takes great care to balance the need to make the NFIP more actuarially sound with the need to recognize the hard work and difficult decisions many communities are making to build or rehabilitate their dams and levees. I particularly want to thank Mr. Shimkus for working with us to address those concerns in a responsible way.

Many of us have been calling for fundamental reforms of the NFIP for several years. The hurricanes of 2005 led to massive flooding and overwhelmed the program, which now carries a debt to the Treasury of $17.5 billion as a result.

The NFIP is facing serious financial challenges and cannot afford to continue on its current trajectory, which is why today's bill is vital. The reforms in this bill end the decades-old subsidies for about 355,000 policyholders and reduce the program's need to borrow additional funds from the Treasury, which will help reduce the program's shortfall and protect American taxpayers.

Congress has a responsibility to ensure that the taxpayers are not left holding the bag. This bill puts us on the path to reforming the program with risk-based premiums, and provisions to better protect both taxpayers and homeowners while encouraging greater private sector participation.

Since January of 2011, I have held as a goal of this Congress to achieve fundamental reform of the NFIP. The bill we have before us today accomplishes that in a fair and responsible manner. I urge all Members to support it.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Let me acknowledge the point of order is due to be granted.

I am, however, here to ask for the cooperation of the appropriating committee as we move forward on addressing a problem that we found as a result of the many tornadoes that devastated our country last year. And I will use an example from the city of Tuscaloosa.

In the aftermath of the tornado that struck Tuscaloosa on April 27, HUD came in and calculated the loss of residences and rental units. Part of their charge was to replace the critical needs. However--and I will just use one census tract as an example--they came into a census tract that includes University Boulevard, which is a census tract made up almost entirely of rental units. However, according to HUD's calculation, they came in and they simply surveyed the owner-occupied units. Now, there were 23 owner-occupied units that were destroyed in the census tract, but there were 440 rental units that were destroyed in this same tract. So almost all the loss of property was rental units. It left the city of Tuscaloosa, a university town, woefully inadequate in its number of rental units.

In their calculation, they only take the owner-occupied units, and they extrapolate from that what they consider the number of rental units to be in that same census tract. Well, you can't really base a calculation of how many rental units there are based on how many owner- occupied dwellings there are. And to tell you how much they missed it, they calculated that there were no rental units destroyed, which is obviously a tremendous miscalculation.

So we've offered an amendment today which essentially will say that you have to consider--and your survey must include--both owner-occupied units and rental units and that you must calculate both of them, not simply the owner-occupied units.

HUD's model, in short, needs to be changed. We believe that our authorizing committee will correct this in future cases, but there's an urgent need to replace the rental housing that was lost in last year's tornadoes throughout the Nation. And my amendment simply creates a mechanism to do so and directs HUD to develop a formula for distributing assistance to communities that have already suffered damage. This will restore what we think is fairness and a more correct calculation.

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

Thank you for allowing me to explain the purpose of the amendment that my colleague Congresswoman Terri Sewell and I are proposing.

Communities in the State of Alabama and other states are still recovering from the devastating tornadoes of April 27, 2011.

A critical issue is replacing rental housing that was destroyed by the tornadoes. Rental housing is an important and affordable option for individuals and families, especially in larger cities.

Unfortunately, the methodology used by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to award recovery assistance may be weighted--in some cases--against rebuilding rental housing.

To provide an example, according to a study by the office of Mayor Walt Maddox, one census tract in Tuscaloosa sustained tornado damage to 463 housing units: 23 owner-occupied units and 440 rental units. Rather than document the actual damage and distribute recovery aid accordingly, HUD used a mathematical model to calculate the damage.

The result is that only 2.2% of the units in this devastated neighborhood were deemed to have been severely damaged. None of the rental properties were included in the formula, regardless of their damage.

This bureaucratic discrepancy has put Tuscaloosa and other communities at an unfair disadvantage when it comes to receiving funding for the restoration of their rental housing stock.

HUD's model needs to be changed. We are working to correct it for future cases, but there is an urgent need to replace the rental housing that was lost during last year's tornadoes.

Our amendment creates a mechanism to do that. It directs HUD to develop a formula for distributing assistance to communities that have already suffered damage. This will help restore fairness and promote the continued recovery of our communities from some of the most devastating tornadoes in the history of the State of Alabama and our nation.

