EMT Act of 2010

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1404 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague from the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1404 provides for consideration of H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, under a structured rule.

The rule makes in order 82 amendments and provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services.

The rule provides that the chair of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee may offer amendments en bloc, debatable for 20 minutes, and may offer germane modifications of amendments. The rule allows the Chair to recognize for consideration amendments out of order printed in the Rules Committee report if 30-minutes' notice is given by the chair of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee.

The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions, provides that the Chair may entertain a motion that the Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee, and provides that the Chair may not entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill.

The rule provides that, in engrossment, the text of H.R. 5013, the IMPROVE Act, as passed by the House, will be added as new matter at the end of H.R. 5136.

The rule waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII, requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee, against rules reported from the Rules Committee through June 1, 2010.

Finally, the rule provides that measures may be considered under suspension of the rules at any time through May 30, 2010, and that the Speaker or her designee will consult with the minority leader or his designee on the

designation of any matter for consideration under suspension of the rules.

Mr. Speaker, last week, the House Armed Services Committee reported H.R. 5136 favorably to the House, by a unanimous vote, after nearly 13 hours of debate. As a member of that committee, I am proud of our work, but I can say firsthand that crafting this bill was not easy.

The needs of our country are endless and challenging; the threats to our security are numerous and always changing, and the resources we can devote to these problems are precious and limited.

In the end, the bill that we will vote on later today will strengthen our national defense, will give our troops the equipment they need to do their jobs and will take care of them and their families. The bill also invests in military infrastructure and technology, which will create jobs here in the United States and will stimulate growth throughout the economy.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more important in this bill than the provisions that address men and women in uniform. They deserve the best care and the best benefits, and this bill meets both of those requirements.

The bill provides a 1.9 percent pay increase for active duty soldiers, increases the family separation allowance for servicemembers who are deployed away from their families, increases hostile fire and imminent danger pay for the first time since 2004, and expands college loan repayment benefits.

Earlier this year, we passed historic health care reform legislation, which included a provision requiring private insurance policies to cover adult children until age 26 on their parents' policies.

I am very pleased to see that this bill incorporates those changes for TRICARE and CHAMPVA beneficiaries and that it will give retirees and veterans the option to extend coverage to their adult children until age 26.

I am also proud that this bill contains a provision I wrote, which will guarantee that retiring National Guard and Reserve personnel will get a full explanation of the benefits due to them. This provision will require the Department of Defense to brief retiring personnel on benefits like VA health care and TRICARE.

Too often, members of the Guard and Reserve leave the service without a clear picture of the benefits that are owed them. Given all that we ask of them, that's not right. They have made great sacrifices, and I believe that Congress has a moral obligation to educate those heroes on the benefits they have earned. This is just one way we can begin to repay them for all they have done to protect this country.

I am very encouraged and pleased by the fact that this rule allows for an amendment to be made in order by Mr. Murphy from Pennsylvania, which, if passed, will finally put the military on the path to repealing the misguided and outdated Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. I am looking forward to voting for the amendment and to seeing the end of this discriminatory policy once and for all.

Though, while there is much in this bill that I support, there are also parts of it I strongly disagree with.

I am extremely disappointed that this bill contains an authorization for an additional $33.1 billion for the President's fiscal year 2010 budget request for the surge in Afghanistan as well as $159.3 billion for fiscal year 2011 for overseas contingency operations, the majority of which will, no doubt, be spent in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We are pursuing a misguided strategy at a tremendous cost to the American people. The loss of one American service man or woman is simply too high a cost for a mission that does not strengthen our national security.

An astonishing half billion dollars is included in this bill for an alternate extra engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. In 1996, the Department of Defense conducted a competition to choose the engine for this plane, and Pratt & Whitney won it. The engine they make meets the program requirements, and it is perfectly adequate. Unfortunately, a major defense contractor, who by 2012 would have had 90 percent of the military engine industrial base, lost the competition, doesn't want to take ``no'' for an answer, and has been lobbying hard to keep a program for a second engine funded.

