Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a great American and one of the great political trailblazers in American history, Geraldine Ferraro. Many of us speaking today, myself included, would likely not have achieved our successes without her paving the way ahead of us.

Of course, her contributions did not benefit just those of us in the political sphere. Her life was an important symbol to girls and women who aspire to succeed in any field, particularly those who have struggled to break into professions traditionally dominated by men.

The 1984 Presidential campaign is remembered by many as a landslide for President Ronald Reagan. He was, in fact, a very popular President. But many of us who aspired to enter politics were electrified to see the first female on a Presidential ticket.

Of course, Gerry was more than just the first woman on a Presidential ticket. Those of us from the New York delegation remember her service to Queens and, really, to all five boroughs. Before coming to the House, her life had already been dedicated to the service of others in the district attorney's office and as an educator for our city's youth.

Perhaps most of all, she will be fondly remembered for her wit, kindness, and grace. Yet, despite her gentleness, she was not one to shirk from speaking her mind.

Mr. Speaker, women everywhere have lost an inspiration. New York has lost a public servant, and all of us have lost a great American.

Her legacy will be remembered, and I am proud to be on the House floor remembering her many contributions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution.

After 10 long years, $336 billion spent, 1,500 American lives lost, and thousands maimed, it is time to bring our troops home. Our servicemen and -women and their coalition allies have performed valiantly. The United States has done everything possible to provide opportunity for the Afghanistan people and the chance for a democratic government there to mature and take hold. Afghanistan must now take responsibility for its own destiny.

The fact of the matter is this: If now is not the time to leave, then when? Afghanistan has become the longest war in U.S. history, with a price tag of $100 billion a year. At a time when we are contemplating cutting services for seniors, educational programs for children, and tuition assistance for working college students, that money could be spent more wisely elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, too much of our country's treasure has gone toward this war. But more importantly, the cost in human life, American and Afghan, has been enormous. As the world's greatest democracy, what kind of message does this war send to other nations? Do as we say, not as we do?

It is time to make our actions reflect our words. Get out of Afghanistan now.

I thank the ranking member for yielding.

As the ranking member stated before, this is not only about foreclosed properties, this is about abandoned properties. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program will help rehabilitate over 600 properties in New York City alone, but this is not just an issue for New York. This is a national problem. It was created by a decade of overheated mortgage lending and excess on Wall Street. It makes sense that our cities should have a national response. But contrary to common sense, the bill we consider today would abandon our cities and towns and force them to deal with this issue on their own.

The foreclosure crisis has a ripple effect on our whole economy. Foreclosed and abandoned homes consume limited city resources. At the same time, these homes lower property values for everyone in the neighborhood. Assistance from the NSP can not only rehabilitate empty homes, it can also reverse the downward spiral in property values. This bill eliminates the only housing mitigation program committed to stemming these ripple effects. Foreclosures are costly to everyone. Without the NSP, Main Street will bear the costs of the problem created on Wall Street.

Nationwide, nearly 100,000 projects will be undertaken with NSP funds. Property values will be restored in these neighborhoods, and working families will once again have access to affordable housing. Yet if this legislation is enacted, 200 projects in New York City will go unfinished. Withdrawing support for the NSP at this stage will slow the budding recovery in our housing sector not just for New York City but also for cities and towns across America. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this ill-conceived and, I have to say, mean-spirited legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the fiftieth anniversary of ASPIRA, and the valuable contributions this organization has made enriching the lives of the Puerto Rican and Latino communities across our country.

Since its founding in New York City by the educator, civil rights leader and Presidential Medal of Freedom awardee Dr. Antonia Pantoja, ASPIRA has helped strengthen Puerto Rican and Latino communities through education and outreach programs.

Over the past five decades ASPIRA has helped nearly half-a-million Puerto Rican and Latino youth, giving them the tools they needed to succeed through education and leadership development programs. From its humble beginnings, ASPIRA has grown today to 30 centers serving 50,000 Latino youth and parents in 79 communities across nine states, as well as Puerto Rico and Washington, DC. In fact many ``Aspirantes,'' from actor Jimmy Smits to elected officials like Anthony Romero, Fernando Ferrer and Billy Ocasio, trace their success to this organization.

