Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5819) to amend the Small Business Act to improve the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program and the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the small business programs covered by this bill are almost totally without their critics; they enjoy widespread bipartisan support. But, Mr. Speaker, there is controversy and opposition to this legislation because of the manner in which Democrats have chosen to conduct the business of this House.

First, there are concerns expressed about the increased set-aside for these two programs, which will come at the cost of other important research. Concern and opposition of this bill has come from the head of the Small Business Administration, from the White House, and from the Association of American Universities, among others, which represents 60 leading research universities across the country.

Typically, there would be an opportunity to address these types of concerns through committee action before any bill comes to the House floor. But the Democrats have chosen to skip past a hearing of the full House Science Committee on this scientific research legislation. They're just bypassing that step and sending it here to the House floor, where the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee decided to further restrict action on the legislation by limiting the number of House Members who can offer amendments, and they just limited it, Mr. Speaker, to just 17 out of 432 Members in the House.

Now it is true that my Democrat friends on the Rules Committee have allowed some amendments to be offered on this bill, but they have certainly treated themselves very well. Under this rule, Democrat members of the Rules Committee get to offer one-third of the amendments allowed to the entire House. Out of the 17 amendments that would be made in order under this rule, the Rules Committee Democrats get six of them. But under the rules that the Rules Committee wrote, 415 Members will not be allowed to offer even one amendment.

Restricting debate on the House floor is really becoming an old habit for the new Democrat majority, the new Democrat majority that pledged to run a more open, bipartisan House when they won the election in 2006. The Democrat majority has not kept their promise to the American people and have instead passed more closed rules denying all amendments on the House floor than any Congress in history, and they did it in record time.

Despite this record of shutting down debate in the House, the new majority has failed to complete its work and address matters critical to American families, small businesses and the economy. They failed to meet last week's April 5 deadline to write a budget for the next fiscal year, for example. The current farm bill ended last September, and our farmers are still waiting for that bill to be finished.

House Democrats have refused to pass the Senate's bipartisan bill to modernize FISA and to protect our country. Vital tax relief is set to expire while Democrats propose the largest tax increase in American history. Families, workers and small businesses don't need a record tax increase, Mr. Speaker, and they can't afford the plans to cut the child tax credit in half, reinstate the marriage penalty, and raise rates on every single taxpayer.

While Democrats plot these record-breaking tax increases, they sit by while the price of gasoline rises to record levels. Since Democrats took control of Congress in January of last year, the cost of a gallon of unleaded gas has gone up by 50 percent. According to the AAA, the national average for regular unleaded gasoline has gone up $1.18. The cost of gas has gone up more in 15 months, Mr. Speaker, than it had gone up in the prior 6 years.

Two years ago tomorrow, on April 24, 2006, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, then the Democrat minority leader, issued a press release claiming that House Democrats ``have a commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' This was 2 years ago tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. Two weeks after that press release, then minority leader Pelosi said that Democrats have ``real solutions'' that would ``lower the price at the pump.'' That was 2 years ago, Mr. Speaker, just less than 2 years ago. But now they've controlled the House for over a year, yet the ``real solutions'' and the ``commonsense plan'' promised by Democrats are nowhere to be seen. They pledged to lower gas prices, and they've done nothing; gas prices keep climbing.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's time for Speaker Pelosi to reveal the Democrat plan and for this House to be allowed to consider ways to address the rising price of gasoline. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will be asking my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that I can amend the rule to make in order any amendment to the underlying bill that would ``have the effect of lowering national average gas price per gallon of regular unleaded gas.'' This House can then debate the rising cost of gas and we can have that debate, Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I will insert into the Record both Speaker Pelosi's 2006 press release and a letter sent yesterday from Republican leaders to Speaker Pelosi asking for the Democrats to put forward the commonsense plan that they had promised.

Pelosi: `With Skyrocketing Gas Prices, Americans Can No Longer Afford

Rubber Stamp Congress'

Washington, DC.--House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi

released the following statement today on President Bush's,

Speaker Hastert's, and the Republican Congress' empty

rhetoric on gas prices. Key facts on the Majority's failure

to address gas prices follows Pelosi's statement.

With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American

people can no longer afford the Republican Rubber Stamp

Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil

and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91

a gallon on average for regular gasoline--33 cents higher

than last month, and double the price than when President

Bush first came to office.

``With record gas prices, record CEO pay packages, and

record oil company profits, Speaker Hastert and the Majority

Congress continue to give the American people empty rhetoric

rather than join Democrats who are working to lower gas

prices now.

``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down

skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging,

rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies,

tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas

companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.''

