Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I had the honor of serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee with Congressman Eni Faleomavaega for 16 years. We got to know each other well in 2001, when President Bush nominated the two of us to be the bipartisan Congressional Delegates to the United Nations, and we would travel to New York together to meet with our Ambassador and his diplomatic team.

During Eni's last term in Congress, I chaired the Asia Pacific Subcommittee. Eni was the subcommittee's Ranking Member. I can tell you that during that period, we disagreed from time to time on policy matters, but never were we disagreeable. Eni was the consummate

gentleman who respected the views of his colleagues, as we all respected his.

It was during that time that Eni and I had the opportunity to travel together to the Republic of Korea, Japan and Taiwan to meet with the leaders of those nations and discuss the economic, political and security issues in the region. In those many meetings, Eni was an engaged participant who clearly had earned the respect of our allies. There were two of us--one Democrat, one Republican. But there was no partisanship on that trip. Eni came not as a Democrat but as a thoughtful Member of Congress who understood the realities of the modem day Asia-Pacific region.

I think you can tell a lot about an individual Member of Congress by what his colleagues and staff think of him. In all the years I had the privilege of knowing Eni, I never heard a negative word from anybody about him. His colleagues respected him--appreciating his hard work, his dedication to this institution, his service during the Vietnam War, and his love for American Samoa. And his staff thought the world of him--as did mine.

Mr. Speaker, to his wife, Hina, and his children, grandchildren, former staff and extended family--my sincere condolences. Eni was an outstanding public servant, a proud Samoan, and a great American. He will be missed. Rest in peace, Eni.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act. I want to commend my colleague from Texas (Mr. Smith) for his leadership on this important bill. Mr. Smith, of course, who is now the chairman of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, was, for a number of years, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and he has a long reputation, much experience in trying to find ways to make the legal system work better for more people all across the country, and this is part of that, because there is a huge cost associated with the abusive lawsuits that have been filed for many years in this country.

Businesses are a popular target for frivolous lawsuits that lack any legal or factual basis. These lawsuits can easily result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and discovery costs. Small businesses oftentimes don't have the financial resources to obtain a dismissal or sometimes even good legal counsel, and, therefore, their only option, in many cases, is to settle the case. In fact, many businesses and other entities put aside--insurance companies do this as well--a nuisance value of many of these cases because they realize so many cases are basically filed for not really legitimate reasons, but because there is a cash payout at the end of this, and some who are able to will actually put that in their budget. But these expenses don't just cost small businesses time and productivity. Too often they force small businesses into bankruptcy, and that means real people lose their jobs. This happens thousands and thousands and thousands of times all across this country.

Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the House Committee on Small Business, I cannot emphasize enough that we absolutely cannot afford to lose any more small businesses in this country and the associated jobs that go with them.

By ensuring that there are penalties for lawyers filing frivolous lawsuits, H.R. 720 will deter abusive litigation practices that pose a real threat to the stability of many small businesses all across this country. After all, small businesses are the backbone of the economy. About 70 percent of the new jobs created in the American economy nowadays are created by small-business folks, so we should do everything we can to make sure that they are successful and able to hire more and more Americans so that we can get this economy moving again.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 720. I again thank Mr. Smith for putting forth this very wise and thoughtful legislation which I think will go a long way toward improving the legal system that we have in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 37. I want to commend my colleague from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for her leadership in sponsoring this measure. I am proud to be a cosponsor.

The blacklisting rule is a textbook example of executive overreach that became standard operating procedure during the previous administration. Instead of using the existing suspension and debarment system to deal with bad actors, the Obama administration imposed an unnecessary regulation that placed significant burdens on all Federal contractors, even though they admitted that ``the vast majority of Federal contractors play by the rules.''

This kind of action--failing to enforce existing rules and then imposing a burdensome, redundant regulatory scheme--is exactly what frustrates the American people about Washington. We all want bad actors to be held accountable, but this rule is unnecessary red tape that punishes everyone for the actions of a few.

As chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I am concerned that we already have 100,000 fewer small businesses doing business with the Federal Government than we did back in 2012. So in the second term of the Obama administration, we lost 100,000 small businesses doing business with the Federal Government across the country. That means we have less competition, and that is bad for job creators and it is bad for taxpayers alike because, when there is less competition, we pay more, so the tax dollars that we send here to Washington are not used as efficiently as they ought to be.

The Committee on Small Business held several hearings and roundtables on this rule over the last 2 years, heard directly from small businesses, and examined the Obama administration's rule very closely. What we found was quite alarming.

The blacklisting rule would force innocent small businesses to settle unproven claims, disclose commercially sensitive information to their competitors, and report information the Federal Government already has. So we are going through this whole process, and the Federal Government has already got it; but they are not competent enough to use what they have already got, so they want to put it on the contractor to do even more. It makes no sense.

Ultimately, this rule will result in small businesses being blacklisted from participating in Federal contracting based on accusations--just accusations--where they may ultimately be found innocent. They didn't do anything wrong, yet they are barred from doing business with the government. Again, it makes no sense.

I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 37. Passage of this joint resolution will undo a duplicative and unnecessary regulation that harms small business, hurts competition, and prevents taxpayers from getting the best bang for their buck.

I again want to thank the chairwoman for her leadership in pushing this forward. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the Regulatory Accountability Act.

In response to the previous gentleman's comments, I would just note that none of the regulations that we are considering today--the legislation--is going to do away with regulations altogether or even significantly, especially, regulations that have to do with people's safety. We are not trying to do anything that is going to affect the safety of the American people. We are just trying to make sure the regulations are smarter, and that is what this is all about.

I am also pleased that title III of H.R. 5 is a bill that I sponsored last term and in this Congress--the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act. The Committee on Small Business, which I happen to chair, and the Committee on the Judiciary have crafted this bill with bipartisan input over many years.

I thank Chairman Goodlatte for working with us on this important legislation, and I thank him for his leadership.

Small businesses are found in every congressional district and in every industry. They provide livelihoods for millions of workers and for their families. Small businesses employ nearly half of the private sector workforce and generate two out of every three new jobs in the private sector today. The Federal Government should be doing everything it can to encourage these small but mighty job creators. Unfortunately, oppressive red tape has had the opposite effect of discouraging investment, expansion, and job growth. I am not saying that all regulations are bad, but there are too many rules. For too long, agencies have ignored their true effect, their true impact, on small businesses. Small businesses are at a real disadvantage because they have fewer resources and rarely have in-house counsel, the regulatory compliance staff that would be necessary to guide them through this maze. Generally, small businesses just don't have that.

So shouldn't regulators, at the very least, examine the effects of new rules on small businesses and consider ways to reduce excessive burdens?

Of course they should. There is a law, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or the RFA, which requires agencies to conduct this commonsense assessment when they regulate. Even though the law has been on the books for over 36 years, agencies too frequently just ignore its requirements.

The Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, which is title III in this bill, eliminates loopholes that agencies like the Internal Revenue Service have used to avoid compliance with the RFA. It also forces agencies to analyze not only the direct, but also the indirect effects of rules on small businesses, just as agencies are required to do when promulgating major rules affecting, for example, the environment. It gives small businesses additional opportunities for early input on proposed rules and regulations and strengthens the RFA's requirements for agencies to periodically review old rules.

Nothing in our legislation today takes away an agency's ability to issue a rule or a regulation, but it will force the rulemakers to think carefully before they act. It is great legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

I offer this amendment to address a longstanding problem: agencies not fully analyzing the effects of regulations on small businesses.

Under the current Regulatory Flexibility Act, an agency may certify a rule if it expects that the rule will not have--and I am quoting the current law here--``a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.''

When an agency certifies a rule, it does not need to perform a full regulatory flexibility analysis. This provision makes sense because not every rule affects small businesses.

Unfortunately, agencies appear to be abusing this provision. According to a recent study, agencies only prepared analyses for approximately 8 percent of rules finalized between 1996 and 2012.