At a time when too many Latino youth do not complete a high school education, over 95-five percent of participating ASPIRA youth graduate. Of these, over 90 percent go on to a college education.

Indeed, this is the kind of success we are celebrating today with the fiftieth anniversary of ASPIRA. Their accomplishments have improved the quality of life and opportunities for the Latino community.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me today, March 10, in recognizing 50 years of service by ASPIRA and its contributions to the social, economic, and cultural fabric of our great nation.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to this legislation. All of us recognize the need for fiscal restraint, but we should not be doing so at the expense of working families.

Governing is about making difficult choices, making wise investments where we can, while recognizing the fiscal pressures our nation faces. This legislation is an abdication of that responsibility. It would harm our most vulnerable citizens, fail to invest in economic recovery and cost American jobs. For our economy to recover over the long term, American workers need training and education that will enable them to compete in a new global economy. However, the Republican spending bill makes drastic cuts to education, putting a college degree out of reach for more working families.

In my district, this bill will deprive 22,000 working families of nearly $1,000 in financial assistance from the Pell Grant program. Many of these New Yorkers will have to pay more in tuition. For some, this shortfall may prevent them from completing their degree, altogether.

The cuts to the Pell program are just one way education suffers. Spread throughout my district, there are thirty-two Head Start centers that offer early education to the children of working families. New York City Head Start will lose almost $30 million in funding. As we look for ways to strengthen our country's economy, cutting services that prepare children for the future seems not just unconscionable, but unwise.

Just as children and young people would be penalized by this legislation, some of our oldest and most vulnerable citizens would be harmed. In the middle of winter, New York City would lose $4.4 million in funding from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, forcing seniors and working families to choose between keeping the heat on and purchasing groceries.

Meanwhile, important services that help seniors stay in their home would be slashed. Job training for workers dislocated by the recession would face cuts. New York City would see a loss of $14 million in Community Block Service Grants, which fund these valuable initiatives.

In New York, where working families already struggle to make rent, this bill slashes housing services. HUD's public housing capital fund would be reduced by 40%. The New York City Housing Authority relies on this fund for almost three-fourths of its resources. That money ensures elevators work, broken windows get repaired and hallways stay lit. New York City would also lose $129 million in Community Development Funds. As a result of these cuts, the City's Department of Housing, Preservation and Development, which helps ensure housing is safe and livable, would have to let 1,200 hardworking employees go.

Mr. Chair, the American economy is just now turning the corner, showing early signs of resurgence. As recovery takes hold, this is not the time to cause another wave of job losses, with shortsighted cuts. Instead, we should choose wisely, creating jobs now, while investing for the long term.

If we crafted the right spending bill it could accomplish these goals, funding our government in a way that meets our responsibilities, contributes to growth, and reduces the deficit.

This is not that bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, small businesses are central to the economic recovery currently underway. Unfortunately, there are many obstacles for entrepreneurs to overcome in order to be successful. One of the most notable is regulatory burden, the hours upon hours it takes an entrepreneur to navigate and complete Federal, State, or municipal government paperwork.

This impediment has grown dramatically in recent years. According to the SBA's Office of Advocacy, rules imposed from the Federal Government now cost Americans some $1.75 trillion each year. This is 50 percent higher than the $1.1 trillion in costs reported in 2005. We know that this burden falls heaviest on small firms. Research shows that small businesses face an annual regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee, an amount that is 36 percent higher than those facing large firms. And Federal agencies continue to release tens of thousands of pages of regulations each year.

With this problem getting worse, it is certainly worth Congress' time and attention. In the Committee on Small Business, we have been reviewing regulations in a bipartisan fashion for years. As a result of this examination, we have called on Federal agencies to modify or eliminate regulatory requirements that adversely affect small firms, whether they are related to medical equipment at CMS, accounting requirements at the SEC, real estate procedures at HUD, or environmental regulations at the EPA.