Key Facts on the Majority's Failure to Address Gas Prices:

President Bush, Speaker Hastert and the Majority Congress

wrote and passed a Republican energy bill that President

Bush's own Energy Department said would raise gas prices on

American consumers. Big oil and gas companies wrote the

Republican energy bill, and the American people paid the

price.

The Majority rejected imposing tough penalties on price

gouging companies three times in the past year, since that

time, gas prices increased by another 11 cents a gallon.

Speaker Hastert and the Majority have been blocking action

on Congressman Stupak's Federal Response to Energy

Emergencies Act (H.R. 3936) since last September, which would

protect American consumers from high gas prices by empowering

the FTC and the DOJ to investigate and prosecute oil

companies engaged in price gouging at each stage of the

energy production and distribution chain and outlaws market

manipulation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier of California.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

Two points: 415 Members of this House are denied an opportunity to offer an amendment because this is a structured rule, number one.

Number two, I would hope that my friend from Oregon would join me in voting to defeat the previous question because he has a view on why gas prices are high. If we have an open debate on that, he'll have his opportunity to make that argument and perhaps offer legislation that would lower the price of gasoline. That is precisely what I'm going to be asking my colleagues to do in defeating the previous question so they'll have that opportunity. I hope the gentleman will join with me in that regard.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

But my point is that when the gentleman was talking about the rising price of gas, he has an opinion as to why gasoline prices have risen. We haven't had a debate on this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 additional minute on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I just simply want to say that we haven't had a debate, and this is an opportunity to debate this issue. And I hope the gentleman will join with me in voting to defeat the previous question so we can have his ideas on what would lower the price of gasoline, along with other ideas being debated.

That would not take away, would not take away at all, the ability to debate only those 17 amendments that you said were made in order. But the fact still remains 415 Members of this body do not have a chance to perfect this bill as they see fit.

I am happy to yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, under suspension of the rules, there is generally agreement between both the minority and the majority. If the gentleman was upset then, he could have very easily have defeated the bill and brought it up under a special rule.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I find this debate of the last three Members absolutely incredible. All we have heard from the last three speakers is the problems, but we have heard no solutions.

So I want to repeat, Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question, we can debate solutions on the floor of this House. I would hope that all of those, especially the last three speakers on the other side, would join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question so they can offer their solutions so we can debate them on the floor of the House. That is the sum and total of defeating the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Michigan just made the case for me one more time to defeat the previous question so that the gentleman could offer some solutions.

I just want to remind everybody, Mr. Speaker. Two years ago tomorrow, then Democrat minority leader Nancy Pelosi said: We have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices. We have real solutions to lower the price at the pump.

When the Democrats took over, the price at the pump was $2.33. Now, it is $3.51.

I yield myself another 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question we can discuss and debate those solutions. That is all I am asking Members to do. I am not taking sides, I am not saying their ideas are bad. I am just saying we have an opportunity to debate those solutions.

I appreciate my friend for yielding. I just simply want to say, and you make my case. If you have these solutions, defeat the previous question and we can have a debate on that.

Mr. Speaker, I took all of my time because I was advised there were no speakers on the other side, so I can't yield time right now.

Mr. Speaker, I inquire once again of my friend from Vermont if he has any more speakers.

Thank you for being so precise, Mr. Speaker. I do appreciate that.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate, we have had a debate on the problems. We haven't had a debate on the solutions. My motion then would allow that to happen. So let me repeat, Mr. Speaker.

Two years ago, Speaker Pelosi promised Americans a Democrat plan to lower gas prices at the pump. They

have controlled Congress for 15 months, but we still have not seen this plan. Meanwhile, the cost of gas is setting record highs.

Under their leadership, the national average price of gas has increased by $1.18. It is time for the House to debate ideas for lowering gas prices. It is time for the Democrats to reveal their plans.

Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to allow any amendment be made in order on the underlying bill that would, quote, have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gas.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can have this debate, so that we can consider these vitally important issues that America's families, workers, truckers, small businesses, and our entire economy face with these rising prices of gasoline.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, this year, we celebrate Small Business Week in the face of harsh realities that come with an economic downturn. But it is important to remember that the Nation's 26 million entrepreneurs have always led America's way to economic recovery and sustained growth. That was the case during the last slowdown, when the technology sector--led by small startups--provided the foundation for the booming economy of the 1990s. It can be true again today.

Over the past decades, research conducted by entrepreneurs in the Small Business Innovation Research and the Small Business Technology Transfer programs has bolstered every area of American life. The important contributions of these small research firms span such varied disciplines as national security, energy efficiency, and public health infrastructure.

