Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act of 2009

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this measure which will update and improve the SBA's ED programs. This bill is a bipartisan product and will not only strengthen small firms but will help them create new jobs for American workers.

This week, we are honoring our Nation's job creators, the entrepreneurs who generate roughly 70 percent of all new positions. As we celebrate Small Business Week this year, we find ourselves in a different place than in celebrations past. The economic landscape has changed considerably, and in the face of an historic recession, small firms cannot always go it alone. After all, starting and running a small business is no easy lift, even when times are good. That is why the Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act is so important. It revs up the engine of our economy, the entrepreneurs who are creating jobs and changing the way our country does business.

This bill gives small firms the tools they need to flourish. By enhancing SBA's entrepreneurial development programs, it will help existing businesses grow and allow aspiring entrepreneurs to get off the ground. These resources are critical. In fact, small firms that use them are twice as likely to succeed than those that don't. But unfortunately, many of these initiatives are outdated and underfunded. Today, we will take important steps to ensure they are running at full capacity.

Despite declines in corporate America, the entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well. Every month, 400,000 new businesses start up across the country. Imagine if each of those firms had access to resources like business development training. Through H.R. 2352 they will. This bill provides entrepreneurs with the tools they need to do everything from draft a business plan to secure equity capital. These services put small firms on a level playing field, allowing them to compete in virtually any sector, including the Federal marketplace.

Although most industries are struggling, the Federal marketplace is booming. With billions of stimulus dollars now in play, that sector presents

enormous opportunity for entrepreneurs. But before they can crack the industry, small firms will need to know its ins and outs. H.R. 2352 provides the training they need to do so. It also offers the necessary technology.

In order to adapt to new markets, many entrepreneurs will need to retool their operations. Through cutting-edge technology programs, this bill allows entrepreneurs everywhere to access the information they need. In doing so, it encourages entrepreneurship in places where it might not otherwise grow. For struggling rural regions and inner cities, H.R. 2352 will be an economic catalyst. It will also reflect the changing face of American business. More and more, women, veterans, and Native Americans are starting their own firms. For these people, entrepreneurship is more than a means of employment; it is a path to economic independence.

From rejuvenating rural regions to promoting entrepreneurship in underrepresented communities, ED makes good economic sense. And in fact, every $1 put into the program puts another $2.87 into the Treasury. If you ask me, that's a pretty good return on investment. By modernizing and enhancing the program, the returns will only get better. Because at the end of the day, strengthening entrepreneurial development programs empowers small businesses, allowing them to grow and, perhaps most importantly, create new jobs for American workers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers if the ranking member is prepared to close.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the work of Mr. Shuler and Mr. Luetkemeyer in putting together this bill. I would also like to commend the other members of the committee--Mr. Nye, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Schock, Mr. Thompson, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, Ms. Fallin, and particularly the ranking member, Mr. Graves--for all of their efforts and contributions in putting together this bipartisan product.

Entrepreneurs have much talent for job creation. In the last few months, much has been made of that ability and with good reason. As employment continues to climb, we need to be investing in the businesses that can put Americans back to work. The Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act of 2009 will do just that. That is why this bill is supported by groups as diverse as the American Legion, the Association for Enterprise Opportunity, the International Franchise Association, the National Association for the Self-Employed, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the National Center for American Indian Enterprise Development, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Already, the SBA's entrepreneurial development programs help small firms do everything from draft business plans to accessing capital. These services have been an invaluable resource for countless entrepreneurs, and they have led to the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs. In fact, entrepreneurial development helped generate 73,000 new positions in 2008 alone.

Despite the program's inherent value, it is in sore need of modernization. Today, we are going to begin the process of turning it around. In doing so, we will ensure that small firms have the tools they need to spark a sustained recovery. What better time to reinforce the backbone of our economy than during Small Business Week. We can do more than celebrate our entrepreneurs. We can empower them and can help them play their unique role as an economic catalyst.

I will now yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois as much time as she may consume.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The manager's amendment makes technical and conforming changes to the underlying legislation. It also incorporates several important amendments offered by Ms. Markey, Mr. Carney, Mr. Polis, Ms. Pingree, and Mr. Cardoza.

Across all areas of the legislation, these amendments sharpen the provisions, making them more effective in assisting our entrepreneurs. In particular, these amendments strengthen provisions dealing with veterans, rural entrepreneurs, women entrepreneurs, and green technology.

I would like to thank my colleagues who contributed these changes and allowed them to be included in the manager's amendment. Ultimately, we have a manager's amendment that will improve this legislation and, more importantly, foster entrepreneurship and job growth.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, while not opposed to the amendment, I ask to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, as our Nation transitions to a green economy, America's entrepreneurs are leading the way. Entrepreneurs make up 90 percent of the renewable energy sector that is harnessing wind and solar power, as well as producing biofuels. Small companies are also dominant in the field of energy efficiency, and they're finding better, cleaner ways to use existing fuel sources.

The renewable energy and efficiency sectors are leading a new way for growth. They are expected to account for one out of every four jobs by 2030. Small businesses are also instrumental in efforts promoting energy efficiency in both existing and new buildings.

The amendment offered by the gentlelady from Colorado will build on this role. It clarifies that Women's Business Centers may utilize their resources to promote cost-saving energy techniques. That is a valuable change to the legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I now yield to the gentleman from Missouri for any comments that he might have.

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

I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for offering this amendment. All of us on both sides of the aisle want to make sure that these programs meet the needs of our entrepreneurs. I think we're doing good work with this legislation. But, as with many government programs, we must ensure there is sufficient oversight.

It is important that we carefully monitor how taxpayer dollars are spent and what effect they're having. Most of all, we must be sure that these programs accomplish what Congress intended.