The reality is that we already do what this resolution calls for. As a result, today's resolution does not help one small businessperson. It sets up a bureaucratic process here in Congress with the goal of producing a list of regulations. How does a ``list'' help small businesses? It doesn't. Anyone that has spent 5 minutes with a small business owner knows that this is a top problem for them. This resolution is nothing more than a vehicle to rehash old politically motivated fights and just creates more paperwork here in Congress.

Instead of approving this green eyeshade bookkeeping resolution, what we need to do is make sure that the actual tools already available to reduce regulatory burden are effective. This includes the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which mandates that Federal agencies consider the potential economic impact of Federal regulations as well as conduct periodic reviews of rules that have a significant economic impact on businesses. Making these laws work better--or expanding them further-- is what we should be doing instead of passing this resolution. Requiring tougher and more agency reviews of regulation as well as considering broader economic effects of regulations are necessary. Here in the House, our committee reported bipartisan legislation in the 110th Congress to do just that.

As we navigate this issue over the next 24 months, we cannot lose sight of who we are trying to actually help. It is the small business owner that needs our assistance. Unfortunately, if this resolution is the best we can do, small businesses may have to wait a long time for real and meaningful relief.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all time on the resolution be yielded back and that H. Res. 72 be adopted so we can move to consider legislation creating jobs.

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this debate that will end up not creating one single job.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time each side has.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

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

Mr. Speaker, the resolution that we are considering today will not help one single small business. It will not reduce paperwork for entrepreneurs nor will it result in a less intrusive government.

This resolution will do none of this.

The previous speaker was talking about the fact that yesterday we held a hearing in the Small Business Committee discussing the burden of 1099s. We know that there is bipartisan agreement on this issue, so let's fix it instead of wasting time, hours here that will take us nowhere. Why can't the Republican leadership bring the issue of the 1099, where there is bipartisan agreement, and get it done? That will help small businesses, and it will create jobs. But this resolution will not achieve that.

What it does do is create bureaucratic bookkeeping requirements for House committees. I guess for some this might be a good sound bite, but this does not provide any concrete solutions for our Nation's small business owners who are drowning in government regulations.

If we want real change, we have to transform how executive branch agencies create and approve regulations. This means ensuring that businesses are given meaningful involvement in the process, not just a token role. It also means that agencies should consider the impact on the business community before they begin writing the regulation, not when it is nearly complete.

Changes like this are long overdue. The reality is that the regulatory burden has grown dramatically under both Republican and Democratic administrations, rising by over $30 billion under George W. Bush's administration alone.

This is a bipartisan problem that needs a bipartisan solution. With this in mind, I look forward to working with anyone that is interested in bringing real regulatory relief to small businesses.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, the role of small businesses is critical to creating new jobs. With the economy continuing to face challenges on several fronts, we need small firms more than ever. Time and again, they have generated the ideas and know-how that spark job growth. However, entrepreneurs face challenging economic headwinds. Small businesses continue facing obstacles accessing capital, and sales remain flat. Given these realities, we need to make sure that small firms have the resources and tools to start up or expand.

The legislation we are considering today does this and extends the authorization of the several important Small Business Administration programs. Through these initiatives, firms can secure financing, receive training, or compete more effectively for Federal contracts.

While we must keep these programs operational, it is unfortunate that we are doing so through another temporary extension. Last Congress, the House passed 14 bills updating all of SBA's financing and entrepreneurial development programs. However, while the Senate was able to report a few measures out of committee, they were unable to actually pass any legislation affecting these programs through the Chamber. As a result, we are here

today to temporarily extend the SBA's initiatives.

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 the foundation for future growth and, in doing so, helping move the economy forward.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

As we begin the 112th Congress, it is unfortunate that one of the first bills before this body is more about politics than policy. This bill will not help a single small business secure a loan, open a new market for its products, or invest back in its operations. By their own admission, the other side acknowledges this legislation is going nowhere.

It is ironic this grandstanding occurs when health insurance continues to be a top challenge facing small businesses. Over the last decade, small employers have seen their premiums rise by over 114 percent with no sign of relief. It is hard to imagine how repeal will help small businesses. In fact, it could do significant harm. The bill before us today imposes a $40 billion tax increase by eliminating critical small business tax credits. These have already helped reduce costs and increased coverage rates by nearly 12 percent in the past year.