The measure that is before the House today reauthorizes SBIR and STTR. Together, the programs make up the largest government-wide R&D initiative, and they can help us emerge from weak economic times yet again. Just as importantly, the reauthorization will ensure these successful programs continue to spur innovation and job growth, while keeping America at the forefront of the global marketplace.

The last time these programs were reauthorized, the Internet was in its infancy, and the term ``Google'' was an obscure mathematical concept. Today, the Internet is a part of everyday life, and Google is one of the best known and largest companies on the planet.

Our legislation modernizes SBIR/STTR. It ensures small firms can contribute to our country's most pressing research and development challenges. The bill recognizes that, while many good ideas come from large companies and universities, it is American small businesses who are our primary source of innovation. These entrepreneurs, not just Boeing or MIT, develop the type of products and services that meet the needs of the new economy.

H.R. 5819 allows small businesses to continue bringing their critically important ideas from the laboratory to the marketplace. The bill also offers targeted resources for technical assistance and ensures small firms are not discriminated against because of their business model or type of financing.

Last, but not least, H.R. 5819 increases the number of SBIR and STTR applications from rural areas. It also promotes participation by small businesses that are owned by women, service disabled veterans and minorities.

Moreover, this reauthorization enables a greater number of small research companies to advance the sort of innovation that saves lives. As a result, dozens of patient groups support the bill. They include the ALS and Alpha-1 Associations, the Caring Voice Coalition, the Coalition of Heritable Disorders of Connective Tissue, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, the National Organization for Rare Disorders, Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy and the Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance.

The same holds true for a broad array of business groups, representing everything from the agricultural sector to energy and technology organizations. This diverse group of supporters includes the American Electronic Association, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the Association for Manufacturing Technology, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce.

Madam Chairman, in passing this legislation, we will ensure the SBIR and STTR awards remain competitive from top-notch research and continue to produce cutting-edge breakthroughs.

There is no better way to celebrate Small Business Week than to support the work of entrepreneurs. That is especially true when it means saving lives, creating high-paying jobs for Americans, reducing our trade deficit, and getting our economy back on track.

I urge my colleagues to join with me and Mr. Chabot in celebrating Small Business Week by voting for this important measure.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), a member of the Small Business Committee, for 3 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak), vice president of the Small Business Committee.

Madam Chairman, I would like to inquire how much time is remaining on each side, each committee.

Madam Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight.

Madam Chairman, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) for 2 minutes.

(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, the gentleman from Alaska comes here and laments about high energy prices. But when he had a chance to vote against price gouging, he voted ``no.'' When he had a chance to vote about long-term alternative energy and conservation, he voted ``no.'' So don't come to the floor and tell us the need to deal with the energy crisis in this Nation, because I can tell you that talk is fine. But when it comes to real solutions, you vote ``no.''

So, Madam Chairman, let's go to the issue at hand. It's just really sad that the minority decided to make SBIR and STTR an innocent bystander on this debate. Let me say that there is no other nation on Earth where a person's dreams of service and innovation can be translated so effectively into a brand of success that yields both wealth and concrete benefits to society. That distinctly American tradition of entrepreneurship, of cutting edge and ideas and service to society, is what Small Business Week is all about. It is also the core of H.R. 5819.

I want to thank Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall, Mr. Wu and Mr. Ehlers from the Science and Technology Committee, as well as my own ranking member, Mr. Chabot, for their work on this important legislation. I am particularly grateful for Mr. Chabot's input on this legislation, and I think that our collaboration has produced a better product for our Nation's small businesses.

I also want to recognize the staff members on both committees for their tireless work. A special thank you goes to Bill Maguire on Small Business Committee Democratic staff; Michael Day, and to Joe Hartz on Mr. Chabot's side of the aisle, and Kevin Fitzpatrick. I also would like to acknowledge Melissa Shannon from the Speaker's office. On the Science and Technology Committee I would like to recognize the Democratic staff, Mike Quear; from Mr. Wu's staff, Dennis Worden; and from Mr. Graves' personal office, Paul Sass.

Most of all, I would like to thank the men and women of America's small business. It is their efforts that continue to make our Nation great. They keep us moving forward, no matter what challenges arise, and they deserve our support and respect.

Once again, I urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating Small Business Week by voting ``yes'' on this important legislation.

Madam Chairman, while not opposed to the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

I thank Congressman Boswell and Congresswoman Sutton for their amendment and their efforts to improve the bill. This amendment encourages applications from economically distressed areas and helps ensure the competitive research proposal submitted from companies in this area will receive valuable early stage funding. The amendment will strengthen the SBIR program, and has the potential to spur entrepreneurship and create jobs in distressed areas.

