I will make it quick, because this is pretty easy. What you just heard isn't true, Mr. Chairman, because if, truly, the other side cared about anytime there was a job getting shipped overseas, they would not have, under the (B)(2) disclosure requirement, an exemption with respect to an emerging growth company. If they actually put their money where their mouth is, they wouldn't have that exclusion in there because, apparently, an automotive job isn't as valuable as an emerging growth company job. So, I am confused. If that is really what it is all about, then we ought to make sure that the rules apply to everybody and that there should not be an exemption. And I am confused as to why the author of this bill would allow that to happen, would allow those technology companies to ship those jobs overseas, without any respect of having to report that. Obviously, Mr. Chairman, I am being a little sarcastic, but it just goes to show why this is a flawed bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Share & report
More from Bill Huizenga
I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The short-term stop-gap government funding measure we are debating here today not only keeps our government open, which is very important, it responsibly reduces spending, makes critical reforms to…
Since the first cryptocurrency network was created nearly 15 years ago, the rules governing the digital asset ecosystem have remained unclear. As I learned while serving as chairman of the Capital Markets Subcommittee, regulators have been…
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall no. 10. Stated against:
I have an amendment at the desk. The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Page 2, beginning on line 8, strike ``unless the Secretary determines that imposition of such energy conservation…