The Bush administration opposed the funding for this extra engine, and the Obama administration opposes it. Secretary Gates has said that the funding for the extra engine will be detrimental to the overall Joint Strike Fighter program. If Congress decides to ignore those in the Defense Department and those in the administration on this, estimates show that we will be forced to purchase 50-80 fewer planes, which will definitely affect our national security.

Let there be no mistake. Spending half a billion dollars to build an engine that isn't needed and that the Pentagon doesn't want is a colossal waste of money. This rule makes in order an amendment, which I have sponsored, to strip the authorization for this program, which I believe is the right thing to do.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the chair of the Committee on Rules.

I am glad to yield another minute to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), also a member of the Committee on Rules.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

Mr. Speaker, I do have to disagree with the previous speaker for a whole variety of reasons, and I won't take up a lot of time. But this is not about being overt about your sexuality. This is about people who have been denied the right to talk about exactly who they are.

This is about 14,000 members of the military who have served this country, many with extremely vital skills, who have been asked to step down and leave; many people who choose not to go in the military for the fear of what could happen to them after they've served this country.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri), one of my good colleagues and a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), chair of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief in my closing, but I want to say this is a major piece of legislation, and its effects will be felt across the country.

I am extremely proud of this body today, as I know we will be poised to finally repeal the issue we have had so much discussion about this morning, that is, Don't Ask, Don't Tell. This has had a lengthy process. Fourteen thousand members of the military who have served this country honorably have been forced to leave strictly because of their own personal status.

This is a long process. It will not be changed until the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have had time to certify it will not disrupt the military, as we have heard from some of our colleagues.

This has happened in many other countries, whether it's Israel or Australia or even the United Kingdom. If they can do it, so can we as well.

I am proud to know that my colleagues are debating this topic, as well as making sure today that we remember, on top of everything else, to respect our military, to thank them for their service and to make sure they are well compensated.

I want to thank Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member McKeon and all my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for all their tireless work.

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

Ms. GIFFORDS, Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of the underlying bill and to highlight a number of very important provisions related to DoD's energy usage.

Last year, the Department of Defense consumed nearly 6.9 billion barrels of oil to power everything from bases to fighters. But every day, the services are proving that this dependence no longer needs to tether us to supply lines.

In the last year, thanks in large part to efforts by the Armed Services Committee, the military has begun to take aggressive action.

At Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in my District, the Air Force completed construction of the largest solar community in America.

Last month the Navy flew a fighter jet for the first time on biofuel.

The Army continues testing battlefield energy solutions at Fort Irwin.

And today, we will have an opportunity to move forward with additional responsible energy language I have worked with the services to develop and with the Committee to move forward.

The Defense bill requires DoD to develop a testing and certification plan for the operational use of aviation biofuels.

I have also added language that integrates the hybrid drive platform that the Army developed for Future Combat Systems over the last decade into the vehicles of today.

We included $130 million for Energy Conservation projects at bases across the country that save the military and the American taxpayer millions of dollars.

In theater, we reduce basic energy consumption by cutting waste. During a DoD pilot program to spray foam insulate facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, fuel consumption was reduced by nearly 75% on average. These projects had a return on investment of less than six months. The Defense bill seeks to expand this program by seeking a comprehensive review of all facilities to identify low cost, energy-saving solutions.

New Energy Performance Goals, new implementation plans and new studies of how to more effectively supply the force make the energy provisions in this bill stronger than in any previous year.

The NDAA specifically addresses many of the battlefield energy challenges our servicemembers face in-theater every day. And the overwhelming bi-partisan support these provisions received at the Committee level validates the continued need for aggressive, smart and responsible solutions.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and join me in passing the Defense Authorization bill.

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

The previous question was ordered.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

I rise in opposition to H.R. 5297.

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot today about the centerpiece of this bill--the highly controversial $30 billion small business lending fund, a provision sometimes referred to as TARP III. That provision is certainly of major concern to me, and it is reason enough to vote against this bill, though I want to focus my remarks on aspects of the bill that are within the Ways and Means Committee's jurisdiction.

This legislation includes approximately $12 billion in small business tax provisions, including a number of items that Republicans have long supported. For example, there is widespread, bipartisan support for expanded business expensing and for the extension of bonus depreciation as ways to encourage additional capital investments.