Now, Madam Chairman, I will yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton), a cosponsor of the amendment, such time as she may consume.

Madam Chairman, I will yield to the gentleman from Ohio for any comments that he may have.

Madam Chairman, if the gentleman from Iowa is prepared to yield back, we are prepared to accept the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa and the gentlewoman from Ohio for their work on this legislation. I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman's tireless leadership with respect to Federal funding for research and development. It was the gentleman's bill that reauthorized the SBIR program 8 years ago, and he is, therefore, well aware that the amount of Federal research budgets that go to America's small research companies is extremely limited. The fact that innovative small firms have such limited access to Federal research dollars is a problem for our country, and I want to work with the gentleman from Michigan to find a solution that will address this problem.

That said, I understand the gentleman's point of view, and I am going to accept the amendment. As the reauthorization process goes forward, I trust that just as we work in a collaborative, bipartisan manner on the Small Business Committee, that you and I can work together to increase the amount of Federal research dollars available to small firms without raising concerns about the country's critical research priorities.

I would now like to yield to the gentleman from Ohio for any comments that he might have.

Madam Chairman, if the gentleman is prepared to yield

back, we are prepared to accept the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I just would like to thank Mr. Ehlers for his commitment. I look forward to our working together to address the issue of the limited resources.

With that, I am prepared to accept the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for his amendment and his effort to improve this bill. The amendment requires Federal agencies to notify unsuccessful applicants to the SBIR program that they can request an explanation of the reasons their application was not funded. This amendment is likely to be a useful clarification to those small firms who are applying to revise their proposals in order to reapply.

I would now yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for any comments that he might have.

Madam Chairman, if the gentleman from Pennsylvania is prepared to yield back, we are prepared to accept the amendment.

I want to thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding and for his amendment and his efforts to improve the bill. Since the Republicans today are so concerned about energy crisis and gasoline prices, this is an opportunity to start addressing this issue.

With gasoline at $4 a gallon and the evidence concerning global climate change mounting, the importance of research in the area of clean energy sources is increasingly clear. The amendment recognizes that technologies which can improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions are a critical national research priority. As such, the amendment will give priority to SBIR and STTR applications that address clean energy research topics. I support this amendment and I urge adoption of this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Arizona for her amendment and for her efforts to improve this bill.

Small businesses awarded SBIR grants from the Federal Government should create jobs and pay appropriate and applicable taxes in the United States. This amendment will ensure this is the case. It is an important clarification for Federal agencies providing SBIR funds.

I would yield to the gentleman from Ohio for any comments that he might have.

We are going to accept the amendment and support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, while I am not opposed to the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for his amendment and his efforts to improve the bill. Mr. Graves has been a leader in our committee on many issues, and I appreciate his efforts to improve this legislation.

This amendment clarifies the availability of venture capital to small companies. It makes sure that we do not end up disqualifying any current participant in the SBIR program.

Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

I yield to the gentleman from Missouri for an answer.

Madam Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5819, the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer Programs Reauthorization Act.

These two programs are highly successful Federal initiatives designed to encourage economic growth and innovation within the small business community by assisting with the funding that is critical at the startup and developmental stages of a small company. Not only do they spur growth in individual companies, the programs stress the importance of the Small Business Committee's and the entire Federal Government's commitment to expand and diversify research opportunities for small businesses.

Created in 1982, the SBIR program offers competition-based awards to stimulate technological innovation among small private sector businesses while providing government agencies with new, cost- effective, technical and scientific solutions to meet their diverse needs. This program is not only critical to the unique needs of each of the participating Federal agencies but also to our national economy. Small businesses renew the U.S. economy by introducing new products and lower cost methods of doing business, sometimes with substantial economic benefits. They play a key role in introducing technologies to the market, often responding quickly to new market opportunities. Some of our Nation's greatest technological innovations were originated by small business owners tinkering in their workshops, including two very famous Ohioans, the Wright brothers.

Our committee worked very hard to produce the legislation we have before us today. We held several hearings on

this topic over the last few months inviting the Small Business Administration, SBIR and STTR program managers from Federal agencies, various small businesses, and academics to discuss this program's successes and consider amendments that would improve it. I am happy to say that a great many of the ideas presented to the committee have found their way into this legislation.

For example, the bill requires agencies with an annual SBIR program of $50 million or more a year to create an SBIR advisory board to review the program quarterly and recommend improvements. We found throughout the course of our work that there is simply not enough hard evidence available to effectively measure the success or failure of the programs. Several of our witnesses touched on this subject, and the National Academy of Sciences mentioned it in its congressionally mandated study of the SBIR program.

