Floor Statements

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

(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, natural disasters profoundly impacted our Nation this year. From wildfires out west to drought in the Plains to violent storms in the Northeast, millions of households were affected. These unanticipated events leave families and small businesses facing significant costs when rebuilding.

Typically, insurance covers monetary losses, but that is not always the case. To complement insurance coverage, Congress authorized the SBA to provide disaster loans to affected families and small businesses. Since its inception in 1953, the SBA has approved roughly 1.9 million disaster loans, amounting to approximately $47 billion.

Over the years, the program has evolved to better assist victims. As chairwoman of the Small Business Committee, I worked to incorporate bipartisan reforms in the 2008 farm bill to help disaster victims get back on their feet. These included new disaster

bridge loans, greater loan amounts, extending deferment periods, and enabling more private sector involvement.

The current program makes the government the lender of last resort by subsidizing reduced interest rates only for those who cannot get credit elsewhere. The goal is to assist as many victims as possible and ensure risk-sharing remains a public-private partnership. This bill, however, would eliminate the ``credit elsewhere'' test, offering taxpayer- subsidized, low-interest loans to all applicants. At a time when government resources are scarce, we should not be shifting more borrowers and additional risk into this initiative.

This is not my only concern. The bill also arbitrarily limits interest rates--with no empirical data to show why these levels are appropriate. Capping interest rates could greatly increase the taxpayers' burden in the future as costs rise and revenue remains flat. The SBA is also directed to issue refunds on previously approved loans. The bill is silent on how to carry that out, creating an administrative nightmare for the SBA.

Continuing to improve the program is important, but in doing so, we should not create unintended consequences. If the regular committee hearing and markup process had been followed, Members could have addressed this bill's shortcomings. Placing it on suspension has further limited Members' participation.

I would like to direct the attention of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to the fact that this bill creates $50 million in direct spending. To offset the cost, it will eliminate public funding of political conventions, undoing years of campaign finance reform in the process.

Today, Federal election rules seek to keep soft money and undue influence out of the Presidential race. Since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, it's become clear that powerful stakeholders will spend millions to help a candidate win. If public funding were terminated, special interests will once again compete to curry favor with Presidential candidates by bankrolling nominating conventions.

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly appropriate to provide relief to homeowners and businesses affected by a disaster; however, it is inconsistent with the intent of the program to ask taxpayers to subsidize loans for those who can get credit elsewhere. Is this the best use of government resources? I don't know. But I'm confident we could have investigated this and other concerns if the committee process were not bypassed in favor of today's suspension vote.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Ranking Member, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill before us today.

Republicans love to focus on small businesses when it's convenient for them. They claim it is imperative to pass today's bill because, if we don't, small firms will be harmed. However, today's bill is only good for millionaires and billionaires, not the Nation's job creators.

The argument that a partial extension of tax cuts hinders small business hiring relies on distorted facts. Republicans are using a warped definition of a ``small firm'' that counts Mitt Romney as a small business owner. I don't think the average person considers 237 people whose incomes average more than $200 million as small business owners.

Contrary to Republican claims, this is not what the American taxpayers

think of when they hear ``small business.'' When most people think of entrepreneurs, they envision small manufacturers, architects, Main Street restaurants, and hardware stores--those Americans who risk their savings to create jobs in our communities. Tax cuts should go to real small businesses that are creating jobs, not to people who are simply moving money around for their own profits.

Instead of addressing the top concern of small business owners--a lack of demand for their goods and services--this bill simply gives more tax cuts to the very rich. The numbers don't lie. Over 80 percent of the value of these cuts goes to millionaires. That is an average tax cut of $164,000.

Let's call this bill what it really is--a tax cut for the rich, not for small businesses. That is not what our economy needs. Vote ``no.''

I thank the ranking member for yielding.

I rise in opposition to this ill-conceived measure which will do nothing to promote small business growth. Small businesses everywhere need help. They require affordable credit and greater demand for their services. Yet today we are focused on legislation that does nothing to address these challenges and, instead, pushes an extreme agenda.

Despite what some assert, regulation is not among entrepreneurs' top concerns. In fact, surveys note that 85 percent of small business owners believe regulation is necessary. And I have with me a survey that was conducted last February by the American Sustainable Business Council, and I will enter this survey into the Record.

