Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.

I rise in strong opposition to this misguided amendment which will visit harm on working families, prevent government from responding to crises, and cripple the U.S. economy.

Under this amendment, it will become difficult to raise the debt ceiling, putting our country at greater risk of default. It is alarming that so shortly after averting the most recent danger of a default, the authors of this amendment will endanger our Nation's credit so directly.

Equally disturbing, should a war, domestic crisis, or natural disaster strike, our government could find its hands tied, incapable of responding swiftly. When crises occur, Congress must have the flexibility to respond.

It is shortsighted and dangerous to cede this authority from the legislative branch. Not only will this amendment effectively slow our response to future catastrophe, but it will also undercut our current economic recovery, eliminating 50 million jobs.

The fact is, if you like 9 percent unemployment, you will love this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, our government has in the past been able to balance its books and create surplus. When President Clinton left office, we had a $5 trillion surplus. However, an unprovoked war, unpaid for, coupled with tax cuts for the wealthy erased this windfall and led to our current fiscal problems. If we truly wish to tackle the deficit, the most effective thing we could do is create new jobs.

In the 1990s, economic prosperity helped drive deficits down. Rather than wasting this institution's time on a cheap political stunt which has zero chance of becoming law, we should create opportunity and work to restore the American dream. That is a deficit reduction plan all of us could support.

Vote down this misguided amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an American trailblazer, a proud Puerto Rican and New Yorker whose advocacy for women's rights and minorities distinguished her as a true leader. Alice Cardona hailed from New York's Spanish Harlem or, El Barrio, where she was the first of nine children. From an early age, Alice began contributing to her community by volunteering with the Legion de Maria and providing psychological support to African American and Latino people in need. From this early experience, Alice had instilled in her a strong sense of the social, economic, and educational injustices facing people of color and the importance of remedying them.

Shortly thereafter, Alice worked for United Bronx Parents, where she helped foster parental involvement in the local school system. In 1964, she became involved in the first Head Start program in New York.

By the 1970s, she was working at ASPIRA and counseling young people. Alice's time there inspired her to return to college and complete her degree, empowering her to further assist New York's minority communities. Upon graduation, she continued with ASPIRA and found more ways to become engaged in her community. She played a valuable role with the National Conference of Puerto Rican women and also co-founded HACER/Hispanic Women's Center, an important resource for assisting Latinas to achieve their educational goals.

As a member of Governor Mario Cuomo's Administration, Alice was the assistant director for the New York State Division for Women, where she further advocated for bilingual education and worked to combat HIV/ AIDS, breast cancer, and domestic violence.

IN the 1990s, I had the pleasure of working side-by-side with Alice during my tenure as Director of the Department of Puerto Rican Community Affairs in the United States. Together, we led Atrevete, the most successful Hispanic voter drive in American history. I will always look back on her dedication, passion, and tireless work ethic as an inspiration.

Even in retirement, Alice dedicated herself to others by staying active with groups like the Puerto Rican Association for Community Affairs, the National Women's Political Caucus, and the National Association for Bilingual Education. Indeed, throughout her lifetime, she helped found more than 12 organizations dedicated to strengthening and empowering minority communities.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, Alice Cardona passed away. She is fondly remembered by many of us as a friend and role model. For all Latinas, her life is a source of pride and for New Yorkers, an inspiration to continue striving for greater social justice and opportunity in our City, state, and country. I ask that all my colleagues join me in paying tribute to Alice Cardona, an activist, passionate defender of women's rights, champion of bilingual education, and advocate for working people everywhere.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

In order for entrepreneurs to continue to fulfill their traditional role as job creators, it is essential that they have access to the capital they rely upon as fuel for innovation and economic expansion. Crowdfunding represents a promising new tool for this service. But in order to realize its full potential, investors who buy these securities must be able to make fully informed decisions. My amendment will make this possible by requiring crowdfunding intermediaries to disclose how they are compensated.

