Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives to recognize the extraordinary life of Ms. Irene Rios de Perez, a woman who exhibited great strength and determination over the years to overcome obstacles and achieve success for herself and her family.

Born April 22, 1911 in the village of Santa Rosa, Dorado, Puerto Rico, Irene persevered to overcome the challenges of an early orphaned childhood. She later married Don Francisco Perez Ramos, and emigrated to New York City with her husband and seven children--Patricia, Elizabeth, Iris, Manuel, Samuel, David, and Francisco.

Working to make a home for her family in New York City, Irene faced many difficulties--including those associated with discrimination, alienation, low income housing, and cultural adaptation. Yet, she never allowed her family to succumb to the challenges they encountered. While continuously caring for her family and loved ones, Irene pushed herself to attend night school and, in the late 1960's, was awarded a high school diploma for her efforts from the New York City Board of Education.

Throughout her long and full life, Irene has always had an enduring faith in God--which has enabled her to live a life that epitomizes respect for herself and others. She is also a capable singer who has used her talent to serve the spiritual needs of the close knit church community.

After 95 years, Irene represents the very best of the human spirit, and continues to exude love, warmth, optimism, compassion, and forgiveness to all those around her. She remains committed to her family--which includes 11 grandchildren and 14 great-grandchildren-- friends, and community around her. Her children are fortunate enough to share many of these same qualities and interests, as evidenced in their pursuits in fields such as human services, government, trade, military services, and finance.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Ms. Irene Rios de Perez, and join with my colleagues in the House of Representatives to recognize her many outstanding achievements.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

As we all know, the recovery process in the gulf area continues to be ongoing. Victims are still digging out from debris, and many are unable to even get back to their homes and businesses. Unfortunately, these problems have been compounded by the failure of the SBA to provide disaster assistance to these victims.

I offer this amendment today to ensure that the thousands of homes and business owners in the gulf area are not unfairly denied the opportunity to file for a disaster loan. This amendment will give the victims of the hurricanes in the gulf the time they need to assess their situation and make informed decisions about applying for disaster loans.

Without this change, the SBA, by imposing an arbitrary deadline, will create additional and unnecessary hardships on a group of people who have already suffered enough.

The SBA's failures are clearly documented. In response to the hurricanes in the gulf, the SBA issued 2.1 million applications to businesses, homeowners and individuals seeking financial assistance. As of just a few weeks ago, only 400,000 of these applications have been submitted to the SBA for processing. The balance of the applications, 1.7 million, or 80 percent, remain outstanding.

The reasons for these low return rates are plentiful. SBA has failed to supply the necessary assistance to fill out the massive application forms. Potential applicants are being incorrectly told that they are not eligible. On top of this, SBA has also failed to implement an outreach plan in communities to make eligible applicants aware of this program.

Rather than recognizing these problems, the SBA has set March 11 and April 10 application deadlines for physical injury loans, which are the main source of assistance for homes and businesses with physical damage. If these deadlines are maintained, it would have the effect of leaving many potential applicants without the ability to secure Federal financial assistance.

This amendment will make sure that SBA stays in the gulf until the job is done.

The failures of the SBA have already created unnecessary hardship and frustration in the gulf region. SBA has declined an unprecedented 65 percent of loans. The agency has a backlog of over 60,000 loans. SBA has a processing time of 80 days, nearly triple the normal time. All of these issues have created confusion and consternation among residents.

By voting for this amendment, we will make sure the victims of this disaster are not punished for the failures of our Federal Government. We cannot turn our back on these victims.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Let me just say that SBA, before we start talking about deadlines, we need to get SBA to process the 60,000 applications that are in backlog. They need to do a better job in educating people so that we can get more than 19 percent of the applications back.

They need to fix the system where they have been declining 60 percent of all the loans that have been submitted to SBA. They need to do the job before they pull out, and that is an excuse for them not to do the job.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Well, let me just say this. Isn't it true that there are 60,000 applications in backlog? Isn't it true that 19 percent, only 19 percent have been processed? Isn't it true that there is 65 percent declined on loans approval?

This is not about partisanship, this is about victims who are suffering, who are losing their businesses, who are losing their jobs. This is what this amendment is all about.

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

Mr. Chairman, in a hearing yesterday on the disaster loan program, we heard two different stories on this equation in the gulf. We heard from the SBA administrator who said that everything is great. He told the committee that they are processing record numbers of loans and that there are virtually no problems. At the same time, we have a small business owner, Patricia Smith, who came in from New Orleans and told her story.

She told the committee how she could not find a Federal official to help her apply for a loan and how she spent hours working through paperwork. She told us that it took months to hear back on the status of her loan and that she was wrongly denied. The woman also shared that there are thousands out there with the same story.

The view from Washington, and what is actually going on in the gulf coast region is very different. By extending the deadline for disaster loans, we will give victims the ability to assess their situation and make an informed decision about getting an SBA loan.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, while the House will begin debating the budget resolution in the coming weeks, this amendment offers the first vote on one of the initiatives introduced in the President's 2007 budget. This amendments provides Members the opportunity to send a clear message that victims of disasters should not be subject to additional and unnecessary burdens by the Federal Government.

Buried in the President's budget submission was a proposal to raise the interest rates on SBA's disaster loans. This initiative will eliminate the current caps on interest rates and allow for the SBA to charge higher rates on disaster loans. This could mean that interest rates go up by as much as 50 percent.

The end result will force those who had their homes or businesses destroyed to pay for our budget problems here in Washington. I offer this amendment today to ensure that we stop this wrongheaded proposal in its tracks. It puts Congress on record making it clear that an attempt to create additional hardships on disaster victims will not be tolerated.

Given all the missteps by FEMA and SBA in the gulf, Congress should not be adding to the problems of those hit by a natural disaster. Findings by the General Accounting Office, various inspector generals and congressional panels have revealed the numerous ways the Federal Government has failed our citizens in the gulf. By supporting this amendment, Congress will be saying that we stand together in these difficult times.

I am a firm believer in balancing our spending priorities, but this proposal is beyond the pale. I find it hard to believe, particularly given all the wasteful spending in Washington, that the only place to find funding is on the backs of disaster victims. Whatever happened to compassionate conservatism?

The effect of the administration's proposal will mean increased costs by thousands of dollars for disaster victims. It is alarming that despite all the problems with the management of the disaster loan program the only change the President offered in his budget was to increase the cost on disaster victims.

We agree that changes need to be made to the disaster loan program, but this is not one of them. By voting for this amendment, Congress expresses its commitment to rejecting this bad idea. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Let me just say that this is a cornerstone of the President's budget for SBA, and I think it is important that Congress go on record on this issue, particularly for us Democrats. And what we are saying today is, it is a bad idea, and we need to make it clear from the beginning, from the start, that we want to balance the budget but not at the expense of disaster victims.

