Congressional Record, Volume 158 Issue 37 (Wednesday, March 7, 2012)

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 37 (Wednesday, March 7, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H1222-H1231]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1230
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3606, JUMPSTART OUR BUSINESS
STARTUPS ACT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 572 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 572

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3606) to increase American job creation and
economic growth by improving access to the public capital
markets for emerging growth companies. The first reading of
the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Financial Services. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services
now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of the Rules Committee
Print 112 17 shall be considered as adopted in the House and
in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as the original bill for the purpose of further
amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered
as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill,
as amended, are waived. No further amendment to the bill, as
amended, shall be in order except those printed in the report
of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each
such further amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such
further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, and any further amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania). The gentleman
from Texas is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of this rule and
obviously the underlying bill. House Resolution 572 provides a
structured rule for H.R. 3606, that Jumpstart Our Business Startups, or
what we also call the JOBS Act. The bill was introduced on December 8,
2011, by my friend, a bright young man who is one of the

[[Page H1223]]

brand-new leaders of our conference, a freshman, the gentleman from
Tennessee, Stephen Fincher, and was ordered reported by Chairman Bachus
and the Committee on Financial Services on February 16, 2012, by a
near-unanimous vote of 54 1.
Members on both sides of the aisle have had an opportunity and will
have opportunities to submit perfecting ideas. Thank goodness the Rules
Committee allows this sort of thing to happen now that Republicans are
in charge. The structured rule before us allows for 17 amendments, Mr.
Speaker: 13 from Democrats, 3 from Republicans, and one which is a
bipartisan amendment, meaning that Republican and Democrat Members of
this House have a chance to work together on legislation for jobs for
our country.
The chairman of the Rules Committee, David Dreier, has once again
allowed the House to work its will through this important legislation
by allowing us to have a rule not only where Members of Congress can
come and share their ideas with the Rules Committee but, once again,
have them made in order so they can come down on the floor, express
their ideas, work with colleagues to perfect the legislation and then
to vote for the bill, because they were a part of it. Those are ideas
that I think are good for this body. David Dreier, as chairman of the
committee, deeply believes this is the way the floor should operate.
Today, we're going to consider a package of commonsense job-creating
bills that stand out for a unique reason, and that unique reason is the
President of the United States now supports what we're doing, also.
Unfortunately, Senate Democrats have yet to give their blessing on this
bill and the package that's included. So we're just going to have to do
the best we can and then hope for the best. Maybe the Senate will
decide they want to take action on bills that will not only better
enable our country to have jobs and job creation, but also a chance to
work for the best interests of the American people.
House Republicans are on the floor again today, as we have been doing
now for a year and a few months, to persistently make the case about
job creation, why jobs are important to our country, why the Congress
should be all about trying to work with the free enterprise system,
work with Members of Congress who see the big need for jobs, not only
at home, but all across this country in every single State so that we
can have job creation as a major goal of what this Congress and
hopefully the President would be for. Over 30 bills that we've already
passed through this body over the last year and a couple months await
consideration by Senate Democrats. That means that this body, just like
the bills we are going to handle today, we have been on the floor for a
year talking about jobs, job creation, the way we can aid and abet the
free enterprise system, investors, and opportunities back home. Those
bills are waiting over in the Senate, and today we're simply going to
add to that.
The big difference is the President has now said, You guys have got a
good idea. The day the President agrees with House Republicans and
House Democrats is a great day for our country. So, the good news out
of Washington today is Stephen Fincher had a good idea the President
agrees with, and we're going to do something about that.
Our economy has a credit problem, too, Mr. Speaker, not just a jobs
problem. Companies are unable to receive the credit they need to grow
their businesses, and as banks and other traditional credit providers
face stricter Federal restrictions by the Obama administration, it
decreases the ability for lending to take place, and companies that
need lending and cash and capital available to them are looking for
innovative funding mechanisms that will provide the liquidity necessary
so they can keep their businesses current, so they can expand their
business, so they can meet the needs of the marketplace. This
administration continues to promote policies that slow economic growth
and make it more difficult for businesses and, in particular, small
business, to obtain capital and have a source of funding. Republicans
believe that we must create an environment that changes that, that
encourages investment in small business. Small business, as we know, is
really the engine of our economy and really the national job creator.
The underlying bill does just that.
The JOBS Act consists of numerous pro-growth provisions, and I would
like to talk about those because it's important for us to remind our
colleagues that a pro-growth bill or a pro-growth environment that our
free enterprise system would be involved in encourages not just the
creation of capital, but also the ability of that formation of capital
to make jobs in America to come about as a result of that.

{time} 1240

This bill from Congressman Fincher creates a new category of what's
called emerging growth companies that will reduce costs for small
companies to go public. Great idea.
There is legislation from our majority whip, Kevin McCarthy from
California, that will allow small businesses to advertise for the
purpose of soliciting capital from potential investors. In other words,
this was not allowed by law. Small companies that have great ideas need
the opportunity to advertise in the marketplace and have people see
that there are good ideas. Kevin McCarthy is right.
A bill from Congressman McHenry from North Carolina would allow what
is called crowdfunding for initial public offerings under $1 million.
In other words, it opens up the ability to gather more capital to come
in. And Congressman McHenry is right, we need to utilize market-based
solutions, and we need to make it legal.
There are two bills from Congressman Schweikert from Arizona: one
that would allow more businesses to go public, gathering investment and
growth, and a second bill which raises the threshold number of
shareholders required from mandatory Securities and Exchange Commission
registration for all companies.
And finally, there is a bill by Congressman Quayle from Arizona which
increases the threshold number of shareholders permitted to invest in
community banks; in other words, bringing more investors to an
important part of our economy, and that is called community banks,
banks that exist for the purpose of trying to make our communities,
local communities, stronger and better.
The banks and small businesses of the district which I represent, the
32nd Congressional District of Texas, which is primarily Dallas,
Richardson, Addison, and Irving, Texas, consistently describe to me
about how they have an inability to raise capital investment, not due
to a lack of willing investors, but as a result of burdensome
regulations that are placed on them by the Federal Government.
Oftentimes we discuss the need for the SEC limit on individual
investors, and we know that it restricts their ability to raise funds
through community participation in local business creation. I am proud
to tell them now that, as a result of this bill today and the
legislation included, help is on the way.
These important changes not only provide businesses with the
necessary ability to expand, but also they provide individuals with new
mechanisms to invest and grow with their own personal assets in
companies that they know best.
The rules adjusted in the underlying bill have proven restrictive to
economic growth, so we've got to adjust these problems in the
marketplace and come up with new and creative ideas. We must push these
constructive proposals without political delay. This is why Members of
this body, including, I believe, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Polis), support this bill. The reason why we can work together is to
make sure we push constructive ideas that are good for people back
home.
Mr. Speaker, our Nation is still in crisis. We do not have enough
jobs. We are in a dwindling marketplace because of the excessive number
of rules and regulations that have been passed by prior Congresses.
With unemployment persistently over 8 percent, we cannot continue the
failed policies of government spending, rules, and regulations, and the
inability to pass laws that help job creation to overcome these
problems. The underlying bill will do exactly that. It will help foster
not only an environment, but provide the underpinning through law that
will allow the private sector to more fully participate.