The amendment in question will provide this oversight. It requires the Government Accountability Office to report on the effectiveness of ED programs for veterans.

I welcome this additional oversight. If Congress is going to ensure veterans are receiving the help they need from the SBA, we must make sure these new programs are functioning correctly. I will encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Now I yield to the gentleman from Missouri for any comments that he may have.

We are prepared to accept the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his amendment. The legislation on the floor today places a high priority on helping veterans who wish to transition from the military to entrepreneurship. As I have noted, this bill for the first time creates a nationwide network of Veterans Business Centers. As our servicemen and -women return home from Afghanistan and Iraq, many of them will look to launch their own businesses as the next step in their careers. This network of Veterans Business Centers will aid them as they make that move. For many veterans, entrepreneurship is a logical next step. Already today, veterans comprise 14 percent of self-employed people. Service-disabled veterans make up 7 percent of small businesses. The underlying legislation would help these veterans who own their own firms as well as assist veterans seeking to start their own enterprises. The amendment before us helps to refine and improve the veterans provisions contained in this bill.

Specifically, the amendment requires that the new veterans centers offer specialized services to help unemployed veterans. In addition, the amendment will help the SBA improve outreach and education to veterans in high unemployment areas, and it would mean that the SBA will dedicate resources to assist those veterans who need help the most. In short, this amendment will do right by those who have served our Nation.

I now yield to the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri, for any comments that he may have.

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

If the gentleman is prepared to yield back, we are prepared to accept the amendment.

I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Connecticut for this great amendment.

We often hear discussion of the concept of ``welfare to work.'' Well, the amendment before us will move many Americans from ``welfare to entrepreneurship.'' Studies consistently demonstrate that entrepreneurship provides a path out of poverty for many Americans. In particular, we have seen that for many impoverished women, launching their own small business can mean a chance at a bright future. This amendment will provide entrepreneurial development resources to those communities that have been hardest hit by this recession by creating Microenterprise Training Centers. These centers will let Americans interested in starting a very small business, such as a home-based business, access valuable classes, one-on-one instruction and other guidance. These resources will help launch the smallest small businesses, those with six or less employees and that start with $40,000 or less in capital. Under the amendment, the SBA will establish these training centers. The administrator is instructed to place them in parts of the country that have a high proportion of low-income and unemployed individuals.

Mr. Chairman, when economic downturns like the current one hit, those communities that are already hurting often carry the brunt of the pain. Those areas already struggling with high unemployment suffer the most when jobs become even more scarce. The amendment before us will provide additional options for Americans living in these communities. It will mean that those living in poverty will have a better chance to secure their economic independence and build a better life for themselves. The Microloans Program is a program that lends to businesses and those who want to start up a business. These are microenterprises that will provide technical assistance and guidance for those who want to start up a business. It's different.

I commend the gentleman for offering this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland will greatly expand the reach of entrepreneurial development programs. Too often small business owners or prospective entrepreneurs cannot access these programs because they live in a rural or remote area. For those small businesses in these parts of America, the nearest Small Business Development Center or Women's Business Center is often many miles away. This can prevent small businesses from accessing the services that we are improving and reauthorizing in the underlying bill.

The amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland will further ensure that the SBA pays attention to the needs of rural America. Specifically, it creates a rural entrepreneurship advisory council at the Small Business Administration. Drawing from the expertise of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Commerce, this panel will see to it that ED services provided by the SBA are effective for rural small businesses.

In many rural areas, many small businesses are particularly important. Often they are the community's largest employer. This amendment will ensure that the SBA's entrepreneurial development programs are meeting the needs of rural America.

I urge the adoption of the amendment.

And I now yield to the gentleman from Missouri for any remarks that he might have.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for offering this amendment, as I believe it will help to improve the bill. As we all know, and we have seen and we heard that veteran entrepreneurship is on the rise, meaning that these services are in greater and greater demand.

The existing Veterans Business Outreach Centers have seen a 61 percent increase in veterans' requests for their services. Women's Business Centers report a 103 percent increase in veterans' requests. Clearly there is a hunger out there for these type of initiatives. And as more of our men and women return from Iraq and Afghanistan, the need for veterans' entrepreneurial development programs can be expected to grow.

By increasing the resources that are available for our former servicemen and -women, this amendment will help many of them launch their own businesses.

I will now yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves) for any comments that he wishes to make.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman is prepared to yield back, we are prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me start by saying that the gentleman from Virginia has been enormously helpful in crafting this legislation. He authored the bill on which title I is based. That measure establishes a portfolio of entrepreneurial development services for our Nation's veterans.

The amendment that he is now offering will go even further. As we have already noted, members of our Armed Forces are natural candidates for entrepreneurship. They exhibit the dedication, resolve and leadership skills that it takes to launch a new enterprise. In many cases, they make excellent Federal contractors as they are familiar with the procurement process or are in fields in high demand by the government.

This amendment takes a very proactive approach by reaching out to members of the military before they are discharged easing their transition back into civilian life.

Today, too many Americans who have worn the uniform of our Nation find themselves unemployed after separating from the service. With this amendment, we create another option, another career path for members of our military.

I thank the gentleman from Virginia for offering this amendment and for all of his work on this bill.

And I now yield to the ranking member from Missouri for any comments that he might have.

I urge the adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan is a well-thought-out proposal. In fact, earlier this month, the House Small Business Committee conducted a hearing regarding how small parts suppliers and manufacturers are coping given the current problems in the automobile industry. What we heard is troubling. Experts predict that half of the Nation's auto suppliers will be shut down by 2012. Many have already closed their doors.

