On the recordMarch 7, 2012
I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment. Again, our goal here today is to help America's start-up companies grow, raise capital, create jobs. The amendment offered by the gentlelady from Texas would limit opportunities for emerging growth companies to expand business by cutting them off from experienced investors. Part of generating a successful IPO is having the ability to test the waters through pre-IPO meetings with institutional qualified investors. These are the investors you want to talk to and receive feedback from before launching an IPO to ensure success. If a company learned that there is a good chance it will have a successful IPO, it would be less likely to choose a merger and acquisition path, which often results in losing jobs, and continue to grow organically and create jobs. So it doesn't make sense to me to cut these investors off from emerging growth companies. I understand there may be some concerns with investor protections. But in this amendment, emerging growth companies are only allowed to test the waters with highly sophisticated investors so existing investor protections are not weakened. Therefore, I cannot support this amendment. {time} 1730