[[Page H1224]]

The future success of our economy rests in the hands of small,
private business, not the Federal Government. What we are doing today
is unleashing their potential so that they can focus on the things that
they do best. This is part of having a Republican majority: pro
business, pro economic development for jobs, the formation of capital,
and the ability for American entrepreneurship to flourish. The result
is going to be an economic environment that promotes growth and
generates more revenue for the Federal Government.
I am delighted not only to be on the floor once again talking about
economic growth, but once again trying to act as a soundpiece for the
American people who are asking the United States Congress to please
understand the plight that we are in, to please help work on what will
help the free enterprise system job creation.
So today as we are on the floor, we offer a hearty reminder to the
American people that there are people who get what this is about.
That's partially why this Republican majority has been and will
continue to be successful. We will push for reform, a pro-growth
environment, and the opportunity to help people back home, instead of
with a handout, to give them the ability to do things on their own.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this fair rule, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of this bill, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have worked long and hard on
a number of these bills.
In my remarks today, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the good, the
bad, and the ugly: the good that these bills can do to free up our
capital markets, but the bad and the ugly of issues that are more
substantial to job creation and the fiscal integrity of our country,
which this Congress continues to ignore.
First, to respond to my colleague from Texas who several times blamed
one particular party in the Senate for advancing these bills, I would
just like to remind my colleague that many of these bills are sponsored
by Democrats in the Senate. It's not Democrats or Republicans in the
Senate; it is the Senate that needs to pass this. And as we know, the
Senate requires 60 votes. So I would hope that the gentleman from Texas
would amend his future remarks and call upon the Senate to pass the
JOBS Act rather than just the Democrats in the Senate, of course
recognizing that Republican votes are needed to reach the necessary 60
votes to advance any legislation.
Mr. SESSIONS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POLIS. I am happy to yield.
Will the gentleman amend his remarks?
Mr. SESSIONS. I remind the gentleman that the Republican minority
leader, Mr. McConnell, has been asking for some 30 jobs bills to at
least go through committee or to be on the floor, and I do not think
that a jobs bill would be a problem for a Republican to object to.
So I would once again advise the gentleman that I think my statement
was correct. The Senate minority leader has asked for every single one
of these 30 bills that have been passed by the House to be debated and
voted on, and Republicans have pledged their support of all 30.
Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, again, just as many of them are
sponsored by Democrats as by Republicans. It will take votes from both
sides to get to 60 votes. I think they can do that. And many of these
bills before the House have had 400 votes, 90 percent of this body.
Hopefully, they will command similarly large supermajorities in the
Senate, comprised of both Democrats, many of whom sponsored these
bills, and Republicans, who may be opposed to certain elements but
hopefully, in the name of moving the country forward, will pass this
JOBS Act.
Here's what this bill will do.
First of all, it's not a JOBS Act, per se. The JOBS name is an
acronym. It actually is called Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, or
JOBSA, but I guess JOBS sounds better. But what it really affects is
capital markets. It is really a capital market bill. It is a good bill.
It has several components that have already passed the House. My
colleague from Texas outlined several of them. I want to explain why
they are so important.
First and foremost, it makes it easier for many small companies to go
public. It rolls back some of the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations that were
put in place in 2002 for small and medium-cap companies. Again, when
you're looking at the compliance cost of Sarbanes-Oxley, they don't
scale with the business. So it's de minimis for a $10 billion business,
but it's substantial and, in fact, a deterrent to accessing the capital
markets for a $100 million or a $300 million business. So this, in
fact, rolls them back in a very thoughtful way.
And I would further call for reexamination, of course, of the
requirements for businesses of all sizes, but this will allow many
small and mid-cap businesses to access the public capital markets.

{time} 1250

In addition, it allows people to invest in start-ups, a concept
that's called crowdfunding, which is very exciting. Of course,
heretofore, essentially, investing in start-ups has been restricted to
what are called accredited investors. Now, an accredited investor is
not just some investor that goes through some process of getting
accredited; it's basically somebody who's wealthy. They have to be
worth several million dollars; and then, all of a sudden, they're
accredited.
Now, we all know that some wealthy people are poor investors and some
are good investors. One's wealth has nothing to do with how accredited
or how good an investor one is. And families who are worth $100,000 or
families that are worth $300,000 are perfectly within their rights
under current law to go to Las Vegas or Atlantic City and bet their
entire lifesavings on one roll of the dice; and yet they're not
allowed, under current law, to invest in start-ups.
So, we, with this bill, would allow families of all means to invest
in start-up companies, some of which will work out and some of which
will not. American families will enter this being aware of the risks.
But, again, it is their money, they earned it, they've paid taxes on
it, and they should be able to invest it and/or gamble it as they see
fit.
Another thing we do under this bill is increase the number of
shareholders that is required for mandatory registration with the FCC
from 500 to 1,000. This is very important because many companies use
stock options, which is a good practice. It gets the employees to own
part of the company, to own part of the fruits of their labor, and to
have some of the upside on the equity. But companies have effectively
been limited on this because once they have 500 shareholders, they're
forced to file as public. So we're allowing them to stay private
longer, as the need fits them, and not have to scale back on their
option policy with their employees. Inevitably, some of those options
get exercised, and employees become outright owners over time. This
would prevent them from being forced into a backdoor IPO.
In addition, we, again, allow community banks to raise additional
capital. We remove some of the requirements around that. Community
banks are important lenders in our community; and that's an important
step, as well, towards allowing capital to flow more freely.
So, in sum, the several bills, most of which have already passed this
House, that we are packaging in the JOBS Act, this act that we're doing
here today, are good bills that will free up the capital markets. And,
yes, in the medium and long term, there will likely be some jobs
created, because where will that capital go? It will flow to businesses
that will encourage job growth. This is not something that happens
overnight, but this is something that happens as a fruit of the
investment. Some of these start-ups that are funded through
crowdfunding might, in fact, be employers of 1,000 people in 5 years or
10 years. And that's what's so exciting about the potential of these
mechanisms to create value in the economy.
But what are we not doing? And what would be a real jobs bill? In my
opinion, there's really several things that are holding back our
private sector recovery. First and foremost is our budget deficit and
the questions about the

