[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3026-3036]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 3027]]

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 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

[[Page 3028]]

to advertise for the purpose of soliciting capital from potential 
investors. In other words, this was not allowed by law. Small companies 
that have great ideas need the opportunity to advertise in the 
marketplace and have people see that there are good ideas. Kevin 
McCarthy is right.
  A bill from Congressman McHenry from North Carolina would allow what 
is called crowdfunding for initial public offerings under $1 million. 
In other words, it opens up the ability to gather more capital to come 
in. And Congressman McHenry is right, we need to utilize market-based 
solutions, and we need to make it legal.
  There are two bills from Congressman Schweikert from Arizona: one 
that would allow more businesses to go public, gathering investment and 
growth, and a second bill which raises the threshold number of 
shareholders required from mandatory Securities and Exchange Commission 
registration for all companies.
  And finally, there is a bill by Congressman Quayle from Arizona which 
increases the threshold number of shareholders permitted to invest in 
community banks; in other words, bringing more investors to an 
important part of our economy, and that is called community banks, 
banks that exist for the purpose of trying to make our communities, 
local communities, stronger and better.
  The banks and small businesses of the district which I represent, the 
32nd Congressional District of Texas, which is primarily Dallas, 
Richardson, Addison, and Irving, Texas, consistently describe to me 
about how they have an inability to raise capital investment, not due 
to a lack of willing investors, but as a result of burdensome 
regulations that are placed on them by the Federal Government. 
Oftentimes we discuss the need for the SEC limit on individual 
investors, and we know that it restricts their ability to raise funds 
through community participation in local business creation. I am proud 
to tell them now that, as a result of this bill today and the 
legislation included, help is on the way.
  These important changes not only provide businesses with the 
necessary ability to expand, but also they provide individuals with new 
mechanisms to invest and grow with their own personal assets in 
companies that they know best.
  The rules adjusted in the underlying bill have proven restrictive to 
economic growth, so we've got to adjust these problems in the 
marketplace and come up with new and creative ideas. We must push these 
constructive proposals without political delay. This is why Members of 
this body, including, I believe, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Polis), support this bill. The reason why we can work together is to 
make sure we push constructive ideas that are good for people back 
home.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation is still in crisis. We do not have enough 
jobs. We are in a dwindling marketplace because of the excessive number 
of rules and regulations that have been passed by prior Congresses. 
With unemployment persistently over 8 percent, we cannot continue the 
failed policies of government spending, rules, and regulations, and the 
inability to pass laws that help job creation to overcome these 
problems. The underlying bill will do exactly that. It will help foster 
not only an environment, but provide the underpinning through law that 
will allow the private sector to more fully participate.
  The future success of our economy rests in the hands of small, 
private business, not the Federal Government. What we are doing today 
is unleashing their potential so that they can focus on the things that 
they do best. This is part of having a Republican majority: pro 
business, pro economic development for jobs, the formation of capital, 
and the ability for American entrepreneurship to flourish. The result 
is going to be an economic environment that promotes growth and 
generates more revenue for the Federal Government.
  I am delighted not only to be on the floor once again talking about 
economic growth, but once again trying to act as a soundpiece for the 
American people who are asking the United States Congress to please 
understand the plight that we are in, to please help work on what will 
help the free enterprise system job creation.
  So today as we are on the floor, we offer a hearty reminder to the 
American people that there are people who get what this is about. 
That's partially why this Republican majority has been and will 
continue to be successful. We will push for reform, a pro-growth 
environment, and the opportunity to help people back home, instead of 
with a handout, to give them the ability to do things on their own.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this fair rule, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  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

[[Page 3029]]

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 SCC 
from 500 to 1,000. This is very important because many companies use 
stock options, which is a good practice. It gets the employees to own 
part of the company, to own part of the fruits of their labor, and to 
have some of the upside on the equity. But companies have effectively 
been limited on this because once they have 500 shareholders, they're 
forced to file as public. So we're allowing them to stay private 
longer, as the need fits them, and not have to scale back on their 
option policy with their employees. Inevitably, some of those options 
get exercised, and employees become outright owners over time. This 
would prevent them from being forced into a backdoor IPO.
  In addition, we, again, allow community banks to raise additional 
capital. We remove some of the requirements around that. Community 
banks are important lenders in our community; and that's an important 
step, as well, towards allowing capital to flow more freely.
  So, in sum, the several bills, most of which have already passed this 
House, that we are packaging in the JOBS Act, this act that we're doing 
here today, are good bills that will free up the capital markets. And, 
yes, in the medium and long term, there will likely be some jobs 
created, because where will that capital go? It will flow to businesses 
that will encourage job growth. This is not something that happens 
overnight, but this is something that happens as a fruit of the 
investment. Some of these start-ups that are funded through 
crowdfunding might, in fact, be employers of 1,000 people in 5 years or 
10 years. And that's what's so exciting about the potential of these 
mechanisms to create value in the economy.
  But what are we not doing? And what would be a real jobs bill? In my 
opinion, there's really several things that are holding back our 
private sector recovery. First and foremost is our budget deficit and 
the questions about the fiscal integrity of this country. This Congress 
continues to avoid taking action on a default scenario under which debt 
as a percentage of GDP would rise from about 70 percent where it is now 
to about 200 percent of our GDP by 2040, a far worse situation than 
many of the fiscally beleaguered nations in Europe that are currently 
undertaking bailouts.
  This is widely known on both sides of the aisle, and, in fact, the 
solution is widely known, as well. There are several that have been 
presented. There's a bipartisan group that emerged from the Senate, 
including Democrats and Republicans, that proposed a plan to reduce the 
deficit as a percentage of GDP down to 1.9 percent by 2021. There's 
been a similar effort on behalf of the Bowles-Simpson Commission, 
again, to rein in fiscal spending so that debt as a percentage of GDP 
would be 35 percent instead of 200 percent by 2040.
  This Congress has not advanced either and, in fact, quite to the 
contrary, has passed an operational budget that only serves to continue 
these deficits through the next 10 years. Again, giving fiscal 
certainty around the integrity of our Nation would do a lot more to 
free up capital and improve the flow of capital and credit markets and 
create jobs than these relatively minor, but still important, bills 
that we're considering here today.
  The other reform that would create a lot more jobs in this bill, and 
I think would better be called a Jobs Act, if they could come up with a 
fancy acronym for it, is business tax reform.
  I'd like to submit to the Record a recent report from the White House 
and the Department of the Treasury on a framework for business tax 
reform.


                              Introduction

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


         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

[[Page 3030]]

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 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.


                                 Close

  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.

[[Page 3031]]

  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 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.

[[Page 3032]]


  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 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

[[Page 3033]]

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 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

[[Page 3034]]

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. 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.
  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--

[[Page 3035]]

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 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.

[[Page 3036]]

       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.

                          ____________________