And that is exactly what we are doing with this amendment today. We must prevent any of these funds from being used for higher interest loans in disaster loans for victims. We have to make sure that if money is carried over, that it will not be used for higher interest loans that will impact disaster victims.

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

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would ensure that the disaster loan program remains an affordable source of capital for those affected by future disasters. When the program works, it has served to create the public-private partnership that balances the needs of fiscal constraint and compassion for our fellow Americans.

The administration's proposal to raise interest rates on disaster loans will simply leave the victims to fend for themselves.

In the end, it is in our best economic interest to get these communities back up and running and creating the jobs they have proven they can create. By voting ``yes,'' we are telling the administration that raising interest rates on disaster loans is a bad idea and Congress will not support it. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to do that; but I have to tell you, victims in the gulf region cannot wait until we have such a discussion, and that is why this amendment is important to be voted on today.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Heights Players, Brooklyn's oldest community theater group.

For half a century, families, children and individuals living in the 12th Congressional District and surrounding areas have been enriched through the exposure to quality theater offerings at a reasonable price. The Heights Players has also excelled at providing an outlet for amateur and professional actors, technicians, writers, designers and directors to hone their skills, gain experience, and perform before a live audience.

Since its inception in December 1956, those involved with the Heights Players have worked to establish the group not only as a community theater, but also as a growing nonprofit theatrical organization. In its 50 seasons of operation, the Heights Players has made many contributions to the community, such as the Theater for Children program, and performances for senior citizens and hospitalized children who otherwise lack the means to access this type of cultural and educational experience.

The Heights Players has extended their community service in recent years, reaching countless other city residents through their unique and creative offerings. Since 1988, the group has completed performances for over 1,000 homeless New Yorkers each year.

In recognition of its extraordinary efforts on behalf of disadvantaged New Yorkers, the organization has received a host of special awards and commendations over the years from the Partnership for the Homeless, the Brooklyn Borough President, the Brooklyn Heights Association, and the New York City Council.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 50th anniversary of the Heights Players, and join with my colleagues in the House of Representatives to commend this organization and all of its creative members for their outstanding service and dedication to making live theater accessible for those living in the New York City metropolitan area.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment at a time when our immigration system continues to fail America's hardworking families, at a time when immigration laws continue to separate our Nation's families and at a time when our country is so desperately seeking fair and comprehensive immigration reform.

Millions of close family members continue to languish in a wearisome visa backlog process for years waiting to be reunited with their loved ones. The seemingly endless application process creates desperation and homelessness for hardworking immigrants in a Nation where we hear so much about family values being a priority. We must provide relief for these families struggling to be together.

Beginning in fiscal year 2002, President Bush proposed a $500 million initiative to eliminate the immigration processing backlog and attain a universal 6-month processing time standard for all immigration applicants within 5 years.

While this initiative has helped to reduce the backlog, the Goverment Accountability Office estimates that, as of June 30, 2005, USCIS still had 1.2 million cases in its backlog, and the agency was unlikely to meet the September 2006 deadline of a 6-month turnaround time for applications.

In my congressional district, we continue to have backlogged cases of over a year despite the President's proposed 6-month time standard.

Elsewhere in the country, there are people waiting up to 22 years for their applications to be processed. What is most alarming about the cases in my district is that the individuals have been mistakenly identified by the USCIS as naturalized when in fact they are not.

Not only does this create an unnecessary backlog, it poses a national security concern. My amendment, which has previously passed the House, will help address this issue. The amendment will enable the Department of Homeland Security to explore new ways of tackling this problem by authorizing the director of the USCIS to implement innovative pilot initiatives to eliminate the immigration application processing backlog and prevent further backlog from occurring.

It would encourage initiatives such as increasing or transferring personnel to areas with the greatest backlog, streamlining regulations and paperwork filing processes, upgrading information technology, and increasing immigration service centers throughout the country.

This amendment recognizes that there is not one specific approach toward eliminating the backlog, and therefore it encourages flexibility at the local level so pilot project sites can examine the problem in new ways. Children should not be left without the guidance of both of their parents as they face the joys and trials of school life, building friendships, and discovering their individual talents.

Mothers and fathers should not be denied the chance to watch their children grow up into young men and women, moving on to having children of their own. And couples should not be separated, leaving one parent struggling to make ends meet and serve the needs of

their children alone. We must help reunite families and ensure that immigrant families have the same opportunities as native-born families to live and work together as a complete family unit.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express concerns with Title II of H.R. 4473, which reauthorizes the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). When the CEA was previously reauthorized in 2000, changes were made that brought much needed legal clarity to over-the-counter derivatives and foreign currency markets. In the same legislation, the regulatory structure of U.S. futures exchanges was enhanced, providing a more flexible approach to the oversight of complex financial instruments. Together, these two developments provided a structure that has promoted the depth and breadth of U.S. capital markets throughout the world. Such vibrancy of U.S. capital markets is critical to creating new jobs, building wealth, and attracting investment.

While the reauthorization of the CEA is essential to the efficient functioning of our Nation's capital markets, I am concerned that title II of H.R. 4473--while well intentioned--may disrupt the balance created through the reauthorization of the CEA in 2000. Title II of H.R. 4473 provides the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) with expansive new powers that may be interpreted as applying the CEA to over-the-counter natural gas contracts. Doing so may jeopardize the legal certainty of certain natural gas contracts, potentially undermining the efficiency and robustness of the very markets that proponents of Title II are seeking to promote. The Federal Reserve and the Department of Treasury have raised similar concerns about this legislation.

In addition, other concerns have been expressed about H.R. 4473. Section 201 provides the CFTC with new market surveillance powers, which require the CFTC to investigate any highly unusual price changes in futures contracts for natural gas. Such new powers may not be the most appropriate policy response to address widely fluctuating natural gas prices. The Federal Reserve has noted that wide swings in natural gas prices are not a result of weak regulation, but rather due to supply and demand imbalances related to insufficient infrastructure necessary to produce and transport the underlying commodity. Further, section 202 imposes new position reporting standards on holders of natural gas futures or options contracts, requiring that records of such contracts be maintained for five years and provided to the CFTC as their request. These new requirements are not without costs, which could be significant and may be

passed on to homeowners and businesses. As a result, this provision could have the unintended affect of increasing costs on energy consumers.

By potentially expanding CFTC authority beyond that established in the 2000, serious questions have been raised about CEA's scope and construction and the potential impact these new changes may have on energy consumers, investors, and industry participants. As this legislation heads to conference, I urge my colleagues to thoroughly discuss and address these issues and concerns so that we can be confident that our Nation's capital markets remain strong and vibrant.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the retirement of Robert W. Lazar, a man who has made tremendous contributions for small businesses throughout the state of New York, and our nation. Mr. Lazar has graciously served our business community through the New York Business Development Corporation (NYBDC) for the past 35 years.