Repeal would also eliminate choices for entrepreneurs. Currently, in the majority of States, the two largest insurers had a combined market share of 70 percent or more. By doing away with reforms that establish new health insurance markets, it will limit small businesses' ability to secure coverage.

Small businesses already pay 20 percent more than their corporate counterparts, and the loss of new safeguards will compound this problem. Because of health reform, insurers are no longer able to raise rates arbitrarily without explaining why. They cannot deny coverage based on a preexisting condition or because an employee gets sick. Passage of this bill would also strip new protections that provide small businesses bargaining power.

We have heard how important reforms were excluded from the original legislation. They say that for this reason, the House will start from scratch and enact a new health care law. However, when Republicans were in control of both Chambers and held the Oval Office, they talked about these solutions for nearly a decade, and yet nothing happened. In the meantime, small businesses saw their employees' premiums rise by an average of $700 every single year. These small businesses now pay nearly $14,000 for a policy that cost $6,500 in 2000. Why should small businesses believe they can deliver on a promise this time?

While our economy has added nearly 400,000 jobs over the past 3 months, more must be done. We must continue to confront the problem of health coverage for small businesses, but voting for today's bill will not do that.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, in the State of South Carolina as a result of this repeal legislation, small businesses in the State of South Carolina will see a tax increase of $540 million.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller).

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as a result of this repeal legislation, small businesses in the State of Illinois will see a tax increase of $1.7 billion.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time each side has remaining.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Richardson).

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining?

I would like to inquire through the Chair how many speakers the gentleman has remaining.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Madam Speaker, what will small businesses lose if health care reform is repealed? The small business tax credit of up to 50 percent will be lost. Insurers will be able to continue price gouging. Insurers will be able to deny small businesses coverage without any justification. New health insurance options for small businesses will be eliminated. Small businesses will be unable to pool resources to purchase coverage. Insurers will be able to delay small businesses' access to health insurance. New health options for the self-employed will be abolished.

I urge a ``no'' vote. And I hope that we spend the remainder of this Congress on measures that truly get small businesses hiring and creating jobs. What we need is to get this economy back on track. By repealing health care reform, we will not achieve that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the DREAM Act because of young people like Carol from New York City, so that she and others can fully contribute to America, the country they call home.

Today, more than one million young people residing in our nation live in fear of deportation. These individuals did not choose to come here illegally. Rather, their parents brought them as minors.

Now, like generations of immigrants before them, they wish to help build a better America. They are not seeking a handout or giveaway. All that they ask is a chance to earn their citizenship. The question before us is simple--will we let them do their part or keep hiding them in the shadows?

Passing this bill is not just the moral choice--it will also bring our nation enormous benefits. Today's broken immigration system drains talent from our workforce, keeping bright minds from achieving their full potential. Bringing these young people into the mainstream of American life will enhance our competitiveness in the global economy, in the long term.

In the short term, as our Nation recovers from this downturn, entrepreneurship will be vital. Immigrants have a strong record of building new businesses, representing almost 17 percent of new ventures. By creating additional opportunity, the DREAM Act would further this tradition, spurring business growth among a new generation of immigrants.

These students are the kind of leaders our country needs to thrive. Allowing them to pursue the American dream will mean a stronger economy and more prosperous future for all of us.

Equally important are the contributions these future Americans will make serving society. In New York City, there is a young woman named Carol, whose lifelong goal has been teaching. Carol was the first college graduate in her family, paying her own way by working two jobs. Upon graduation, she was accepted into a New York teaching program that certifies candidates, while letting them obtain a Master's Degree. Because Carol's parents brought her here at age six, she is prevented from joining the program--or becoming a teacher.

Carol's story is too common. For the thousands like her--who are yearning to serve this nation and become American--we must pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, childhood immigrants are American in nearly every way. They grew up our neighbors, attending U.S. public schools. We've already invested in the education and upbringing of these kids. With this bill, we will see a return on that investment, as the best and brightest earn their place in the American dream.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, as is often the case with disasters, on 9/11 and in the weeks that followed, the best of America was on display. Neighborhoods came together to comfort and support one another. Communities in every corner of the country rallied together. In New York City, our brave first responders answered the call valiantly, putting their lives at risk to protect the rest of us.