These factories are vital not just to the automotive sector but to our overall economy. Parts suppliers alone employ 3.2 million workers. We know that the three big car manufacturers are suffering, but these are the smaller of the smaller, and they need our help. So it is very important what this amendment will do.

In the past, these manufacturers have supplied the American automobile industry, and I believe they can continue to have a bright future. By modernizing their facilities and entering new markets, they can keep offering good-paying jobs to millions of Americans while maintaining a strong manufacturing base in this country.

If we have learned any one thing from the current economic crisis, it is that economic stability starts from the bottom up, not the other way around. By stabilizing small manufacturers and part suppliers, we can help the larger firms in the automotive industry. In that process, we will protect millions of jobs. The amendment before us will further this goal.

I urge its adoption, and I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves) for any comments he wishes to make.

If the gentleman is prepared to yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 457 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 457.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 457 provides for consideration of H.R. 2352, the Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act of 2009, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Small Business.

The rule makes in order nine amendments which are listed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution. Each amendment is debatable for 10 minutes, except the manager's amendment which is debatable for 20 minutes.

The rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 457 and the underlying bill, the Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act of 2009. I'd like to thank Chairwoman Velazquez, as well as my friend from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler) and my colleagues on the Small Business Committee for their strong leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, this bill represents a giant step forward in ensuring a bright future for all Americans who are struggling to establish or grow their own businesses. It will bring hope to our veterans as they return home and encouragement to billions of Americans who haven't always had equal access to the necessary tools to start a business.

Fittingly, this legislation is on the floor of the House of Representatives during National Small Business Week. It capitalizes on untapped resources in the business community by expanding access to business counseling, training and networking to small business owners everywhere, including underserved

populations such as women, veterans and Native Americans to help ensure all of our prosperity.

This legislation will help women gain access to jobs by requiring the women's business centers to describe their job placement strategies for the area in their annual plans. Too often women are denied access to jobs in high-paying, high-growth sectors. Promoting gender equity is critical for ensuring that all workers benefit from the job creation that our economic recovery plan spurs, as well as our other policies.

This bipartisan bill, which was voice voted out of the Small Business Committee, represents what we can accomplish when Republicans and Democrats work together. While there are many ideological and political differences on how to address the economic crisis, this bill is a product of consensus.

There's nothing more American than small business. This bill is a combination of seven bills approved in subcommittee, five of which were authored by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and I'm especially pleased to report that my friends on both sides of the aisle support this important effort.

According to the Small Business Administration, small firms represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms, employing half of all private sector employees. As the unemployment rate climbs, these small businesses have managed to create 60 to 80 percent of the new jobs that were created annually over the last decade. It's our responsibility to create an environment where small business can thrive and continue to produce half of our non-farm GDP.

This bill will spur job creation and economic growth by expanding resources and providing technical assistance to small businesses. Small business is the engine that drives our economy, especially during tough economic times.

Unemployment continues to rise, currently at 8.6 percent nationally and 7.9 percent in my home State of Colorado. People often turn to starting their own small businesses when they become unemployed. These businesses are frequently the sole source of income for many American families. This legislation will help these entrepreneurs gain the skill required to sustain and grow their businesses and succeed.

A recent report released by the Small Business Administration reveals that the economic recession continued to deepen in the first quarter of 2009. Real GDP fell by 6.1 percent. Small business owners, consumers and the public at large remain pessimistic. Poor sales and access to credit have crippled many American businesses. With this legislation we can help reverse this negative trend and give entrepreneurs the tools they need to succeed and embrace growth opportunity for all Americans in the future.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I believe my good friend on the other side of the aisle said that this was a closed rule. This is actually a structured rule that allows for nine amendments that have been made in order. A number of others have been withdrawn and incorporated into the manager's amendment.

She also mentioned that she wished that there was more opportunity to amend this bill. I would just remind my colleagues that there were only three amendments that were offered from the other side of the aisle. Certainly, we would have encouraged and liked more. Of those three, two were nongermane and one, according to the Parliamentarian, of those was a violation of PAYGO. The other will, in fact, be ruled in order.

Certainly, we always appreciate suggestions from all perspectives about how to improve these bills, and hopefully we will have many more ideas that are offered on legislation going forward.

This bill expands support for veterans who are working to establish their own businesses, particularly at this time of war for our country and as we phase out of our involvement in Iraq and many men and women return home to an economy that is difficult to find a job in.

Our men and women in uniform who have made immeasurable sacrifices should have the opportunity and assistance they need to start a business. Our troops need to know that when they return from harm's way, there is a network of job support and business resources waiting for them when they come home.

By directing the administrator of the Small Business Administration to establish a Veterans Business Centers program, this bill will provide entrepreneurial training and counseling to veterans. This training will empower veterans who participate in the program to achieve access to capital and start their own businesses, helping to rebuild our economy.

The SBA will provide small business grants through these Veterans Business Centers which alleviates a major hurdle to many new businesses, access to capital. This bill puts specific emphasis on service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses. We owe a special duty to our wounded warriors, especially those whose reentry into the work force could otherwise be difficult.

This legislation presents an opportunity to fund efficient growth in a

sector that reaches everyday Americans. Every dollar invested in these incentives and initiatives returns $2.87 to the economy, and in 2008 alone, the SBA's entrepreneurial development program helped generate 73,000 new jobs and infused $7.2 billion into the economy. Let me repeat that: 73,000 new jobs at a time when we're hemorrhaging 32,000 jobs a month and we all dread the release of the next unemployment report.

Job creation is vital to our economic recovery. It's during these tough economic times that more and more Americans are starting small businesses. In fact, the majority of Americans' first job is at a small business. As our economy bounces back, Americans returning to work will find that it is a small business community in which they will find their next opportunities.

I reserve the balance of my time.