Point of Order

Offered By: Mr. Bachus

Amendment No. 5: Page 92, line 16, before the period insert

the following:

: Provided further, That of the total amount provided under

this heading, up to $200,000,000, to remain available until

expended, shall be for necessary expenses for activities

authorized under the HOME Investment Partnerships Act (42

U.S.C. 12721 et seq.) related to disaster relief, long-term

recovery, restoration of housing and infrastructure, and

economic revitalization in the most impacted and distressed

areas resulting from a major disaster declared pursuant to

the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency

Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) in 2011: Provided

further, That such disaster relief funds shall be awarded

only to States and units of general local government that

were awarded funds under section 239 of Public Law 112-55

(125 Stat. 703), shall be awarded directly to such States and

units of general local government at the discretion of the

Secretary, and shall be awarded in accordance with such

formula or requirements as the Secretary shall establish,

except that such formula or requirements shall give

preference to awards based on a county's unmet housing needs

for renter occupied units: Provided further, That prior to

the obligation of such disaster relief funds a grantee shall

submit a plan to the Secretary detailing the proposed use of

all such funds, including criteria for eligibility and how

the use of these funds will address long-term recovery and

restoration of infrastructure: Provided further, That such

disaster relief funds may not be used for activities

reimbursable by, or for which funds are made available by,

the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the Army Corps of

Engineers: Provided further, That such disaster relief funds

allocated under this heading shall not be considered relevant

to the other non-disaster formula allocations under this

heading: Provided further, That a State or subdivision

thereof may use up to 5 percent of its allocation of such

disaster relief funds for administrative costs: Provided

further, That in administering such disaster relief funds

under this heading, the Secretary of Housing and Urban

Development may waive, or specify alternative requirements

for, any provision of any statute or regulation that the

Secretary administers in connection with the obligation by

the Secretary or the use by the recipient of these funds or

guarantees (except for requirements related to fair housing,

nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the environment),

upon a request by a State or subdivision thereof explaining

why such waiver is required to facilitate the use of such

funds or guarantees, if the Secretary finds that such waiver

would not be inconsistent with the overall purpose of the

HOME Investment Partnerships Act: Provided further, That the

Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register any waiver of

any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers

pursuant to HOME Investment Partnerships Act no later than 5

days before the effective date of such waiver

Mr. Speaker, the devastating tornadoes that struck my home state of Alabama on April 27, 2011 taught all of us important lessons about emergency preparedness. Countless lives were saved because of the early warnings provided to citizens and the availability of community storm shelters. Our broadcasters performed a great public service by providing early and accurate forecasts about the coming storms. We have been working together to further expand this warning system through the greater use of weather radios and the development of technology to deliver mobile alerts by cell phone. In addition, we are working cooperatively to try to ensure that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) can deploy the next generation of enhanced weather satellite technology in a timely manner. In Alabama, as in many other states, there will be tornadoes and severe storms. But with good preparation and emergency planning, lives can be saved and damage minimized when a natural disaster strikes. We cannot afford to be complacent and should never be afraid to ask the question, ``What can we do better?''

Mr. Chair, the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act contains badly needed reforms that are vital to our national security and our defense industrial base.

America's small business industrial base has supported our military for generations, and their participation enhances competition, helps control costs, and spurs American innovation. H.R. 4310 recognizes that our defense maintenance needs are best met when we have capabilities both internally in the Department of Defense and in a private sector where work is competitively awarded.

Sections 1631 and 1632 will help maintain a strong small business presence in our defense industrial base which is essential to reducing maintenance and procurement costs as well as maintaining a strong national defense.

It is my strong belief this important legislation will help ensure that the highest level of support services are provided to the men and women who protect our freedom.

I thank the gentlelady.

We're here on the floor discussing this bill for one reason and for one reason only, and that's that the Senate has not done their job.

Ten months ago, Madam Speaker, this House passed a bipartisan, long- term reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program. Our bill passed unanimously out of committee and then passed the House, overwhelmingly, with over 400 votes, Democrats and Republicans joining together.

Our bill not only included a 5-year reauthorization of the program, a long-term reauthorization, which is what's needed, but included many needed reforms that reduce the burden on taxpayers, increase private market participation, and help bring certainty to the housing market.