The bill also states that agencies required to have an SBIR advisory board must complete an evaluation of the competitive SBIR proposals within specific time frames. This is important to ensure that potential awardees are reviewed promptly and effectively. Given the complexity and time-consuming nature of awarding an SBIR grant award application, it can be very difficult to plan your business' future without knowing its fate for months at a time.

The legislation also increases the size of maximum awards to allow grant winners greater ability to develop their new technologies and provides agencies even greater flexibility to administer the programs. The award levels have not been raised or adjusted for inflation in 16 years. Several of our witnesses commented that the levels, particularly for phase I, offer very little wiggle room.

Additionally, I believe this legislation finds an appropriate balance on the issues of venture capital companies' funding of SBIR participants. I would like to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves) for all of his hard work on this issue. Mr. Graves has been a champion on this matter for years and has consistently worked to find a solution that balances funding the best science with maintaining the integrity of the program's goals of helping small businesses. I understand Mr. Graves will be offering a perfecting amendment during this proceeding that effectively strikes this balance, and I would urge Members on both sides of this aisle to support the amendment.

I would also like to thank the gentlelady from New York and chairwoman of our committee, Ms. Velazquez, and her staff for working in such a strong bipartisan manner with me and other members of our committee and with our staff on this legislation. But this is nothing new. The gentlelady has consistently sought my input and Republican members on the committee's input on various bills that we reported out of the committee and how they should be crafted. Although we may not always agree on every issue or there may be philosophical undertones, the spirit of working together in an effort to produce legislation that truly helps American small businesses always prevails, and I congratulate and commend the gentlelady for doing that.

Again, I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Madam Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Chairman, we will reserve the balance of our time.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, we have been told we have Don Young, who is on his way here; so we're not prepared to close. But if time runs out, then it runs out.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Obviously we are still waiting for Mr. Young to speak. If he gets here, he gets here; if he doesn't, he doesn't.

I would like to, first of all, again commend the gentlewoman from New York for her cooperation and once again putting together a bipartisan effort here. And we both agree that both of these programs should be continued and have great value; so I would encourage my colleagues to support it.

Without Mr. Young's being here and not having spoken to him ahead of time and knowing exactly what he wanted to talk about, I would guess what he wanted to talk about had to do with the fact that energy is a huge problem in this country and some of it is because we have handcuffed ourselves and we are far too reliant upon foreign sources of energy from the Middle East, from some of the most unstable parts of the world, from Nigeria, from Venezuela. And for that reason, we're seeing gas prices at all-time highs, approximately $3.50 per gallon, and it's hurting an awful lot of our constituents, my constituents in Cincinnati and other members of the driving public all over this country. And one of the principal reasons is we are too reliant upon foreign sources of energy. We also haven't built an oil refinery.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for interposing his points of view.

But as I was saying, Madam Chairman, I think one of the principal reasons we are seeing these high energy prices is because we are far too reliant upon foreign sources of energy. We have put off-limits an area which is in Mr. Young's State, in Alaska, ANWR. It's an area that not many people go to, although the photographs that you see of it make it look like it's nothing but flowers and animals and that it's a very lovely area, and I'm sure it is lovely in certain parts of the year. But the bottom line is by putting that 16 to 18 billion barrels of oil off-limits, we have to buy more oil from other countries, and that's one of the things that drives up the cost.

Another part of considerable oil reserves that we have put off-limits is in the Outer Continental Shelf. Now compared to 16 to 18 billion barrels of oil in ANWR, we have, we think, 83 to 86 billion barrels of oil and huge amounts of natural gas. And as long as we put those areas off-limits, it means we have to buy oil from somewhere else. It puts OPEC in a position where they can turn the spigot down somewhat or not increase it to take care of not only our needs but the needs of a growing environment in India and in China and those areas; so the price goes up as a result of that.

The other problem is we haven't built an oil refinery in this country since 1976. We make it virtually impossible for that to happen. We had over 300 oil refineries 30 years ago. We're down to 148, so fewer than half the number of oil refineries. That's another big problem. And I think those are the types of problems that Mr. Young would have in all likelihood spoken about.

Madam Chairman, I see that Mr. Young has entered, so I will at this point yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the chairwoman for yielding.

We have no objection to the gentleman's amendment and would commend him for offering it.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I would just comment that we appreciate the chairwoman's willingness to work with the gentleman in accepting his amendment. We would be happy to be part of that conversation. We appreciate your cooperation.

I thank the chairwoman for yielding.

We have no opposition to the gentleman's amendment. We appreciate his effort to add to the positive things which we need to do to move towards solving this energy crisis we find ourselves in.