A recent example of this occurred with the controversial waters of United States rule. The Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers certified that rule despite the significant and direct consequences for farmers, ranchers, and home builders. Most of those are small businesses.

Although the Small Business Administration Chief Counsel for Advocacy sent a letter to the agencies stating that the certification was improper and urging them to withdraw the rule, the agencies ignored the Chief Counsel and proceeded to finalize it anyway.

This amendment addresses this problem by requiring agencies to include--and I am quoting my amendment--``an economic assessment or a summary thereof that is sufficiently detailed to support the agency's certification.'' This will be published in the Federal Register as part of the detailed statement and certification for the proposed rule.

This approach mirrors the one used in the National Environmental Policy Act. When an agency finds a project to have no significant impacts on the environment, it is required to provide an environmental assessment or a summary of it. Since agencies are required to provide a threshold analysis when they issue a finding of no significant impact for actions that could affect the environment, it just makes sense to extend the same type of requirement to rules that could affect small businesses. Small businesses, after all, are the folks that are responsible for creating two-thirds, or about 70 percent, of the new jobs created nowadays. So anything that burdens these small businesses is something that is, by definition, bad for the economy and bad for job creation.

This particular amendment, I think, improves the underlying legislation. It makes sense. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which will further strengthen the RFA and ensure that agencies' decisions are supported by data.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will be brief, and then I will invite my colleague from Virginia to respond.

Just a couple of quick points. First of all, relative to this significant economic impact language that my distinguished colleague from Georgia is talking about, that is already in the existing law, so we are not changing anything there. We are not saying it ought to say a significant economic impact. It already says that in the existing law. Both the bureaucrats and the courts are used to determining what the terminology like ``significant'' means under the rule or regulation or the law, just as what a reasonable man is. ``Reasonable'' is quite common throughout the legal structure.

We are also not giving discretion to Ms. McMahon, the soon-to-be head of the SBA. It is to the Chief Counsel, and he is independent.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), our chairman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

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

Just a couple of points. First, before speaking in opposition to this amendment, I would note that the ranking member, Ms. Velazquez, and I worked very much in a bipartisan and cooperative manner on a whole range of issues. We have done that when she chaired the committee and I was the ranking member, and we do that now that I am the chair and she is the ranking member. I commend her for that cooperation. We have actually gotten a lot of things done in the Small Business Committee on behalf of small businesses all across the country in both Democratic and Republican districts.

That being said, I would also note that this particular language, in essence, replaces our H.R. 5, title III, with Ms. Velazquez's version. She mentioned that hers is bipartisan. Ours is as well. Mr. Cuellar was a principal cosponsor of this particular legislation, so, by definition, it is bipartisan. I would also note that we have dealt with this a number of times over the years, and we have included a significant number of Democratic amendments already in our underlying bill as well. So it truly is bipartisan.

The gentlewoman from New York's amendment would essentially strike title III of the bill, and it would replace it with alternative language. While I am heartened that she agrees that the Regulatory Flexibility Act needs to be improved, this amendment just does not go far enough to address, in my view, most Federal agencies' habitual disregards for small businesses. We know that the bureaucracy does disregard small businesses time and time again. That is why we feel so strongly about this bill.

Ms. Velazquez's amendment includes a few of the reforms that the current title has, but, unfortunately, it fails to include many other important ones. Her amendment does not close the loophole the IRS uses to avoid complying with the RFA, for example, and it does not provide additional opportunities for small businesses to provide input on proposed rules through the Small Business Advocacy Review panel process.

It does not require the Chief Counsel for Advocacy to issue government-wide RFA compliance regulations that all agencies must follow. Without these compliance regulations, agencies will just continue to develop their own interpretations of the RFA to avoid complying with the law's requirement.

America's small businesses deserve more meaningful reform, and the current title III of the bill, in our view, does just that; therefore, I would urge my colleagues, respectfully, to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I don't think we need to increase bureaucracy or hire a whole lot more people to implement this. We have plenty of people right now who work for the Federal Government, and I am sure that we can shift some resources around, people can work harder and smarter, and we can be leaner and meaner. The bureaucracy has grown far too large over the years.