Mr. Lazar carries with him an extensive and impressive record of helping small businesses across the state of New York. He began his service with the NYBD in 1971, and since that time he has successfully operated in a number of roles within the organization. Since 1987, Mr. Lazar has served as the President and CEO and has been credited with leading his company to unprecedented growth.

With over 1.7 million small businesses in New York, the NYBDC serves a vital role in our state by assisting these businesses in obtaining the financial assistance they so desperately need to start and grow an enterprise. In addition, NYBC also provides much needed credit opportunities to the increasing number of minority and women-owned firms--many of which have difficulty in accessing these types of options elsewhere.

The contributions he has made to our state's small businesses during his tenure at NYBDC have been endless. I have had the pleasure of working with Mr. Lazar in both my capacity as a Member representing Brooklyn, and as the Ranking Democrat on the House Small Business Committee. Some of my fondest memories over the past years include visiting small business owners together, hearing about the aspirations, dreams, and challenges our local businesses are facing, and working to help meet their needs. Small businesses throughout New York have been fortunate to have such a dedicated, and successful, advocate as Bob working to ensure firms have access to capital and opportunity--and we are lucky that his efforts on behalf of small businesses will continue forward.

Throughout the years, Mr. Lazar has created a long list of accomplishments and has received numerous awards for his services. Mr. Lazar has been a steadfast advocate for small business legislation both in New York and Washington. Because of his efforts, the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 504 lending program, one of the most widely used small business loan programs, is now a more viable source of small business lending for entrepreneurs throughout the nation. In addition, as the President of NYBDC, he has played a key role in helping to expand the use of SBA programs, and in contributing to the development of new loan programs through public-private partnerships. These accomplishments benefited not only New York small businesses--but also entrepreneurs nationwide.

In 2000, he was recognized as the ``Small Business Advocate of the Year'' in the state of New York by the Empire State Development Corporation. He was named as ``Entrepreneur of the Year Award'' in 2004 by Capital District Business Review, and has been honored with several leadership awards over the past few years. The truth is that Bob could have been recognized as ``Small Business Advocate of the Year'' every year.

He has served New York's small businesses with tireless dedication, effort and success. The doors he has opened for women and minority business owners, and the assistance Mr. Lazar has granted to aspiring entrepreneurs across the state have been an invaluable asset--and these achievements have set the path for the future small business owners of New York. I know that Bob's contributions to entrepreneurs will not end with his retirement--and that small businesses in New York and across the nation will continue to benefit from his dedication.

I hope that the U.S. House of Representatives will join me today in recognizing Mr. Robert Lazar on his retirement--and in honoring and thanking him for his work and dedication to small businesses in both New York, and the nation.

Mr. Speaker, today's motion to instruct conferees is about keeping costs down for the American people. Whether it be protecting prices at the gas pump against price-gouging or ensuring entrepreneurs have access to affordable loans, the bottom line is that we must work to relieve our citizens of rising costs.

For aspiring entrepreneurs and small business owners, access to capital is access to opportunity. Unfortunately, right now, businesses all over the country are seeing their capital options dwindle. At the same time, the typical small business owner is paying thousands more than they did last year to receive a loan.

The simple economics of this are that if a small business has to give the government more of their money, not to the banks, like the chairman inferred, but to the Federal Government, then they have less to invest into their business and less to create jobs. This is a loss our country simply cannot afford today.

By not funding the largest long-term lending initiative for small businesses, the 7(a) loan program, this is exactly what is happening. In a little more than a year, costs for lenders and borrowers have increased by 110 percent. These new program costs have already resulted in the termination of important programs that direct capital to rural areas and minority businesses. The situation will only worsen if Congress fails to provide funding.

This winter, it is projected that there will be yet another round of fee increases. In addition, the program will feel even greater cost pressures as the impact of Hurricane Katrina starts to bear down. In the gulf region today, there are over $2 billion in SBA loans. Even OMB acknowledges that significant loan defaults will occur as a result of this year's hurricanes. In fact, some estimates place this amount as high as $500 billion. The program costs that will result will not only affect those firms in the gulf region but will impact businesses in every district across the country as the cost to cover these loans rises.

Without an appropriation, the only way to cover this additional cost will be through more fee increases. Unfortunately, in a little over a year, we have run out of room to increase fees. The results will be program caps, limits on program size, and even the possibility of a shutdown next year. This is something our Nation's small business owners should not have to endure.

Clearly, spending decisions are difficult. However, on this, we should not be penny wise and dollar foolish, and that is exactly what this body will be doing by eliminating the funding for a program that makes up less than two-tenths of a percent of the entire bill but provides 30 percent of all long-term lending for small businesses and is a proven job creator.

I just would like to say to the chairman, how could we say that the program is doing better? The program is not doing better. Small businesses now pay double what they paid last year to get a loan. Of course, the Small Business Administration is going to say that they are doing more loans, but they are not telling us that those loan sizes are much, much smaller. Loans are much smaller, even though the cost of operating a business are much higher, and fewer and fewer lenders are participating in the program.

This is not a program that is doing better. The African-American business owner gets half the loan size than in mainstream business. Is that minority businessperson doing better when they are getting half the loan size that a mainstream business gets? I do not think so.

I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Schwartz-Bishop motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me just say for the record that I am here not to do the job for banks. I am here to fight to protect small businesses, small businesses that create 99 percent of the jobs in this country.

And let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I will include in the Record the letter sent to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and to the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. Speaker, that contains 25 groups. They are not banks. They are the National Small Business Association, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Convenience Stores, the National Association for the Self-employed, American Society of Travel Agents, and the list goes on and on. These are 25 national groups in support of restoring the funding for the 7(a).

And let me just also say to you, sir, that the SBA is going to claim that they are doing record levels, of course, because the numbers that they are using, they are comparing their numbers when the program was shut down by SBA. But comparing the last two quarters, SBA lending is actually declining by nearly $50 million in the last quarter alone.

And when comparing the fourth quarter 2005 to the fourth quarter 2004, SBA has done $150 million less in lending to small businesses. SBA claimed that they would do $16 billion, but they were $2 billion below for fiscal year 2005.

October 27, 2005.

Hon. Frank Wolf,

Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Science, State,

Justice and Commerce, The Capitol, Washington, DC.

Hon. Alan Mollohan,

Ranking Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on Science,

State, Justice and Commerce, Longworth House Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Richard Shelby,

Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,

and Science, The Capitol, Washington, DC.