Opinion Polling: The Economic State of Small Business

[Feb. 2012]

(By the American Sustainable Business Council, Main Street Alliance,

and Small Business Majority)

Summary

In January and February 2012, the American Sustainable

Business Council, Main Street Alliance and Small Business

Majority released polling that asked small employers across

the country about key issues impacting the small business

community. These included access to credit; proposals in the

American Jobs Act to boost the economy; regulations; taxes;

and money in politics. Respondents were politically diverse:

50% identified as Republican, 32% as Democrat and 15% as

independent.

The poll found nine in 10 small business owners have a

negative view of the role money plays in politics. The

results showed 90% of small business owners see the

availability of credit as a problem for small business and

they strongly favor increasing the lending authority of

community banks and credit unions. We also learned that

entrepreneurs support current proposals being debated in

Congress that aim to boost the economy and create jobs,

particularly investments in infrastructure.

The polling revealed that consumer demand--not regulation--

is small business owners' greatest concern. In fact, 86% see

regulation as a necessary part of a modern economy and three-

quarters believe it is necessary to level the playing field

between small and large businesses. Lastly, 90% of small

business owners believe large corporations use loopholes to

avoid taxes that small businesses have to pay, and three-

quarters say their own business suffers because of it.

Below are the extended main findings of the poll.

Methodology

The poll reflects an Internet survey of 500 small business

owners across the country, conducted by Lake Research. It has

a margin of error of +/-4.4%. The survey was conducted

between December 8, 2011 and January 4, 2012. Researchers

used a random sample of small business owners obtained from

Harris Interactive, with additional samples from InfoUSA.

Money in Politics

Polling results that revealed small business owners'

attitudes toward money in politics and the Citizens United

decision were released on Jan. 18.

Small business owners view the Citizens United decision as

bad for small business: 66% of those surveyed said the two-

year-old ruling that gives corporations unlimited spending

power in elections is bad for small businesses. Only 9% said

it was good for small business.

Small business owners have a negative view of the role

money plays in politics overall: 88% of respondents view the

role money plays in politics negatively; 68% view it very

negatively.

Access to Credit and Proposals to Boost the Economy

Poll results that revealed small business owners' attitudes

toward credit availability were released on Jan. 26, 2012 in

conjunction with results showing their views on proposals in

the American Jobs Act.

Small business owners say access to credit is a problem:

90% of respondents agree the availability of small business

loans is a problem, and 60% have faced difficulty themselves

when trying to obtain loans that would grow their businesses.

Small business owners agree it is harder now to obtain

loans: 61% of respondents say it is harder now than it was

four years ago to get a loan.

Small business owners support making it easier for

community banks and credit unions to lend more: 90% of owners

support making it easier for community banks and credit

unions to lend to small businesses, and more than three-

quarters, or 77%, support creating incentives for community

banks to lend more. By more than a 2:1 ratio, respondents

support increasing credit unions' lending cap from 12.25% to

27.5% of a credit union's assets.

Support for reforming and regulating credit cards is

extremely high among small business owners: 82% support

tighter credit card regulations, such as clearer disclosure

of terms and caps on interest rates, including 47% who

strongly support these regulations; 52% of entrepreneurs have

used credit cards to help finance their own business.

Respondents favor reducing collateral requirements: 60% of

small business owners support reducing collateral

requirements so loans can become more accessible.

The housing and mortgage crisis has harmed consumer demand

for small businesses: Almost three-quarters of small business

owners, or 73%, feel their business has been hurt by a drop

in consumer demand stemming from the housing and mortgage

meltdown.

Small business owners believe reducing the principal on

underwater mortgages will boost spending: 57% of respondents

agree reducing the principal on underwater mortgages to the

current market value would boost consumer spending, helping

small businesses regain their vigor through increased

profits.

Small business owners strongly support investment in

infrastructure: 69% favor investing $50 billion in

infrastructure projects that would create jobs.

Entrepreneurs favor creating a nationwide wireless network:

59% of those surveyed are in support of creating this kind of

network and expanding access to high-speed wireless services.

Regulations

Polling results that revealed small business owners'

attitudes toward government regulations were released on Feb.

1, 2012.

Weak demand is small business owners' biggest problem: 34%

of respondents said weak demand is their biggest problem,

while 15% cited the cost of health coverage and other

benefits. Only 14% said it is the level of government

regulation. The level of taxes came in fourth place with 12%

and competition with larger companies garnered 10%.

Small business owners believe eliminating incentives to

move jobs overseas would do the most to create jobs: 24% of

small business owners said eliminating incentives for

employers to move jobs overseas would do the most to create

jobs, and 14% called for tax cuts. Thirteen percent of

respondents said increasing consumer purchasing would be the

biggest job creator and 12% believe

jobs lie in improving infrastructure like roads and bridges.