Madam Chairman, although I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment, I would like to claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chairman, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Reclaiming my time, do I have any time remaining, Madam Chairman?

I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

I thank the chairwoman for yielding.

We have no objection to the gentlewoman's amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves). This is a good amendment that I feel strikes the appropriate balance on the issue of venture capital companies' funding of SBIR participants.

One of the guiding principles that we focused on as we worked on the legislation was the premise that we ought to be funding the best science. By allowing the amounts of venture capital investment in SBIR applicants that are prescribed by this amendment, we are not only ensuring that we are funding the best science, but also maintaining the program's goal of helping small businesses.

The gentleman from Missouri has been a leader on this issue for years, and I applaud his efforts on our committee and throughout the House to find a solution for this issue. And it is a balance here. You can make arguments on both sides, but I think what he has tried to do is to do something that is fair to small businesses and also have the best science.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and thank him for his leadership on this issue.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program and the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program both were created to stimulate technological innovation, encourage the use of small businesses to meet Federal research and development needs, and increase private sector commercialization of innovations developed from Federal research and development. I believe both programs have been very successful and should be continued, and, on that basis, I support the legislation before us, although I disagree with some aspects of it.

The Science and Technology Committee has a long standing interest in promoting innovation and development by small businesses. Through these two competitive programs, the Small Business Administration is charged with ensuring that the Nation's small innovative businesses are a significant part of the Federal Government's research and development efforts. Currently, 11 Federal departments participate in the SBIR program, including the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Transportation, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation. Of these 11, five departments also participate in the STTR program, awarding $200 billion to small high-tech businesses.

The original legislation for SBIR was developed based on the Small Business Innovation Research program of the National Science Foundation. The NSF program was designed to encourage proposals from small science and technology firms in NSF program areas. The current Federal-wide program mirrors the original NSF program, which was also organized in three phases to ensure the most efficient use of resources.

Phase I was an opportunity to develop research on important scientific and engineering problems. Projects that were found to be promising after the phase I research stage were given phase II awards to further develop the research project. Phase III is a transition phase that involves commercialization of the products or processes developed in the first phases.

Similar to SBIR, STTR is also a highly competitive three-phase program that reserves a specific percentage of Federal research and development funding for small businesses to work in partnership with nonprofit research institutions to help move ideas from the laboratory to the marketplace, to foster high-tech economic development in the United States, and to help to meet the technological needs of the Federal Government. Since the implementation of this program in 1983 through fiscal year 2006, over $20.7 billion has been given in awards for more

than 94,660 projects. The Government Accountability Office, which has been charged with assessing this program, has generally found that these programs have achieved the goal of enhanced participation of a small business in research and development fields.

Given the interest of the Committee on Science and Technology on the research and development of new technology, our committee has a unique interest in this bill. We have long been concerned about how America competes with the rest of the world in these areas. Many initiatives that have been passed by our committee in this Congress have focused on the need to improve our competitiveness in the world through funding of science education programs and public outreach efforts. I view this legislation as one more way we can reach out to the public to assist American innovation.

My only regret with regard to this legislation is that I do not believe it was able to receive the proper attention it warranted by the Committee on Science and Technology. Our committee shares jurisdiction on this legislation, primarily concentrated on the areas of science itself and the amount of science funding.

However, the full committee was not given the opportunity to consider this legislation and have its voice heard with regard to its continuation, primarily because there was a great hurry to bring this bill to the floor. Had regular order been provided, I believe we would be bringing a different bill to the floor today. And in view of that, I have offered an amendment that I believe will strengthen the bill, make it sounder in funding, preserve the funding of other resources and other research in the Federal Government, and also provide an opportunity to increase the funding for SBIR and STTR in the future by bringing up the funding for the other agencies of which these two organizations receive a percentage.

But I believe the approach in the bill of simply arbitrarily increasing the funding for SBIR and STTR hurts our research efforts in the Nation, and I will speak later on that topic when my amendment reaches the floor.

The second reservation is voiced by Mr. Gingrey of Georgia and, if we have time, we will enter into that discussion later and I will give him an opportunity to speak.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I am prepared to close, Madam Chairman.

Madam Chairman, the substance of the bill is good. I support the general intent of it.

I am very concerned about several aspects. One of those is the size of the increase of the allocation, which is going to hurt our Nation's research effort in its totality. Secondly, the issues raised by Dr. Gingrey which involve giving perhaps too much control and power to the venture capitalists. And, third, the issues relating to the other issues that Dr. Gingrey brought forth regarding category I and category II funding, and the interplay between the two.

If we can solve these problems I would hope to support the bill.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the recognition.