Hon. Barbara Mikulski,

Ranking Member Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce,

Justice, and Science, Dirksen Senate Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairmen Wolf and Shelby and Ranking Members Mollohan

and Mikulski: As the House and Senate prepare to go to

conference on the Science, State, Justice and Commerce (SSJC)

and Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) appropriations

bills, we wanted to bring to your attention an issue that is

of critical importance to small businesses and small business

lenders, and to request your assistance in ensuring that this

Nation's entrepreneurs have access to affordable capital

through an adequately funded small business lending program.

The Small Business Administration 7(a) program supports

nearly one-third of all long-term capital financing for our

Nation's small businesses. Notably, both the House and Senate

have included funds in their FY 2006 appropriations bills for

the 7(a) program. As the House and Senate are preparing to go

to conference on SSJC-CJS, we are writing to express our

strong support for the modest funding of this vital program.

The fees associated with the 7(a) program are becoming

prohibitively expensive for both small business borrowers and

lenders. For FY 2005, the full cost of the program was

shifted to small businesses and their lenders through a

series of fee increases. As a result, small businesses are

being forced to pay substantial upfront fees to use the

program--more than $2,000 for a small loan and nearly $16,000

for a mid-size loan. For smaller loans of less than $150,000,

fees are doubled, which translates into nearly $1,500 more in

upfront closing costs for entrepreneurs. For a loan of

$700,000, this increase would raise the fees by approximately

$3,000 and for larger loans this fee can approach $50,000.

These fee increases are making it more expensive for

lenders to lend and businesses to borrow. As a result, many

small businesses--particularly those in the areas affected by

Hurricane Katrina--may be unable to access the capital they

need to hire new employees or expand their operations. Most

recently, actions have been taken that have made the program

more costly and less accessible to small businesses. On

October 1st, a third fee increase was levied on the program's

participants--making 7(a) loans more costly than ever. And,

in an attempt to cut the program's costs, the SBA eliminated

the popular 7(a) LowDoc program, which has been a key

initiative used by community banks and rural small

businesses.

We are also concerned about the impact of Gulf Coast

hurricanes on the program, as SBA's loan portfolio contains

more than $2 billion in loans to businesses in hurricane-

affected areas. There is the potential that a sizeable

portion of these loans will default, leading to increased

program costs. Without a 7(a) appropriation, the only

possibility to cover these increased program costs will be to

raise fees on small businesses and lenders, place a cap on

the program or on loan size, or, in the worst case scenario,

shut down the program altogether. These undesirable measures

would be extremely counterproductive at a time when adequate

small business lending will be more important than ever in

recovery and rebuilding post-Katrina.

We urge you to support our Nation's small businesses.

Securing funding for this important program is a top priority

for the broad small business and lending community and we are

pleased that both the House and Senate appropriations bills

contain needed funding for the 7(a) program. We urge the

SSJC-CJS conferees to work to ensure that the 7(a) program is

provided with an appropriation of $79.132 million for FY 2006

and that such funding be used to reduce the fees for business

borrowers and their lenders.

We recognize your commitment to our Nation's small

businesses and truly appreciate your efforts in supporting

the SBA's 7(a) loan program. In order to ensure the vibrancy

of our local communities, we want to stress our strong

support for funding for the

7(a) program. We are eager to work with you to accomplish

this goal. By giving entrepreneurs access to affordable

capital, we can ensure that they can continue to serve as the

catalyst for our Nation's economy.

Sincerely,

National Small Business Association.

National Black Chamber of Commerce.

National Association of Convenience Stores.

National Association for the Self-Employed.

Associated Equipment Distributors.

Aeronautical Repair Station Association.

American Society of Travel Agents.

Independent Office Products & Furniture Dealers

Association.

Silver Users Association.

Small Business Majority.

National Procurement Council.

United Motorcoach Association.

Office Furniture Dealers Alliance.

U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce.

American Bus Association.

National Ready Mixed Concrete Association.

National Propane Gas Association.

Women Impacting Public Policy.

American Subcontractors Association.

American Dental Association.

National Office Products Alliance.

American Hotel and Lodging Association.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) will invite me to be a conferee, I will work with you.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to register my opposition to H.R. 1461 the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, due to recently add provisions that restrict non-profit organizations from receiving affordable housing funds if they engage in nonpartisan voter registration activities.

On May 25, 2005, the Financial Services Committee reported the GSE bill with strong bipartisan support. I supported moving the bill because it took necessary steps toward expanding homeownership for American families.

However, in an effort to bring the bill to the floor, Republicans altered the language that created an affordable housing trust fund. Under the Republican language, controversial limitations were included to restrict the receipt of the funds by nonprofit organizations. Specifically, the language prohibits nonprofit organizations, including religious groups, from applying for and receiving grants if they engage in, or maintain an affiliation with any organization that engages in, nonpartisan voter registration within the 12 months preceding the application or during the duration of the grant.

This restrictive language has never been debated by the Financial Services Committee, despite the fact that its implications warrant careful study. For instance, the provisions raise significant constitutional questions because they place restrictions on the First Amendment right to affiliate. They also directly contradict current voter registration laws by discouraging civic participation in the democratic process.

Moreover, I am extremely concerned that this language will exempt qualified non-profit groups from providing much needed affordable housing services across the country. The Financial Services Committee had taken great strides in this bill to increase homeownership through the creation of an affordable housing trust fund. Yet, this language throws our bipartisan efforts aside, the impact of which will be felt by the low income, elderly and disabled.

As the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act moves forward through the legislative process, I hope that the Senate and conference committee recognize the harmful effects of these restrictions on non-profit organizations and remove the language that jeopardizes our democratic form of government.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in commemoration of Hispanic Heritage month to recognize and celebrate the outstanding achievements of remarkable leaders of the Hispanic community. I am honored to acknowledge the wonderful contributions of Margarita Rosa Esq., Frances Lucerna, Dr. Maria Montes, Elizabeth C. Yeampierre and Rev. Jorge L. Roa, Jr. These individuals have been a true inspiration, working tirelessly to better the lives of New Yorkers and the Hispanic community by making a positive impact in our community.

Through devotion and commitment, these enthusiastic role models have excelled in their strong community service and diligent work to improve the quality of life in many disenfranchised neighborhoods, encouraging

the next generation of Latino leaders. A living example of this arduous dedication is Ms. Margarita Rosa who is the Executive Director of Grand Street Settlement, a New York based community organization whose primary vision is to improve the lives of those less fortunate or disadvantaged by encouraging self-determination through learning advocacy, support and community building.

Margarita has been a steadfast, passionate advocate of human rights, as the first Hispanic woman to be appointed to the New York State Commission on Human Rights in the early 1990's. Working at the local government level gave her the unique perspective of understanding how public policy affects diverse communities. Margarita's accomplishments have been plentiful--being honored for her eager public service dedication, she received a prestigious teaching fellowship award, and is currently an active member of several Boards of Directors for organizations such as the Public Interest Law Foundation at New York University (NYU) Law School, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and the Lower Union East Side Family Union. These endeavors are a mere representation of Margarita's achievements and willingness to continue empowering those in need.

