On the recordMarch 8, 2012
I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate Mr. Peters' concerns, but this is about the private sector creating jobs. As we've been here as freshmen for a year and a few months, we have to remind ourselves in this body that jobs are not created in the Halls of Congress, they're created in the private sector, which is what this jobs package will do for America. It lets the private sector get back in the business of creating jobs. I do appreciate the concern, but we're looking out for America here, not overseas jobs. We're looking at bringing back jobs, lowering unemployment and letting the private sector get back in the driver's seat of our economy. American businesses don't need more mandates from Washington. I couldn't help but hear ``we, we, we'' and ``us, us, us'' here in the House. Let's get back to the people and to the private sector. While I understand, again, that the gentleman's intention may be to encourage more companies to keep jobs at home, I think this amendment would only add to the list of reasons a company chooses a path other than going public, which leads to less job creation at home. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters). The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