Over the last 9 years, the full scope of this tragedy's health effects has become increasingly clear. Firefighters, police officers, EMTs, and rescue workers are all suffering respiratory problems. Even schoolchildren and those who work in the area have exhibited health problems. It is estimated that 36,000 people have sought treatment after being exposed to the toxic dust at the World Trade Center site. It is not just New Yorkers who are affected. Ten thousand people traveled from every State of the Union, including Puerto Rico and the territories, to assist in the aftermath of these attacks. Like all of America, these heroes were a diverse group, representing every age, race, religion, and even status. No one asked them for their citizenship status when they stepped in to help. They were all there, and they were all heroes.

This legislation will provide needed benefits for all those who are suffering from the toxins they were exposed to. This is the right thing to do. These brave individuals cast aside their own safety to assist their fellow human beings.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3839) to provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, 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.

As the economy continues to show signs of resurgence, we need to make certain that entrepreneurs have the right tools to make the most out of the recovery. The legislation before us extends the authorization of the several important Small Business Administration programs which are key to supporting entrepreneurs across the country. Through the agency's initiatives, entrepreneurs are able to get a loan, secure a federal contact, and receive expert technical assistance.

The SBA is unique in that many of its programs work through resource partners. These partners, including training centers and community banks, are essential to the delivery of the agency's services to the small business community.

Through this public-private network, entrepreneurs are able to gain access to resources nationwide with the knowledge that the SBA stands behind these tools and services. This combination is a powerful one for small businesses, and it is the reason we need to extend the agency.

In the House, we have passed 14 bills since the beginning of the 111th Congress. However, because we have not completed work with the Senate on these matters, we must extend the SBA's programs. This legislation will make certain that the SBA keeps operating. We cannot afford any of these services to lapse just as our recovery is getting off the ground.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, small businesses have always been a critical component of the U.S. economy, and that is not different today. Generating nearly two-thirds of net new jobs over the past 15 years, they are not only the primary catalyst for employment growth but also for our Nation's underlying prosperity. Through the years, we have relied on our strong culture of entrepreneurship and innovation to renew us and make us stronger.

Today, small firms face different challenges than in the past. As a result, there will be different solutions. The policies that we adopt today must be carefully crafted to meet entrepreneurs's current needs. Unfortunately, the legislation we are considering today do not provide the protections that we need to make sure that small businesses have access to affordable capital.

We have seen the power of small businesses to pull us forward before. During the recession of the early 1990s, small businesses provided an economic lifeboat and created approximately 3.8 million jobs. This fueled the recovery then, while also planting the seeds for growth later in that decade. Back them it was the dot-coms and the Internet revolution at the forefront of the recovery. Today, we see entrepreneurs embracing green technologies and alternative energy. Small firms are fabricating solar panels, developing fuel cells, and researching innovations in building materials. These green firms add $933 billion to the economy each year and employ more than 11 million workers. By 2030, the number is expected to reach 40 million employees, or 25 percent of the American workforce.

In the next decade, this will be the foundation for growth and job creation. Once again, it will be small firms leading the way.

While these cutting-edge firms are critical to the future, we also must recognize the importance of established firms. These local businesses, the mom and pops and the local storefronts, provide employment to millions of individuals and anchor our communities. For many, the economic recovery that has begun in recent months is long overdue.

Now, more than ever, we need to make sure that the environment is conducive to the success of both new and established businesses. For some, this means reducing the regulatory burden or providing tax relief. For others, it requires greater access to affordable capital or entrepreneurial assistance. Most important, we must get this mix right and avoid enacting policies that do not meet entrepreneurs' needs.

Whatever policies we choose, whether it be the legislation under consideration today or future proposals, it is crucial that we continue to embrace the power of our Nation's small businesses. Doing so will create badly needed jobs in the short term, while laying the framework for a long-term, sustainable period of growth.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section (c)(2)(C) of H. Res. 1493, the Small Business Committee has taken steps to ``identify changes in law that help achieve deficit reduction by reducing waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement, promoting efficiency and reform of government, and controlling spending within Government programs'' that fall within the Committees' legislative jurisdiction. With the economy beginning to show promising signs of recovery, it remains imperative that Congress and this Committee effectively oversee that taxpayer funds are used effectively. This includes not only terminating duplicative programs, but also taking steps to eliminate wasteful practices in federal agencies.