Another notable and distinguished leader has been an energetic force and true pioneer in the world of cultural and performing arts. Ms. Frances Lucerna founded the Williamsburg Arts and Cultural Council for Youth, a community performing and visual arts program for youngsters. She later became the co-founder and Executive Director of El Puente Academy for Peace and Justice, a Brooklyn youth-based community development organization nurturing leadership for peace and social justice. Frances' leadership and artistic vision motivated her to develop one of the most comprehensive Latino arts and cultural center, which provide young students with the opportunity to express themselves artistically.

As a strong advocate for education and a loving artist, Frances has broken barriers by channeling the talent and skill of thousands of youngsters into a bright path and a hopeful future for many within the community. As a visionary with an artistic soul, Frances has achieved many high recognitions highlighting her efforts, such as the 1998 Heinz Award for the Human Condition, and being appointed to the Advisory Committee to the President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities, and the Community School Task Force for the White House Conference on Character Building for a Democratic, Civil Society. She has also served on the Boards of Directors of the Arts Center of the Brooklyn Academy of Music and the Community Youth Development Guide Team of the National Network for Youth.

Among the list of remarkable thinkers impacting higher education is Dr. Maria Montes Morales, Vice-President and Dean of Academic Affairs at Boricua College. Dr. Montes Morales understood the critical value of education and how peoples' lives could be transformed. She lived and realized the educational injustices faced by Latinos, which allowed her to make a difference and change the traditional college learning environment. Her vision and commitment to educate and empower Latinos in New York City motivated her to help establish the first Boricua College campus in Williamsburg, Brooklyn which opened in 1974.

This was a tremendous achievement for the community, especially since many of the Williamsburg residents were Spanish speaking and interested in furthering their education at an institution that was culturally sensitive, community based, competitive and accessible. Since its creation, thousands of students have graduated from this Boricua College campus, with many remaining in the community and providing professional human services.

Maria's contribution to higher education for all students, especially Latinos, is highly commendable. Her leadership at Boricua College successfully promotes student learning through active participation in meaningful and planned service experiences in the community that are directly related to course content. With a humanistic approach, such as a sense of civic responsibility, self-awareness, and commitment to the community, Dr. Montes Morales makes Boricua College an outstanding and unique higher learning institution in New York City.

Mr. Speaker, I am also proud to celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month by recognizing the great efforts of Mrs. Elizabeth C. Yeampierre, Executive Director of the United Puerto Rican Organization of Sunset Park (UPROSE), Brooklyn's oldest Latino community-based organization. Under Elizabeth's leadership, UPROSE has become the frontier organization on multiracial environmental justice issues impacting the community. Its ``Youth Justice'' program has set the path to several victories advocating on behalf of low-income and minority communities that are environmentally overburdened.

Elizabeth's dedication and endeavors at UPROSE have included promoting youth, family and community empowerment, and creating awareness for environmental issues impacting the living conditions of residents in Sunset Park. Her accomplishments range from successfully leading UPROSE in opposition to the Sunset Energy Fleet 520--a power plant proposal to place two power plants in the area--to campaigning against the placement of a sewage sludge treatment plant in Sunset Park, and advocating the prevention of child lead paint poisoning.

Elizabeth has also created an effective ``Youth Justice'' program which provides young environmental activists across the country with opportunities to promote environmental issues. As a result, these young leaders were able to organize the first environmental justice conference in Sunset Park. The outstanding work and contributions of UPROSE under Elizabeth's leadership has had a valuable impact on the residents of Sunset Park.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to commend and acknowledge the highly regarded work of Reverend Jorge L. Roa, Jr. a native of Brooklyn and a devoted pastor who committed his life to God, and assisting those most in need, including youngsters and the Hispanic community. Rev. Roa has been a true inspiration who has excelled in promoting youth programs within his church, ``the Missionary Christian Church,'' in Manhattan where he preaches and is very pro-active on social and justice issues.

Rev. Roa has touched many lives by helping his community seek spiritual guidance and a path, collaborating in missionary projects such as rebuilding churches, and collecting donations for relief efforts for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. He has been a humanitarian champion in this country and abroad, taking part in missions providing food, water, medicine and other resources to impoverished communities throughout different countries, including Latin America and Africa.

Rev. Roa, is also the program director of a radio and TV show known as ``En sus Pasos'' or ``In Your Steps,'' which is transmitted in Manhattan. He is also the author of a renowned book, ``Una Luz de Dios, La Historia de la Iglesia Cristiana Misionera,'' ``A light of God, the History of the Christian Missionary Church.'' Rev. Roa's true vocations have enlightened the community and changed the lives of many youngsters throughout his 24 years of ministry. His excellence in leadership and service is laudable for Latinos and residents of the Manhattan community and beyond.

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honor for me to rise today and recognize these wonderful Hispanic leaders who I firmly believe possess key elements that strengthen our culture, community and nation. In commemoration of Hispanic Heritage Month, it is essential and truly important to emphasize the life-time commitment these remarkable persons have demonstrated in breaking down stereotypes about Latinos, and empowering the Hispanic American community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this measure which expands expiring provisions of the Patriot Act by granting unlimited investigative powers to our government. This bill gives the government broad powers to secretly collect personal information on medical, library and business and financial records of our Nation's citizens. Additionally, this legislation sunsets provisions that are not about combating terrorism or making us safer, but about intruding upon our privacy and infringing upon our civil liberties.

Mr. Chairman, there is no limit to these surveillance and intelligence powers once they are given to our government. There are no guarantees to the American people that our Nation will be more stable and secure by enforcing these policies, which allow the government to conduct secret searches of your home or office--the so-called sneak and peek warrant--for an indefinite period of time. Our country takes great pride in upholding the true values of our constitution and freedom. However, these provisions certainly contradict these beliefs and, more importantly, the checks and balances intended to safeguard our liberty.

We must understand that neither the original U.S. Patriot Act, nor this legislation, have been subject to the proper oversight. We have evidence that the repercussions of the original Patriot Act has led to abusive powers by this Administration. Since the September 11th attacks, our government has detained and verbally and physically abused thousands of immigrants, without time limits, for unknown and unspecified reasons, and targeted the Arab-American community for intensive interrogations and immigration screenings.

A clear example of this happened in my Congressional district at the Metropolitan Detention Center where 84 detainees where mistreated under the conditions of confinement. This mistreatment was reported and documented by the Department of Justice where it has acknowledged the abuses which were documented by the Inspector General. I clearly recognize the outrage of terrorist attacks and the need to heighten our Nation's security--but not at the expense of undermining our freedom and our democratic values and ideals.