This amendment is very important in terms of the total research effort of our Nation. H.R. 5819 would increase the Small Business Innovation Research program set-aside from 2.5 percent to 3 percent, a 20 percent increase. It would also increase the Small Business Technology Transfer program set-aside from 0.3 percent to 0.6 percent, a 100 percent increase. My amendment would remove these increases and keep the current set-asides in place at 2.5 percent for SBIR and 0.3 percent for STTR.

This is an extremely important issue. The Science and Technology Committee has worked very hard during the last few years to get the America COMPETES authorization bill signed into law. It has now been signed into law. It establishes a funding doubling path for several agencies under Science Committee jurisdiction, several of which are SBIR and STTR funding agencies. However, finding the money to fund these authorizations has not been so easy, and in fact these increased authorizations have not been appropriated.

Several of my colleagues have expressed the opinion that an increase in the set-aside for these two programs was justified by the authorized funding increases in the COMPETES Act. However, as I said, these have not been appropriated.

My concern and my purpose behind my amendment is to make sure that we are not robbing Peter to pay Paul. If we increase the SBIR and STTR program percentages while other agency's funding remains flat, we begin to severely erode our fundamental research base. I would much rather see us fight over extra funding for our basic research programs, our fundamental research programs, of which a percentage would then transfer into SBIR and STTR.

I should point out that my amendment is supported, first of all, by Mr. Obey, who is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. He has spoken to me about it, and asked me to specifically mention that he supports my amendment.

I believe it is also supported by a large number of Members, as well as the Association of American Universities, the American Association of Medical Colleges, the Biophysical Society, the Campaign for Medical Research, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, the National Association of State and Land Grant Colleges and the Small Business Administration.

To quote the President of the Association of American Universities, the change ``would translate directly into cuts in both nominal and real terms in the budgets of most Federal research agencies.''

In real terms, the proposed changes would remove approximately $650 million that is currently provided to researchers, especially those at universities around the country. At the National Institutes of Health, which I believe everyone in this body supports very strongly, if we do not adopt this amendment, the NIH budget would be reduced by $185 million. That is a severe cut.

So I urge the adoption of my amendment. I think it actually will improve things. I hope that in the next few years we will get substantial increases in the amount of funding for the various research agencies and SBIR and STTR would receive substantial increases to the percentage that they will continue to receive.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would just like to offer a few closing comments.

First of all, I thank you for your offer to work on this problem together. As you know from working with me on this so often, I totally support research in all areas. My concern in this case is that we would be giving some money to one agency and taking it from others. I think we should work together to increase the funding for both, and all boats will rise. If we manage to give the appropriate amount of money to the research institutions, then SBIR and STTR will automatically increase because of that. So if we work together from that standpoint, I think we will be in total agreement.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and would like to comment on this amendment.

I have no great objection to it, but I am not terribly excited about it, either. Let me comment.

I personally would prefer, if we are going to show preferences here and use the money for that purpose, I would really prefer that we use those funds to give preference to those organizations that submit proposals for doing research and developing areas that will reduce carbon emissions. I think in the long run that might be better for the Nation than simply rewarding those who have taken steps within the organization rather than developing new ideas and inventions that can apply to everyone in the Nation.

So, as I said, I will not oppose it, but I did want to make that suggestion.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1125 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during the consideration of this rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1125 provides for the consideration of H.R. 5819, the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program Reauthorization Act, under a structured rule.

The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, with 40 minutes controlled by the Committee on Small Business and 20 minutes controlled by the Committee on Science and Technology. The rule makes in order 17 amendments printed in the Rules Committee report. The amendments are each debatable for 10 minutes. The rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Since its inception in 1982, SBIR has assisted small businesses to compete for Federal research and development awards. It does that by reserving a percentage of the Federal R&D funds for qualifying small firms which would not otherwise be able to compete in the Nation's R&D arena with larger companies.

SBIR is a unique collaboration that allows Federal agencies to fund projects to meet specific agency needs while expanding opportunities for small businesses, including women and minority-owned businesses. SBIR has enhanced the role of innovative small businesses and higher education research institutions in federally funded research and development while fostering competition and productivity in economic growth.

SBIR, Mr. Speaker, targets the entrepreneurial sector because that's where the innovators thrive. The risk and expense of conducting serious R&D efforts are often beyond the means of small businesses, so SBIR funds are a critical start-up in development stages, encourage the commercialization of technology, product or service, which

in turn obviously helps the United States economy.

And the results, by the way, speak for themselves. Not only are 85 percent of the businesses competing in SBIR small firms employing 20 or fewer persons, but the program has generated 50,000 patents over 25 years. SBIR has helped thousands of small businesses drive enhancements in our Nation's defense, new protections for our environment, and advances in health care.