Despite its relatively recent emergence, crowdfunding shares many characteristics with ordinary stock investing. In this marketplace, however, Web sites and social media will fill the role of brokers and dealers. They will act as a conduit between stock insurers and ordinary investors. Unlike stockbrokers, these intermediaries may be paid by commission, flat fees, or subscriptions. Depending on their compensation structure, however, intermediaries may have an incentive to advertise the ideas that provide them with the most money, rather than what makes the most investment sense. This not only puts ordinary investors at risk but also undermines the entire premise of crowdfunding, which is supposed to promote those ideas that have the most merit.

Compensation disclosure is not without precedent. It is currently required by all securities brokers and dealers. This transparency provides investors with the vital information necessary to have the confidence that their investment decisions are prudent. Furthermore, these disclosures take nothing more than a few lines on an offer sheet or a quick conversation. This is a simple commonsense amendment that will help ordinary people make informed investment decisions as this new industry evolves. If intermediaries are going to fill the role of brokers and dealers in crowdfunding operations, it only makes sense that just like others in the investment industry, they should be subject to similar requirements to protect the investors they will solicit.

I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

It amazes me that given the experience that brought us to this time, that brought the economy to its knees with the Wall Street crisis, with the Madoff Ponzi scheme, that you come here and say this is not the appropriate time. It is the appropriate time to protect investors, and that is exactly what we do here.

Compensation disclosure, for the investors to have the information to know who their intermediaries are and how they are going to be compensated, this is the appropriate time. This is the right time. It is important that we protect investors by them knowing how those intermediaries will be compensated, how their money will be invested. What makes more sense for an intermediary to invest in this company versus this other company, because if he invests in this other company he's going to make more money? What is wrong with transparency? What is wrong with disclosure? Nothing is wrong.

You have three pages of protection, but you left the most important protection for investors. What is wrong with the investor to know how those intermediaries will be compensated? That is the core of my amendment. And we should, just like brokers and dealers, they will have their own business interest and they will not necessarily be the same as investors' interest. Their interest and that of the investors are not mutually exclusive. Just like brokers and dealers, intermediaries will have discretion to choose which investment they propose.

I ask for a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in opposition to this bill because this extreme legislation is dangerous to women's health and does nothing to address the main issue affecting American families: the lack of jobs.

Parliamentary Inquiries

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

At a time when the American people are crying out for action on jobs, we are debating legislation that will instead trample on a woman's fundamental reproductive rights. The fact of the matter is that the Affordable Care Act prohibits any taxpayers' dollars from paying for abortions. That's the law of the land.

The legislation before the House goes far beyond that, restricting, for the first time, how women with private insurance can spend their own private dollars in purchasing insurance. For women, this bill constitutes nothing less than a full-fledged assault on their right to choose.

Madam Speaker, with 8 million people unemployed in this country, with wages going down, poverty is on the rise, and this is all that the Republicans have to offer. This is why people are literally in the streets demanding solutions to the job crisis, seeking greater opportunity and an end to economic inequality.

The American people do not want ideological posturing. They want real solutions that create real jobs. Vote down this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce, an organization that has been vital to fostering entrepreneurship among females. Today, the number of women-owned businesses is growing at a rate double of all other firms. In 2007, women owned 7.8 million businesses and accounted for 28.7 percent of all businesses nationwide, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's Survey of Business Owners. These firms generated $1.2 trillion in receipts, about 3.9 percent of all business receipts nationwide.

As this dynamic sector continues to evolve, it is vital women have a strong voice representing them and the Women's Chamber of Commerce has been a stalwart champion for female entrepreneurs.

Founded ten years ago, the Women's Chamber is the only national organization of its kind, working with over 500,000 members to eliminate barriers to female entrepreneurship. Throughout its history, the Chamber has secured a series of key victories that have helped small firms owned by women flourish and grow. In 2005, the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce won a lawsuit against the government for failing to implement the ``Women's Procurement Program,'' an initiative helping female entrepreneurs secure federal contracts. The Women's Chamber has also fought to expand access to capital among female entrepreneurs, which is often a key impediment to women seeking to launch a new venture.

