Scott Garrett

Mr. GARRETT

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

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 4168, the Small Business Capital Formation Enhancement Act. I would like to thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Vargas) for their bipartisan work on this bill. I go off script here just to say thank you very much to Mr. Poliquin, who has been a very active member on this committee from the very beginning and has been very active in making sure this legislation has come to the floor today. I thank the gentleman. As I said before, this bill came out of committee, due much in part to the gentleman's work, with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. I believe it was 55-1; so the gentleman just has that one to work on for his next piece of legislation that comes out of committee. Mr. Speaker, Congress created the SEC Government-Business Forum on Small Business Capital Formation--to do what?--to provide a platform to identify unnecessary impediments to small business capital formation and to find ways to eliminate or to reduce them. Each forum seeks to develop recommendations for government and private action to improve and provide the environment for small business capital formation, thereby providing small businesses the opportunity--to do what?--to grow economically and, most importantly, as we have been talking all day, to create more jobs. Unfortunately, the SEC's default position over these several years has been to simultaneously and summarily ignore many of the recommendations made by the various forum participants, which include small businesses, venture capitalists, trade association representatives, accountants, academics, and other small business academics. Despite the claims of which we hear every year from the Commission about the importance of this forum, it seems that the only time the SEC actually implements one of these capital formation agenda items that comes out of it is when Congress tells it to do so. This was certainly the case with several provisions of the JOBS Act, many of which, as one will recall, were original recommendations from that very same forum. I will give two examples. There was the crowdfunding and the Regulation A-Plus provisions of the JOBS Act. They basically mirrored the forum's recommendations years earlier. The Small Business Capital Formation Enhancement Act, which is before us today, provides an answer. It basically provides a simple solution to making the SEC more responsive. It requires the SEC to respond publicly and in writing to each forum recommendation and to simply explain whether it plans to take action on that item or not. It really shouldn't take an act of Congress for the SEC to fulfill its basic capital formation mission. Quite honestly, it shouldn't take an act of Congress for the SEC to simply respond in writing to any of the forum recommendations. Unfortunately, this is the position we find ourselves in today; so we have H.R. 4168, which is the gentleman from Maine's work, which will ensure that the SEC no longer ignores these recommendations and will be able to help fulfill its statutory mission to facilitate capital formation in this country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I have already given him compliments, as many as I am going to give on the floor. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin) because he has been an outstanding member of the committee and is the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2209) to require the appropriate Federal banking agencies to treat certain municipal obligations as level 2A liquid assets, and for other purposes.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on this bill.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 2209. I will begin by thanking the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer) for all of his hard work on this legislation and his leadership as well, with pulling it through and getting it done right here at the beginning of this legislative year, and being a leader on this bill as well. On the other side of the aisle, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) for working together with Mr. Messer in a very bipartisan manner, which, as we have noted, has been on each and every one of the bills that we have presented today in that manner. Their efforts culminated in the committee, favorably reporting this bill by a vote of 56 to 1. So, as I have said to Mr. Poliquin before, you have only one Member to go to get unanimous consent going forward. Mr. Speaker, given the problems posed by insufficient liquidity during the past financial crisis, Federal regulators issued a final rule back in 2014 to implement something called liquidity coverage ratio, or LCR. That was being done consistent with something called the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision's standards. The LCR was established on the premise that banks should have enough cash or assets that would be liquid enough when they needed them--and that would be defined as high-quality liquid assets, or HQLAs--and that we would have to have them on hand for 30 days if their usual sources of short-term funding would simply disappear. It goes without saying, when you think about this, that anytime that the government steps in, or anytime you have a government agency favoring this type of asset over this type of asset through some sort of regulation in which they did it, you are going to end up with what? You are going to end up with basically unintended and undesirable consequences. That is what has happened here. Not surprisingly, critics of the LCR have complained that the stock of HQLAs is defined way too narrowly, which could adversely impact the asset classes that we are talking about. So investment-grade municipal securities, on the other hand, if you look at them closely--more than we could do right here on the floor right now--they basically share the same liquidity characteristics of other HQLAs. And that is what Mr. Messer basically is trying to address with this great piece of legislation. Other HQLAs, such as corporate bonds and equity securities, have the basic same characteristic here as far as liquidity goes. Yet, the prudential regulators, what do they do? They put them in one pile and excluded them from the final LCR. While the Federal Reserve has acknowledged this problem and they acknowledge the fault