Women's Business Centers Preservation Act of 2003

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act, to streamline and strengthen the way we help our States, communities, and first responders protect our homeland. I am pleased to be joined by a number of my colleagues including Senators Carper, Rockefeller, Voinovich, Feingold, Sununu, Coleman, Pryor, Allard, and Akaka.

Last year, the Senate spent nearly three months on the Homeland Security Act, yet the law contains virtually no guidance on how the Department is to assist State and local governments with their homeland security needs. In fact, the 187-page Homeland Security Act mentions the issue of grants to first responders in but a single paragraph. As a result, the Department of Homeland Security currently allocates billions of dollars of grant funds according to formulas borrowed from the USA Patriot Act. The Homeland Security Act left the decisions on how Federal dollars should be spent or how much money should be allocated for another day. Today is that day.

Much of the burden for homeland security has fallen on the shoulders of State and local officials across America, especially our first responders--the firefighters, police officers and ambulance crews on the front lines. Over the past months, the Committee on Governmental Affairs has listened to them describe the challenges associated with constructing effective homeland security strategies. We have also listened to State and local officials as well as Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. This series of three hearings looked at the issues from a variety of perspectives and helped shape the legislation we introduce today.

At our first hearing, we heard from first responders: our firefighters, law enforcement officials, and emergency medical technicians, who discussed the challenges they face protecting our communities.

Arlington Fire Chief Ed Plaugher, the incident commander at the Pentagon on September 11, told the Committee that he had received little homeland security funding since 9-11. Chief Paugher also underscored the gaps in the homeland security planning process. Many law enforcement officials shared Chief Plaughter's concerns. Portland, ME, Police Chief Mike Chitwood, for example, expressed his frustrations about the roadblocks to accessing Federal funding and the lack of coordination by Federal agencies with local jurisdictions.

Secretary Ridge testified at our second hearing. He discussed the ongoing challenges involved in providing Federal resources to States, communities and first responders. He also outlined ways we can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of homeland security grant programs to help first responders get the resources they need.

Secretary Ridge's comments underscored the need to improve the way the Department of Homeland Security's first responder grant programs are organized within the Department, and the way the Department distributes these grants.

The Committee's third hearing featured State and local officials who expressed their support for more flexibility, coordination, and simplification of Federal homeland security grant programs.

Maine's emergency manager, Art Cleaves, said the current maze of homeland security programs has caused so much paperwork that States may be forced to hire additional staff just to deal with a multiplicity of forms and planning documents.

Other witnesses, including Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, outlined the need for coordinating homeland security funding across the Federal Government. Their comments underscored how communities can access funding for interoperable communications equipment through six different Federal programs, including the FIRE Act, COPS, two Department of Health and Human Services' bio-terrorism grant programs, FEMA's Emergency Management Performance Account, and ODP's State homeland security grant program. Despite the unified goals of these grants--to purchase interoperable equipment--Federal agencies are under no requirement to coordinate their efforts.

While State and local officials agreed on the need to coordinate programs and make it easier to apply for grants, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and Governor Romney commented on the differences between States and localities regarding how best to allocate funds, through States or directly to the local level.

I am pleased that these hearings have helped to build a consensus on this issue. Yesterday, I received a letter from State and local organizations including the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the National Governors Association, which have come together in support of our approach, to provide funds through States, but to require that eighty percent be passed through to the local level.

Our legislation will provide a map that will better connect our front-line protectors with the funding they need. It will eliminate duplicative homeland security planning requirements; make it easier to apply for grants; coordinate the many grant programs that provide homeland security funds; and promote a community-based approach to homeland security funding. I would like to briefly describe the approach we have taken.

The first provision of our legislation would promote the same kind of coordination among Federal agencies that we require of our States and localities. It would require Federal agencies to build a clear, well- marked path that would lead our first responders to the funding that enables them to do what they do best: prepare for and respond to emergencies.

Second, the legislation would coordinate government-wide homeland security funding by promoting one-stop-shopping for homeland security funding opportunities. It would establish an information clearinghouse to assist first responders and State and local governments in accessing homeland security grant information and other resources within the new department. The clearinghouse would improve access to homeland security grant information, coordinate technical assistance for vulnerability and threat assessments, provide information regarding homeland security best practices, and compile information regarding homeland security equipment purchased with Federal funds.