[[Page H1225]]

fiscal integrity of this country. This Congress continues to avoid
taking action on a default scenario under which debt as a percentage of
GDP would rise from about 70 percent where it is now to about 200
percent of our GDP by 2040, a far worse situation than many of the
fiscally beleaguered nations in Europe that are currently undertaking
bailouts.
This is widely known on both sides of the aisle, and, in fact, the
solution is widely known, as well. There are several that have been
presented. There's a bipartisan group that emerged from the Senate,
including Democrats and Republicans, that proposed a plan to reduce the
deficit as a percentage of GDP down to 1.9 percent by 2021. There's
been a similar effort on behalf of the Bowles-Simpson Commission,
again, to rein in fiscal spending so that debt as a percentage of GDP
would be 35 percent instead of 200 percent by 2040.
This Congress has not advanced either and, in fact, quite to the
contrary, has passed an operational budget that only serves to continue
these deficits through the next 10 years. Again, giving fiscal
certainty around the integrity of our Nation would do a lot more to
free up capital and improve the flow of capital and credit markets and
create jobs than these relatively minor, but still important, bills
that we're considering here today.
The other reform that would create a lot more jobs in this bill, and
I think would better be called a Jobs Act, if they could come up with a
fancy acronym for it, is business tax reform.
I'd like to submit to the Record a recent report from the White House
and the Department of the Treasury on a framework for business tax
reform.

Introduction

America's system of business taxation is in need of reform.
The United States has a relatively narrow corporate tax base
compared to other countries--a tax base reduced by loopholes,
tax expenditures, and tax planning. This is combined with a
statutory corporate tax rate that will soon be the highest
among advanced countries. As a result of this combination of
a relatively narrow tax base and a high statutory tax rate,
the U.S. tax system is uncompetitive and inefficient. The
system distorts choices such as where to produce, what to
invest in, how to finance a business, and what business form
to use. And it does too little to encourage job creation and
investment in the United States while allowing firms to
benefit from incentives to locate production and shift
profits overseas. The system is also too complicated--
especially for America's small businesses.
For these reasons, the President is committed to reform
that will support the competitiveness of American
businesses--large and small--and increase incentives to
invest and hire in the United States by lowering rates,
cutting tax expenditures, and reducing complexity; while
being fiscally responsible.
This report presents the President's Framework for business
tax reform. In laying out this Framework, the President
recognizes that tax reform will take time, require work on a
bipartisan basis, and benefit from additional feedback from
stakeholders and experts. To start that process, this report
outlines what the President believes should be five key
elements of business tax reform.

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S FIVE ELEMENTS OF BUSINESS TAX REFORM

I. Eliminate dozens of tax loopholes and subsidies, broaden
the base and cut the corporate tax rate to spur growth in
America: The Framework would eliminate dozens of different
tax expenditures and fundamentally reform the business tax
base to reduce distortions that hurt productivity and growth.
It would reinvest these savings to lower the corporate tax
rate to 28 percent, putting the United States in line with
major competitor countries and encouraging greater investment
in America.
II. Strengthen American manufacturing and innovation: The
Framework would refocus the manufacturing deduction and use
the savings to reduce the effective rate on manufacturing to
no more than 25 percent, while encouraging greater research
and development and the production of clean energy.
III. Strengthen the international tax system, including
establishing a new minimum tax on foreign earnings, to
encourage domestic investment: Our tax system should not give
companies an incentive to locate production overseas or
engage in accounting games to shift profits abroad, eroding
the U.S. tax base. Introducing a minimum tax on foreign
earnings would help address these problems and discourage a
global race to the bottom in tax rates.
IV. Simplify and cut taxes for America's small businesses:
Tax reform should make tax filing simpler for small
businesses and entrepreneurs so that they can focus on
growing their businesses rather than filling out tax returns.
V. Restore fiscal responsibility and not add a dime to the
deficit: Business tax reform should be fully paid for and
lead to greater fiscal responsibility than our current
business tax system by either eliminating or making permanent
and fully paying for temporary tax provisions now in the tax
code.

The President has proposed eliminating loopholes and special interest
tax deductions in our corporate Tax Code to lower the rate to 25 to 28
percent from 35 percent. American corporations are currently among the
highest taxed in the world. Most of our peer countries tax their
corporations in the 20 to 25 percent range, and capital can flow across
borders, operations of companies in a global economy can flow across
borders. Why would a for-profit company with a fiduciary responsibility
to its shareholders choose to domicile in an area where they have to
pay a 35-percent tax rate when they can pay a 20- or 25-percent tax
rate and also exist in an environment that ensures the surety of law?
What the President's tax reform proposal will do--and many of us on
both sides of the aisle have been calling for similar reforms over the
last several years--is, again, on a revenue-neutral basis remove many
of the special interest tax considerations that were put there by
lobbyists in our Tax Code and bring down the overall rate to 25 to 28
percent so that companies can reinvest in their growth. It tends to be
the more profitable companies, the companies that are therefore paying
corporate tax, that are the highest growth companies.
So it directly affects job creation to say that profitable American
companies should be paying 25 to 28 percent instead of 35 percent,
discouraging them from outsourcing jobs, discouraging them from
domiciling overseas, and also discouraging the improper allocation of
capital through special interest tax breaks in our Tax Code that give
money arbitrarily to everybody from wooden arrow manufacturers to the
oil and gas industry simply because some central planner in Washington
determined that that's where capital should go.
So, again, if we really want a jobs act, let's solve the deficit,
let's reform our uncompetitive business Tax Code, as the President has
indicated; but, yes, let's also move forward with these bills to free
up capital flow for start-ups that will hopefully lead to the next
great American companies.
But by no means should somehow this Congress think that just because
there's some letters that stand for the word ``jobs'' that somehow the
jobs issue is solved or addressed by allowing companies to stay private
with 1,000 instead of 500 shareholders, allowing a few small and mid-
cap companies in the margins to go public because of relaxed Sarbanes-
Oxley requirements. These are great things.
Let's pass this bill. I'm confident it will pass overwhelmingly.
Let's call upon the Senate to pass it. But let's not pretend that this
is some kind of jobs bill for our country or that this, in any way,
shape, or form restores the fiscal integrity of our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill,
the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, which consists of six separate
pieces of legislation: the Access to Capital for Job Creators Act, the
Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act, the Small Company Capital Formation
Act, the Private Company Flexibility and Growth Act, the Capital
Expansion Act and the Reopening American Capital Markets to Emerging
Growth Companies Act.
This package will further American job creation and economic growth
by improving small businesses and startups' access to capital. At the
same time that this bill eases restrictions on capital formation to
help our struggling economy and enhance our nation's global
competitiveness, this bill also maintains necessary protections for
investors. This is exactly the approach long advocated for by President
Obama in his American Jobs Act and in the Startup America Legislative
Agenda. And just yesterday, the President announced his support for the
underlying package. I am pleased that the House leadership has brought
this bill to the floor and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this
bipartisan package.
While I strongly support the passage of the underlying legislation,
make no mistake that the package of bills before us today cannot be
called a comprehensive ``jobs'' bill no matter how you dress it up. Of
the six bills we are considering today, four of these bills have
already been overwhelmingly approved by this body only months ago. And
one of these bills looks remarkably similar to a bill sponsored by my
good friend and Democrat from Connecticut, Mr. Himes, which passed the
House