We have not been given the actual facts or had the time to accurately evaluate the ramifications of many of these provisions. Reauthorizing a bill which lacks oversights and expands provisions that violate the privacy of our citizens is undermining the American public's civil rights and misleading our Nation.

This bill fails to protect our Nation and, our civil liberties. It strikes the essence of our checks and balances, subjects individuals to repeated abuse and violates the confidentiality of our personal records. This is plain wrong. If we want to fight terrorism, let's do it the right way, by providing the adequate resources and funding to our homeland security and our local enforcement, by being consistent with our democracy and our true values and principles, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, in every State and every district when we meet with small business owners, their number one concern is rising health care costs. Even as we sit here, the cost of health care continues to rise.

Today's legislation will help address this problem. Association health plans will provide an employer-based solution to help the sector of the economy that is being hit the hardest: small businesses. Critics of the bill will come forward today and tell you how association health plans are going to lead to a devastating impact on small businesses and the insurance market. Well, from where I stand, it is hard to imagine that it could get any worse.

We have 45 million Americans without health insurance and over half are small businesses and their employees. This includes up to 7 million children that have family members working for small firms. And for the last 5 years, small businesses have seen insurance costs increase by over 60 percent. These are statistics that are so often stated in this town that we forget what the real impact is. When an employer has to spend an additional $3,000 a year for coverage per employee year after year, it is easy to understand why some are dropping coverage all together.

We have a modest solution before us today that no one can claim will address all of the problems, but it can provide some help in a market that needs it. I think it is important to talk about what association health plans are and what they are not. These plans will be under the same set of rules that apply to corporate and union plans. In fact, the requirements for association health plans are even more strict. It will require that an association health plan have sufficient reserves to pay all claims. It includes protections against cherry-picking to prevent adverse selection. It provides a structure to ensure that the DOL can monitor these plans.

Critics will cite an outdated CBO study that does not even examine the legislation before us today. Will association health plans cure all of the problems when it comes to health insurance in the small group market? Absolutely not. But will it bring some elements of affordability and competition in these markets? I think so.

By some estimates, this bill is estimated to provide as many as 8 million Americans with insurance, no small sum. One of the best indicators as to whether AHPs will increase competition is the strong opposition from insurance companies. They are worried that they will lose their stranglehold on the small-group market. These insurance companies with highly paid lobbyists from Blue Cross/Blue Shield, for example, that hold monopolies on State markets are worried that they will have to start negotiating premiums rather than dictating them.

I rise in strong support of this legislation. I ask my colleagues to do the same. Just as important, I call on the Senate to act on this legislation and the administration to put its full backing behind this bill. This Nation's entrepreneurs deserve it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the Federal marketplace is doing record levels today, with nearly every agency buying more than ever before. NASA alone has increased their contracting volume by 30 percent in the past 4 years.

Despite NASA's significant increase in procurement volume, small firms continue to fare poorly when it comes to working with this agency. NASA's small business contracts have declined by 50 percent in the past 4 years. The amendment I am offering today will help to change this.

Small companies represent the majority of businesses in this country, and they are the most innovative. They issue more patents per employee than their large business counterparts. One would assume that this innovation would shine through in agencies that rely on scientific knowledge and expertise. However, this has not been the case.

NASA is an agency that relies heavily on scientific expertise while, at the same time, they control a large segment of the Federal marketplace. They are consistently ranked third out of all Federal agencies in terms of procurement volume, buying more than the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Interior combined.

Clearly, NASA has the capability to meet their small business goals; however, they do need some assistance and we have no way to evaluate whether or not their efforts in increasing small business contracts are truly yielding results. This agency has an array of options when it comes to identifying small companies, whether they work with them individually, host national conferences, or connect with the SBA to identify contracting possibilities. But whatever they are doing is not yielding an increase in small business contracts.

My amendment would guarantee that these outreach methods are examined so that we can pinpoint the best way for NASA to reach out to small firms. This would allow us to truly see what works, what does not work, and what industries are more likely to successfully penetrate NASA's procurement opportunities. It will also enable the Small Business Committee and the Science Committee to move forward in ensuring NASA is taking the right steps to meet their small business contracting goal.

This amendment is a good government solution to a problem that has been facing our Nation's small companies for years now, their ability to access the Federal marketplace, and it is supported by the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce. Clearly, as stewards of taxpayer dollars, one of our most important charges is ensuring that these resources are used in the most effective and efficient manner possible. One of the best ways to go about this is to ensure accountability exists, and adoption of this amendment will achieve just that. This amendment will begin the process of identifying the barriers that prevent small companies from doing business with NASA. It will also assist NASA in honing its efforts at increasing small business access to contracts to those endeavors that have proven successful.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the ranking member, for supporting my amendment.

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

I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for supporting my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

With limited job opportunity in this country, more than ever minorities are turning to entrepreneurship, with 15 percent of this Nation's small businesses being minority owned today. Clearly this business ownership rate is well below the mainstream rate, especially in high tech fields.

My amendment will begin to change this by creating a 4-year pilot grant program focused on the development of technology laboratories at our Nation's minority institutions.

In these on-campus facilities, through a simple partnership, NASA experts will work with some of our brightest students to expose them to innovative technology development.

This will help to shore up current programs that are too narrowly focused on basic science and limited by the technological capabilities of these institutions.

This has successfully been done in more mainstream centers of learning. If you look at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, investment by the government and private sector created an environment that allowed it to become the world renown center of study that it is now.

The tie to entrepreneurship and the development of minority students in the technological field is quite clear. Entrepreneurs who have founded technology oriented enterprises emerged from institutions with a strong affiliation to government and industry applied research. These are exactly the type of facilities this amendment will create.

As ranking member of the Committee on Small Business, I am constantly talking to agencies about their small business contracting performance. One of the agencies who struggles the most is NASA, which has regularly failed to meet its goal, and awards to minorities have decreased by 25 percent in the last 4 years.

I believe that there are several reasons for this. One is we need to develop more minority technology companies capable of meeting NASA's requirements. By making sure our science and engineering students are exposed to these opportunities early in their careers, we are increasing their ability to learn and develop. This would pay dividends in the future.

The adoption of this amendment will go a long way in opening up a culture which can seem closed and intimidating when you do not know it. We also provide these future entrepreneurs with a vital opportunity to receive mentoring and develop the understanding of the inner workings of NASA.

This will greatly increase the willingness of those at the agency to take a chance on bright individuals with innovative ideas but who may not have the history that more established entities do.

This amendment is supported by the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the Minority Business Enterprise Legal Defense Fund and the Latin American Management Association.