The legislation also recognizes the importance of building on existing successful programs, such as the FIRE Act, which provides funding directly to fire departments for equipment and training on a competitive, peer reviewed basis. It would allow the FIRE Act to continue to be administered in its current form, but would coordinate its activities with other Federal programs. For example, it would make sure that two neighboring jurisdictions receiving funding from the FIRE Act are aware of industry standards regarding the interoperability of communications equipment.

The third provision of our legislation would strengthen the Office for Domestic Preparedness's State Homeland Security Grant Program by simplifying the grant process, promoting more local input in homeland security funding, and promoting more flexibility in the use of funds.

The lack of guidance in the Homeland Security Act has forced State and local governments and first responders to engage in a 12-step odyssey to obtain funding from ODP's State homeland security grant program. And this program is just one of several homeland security grant programs to which a State, locality, police, or fire department can apply.

The legislation distills the homeland security grant process from twelve steps to two. First, State and local governments and emergency responders will develop a three-year homeland security plan that outlines vulnerabilities and capabilities, and a process for allocating resources to meet State and local needs. This plan will also require the development of

measurable goals and objectives, such as increasing the number of local jurisdictions participating in local and statewide exercises. Second, States and communities will apply for funds based on this plan, which they can revise each year pending approval from the Secretary.

This legislation would ensure that local government officials and first responders have a louder voice in the homeland security planning process and can access homeland security dollars and equipment in an efficient manner. It would also require that eighty percent of these resources reach the local level within sixty days of the grant allocation.

When I met with the Maine fire chiefs, they expressed concerns about the lack of flexibility in homeland security funding, especially in the area of overtime costs for training. They told me that since homeland security funds cannot be used for most overtime costs, some of Maine's firefighters have been forced to turn down training opportunities at the National Fire Academy. Because there was no funding to pay the overtime costs for someone to fill in while the firefighter trained at the Academy, they had to forego this valuable training opportunity.

Our legislation would address their concerns by allowing funds to be used not only for planning, equipment, exercises, and training, but also for certain overtime costs associated with training activities.

Our legislation also recognizes that certain high threat areas have critical vulnerabilities that must be addressed immediately. This legislation will direct the Secretary to use ten percent of total funding for this program to address these critical vulnerabilities. While this provision provides flexibility, it requires that any direct funding be consistent with the State plan. Furthermore, this legislation formally authorizes the Emergency Management Preparedness Grant, which provides resources to the backbone of our emergency management structure, and ensures an adequate level of funding under this program.

While some States and communities face a more imminent threat, our Nation must provide for the safety of all of our citizens. This grant program maintains the current baseline level of homeland security assistance to each State. It then allocates the bulk of the funds not based solely on population, as is the case now, but on risk assessments undertaken for each State.

Right now, States and localities must complete numerous homeland security plans, each with its own set of questions and benchmarks. Terrorists will not be deterred by paperwork or by communities answering the same question six different ways.

That's why our legislation would streamline the planning process by requiring a single set of cooperatively developed performance standards to help States and localities evaluate homeland security plans.

When I met with officials of Maine's Emergency Management Agency, they told me that the rigid structure of many homeland security grant programs frustrates their efforts to help first responders secure communities across our State.

In past years, for example, the Office for Domestic Preparedness's homeland security grant program allocated the same percentage of each State's funds for training, equipment, exercises, and planning, thus leaving no room to accommodate different States' priorities. In allocating funds this way, the Federal Government effectively said that Maine must spend exactly the same portion of its homeland security dollars on training as Hawaii. Moreover, States cannot transfer surplus funds from one category to another to meet their needs.

As a result, Maine may be forced to return some of the Homeland Security funds allocated for exercises. This one size fits all formula used in past homeland security funding makes no sense. I believe all States and communities should have the flexibility to spend homeland security dollars where they are most needed. That is why this legislation would allow flexibility in homeland security funds that have already been appropriated but remain unspent.