In addition, this bill includes a provision originally authored by our colleague from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) that would eliminate the outdated requirement that employees keep extensive records documenting their personal use of their employer-provided cell phones so they can include the value of that benefit in their incomes.

It also includes a provision that I have been working on with Chairman Lewis of the Oversight Subcommittee that would reduce penalties on small businesses that unintentionally violate certain disclosure rules under section 6707(a) of the Tax Code. Republicans don't object to these provisions. In fact, we think they should have been enacted months ago.

The tax portion of this bill also contains a highly troubling provision that would essentially double down on a particularly flawed element of the majority's new health care law. It is the requirement that small businesses file form 1099 with the IRS for every business and individual to which they make total payments of more than $600 each a year. We already know that this highly confusing and burdensome information-reporting regime, which could cause the number of required tax forms to quintuple, will drive up the cost for small businesses across the country. It is clear that this added expense will mean that employers will have less money to hire new workers and to retain existing ones.

Instead of working with Republicans to repeal these onerous new 1099 reporting requirements, the majority is now actually seeking in today's bill to substantially increase the penalties for failure to comply with them. Although proposals to increase the penalties for failure to file correct information returns have not always been particularly controversial, these penalties now apply to a much larger universe of transactions because of the majority's new health law. Because those new requirements are so confusing and burdensome, especially for small businesses that are already struggling to meet payroll, increasing the penalties for what could be inadvertent mistakes seems especially unfair.

To add insult to injury, the legislation before us would also expand the types of transactions subject to 1099 reporting requirements even further. The bill would generally require that a recipient of rental real estate income file an information return on his rental property's expense payment as well. For example, an individual who rents out even a single condo unit would generally be required to file a 1099 for his purchase from Home Depot or other corporate establishments if he buys more than $600 in supplies from them over the course of the year.

This new requirement, which would raise more than $2.5 billion over 10 years, could prove to be every bit as burdensome for owners of small rental real estate holdings as the health law's 1099 requirements are for small businesses, especially considering the increases in penalties I mentioned a moment ago.

But let me close by making a broader point. The majority boasts about how much this bill's tax provisions like increased expensing and extending bonus

depreciation will help small businesses--and let me be clear. Those are proposals that Republicans continue to support. But any tax benefits provided by this bill at the margins will pale in comparison to the enormous tax increase the majority has in store for every taxpaying small business at the end of this year.

By failing to extend the critical tax relief that is scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, the majority will impose a $3.8 trillion tax hike on American taxpayers--including every small business in America that pays income taxes--over the next 10 years. Especially with unemployment continuing to hover near 10 percent and economic growth very sluggish, that is a terrible idea for small businesses. It's a terrible idea for the economy, and it's a terrible idea for job creation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I mentioned earlier the small business provisions that we do agree upon, but we think that these are going to be outweighed by the onerous 1099 provision that is in the health law, and the impact on businesses is going to be terrible.

I want to just mention something here. The IRS's own National Taxpayer Advocate highlighted several problems with this particular 1099 reporting requirement. ``The new reporting burden, particularly as it falls on small businesses, may turn out to be as disproportionate as compared with any resulting improvements in tax compliance. Small businesses may have to pay for additional accounting services, incurring additional costs. In our view, it's highly likely that the IRS will improperly assess penalties that it must abate later after great expenditure of the taxpayer and IRS time and effort. Small businesses that lack the capacity to track customer purchases may lose customers, leaving the economy with more large national vendors and less local competition.'' Those are the words of the National Taxpayer Advocate at the IRS.

This 1099 reporting burden on small businesses is particularly onerous and outweighs many of the advantages of some of these tax provisions that we all agree upon. It's a shame that we couldn't have gotten together to put together a better small business package that would actually promote small business growth, promote jobs, and promote our economy.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I mentioned that we are for some of this tax relief in this bill. But if you talk to small business owners across this great country of ours, you talk to workers, you talk to families, what they're concerned about is the uncertainty, the uncertainty of what's happened over the last 2 years under this administration. This atmosphere of uncertainty is what's killing small business growth, and it's killing jobs.

Now, we highlighted the 1099 provision in the health care bill. That's just one provision in a massive bill that has led to this tremendous uncertainty, this atmosphere that is just like cold water on all business activity.

