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
More from Bill Huizenga
I say to my friend from California that I appreciate his work and this overall bill. I know there are a lot of challenges that confront any of those decisions that the appropriators have, but I find that it is necessary that I offer my…
I would contend that the U.S. has not been doing enough to support that and push on that.
I am prepared to close. Meanwhile, I again reiterate that the law requires any material information, including climate information, must be disclosed currently, if it is material. I will continue to reserve the balance of my time until the…
Mr. Speaker, obviously, at the end of this, finally, it acknowledges that a clear regulatory framework led by the United States is needed to usher in this modern technology. Mr. Speaker, we are at an inflection point. When it comes to…