The current homeland security grant structure is unacceptable. Secretary Ridge has done an admirable job distributing billions of dollars of homeland security funds based on borrowed authorities and with no real guidance. It is time to deal the Secretary a full hand of cards and give our States, localities, and first responders a straight path to homeland security programs, not a maze. We must topple the mountain of paperwork. We must help, not hinder, our front-line defenders.

I urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this legislation to build a stronger and better homeland security partnership in the months and years ahead.

Mr. President, I rise today as Ranking Member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship to introduce the Vocational and Technical Entrepreneurship Development Act of 2003, which is the companion bill to H.R. 1387, which bears the same name and was reintroduced in the House by Congressman Robert Brady of Pennsylvania earlier this year.

I want to commend Representative Brady for his hard work on behalf of small businesses not just from his home State of Pennsylvania but for every trades industry entrepreneur that has ever attempted to open his or her own business.

Often Americans who work in the trade sector--construction, plumbing, electrical work etc.--enter these professions with the goal of one day starting a business; however many of these aspiring business owners who partake in career training or vocational training in certain trades, unfortunately, fail to obtain the necessary education in the successful growth and development of their newly formed business. This initiative would develop a program that allows workers within the trades industry to move toward starting a new business.

The purpose of the Vocational and Technical Entrepreneurship Development Act is to assist in the development of curricula that will encourage the successful growth of small businesses. This legislation passed the House last Congress on October 2, 2001 and was subsequently taken up and passed by this Committee last Congress, but was not taken up by the full Senate.

The bill, in a business-education partnership, establishes a ``vocational entrepreneurship development demonstration program,'' under which the SBA would provide grants, through the Small Business Development Centers program, to provide technical assistance to high school and technical career institutes, Vo-Tech schools, to promote small business ownership in their curriculum.

The SBDC program is designed to deliver such up-to-date counseling, training and technical assistance in all aspects of small business management and is the ideal candidate to provide such a program. Each grant awarded under this program will be worth over $200,000--which, in today's environment where Vo-Tech programs get short-changed in government education budgets, can do a great deal to help rebuild a worker-strapped trades industry.

I urge all of my colleagues to support Vocational and Technical Entrepreneurship Development Act.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my distinguished colleague from Nevada, Senator John Ensign, and the cosponsors of our legislation in reintroducing the National

Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act.

The bill we are reintroducing today is the same Cleland-Kerry legislation that was introduced last Congress, and it is the companion to Congressman Sweeney's bill, H.R. 205, which bears the same name as our legislation. The Sweeney bill recently passed the House overwhelmingly, 417-4, with the strong support of the House Committee on Small Business, as it did in the 107th. Our Senate version, which is nearly identical to the Sweeney bill, passed the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship last year but was not taken up by the full Senate. Because Senator Ensign and I are fully committed to helping small business owners understand and navigate complicated government regulations, we are reintroducing this legislation, the National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act.

Small businesses, particularly small businesses with very few employees, often face an overwhelming task when seeking advice on how to comply with Federal regulations, especially when implementation varies for different regions of the country, or from state to state. Many small businesses fail to comply with important and needed labor and environmental regulations not because they want to break the law, but because they are unaware of the actions they need to take to comply. Often, small businesses are afraid to seek guidance from Federal agencies for fear of exposing problems at their businesses.

One important way to help small businesses comply with Federal regulations is to provide them with free, confidential advice outside of the normal relationship between a small business and a regulatory agency. The Small Business Administration's, SBA, Small Business Development Centers, SBDCs, are in a unique position to provide this type of assistance.

Our bill establishes a pilot program to award competitive grants to 20 selected SBDCs, two from each SBA region, which would allow these SBDCs to provide regulatory compliance assistance to small businesses. The SBA would be authorized to award grants between $150,000 and $300,000, depending on the population of the SBDC's state.

Under our legislation, the SBDCs would need to form partnerships with Federal compliance programs, conduct educational and training activities and offer free-of-charge compliance counseling to small business owners. Further, the measure would guarantee privacy to those who receive compliance assistance, which is integral to the reaching out to as many small businesses as possible. This privacy provision has also been extended to all small businesses that seek any assistance from their local SBDC.

The legislation we are reintroducing today uses only SBA funds and will serve to complement current small business development assistance as well as existing compliance assistance programs. Versions of this legislation introduced in previous Congresses used Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, enforcement funds to pay for these grants.