in excluding municipal securities from this definition of HQLAs, the Federal Reserve's rule would only apply to the bank holding company's municipal securities and not the national banks, where more of these municipal securities are held. Paul Kupiec, who is over at the American Enterprise Institute, in testimony before our committee back in October of last year on the bill, said it ``is appropriate and consistent with the public interest. There is no reason why high quality liquid bonds issued by the U.S. States and municipalities should receive a lower standing than foreign sovereign debt with equivalent (or even lesser) credit quality and market liquidity.'' Think about that for a minute. We are basically, under the current situation, treating our municipalities and U.S. securities at a lower standard than foreign such securities, and we know how they have prevailed in the last year or so. With that in mind, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2209, and the hard work of Mr. Messer, as well, in this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer), the sponsor of this piece of legislation.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I want to thank Members on both sides of the aisle. I thank all the sponsors of not only this legislation, but all the legislation that we have had on the floor for the last hour here. I was just thinking as this was wrapping up about what we will see when we leave here and look in the newspaper tomorrow and see what sort of media coverage Washington will get as to what we did on our first day back. There is always a hue and cry saying that Washington is broken, there is no bipartisanship, and they are not passing any legislation to create jobs and trying to get the economy going again. You hear about that in the media all the time. As a matter of fact, you actually hear it on the floor, with many Members coming down here saying that this House has not passed a single jobs creation bill in so many days, weeks, months, and years, or what have you. Well, let it be known today that we worked here in a bipartisan manner, first in subcommittee, the full committee, and now here in the House. We have four pieces of legislation. I know that some of the legislation may have mind-numbing terminology and you may scratch your head when you are talking about the liquidity coverage ratios, the credited investors, LCRs, and all those sort of things. You might say: Well, what does that have to do with the job creation? What does that have to do with infrastructure creation? What does that have to do with getting a new roof on my local school or a bridge built in my town? What does that have to do with helping my neighbor actually get a job when he has been out of work for a period of time? What does that have to do with somebody in my family who is in a job right now, but no opportunity for advancement and no pay raise for a long period of time? These bills on the floor today have everything to do with all those issues. As we pass these job creation bills in a bipartisan manner, let the word go out that we are doing exactly what the American public asked Congress to do: to work together, get it done, get the infrastructure in this country growing again, get the economy going again, and create jobs again. That is why it is important to say thank you again to both sides of the aisle, and I encourage a ``yes'' vote on all four of these bills today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to today to recognize the efforts of the Israeli hospitals and medical teams treating the Syrians injured as a result of their country's continued violence. Numerous Syrians travel to the Israeli border in their hour of need, and in an act of compassion Israeli hospitals have provided lifesaving medical treatment. Medical teams along the Syrian and Israeli border treat these Syrians in field hospitals, and those requiring more intensive medical treatment are transferred to one of four hospitals. Among the victims treated by these hospitals are innocent children who have been gravely injured by the violence. These heroic efforts may seem inconceivable considering the longstanding conflict between the two nations. However, these Israeli hospitals demonstrate that by welcoming Syrians in need humanity trumps politics and hostility. The impact of this generosity goes beyond that of medical treatment. As one doctor from the Ziv Medical Center stated, the compassion shown by the Israeli medical teams is ``planting the seeds of peace.'' In an area of the world that has been plagued by violence and destruction, the assistance provided by these hospitals offers a beacon of hope. It is my hope that the seeds of peace will grow and that future generations may live amongst each other, no longer in hostility, but in solidarity and friendship.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, it was just back in 2013, the CFPB, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, issued something called a bulletin. What did it do? It tried to eliminate auto dealer discounts, essentially helping consumers, on the grounds that these discounts create a fair credit risk. Now, there are two major problems with what they did. First, the CFPB's actions will actually raise costs, raise credit costs for families--these very same families that are having a tough time, as it is, in this economy because this is a bad economy right now--and make it harder for these family to purchase a car. Secondly, the CFPB's action is expressly prohibited by law from regulating auto dealers by the authorizing statute in Dodd-Frank. You see, the CFPB acted behind closed doors, without any transparency or input from the general public that they are supposed to be protecting, to circumvent, to go around the law, and found an indirect way to alter an industry that the CFPB is prohibited by law from doing. If that is not the very definition of an out-of-control agency, I don't know what it is. Mr. Chairman, it is time that we defend the rule of law in this country and defend transparent government against these unaccountable bureaucrats down the street at the CFPB. That is why I am proud to sponsor the Reforming CFPB Indirect Auto Financing Guidance Act. And by doing so, by repealing their improper, unlawful actions and denying the ability to provide dealers discounts, denying the ability to provide them the discounts to the customers, and requiring a transparent process for all future actions, this bill will preserve the consumers' ability to get a discounted auto rate and preserve the ability to adhere to the principles of open, honest, transparent, lawful government. So I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 1737.