Yes, I admit the credit problems are real. Small businesses are struggling with it. But why is that? It's because there is uncertainty in the economic climate.

Now, it's nice. We have a bill that offers some good tax provisions in there. But where one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away with onerous provisions that are going to add costs to our businesses that are trying to hire and trying to make a living and trying to prosper, trying to create wealth and prosperity for American families.

The bottom line is we need good, solid policies that are going to basically eliminate this uncertainty. That's why I have to say I lament the fact that we couldn't get together and work on something that would really promote job growth, promote economic growth and prosperity for families. But, no, we have to play these political games, and we have to put provisions in there for certain reasons that actually are going to work counter to what we're trying to do.

The 1099 provision is just one of many, many elements that have led to this intense uncertainty across the board. I challenge my friends. I say go across the country, visit your districts, talk to small business owners and ask them what is the problem. They'll tell you it's credit. But they'll tell you, We don't know what's coming with this health care and what it's going to cost us.

There are a number of provisions the way this is going to be implemented, the 1099 provision being one. New taxes, the tax uncertainty--my God, that is a huge issue. Why can't we get together and extend the tax relief from 2001 and 2003 and keep the capital gains and dividend taxes where they are today? That will create an atmosphere of certainty for our businesses that want to hire, they want to produce goods, they want to export.

Why can't we articulate a coherent trade policy that's really going to promote exports? We've got three trade agreements on the table ready to go that immediately promote exports that will create high, good- paying jobs. One-out-of-five jobs in this country are related to trade. But, no, we won't take up those trade agreements. Ask why. Special interest. It's not what's best for America; it's for special interest.

We have a moratorium on drilling down in my district, in my State. It's killing small business growth. Killing it. These are small businesses that provide services and equipment and manufacturing to support American energy. And guess what. We have an arbitrarily imposed moratorium that defies any basis in fact or science at this stage, and we can't even get answers from this administration to bipartisan letters inquiring why that's the case.

So let's talk about how you get rid of uncertainty in this economic climate. We've got a climate of fear right now. People are fearing what's coming out of Washington.

What we need is certainty, and we need good, solid politics that are going to help American workers and American families.

I would like to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, our Armed Forces have been deployed in two major theaters of operation-- Afghanistan and Iraq. Like their forefathers of long-ago wars, too many of these noble servicemembers have paid with what Abraham Lincoln called the ``last full measure of devotion to the Nation.'' Many more brave men and women bear the physical and mental scars of battle, which will last their lifetimes.

Just this past week, two of my constituents were killed in the line of duty. Marine Lance Corporal Patrick Xavier, Jr., of Pembroke Pines, fell during a firefight in Afghanistan; and Army Staff Sergeant Amilcar Gonzalez, of Miami, who signed up 1 week after the cowardly attacks of September 11, 2001, passed away in Iraq when insurgents attacked his unit.

I know I speak on behalf of the entire Congress and a grateful Nation to express our deepest condolences to Patrick and Amilcar's families and pray for God's mercies upon them as they cope with their sorrow.

After learning of his son's death, Corporal Patrick Xavier's father said, He went out there to do what he wanted to do. He wanted to defend this Nation. Although I feel the loss, I am proud of how he conducted himself.

His father's words remind us about the solemn sacrifices that our veterans and family forces continue to make for us. The freedom we have is made possible by men and women like Lance Corporal Patrick Xavier and Staff Sergeant Amilcar Gonzalez. Each have stood ready in defense of the Nation. Our Nation owes them an immeasurable debt of gratitude. We have our freedoms because of their valor.

As a Congress, we are committed to ensuring our veterans and their families receive all the benefits and assistance they require and they certainly deserve. It is wholly appropriate, therefore, that we bring up this legislation, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, on the eve of the Memorial Day weekend.

Among its provisions, the bill provides our military personnel a 1.9 percent pay raise, versus the 1.4 percent proposed by the Obama administration.

It increases the family separation allowance for service members who are deployed away from their families from $250 to $285 a month.

It increases hostile fire and imminent danger pay from $250 to $260 per month.

For the purpose of the Federal student loan cancellation program, it defines a year of service as 6 months or longer of deployment in hostile fire or imminent danger zones.