Beyond its work advocating for female entrepreneurs, the Women's Chamber has helped to promote career advancement for women and protect the rights of female employees. The Chamber was a strong advocate for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and has stalwartly fought for female advancement in the workplace.

Mr. Speaker, this week the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce celebrates ten years of service to American female entrepreneurs. As our economy continues to evolve, we can expect female entrepreneurship will only further blossom and play a greater role in American commerce. As that happens, the U.S. Women's Chamber will continue its role as a strong advocate for women-owned businesses and female employees.

Mr. Speaker, two decades after its enactment, ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' is finally no more. At last, gay men and women can now openly serve in our military without having to hide who they are.

Eliminating this practice is a historic step forward in our pursuit of a more perfect Union. With this progress, our country's military can now become a shining example of equality--an example to be followed by all sectors of our society.

Just as important, this change will make our Armed Forces stronger. Young Americans who had previously been deterred from joining our military will now step forward, enlist, and serve the country they love. Many formerly discharged servicemembers will reenter the armed services to serve alongside friends and family. Ultimately, our military will benefit from a broader and deeper pool of talent. Now, as we move forward in fully implementing this change, we must ensure that same-sex families receive the same benefits as other military couples.

Mr. Speaker, although our work continues, today we are one step closer to the ideal that we are all created equal.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the era of debts and deficits must come to an end. However, in addressing this problem, we must look at what got us here. It wasn't overspending on low-income housing, job training or education--which all stand at historically low levels. It was two unfunded wars and the Bush tax cuts which keep on giving to America's wealthiest.

Unfortunately, the legislation before us today keeps every tax break for the wealthy and means billions more in resources will be used to fund these two wars.

We keep hearing how critical this bill is to getting our economy back on track. It is hard to imagine how this legislation will do so. I cannot support any proposal with such big cuts in education, economic development and job training that will hamper our recovery. In the weeks leading up to today there was a lot of rhetoric for shared sacrifice. Unfortunately, what we are considering today places the burden of the fiscal mess squarely on our Nation's working families, and that is something I cannot support.

I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on this ill-conceived legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as the clock ticks down toward default, we are debating a bill that will not solve the debt problem. It will make life worse for 98 percent of Americans--to protect the wealthiest 2 percent of our society. Meanwhile nearly $1.6 trillion would be cut from programs like Social Security and Medicare.

Yet, despite these cuts, under this bill, we would face the exact same crisis just six months from now. We often hear about the need for ``certainty'' in the business community. With financial markets ready to tumble and our credit on the brink of a downgrade, how does kicking the can down the road for six months provide certainty?

Failing to resolve this crisis will be disastrous for our economic recovery. Capital that is already hard to come by for entrepreneurs will be even further out of reach for our nation's small businesses. That's some jobs plan.

Working families will pay $250 more in credit card interest. Mortgage payments will rise by $1,000. Older workers could lose thousands of dollars in retirement investment.

Mr. Speaker, the American people expect us to act swiftly and responsibly. The bill before us fails on both counts. Let's reject this measure and develop a real solution.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Small businesses who employ more than half of all private sector employees remain absolutely critical to the U.S. economy. With the unemployment rate at 9.2 percent, we need them more than ever to create new jobs. Central to these efforts are the tools and resources of the Small Business Administration which enable entrepreneurs to secure low- cost capital, fairer contracts, and technical assistance.

However, over time, I feel the agency's programs have become redundant and unnecessary. Many have not been funded in decades, while others are simply antiquated policy remnants from a bygone era.

It is a disservice to both small businesses and taxpayers to keep these obsolete initiatives on the books. By cleaning up the statute, as this legislation does, we can be assured that efforts to assist small businesses both now and in the future will be both efficient and up to date.

Importantly, many of these cuts were at the behest of our colleagues in the Senate. Given this, it is my hope that the Senate takes up this legislation and passes it expeditiously.