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. I thank the chairman and I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga) for all of their hard work to bring greater transparency to one of the most secretive agencies in the government, the Federal Reserve. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, Fed Chair Janet Yellen said: ``The Federal Reserve is already one of the most transparent central banks around the globe.'' Really? If that were the case, why is it we have seen the following headlines in the last few years: March of last year, Forbes, ``Fed on Target to Raise Interest Rates in Spring of 2015''; then in October, ``Two Fed Officials Say Interest Rates to Rise in Mid-2015''; then in The Wall Street Journal just last month, ``Fed Doubts Grow on 2015 Rate Hike''; and then just 2 weeks later in The Wall Street Journal, ``Fed Keeps December Rate Hike in Play.'' So which is it? Mr. Chairman, a simple Google search on the subject pulls up a range of headlines on this topic all pointing to one fact: There is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to how the Federal Reserve actually conducts its own monetary policy. So the bottom line is the Fed needs to follow a rule when conducting monetary policy, and this bill, H.R. 3189, gives the Fed that flexibility to develop and implement its own rule as it sees fit and then simply to report to Congress and the public, should it find the need to deviate from it. And this will then do what? It will give us greater economic certainty and moves us away from what we have seen, a Fed guessing game that we have all become too used to. More troubling than all this, more troubling than the monetary policy, however, is the lack of transparency and accountability and openness surrounding their regulatory function. Despite the Fed's failure to prevent the crisis in 2008, despite their failure to even see it coming, the Dodd-Frank Act bestowed upon the Fed tremendous new regulatory authority, authority that it is now using to try and regulate huge swaths of the financial system, and what they are really trying to do is to stamp out all risk taking, if you will, in our capital markets. The Fed fails to conduct any cost-benefit analysis of the rulemaking in that, and it has conspired, if you will, with various secretive international bodies, like the FSB, the Financial Stability Board, in so doing to try to rewrite the rules, if you will, to the detriment of who? Well, the American capital markets. So before us today is the FORM Act, which would do what? It would shine the light of day, if you will, on the Fed's regulatory operations, so that all of us, the American public, can see actually what the powers are up to. So now more than ever we need transparency and accountability in the Federal Reserve. I thank the chairman, and I thank the sponsor of the bill for moving the underlying bill.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. In June of this year, after 81 years of doling out taxpayer-funded welfare for megacorporations, the American people said enough, and Congress let the Export-Import Bank expire. Yet, today, through a little known and little used legislative maneuver being used to circumvent the will of the American people, they are resurrecting this fund for corporate welfare. The Export-Import Bank transformed the role of government from a disinterested referee in the economy into a biased actor that uses your taxpayer dollars to tilt the scales in favor of its friends, and it mocks the American Dream by making victims of the startups that dare to compete. If we promoted responsible government policies, responsible budget policies, expanded free markets, lowered and simplified the income taxes, and repealed onerous regulations, American businesses would thrive in the global markets. But none of that is on the table today on what we are about to consider. Instead, the proposal before us is the resurrection of a bank that embodies the corruption of the free enterprise system. Yes, we have the opportunity today to save capitalism from cronyism. Yes, we have the opportunity to protect the American taxpayer and the American Dream and to preserve free enterprise. We have the opportunity today to keep the Export-Import Bank out of business. We should take each of those opportunities.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. I thank Mrs. Wagner as well. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Labor's fiduciary rule is built upon faulty assumptions, faulty analysis, and faulty understanding basically of how the retirement system actually works in this country. It is really consistent with other policies of this administration. This rule will have a disparate impact and a negative impact upon middle class Americans and minorities in this country, many of whom will find it difficult, if not impossible, to receive guidance from a financial professional for their retirement. This is not me saying this. The Department of Labor's own analysis shows that investors who do not work with a professional will risk making mistakes that cost them up to $100 billion. So today, Mr. Speaker, Congress has an opportunity to stand up on behalf of struggling American families and support this legislation. We have proof to show that this legislation really is necessary because we had folks coming to Washington to testify about it who supported the DOL rule. They said do not worry. They said that, if the traditional brokerage firms can't live with a simple fiduciary standard and refuse to serve modest savers, so be it. Other financial professionals such as them on and off the Web who embrace the client- first approach stand ready to help Americans prepare for a secure retirement. Well, that was Rebalance IRA. Someone went to that company, a modest American, and said, ``Will you service us?'' This was their response: ``If you have scheduled a call with us, I want you to be aware that, as much as we would enjoy discussing your retirement goals, until you have at least $100,000 in a retirement account, our service at this time is not really the best solution for you. Our fees will absorb too much of your investment return, which runs counter to our mandate to help you to retire.'' So, Mr. Speaker, the very same people who say the system will work under the DOL guidelines prove that, when people of modest means-- Americans who are simply trying to scrape by each week and each month and put a little bit away--will not have that investment advice which their very own Department of Labor says is necessary to get by and to fulfill the American Dream. The Retail Investor Protection Act will restore regulation to the market to where it belongs: with the SEC. It will prevent the Department of Labor from worsening the retirement savings crisis that our country is facing. I say support the American Dream. Support this legislation.