Only 10% of respondents said reducing regulation would do the

most to create jobs.

Small business owners see regulations as a necessary part

of a modern economy and believe they can live with them if

they're fair and reasonable: 86% of small business owners

agree some regulation of business is necessary for a modern

economy, and 93% of them agree their business can live with

some regulation if it is fair, manageable and reasonable.

Small businesses believe some regulations are needed to

level the playing field with big business and that

enforcement should be just as tough on large corporations as

it is on small businesses: 78% of respondents said some

regulations are important to protect small businesses from

unfair competition and to level the playing field with big

businesses. Additionally, 95% believe the enforcement of

regulations should be at least as tough on large corporations

as it is on small businesses. Another 76% of respondents

believe regulations on the books should be enforced.

Respondents feel strongly that specific regulations play an

important role: 78% believe policies are needed to hold

health insurance companies accountable so they don't increase

insurance rates by excessive amounts; 84% support policies

that ensure food safety for businesses and customers that buy

or sell food products and 80% support disclosure and

regulation of toxic materials.

Small business owners support clean energy policies: 79% of

small business owners support having clean air and water in

their community in order to keep their family, employees and

customers healthy, and 61% support standards that move the

country towards energy efficiency and clean energy.

Small business owners believe in streamlining the process

for regulatory compliance and documentation: 73% of

respondents believe we should allow for one-stop electronic

filing of government paperwork.

Taxes

Polling results that revealed small business owners'

attitudes toward taxes were released on Feb. 6.

Small business owners overwhelmingly believe big

corporations use loopholes to avoid taxes that small

businesses have to pay: a sweeping 90% believe this to be

true; 92% say big corporations' use of such loopholes is a

problem.

Nine out of 10 small business owners say U.S. multinational

corporations using accounting loopholes to shift their U.S.

profits to offshore subsidiaries to avoid taxes is a problem:

91% of respondents agreed it is a problem, with 55% saying it

is a very serious problem.

Majority of small business owners say their business is

harmed when big corporations use loopholes to avoid taxes:

Three-quarters of respondents agree that their small business

is harmed when loopholes allow big corporations to avoid

taxes. More than one-third say it harms their business a lot.

Small business owners say big corporations are not paying

their fair share of taxes: 67% believe big corporations pay

less than their fair share of taxes. An even bigger majority,

73%, says multinational corporations pay less than their fair

share.

Small business owners say households making more than $1

million a year pay less than their fair share in taxes: 58%

of owners say households whose annual income exceeds $1

million pay less than their fair share.

Small business owners support a higher tax rate for

individuals earning more than $1 million a year: 57% of

respondents agree that individuals earning more than $1

million a year should pay a higher tax rate on the income

over $1 million. Only one small business owner out of 500

polled reported their annual household income to be more than

$1 million.

Four out of five small business owners disapprove of the

``carried interest'' loophole that gives hedge fund managers

a big break on their taxes: 81% of small business owners

favor hedge fund managers paying taxes at the ordinary income

tax rate, with a top bracket rate currently set at 35%,

rather than the 15% capital gains rate--with 61% strongly

supporting this change.

A majority of small business owners believe Congress should

let tax cuts expire on taxable household income exceeding

$250,000 a year: 51% of respondents believe Congress should

let tax cuts on taxable household income exceeding $250,000 a

year expire (40% said they should be extended).

About the Organizations

American Sustainable Business Council

The American Sustainable Business Council is a network of

business organizations representing over 100,000 companies

and 200,000 business leaders. ASBC advocates for public

policies that meet the realities of the 21st century global

economy including strategic investments in workforce and

infrastructure; standards and safeguards that promote

innovation, prevent abuse and protect critical resources; and

a new sustainable economic model that fosters a growing,

economically-secure middle class. www.asbcouncil.org

Main Street Alliance

The Main Street Alliance is a national network of small

business coalitions. MSA creates opportunities for small

business owners to speak for themselves to advance public

policies that benefit business owners, their employees, and

the communities they serve. Making health reform work for

small businesses is a top priority of the MSA network and its

state coalitions. www.Mainstreetalliance.org

Small Business Majority

Small Business Majority is a national nonpartisan small

business advocacy organization, founded and run by small

business owners, and focused on solving the biggest problems

facing America's 28 million small businesses. We conduct

extensive opinion and economic research and work with small

business owners, policy experts and elected officials

nationwide to bring small business voices to the public

policy table. www.smallbusinessinajority.org

This survey says that eight out of 10 think regulations have a role to play in leveling the playing field between small businesses and larger competitors that seek an unfair advantage.