Recognizing the critical role military families play and the sacrifices they make, the bill also establishes a career development pilot program for military spouses.

To address the physical and mental scars borne from combat, the legislation allows for an exemption for military medical providers older than 42 years to be considered for recruitment.

It also increases incentives for students in health care education programs to pursue military careers by allowing Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program participants to also receive payments

from the Active Duty Health Professions Loan Repayment Program.

It also requires the services to increase the number of authorized mental health providers by 25 percent.

The legislation authorizes $567 billion in budget authority for the Department of Defense and the national security programs within the Department of Energy.

The bill also authorizes $159 billion to support overseas contingency operations and $34 billion for the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as disaster assistance for the victims of the Haiti earthquake.

Later today, we are expected to consider an amendment by Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania on the repeal of the so-called Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. I am not interested in whatever legal activities adults engage in after-hours, off-base, out of uniform. Sexual preference should not even be a point of reference when judging individuals.

I also believe that when the President announced his decision to repeal the current policy and the military service chiefs and the Secretary of Defense requested the opportunity to carry out the President's directive in an orderly manner that would assure the maintenance of discipline and morale in the Armed Forces, and it was agreed to by all, including the President, that a survey would be sent to all the troops so that their input would be taken into account regarding how best to implement the new policy, and that a report with such recommendations as to how to best implement the new policy would be issued this December, before any legislative action was taken, it is my view that that process, which was agreed to by the President pursuant to the request of the service chiefs and the Secretary of Defense, should be followed.

So, breaking the agreement now by having this vote today is most unfortunate, and I strongly disagree with the decision of the President, the Speaker, and the majority leadership to do so, to break that agreement today.

I wish to thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon for their hard work on the underlying legislation and their commitment to producing a bipartisan bill that enjoys widespread support. Through the process, members on both sides of the aisle on the Armed Services Committee worked to produce a bipartisan bill, but as the bill made it up to the Rules Committee, that bipartisan spirit did not survive.

The rule brought forth by the majority today allows the House to debate a total of 82 amendments. Eleven of those amendments are bipartisan ones, while 64 are majority amendments and 7 are minority amendments.

So the majority has decided that on this always bipartisan bill, the bill that authorizes our military programs, they will allow nine majority amendments for every one minority amendment. That is some bipartisanship. But, again, it is typical of this majority to claim that they want to work with the minority, but even on bills that have overwhelming bipartisan support, they just can't seem to loosen their overwhelming urge to stifle debate, stifle debate, and block minority participation in the legislative process.

So, while I am disappointed by the majority's decision to allow such a disproportionate share of majority amendments compared to minority amendments, I have become quite accustomed to their behavior.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my friend, the gentleman from Colorado, knows that I have extraordinary respect for him, and that we have a legitimate disagreement with regard to our analysis of what I consider was an agreement that was entered into, including by the President, after he announced his decision to repeal the current policy as Commander in Chief, that this study that will lead to a report in December that would be conducted before legislative action takes place. And so I reiterate my respect to the gentleman from Colorado.

And I have many friends who believe differently than I do with regard to the vote that I will be taking today. I studied this issue very thoroughly and know that it is a very serious matter. But I stand by what I said in my previous remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished friend from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Texas (Mr. Olson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I would make that request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Speaker, it's been a good debate. It's unfortunate there is not

more fairness, procedural fairness in this rule with regard to what is traditionally a bipartisan bill. I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank the gentlelady from California and I thank the Rules Committee for allowing amendments in that I have offered dealing with the expansion and opportunity for small and women- owned businesses and addressing the tragedy of Fort Hood as relates to the civilians who were impacted by that enormous tragedy.

First, of course, my honor and respect to the United States military for their service as we move toward the commemoration of Memorial Day.

But I would also like to suggest that an amendment that I offered could have been added that dealt with $10 million going to the State Department to improve smart power diplomacy, and also some additional work on helping our families, having spoken to the Air Force families, to make sure that services are utilized during predeployment.

But I am grateful, of course, that we are moving forward on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and in tribute to August Provost, an innocent who lost his life in San Diego because people did not understand that he, too, was a soldier even though, even though his lifestyle may have been different. It is a disgrace to eliminate those who want to serve their country.