You know, I feel that the five members from the other side of the aisle and the two from our side of the aisle whose bills went into the bill would not like their efforts characterized as merely ``lip service to small

business.'' This bill provides tangible tools to the Small Business Administration in helping entrepreneurs start small businesses.

With regard to taxation issues, we have a Ways and Means Committee. We have a process for discussing those bills. It was the ruling of the Parliamentarian that it was not germane to this bill, in fact, quite to the contrary of what my friends on the other side of the aisle said. I recall a comment from a member on the Rules Committee that this was an important issue, one that was worthy of discussion, but of course, again, it was not germane to this particular bill that's before us today. I'm confident that this is a discussion we'll continue to have with regard to the inheritance tax and with taxation in general, but this is simply not germane to the matter of this bill.

Let me put a human face on what the Small Business Administration does and how they help people. I had the opportunity to speak yesterday to the head of the Boulder Small Business Development Center in my district of Colorado. She told me this story of a young woman who had just graduated from college. She had broken her arm, and she had a cast for her arm. She decorated her cast with cast tattoos, and her friends all commented, I want some of those. Those look terrific. The word spread about these cast tattoos.

This young woman approached the SBA and was given the know-how she needed to be able to start a business based on those cast tattoos. Well, she has created two jobs today directly, not to mention the indirect jobs she has created through the manufacturing process. She now sells those cast tattoos in several States and continues to grow her business amidst this time of general economic uncertainty.

H.R. 2352 is the opportunity to fund efficient growth in a sector that reaches every American on Main Street. It helps us reach entrepreneurs who previously didn't have access to capital, access to information, and it provides new multilingual, online distance training and access to specialists who can help with financial literacy. By combining some of the best ideas from both sides of the aisle, in a bipartisan way, we can help move American small business forward, which will help this country recover from the recession that we're in.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are many things that this bill is not, and I fail to find those solid grounds for opposition. This bill is not a cure for cancer. This bill is not a cut in capital gains. This bill is not about abolishing the inheritance tax. There are many things that many of us would like to do that are not in this particular bill. Rather, let us discuss the merits of this bill in helping our veterans, in helping the handicapped, and in helping the unemployed to create small businesses, to create value, and to create jobs in the economy.

I would like to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).

I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, there are many things that our country can do for small business. When we talk about taxes, of course predictability in the inheritance tax rate would be a good thing, and I hope we work towards that end.

We talk about the corporate income tax rate. There's evidence that we might be higher than many other countries in the world and, for that reason, many companies may be locating offshore. Maybe we need to reduce that.

These are all very, very important discussions. We need to look at the revenue impact, we need to look at the benefit, we need to look at how it affects American business. Business needs to be a part of that.

That's wonderful that my good friend on the other side of the aisle cited the interest in the inheritance tax issue for many affiliations and small businesses. That's a very important discussion to have. But none of that should stand in the way of the important work of the Small Business Administration in giving entrepreneurs the tools that they need to succeed. They're in these very difficult economic times.

Yesterday, I had the chance to talk to Sharon King at the Boulder Small Business Development Center in my district. They offer a number of programs that would benefit tremendously from this legislation. They feel that the ability of the SBA to help small businesses has atrophied considerably under the Bush administration.

This bill will help restore their ability to help give Americans the tools they need to start their businesses at a time when demand is higher than ever.

Not only do existing small businesses need help in accessing credit, which is becoming ever more difficult, but more and more Americans are unemployed, which gives them the opportunity to maybe start their own business, to start their own ability to earn money because they lack another job.

I'd like to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume. If we're talking about things we can do to help small businesses that are not in this bill, let me add a number of others that we have already accomplished.

I'd like to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle every single Republican Member voted against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which included $15 billion of tax cuts for American small businesses, including increasing section 179 expensing limits to let small business owners fully depreciate capital purchases for items likes trucks, computers, and other equipment in the same year it was purchased.

We also extended the carryback period for net operating losses, helping many small businesses in America use their losses from years past, from 2 years to 5 years. We also delayed the 3 percent withholding tax on payments to government contractors.

We also provided relief for the alternative minimum tax, which hit tens of thousands of American small business owners. We also established tax credits for small businesses that hired recently discharged veterans and out-of-work youth.

In addition to those tax cuts, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act also generated $21 billion in new lending and investment for small businesses; provided direct interest-free loans of $35,000; and makes loans less expensive for small business borrowers by eliminating fees that were normally built into SBA-backed loans.

In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we increased to 90 percent the amount of an SBA-backed loan that the government guarantees, making it easier for small businesses to get loans from local banks. We also unclogged the market for SBA-backed loans to help gain access to credit, to our markets.

In every area of our country, small businesses continue to encounter the same difficulties. They're having difficulty borrowing money and face significant difficulty raising capital from equity and other sources. Until these problems are addressed, our economic recovery will be slowed.

Fortunately, with this bill and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Congress and the President can continue to make important strides to remove these barriers to small business growth and help small business succeed in leading this recovery.

I reserve the balance of my time.

In talking to the Boulder Small Business Development Center yesterday in my district in Colorado, they told me about the seminars that they have in gaining access to contract decision-makers, consulting, the seminars they do to help train minority-owned businesses. Our local center also offers scaling up, which teaches entrepreneurs how to gain access to capital and grants. Finally, they're working on a turnaround program for downtown Boulder businesses, helping retailers and restaurants. Like many communities across our country, our vacancy rate has increased, and many retail businesses are having trouble in this recessionary environment. Without the resources that are made available by this bill, the Boulder Small Business Development Center, along with many other centers around the country, will be forced to cut programs and training. The 21st century will demand innovative small businesses stay up to date on groundbreaking technologies.