We did our job, Madam Speaker, but the Senate's failed to do their job. Seventeen temporary extensions. Perhaps none of us should be surprised. After all, it's been 3 years since the Senate even bothered to pass a budget. Not to mention, at a time when millions of Americans are out of work, the Senate has failed to vote on 27 job-creating bills we passed out of the House, overwhelmingly.

Now Majority Leader Harry Reid has failed to find time to schedule floor time, even though the Senate, under the leadership of Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member Shelby, unanimously passed a bill almost identical to the bill we passed 10 months ago.

But because of a dysfunctional Senate that's not working, we're once again faced with the risk of having the flood insurance shut down, as the gentleman from Georgia said, right before hurricane season starts. I can't think of a worse time. A shutdown of flood insurance, even a temporary one, would do tremendous damage to our struggling economy and our Nation's fragile housing market.

Specifically, what does it mean? I'd like to introduce a letter from the National Association of Realtors. It is already delaying close to 1,300 house closings every day. If it expires, it will

stop all development dead in its tracks in 21,000 communities across America.

Let me close by saying I want to commend our colleague, Mrs. Biggert. Congresswoman Biggert has done an exceptional job on this important issue. I'd like to commend Congresswoman and Ranking Member Maxine Waters. They've worked, over the last year, for a long-term reauthorization. We've come together and done our job.

I would like to commend the Senate, but, unfortunately, the Senate is not working. It's time for the Senate to pass a 5-year bill, and it's time for them to pass it immediately. That's why, although we have passed a 5-year reauthorization, we're here. But we're only passing a 1-month extension because the best they can do is another extension-- number 17--which would put it into December, when we all know that's a lame duck Congress and we're going to be confronted with tremendous other issues at that time.

To the Senate I say: Let's get going.

National Association of Realtors,'

Washington, DC, May 16, 2012.

Hon. Spencer Bachus,

Chairman, House Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Rayburn Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Bachus: The 1 million members of the National

Association of REALTORS' supports a temporary

extension of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

authority to enable the Senate to finish work on its long-

term reauthorization and reform measure (S. 1940). The House

is scheduled to vote on H.R. 5740 to extend authority by 30

days to June 30, 2012. We urge a yes vote.

NFIP authority is set to expire on May 31, 2012.

Consequently, property buyers in more than 21,000 communities

across the United States will no longer be able to obtain the

flood insurance required by law for the purchase of a home or

building. Each day that program authority lapses, more than

1,300 home sales will be delayed or cancelled. Allowing

another lapse only exacerbates the many serious economic

challenges facing a nation that relies on a vibrant real

estate market for its economy.

Homebuyers, small business owners and local communities

urge the House to vote yes on H.R. 5740 to keep the NFIP from

lapsing. Your vote to extend authority will avoid further

market disruption while Congress works toward long-term

reauthorization and reform.

Sincerely,

Maurice ``Moe'' Veissi,

2012 President, National Association

of REALTORS'.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to join my colleagues Robert Aderholdt, Martha Roby, and Dennis Ross in congratulating Cumberland School of Law on the celebration of their fiftieth anniversary as an entity on the campus of Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. The school's legacy and impress extends across the globe and indeed into this very chamber, my three colleagues having walked its historic halls as law students.

What began as a humble and at times struggling law school in the hills of Lebanon, Tennessee, through tenacity and divine providence blossomed into a first rate and nationally-recognized center of legal education. Today, Cumberland boasts the fourth ranked trial advocacy program in the nation and has served as the educational backdrop for countless state and federal judges, legislators, and other elected officials. Judge John Carroll, whose service as the Dean and chief advocate for the law school, deserves our utmost commendation for thrusting Cumberland onto the national stage. His dedication and leadership have ensured the continued growth and prosperity of this respected law school.

Mr. Speaker, as a body that daily ponders the law and the effects of law, it is only fitting and proper that we honor an institution dedicated to excellent legal education and commend Cumberland and Judge John Carroll on a job very well done. The city of Birmingham, our great state of Alabama, indeed the entire nation owes a debt of gratitude to Cumberland School of Law for its educational prowess, its historic legacy, and its integral part in preparing the next generation of our nation's leaders.

Mr. Speaker, the Financial Committee's work on this reconciliation package saves more than $35 billion. But more importantly, it does what 2,300 pages of Dodd-Frank, 400 new regulations, over 2,000 newly hired Federal regulators, many them living in my Maryland colleague's district, and more than $24 million worth of compliance work required of America's companies, at the cost of $100 billion, don't: it ends the bailouts.