Even surveys by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Businesses, who, themselves are vehemently against regulation, they find that small businesses rank economic uncertainty and poor sales, respectively, as the most important concerns, not regulation.

There are a number of proposals that this House could pass to generate demand for small company services and empower them to hire. Tax credits for new employees, expanding payroll tax cuts, and extending tax cuts for working families all come to mind.

Let's reject this legislation and move on to a real small business jobs act.

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

(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I rise in strong opposition to the bill before us today.

The Supreme Court's recent ruling upholding the health care bill was a historic win for this Nation's small businesses and their employees. Repealing the Affordable Care Act will be an enormous step backwards for 26 million small firms who not only want relief from high health care costs, but for Congress to focus on job creation.

This bill will not help a single small business secure a loan, break into new public markets, or invest in its operations. The other side acknowledges this legislation is going nowhere, just like the previous vote we took at the beginning of this Congress.

Not only is the health care bill good law, it is good policy and has already led to major achievements for small companies since its enactment. The tax credits from the health care bill have saved over 300,000 small firms an average of $1,400 on their insurance costs. The qualifying therapeutic discovery project program has invested $1 billion in over 4,600 small innovative firms that are developing groundbreaking therapies and creating jobs. Small firms are receiving more value for their premium dollars because the 80/20 rule is now in effect. Because of this, not only is the small group market receiving $321 million in rebates this summer, they are benefiting from lower premiums.

The future of health reform will bring expanded coverage for preventive services and new State health exchanges in 2014, allowing more employers to purchase affordable insurance. Soon, prior medical conditions will not bar anyone from obtaining coverage. As the implementation of health care reform continues, improving the health of the Nation's citizens will remain a priority for Congress going forward.

At a time when economic growth is critical, we should be focusing on how to help small businesses raise capital and create jobs. Today's bill does none of this. Instead, it threatens our Nation's job creators. It imposes a tax increase by eliminating critical small business tax credits, which have generated $485 million worth of savings. By doing away with reforms that establish new health insurance markets, it would limit small businesses' ability to secure coverage and eliminate choices for entrepreneurs.

Small businesses already pay 18 percent more for coverage than their corporate counterparts. The loss of new safeguards would compound this problem. Because of health reform, insurers are no longer able to raise rates arbitrarily. Passage of this bill will strip new protections that provide bargaining power to small companies. Rather than making improvements to the law, the Republicans want to eliminate it without offering any alternatives.

While I agree that more can be done to make healthy living more attainable for Americans, voting for today's bill will not do that. One of the first votes I took this Congress was against Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. I will continue opposing any efforts repealing a law that is beneficial to millions of small firms.

I urge Members to oppose the bill, and I urge the leadership to focus on meaningful ways to address this Nation's economic challenges.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, since I have two speakers on this side, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, on average, small businesses pay more for health insurance than large firms for comparable policies, but receive fewer benefits. Prior to enactment of the ACA, 20 percent of consumers were in plans that spent more than 30 cents of every premium dollar on administrative costs, and an additional 25 percent were in plans that spent between 25 and 30 percent of every premium dollar on administrative costs.

The ACA included the medical loss ratio that requires the insurance company to spend at least 80 percent of small employer premium dollars on medical costs instead of administrative expenses. Is that bad for small businesses?

When Republicans were in control of both Chambers and held the Oval Office, they talked about this solution for nearly a decade, and yet nothing happened. In that time, small businesses saw their employees' premiums rise by an average of $700 every single year.

Why should small businesses believe they can deliver on a promise this time?

So, finally, the law needs to be implemented. The most beneficial provision to small employers doesn't go into effect until 2014. The availability of State exchanges in 2014 could spur more small business owners to provide health benefits to employees.

For example, in California, just 32 percent of small businesses currently offer health insurance to their employees, but the number of those likely to offer insurance through exchanges jumped to 44 percent.

So don't repeal this legislation just for the sake of energizing the Republican base. You know that by enacting today and taking this vote this is going nowhere.

What we should be doing--and someone on the other side said that we should be listening to small businesses--yes, we are listening to small businesses, and what I hear from small businesses is that they are having trouble getting consumers through their doors, that they are having trouble selling their products, that they're having trouble accessing capital. Those are the obstacles that they are facing today, and that will prevent small businesses from creating jobs, and that is what this economy needs in order to get the economy growing again.

So repealing this today is not going to create one single job.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the Chair how much time both sides have left.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the Chair how much time is left on both sides.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I am prepared to close.

