Jeb Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING

Mr. HENSARLING. In that case, I will yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).

Mr. HENSARLING. May I inquire of the Chair how much time I have remaining.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, we've had a vigorous debate over some amendments that were accepted, others that we thought were unwise. Frankly, this one, Mr. Chairman, we believe would simply gut the entire bill. You know, Mr. Chairman, you cannot sue your way into job growth. You are not going to be able to sue your way into economic growth. This amendment takes us a huge, huge step in the opposite direction. The practical impact of the amendment from the gentlelady from California is to essentially squash any of the reporting that would take place on these emerging growth companies for imposing the prospectus level of liability imputed to the communications of the research reports. I mean, in order to get onto this IPO on-ramp in order for the small growth companies to access our equity market, there has to be the research which is published. Without it, without it, the accredited investors will probably never know of the existence of the companies in the first place. I would point out that many of the concerns should have already been addressed. Number one, all these emerging growth companies are still liable for the Global Research Analyst Settlement of 2003, which established a comprehensive set of rules that sever the link between investment banking and research activities, section 501 of Sarbanes-Oxley, which requires the research analysts and broker-dealers to disclose all potential conflicts of interest, Regulation AC, stock exchange-listing standards, FINRA codes of conduct, and the list goes on and on and on. And so again, Mr. Chairman, to add yet another level of liability, one that we are told would simply have an incredibly dampening impact on the existence of these research reports, for all intents and purposes this would simply gut the bill. I suppose it would be an early evening in the House if we accepted it, but everything that Members of both sides of the aisle have worked for would be for naught. Again, if this was a concern of the administration, why wasn't it listed in their Statement of Administration Policy where they always list their concern? The President would like to see this passed. We would like to see it passed. There is bipartisan support in the Senate. I would urge a strong rejection of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, every single regulation imposes some type of financial burden on a company that cannot be used to create a job. If this was a concern, why don't we find it listed in the Statement of Administration Policy. It's not a concern of the President. Let's work together and pass this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).

Mr. HENSARLING. I yield myself 10 seconds just to say that President Reagan once said there's no limit to what the American people can achieve if they don't mind who gets the credit. We seem to hear the ranking member say, if I and my friends can't take credit, we're going to pick up our toys and go home. All of us can take credit if we will support the JOBS Act. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), the chair of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides, please?

Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentlelady for her responses. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. I have one other question for the gentlelady. On the 3-year period, I'm just curious as to the thought or purpose behind that particular selection of a 3-year period. I'd be once again be happy to yield to my friend, the gentlelady from Texas.

Mr. HENSARLING. I'm inquiring as to the perceived deficiency in the underlying bill that you seek to address with your amendment, and I would be happy to yield to my friend from Texas.

Mr. HENSARLING. I'm not, frankly, certain I'm in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment, and I appreciate her bringing it to the floor. If she would yield for a question, I'm just trying to understand the purpose of her amendment, and what is the deficiency in the underlying bill that she seeks to address with this amendment would be that question. I would be happy to yield to the gentlelady.

Mr. HENSARLING. I claim time in opposition.