Chairman Graves is also to be commended for his comity and bipartisan approach to vetting these charges. Doing so has produced a bill that does not adversely affect small businesses.

Similarly, a new but equally concerning trend has been the growth of unauthorized programs. The costs of this program have grown dramatically to equal more than $50 million and constitutes nearly 10 percent of the SBA's noncredit programs budget. By passing the legislation before us, Congress can take a small but meaningful step that will begin to close this loophole.

The reforms in this bill come against a backdrop of extending certain authorities for the SBA itself. However, whether or not this legislation becomes law has no bearing on whether the agency can serve small businesses. Given the passage of the full-year continuing appropriations bill and a prior SBA extension passed 2 months ago, the agency will remain fully operational irrespective of the passage of this bill.

Ensuring that small firms have continued access to a strong and stable SBA is more important than ever. The agency's resources enable would-be entrepreneurs to start up while helping existing ventures expand. By doing so, we will allow small business owners to do what they do best and create the

jobs we need to move the economy forward.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank Ranking Member Frank for his commitment and balanced approach to protect consumers in this country.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1315.

My first question is: Do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really have that short a memory? It was just 3 years ago when regulator indifference resulted in the single largest loss of middle class prosperity in this Nation's history, costing over $3 trillion in this country. In fact, we have spent the last month debating the need to raise the debt ceiling not because of the war in Iraq, not the stimulus plan, but because of the massive bailout needed as a result of regulators turning a blind eye to unfair and unsafe lending practices.

You can go to any community in any part of this country and see the collateral damage resulting from Wall Street playing fast and loose under the disinterested watch of Federal regulation. In Brooklyn, one in eight mortgages is in serious delinquency or foreclosure. It was this type of dire situation that our working families were left with that necessitated, demanded that we act and create the CFPB. By consolidating all financial protection within the umbrella of CFPB, every American is given the peace of mind that someone is watching out for their interests, not some financial institution's bottom line.

Unfortunately, the legislation before us today will create a completely unmanageable regulatory process, once again leaving the average American in financial limbo. I am not willing to go back to those days and neither are the 200,000 seniors in New York City who will be without protections should this legislation pass.

Vote ``no'' on this bill. Let's not allow the very regulator that stood by and did nothing, while trillions were stolen from Americans, do nothing again.

Thank you, Ranking Member, for yielding.

Madam Speaker, as we debate how to avert the default crisis, we should acknowledge what got us into the current mess. The real reason that the United States faces this dilemma dates back to a series of irresponsible tax cuts: $2.5 trillion in tax giveaways that were unpaid for and went disproportionately to the wealthiest Americans put us on this sustainable path.

We were told tax cuts would provide an economic boost. So what did we get for this enormous addition to the deficit? Was our economy strengthened? Were new jobs created? The answer is a resounding no. In fact, the median income for working families fell by 2.4 percent during the first 10 years these

tax cuts were in place--while food, housing, and other necessities became more expensive. Job creation plummeted to 33 new jobs a month, the lowest levels since President Hoover. The record is clear: Giving tax breaks to the wealthiest without paying for it ballooned our deficit but didn't create jobs.

Now, the proposal before us will not just continue this misguided policy of slash and burns, but make it worse. It won't create jobs for Americans but will slash services working families rely on. Make no mistake, America: This plan begins the dismantling of Medicare and Social Security. Meanwhile, subsidies for big oil companies and tax breaks for billionaires will be locked in. Most of all, at a time when our economy is struggling, this bill will cost hundreds of thousands of American jobs. If you like 9 percent unemployment, you will love this bill.

Vote against this bill. Stop playing pure politics. The American people deserve nothing less.

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

The role of small businesses in moving the economy forward has never been more important. Making up over 99 percent of all U.S. firms, they are critical to innovation, wealth creation, and, most importantly, employment gains. Many look to the SBA for assistance, using its loan, contracting, and training programs to start up or expand.