Small businesses can succeed when it comes to complying with Federal regulations, if provided with the necessary tools and information. The National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act will go a long way toward assisting our Nation's small businesses that want to comply with Federal regulations.

I am pleased to say that we have the full support of the Association of Small Business Development Centers, which has been working closely with us since January of last year to draft the Senate version of this legislation, as well as support from National Small Business United, the American Industrial Hygiene Association, and Congressman Sweeney.

I want to express my sincere thanks to Senator Ensign for his hard work and continued support on this issue. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend from Maine, Ms. Collins, in introducing the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 2003, legislation that greatly improves the method currently used to distribute much-needed first responder aid.

When my colleagues and I on the Governmental Affairs Committee worked last year under Senator Lieberman's leadership to create the Department of Homeland Security, we all hoped that what we were setting up would help the Federal Government be better able to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks. As of March 1st of this year, we have in place the skeleton of an organization that aims to pull together under one roof information on threats and vulnerabilities and use that information to improve security and prepare first responders.

As I've pointed out a number of times, however, no matter how well Secretary Ridge does his work on the Federal level, we will not be much safer than we were on September 10, 2001 unless our first responders are better prepared to do their work on the local level. While homeland security should certainly be a shared responsibility, it is vitally important that the Federal Government does its part to provide each State and its first responders with the assistance necessary to ensure that the citizens they serve are adequately protected. The Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act is an important step toward making this happen.

Today, States, localities and first responders can receive Federal assistance from a number of different aid programs administered by several different agencies. All of the programs serve different purposes and require different applications. The Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act sets up a process to streamline these programs to allow them to work well together and avoid imposing redundant or duplicative requirements on applicants. The aim is not to eliminate programs, but to ensure that existing homeland security and homeland security-related grant programs are well coordinated and impose as small an administrative burden on applicants as possible.

The Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act also creates a ``one-stop shop'' for grant information within the Department of Homeland Security by moving the Office of Domestic Preparedness, ODP, the agency within the Department of Homeland Security charged with administering the current state homeland security grant program, from the Directorate for Border and Transportation Security to the Office for State and Local Government Coordination. In its new location, ODP will operate a ``clearinghouse'' for grant information that would offer services such as a toll-free hotline and a list of recommended first responder equipment. ODP will also maintain a compilation of ``best practices'' made up of successful homeland security programs from across the country and offer states technical assistance in developing the terrorism risk assessments that will be a part of the new State grant program.

Most importantly, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act also makes key improvements to the formula for distributing first responder aid among the States. The new formula maintains the requirement that all money go to State governments and that 80 percent of that money be passed through to cities and localities. It also maintains the current small state minimum in which each State receives an equal share of 40 percent of funds made available for state grants. It makes a major improvement, however, by dividing the remaining 60 percent of the money among the states according to an analysis of potential threats in each State.

The current formula for distributing first responder aid ignores the fact that Delaware, though small in population, is located in the Northeast midway between New York and Washington. It ignores the fact that Delaware is home to a major port, oil refineries and chemical plants. It ignores the fact that Delaware every day hosts scores of ships, trains and trucks on their way to destinations up and down the East Coast. It also ignores the fact that Delaware is home to the Dover Air Force Base, a facility that played a crucial role in the recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I understand the need to give larger States, especially those with densely populated urban areas, enough resources to protect their larger populations. No State, however, should be less safe than its neighbors simply because it has a smaller population. The Federal Government should be working to bring every state and locality to the point where they are capable of responding effectively to any potential threat. I am concerned that the current formula, based mostly on population does not prepare all States adequately.

The Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act still requires that population be taken into account when distributing first responder aid. However, it adds the requirement that the Secretary of Homeland Security also account for threats and risk to critical infrastructure identified in State risk assessments that would be submitted to the department as part of the grant application process. The bill also ensures that all localities within States get their fair share of money by requiring that local leaders be included in the planning and application process in each state and that the distribution method a given state will use once it receives its money is approved by the department before a check is cut.