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I guess we have a new definition. We just heard that the CFPB has streamlined things for local banks. I guess this is Washington's version of streamlining regulations: 1,888 pages. My gosh. So I come to the floor today to commend the chairman of the committee and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) for moving this legislation before us, H.R. 3192, and for Members on both side of the aisle who have supported this type of legislation as well. Let us understand what this legislation does not do. It does not remove any authority from the CFPB to take enforcement actions against bad actors under the new Integrated Disclosure rules. Secondly, it does not remove any kind of incentives for lenders to comply with the new rule. So I think it is important that we recognize what it does not do, despite some of the claims that we are hearing from the other side of the aisle. So what does the bill do? It simply provides a grace period, if you will, for lenders, your local bankers, if you will, who act in good faith to comply with this 1,888-page simplification of the new rules that the CFPB has put out there. I think it is ironic that the CFPB took over 1,800 pages of rulemaking authority and analysis and all the time, yet the agency is unwilling to provide the lenders--your local banks, if you will--a brief period in order to comply with all the rigamarole, the red tape, the technology, the compliance for them to get up to speed on this. Clearly, the length of the rulemaking suggests it was a complicated project for the CFPB. It took them a long time to complete it. So why are they not willing to in writing basically say: Here, you folks, you local bankers, you also will have the same leniency as well? This is a very straightforward and simple bill. It is intended to provide a brief, 4-month grace period for your banks, lenders that act in good faith to comply, nothing more, nothing less. At the end of the day, who are we really helping here? No. It is not the bankers. It is not the lenders. Really, who we are really helping is all the American people who are trying to get a loan, who are trying to go and get financing. Those are the people that this legislation would help.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1525) to require the Securities and Exchange Commission to make certain improvements to form 10-K and regulation S-K, and for other purposes.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the chairman of the Financial Services Committee--that would be the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling)--for his leadership in helping to bring a number of bills, as we have just seen, to the floor today. I would also like to thank all of my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee from both sides of the aisle--obviously, both sides--because they have voted unanimously, voted the Disclosure Modernization and Simplification Act out of committee not just once, but twice, when you include passage last year as well. I would also like to add this legislation passed the House of Representatives by voice vote in December of 2014. So you ask what is the purpose of this bill, and why is it necessary. Well, Mr. Speaker, look, if you step back about eight decades ago, Congress made the monumental decision in this country that disclosure, opening up, and transparency would be the centerpiece of our Nation's securities law. See, instead of carving out or creating a merit review system where the Federal Government determined which companies we were allowed to put our money into, Congress wisely went down the other road and decided that those decisions would be best made where? Left in the hands of the people, in the hands of the investors themselves, so long as they were provided with a sufficient level of disclosure from publicly traded companies. Unfortunately, over the last eight decades since the securities laws were first put in place, the quarterly and annual reports filed by the public companies have grown, and they have grown in size tremendously, larger and more complex than ever, to the point where now the most sophisticated of investors have trouble understanding even the most basic operations and risks of these companies. This has come to be known as the phenomenon of information overload. So to put this in perspective, a recent article in the Wall Street Journal noted that the average annual report from public companies is now 42,000 words, a 40 percent increase just from the year 2000 alone and even longer than the entire Sarbanes-Oxley bill that passed Congress in 2002. Another recent report out of Stanford University found that only 38 percent of institutional investors view disclosures about executive compensation as ``easy to understand.'' So, if you think about it, if the majority of institutional investors can't understand the disclosure, what chance does the little guy, the mom-and-pop investor, have to understand all this? They, of course, have very little chance and can even be harmed by the disclosures that too voluminous and complex reports show. As then-SEC Commissioner Troy Paredes put it way back in 2013, ``If investors are overloaded, more disclosure actually can result in less transparency and worse decisions, in which case capital is allocated less efficiently and market discipline is compromised.'' So what would our bill do today? It would rectify the situation. How? One, it would require that the SEC eliminate any outdated or duplicative disclosure requirements that are not material to investors and, furthermore, to scale disclosures for emerging growth companies