What will small businesses lose if health care reform is repealed? Small business tax credits that save employers $435 million in 2011 will be abolished. Insurers will be able to continue price-gouging their customers and denying coverage for preexisting conditions. Repeal will mean millions of families and employers will no longer receive the benefits of lower premiums on insurance company rebates worth over $300 million this year alone.

I urge a ``no'' vote because the ACA was a step in the right direction. Without it, the self-employed and small business employees will continue to be uninsured at high rates with no hope of Republican action to fix the broken health care system.

Mr. Speaker, instead of holding this vote, we should be spending our time on targeted measures to help our Nation's small businesses grow and create jobs. Maybe what we should be doing today is debating the jobs bill that the President presented to us in the House of Representatives.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, due to a personal family matter I was not present for rollcall votes 294 314. Had I been present, this is how I would have voted:

On rollcall Vote 294: H.R. 5651, Food and Drug Administration Reform Act of 2012 I would have voted yes.

On rollcall Vote 295: H.R. 4201, The Service member Family Protection Act I would have voted yes.

On rollcall Vote 296: H.R. 915, The Jaime Zapata Border Security Task Force Act I would have voted yes.

On rollcall Vote 297: Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5743, H.R. 5854, H.R. 5325, and H.R. 5855 I would have voted yes.

On rollcall Vote 298: H. Res. 667, Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5743, H.R. 5854, H.R. 5325, and H.R. 5855 I would have voted no.

On rollcall Vote 299: H.R. 3541, Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act I would have voted no.

On rollcall Vote 300: Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 5743 I would have voted I would have voted yes.

On rollcall Vote 301: Final Passage of H.R. 5743, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 I would have voted yes.

On rollcall Vote 302: Grimm Amendment which strikes Section 517, which prohibits the use of funds for construction bid solicitations that require or prohibit project labor agreements I would have voted yes.

On rollcall Vote 303: Franks Amendment to prohibit the use of funds from being used to enforce the prevailing wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act I would have vote no.

On rollcall Vote 304: Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 5854 I would have voted yes.

On rollcall Vote 305: Final Passage of H.R. 5854, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Act, 2013 I would have voted yes.

On rollcall Vote 306: Scalise Amendment to increase the Army Corps of Engineers Construction Account by $10 million for Louisiana Coastal Restoration and reduces the Department of Energy Administration Account by the same amount I would have voted yes.

On rollcall Vote 307: King Amendment to reduce the Army Corps of Engineers Construction Account by $1,000,000 and increases the Operation and Maintenance Account by $571,429 I would have voted no.

On rollcall Vote 308: Moran Amendment which strikes Section 110 of the bill. The section prohibits the Corps of Engineers from using funds to issue guidance, enforce or supplement rules regarding definition of waters under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act I would have voted yes.

On rollcall Vote 309: Hultgren Amendment to reduce the Department of Energy, Energy Programs, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Account by $30 million and increases the Science Administrative and Facility Account for National Laboratories by $15 million I would have voted no.

On rollcall Vote 310: Chaffetz Amendment to reduce funds for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by $74,000,000 and applies the savings to the spending reduction account I would have voted no.

On rollcall Vote 311: McClintock Amendment to zero out the Department of Energy, Energy Programs, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Account (a cut of $1.45 billion) and applies the savings to the spending reduction account I would have voted no.

On rollcall Vote 312: Kaptur Amendment to increase the Department of Energy, Energy Programs, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Account by $10 million and reduces the Department of Energy Administrative Account by the same amount I would have voted yes.

On rollcall Vote 313: Tonko Amendment to increase the Department of Energy, Energy Programs, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Account by $180,440,000 for the Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Program and reduces the Atomic Energy Defense Activities, National Nuclear Security Administration, Weapons Activities Account by the same amount I would have voted yes.

On rollcall Vote 314: Hahn Amendment to increase funds for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by $50 million and reduces funds for Fossil Energy Research and Development by $100 million I would have voted yes.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking Democrat for his great leadership and allowing me to make this amendment in order as part of the en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that the brave men and women who serve our Nation abroad are treated with dignity.

Sadly, in recent years, we have come to realize that too many of these young people endure abuse--not at the hands of the enemy, but from within their own unit. Last year, an Army private from my district, Danny Chen, lost his life after being hazed. Danny's loss has been a profound tragedy for his family, the Chinatown community, and all of New York.

While many steps should have been taken to save Danny, it is almost certain if he had transferred to another unit, he would be with us today.

The amendment I am offering will ensure that each branch of the military has a process allowing hazing victims to swiftly transfer to another unit. This commonsense policy will prevent future tragedies.