H.R. 2352 includes a green entrepreneurial development program to provide education classes and instruction in starting a business in the fields of energy efficiency and green or clean tech. This, at its core, is a training program that's important for the future of America. With the right training and access to the right resources, the sky is the limit for America's entrepreneurs.

So much of our work so far in this Congress has moved us in the direction of creating more jobs, passing the budget, work on health care, clean energy, education, the Recovery Act, the green schools bills, the Water Quality Investment Act. This important bill for the Small Business Administration is another step on the road to recovery.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time, and I will yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I have read this bill very, very carefully. It's a bipartisan bill supported by some of my colleagues on this side. I think that the intent of the bill is very positive. I know the folks who are interested in this bill and know that they have the best intentions.

But I want to say that I think that, as a former small business person, and someone who has administered programs such as these through my work as a former community college president, a university administrator, and having been on a school board and dealt with agencies that operate these kinds of programs, I want to say that I have some concerns about this bill and about the rule.

I am concerned that because this was a bipartisan bill, that we have a closed rule on this. I think that it would have been a great opportunity for the majority to have given an opportunity for us to offer a lot of amendments to the bill, have a great deal of discussion on it. And I'm very concerned about the process, again, because we haven't gone through a process that I think would have been fair to our side of the aisle.

However, I also want to say that I think that, while this bill has a great title, and the intent is a good intent, that what small businesses, the engine of our economy, need are things that are different from this bill.

We're going to have many different programs in here. As I said, I went through the bill very, very carefully. I looked for ways that it's really going to create jobs, and I can't see the kind of accountability that I was hoping to see in the bill and as we talked about yesterday in the Rules Committee.

We're going to be creating, I think, a lot of jobs for bureaucrats; but it's very difficult, again, to see how we're going to create jobs in the small business arena. And I think that we come from two different world views in terms of how we approach this kind of an issue.

We know that people are hurting in this country. We know that many jobs have been lost, and we'd like to see those jobs recovered. And we know that at least half of the jobs in this country are in small businesses. And I talk to those people every day, and they tell me they're struggling, they're spending down their savings, the individuals are spending down their savings. They're doing everything they can to stay in business.

I talked to a gentleman this morning who had geared up in anticipation of receiving stimulus money to repair roads and bridges in North Carolina, and he doesn't understand why none of that money is coming down the pike.

So, again, people in small business are struggling, and they want to do something to keep their people employed. I just don't believe that this bill is going to do it.

I also don't understand, again, why this bill has been scheduled in a getaway week, when, again, with a process that is not as open as it could have been, in a noncontroversial bill, where we could have discussed it and perhaps amended it and come up with a way to really help small businesses.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my side of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the rule, and we'll discuss more reasons why as we go along during this debate.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for correcting my misstatement about the rule. And I'm curious about the number of new jobs that the Small Business Administration is said to have created in the past. I'm very curious to know how much each of those 73,000 new jobs cost us, because we know that in much of the legislation that has been passed this year, there has been a great cost to the jobs. And, yesterday, in the debate in the Rules Committee, everybody agreed that there has been very little accountability and evaluation on the part of the Small Business Administration in terms of the effect of the Small Business Administration in terms of pinning down numbers.

We know, by the Small Business Administration, that small businesses employ about half of U.S. workers. Of 116.3 million nonfarm private sectors in 2005, small firms with fewer than 500 workers employed 58.6 million, and large firms employed 57.7 million. Firms with fewer than 20 employees employed 21.3 million. And what we know, from talking to these people, is that what concerns them is not so much that we have the government out there saying, we're from Washington and we're here to help you, but there are very specific things that small businesses tell us that they would like.

Let me talk a minute about the death tax, for example. We all know that the voice of small business on Capitol Hill is NFIB, and NFIB has been talking for a long time about the permanent death tax repeal. They did a member ballot recently, and 89 percent of small business owners said they want full repeal of the death tax.

Opponents of permanently repealing the death tax claim eliminating this tax will do nothing to stimulate economic growth. But we know that the studies that have been done tell a very, very different story.

Yet, our colleagues across the aisle are adamantly opposed to eliminating the death tax. Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, my colleague, Mr. Sessions, talked about this, and he was corrected by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, saying, no, this is not an important issue to small businesses; that it's not one of their top issues. But we know that it is. And there's a lot of research to show that.

I will talk some more again about the facts that we have about what small businesses would like to see us do.

Before I do that, I'd like to yield as much time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Mr. Roskam.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate very much the comments by my colleague, but I want to say again, going back to my comments that my colleague from Illinois made about the title of this bill, Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act, if what we really are about here is job creation, then we would be embracing Mr. Roskam's amendment because we know, from a study done by Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Cameron Smith, these numbers: Repealing the Federal estate tax would increase small business capital by over $1.6 trillion. We would increase the probability of hiring by 8.6 percent. We would increase payrolls by 2.6 percent. We would expand investments by 3 percent. We would create 1.5 million additional small business jobs. We would slash the current jobless rate by almost 1 percent--0.9 percent.

So, again, there is a different world view here. The world view of the majority is the government is going to do this. The world view of our side is allow the people to keep more of their money. They will create the jobs. It will be a minuscule number of people who would ever use the resources that are going to be created with this bill.

Again, the intent is good. Nobody is discounting the good intentions of the authors of this bill. However, we could do a lot more by not creating more bureaucracy, by not taking more money from the people of this country and then having the government deciding how to spend it.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may consume, again, to my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Roskam.

I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I want to say that I know that the motivation behind this bill is good, but we know not how many jobs are going to be created. We know not how many people are going to be assisted by this bill, because there is nothing in the bill that directs that. It's only after 8 years that there will be any accountability for the money being spent in this bill.