[[Page H1226]]

420 2 last November. The meat of both the bill before us and Mr. Himes'
bill are identical. The only difference between the two pieces of
legislation is that the bill before us does not require an SEC study of
certain public reporting requirements.
Indeed even the legislation's name is a misnomer. The acronym for the
Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act is not J-O-Bs. A more appropriate
name for this jobs package would be a suspension sandwich.
While this bill lacks the spark to turn around our troubled economy,
it will help raise needed capital to small businesses and startups.
According to the Kauffman Foundation, since 1980, startup firms less
than five years old have created almost 40 million new jobs--the
majority of the new jobs created in this country. Research shows that
90 percent of this job growth occurs after companies go public.
Unfortunately, over the last decade, startups companies are taking more
time than ever before to go public because of certain administrative
and compliance regulations currently in place. The bills included in
the underlying package would put in place reforms that would address
some of the challenges startups face today.
Part of this legislative package includes the Entrepreneur Access to
Capital Act introduced by Representative McHenry. This bill permits
``crowdfunding'' which enables individuals investing up to $10,000 in
small businesses over the internet to pool their funding without
requiring the business to register first with the SEC. By loosening the
current SEC restrictions on crowd funding, this legislation would help
empower entrepreneurs and start ups to pursue their innovative ideas.
The Small Company Capital Formation Act of 2011 would make it easier
for small and medium-sized companies to raise more funds through SEC's
streamlined security offering process, instead of the more complicated
and costly full registration requirements that larger issuances have to
use. This bill, sponsored by Rep. Schweikert, strikes the right balance
between allowing these companies to access capital and maintaining
sufficient investor protections.
The underlying bill also includes the Access to Capital for Job
Creators Act sponsored by Representative McCarthy. This bill would
remove the SEC ban that prevents small privately held companies from
using advertisements to solicit investments for private offerings as
long as the securities are ultimately sold only to ``accredited
investors,'' or sophisticated investors who don't require the SEC's
protection.
In addition, the package before us contains the Private Company
Flexibility and Growth Act. This bill, introduced by Rep. Schweikert,
would raise the requirement for mandatory registration with the SEC for
privately held companies from 500 shareholders to 1,000, expanding
companies' ability to access capital and provide companies with
flexibility in attracting and maintaining employees.
The measure also consists of the Capital Expansion Act, a bill
introduced less than two weeks ago by Rep. Quayle, whose language is
nearly-identical to a bill sponsored by Rep. Himes and passed by this
House under suspension last November. Rep. Quayle's bill--which was
never marked up--would increase the number of shareholders that a
community bank can have before it must register with the SEC.
The only truly new bill before us is the Reopening American Capital
Markets to Emerging Growth Companies Act introduced by Reps. Fincher
and Carney, which I am proud to cosponsor. This bill will help lower
the costs for certain small and medium-sized companies, called
``emerging growth companies,'' to access the public markets. The cost
of ``emerging growth companies'' to go public would be reduced by
phasing in some regulatory procedures including prohibitions on initial
public offering (IPO) communications and independent audits of internal
controls over financial reporting. Importantly, these provisions would
incentivize IPOs while ensuring that as they expand they come into
compliance with these regulations.
Collectively this package is a good first start towards rebuilding
our economy in the medium and long term--but not right now. Even after
these bills are enacted, the SEC must issue new regulations, accredited
investors must start buying these private securities and then startups
and small businesses must do something constructive with that capital
before any jobs are ever created. Realistically, this bill could take
years to produce meaningful results.

Mr. Speaker the underlying package will undoubtedly have a positive
impact on our economy and create a more accessible capital market for
the benefit of small businesses and investors. The legislation we are
considering today will encourage more entrepreneurs to grow businesses
and allow more start-ups to go public and hire more American workers.
But simply labeling it a comprehensive jobs bill does not make it so.
Let's not pull the wool over the American peoples' eyes and make-
believe that we are passing real jobs-stimulating legislation today.
Our number one priority should remain sincere job growth--not just
reconsidering bills previously debated and adopted by this House.
To get serious about growing our economy we should be working
together to pass the President's American Jobs Act which consists of
common sense proposals that have been supported by both parties, such
as modernizing our public schools and investing in our nation's
infrastructure.
Instead of spending time on stale bills, we should be debating real
tax reform legislation. President Obama has put forth a solid business
tax reform plan that would stimulate job creation and investment in the
United States. The Administration's tax plan would reduce the corporate
rate to ensure American companies remain competitive, eliminate
overseas deductions and other tax expenditures and simplify the tax
code. Obama's plan would also strengthen American manufacturing and
innovation, double the deduction entrepreneuers can deduct for start-up
costs and cut certain taxes for small businesses to help them expand
and hire. President Obama's proposal would generate American jobs
without adding to our deficit and demands serious consideration by this
body.
We can also boost our economy by addressing our debt challenges. We
should be considering and enacting a bold and balanced deficit
reduction plan that puts all options on the table. An outline to
achieve comprehensive deficit reduction already exists in the Bowles-
Simpson plan. I urge the Republican Majority to work with Democrats in
the House to find a deficit reduction agreement that can be brought to
this floor for a vote.
For more immediate job creation we need look no further than the
federal highway authorization which is fast approaching down the track
at the end of this month. We desperately need a new federal
transportation bill to put Americans back to work, repair our crumbling
roads and bridges and improve our mass transit systems. Yet Republicans
have struggled for weeks to bring a transportation bill before this
House.
I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work quickly
to bring a bipartisan transportation bill to the floor to assist with
our economic recovery in the very near future.
Passing the underlying bill will put us on the path towards a
fruitful economy. I encourage Republicans to continue further down this
path and bring to the floor the job-creating legislation that the
American people want and deserve.
I strongly support the underlying bill and encourage its passage.
I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would ask Members not to traffic
the well while another Member is under recognition.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman, my friend, Mr.
Polis, for not only coming to our defense and aid in this but also
aiming for things that people all across this country need, and it's
called action by Congress for jobs.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the young
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).
Mr. FINCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas for
yielding and keeping the main theme the main theme--jobs and the
economy. As an original cosponsor to H.R. 3606, the Jumpstart Our
Business Startups Act, I rise in support of this rule.
Since last year, the gentleman from Delaware and I, along with many
members of the Financial Services Committee, have worked in a
bipartisan manner to develop legislation that would enhance job
creation and expand access to capital for America's job creators.
Title I of this bill's legislation I introduced with Congressman
Carney, the Reopening American Capital Markets to Emerging Growth
Companies Act, which will 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. According to
testimony from IPO Task Force Chair Kate Mitchell, from 1990 to 1996,
there were 1,272 U.S. venture-backed companies that went public on U.S.
exchanges during that 6-year time frame.