Mr. Chairman, all of us owe a great debt to the members of our military who risk so much for our Nation's freedom.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation, which is an affront to women, their rights and their safety.

It is worth noting that the Violence Against Women Act was originally passed under a Republican Congress. Its provisions that protect immigrant women passed in 2000 and 2005--again during Republican majorities.

Yet, today, we are voting on legislation that would gut these protections, delivering women seeking help into the hands of their abusers --endangering their safety and their lives.

Immigrant women are disproportionately impacted by domestic violence. One study from New York City found that 51 percent of domestic partner homicide victims were foreign-

born. Other research has suggested that, among undocumented Latina women, the rate of battering is as high as 34%.

For immigrant women, there can be language barriers preventing them from seeking help. In many cases, abusers may try to use the threat of deportation to prevent their victims from leaving.

The Violence Against Women Act is designed to help those who are most vulnerable and who need assistance. Instead, the provisions being offered by the Majority, today, would make it harder for those who have been battered to escape abuse and find safety. This legislation weakens confidentiality protections that prevent abusers from knowing their victims are seeking help. Needless, duplicative interviews with DHS would make it harder for those who are abused to secure assistance through the immigration system. The legislation would also make it more difficult for those cooperating with law enforcement to avoid deportation. Collectively, these provisions effectively cut women off from help, making it harder for them to avail themselves of the legal process.

Make no mistake: despite what our Republican colleagues say, these provisions will not reduce immigration fraud. That argument is a red herring. Indeed, there is not one shred of evidence suggesting female immigrants are misusing the Violence Against Women Act.

How can we turn our back on women who need assistance? What kind of a message does it send to pass this legislation? Are we saying to those who suffer abuse they do not ``count'' because they are undocumented?

I say to my colleagues--let us send another message. Reject this legislation. Pass a real Violence Against Women Act that does not divide us by playing politics, but extends help to women who need it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation, which would deprive women in need of vital health services. All of us-- on both sides of the aisle--recognize the need to prevent student loan interest rates from doubling to 6.8 percent. But this bill tackles this problem in exactly the wrong way--depriving women of preventative care aimed at stopping cervical cancer and stopping low income children from receiving life saving vaccinations.

For the working families of New York, this legislation robs them of access to quality health care. With this bill, we are saying that for a young person from a working family to afford college, his or her mother must also forego vital medical care.

Preventing a rise in student loan rates is critical for our young people. With millions of students graduating into a difficult job market now is the time for serious solutions that keep these loans affordable--not the time to use this problem as a political football.

The President has said this bill is dead on arrival, so why are we wasting time debating it? We can and must find a better solution that keeps these rates low without harming working families.

Let us reject this bill and craft legislation that has a chance of being signed into law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. There is nothing in this bill specifically for small businesses. Instead, this is another attempt to award tax breaks to the wealthy. In fact, millionaires will receive nearly half of the benefit from this legislation, while true small businesses accrue only 10 percent. Once again, as the largest corporations get fatter, small businesses have to struggle for scraps.

Small, fast growing startups, which often have little tax liability, would see no tax savings--yet these are the firms most likely to create jobs. Even worse, this plan would give tax breaks to companies shedding employees--exactly the wrong incentive. Finally, this bill does nothing to address small business owners' top concern--a lack of demand for their goods and services. A real small business bill would tackle that problem.

This is not a small business bill--it is a millionaire's tax break bill. Vote no so we can focus on real solutions to small businesses' needs.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Ryan budget.

Our seniors and working families in New York struggle with rising rent, food, and health care costs. Now is not the time to squeeze working families in order to provide tax giveaways to the most fortunate among us.

This budget will mean big cuts to the supplemental nutritional assistance program which provides food assistance to 1.8 million New Yorkers. For students looking to secure an education, this budget will mean drastic cuts to higher education funding, meaning higher costs for students. New York's small businesses and, to that effect, small businesses across this country will see Federal programs they rely on for access to credit and technical assistance reduced by $80 million-- exactly the wrong direction to go as we seek to hasten our economic recovery.

Nowhere does this budget fail our Nation more than in the area of health care. Medicaid will be slashed by $810 billion, meaning disabled people, the working poor, and low-income children.

For our seniors who have worked hard their entire life, this budget will mean turning our back on the Medicare guarantee for the first time, pushing the 74,000 Medicare recipients in New York's 12th District into an untested, unreliable voucher system.

Let's be clear: if you vote for this budget, you're voting to end Medicare as we know it.