Finally, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act gives states new flexibility in spending their first responder aid by incorporating provisions from S. 838, legislation Ms. Collins and I introduced in April. That bill allows States to apply for a waiver from the Department of Homeland Security so that they can move their first responder aid around between the four categories--equipment, training, exercises and planning--in which it is sent to them. This change will allow States to better meet needs identified in their State terrorism response plans.

I applaud the Senator from Maine for her leadership on these important issues. I look forward to working with her and all of my colleagues in getting this important legislation passed and signed into law as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the ``Women's Business Centers Preservation Act of 2003'' in recognition of the critical need to preserve the operations of existing Women's Business Centers currently serving women entrepreneurs in almost every state and territory. I am pleased to be joined in offering this bill by Senator Kerry, Ranking Member, Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and Senators Bond, Cantwell, Burns, Levin, Enzi, Grassley, Baucus, Domenici, and Bingaman.

While I am totally supportive of the Administration's efforts to add new centers to serve a broader constituency, I am very concerned that we may lose valuable resources established in rural and urban areas. The value of the Women's Business Center Program is stated best by the text taken from the Small Business Administration's (SBA) promotional materials on the Women's Business Center Program:

Each women's business center is uniquely designed to serve

the needs of its individual community and to place special

emphasis on helping those who are economically disadvantaged.

The Women's Business Center Program has become a strong and

effective part of the SBA's entrepreneurial-development

efforts.

And--

In tough economic times, when both employment and funding

resources are harder to come by, support for the WBC Program

is more important than ever.

As Chair of the Small Business Committee, I totally agree with the SBA's assessment. In fact, Congress has agreed six times since the program was introduced through the Small Business Ownership Act of 1988, and made permanent in 1997, that this program is critical for women-business owners. The program's appropriations has grown from $2 million in 1989 to $12 million in 2003, and the results have been impressive. In Fiscal Year 2002, for every dollar invested in the program, centers reported a return of $161 in gross receipts of clients.

Even more remarkable is the fact that since 1997, the Women's Business Centers have served more than 240,000 women entrepreneurs. In Fiscal Year 2002, almost 86,000 customers were served through the centers. As reported in the SBA Performance and Accountability Report of 2002, ``the WBC Program has more than doubled its goal of a 3 percent annual increase in the number of clients served in the past two years. This is due in large part to the success of the sustainability grants, which enable established centers to continue SBA funding. SBA expects this trend to continue as more centers become firmly established and as their reputations for excellence spread.''

If we look at the centers that are achieving the greatest impact, it is the established centers. The results of their outreach and one-on- one assistance has made it possible for the Small Business Administration to achieve its goals as it measures the success of the products and programs offered by these centers.

It is true that this month only five Women's Business Centers face the possibility of closing their doors without the dollar-to-dollar matching funds that are provided through sustainability funding. The sustainability grant provisions reserve 30.2 percent of the $12 million program funding for sustainability grants for existing centers with the balance of available funds designated for the creation and operation of new centers. Based on information provided by the SBA, there are not sufficient sustainability reserve funds to offer continuation contracts to five centers in Iowa, Illinois, North Carolina, Texas and Washington. Therefore, SBA has proposed a reduction in grants for all centers currently funded by sustainability grants. By increasing the reserve amount to 36 percent, only during Fiscal Year 2003, adequate funds will be available for eligible existing centers operating with sustainability grants.

Next year, there will be more than 20 States and the U.S. Virgin Islands affected by the lack of funding to continue operations. Last month, I introduced the ``Women's Small Business Programs Improvement Act of 2003'', S. 1154, to correct deficiencies in the program and provide a fair, competitive process to operate and grow the Women's Business Center Program. I expect that bill will be taken up as part of the SBA reauthorization legislation my Committee will consider in July.

While we can fix the funding problem in the long-run, we still face a crisis today. That is the reason for the bill I am introducing. By increasing the formula for sustainability grants from 30.2 percent to 36 percent, existing centers would be able to operate without disruption in funding and the programs and services currently offered in our communities. This provision will not require an additional appropriation, just a reallocation of current funds.

I believe this approach offers the best path available to sustain the centers approaching the end of their grant cycles without creating undue hardship for all existing centers. At the same time, it should not hinder the Administration's efforts to create new centers.