The adoption of this amendment is a win for all those involved. NASA will win because they will have the access to the minority high tech sector they are so desperately looking for, and the minority-serving institutions and their students will win because they will be advancing technology development. But most importantly, our Nation wins as we create the next generation of high tech firms that will be so critical to advancing this Nation's economy in years to come.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify the gentleman's statement. This is not to construct buildings. This funding in this amendment will not pay for the construction of facilities. $4 million does not pay for facilities. It will give the funds that these minority-serving institutions need to do capacity building, to start the partnership, to set up the partnership, and to manage it. It will not use one penny to build physical facilities.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

For clarification, it says here, ``shall enter into a cooperative agreement with a non-profit organization that has experience developing relationships between industry, minority institutions . . . ''

It does not say physical or construction of physical facilities. And ``develop'' does not mean build.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds for clarification.

I am the author of this legislation or this amendment. It does not say here

in any way to build a physical facility. It says ``development of physical.'' And I want for the Record to reflect that I do not mean to build physical facilities.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

I mean by the minority-serving institution to develop the physical facility and develop the relationship.

I will propose to the gentleman that he adopt the amendment, and it is a matter of semantics and that we will work to clarify it.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense amendment. It is not only good for all those involved but it will also empower us to take a huge step toward closing the technology gap that is so prevailing among the minority population.

The truth is that this approach has already been taken with some of the most highly renowned research facilities across the country and has proven successful. The only difference now is that it will focus on bringing these advancements to minority-serving institutions and, ultimately, closing this Nation's technology gap.

The timing could not be better for this as NASA starts fresh, undertaking a review of their facilities, leasing activities, and partnership agreements. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, small businesses still struggle to participate in the Federal marketplace. For the past 4 years, the Federal Government has not met its small business contracting goal, costing entrepreneurs billions of dollars in lost opportunities.

By failing to take advantage of their exceptional quality and reasonable prices, the Federal Government is losing out on the best value for taxpayers' dollars.

One of the primary reasons the Federal Government has failed is because of contract bundling. These megacontracts have been responsible for a 56 percent drop in available contracts to small businesses in 9 years. After all this time, we have yet to see one dime in savings of taxpayers' dollars.

The latest chapter in small business lost opportunity comes from the General Services Administration. GSA is moving forward with an ill- conceived megacontract called e-travel. With this contract, GSA is poised to eliminate a whole sector of the small business community, travel agents, from working with the government. This is an industry small businesses dominate, as 99 percent of its firms have 30 employees or less.

This move is despite the President's small business agenda and his repeated statements that contracts should be broken into smaller pieces. Completely ignoring this, GSA is cutting small businesses out, all in the name of streamlining, which they cannot even prove.

It is not a new issue. In fact, recognizing the potential harmful impact that this contract will have for small businesses and local economies, the conference report for the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriation took the

extraordinary step of telling GSA it needs to preserve these contracts for small businesses.

Despite this mandate, GSA did just the opposite, and made the e- travel project mandatory barely 1 month after the conference report. This means that no local or Federal office can use their neighborhood travel agency, even if they already have for years.

The results of GSA's actions are massive losses which industry estimates project costing small travel agencies at least $100 million in contracting opportunities, and possibly more. With only 78,000 jobs being created last month, can we afford to lose out on more opportunity in areas of the country that so desperately need jobs?

GSA is ignoring the President's small business agenda designed to increase contracting opportunities. They are ignoring the will of Congress. They care nothing about saving taxpayers' dollars. The amendment I am offering today will make sure they listen and stop pushing small businesses out of the Federal marketplace.

Let us not forget the important role small travel agencies have played. On September 11, when thousands of people were stranded in airports, they took as long as was necessary to figure out ways to get people home. When people stopped traveling out of fear, they got them going again. The thanks they got from the airline industry was a loss of booking fees and direct competition. The airline industry decided it could do their job.

Now the Federal Government is telling them that their services are no longer needed. This is not only shortsighted, but it fails to recognize the value that these companies add.

My amendment will balance contracting opportunities in the travel industry, much like the previous system. It would allow large providers to perform on the national contracts, but it would not prevent a Federal agency from using a local travel agent if that is what they prefer to do.

Let me make one thing clear. If this amendment is not adopted, not one single small business travel agent will be able to do business with Federal agencies, and this is outrageous. These megacontracts have clearly gone too far; and it is time that we say enough is enough.

This amendment has received the support of the Society of Government Travel Professionals, as well as the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce. I am urging my colleagues today to protect small business contracting by supporting this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I just would like to respond for the record to a statement made by the chairman that the e-travel will save taxpayers' money. Let me just say that an industry review of the booking fees listed on the Federal Supply Schedule, it appears that GSA's figures on travel booking fees may have been estimated too high by as much as $20 per transaction, and these are the big industries, the big travel agencies, not the small businesses.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, I have been advised that the amendment has been cleared by the CBO and the parlimentarians, so I would like an explanation for the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, in cities and towns across the country, lead paint hazards still pose a clear and serious risk to families, with exposure of toxins in the home triggering asthma at a great cost to American families and the national economy. At greatest risk are low-income and minority children living in older, substandard housing.

Despite these facts and the bipartisan effort to increase funding for HUD's lead hazard control grants, this bill cuts funding by approximately $48 million, risking the health and safety of children and families across the Nation. Even with last year's funding level, HUD was only able to fund one-third of the requests it received from cities and States, and the cut contained in this bill would only make this situation worse.

With this in mind, I rise today to urge Members to support the Velazquez-Slaughter-Terry amendment which restores funds to HUD's lead hazard control grants to last year's level for this critical program that makes great strides in eradicating lead poisoning in children.

We have a national goal of protecting our children from lead poisoning by 2010. HUD's lead hazard control grants are critical to achieving this goal. Without adequate funding, we run the risk of not being able to match the rhetoric with action.

This amendment reduces funding for salaries and expenses and at the Department of Treasury, and the Department of Transportation's new headquarters building. Despite the offsets, these two areas will still receive sufficient funding, with Treasury still above the fiscal year 2005 funding level. By adopting this amendment, we will protect the health and safety of children while maintaining sufficient funding levels, making this a win/win situation.

Even at moderate to low levels of exposure, scientific evidence shows that lead can adversely impair a child's performance on standardized intelligence tests, and it can affect school performance, educational attainment and, ultimately, career prospects. Voting for this amendment will help with prevention efforts and move us closer to the goal of eradicating lead poisoning altogether.

For the health and safety of children across the country and for the billions of dollars in potential savings by preventive outreach, I urge support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the chairman's statement regarding the fact that HUD did not use all the money last year.

Let me just say that HUD only funded one third of all grants applications that were submitted to HUD last year; so clearly there is a need.

Today we have the opportunity to send a strong message to the estimated 310,000 children that every year are poisoned by lead. Lead paint is a serious problem, taking an especially hard toll on low- income minority communities. If we do not address this issue now by investing in preventative measures, we run the risk of suffering the ramifications for decades to come.