And finally, I would offer to say that I look forward to a colloquy that would establish NASA, or begin to address the question of whether or not the Defense Department needs to assess whether NASA is a national security asset as we move toward commercialization.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important to honor our military. I also believe it is important to recognize their needs. We need to promote the needs of their families, the families of the United States military, and ensure those civilians who are on military bases, who suffered as the soldiers did, will continue to have access to posttraumatic stress disorder counseling as they move forward to rebuild their lives.

I ask my colleagues to vote on the amendments and vote on the underlying rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my amendment (#175) to H.R. 5136-- ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011.''

My amendment would authorize the Secretary of Defense to transfer funds up to $10,000,000 to the Department of State (DoS) if the Secretary of Defense deems such a transfer to be in the interest of National Security.

This amendment would give the Secretary of Defense the ability to transfer a portion of the Department of Defense's (DoD)'s budget to the Department of State based on the need for diplomatic programs that boost national security. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary Gates have declared for years how they believe the State Department is better suited to carry out certain diplomatic activities in support of defense operations. Admiral Mullen even stated: ``I would hand over part of my budget to the State Department, in a heartbeat, assuming it was spent in the right place.''

Diplomatic efforts should always lead and shape our international relationships, and the leaders of our military believe that our foreign policy is still far too dominated by our military. The diplomatic and developmental capabilities of the United States have a direct bearing on our ability to shape threats and to reduce the need for military action. If this amendment is passed, it will be extremely significant and relevant to national defense, and improve the Department of Defense and the Department of State's ability to defend our nation.

Thank you again. I urge my colleagues to support this simple but important amendment.

I thank the Speaker for this opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. My amendment would require the Secretary of Defense to provide an outreach program to educate small businesses, including minority-owned, women-owned, and disadvantaged businesses. The Secretary shall also provide access to procurement and contracting opportunities for these businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I have long supported efforts to increase opportunities for small businesses, especially those that are minority-owned, women- owned and disadvantaged. We know that small businesses are the engine to our economy and that they provide much needed support for communities across the country. Small businesses employ 57.4 million Americans. Many Americans seek to fulfill the American dream by becoming small business owners, and everyone in the United States should be given the same opportunity to fulfill that dream.

Women and minorities have long been disadvantaged when it comes to getting business opportunities, and it is important to provide educational resources that will enable women, minorities, and other disadvantaged business owners to arm themselves with the necessary tools that they need to operate viable and thriving businesses. This will only improve communities throughout the United States.

For these reasons, I urge the Committee to make my amendment in order.

I thank the Speaker for this opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. My amendment would require the Secretary of Defense to maintain a website or searchable database of small businesses, including minority- owned, women-owned, and disadvantaged businesses with which the Department of Defense has contracts.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is crucial that we have a mechanism in place that allows us to track the numbers of minorities, women, and other disadvantaged businesses that receive contracts from the Department of Defense. We need to make sure that women, minorities, and disadvantaged businesses are getting reasonable opportunities to establish and grow their businesses. One of the ways we can monitor this is to have public access to the numbers through a searchable database.

I have long supported efforts to increase opportunities for small businesses, especially those that are minority-owned, women-owned and disadvantaged. We know that small businesses are the engine to our economy and that they provide much needed support for communities across the country. Many Americans seek to fulfill the American dream by becoming small business owners, and everyone in the United States should be given the same opportunity to fulfill that dream.

Women and minorities have long been disadvantaged when it comes to getting business opportunities, and it is important to provide educational resources that will enable women, minorities, and other disadvantaged business owners to arm themselves with the necessary tools that they need to operate viable and thriving businesses. This will only improve communities throughout the United States.

I thank the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin, for yielding. Mr. Levin has been one of our hardest workers and leaders in the effort to make sure that American business can succeed and expand and create good-paying jobs for our economy.

I just heard the last of his remarks, but my presumption is he was saying, as we all know is the case, there is not a place that any of us travel in the United States of America, when we talk to small businesses all over this country, that they don't say: Congressman, one of the real problems I have is I can't get capital. I want to put an additional room on my restaurant so I can have some additional tables, and I'll have to hire some additional--maybe a cook and a waiter and waitresses and a receptionist, but I can't get capital. I know I can get the customers, but I can't expand.