The National Research Council and the National Academies' report, in assessment of the Small Business Innovation Research Program, states, ``The SBIR program is sound in concept and effective in practice. The SBIR program has created a competitive entrepreneurial environment upon which small, independently owned businesses can compete to strengthen America's high technology economy. Many consider SBIR to be one of our most successful technology development programs.''

This rule allows for consideration of a welcomed reauthorization of the SBIR and STTR programs. Just very briefly, what it's going to do is increase the existing set-aside for SBIR to 3 percent, and for STTR to six-tenths of a percent, increase SBIR and STTR grant award levels, increase congressional oversight and evaluation of programs, make changes to shorten the application review periods, and create an outreach development program for underrepresented States, regions, types of businesses, and numbers in the workforce.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), the Chair of the Subcommittee on Research.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 additional minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I yield 30 additional seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I am the last speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have mainly listened as this debate has unfolded, and I have an observation. This is a sad spectacle. The Congress of the United States has before it now a bill that is intended to address an urgent need to provide research funding for our small businesses.

Small business is the backbone of our economy, it is where most jobs are created, it is where some of the best innovations occur, and where our small businesses need some assistance to put together the financing package required to explore innovative research and development ideas. Our small businesses don't have the funds that are available oftentimes through big venture capital operations. And what we are hearing in this debate is a complete and utter disregard for the content of this bill and, instead, turning it into a political debate that veers wildly away from any truth about what the history of this whole gas crisis is.

Number one, the basic question before us is, are we going to help the research and development needs of our small businesses? We believe it is urgent that we do so, and we won't be deterred by what is now a political argument.

Second, since our friends on the other side have made an accusation that there has been Democratic culpability, almost a conspiracy, in raising gas prices, I want to respond to the absurdity of that.

We have heard from our speakers how the price of a barrel of oil when President Bush took over was $25, it is now $119. We know that the war in Iraq, when it started, that catastrophic war, the price was $35, it is now $119. But what we also know is that under the leadership of the Republican Congress, we turned a blind eye on the Government's responsibility to look out for the middle class. Why? We destroyed regulatory oversight that is necessary to help folks pulling up with their pickup truck to fill up their gas tank.

This Enron loophole, snuck in, in the middle of the night with the complicity of a Republican Congress is, Mr. Speaker, and I say this intentionally, unconscionable, unconscionable to meeting the needs of average Americans who are trying to work hard and pay their bills. Fifty cents at least in the price of a gallon of gasoline is because the speculators, the hedge fund managers, are singing every day as they make wire transfers to their bank accounts at the expense of everyday Americans.

And my question is, why will not those who are expressing concern about the cost of gasoline and how that impacts small business and impacts our families, why will they not get behind Congressman Stupak and support The PUMP Act, get rid of the Enron loophole? Why will they not join with many of us who have sent letters to the President imploring him to release the strategic petroleum reserve or at least stop buying. One action would reduce, according to Goldman Sachs, the cost of a gallon of gasoline by 25 cents. And then there is the legislation that we passed that the Republicans voted against.

So what we have is an accusation made by people who every time they have had an opportunity to take a concrete specific action that would help, have said no, have said no to the Enron loophole reform, have said no to The PUMP Act, have said no to stop buying in the strategic petroleum reserves.

So it leaves me with a question. Is what we are hearing about politics, or is it about policy? I have come to my own conclusion. But we are here on a bill that is going to help small business. That is our job. And our job in this rule should be to make that bill a better bill, not to hijack what is a good bill and turn it into a political food fight.

We have got two issues here that have been injected. One is, are we going to help small business or not? There is broad bipartisan support. The two committees of jurisdiction have done an excellent job.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1125 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this

resolution or the option of the previous question, it shall

be in order to consider any amendment to the bill which the

proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of

lowering the national average price per gallon of regular

unleaded gasoline. Such amendments shall he considered as

read, shall he debatable for thirty minutes equally divided

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be

subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand

for division of the question in the House or in the Committee

of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are

waived except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. For

purposes of compliance with clause 9(a)(3) of rule XXI, a

statement submitted for printing in the Congressional Record

by the proponent of such amendment prior to its consideration

shall have the same effect as a statement actually printed.

Sec. 4. Within five legislative days the Speaker shall

introduce a bill, the title of which is as follows: ``A bill

to provide a common sense plan to help bring down

skyrocketing gas prices.'' Such bill shall be referred to the

appropriate committees of jurisdiction pursuant to clause 1

of rule X.

Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.