The Committee has taken its oversight role very seriously. H. Res. 40, which was passed at the beginning of this Congress, amended Clause 2(n) of House Rule XI by requiring that committees undertake intensive and regular examination of executive branch activities. We have exceeded the 1 hearing per 120 day requirement under H. Res. 40 and held 10 hearings on the Small Business Administration (SBA) and its programs. This has included 4 Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigations, all of which were requested by this Committee.

As a direct result of these oversight activities, the Committee makes the following recommendations pursuant to H. Res. 1493:

1. Termination of Patriot Express Loan Program: The Increased Veteran Participation Program contained in P.L. 110-186, the Military Reservist and Veteran Small Business Reauthorization and Opportunity Act of 2008, provides a more suitable financing alternative for veteran-owned small businesses than the Patriot Express Loan program. In particular, the program established in P.L. 110-186 provides for a higher guarantees, larger loan sizes, and reduced fees than the Patriot Express pilot program currently operated by the SBA. For this reason, the Committee recommends the termination of the Patriot Express initiative because the alternative program established in P.L. 110-186 will better serve veteran entrepreneurs.

2. Termination of SBA Express Loan Program: Given increasing defaults and the projected costs associated with the SBA Express program, the Committee recommends that this program be immediately terminated. The initiative has grown costly and does not satisfy any public policy goal, making it a poor use of scarce taxpayer funds. With a reduced guarantee of only 50 percent, the SBA Express Loan program fails to provide a sufficient incentive for lenders to make loans that they would otherwise not make.

3. Termination of the HUBZone Program: In the last three years, GAO has found that the program was continually subject to widespread fraud and mismanagement. The program places taxpayer funds at substantial risk for fraud, waste, and abuse. Given the high frequency of fraud, legitimate small business contractors are placed at a distinct disadvantage due to the continued operation of this program. As a result, the Committee recommends that it be terminated.

4. Termination of the Emerging Leaders Initiative: While the goals of this program are justifiable, the Committee is concerned about the effectiveness and efficiency of the initiative due to its program design and past performance. As a pilot program, the initiative failed to demonstrate the capacity to generate a significant economic impact despite the large share of resources allocated to it. This program only produced 132 jobs at a cost of $800,000--an average of cost of $6,000 per job created. This amount is almost twice as much as the job creation cost of the Small Business Development Center program, which costs $3,500 to create one job. In addition, this program is duplicative of SBA's extensive network of entrepreneurial development providers. As a result, the Committee recommends that it be terminated.

5. Termination of the Regional Innovation Clusters Initiative: The Committee has major concerns over the design of the regional cluster program. Although the program's goal is to target significant resources to regional industry clusters, the institutional framework to implement the proposal has not been clearly established. Plans for the allocation of resources, partnership agreements among local, private, and federal service providers in the targeted areas, and decision-making coordination remain unclear. In addition, the program lacks a specific implementation strategy, has inadequate federal oversight over the allocation of resources, and does not contain sufficient performance measures to determine its success. Due to these limitations, there is significant concern over abuse of thirds for this initiative. As a result, the Committee recommends that this program be terminated.

6. Termination of the National Veterans Business Development Corporation: This Corporation was created to provide training and entrepreneurial development services to veterans. Unfortunately, it has not reached its full potential and the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars have called for its termination. Given concerns that the organization is insufficiently fulfilling its purpose to provide comprehensive assistance to separating members of the nation's military forces, the Committee has authored and the House passed an alternative program in H.R. 1803, the Veterans Business Center Act of 2009. This legislation establishes a dedicated national network to deliver the services more efficiently than the Corporation. The Committee's commitment to promoting veteran entrepreneurship remains strong. Therefore, it is critical that assistance programs to the sector are effective and that veterans have access to these resources so they can establish successful enterprises in all stages of the economy.