Madam Chair, the Ryan budget repeatedly chooses millionaires and billionaires over working families. Those are not American values. They are not New York values. We should reject them. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, we have before us a less than ideal piece of legislation. All of us recognize it is vital the payroll tax cut be extended. This cut has put money in the pockets of 160 million Americans--17 million of them in the tri-state New York area. These consumers--indeed our entire economy--cannot afford for this measure to lapse.

At the same time, this bill does not go far enough in helping those who have been hurt by the recession. Millions of Americans are seeking employment but still cannot find it. Indeed, our economy would need to create 230,000 jobs each month--for two years--to regain all the jobs lost since December of 2007. This bill makes it more difficult for out- of-work Americans, by shortening the amount of time they may receive unemployment benefits to 73 weeks. At the same time we cut these benefits, our Republican colleagues insist on protecting those ``vulnerable millionaires'' who continue receiving tax cuts.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill--but reluctantly. We cannot afford for Unemployment Insurance or the payroll tax cut to expire. Still, it is my hope that in the future we can do more to protect working families who have suffered from this downturn.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a pillar of the Sunset Park community, an educator and an advocate for Brooklyn's children. Today, a wing of PS 169 is being dedicated to honor Mrs. Aguirre's years of service to the children of Sunset Park. As a teacher, Mrs. Aguirre saw firsthand the needs and potential of our children. She recognized that, when given the resources and opportunity to learn in the right environment, every child can become a successful member of the community. In that regard, she has been a steadfast champion for relieving overcrowding in our schools and neighborhoods. She successfully led a campaign that united the parents of Sunset Park and helped them coalesce behind a vision of better schools, smaller class sizes and a stronger community.

In 1997, Sunset Park opened Public School 24, an institution that has now served thousands of our community's children. Mrs. Aguirre became the school's first Principal. In that role she was always committed to ensuring students and classrooms were held to high expectations. That guiding philosophy, coupled with strong faculty development and mentoring, served as a recipe for success for all those who passed through PS 24's doors over the years.

While Mrs. Aguirre is now retired, Sunset Park's residents remember her many contributions. Naming a school wing after this prominent leader, woman, educator, principal and mentor is a fitting tribute to her legacy. The name of Principal Yvette Aguirre will remind students and the community of the work of a proud Latina, a positive role model and a champion for education.

Mr. Speaker, talented and passionate educators are a gift. They give of themselves tirelessly in an effort to improve our communities and ensure our children have access to opportunity. Mrs. Aguirre is one of those educators and, today, I would ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring her many achievements.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of a stalwart champion for New York's working families. After more than 27 years of service to the residents of Cooper Park Houses, Dianne Jackson is retiring. Through her decades of service, she has made countless contributions, improving not just Cooper Park Houses, but the surrounding Williamsburg community.

Throughout her nearly three decades of service, Dianne has been an unwavering voice for some of the most vulnerable members of our City. As President of the Cooper Park Resident Council, she advocated for tenants' rights on a range of issues--from fighting to ensure buildings are repaired and maintained to pushing for more green space and ensuring the local community is consulted when development decisions affect the residents.

A graduate of the Neighborhood Women's College Program at LaGuardia Community College, Dianne's career is characterized by a tireless commitment to helping others. In addition to serving as President of the Cooper Park Resident Council, she was one of the founding members of the Center for Elimination of Violence in the Family. Today, that organization houses up to 1,000 women and children, each year, providing a helping hand to members of our community most in need of assistance.

In addition to her tireless advocacy and work in the community, Dianne overcame personal struggles, as well. A cancer survivor, she exhibited the perseverance, resolve and toughness to not only recover, but remain a driving force for positive change in Brooklyn.

Mr. Speaker, one would be hard pressed to find a better example of how one person can make a difference improving their community, city and society, overall. Dianne Jackson should be commended for her years of service. I wish her only the best for an enjoyable, well-earned retirement.

Mr. Speaker, in less than two weeks, taxes are set to rise, cuts to Medicare payments will occur, and emergency unemployment will lapse. With the economic security of so many Americans at stake, we cannot allow this to happen. Until an acceptable long-term solution is offered, it would be irresponsible to forego a short-term extension that enables small firms and the American people to move forward with our economic recovery.

Almost 12 million Americans currently rely on unemployment. Without action, nearly 2.5 million of them will lose their benefits in just two months. At a time when we should be providing them a leg-up, this Republican Congress has continually failed to provide middle-class Americans the assistance they require.