I was encouraged yesterday when my colleagues acknowledged the fact that we've had no accountability by the Small Business Administration for how they spend the money. And I thought, Well, we're going to have some great accountability in this bill. But when I read the bill very carefully, I saw that it's only after 8 years that performance standards are going to be established for the projects to get this money.

We have no idea how much money is going to be spent in administration. We don't know how many people are actually going to be served. But, as my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Roskam, said, we know how much would be accomplished by eliminating the estate tax. And let me talk a little bit more about that.

We know that if the owner of a small business with assets of $3 million passed away this year, the heirs of the estate would have to pay Federal estate taxes of about $460,000. Why? They've have already paid taxes on that money twice--and they're going to be paying again. Why? Just because the Federal Government says so.

Now the May, 2006, Joint Economic Committee Study has told us that a primary reason why small businesses fail to survive beyond one generation is the estate tax. Close to two-thirds of respondents--64 percent--in one survey reported that the estate tax makes survival of the business more difficult.

Eighty-seven percent of black-owned firms and 93 percent of manufacturing firms responded that the estate tax was an impediment to survival.

A survey of family business owners by Prince and Associates found that 98 percent of heirs cited a need to raise funds to pay estate taxes, when asked why family businesses fail.

If only a small percentage of the 550,000 small businesses that fail annually are attributable to the estate taxes, the cumulative number affected over time could be substantial.

In the context of the survey and tax data described here, it's easy to see how the estate tax has contributed to the failure of thousands of small and family-run businesses.

A 2004 survey of Hispanic business owners by the Impacto Group, 66 percent of respondents said the estate tax affects their ability to meet company goals by distracting their attention and wasting resources. Half of all respondents in that survey report knowing of a Hispanic small business that has experienced hardship because of the estate tax liability, including selling off equipment or the business. One-quarter of respondents said they themselves would sell part of the business to pay the tax, and 10 percent would delay expansion of the business.

So we know, again, that by getting rid of the estate tax, we would be saving thousands of small businesses, creating millions of jobs. And it is germane to this bill.

Another issue that is of great concern to small businesses--and I talked to a lady this week about it. She had read about the required paid sick leave bill that is before the Congress right now. And she said, I'm struggling. She said, I have been paying my salaries of my employees out of my savings. If this bill goes through, we will have to shut down because we can't afford this--we already give some sick leave. And we're certainly very good to our employees. They can use their vacation for sick leave. But if we're mandated to do 7 days of paid sick leave, and we know that, in many cases, people will simply take those days whether they're sick or not, then we will shut down our business.

So this Congress is acting over and over and over again to kill small businesses, and they offer us a very small bill here, as my colleague again said, that sounds wonderful. However, what it's going to do is be out there as an idea that will help small businesses, but they're going to ignore all of the things that prove they will help small businesses.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to just mention one more issue that comes to me all the time, and I know it has to be coming to other Members of Congress as they talk to small business owners and even large business owners, and that has to do with the issue of regulations.

There's a study entitled: ``Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State,'' which is issued by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. And just a few statistics about it because, again, we could be dealing with some issues that would reduce the role of regulations in the lives of small business owners.

I want to bring that up because this is a third point I think that hurts our small businesses tremendously. Given that in 2007 government spending stood at $2.73 trillion, the hidden tax of regulation now approaches half the level of Federal spending itself. Regulatory costs rival estimated 2007 individual income taxes of $1.17 trillion.

Of the 3,882 regulations now in the works, 757 affect small businesses. Regulatory costs of $1.16 trillion absorb 8.5 percent of U.S. gross domestic product.

Regulations dwarf the $150 billion economic stimulus package passed in 2008, and rolling back these would constitute a deregulatory stimulus.

So I would like to urge my colleagues on the other side to let us look at this issue of regulatory costs and look at ways that we can do this.

I've introduced a bill that would require more transparency in the cost of regulations, both to government and to the private sector. If we really want to help small businesses, then I think that that's something that we should be doing. It's H.R. 2255, Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act. I'd like to work with my colleagues on this and other issues where we really could help small businesses.

Again, I know the intent of the underlying bill to this rule today is well-intentioned, but I believe that we have many other ways that don't cost any money to help small businesses.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate my colleague for pointing out some of the good things that the majority has tried to do. But I have to tell you that not one single person has come to me to tell me that he or she has benefited from any of these things that have passed. To the contrary. They come to me and tell me how they try and try to get assistance--and can't get assistance.

Of course, I think these small amounts of tax credits are being offset by the tremendous burden that we are putting on the people of this country by increased taxes, not the least of which is the cap-and- tax bill that is passing, which is going to put a minimum of $3,000 a year increased tax burden on every family in this country, as well as several other things that are coming down the pike.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to defeat not only the rule but also the previous question so that I might amend the rule to make in order the amendment offered by Representative Terry of Nebraska, which would amend the Small Business Act's loan program to allow qualified struggling car dealers to apply for Small Business Administration loans.

Many American car dealers are small businessmen and women who have been left literally holding the bag by the corporate carmakers. If this bill is truly meant to assist small business owners, this amendment would prove extraordinarily timely. This amendment is about small business. This amendment is about jobs. So I will ask people to defeat the previous question.

I also ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous materials printed in the Congressional Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The main point of the amendment is to give SBA loans to the dealers to help them buy their own inventory since they're on the hook for the cost of their inventory since the manufacturers are going under. It is short and sweet. It's a take it or leave it or build on it. It would waive PAYGO. They waived PAYGO to bail out the manufacturers, but they don't want to waive PAYGO to help out the dealers when the manufacturing plan fails.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Thank you. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

You know, I offered an amendment to the Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act, H.R. 2352, and it's one of those bill titles that is sort of inarguable. Who can simply be against job creation through entrepreneurship? Nobody. So I put forth an amendment to bring some predictability to this entire debate that we're having or, frankly, that we're not having about the death tax, because the death tax, as you know, is a crushing tax. It's a tax that is imposed on success that has been created many times through generations who have worked, who, ironically, have paid taxes on their businesses and who are looking for some sense of predictability into the future.