We cannot put a price on a child's health. However, we can recognize the impact cutting funding for HUD's lead hazard control grants will have on the health and safety of children around the country.

This amendment will simply restore funding to last year's level while maintaining adequate funding levels for the programs it reduces through off-sets. With the need for this program outpacing the ability of community organizations to work with affected neighborhoods, we cannot sit idly by and fail to, at the very least, maintain current funding for such crucial services.

I urge the Members to support this amendment and vote in favor of holding the line to protect the lives of children in all our districts.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of restoring funding for Section 8 vouchers. Providing decent, safe affordable housing is one area that must not be overlooked in the greater debate on spending priorities. This bill funds Section 8 at the level of $314 million below the President's request, jeopardizing the housing of low-income families across the country. Without restored funding, hardworking families struggling to make ends meet will be left without homes and will be forced to turn to the already crowded shelter system.

If you are committed to end homelessness as we know it, today you have the opportunity to vote for this amendment. The Nadler-Velazquez- Frank amendment will restore $100 million for Section 8 providing vouchers for approximately 15,000 families by reducing funding for HUD's working capital fund which provides for the technology needs of the Department. This increase will ensure that families working to create a better life for their children will have a safe, decent place to call home.

Stable housing is the first step to economic advancement and positive outcomes for children. Without a steady home, children suffer from being shifted between shelters and the homes of family and relatives, missing school and lacking opportunity for the lasting relationships so crucial to healthy development. The Nadler-Velazquez-Frank amendment will help address this issue by restoring critical funding to a program that has had a tremendous impact on the lives of low-income families around the country.

The Section 8 program is a lifeline for hundreds of thousands of families without which they would face the cold reality of life on the streets or the uncertainty of navigating our Nation's swelling shelter system. This amendment will prevent 15,000 families from losing their homes, continuing the support so needed as they strive to achieve economic stability in the face of challenging circumstances.

In this body, day in and day out, we hear talk about family values. What issue could be more linked to the morals we espouse than providing safe and decent homes for America's families? The Section 8 program serves the approximately 2 million Americans in greatest need, and these families are depending on us here today.

The Nadler-Velazquez-Frank amendment will restore $100 million in funding for 15,000 vouchers. This is a modest but important increase to protect the homes of families working to overcome obstacles in difficult economic times. I urge support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the Federal marketplace has experienced amazing growth over the past 4 years, increasing by $100 billion. Given this increase, it would only be logical that our Nation's small businesses would see similar growth in contracting opportunities. However, this has not been the case. The reality is that small firms continue to be shut out of the Federal marketplace. The Federal Government has failed to reach its small business goal of 23 percent for the past 4 years now, costing small businesses $15 billion in lost contracting opportunity in fiscal year 2003 alone.

The Department of Defense has been an agency that has had a significant amount of trouble with this. One of the main causes has been contract bundling, which is the practice of combining contracts previously performed by small businesses into one megacontract that is simply too large for small firms to bid on. But often overlooked is that a significant contribution to the inability of the Department of Defense to make its goal is the comp demo program.

The comp demo program was created in 1989, but was made permanent during the Clinton administration under the guise of increasing small business participation. The theory behind it was to give agencies direction in finding small business contracting opportunities in nontraditional industries. This would be done by capping the amount of contracts in those industries that have been historically dominated by small businesses.

However, this is not what the program has done. Instead, it has limited small business participation in the Federal marketplace. The comp demo program diverts contracting opportunities to large firms, effectively limiting

the ability of small companies to compete. While DOD is required to meet a 23 percent small business goal, the comp demo program ties its hands and restricts awarding contracts in the industries where small businesses excel. At a time when agencies are already struggling to meet their small business goals, this simply makes no sense. For an agency that represents 70 percent of all government contracting, this is clearly having a negative impact on our Nation's entrepreneurs.

The reality is that this program simply does not work, and this program has been recognized by the administration and the Department of Defense themselves. They proposed to eliminate the comp demo program altogether in the DOD's legislative package for 2006.

My amendment acknowledges the problem and provides a viable solution to fix it by prohibiting the use of funds for fiscal year 2006 to implement the comp demo program. This is supported by the Associated General Contractors, the American Nursery and Landscape Association, the National Small Business Association, and the National Black Chamber of Commerce. This action alone would have the impact of awarding some $4.3 billion in additional contracts to small businesses.

In today's Federal marketplace, small businesses are losing traction, and they cannot afford to be deprived of these opportunities. The comp demo program is only making small business owners' struggle to break into the Federal marketplace all the more difficult. By adopting this amendment, we will be taking a step to fix this problem. When small businesses say the program does not work, DOD says it and the administration is saying it, clearly something needs to change.

My amendment will do this. It is not only good for small businesses but also for the taxpayer and our Nation's economy. If we want to get this economy back on track and create the jobs we need, then we must give small business the opportunity and tools to do so. The comp demo program is simply not doing that, and it needs to end.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' today on this amendment for better use of the taxpayers' dollars and to help our Nation's small businesses compete in the Federal marketplace.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, the authorizing committee was not able to come together for the small business authorization to report a bill out of our committee. And for those people and Members who are always talking about helping small businesses and providing opportunities in the Federal marketplace and when the Department of Defense is saying that this does not make sense, this is an opportunity to do it, and this is why I want a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, before the Comp Demo program, small businesses in those selective industries were making 78 percent of all the contracts. Right now they are doing only 38 percent, almost cut in half. And, besides, I thought that the gentleman represented the party where people are rewarding small businesses or businesses that are exceeding. So now if they are doing a little bit better, then we are going to punish them?

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, this is about economic opportunity for small businesses. The fact of the matter is that the Federal marketplace is

growing and that small businesses are losing out; that their number of dollars and contracts are shrinking, and the Federal Government is not achieving the 23 percent statutory goal set by Congress.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense is saying that immediately small businesses will get $4.4 billion if this is fixed.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, there are some who said that capping small business opportunity in certain industries increases opportunities in other industries. That might have been the theory behind the program in 1988 when it was created, but that has not been the case. Different industries offer different opportunities; some are very favorable to small businesses.

The Department of Defense has not achieved its small business goal for the past 4 years. That is the reality. So, clearly, they are not making up the difference someplace else.

Under the comp demo program, small businesses are guaranteed 40 percent participation in the targeted industries. If the agency does not achieve 40 percent with small firms, it can reinstate small businesses' set-asides. One need look no further than the goal for architectural and engineering services, which has never been achieved. We have asked the Department of Defense. They do not reinstate set- asides when the achievement with small businesses is less than 40 percent.

Forty percent small business participation is a good thing. Normally, small businesses only get 23 percent. If a small business's participation decreases from 78 percent to 40 percent, that is the loss of 38 percent, and that is what is happening now.

The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is, if you support small business opportunity in the Federal marketplace, you should support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.