{time} 1300

However, in 6 years, from 2004 to 2010, there were just 324
offerings.
Even the President's Jobs Council, in its 2011 end-of-year report,
cited that

[[Page H1227]]

the United States ranks 12th now in ease of access to venture capital
behind Israel, Hong Kong, Norway, and Singapore, among others. The
bottom line is that fewer and fewer companies are choosing to go
public, and those that do are not necessarily going public on exchanges
in the United States.
H.R. 3606 would reduce the costs of going public for small and
medium-sized companies by phasing in certain regulatory requirements.
Reducing these burdensome regulations will help small companies raise
capital, grow their business, and create private jobs for Americans.
I have reviewed the amendments made in order by the Rules Committee
to H.R. 3606, and I will be supporting some and opposing others. Also,
the gentleman from Delaware and I will be offering a manager's
amendment which will make some technical improvements to the bill.
I look forward to a lively debate here in this Chamber, and I support
the rule to consider this bill.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member of the Financial Services
Committee.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this is a perfectly nice
bill, but things are sometimes judged in comparison. It is being hailed
as a bigger bill than it is, but that's what happens when you grade on
a curve as we grade on a curve.
One of the great philosophers of the 20th century was a man named
Henny Youngman. One of his philosophical bits of wisdom was expressed
in the question and answer:

How's your wife?
Compared to what?

Well, compared to the output of this House so far, this is a very,
very, very major bill. Compared to our economy in general, it's a good
bill, but of no immediate significance in terms of jobs, and useful for
the future. But as I said, I think it's important just getting pumped
up a little bit so we can avoid here, as a collective body, the charge
that we haven't done anything.
I do have one criticism of the rule, and I had expressed this hope
yesterday and I was frustrated. A number of amendments were made in
order, and I appreciate that, but every single amendment is to be
debated for only 10 minutes. That's unworthy of a deliberative body.
There are important questions here that are involved in these issues.
And if you think these bills are important, then the amendments to them
are important.
Now, that's within the context of support. In most cases, we are
talking about people who support the concept but have some differences
about what should be there. But to say that every amendment gets
debated for only 10 minutes, 5 minutes on each side, is to denigrate
the deliberative function to a point which is of great concern to me.
It is not as if we've been so busy that we couldn't carve out time for
20 minutes or even a half hour of debate. So I regret the dumbing down
of the House, which is represented by saying that no issue will be
debated for more than 10 minutes.
Then I only have one other question of a procedural sort as the
ranking member of the Financial Services Committee. Most of these bills
have been through the committee. There were six bills; four have even
passed the House. Two bills, I was told, were from the committee. But
one of the bills, H.R. 4088, it's got a new sponsor, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Quayle), and we've never seen that in our committee. I've
checked. That bill was introduced February 24 or something. It's never
had a hearing. It's never been through committee. So why are we getting
a bill on the floor now that has never been seen in our committee?
I would yield to the gentleman from the Rules Committee.
Mr. SESSIONS. Well, I'm not seeking recognition, but I would say that
the gentleman from Arizona has a good bill, and I encourage you to read
it.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I have read the bill. But to be
told that we're going to, in a party that says they're devoted to
regular order, bring out a bill--H.R. 4088 has had no committee
consideration whatsoever; the other bills have, the other five. But
it's never been brought up in a hearing; it's never been in
subcommittee; it's never been in committee. The notion that it's a good
bill and therefore should be immune from any committee process is very
discouraging.
This is a bill that's only been in existence for a couple of weeks.
The gentleman says, well, it's a good bill; read it. Well, then I guess
we don't need committees. We don't need to do anything. If it's a good
bill, you read it. But the process is supposed to be one where these
things go through some vetting. So I am disappointed that we have a
rule that brings a bill to the floor that has literally had no
committee consideration whatsoever--brand-new bill, apparently, because
it's got a brand-new sponsor. We've seen nothing like this. There have
been some other bills that we've had, but I've seen no bill from the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle). I've seen no bill like H.R. 4088
that hasn't had a hearing, that hasn't been to committee.
At the same time, the Rules Committee thinks that we can take all
these interesting questions--should there or shouldn't there be an
examination, say, on pay? Is the billion number right?--and debate them
all in only 10 minutes, 5 minutes on each side. That hardly serves the
deliberative process.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I'd say that some Members think the bills
may have more impact than I do. I hope I'm wrong and they have it. But
if you really believe the bills are this important, why then is the
debate only for 10 minutes on every single amendment, on the size, on
the reporting requirements?
We have amendments that have been requested by the North American
Securities Administrators, the State regulators; 5 minutes on the side.
That is hardly a mark of people who take the deliberative process in
the U.S. House of Representatives very seriously.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, just so you know, the gentleman is
correct, and I appreciate his viewpoint of this.
This is a copy of Mr. Quayle's bill right here. It's about one-third
of a page long. It's a good idea that says we're going to increase the
number of people who can invest in a community bank. I hope that should
not require us to have to go back and do too much thinking about how
great this would be. We're trying to perfect, instead of by just having
an amendment, to allow all Members to take part in these things with
their good ideas.
So I do take that what the gentleman said is correct, but good ideas
are part of this bill. That should be what we're about here on the
floor, just as an amendment that may not have gone through.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I wish I could. I'm out of time. I've got a whole bunch
of speakers. But I appreciate the gentleman. He'll have plenty of time.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Sessions, for his
leadership on the Rules Committee and otherwise in this House. I also
want to commend Mr. Fincher from Tennessee for offering this
legislation. It's a very important bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support and speak in favor of the JOBS
Act. What this legislation does is address a key concern that I hear
from my constituents in western North Carolina.
We know that entrepreneurship here in the United States is at a 17-
year low. We also realize that the rest of the world has caught up to
us in terms of their capital markets and business formation. We also
know that small businesses create the majority of new jobs in the
United States. So it's very important for us, in light of the new
regulatory changes that have happened in the last couple of years here
in Washington--the advent of Dodd-Frank that increases the cost of
lending and makes it less available for small businesses, the CARD Act
that makes credit cards less available to the average person who tries
to start their business, like my father did, on his credit card. We
also realize that the regulatory changes, the more, higher red tape
that we have here in Washington makes it