What is happening, coming from this Congress, is sort of an orthodoxy that has developed that says we're going to sort of make it up as we go along. Here we have the Energy and Commerce Committee that has been dealing with foisting another tax burden. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee characterized this--and I'm paraphrasing--as a tax that is the cap-and-tax initiative. There is no other way to describe it. Yet here was this simple amendment that would have repealed the death tax and that would have brought some predictability into it. Just on a party vote, it was sort of swatted aside. I'm told by listening this morning that it was characterized as unimportant. Well, I'll tell you what. For companies in my district, for small businesses in the suburbs of Chicago, the death tax is not an unimportant issue. Let me just highlight a couple of the entities that are in favor of the death tax repeal:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the National Federation of Independent Business, which the gentlelady referenced a minute ago; the National Association of Manufacturers; the National Small Business Association; the National Association of Realtors; the S Corporation Association of America; the Association of Equipment Manufacturers. We know dozens and dozens, if not hundreds and if not thousands, of small companies, entrepreneurs, and self-employed folks who understand fundamentally how important this issue is.

So it shouldn't be characterized in sort of the inner sanctum of the Rules Committee as unimportant when all of these entities have stepped forward and have said, No, no, no. This is vital. This is not unimportant. This is vital, and it ought not be swatted away. It ought just not be said that we're not going to allow a roll call vote on this and that the only way you're going to be able to raise this issue is to sort of scrap along and bring it up in a rules debate. The House is going to be completely silent? Think about the signal that that sends to the small business person. Think about the signal that that sends to the entrepreneur. Think about the signal that this Congress is sending to the self-employed. It is sending a signal that says there is no predictability into the future based on what this Congress is going to do.

I would suggest that we are in an economic situation the likes of which none of us have ever seen before. We're in an economic situation the likes of which no generation has really ever seen before, and the pace of change is moving so quickly that it's very difficult for folks to get their arms and their heads around it. The Rules Committee had an opportunity to say, Look, once and for all, let's get this done. Once and for all, let's get this death tax repealed off the books. Take away the ambiguity so that people know what they're doing in the future.

It is said that up to $25,000 a year is spent by small businesses, on average, just for attorneys and for consultant fees in order to figure out how it is that they need to arrange assets, to put it in different places and to title it in certain ways so that they can best get the advantage for their families. For a Congress that has come along and has sort of given lip service to small business and has given lip service to entrepreneurship--I mean think about it. This is the bill title that we're talking about right now: Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act. I mean, hey, fabulous little language, but you know what? If you want to create jobs, if you want to create opportunity, if you want to help entrepreneurs, the way to do that, in part, is to repeal the death tax.

So I am really disappointed that the majority on the Rules Committee was just entirely dismissive of it, was sort of plugging their procedural ears, and was unwilling to offer the opportunity to simply have a debate in the people's House about the death tax.

What is it that is so unpleasant. What is it that is so difficult? What is it politically that folks are gun shy to take this issue up? Do you know what it is? It is the clarity with which this issue speaks throughout the entire country, and I think that this Congress has missed a golden opportunity. It is with deep regret that I stand in opposition to this rule.

Thank you. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Briefly, in response to the gentleman from Colorado, he raised two interesting points. They were procedural points largely, and I would just like to speak to them. As I recall, one was germaneness and the other one was PAYGO.

I think it's disappointing that the Rules Committee majority decides to impose these standards on certain bills and then decides to ignore these standards on certain bills. To act as if the majority is as pure as the wind-driven snow on PAYGO is a mischaracterization of past conduct. This is a majority that has run roughshod over its own rules in the past. So, on the PAYGO side, people in my district would characterize that as ``spare me.''

Now, on the germaneness, here we look at the rule, and the rule in paragraph 5 waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. In other words, the rule, by declaration, can take care of the germaneness issue. So let's not hide behind procedure here. Let's not hide behind a rule book that the majority has been very, very willing to cast aside in the past to advance its own agenda.

Instead, why don't we come together. Why don't we come together and say, You know what? Let's do something that we absolutely know is going to help small businesses. Let's do something that we absolutely know is going to help the self-employed, that we absolutely know is going to help the entrepreneur, because if you're interacting with those folks across the country who are really the ones who we all give lip service to, who are really the ones to whom we all say, Well, this is the group that creates jobs, then why in the world are we putting this albatross around their necks? Why in the world are we allowing this ambiguity? They don't know if they're afoot or on horseback on this thing, and it's not fair.

You know what? This Congress can do something about it. This Congress can create predictability. If it chooses to, this Congress can say to that small business owner and to that family who has created through work and risk and toil, Look, we're not going to come through here with a confiscatory tax that takes from one generation to another. You know, we've seen enough generational theft, frankly, that has come through this Congress, where one generation has piled on debt, upon debt, upon debt, upon debt on our children. It is, frankly, irresponsible.

From George Washington to George W. Bush, we've seen how it took 43 American Presidents, Mr. Speaker, to create $5.1 trillion in debt. Yet, with this majority and with this administration, doubling that amount in 5 years and tripling that amount of money in 10 years is simply staggering.

Here we have a simple amendment that the Rules Committee sort of looks at and says, Oh, no, no, no, no, no. We're not interested. It's not important.