A bailout fund doesn't end the bailout; it guarantees them. We're telling the big banks what my Democratic colleagues didn't want to tell them: if they make risky bets and make bad decisions, they're on the hook, not the taxpayers. No more privatizing the profits, no more socializing the losses. In short, no more bailouts, period.

Mr. Speaker, this recession is different, and the difference is there's no recovery. And that is a historic difference.

Now, what is different about this recession and all our other recessions when we had a recovery is government policy. Government policy has stifled job creation. Normally, at this time in a recovery, 65 percent of the jobs are being created by small businesses. But 2 million jobs aren't there because of Obama's health care policies alone, regulatory policies, tax policies. Small business is struggling.

Now, let me tell you, Congress cannot create jobs. We're not going to create jobs with this bill. We're going to allow small businesses to create jobs.

You'll either choose government or you'll choose the people. You'll choose government to continue to create jobs like with Solyndra, and we saw the disaster there, or you'll allow the people to create those jobs. I'm putting my trust in the people.

Mr. Speaker, in any successful office, there is always one person you need to be able to trust to make sure that things are done in the right way and on time. From the beginning of my service in Congress, that person in my office was my executive assistant, Geraldine ``Gerry'' Cashin. On the occasion of her retirement, I want to offer my personal thanks to Gerry for the dedicated and loyal service that she has given to me, the people of Alabama, and the citizens of our nation. Gerry was first with me in my law practice in Alabama and when I was elected to the House, I knew that I wanted her to come to Washington to help me with the challenge of setting up a new congressional office. Her organizational skills and personal concern for constituents helped our office to quickly establish a reputation for service and responsiveness. Gerry set a high standard with her dedication to her work and her attention to detail, and many of my staffers who have gone on to success in future endeavors have given credit to the lessons they learned from Gerry. Almost every day, the seemingly ``impossible'' was asked of Gerry and she unfailingly delivered, perfecting along the way such wry and legendary office phrases as ``I'm sorry that happened'' and ``Never give a man something you haven't made a copy of.'' During the great challenges in Congress during recent years--from 9/11 to the financial crisis--Gerry stood as a rock of stability and a voice of calm and continuity. She has friends all over Capitol Hill and in Birmingham, and my wife Linda and I consider her to be part of our family for her many years of loyal service and heartfelt friendship. While the institutional knowledge that Gerry acquired cannot be replaced, my office's loss is the gain of her daughters Amanda and Diane and her grandsons John and Tom, with whom she will happily be spending much more time, and perhaps a gain for her tennis game as well. It is a pleasure for me to extend this public and well-deserved tribute to a servant of the people and a very dear friend, Gerry Cashin.

Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress are only as effective as the loyal staff members who serve them. Our staff professionals are public servants every bit as much as those of us who have been elected. Motivated to work for the common good, they perform their jobs without fanfare and frequently stay on the job late nights and weekends to help develop solutions to the challenges facing our people and country. This House could not function without these highly talented and dedicated individuals, and it has been my privilege to have had one of the best at my side in Larry Lavender. As he departs from my office after many years of loyal service, I want to publicly recognize and thank Larry for his wise counsel, frank advice, and friendship. When Larry agreed to be my Chief of Staff when I was first elected to the House, he brought experience as a businessman and top administrator in the city government of my native Birmingham, Alabama. He shared my ethic that the purpose of our office was to provide the people of Alabama with the highest level of representation. From the start, Larry demonstrated a unique talent to assemble the best staff team to achieve goals. When I was selected to serve as Ranking Member and then Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, there would be no one better suited to serve as my staff director. Larry's policy, management, and leadership skills helped us to navigate the challenges of the deepest financial crisis to occur in the United States since the Great Depression. During those historic times, his sole intent was to work to find the right answers to solve the unprecedented issues facing our financial sector and nation. Under highly uncertain and stressful conditions, he consistently supplied wise and reasoned counsel. Everyone who has met Larry has been impressed by management ability, policy and political acumen, strong belief in principle, and above all his modesty and integrity. Just as important to Larry, he is a devoted husband, father, and Marine. His children Rachel and Jacob are rightfully proud of him, and we know that his lovely wife Kathryn and young son Harrison Clay have brought a special new joy to his life at home. For being a trusted and valued adviser to both experienced and new House Members, a mentor to countless staffers, and a loyal friend to me, it is with appreciation and gratitude that I take this opportunity to permanently commemorate Larry Lavender's service to the people of Alabama and America.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to 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.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to add any extraneous material on this bill.