That's what this bill is about. This bill is about empowering small businesses to do what they do so well.

In our work to recover from the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes as a result of the economic policies we put in place in the last administration, we're suffering under the worst economic crisis in 75 years. Only the Great Depression is analogous.

Businesses will play an extraordinarily important role in bringing us back; they are our economy's job-creating engine. Over the past year, 64 percent of new jobs came from small businesses. Keeping small businesses growing and creating jobs is essential to our economic recovery, and supporting small businesses is an essential part of rebuilding American industry, which is why this important small business lending bill is part of the Democrats' ``Make It in America'' agenda.

You're going to be hearing a lot about that agenda: ``Make It in America.''

There are an awful lot of people in our country right now who, understandably, are not sure they're going to make it in America. They're not sure their kids are going to be able to make it in America. They're not sure they're going to have a retirement on which they counted. ``Make It in America.''

Now, that has another meet meaning as well: make it in America; manufacture it in America; create good-paying jobs through manufacturing things in America that Americans will buy, and yes, the rest of the world will buy.

This is a plan to strengthen American manufacturing and its ability to create well-paying middle class jobs. Six Make It in America bills have already been signed into law. In addition,

Democrats have voted for investments in job-creating infrastructure projects, lower taxes for 98 percent of America, expanded Small Business Administration lending, a tax credit for small businesses that hire unemployed workers, and long-term tax credits to help small businesses afford employer health care. And we've done it in the face of a year and a half of near unanimous Republican opposition.

The challenges faced by small businesses are still, of course, significant ones. Last year, for instance, 45 percent of small businesses seeking loans to expand or even stay in business were turned down for a loan, which had an obvious impact on employment.

To expand the job-creating flow of credit, I urge each of my colleagues, not Republicans or Democrats but all of my colleagues, who all want to see small businesses grow, who all want to see jobs created, and, therefore, I urge all of my colleagues on either side of the aisle of whatever ideology, support this bill.

I talked to my small bankers last week. They say if they get this capital, they're going to lend to small businesses. I talked to my small businesses, and they say if this bill passes, they believe that they'll be able to get a loan to expand their business or to keep in business.

First, this bill creates a small business lending fund that makes it easier for small businesses to access the capital they need. It also establishes $12 billion in tax cuts for small business.

I've heard a lot of talk throughout my 30 years here in the Congress of the United States from the other side of the aisle about cutting taxes on small businesses. Well, this cuts $12 billion in taxes on small businesses. I would hope that you would feel that was consistent with what you said ought to be done. We agree. And we've done it. And we're trying to do it again.

These tax credits encourage small business investments by eliminating small business capital gains taxes in many cases; they encourage innovation by helping entrepreneurs deduct more startup expenses; they make it more affordable for business owners to invest in the equipment they need to expand; and, as I said, they make health care more affordable for the self-employed--all designed to grow and expand small businesses and to create jobs for the millions of Americans who have been hardworking Americans, lost their job, and they want to work and they're looking for work, and they can't find it. This is an opportunity for us to expand that job pool by an estimated 500,000.

In addition, this bill strengthens State and SBA programs that lend to small businesses. We have such a program in the State of Maryland. We think this will help. And it strengthens overseas competitiveness by funding export-promoting programs and by fighting for market access and a level playing field for American companies that compete abroad.

In all, this bill's provisions are projected, as I said, to save or create as many as a half million jobs.

Passing this bill is a test of every Member's commitment to the businesses that are the backbone of our districts. It is a measure of our support for their ability to innovate, grow, and employ more workers.

But as important as this bill is, it is not the end of our work to create small business jobs.

For instance, the House will soon debate Congressman Miller's bill to support lending for home construction--another example of Democratic efforts to support small businesses and create jobs.

I hope that every one of my colleagues sees fit to support this bill, not because it perfectly represents every view that you have--none of us vote for bills that reflect our views perfectly--but because the consensus of the business community is this will move us forward.

Vote for this bill. It's good for America. It's good for our people. It's good for jobs.