Not important? Not important to the folks in my district? Not important to the businesses and to the entrepreneurs in suburban Chicago? Not important? It's vitally important. This Rules Committee needs to do better. This Rules Committee needs to be bringing things to the floor that create prosperity and that create opportunity.

With all due respect to this bill--and I'm sure it's a fine bill--you know what? It falls short of what the possibilities are, because when something is so important as the predictability of the repeal of the death tax and it is simply swatted away--just sort of all the Democrats ``yes'' or all the Democrats ``no'' and all the Republicans ``yes'' and that's the amount of discussion it gets--then, frankly, it's not good enough. It's not good enough for the constituents whom I represent, who are deeply disappointed by the way in which this rule has come about. The underlying bill could be fabulous, but you know what? This rule is deeply disappointing, and I urge opposition to it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

On Monday, Madam Speaker, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business.

On Friday, as is our custom, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the end of business tomorrow.

In addition, we will consider H.R. 2200, the Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act, H.R. 2352, the Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act of 2009 out of the Small Business Committee, and House amendments to S. 896, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009.

I thank the gentleman for that question.

We are not sure exactly which days which bill will be considered, but I think they will probably be considered in the order that they are listed. But whether they will be Wednesday and Thursday or Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, I'm not exactly sure. The suspension bills will probably be considered most of Tuesday. I might also say, as the gentleman knows, there are a number of bills pending that may come from conference, and we will address those bills when and if they do come back.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First let me say to all Members that I advise them to advise their schedulers not to schedule Fridays in June or July. We're off, obviously, for a week in July for the July 4 work period, but other than that, I would urge all Members to make sure their schedulers understand that we may well be here late into afternoons on each and every one of the Fridays. Now, why? First of all, we're going to consider the Defense Authorization bill and the State Department Authorization bills. But in addition to that, we will be considering the appropriation bills.

It is my hope and objective--and Mr. Whip, you and I have briefly talked and we are going to talk again about the scheduling of these bills--to pass all of the appropriations bills, as Senator Inouye has indicated he would like to do as well, pass all the appropriations bills, individually, through the Senate and through the House so that we might conference those bills and have them on the floor in the regular order. Those, obviously, 12 bills will take up much of those 2 months.

In addition to that, of course, the committees are considering major pieces of legislation dealing with energy independence and global warming, as well as health care. Now, we do not know whether or not they might be ready for the floor or when they might be ready for the floor, but Members ought to know that those are bills that are clearly on our radar screen to be put on the agenda when they are ready.

I think that, with respect to both those bills, obviously the Senate is discussing the Employee Free Choice Act and whether or not they are going to be moving ahead on that. We hope they will. We believe this is a very important and good piece of legislation, but we also know that there are discussions in the Senate with respect to the various provisions of that bill.

This House, as the gentleman knows, passed that bill pretty handily through the House last year, in the last Congress. So we are hopeful that the Senate will take action and the bill will be in a form that will be effected.

With respect to the Panama Canal Treaty, that has not been submitted by the administration yet, and we will have to wait to see when they will submit that bill. I do know, as you know, that Mr. Kirk has indicated that the administration has discussed the possibility of submitting that trade agreement.

There has been discussion of such a commission. I have supported such a commission. The Speaker has discussed it as well, as the gentleman correctly points out. At this point in time, however, there has been no action taken on the creation of such commission.

So at this point in time, I certainly wouldn't anticipate when and if legislation might come to the floor. I would not be surprised if committees of Congress, however, did, in fact, take cognizance of both of the issues the gentleman raises, and there might possibly be legislation from committees. The commission is under active consideration.

I certainly think that an open process would be followed.

But let me say to the gentleman, as I have said in the press, and he may have read it, much has been said about who knew what, when and where. Very frankly, my view is what the substance of this issue is what was done, why was it done, and was it done consistent with the law.

There is much opinion that it was a violation of the law and a violation of international law. That is the issue that this country needs to look at. That is the issue that this country needs to examine so that going forward, this country makes a determination as to what is lawful conduct.

In fact, of course, the former President of the United States made it very clear and enunciated, this country does not torture. The problem with that representation, as the gentleman clearly knows, is that many legal experts have indicated that, in fact, torture occurred. So from that perspective, I would tell my friend that what ought to happen is we ought to look at the substance of whether, who knew what, when, why is a distraction. That is my view, I will tell my friend. It is a beating on the table.

What we really need to do is find the facts of what was done, what was the rationale for doing it, was it legal; if it was not legal, why did we pursue it; and was it consistent with our international obligations. And as so many generals have indicated, do we want to subject our own people to such conduct when and if they may be in custody by a foreign power or terrorist?

So I say to my friend that I understand the beating on the table, if you will. But from my own personal perspective, that's not the issue on either side of the aisle, who knew what or when they knew it. What is the issue is what was done. That is my presumption of what a commission would do. I presume as well that committees of this Congress may be interested in that.

I have no idea of that. I don't have a belief of that nature because I have no basis on which to base such a belief. I certainly hope that's not the case. I don't draw that conclusion.

What I say to the gentleman, once again, is that to a degree, that is a distraction. It is not irrelevant, but it is a distraction from the central point. I will tell my friend that I think there is far too much discussion about what was said as opposed to what was done.

The truth commission I think has a responsibility--or whatever we call a commission that would look at this issue--not so much for what was done but to ensure that what we do going forward is legal, consistent with our values, consistent with our morals, and consistent, as the gentleman points out, with protecting our Nation and our people.

In my view, we have a responsibility to do all of those. In my view, we can do all of those. They are not inconsistent with one another. And that is what I think we ought to be looking at as we look at what happened so that what happens in the future--because certainly this Nation is going to be under threat now and in the future. I think it's very important. I frankly think that upholding our values is consistent with also protecting our security.