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

I rise in strong support of the JOBS Act and urge the House to approve this bill today so that we can send it to the President for his immediate signature. The President has indicated that he strongly supports the legislation.

The JOBS Act is a victory for unemployed Americans who are literally crying out for more jobs. It is a victory for small companies and for entrepreneurs who want Washington to reduce the red tape that stifles innovation, economic growth, and job creation. The JOBS Act will do exactly what its title says, jump-start our economy by creating new job opportunities for America's start-up companies and small businesses. And I would like to introduce into the Record some statistics on the number of jobs created by new companies.

As chairman of the Financial Services Committee, I am proud that the JOBS Act is comprised of six pieces of legislation that originated in our committee and received overwhelming bipartisan support. In fact, managing this bill for the minority is the gentleman from Connecticut, who was the sponsor of one of those six bills; and I commend Mr. Himes for his work on all of these bills. The JOBS Act is proof that Republicans and Democrats can come together to find common ground, work together, and offer legislation that will help small businesses. Small businesses are the growth engine of our economy.

A study between 1985 and 2005 found that 96 percent of the jobs created at new companies are created within 5 years of an IPO, and this will give those companies who want to offer an IPO the opportunity to do so at a much reduced cost.

Nearly 65 percent of new jobs traditionally are created by small businesses. Now, that's not the case in this economic recovery. Almost all the job growth has come from large corporations, which is really the opposite of what you normally see. Small businesses have not been created and have not been growing as they should, and there are two reasons for that: one is regulation. These regulations are costly; they're time consuming; and they're simply inhibiting the growth of small businesses. The second reason is a lack of capital.

Now, there are two ways traditionally to raise capital. One is to go to a bank, a lending institution, and ask for a loan. Well, because of tighter lending standards, these new companies don't have a track record, so they don't have

a record of generating profits. Many of them are offering new services, new products that have not really found a market or have a small market. And there is a risk involved. So when banks turn those companies down, the other path is for someone to invest in those companies; and that is exactly what that bill does. It offers those companies an opportunity to receive investments, capital investments from individuals who want to participate not only in the risk but in the reward.

With the JOBS Act, start-up companies--like those at the Innovation Depot in Birmingham, Alabama, where there are several start-up companies with new products, new services--the JOBS Act will allow those companies and companies throughout the United States, people with new ideas, new services, new products, like a Google of the future or an eBay or an Amazon. Take those companies, they didn't exist 20 years ago. Now they're the fastest-growing companies in America. There are other Googles, there are other eBays, there are other Amazons, there are other Costcos, there are other Chick-fil-A's that are just waiting to come to market.

And for that reason, I want to commend the Senate, and I want to thank the sponsors of this legislation. Finally, I want to salute this House for coming together when it counted to address the lack of growth in jobs in our small businesses.

There are some signs that hiring is coming back at larger companies, but not at our small businesses and startup companies. There are 2 main reasons for that The first is regulation--which has a bigger impact on small companies than large companies. The second is capital--it is harder for business startups to get traditional bank financing so they have to rely more on investors and capital markets for financing. The JOBS Act will make it easier for them to access capital, locate investors and go public.

This bill is designed specially to help the type of small business startups and emerging growth companies that you find at places like the Innovation Depot.

We know that small business is the growth engine of our economy. Nearly 65 percent of all new jobs created over the last 15 years were created by small businesses. Yet today, many small companies find it hard to obtain the investments and the financing they need to expand their operations and create jobs. That's why Congress mist cut the red tape that prevent many startup companies from raising capital and going public. The JOBS Act removes some of the unnecessary and outdated government barriers to capital formation--so entrepreneurs have more freedom to access capital, hire workers and grow their businesses.

We need to do everything we can to ensure that America remains a country of opportunity, where jobs are created and small businesses flourish without being stifled by costly and unnecessary red tape. The JOBS Act will help foster an environment that allows our small businesses, startups and entrepreneurs to raise the capital needed to get job creation going again.

I'm proud that all 6 bills that make up the JOBS Act originated in the Financial Services Committee and that all 6 received overwhelming, strong bipartisan support. It shows that Republicans and Democrats CAN find common ground and work together when it comes to helping America's small businesses.