and small issuers. Two, it will allow issuers to file a summary page of their annual report that will include simply cross-references to the material already included. Three, it would require the SEC to produce a broad study on how best to, amongst all the other things, utilize technology in order to improve delivery and presentation systems for disclosure and, also, a requirement that the SEC commence a rulemaking in order to implement some of these ideas that come out of the study. You see, these provisions will help our disclosure regime of the 21st century while at the very same time address the issue of information overload that I mentioned before. If you go back, as part of the JOBS Act, Congress directed the SEC to review its existing disclosure requirements, and it was told to identify ways to make our current disclosure regime less burdensome for issuers and for people as investors. While the SEC produced a report a few years ago--2013--that identified a number of obsolete things and duplicative requirements that could be addressed, unfortunately, the agency has yet to act upon them, this despite an ongoing disclosure effectiveness review that has so far only produced a concept release. So, at the end, it is important that this Congress come here today and act on behalf of all the American investors, all the people in this country, in order to keep the original intent of our securities laws relevant today and ensure that the effective disclosure remains this very centerpiece of the capital markets. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for working with us today and also working with us over the last several years as well, trying to move this along. As you have said and I have said, this is one of those proverbial commonsense pieces of legislation. If anyone got confused by all the technical terms that you and I used here, at the end of the day, it means, whether you are a sophisticated institutional investor or whether you are a mom-and-pop-type investor or if you are something in between, you just want to have clarity, you just want to understand what all these voluminous, hundreds-of-pages annual reports and quarterly reports are. That is what our bill does. It just makes it a little bit simpler and then directs the SEC to go even the step further to develop other ways to do so as well. So I look forward to passing this out of this House now for the third time, I believe, send it over to the Senate and, hopefully, get some action in the Senate and put it on the President's desk. I encourage Members from both sides of the aisle, once again, out of the House and to the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1839) to amend the Securities Act of 1933 to exempt certain transactions involving purchases by accredited investors, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on this bill.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to again commend the sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), who just joined us, for all of his work on this bill and the earlier bills as well and for his continued work on capital formation issues. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the JOBS Act of 2012 has been a tremendous success, a huge success, for the American public and the public marketplace. The number of companies that have gone public has risen dramatically ever since the barriers to capital formation that existed for several years have been lifted, if you will, helping to make our capital markets more attractive to companies and investors in the United States and all around the world as well. But the JOBS Act also did something else, somewhat ironically. It included a number of provisions that helped companies to stay private for a longer period of time. You see, these provisions have allowed pre-IPO companies to expand their investor base, if you will, and have allowed them to open up the doors to capital that were previously shut out to them. But, you see, as these companies raise more capital and as these companies issue more shares to investors, it can become even more difficult and even more costly for shareholders to find a willing buyer or to exit their position in that company. That is what this bill is all about. That is where H.R. 1839, the RAISE Act, would come in. The RAISE Act would build upon the success of the JOBS Act of 2012 by creating an environment, if you will, where restricted securities of pre-IPO companies can be traded in a more liquid secondary market, which then could ultimately have the effect of lowering the cost of capital for businesses. So the RAISE Act does this how? By codifying the longstanding exemption developed by the courts, the SEC, and the securities laws that would provide a means for the resale, if you will, of these private restricted securities. Now, for those just listening here, this sounds a little bit technical. Maybe it sounds a lot technical to be effective. But, really, it is a simple fix that could ultimately have the effect of helping literally thousands of businesses all across this country to do what? To raise more capital and put it to use, put it to use to innovating or to hiring more employees. That is at the end of the day exactly the type of bipartisan solution our constituents are calling on Congress to implement. I urge all of my colleagues, again, on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT. Again, I thank the gentlewoman from New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Again I thank the gentlewoman from New York for her support on this and the prior legislation, and I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. When the gentleman from North Carolina makes a reference to the regulations of 4(1)(\1/2\), then you know there is something wrong out there that there are just too many obscure regulations that are holding back and being impediments to our capital markets. The gentleman from North Carolina also came up with the right summation of this. It is a technical bill to deal with all of these absurdities and technicalities just to make it easier for people to be able to start a business, grow a business, sell a business, hire employees, grow capital formation and the number of employees in this country as well. With that being said, I look forward to strong, bipartisan support, as we have seen in the past on this type of legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.