Mr. HENSARLING. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to claim the time in opposition, although I'm not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. HENSARLING. I want to commend, again, the gentleman from Tennessee and the gentleman from Delaware for this amendment that I believe helps improve the underlying amendment with some technical corrections. I would urge all Members to adopt it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment; although I'm not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HENSARLING. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to yield exactly that 1 minute to the prime author of the JOBS Act, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. HENSARLING. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Madam Chair, again, jobs and growing the economy is what our constituents care about. Again, we are unfortunately and regrettably in the midst of the slowest and weakest recovery in the postwar era. And, in fact, many of my constituents, they don't feel the recovery. They don't see it. They still know many of their friends, neighbors, and family members remain unemployed. That's why the number one priority of House Republicans has been to grow this economy and create more jobs. That is why House Republicans have a plan for America's job creators. Now, Madam Chair, it's very difficult, very difficult, to find common ground in this institution, as we all know. Regrettably, the vast majority of these bills are stacked up like cordwood in the United States Senate. They won't take them up. We've tried many of the President's ideas. For 2 years we tried every single one of his ideas. We tried the stimulus program, which helped stimulate the national debt to the level it is today. We tried the President's health care plan that we were told would help grow jobs and the economy. Dodd-Frank, our financial institutions--the big get bigger, the small get smaller, and the taxpayer gets poorer. We disagreed with those policies, and so we have tried to find common ground. We heard the distinguished minority whip lament that the bill didn't do more. This is the common ground we can find with our friends on the other side of the aisle. It's important. It's not as important as repealing the President's health care program, which is absolutely strangling our small businesses. It's not as important as turning back so much of the red tape that impacts every single small business in America by enacting the REINS Act to ensure that Congress, not the unelected bureaucracy, controls whether or not we impose job-killing regulations on our small business enterprises. But it's still an important bill nonetheless. It's a bill that will allow these emerging growth companies, again, perhaps the Googles of tomorrow and the Apples of tomorrow, to be able to access vital equity capital. And so it's an important piece of legislation. I wish it did more. I wish my friends from the other side of the aisle would acknowledge that we have tried many of their partisan ideas, and they haven't worked. But here's at least a bipartisan idea where we have worked with the President. We have his support right here--right here--Madam Chair, where the President of the United States supports this legislation. So I'm happy that at least one portion of the House Republican plan for America's job creators stands a very good chance of being turned into law and that the American people will see that we continue to work to find that common ground. So I'm happy, again, to be able to encourage my colleagues to support this today. I look forward to the day that the President can sign this into law. At this time, Madam Chair, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, at this time, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the vice chairman of the Capital Markets Subcommittee, one of the prime authors of this bill, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).

Mr. HENSARLING. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, again, when we add in those who want full-time work and yet have part-time work, those who have given up and have left the labor force, those who have been unemployed for weeks and months on end, we know that the true unemployment rate in America is, regrettably, close to 15.3 percent. Jobs is the number one concern, jobs and the economic growth of the American people, and it has to be our number one concern as well. And as ever well-intentioned as the gentleman from Minnesota's amendment is, it is not one particular regulatory burden; it is the cumulative impact of them all that is inhibiting job growth in America today. Anytime I talk to small business people in the Fifth District of Texas, which I have the honor and privilege of representing, and whether I'm talking to small business people or, frankly, to Fortune 50 CEOs, this is what they tell me: it is the government red tape. Now, it doesn't mean all regulation is bad, but we have to look at the cumulative impact, particularly in the midst of what our constituents view as a crisis. John Mackey, cofounder and CEO of Whole Foods Market: In some cases, regulations have gone too far, and it really makes it difficult for small businesses. There's too much bureaucracy and red tape. Taxes on businesses are very high. So we're not creating the enabling conditions that allow businesses to get started. Again, on a bipartisan piece of legislation that is supported by the President of the United States, most of the provisions have been overwhelmingly supported either on the House floor or in the Financial Services Committee. Regrettably, the gentleman from Minnesota's amendment takes a huge step backwards and makes it more difficult for these emerging growth companies to get started. Now, I understand his particular concern on Say on Pay, but I would note that emerging growth companies still have to disclose their executive compensation arrangements to shareholders in their SEC filings in the same way that the SEC requires for smaller reporting companies. How many votes do you want to compel shareholders to take, particularly on emerging growth companies? We could require votes on patent filings. We could require votes on the retention of the accounting firm. Maybe we could require it on the acquisition of real estate. Perhaps shareholders should be compelled to vote to ratify any particular union contract. Maybe we should compel a vote on the IT system. We could go to the ridiculous. Maybe we have to have shareholder votes to choose between Coke and Pepsi in the break room, or as to whether or not the coffee is organically grown or not organically grown. What is the company logo? At some point, it begs the question: Are we here to stand up for shareholder value or for somebody's subjective, personal values, which I respect, but which, again, can harm emerging growth companies as they're trying to grow jobs and the economy. I reserve the balance of my time.