Companies obtain capital through either borrowing, from places like community banks, or through equity financing.

Equity financing, in which investors purchase ownership stakes in a company in exchange for a share of the company's future profit, allows companies to obtain funds without having to repay specific amounts at particular times.

The tightening of credit has made equity financing all the more important as a means of providing small companies with the capital they need to grow and create jobs.

The JOBS Act will make it easier for small companies to access capital through both the public and private markets, which will facilitate economic growth and job creation. For example:

Title 3 of the bill will allow what is known as ``crowdfunding''-- which will allow groups of investors to pool money, typically comprised of very small individual contributions, to support an effort such as growing a new company like those that are found at the Innovation Depot. Investments would be limited to an amount equal to or less than the lesser of $10,000 or 10 percent of the investor's annual income. Before the JOBS Act, the SEC had outdated regulations that prohibited this type of investment.

Title 1 of the JOBS Act will provide smaller to mid-sized private companies with temporary exemptions from several government regulations, who could go public and raise capital needed to expand their business but for the expense associated with complying with them. These companies will have up to a five year timeframe to be on an ``On Ramp'' to comply with certain regulatory requirements (Section 404(b) of Sarbanes-Oxley or 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act). This ``On-Ramp'' status is designed to be temporary and transitional, encouraging small companies to go public but ensuring they transition to full compliance over time or as they grow large enough to have the resources to sustain the type of compliance infrastructure associated with more mature enterprises. A task force put together to study how to help smaller companies found that from 1980 to 2005, firms less than 5 years old accounted for all net U.S. job growth. On average, 92 percent of a company's job growth occurs after an ``initial public offering'' (IPO). Since 2006, companies have reported an average of 86 percent job growth since IPO.

Titles 5 and 6 of the JOBS Act would allow private companies and community banks to increase the number of shareholders they have before they are forced to register with the SEC. This will save these companies regulatory compliance costs from regulations that are generally intended for large companies and instead give small companies and banks more readily available capital to hire new employees and lend to local businesses to expand.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), the chairman of the subcommittee.

I would like to inquire, Madam Speaker, as to how much time remains on our side.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another Illinois Congressman, Mr. Dold.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), a member of the committee, who sponsored and worked on these bills.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions, the gentlelady from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), who also worked very hard on this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I would like to again inquire as to the amount of time remaining on our side.

I yield 3 minutes to an outstanding freshman on our committee, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).

Everyone speaking on our side has worked very hard on these bills or spent a lot of time, as have many of our Democratic colleagues.

Would the gentleman yield?

Let me say this. The gentleman from Connecticut mentioned crowdfunding, and I think that was what gave us more concern than anything else, some of the things he said about the Internet people making an investment being subject to fraud. That is a concern, and the Senate addressed those concerns. I'd like to stress what they amended was a very small part of this bill that dealt with crowdfunding. It is also important to know that all the antifraud protection, we didn't take any of that away. But I think we're getting there. The Senate and the House deliberated with the White House, and we will continue to look at crowdfunding. We'll see how this goes.

With any investment, particularly a new company, a new venture, there is a certain amount of risk. You can't take the risk out. If you take the risk out, you take the reward. But what the gentleman says I fully appreciate, and I think that's where our committee has come together, and we tried to get it right for the good of the Americans in creating these new jobs. So I appreciate the opportunity and thank you for yielding.

At this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North

Carolina (Mr. McHenry). Again, this is a bill that several Members worked very hard on, and he is very knowledgeable on these bills.

Madam Speaker, we have the right to close. So I would ask the gentleman from Connecticut to proceed. Could I inquire as to time.

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

Let me say this: during this debate, we focused on crowdfunding, but I think we're all in agreement that this bill is a great improvement, and we will revisit that. That shouldn't distract from the fact that this is a major piece of legislation that will cause, I think, a great deal of new competition, innovation of new products and services.

In my revised remarks, which I intend to submit in the next week, I will highlight biomedical research, which we think has the potential to address some diseases that are rare diseases or degenerative conditions which would really receive a boost from this.

So I commend all of our Members. We've come together here, and we've accomplished great things, along with the Senate, the House, and the administration.

I yield to the gentlelady from Illinois.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of H.R. 3606, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross-references and to make other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to accurately reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. tomorrow; when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, March 13, 2012; when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Friday, March 16, 2012; and when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday, March 19, 2012.