These centers have been extraordinarily successful in providing assistance to women in all walks of life--from those who once received public assistance but now operate businesses and create jobs, to women transitioning from employee to small business employer, to established women-business owners who create and manufacture products for sale at home and abroad. The Centers nurture women entrepreneurs through business and financial planning and help with critical issues like securing funding for startup and expansion. Yet--despite these successes--funding questions have long plagued the program.

I am committed to resolving the temporary funding crisis through the bill I introduce today and will work with my colleagues to ensure the long-term viability of the Women's Business Center program for today's women entrepreneurs and those of tomorrow.

Mr. President, I rise today as Ranking Member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship with my esteemed colleague and Chair of the Committee, Senator Snowe, to offer legislation to fix a funding gap that exists for meritorious Women's Business Centers that are graduating from the first stage of the program and entering the sustainability portion.

I would first like to thank Senator Snowe for working very closely with me on this issue. Her leadership and support has been invaluable. I would also like to thank our House counterparts on the Small Business Committee, Chairman Manzullo and Ranking Member Velazquez, who have also been working diligently on the issue of sustainability grants as we take on the process of reauthorizing the majority of the SBA's programs. In addition, I want to thank all of the cosponsors of this legislation, all of which have shown resounding support for women entrepreneurs and recognize the positive impact all small businesses have on our national economy.

As I have said on more than one occasion, women business owners do not get the recognition they deserve for their contribution to our economy: Eighteen million Americans would be without jobs today if it weren't for

these entrepreneurs who had the courage and the vision to strike out on their own. For 18 years, as a member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have worked to increase the opportunities for these enterprising women in a variety of ways, leading to greater earning power, financial independence and asset accumulation. These are more than words. For these women, it means having a bank account, buying a home, sending their children to college, calling the shots.

And helping them at every step are the Women's Business Centers. In 2002 alone, these centers helped 85,000 women with the business counseling and assistance they likely could not find anywhere else. Cutting funding for any centers would be harmful to the centers, to the women they serve, to the States, and to the national economy.

The funding gap for Women's Business Centers in the sustainability portion of the program exists because the Small Business Administration has chosen to adopt a funding policy that short-changes existing, proven centers in order to open new, unproven ones. By incorrectly interpreting the funding formula set up in statute for the Women's Business Center program, the SBA intends to make way for new centers at the expense of those that are already established, operational and successful. This is both bad policy and contrary to congressional intent.

As the author of the Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999, I can tell that when the Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999 was signed into law, it was Congress's intent to protect the established and successful infrastructure of worthy, performing centers. The law was designed to allow all graduating Women's Business Centers that meet certain SBA standards to receive continued funding under sustainability grants, while still allowing for new centers--but not by penalizing those that have already demonstrated their effectiveness.

Currently there are 81 Women's Business Centers in 48 states. Forty- six of these are in the initial program, 29 are already in sustainability, and six more are graduating or have graduated from the initial program and are now applying for sustainability grants. Because the SBA is incorrectly interpreting the funding formula for sustainability grants in order to open new centers, and in order to accommodate funding for potentially six new sustainability centers, those from Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, North Carolina, Texas, and Washington State, the amount of funds reserved for Women's Business Centers in sustainability must be increased from 30.2 percent to 36 percent.

This legislation does just that. It directs the SBA to reserve 36 percent of the appropriated funds for the sustainability portion of Women's Business Centers program--even though the SBA already has the authority on its own to increase the reserve--thereby protecting the established Women's Business Centers from almost certain grant funding cuts and still providing enough funds to open six or more new centers across the country.

I want to again express my sincere and steadfast support for the growing community of women entrepreneurs across the Nation and for the invaluable programs through which the SBA provides women business owners with the tools they need to succeed. As a long-time advocate for women entrepreneurs and SBA's programs, my record in support of the SBA's women's programs and for women business owners speaks for itself. I have continually fought for increased funding for the women's programs at the SBA, for sustaining and expanding the women's business centers, and for giving women entrepreneurs their deserved representation within the Federal procurement process, to name a few. With respect to laws assisting women-owned businesses, I have been proud to either introduce the underlying legislation or strongly advocate to ensure their passage and adequate funding.

This bill is necessary to continue the good work of SBA's Women's Business Center network, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.