Pat Toomey

The so-called goal of the Volcker Rule was designed to limit risks at insured depositories so that banks wouldn't be using Government insured deposit funds to 'gamble' through proprietary trading or fund investing.

The risk of having to comply with Dodd-Frank's costly regulations is causing many firms to reconsider doing business in the U.S.

Foreign regulators and Governments have publicly expressed serious concerns about Dodd-Frank.

I believe it is critical that Congress and our financial regulators make sure that Dodd-Frank does not worsen an already troubled economy by unnecessarily impeding the international financial system.

Senators Tester and Toomey have introduced a Regulation A reform bill, the Small Company Capital Formation Act (S. 1544)

I have a bill with Carper--it is known as the ``shareholder bill''--that would limit the permissible cap on the number of shareholders.

This one, of course, would facilitate an IPO by diminishing some of the burdens of registration that currently attends to an IPO.

I support Senators Tester and Toomey's legislation to increase this to $50 million.

Senators Carper and Toomey have introduced legislation, the Private Company Flexibility and Growth Act (S. 1824), which would address these barriers to private company growth.

This bill would create a new category of issuers, called 'emerging growth companies,' and ease their transition onto the public market.

So would it be your judgment that if we passed some package of these bills, that could actually facilitate angel investment, early venture capital, even in respects that are not directly addressed by the bills?

How this place has devolved into this partisan battling that has been downright counterproductive for our economy and for our country.

If ever there was an opportunity to do something that is unambiguously constructive for the economy, pro-growth, good for job creation, this is it.

I commend you for taking that view and I want to recognize that you have been under a lot of pressure to change that view and I hope you will not change it.

I worry about how much more it is going to cost homeowners to be able to finance their mortgages in light of that.

The economic policies of our President have failed.

These tend to be sophisticated people--

So we curtail the flexibility of these companies to expand in their marketplace or others.

At least in the case of 1933, certainly, it seems to me that one of the central provisions, one of the most important provisions in this bill, if not the most important provision, is the fact that it would allow these emerging growth…

I think that is roughly the number of people in Congress, and Congress sometimes has a hard time getting coordination among itself.

The cumulative effect of these is clearly progrowth and clearly encourages the growth of these companies.

The current low shareholder threshold, could it have the unintended effect of driving companies a little bit on the margin, more toward debt instead of equity?

I would just suggest that Congress is dysfunctional for many reasons that might not relate directly to the numbers.

I just want to make a couple of other points.

Thanks. I look at it as giving small companies the opportunity to grow into the ability to handle this cost.