I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Carney, for his hard work and his staff for helping work on something good for the country, for the private sector, getting people back to work. That's what we were sent…
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Carney, for his hard work and his staff for helping work on something good for the country, for the private sector, getting people back to work. That's what we were sent here to do.
I'm pleased to be the lead sponsor on H.R. 3606, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act.
Today, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate is currently 8.3 percent. However, in December of last year, all but one of the counties I represent had a higher unemployment rate than the national average of 8.5 percent. At the top of the list was Obion County, with an unemployment rate of 15.3 percent, and Crockett County, where I live, 10.5 percent.
It is no secret that our Nation has seen a decline in small business start-ups over the last few years, which means less jobs created for American workers. I think we all can agree that small businesses and entrepreneurs are the backbone of our Nation and our economy.
The heartbeat of America is in the heartland of America, not here in Washington. The best thing our government can do right now to get our economy moving in the right direction is to help create an environment where new ideas and start-up companies have a chance to grow and succeed. The provisions in the JOBS Act will put the focus on the private sector, capitalism, and the free market, providing the jump- start our Nation's entrepreneurs need.
Title I of this bill is legislation that I introduced with Congressman Carney, the Reopening American Capital Markets to Emerging Growth Companies Act, which would help more small and mid-size companies go public. During the last 15 years, fewer and fewer start-up companies have pursued initial public offerings because of burdensome costs created by a series of one-size-fits-all laws and regulations. These changes have driven up costs and uncertainty for young companies looking to go public. Not going public deprives companies of the needed capital to expand their businesses, develop innovative products, and hire more American workers.
Title I would create a new category of issuers called emerging growth companies that have less than $1 billion in annual revenues when they register with the SEC and less than $700 million in public float after the IPO.
Emerging growth companies will have as many as 5 years, depending on size, to transition to full compliance with a variety of regulations that are expensive and burdensome. This on-ramp status will allow small and mid-size companies the opportunity to save on expensive compliance costs and create the cash needed to successfully grow their business and create American jobs. It will also make it easier for potential investors to get access to research and company information in advance of an IPO in order to make informed decisions about investing. This is critical for small and medium-sized companies trying to raise capital that have less visibility in the marketplace.
Our bill had tremendous bipartisan support when passed by the Financial Services Committee 2 weeks ago. It's my hope that we can continue to work together as we move this package of bills forward.
Madam Chairman, the JOBS Act will provide companies some valuable tools they need to grow and create jobs. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
I stand today heartbroken that something that we've meant for good here--myself and my colleague, Mr. Carney--a JOBS Act would be tied up in some heated rhetoric.
I want to urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that jobs aren't Democrat or Republican; they're American. People are begging for Congress to get out of the way and let the private sector get back in the business of creating jobs. That's what we're doing with this jobs bill that we're pushing through.
So hopefully, hopefully, we can get beyond some feelings--hurt feelings maybe--and let's focus back on the reason why we were sent up here, and that's to put the people back in power and not Washington.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today, along with the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Carney), to offer a technical amendment to H.R. 3606.
The amendment now pending would simply provide technical corrections to the underlying bill. Both Members and committee staff have heard from various groups and stakeholders affected by this bill. The amendment is a reflection of the technical advice given to us by these groups. I strongly believe that these technical changes improve the bill and would ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Carney).
Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
I want to be clear: This bill is about new companies, not existing companies, but about new companies that are wanting to go public.
The $1 billion revenue and $700 million in public float thresholds for emerging growth companies in the underlying bill were recommended by the nonpartisan IPO task force comprised of industry experts, such as venture capitalists, public investors, entrepreneurs, investment bankers, accountants, professors, securities attorneys, and the exchanges.
If we strike the public float requirements, we break this provision's ties to an already defined SEC threshold. Seven hundred million in public float is the threshold for a company to be considered ``a large accelerated'' filer under SEC rules. This number is used by the SEC to define a mature company, meaning that the company will be able to handle complying with a variety of SEC regulations on day one of its
I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
The SEC already provides smaller reporting companies with an additional year to comply with executive-compensation disclosure and say-on-pay vote compliance.
This bill would simply extend the extension to emerging growth companies during the on-ramp period. They would still disclose compensation arrangements to shareholders in the same way that the SEC requires for smaller reporting companies, we think, forcing shareholder votes on internal issues such as compensation levels, risk, undermining the emerging growth companies' ability to exercise independent judgment on behalf of all the corporation's shareholders. The bottom line here is that we must spare emerging growth companies from the costly litigation that could result if an emerging growth company's board of directors reject or refuse to abide by the results of the shareholder vote.
I would just remind all of my colleagues the President is supporting this jobs bill. We think this is something that will really, really put Americans back to work.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment.
Again, our goal here today is to help America's start-up companies grow, raise capital, create jobs. The amendment offered by the gentlelady from Texas would limit opportunities for emerging growth companies to expand business by cutting them off from experienced investors.
Part of generating a successful IPO is having the ability to test the waters through pre-IPO meetings with institutional qualified investors. These are the investors you want to talk to and receive feedback from before launching an IPO to ensure success. If a company learned that there is a good chance it
will have a successful IPO, it would be less likely to choose a merger and acquisition path, which often results in losing jobs, and continue to grow organically and create jobs. So it doesn't make sense to me to cut these investors off from emerging growth companies.
I understand there may be some concerns with investor protections. But in this amendment, emerging growth companies are only allowed to test the waters with highly sophisticated investors so existing investor protections are not weakened. Therefore, I cannot support this amendment.
I thank the gentleman from Texas.
It seems like the gentleman's amendment is trying to confuse the recent sharp rise in gas prices with the purpose of this bill, which is to provide emerging growth companies with a temporary break from costly compliance burdens.
It's true that gas prices have been going up, but emerging growth companies are not to blame. I introduced this bill, along with my colleague, Mr. Carney, to encourage small business to go public, to have access to more capital, and create more jobs. Job creation is the purpose of this bill, not gas prices.
Rising gas prices is a critical issue, and we would be glad to have the debate some other day. But today we're talking about job creation in the private sector. This is a very important piece of legislation that the President supports. So let's give the power back to the people.