[[Page H1228]]

more expensive to do business here in the United States.
These are major concerns. These are major concerns for my
constituents in western North Carolina.
I want to commend Mr. Fincher for offering the JOBS Act. We've got
some very important pieces of information and policy changes in this
bill.
If you look at the 1990s, we had 530 IPOs, on average, every year. We
had fewer than 65 in the year 2009. We realize that going public is not
the avenue for every business, though the dream of many small business
folks. So an important component of the JOBS Act is a piece of
legislation we passed that I authored here in the House, with the help
of my colleague from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the crowdfunding act,
which allows small businesses to access the capital markets to sell
equity, rather than ask for debt, sell equity in their great start-up
or new idea.
Crowdfunding takes the best of microfinance and crowdsourcing and
uses the power of the Internet for small businesses to have offerings
in their company. Now, it could be used for a tech company, certainly,
to raise up to $2 million, but it could be used for a coffee shop in
Hickory or in Asheville in western North Carolina to raise $50,000 and
sell equity in their business.
These regulatory changes are very important. We have regulations and
laws on the books--the 1933 Securities Act, the 1934 Securities and
Exchange Act--that really were the reaction to the problems and
challenges of their day.

{time} 1310

They put in restrictions in terms of advertising about your security.
Well, that was a problem when the telephone was the new technology of
the day. But we have the power of the Internet, and people are more
informed today than they were 100 years ago about investing. So we're
changing these regulatory structures so that small businesses can get
the capital they need to grow and expand. That's what this is all
about.
It doesn't fix every problem that we face today, but this is a
bipartisan bill. It's a good idea. The President has spoken in favor of
many of the components of this legislation, and we hope, not to simply
pass it out of the House on a bipartisan basis, but to ensure that we
pass it through the Senate and the President signs it.
These are good ideas that can have an impact and help us grow and
create jobs. It helps entrepreneurs. It helps small businesses. Those
folks are the lifeblood of economic growth, and that's what we need to
be focused on.
I urge the adoption of the rule, and ask my colleagues to vote for
passage.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Maloney), an author of key provisions of this bill.
Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and for his
leadership on the Rules Committee.
I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill. It's a
package of bills designed to encourage the growth of smaller companies
and start-ups, and it contains six separate bills, four of which have
already passed this body by overwhelming majorities.
I share the concerns of the ranking member, Mr. Frank, that these 17
amendments that were put in place, adequate time has not been given to
fully debate them.
I do want to take issue with my good friend from North Carolina in
his criticism of the CARD Act, saying that it has made it harder for
Americans to receive cards. This bill that passed this body
overwhelmingly, with Democratic leadership, I was proud to be the lead
sponsor on it, working with all of my colleagues on the Democratic
side. And what it did is it stopped unfair deceptive practices.
Money magazine called this bill the best friend a credit card holder
ever had, and The Pugh Foundation came out with a report earlier this
year saying that this Democratic bill alone saved consumers in our
country $10 billion in 1 year. I would say that's an advantage for
consumers, an excellent goal that was championed by our President and
by the Democratic leadership.
I would like to take issue with this comprehensive jobs agenda. I do
support it, but I think that we should be working on major job-creating
opportunities, such as the transportation bill and the President's Jobs
Act, and these two bills would create half a million jobs. Here we are
repackaging a group of old bills that we've passed before, and it does
not constitute a comprehensive jobs bill.
As I said, four of the six bills have already passed the House with
major support on both sides of the aisle. And I'm disturbed that one
bill was taken from my Democratic colleague, Jim Himes.
I would like to quote The Washington Post. The Washington Post said:

The JOBS Act is not new legislation but is instead a grab
bag of items that have already passed at the committee level
or on the House floor by wide bipartisan votes.

These previously-passed bills make some useful yet modest steps
forward, but they are no substitute for a major job-creating highway
bill or passage of the full American Jobs Act. These bills make modest
changes for start-up companies, making it easier for them to raise
capital through the Internet and the solicitation of accredited
investors, and loosening certain filing and regulatory requirements for
start-ups and small banks.
I would say the prime goal of the Democratic leadership is to
reignite the American Dream by building the pillars of success for
small businesses, our entrepreneurs, and by making our economy
stronger. These bills before us do help in many ways, although they are
not a comprehensive jobs package. It rightly gives smaller companies
and start-ups greater flexibility to grow and flourish.
I urge the adoption of the rule and the underlying bills. I do want
to mention the Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act, which creates a new
exemption from registration for crowdfunding securities. It permits a
company to raise up to $2 million a year, with investors permitted to
invest the lesser of $10,000 or 10 percent of their income annually in
such companies.
I was pleased to work with my colleague, Mr. McHenry, on this bill.
It has a number of others that would reduce the cost of going public,
and would aid in the capital formation for job creation in our country.
I do want to note that the President of the United States, his
administration, is supporting these bills, and I urge passage of them.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from New York makes a good
point about the President's jobs bill, except it picks winners and
losers, and has hundreds of billions of dollars of tax increases that
will continue to kill the free enterprise system, along with the other
administrative things that this President is doing to the free
enterprise system. So this body will not, will not pass hundreds of
billions of dollars of tax increases and then say we're trying to help
people doing that.
The President, I'm sure, is entitled to his own beliefs. We're going
to do the things which work, that empower the free enterprise system.
Speaking of working and empowering the free enterprise system, I
yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), who has
brought great ideas to this bill and they are included in this.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. First, I want to thank my good friend from Texas. I
appreciate him yielding me 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and also the underlying
bill, and I may have somewhat of a unique perspective here. Being on
the Financial Services Committee, we actually started building and
moving these bills and working on them, I think, as early as a year
ago, last March. So almost everything that's in here has been well
vetted, well understood, even down to the amendments and the concepts
and the discussion from the last year.
And why is it important, doing this JOBS Act and bringing it
together, in many ways, as a single piece of legislation? Because
conceptually, they all link together. It is about capital formation. It
is about those small-growth companies that create the next wave of
employment.
Let's face it, this truly is about jobs. It is about economic growth.
The creativity we need in our economy that creates that next generation
of excitement and employment comes from the types of business that need
access to capital, and these are the very ones that this bill moves
forward.
There's also another point that I hope sort of moves universally from
right to left here. I'm one of the believers that capital formation is
going to

[[Page H1229]]

look very different in the future. You know, the old days of you go
find an angel investor, and then you go find VC capital, and then you
go public, are going to look different. Some of this is because of
Dodd-Frank. Some of this is because of what's happened in the
regulatory environment.
And the beauty of this legislation is going to provide opportunity
and options, particularly for those growing employers, those small
companies that want to grow, want to employ in my home district in
Arizona.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, we'll
offer an amendment to the rule to provide that, immediately after the
House adopts this rule, it will bring up Mr. Bishop's bill, H.R. 1748,
the Taxpayer and Gas Price Relief Act and that would simply do it, in
addition to this bill, with broad bipartisan support. I know there is
also broad bipartisan concern about gas prices, a very substantial
issue that many on my side of the aisle, Mr. Bishop included, would
like to do something about so that American consumers have more of
their money to take home.
So to talk about his proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Bishop).