And, now, due to the Republican leadership blocking a two month extension, 160 million hardworking taxpayers are faced with a tax increase.

We have a modest, bipartisan solution before us. While it certainly does not address all these problems, it can provide some help at a time when it is desperately needed. The House should consider and pass this extension, immediately.

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

Reducing the cost of regulation is a very important issue, but it's not going to turn the economy around. In order for this to happen, businesses need to see more customers coming through their doors--and not just during the holiday season we are now in. With this in mind, it is necessary to create an environment where regulations are not overburdening small businesses, as they do in fact bear the largest burden.

These entrepreneurs face an annual regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee, which is 36 percent higher than the regulatory cost facing large firms. And this brings us to the bill before us.

Too often on the House floor legislation is painted as either being totally perfect or completely awful. With this bill, neither of these characterizations is appropriate. In fact, on many fronts, H.R. 527 contains several very positive provisions and will make a real difference for small businesses.

Many of the provisions were previously advanced by Democrats in the Small Business Committee, and for this Chairman Graves and Chairman Smith and their staff should be commended. For instance, the bill makes agencies' regulatory flex analyses more detailed so that they cannot simply overlook their obligations to small businesses. It also gives real teeth to periodic regulatory look-backs, which require agencies to review outdated regulations that remain on the books. Agencies will also be required to evaluate the entire impact of their regulations, something that is long overdue.

And it cannot go without mention that the bill brings the IRS under the purview of the RFA. This is a real improvement for small firms, which will undoubtedly benefit from greater scrutiny of complex and burdensome tax rules. These are all constructive changes that will bring real relief to entrepreneurs.

With that said, there are other items in this legislation that leave you scratching your head. Adding 50 new agencies to the panel process is a recipe for disaster. Such a dramatic change will require new bureaucratic processes, more staff, and more paperwork.

It must be ironic for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this bill attempts to reduce Federal regulation by dramatically expanding the role and scope of government. In fact, H.R. 527 creates more government as a means to limit government. How does that make sense?

It also applies reg flex to land management plans, something I have never heard small businesses complain about in my 18 years on the committee. Doing so will enable corporate interests to more readily challenge land use decisions, which could have adverse consequences for the environmental stewardship of public lands. The reality is that the RFA was just not intended to cover this action, and it should not do so going forward.

Finally, it is important to note that the Office of Advocacy's footprint has traditionally been minimal, with a budget of $9 million and 46 employees. According to CBO, its budget will have to increase by up to 200 percent per year to handle the new responsibilities of H.R. 527. It is already taxed in meeting its current role, and expanding its powers geometrically is well beyond its capacity. Members are well aware of the fiscal constraints facing the U.S. Government. Now is not the time to make costly statutory leaps when smaller steps might be more appropriate.

So, in conclusion, there are some good and some not-so-good things in this bill. I want to acknowledge the effort by the bill's manager, but in the end it is not something I could support, given the imposition of too many questionable policies. However, I want to thank Chairman Graves for always being open to discussions, and I look forward to continuing our dialogue on this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each side has.

I yield myself 1 minute.

I need to set the record straight regarding the previous Member who just spoke about how many regulations have been issued under the Obama administration.

Let me remind people here that, according to the conservative Heritage Foundation, net regulatory burdens increased in the years George W. Bush assumed the Presidency. Between 2001 and 2008 the Federal Government imposed almost $30 billion in new regulatory costs on America. About $11 billion was imposed in fiscal year 2007 alone.

With regard to the number of pages of regulations, the Code of Federal regulations totaled 145,000 pages in 2007 alone. The Obama administration issued an Executive order, 13563, and a memorandum on small businesses and job creation, and the Executive order instructs agencies to seek the views of affected entities prior to proposed rulemaking. The Executive order also calls on agencies to engage in periodic reviews of existing regulations.

I yield myself 15 seconds more.

If we're going to come here and, instead of dealing with the issues that are impacting small businesses--and that is access to affordable capital so that they could create jobs--but rather come and criticize the Obama administration for issuing regulations, let's set the record straight and talk about the regulations that were issued under the Republican administration.

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do I have left, please?

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Since its enactment in 1980, the Reg Flex has reduced the burden of Federal rules on small businesses. It has evolved over time to include new tools, expanding its purview and making a real difference for entrepreneurs across the country.

With this important role in mind, the legislation before us makes some essential changes. However, in other areas the bill goes too far. At a time of mounting deficits and growing taxpayer anger at how tone- deaf Congress has become, H.R. 527 will dramatically expand the Federal bureaucracy at a cost of $80 million.

For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.