7. Termination of the Drug-Free Workplace Program: The Drug-Free Workplace program was originally created to assist small firms in the implementation of a plethora of substance abuse counseling and training activities. This included creating workplace drug policies, drug prevention training and education seminars, providing for drug-testing,

and counseling employees on substance abuse. Instead, the program has evolved into a subsidy solely for drug-testing centers, a private industry that does not warrant funding from the SBA, an agency whose mission is to promote and assist small businesses. Given the financial challenges facing the government, it is not prudent to use scarce taxpayer funds to purchase drug-testing services from and for viable private sector companies. As a result, the termination of program funding is appropriate due to the lack of meaningful returns on the public investment.

8. Termination of the National Women's Business Council (NWBC)--The NWBC mandate is to conduct research on women entrepreneurship, which is duplicative of the research work of the SBA's Office of Advocacy. Having two research entities conduct similar research is unnecessary and the NWBC funding should be terminated. The Office of Advocacy is the appropriate entity to conduct all entrepreneurship-related research as it benefits from both economies of scale and scope in its organization structure and staff capabilities.

In the last 18 months, small businesses have increasingly turned to the SBA for assistance. This has helped stem job losses and, in some parts of the country, created pockets of new growth. As a result, we are now beginning to see signs of strength, as private sector jobs continue to be added. To this end, the National Association for Business Economics recently found that 31 percent of companies added jobs between April and June, the highest level since 2007. Additionally, 39 percent of businesses surveyed reported that they expect to hire more workers over the next six months, which is the most since January 2008. Such growth is promising and it suggests that the business climate is becoming ripe for the establishment of new firms. This means that the SBA needs to be prepared to help these firms succeed, while also containing its costs. The Committee's proposals, if implemented, will accomplish this by reducing the federal deficit, curtailing fraud, and enabling the SBA to focus on its most important and successful programs. By increasing efficiency, the agency's existing tools and resources can be improved, without imposing additional costs on the taxpayer. This is a means to not only act in a fiscally prudent manner, but also a way to meet the needs of our nation's small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5849) to provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

In every previous recession, small businesses have been central to our economic recovery. The Small Business Administration has an important role to play in giving businesses tools they need to succeed. Technical assistance programs operated by the SBA provide critical expertise in everything from writing a business plan, to finding new customers, to marketing a product.

While our Nation's financial landscape has improved, many small firms cannot find the financing they need. To bridge this gap, the agency's lending programs put over $15 billion into the economy, making them the single largest source of long-term capital. So that entrepreneurs can better tap into the Federal marketplace, there is also assistance to help businesses navigate our government's procurement process. Taken together, this portfolio of services can empower small businesses to create new jobs and accelerate our recovery.

Since the start of this Congress, the House has passed 16 bills to strengthen and modernize the SBA initiatives. However, before these programs are fully updated, they must be extended. This legislation ensures these programs keep operating.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, we have spent much of this debate discussing ways to help the banks, but now it is time that we talk about helping small businesses directly.

The Schrader amendment does this by providing entrepreneurs with incentives to expand their businesses. It does so by giving business owners maximum flexibility because they know best how to purchase equipment or to hire workers when they need to do so. If we have this tool now, during the early stages of the recovery, it will allow manufacturers to purchase the new machine tools they need, and it will allow retailers to hire a few more salesmen.

As they have created two-thirds of the net new jobs over the past 10 years, it is absolutely critical to get small businesses off the sidelines. Unfortunately, the Federal Reserve Senior Loan Officer survey continues to report that loan demand among small firms has decreased. The most recent NFIB report also confirms this. Only 32 percent of small businesses borrowed last quarter, which is near the record low. When fewer small businesses take out loans, there is less employment and more abandoned storefronts. By giving firms access to a financial backstop, the Schrader amendment will give them the confidence to turn this around.

With this in mind, it is no surprise that, when small firms are not active in the capital markets, we lose jobs. This is exactly what happened between 2007 and 2009 when self-employment declined by 7.5 percent. If we do not want to repeat this, we must embrace the small business-focused policies contained in the Schrader amendment.

I ask my colleagues to support Mr. Schrader's amendment.