{time} 1320

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado
for yielding.
I rise in opposition to the rule and in support of moving the
previous question. This motion would amend the bill with strong
provisions to stop price gouging at the gas pumps and remove
unwarranted tax subsidies from the Big Five oil companies.
We're long overdue for a serious debate about gas prices. Scoring
political points on this issue serves no one and doesn't solve the
problem.
Here are the facts: domestic production is at an 8-year high; imports
of oil are at a 17-year low; there are more oil and gas rigs drilling
in the United States today than in the rest of the world combined. Let
me say that again: there are more oil and gas rigs drilling in the
United States today than in the rest of the world combined. The number
of oil rigs in operation right now has quadrupled since President Bush
left office. Last year, the U.S. became a net exporter of oil for the
first time in 62 years. Clearly, rising gas prices do not result from a
U.S. supply-driven problem, and this administration cannot be blamed
for doing enough to encourage and to facilitate drilling. Nor is rising
gas prices a U.S. demand-driven problem. Demand is down by 6\1/2\
percent in just 1 year and 17 percent since 2008. There are several
factors that contribute to rising gas prices, but U.S. supply and U.S.
demand are not among them.
Gas prices in the eastern part of my district are up over 60 cents in
a matter of weeks. Rampant speculation accounts for most of that, with
over 60 percent of the market controlled by speculators. The
speculators' overriding goal is profit-taking, which our legislation
targets. Nothing is wrong with profits. They made our Nation strong,
but profits should not be pursued at the expense of middle class
families, nor at the expense of our fragile economic recovery. This
legislation makes sure it doesn't by cutting out speculators. It
strengthens penalties for manipulating the market, which forces up gas
prices and leads to price gouging. The legislation also cuts out
subsidies for Big Oil, and we should reinvest those dollars in a long-
term strategy focused on clean and renewable sources.
Mr. Speaker, our debate should focus on a green-energy policy free of
market speculation and subsidies our Nation can't afford. We must
tackle this problem rather than use it to point fingers and to try to
score political points.
Thus I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and
vote ``no'' on the rule.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a man who I believe
is one of the clearest thinkers in this Congress. He is a person who
studies well, applies logic, and comes out with a deduction for making
things better for people who are not in this town, but rather people
who are the real part of America.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, for his leadership,
and for his gracious esteem.
I rise in support of H. Res. 572, the rule supporting the JOBS Act
and underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, everywhere I go across the Hoosier State, I hear job
creators struggling in this economy, talking to me about the obstacles
to growth, the obstacles to getting this economy moving again for their
business. And again and again, I hear about the weight of Federal red
tape that stands in the way of capital formation, business expansion,
and jobs.
Just today I was talking to a manufacturer in the State of Indiana
who said to me, Mike, the environment in Indiana is very positive. Our
problem is Washington, D.C.
And I was able to report to him that in a bipartisan manner today,
the Congress was going to take a small, but significant, step in
lifting a regulatory burden on capital formation. And that Hoosier,
like I hope all Americans looking in today, was encouraged.
The JOBS Act will actually facilitate capital formation, business
expansion, and growth by lifting the burden from job creators in a
number of ways. It exempts emerging growth companies from certain SEC
regulations; it raises offering thresholds for SEC registration; it
exempts securities issued through innovative crowdfunding sources from
SEC regulation. All of those in plain English mean that we are going to
change the regulatory environment to help start-ups and small
businesses access public markets.
I've always believed throughout more than a decade of working on this
floor that politics is the art of the possible, and today we will not
do everything those of us on this side of the aisle believe that we
should do to jump-start this economy. But we will do what we can do in
a bipartisan fashion in passing this rule and moving the bipartisan
Jumpstart Our Business Startups, or JOBS, Act, H.R. 3606.

On behalf of the hardworking taxpayers in Indiana, on behalf of that
job creator I talked to this morning, I urge my colleagues to come
together today to join us in supporting the JOBS Act. Let's give
entrepreneurs and investors all across this country the incentive and
the regulatory relief they need to get this economy back on track.
Mr. POLIS. I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Texas has
any remaining speakers.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for asking.
We did have one person who we believe is attempting to get here, to
run here; but I would at this time tell you he is not here. So I would
encourage the gentleman to go ahead and close as he would choose, and I
would then do the same.
Mr. POLIS. Thank you.
I will certainly extend the courtesy to the gentleman. If the
gentleman in his closing wants to yield some time to his speaker, I
will not object to that.
Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate that. Thank you very much.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill here today is a good bill, an important bill.
It's not a job solution for our country. It's not a jobs bill. In fact,
I think the frustration of some is that to a certain extent it
represents the spinning of the wheels that has typified this Congress
in that most of these bills have actually already passed this House.
That being said, if packaging them together and passing them again and
trying to put pressure on the Senate to pass it is a constructive step
towards making them law, then let's do it. I think a strong bipartisan
vote of support will help do that. President Obama said he will sign
this bill.
I call upon my colleagues of both sides of the aisle to support these
bills. These bills help free up our capital markets in positive and
constructive ways by allowing small investors the same opportunities as
large investors, allowing companies a little bit more flexibility on
remaining private over who their investors are, allowing small and mid-
cap companies easier access to public marketplaces. This in turn makes
it easier for venture capitalists and angel funders to invest in start-
up companies, knowing that there's a better prospect of an exit should
they succeed at smaller mid-cap stages.