Unfortunately, the legislation before us, while seemingly uncontroversial, could make it harder for small businesses to access these very tools and resources. This bill, if passed, will break with long-standing House precedent and choose winners and losers among SBA programs. By doing so, it will create confusion among small firms seeking to use the agency's initiatives.

As many of you know, since September 30, 2006, the SBA has been operating under a series of 12 temporary extensions. While these extensions have varied in length, they have always treated all of the agency's programs and initiatives equally. This has resulted in all of the SBA's programs operating unimpeded, ensuring that small businesses have ready access to the tools and resources they need.

Unfortunately, S. 1082 takes the unprecedented step of setting different authorization periods for certain SBA programs, creating a maze of confusing dates and deadlines for small businesses. During a time when efforts are being made to reduce regulatory burden, Congress should make certain that it is not adding to it by its own unnecessary actions.

Given the extraordinary nature of S. 1082, it should not be considered and fast-tracked on the suspension calendar, which is typically reserved for uncontroversial measures. Instead, such a unique and precedent-setting measure should go through regular order, where Members will have an opportunity to amend this unexpected and highly unusual piece of legislation. At a minimum, this would enable Members to have more time to understand the detrimental impact this legislation could have on small businesses. Small businesses, such as those represented by the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce, also oppose this legislation.

Voting against this extension will not affect any agency program in a meaningful way. Small businesses will still be able to secure financing, receive contracts, and access training through the agency's initiatives. What a vote against this legislation will do, however, is ensure that we produce a more equitable piece of legislation that treats all agency initiatives fairly. If parties are serious about helping small businesses, they will reject this measure and work expeditiously to approve a more responsible extension.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the economy is showing signs of recovery on several fronts, adding 1 million jobs in the last 6 months. While this is very good news, we still have a long way to go, and this is why we need small firms more than ever.

Small businesses, which create two-thirds of new jobs, drive employment gains and economic expansion. Time and again, they have generated the ideas and know-how that spark job growth. However, entrepreneurs must have the resources and tools they need to start up or expand. The legislation we are considering today provides them and extends the authorization of several Small Business Administration programs. For many firms these initiatives are critical, enabling them to secure financing and more effectively compete for Federal contracts.

While we must keep these programs operational, it is unfortunate that we are doing so through another temporary extension. However, it is my hope that we can reach a lasting agreement on the agency's authorization so that we do not have to come back here again in a few months.

Small businesses across the Nation depend on a strong SBA. This is especially true now when many unemployed individuals are turning to entrepreneurship as a source of income. By ensuring that the agency's programs do not lapse, we are providing small businesses with a foundation for future growth, and in doing so, helping move the economy forward.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

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

I rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived, mean-spirited Republican budget.

Mr. Chairman, all of us recognize the need to reduce the deficit, but it must be done responsibly. This budget fails that test, cutting services we need in favor of tax breaks for the wealthy.

For New Yorkers, these cuts will be particularly unfair. Ten billion dollars will be taken from low-income housing programs. Rental assistance will be reduced, making it harder for New Yorkers to find affordable apartments. This at a time when we are facing the worst housing crisis ever.

Housing is just one area where this budget fails our country. With Medicaid spending reduced by $735 billion, millions of Americans will find it harder to afford health care. Instead of tackling rising health care costs, this budget ends Medicare as we know it. Medicare is a promise to America's seniors. Whether we honor that promise defines us as a Nation.

Just as seniors will face tough times, this budget will visit hardship on young people. Head Start, child care and nutritional assistance for low-income families will be squeezed, and 26,000 college students from New York's 12th Congressional District will see tuition assistance reduced, putting college education out of reach.

Beyond slashing social services, this budget undermines our economic recovery. Small business lending would drop by $3 billion, depriving 5,000 firms of capital they need to create jobs. Is this the way we are going to create jobs in this country? Twelve thousand entrepreneurs and 9,000 veterans, those coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq, will lose business counseling services to help them launch or expand their businesses.

Mr. Chairman, we need a serious, thoughtful discussion about how to cut spending. Vote ``no'' against this bill.