[[Page H1230]]

We all know there's a number of contributing factors to the decrease
in public offerings that have occurred over the last 10 years, a trend
that I think is beginning to reverse. One of those aspects--certainly
not the only aspect--is the excess regulation that we abolish through
this act. Other things include simply the appetite of the capital
markets for public offerings at any given time and other legal and
administrative risks that are not dealt with in this bill that perhaps
call for additional legislation.
This is not by any stretch of the imagination a recovery or a jobs
bill, but these are very constructive steps that, again, cycling our
wheels, yes, we've already passed. We are passing two new ones as well.
Let's package them together; let's put pressure on the Senate to send
them to President Obama's desk where he has said he will sign these
bills.
But let us not, in our effort to continue to push these important
pieces of legislation for capital formation, forget that our country
faces even more important critical risks before us. We need to get
serious about growing our economy, and we need to work hard in a
bipartisan basis to implement real tax reform legislation, tax reform
that would create a more competitive Tax Code, allowing companies to
reinvest in their growth rather than taking their money in an arbitrary
way or encouraging them to distort the economic reality and the
allocation of resources by having certain tax preferences for
industries that may be in or out of favor of government officials.
Let's allow companies to invest in their own growth and encourage
private sector job creation and have real corporate tax reform as the
President has proposed and the chair of the Ways and Means Committee,
Chairman Camp, has proposed and many on both sides of the aisle have
proposed.
I call upon our House to move forward a bill that will fundamentally
make American businesses more competitive and that, Mr. Speaker, we can
call a jobs act.
What else can we call a jobs act? We can call a jobs act doing
something about our national deficit, the fact that the current fiscal
integrity of our Nation is at stake if we do not take action. Over the
next 10 to 15 years, yes, our Nation faces an immense financial crisis.

{time} 1330

We need a balanced approach, a big, bold and balanced approach, as
has been outlined by both the Gang of Six and the Bowles-Simpson
Commission. There are a number of people on both sides of the aisle who
have been calling for real deficit reduction, and yet this House has
not reduced the deficit and has continued to pass and operate, in fact,
under a budget that simply continues these record deficits for the next
10 years.
Providing that certainty around the fiscal integrity of our country--
to allow for long-term borrowing, to ensure that businesses have access
to capital and predictability over time--will, again, do more to create
jobs and grow our economy than will freeing up the capital markets
around a few key areas that these bills accomplish.
So, yes, these bills are an important step in the right direction,
including the only one truly new bill before us--the others have
already been passed by this House. This is a good package, a good
package which is a first start to rebuilding our economy. But even
after they're enacted, there is nothing that instantaneously happens.
They have to be implemented, and credited investors have to start
buying private securities and start-ups. It will be several years
before this can translate into actual job growth, which it will, and
produce meaningful results. Again, corporate tax reform and showing
some interest among this body in actually balancing our budget deficit
would send an indication now to the marketplace that would immediately
lead to job growth.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
previous question into the Record, along with extraneous material,
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McClintock). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to defeat the
previous question.
These are important bills, and I strongly support the underlying
bill. I encourage its passage, and again encourage my colleagues to be
fully aware that, by passing this bill, we are not creating a single
job. Yes, by pressuring the Senate and by getting the bill to Obama's
desk, it can eventually lead to the enhancement of our capital markets
and some job creation, but this doesn't get us off the hook.
Passing this bill and not balancing the budget deficit, as this
Congress is currently doing, as well as passing this bill and not
reforming our Tax Code by making it more in line with the international
standard, is not a recipe for American competitiveness or jobs. In
fact, this bill alone, if it means the absence of balancing our budget
and the absence of making our Tax Code competitive, is just an anti-
jobs bill. You can't bail out a sinking ship. This country needs
fundamental change. We need to balance our budget deficit. We need
corporate tax reform. We need individual tax reform.
I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take those
items up. Yes, it is a small positive measure to help free up capital
flow, particularly for start-ups and small- and mid-cap companies.
Let's pass this jobs bill now. I encourage my colleagues to support the
bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, to hear the gentleman's strong voice, not
only as an entrepreneur before he came to Congress, but in Mr. Polis'
dustup as he speaks in the Rules Committee in which he talks about
America wanting to have a bright future, he is the father of a new
young son, and he looks forward to the day that his son will have a
bright future in this country. I appreciate his words today. He is also
correct that we do not create jobs in this town, as it is the free
enterprise system that does that. Yet with that comes an equal
recognition that this town gets in the way of jobs and job creation.
Our taxes are preparing to be raised. The President, the Democratic
Party are all about raising taxes on entrepreneurs, and people who get
up and go to work every day, and small business, and taking away a Tax
Code that benefits women, in particular married women, with the
marriage penalty, as well as job creation through incentives that might
deal with depreciation. All of these things are part of a pro-growth
jobs package, and unfortunately, this House is not together on that.
This House is having to, as the gentleman Mr. Pence said, make
incremental progress as we move forward.
Mr. Speaker, this body is big enough to be able to recognize that
this country is in trouble. I don't care if you live in Orlando,
Florida, or in Pensacola, Florida, or whether you live in Dallas,
Texas, or whether you live in California. The needs of this great
Nation are about job creation and about ensuring in a competitive
marketplace that we keep jobs, that we have ample credit that's
available, that we have new ideas like we're handling today in this
bill, but that we also go to some old ideas, one of which is, when you
tax companies or when you tax something, you get less of it.
What the President of the United States and the Democratic Party want
to do is to tax America--the free enterprise system--to pick winners
and losers and then try to call that ``new revenue'' to this country
when, in fact, all it does is offset it with higher unemployment.
We need a pro-growth economy. We need a pro-growth agenda from the
United States Congress. It's not just the House but the Senate, also.
We need the President of the United States to understand that his
temptation to talk about economic growth should be about job creation,
not just about picking winners and losers. We need someone who will
bring this country together, not attack our free enterprise system, not
stand up in front of people and say that we can work together but then
not actually become responsible enough to become engaged in legislation
that will pass so that we can make this country stronger.
The Republican Party is here today, leading this bill on the floor.
We've got

[[Page H1231]]

a rule which allows for 17 amendments--13 from Democrats, 3 from
Republicans, 1 bipartisan. Once again, our Speaker, John Boehner, and
the gentleman from California, David Dreier, who is the chairman of the
Rules Committee, are intensely interested in having this House work in
a bipartisan fashion, but making progress for the American people. The
American people expect us and want us to do better. Today is a chance
to work together, pass a bill, put it across the aisle to the Senate,
and ask them to please join us in making life better for Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I hope all of my colleagues support this rule. It's a
great rule. It does the right thing. The underlying legislation is
wonderful, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on
the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 572 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
1748) to provide consumers relief from high gas prices, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority members of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Ways and
Means, and the Committee on Natural Resources. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and
reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then
on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately
after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of
rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of the bill specified in section 2 of this
resolution.
____

(The information contained herein was provided by the
Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
110th and 111th Congresses.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308 311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________