That money comes from somewhere. Where does it come from? It comes out of the hardworking taxpayers of our country. A lot of those folks are small business folks, and they are folks that

have gotten the short end of the stick far too often.

Hopefully, this Congress will move legislation that comes out of this body in a direction where, rather than throw roadblocks, hindrances, and more problems in the pathway of small businesses, we are going to help them. I know the last thing they want to hear is: I am from the government, and I am here to help you.

The fact is the government does exist, and to the extent we can help them, we ought to do that. But most of the small businesses that I talk to, what they say is: just get the heck off my back. Quit telling me how to do what I know how to do best.

So we are not anarchists over here. We are not saying that we don't need any bureaucracy, we don't need any government, and we don't need any regulations. We do need some regulations, but we overregulate now. Hopefully, this is just one step in scaling back on the overregulation that comes out of Washington and is like a wet blanket over small businesses all over the country and like a wet blanket over the American economy. So let's get that wet blanket off, let's get the economy moving, and let's Make America Great Again.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, a longstanding position of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration has been that land management plans developed by the Forest Service and by the Bureau of Land Management are rules and that they are subject to analysis under the RFA. The same conclusion--that a land resource management plan is a rule--has been reached by the Government Accountability Office.

Given the potentially significant consequences to small businesses that rely on public lands and small communities that border those lands, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management should assess the impacts of their plans on these small entities. That is all this does.

We are saying: How is this going to affect small businesses? Seventy percent of the new jobs created in America are created by small businesses? Should we care about what the bureaucrats are doing, how it affects those folks that are creating all these jobs?

Common sense says yes, we ought to do that.

This bill already includes a reform to prepare those agencies to prepare regulatory flexibility analyses when they are developing changes to resource management plans to determine how small businesses and small communities would be affected.

Striking this provision from the bill would do away with a needed reform for small businesses, such as farmers and ranchers and their small communities, especially those located in the Western United States, which contains the vast majority of Federal lands.

I would also note that my esteemed colleague talks about Republicans trying to destroy health care in this country. That is obviously absurd. We are trying to save health care. We are trying to make sure that Americans aren't forced to pay a heck of a lot more and have higher deductions, things they can't afford. Plans right now they are in, they are paying for plans and oftentimes get zero health care out of those plans because the deductibles are now so high under ObamaCare that they can't even use it.

I think there are a whole lot of people, when this was forced through this Congress on a purely partisan vote by my colleagues, the Democrats at that time, and by this President, there were a lot of Republicans who would have loved to have joined with them to do something to help people get health care who didn't have it. That is a worthy cause. But that could have been done without screwing up everybody else's health care in this country. That is what they failed to do when they did this. We are hoping, in a bipartisan way, we can work together to improve health care for lots of folks in this country. We will see if that is going to work out or not.

I would also note that there is nobody on this side of the aisle who thinks we need no government at all, we need no regulations, we need no rules; but we don't want to overregulate the job creators in this country so that they can't create jobs. Those jobs

that people don't get, those are real people; or people who get knocked out of that employment are real people, and they have families. We ought to be supporting them. Overregulation kills those jobs.

I would finally note, relative to climate change, what we are saying is that if we are going to do something, let's do it in a smart manner. Let's not try to save some things and then knock thousands, probably millions of Americans out of their jobs. There is a smart way of doing it and there is a wrong way of doing it. We would like to do it the smart way.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this issue. I rise in strong support of H.R. 79, the bipartisan HALOS Act.

As the chairman of the House Small Business Committee, I have the honor and pleasure of hearing and speaking with many of America's small-business owners and their employees almost every day. I hear case after case of small-business owners working days and nights and weekends. I hear stories of sacrifice. I hear inspiring stories of success.

But all too often, I hear about how the government continues to make it difficult for small businesses to prosper and grow and create more jobs, which is, obviously, very important to our Nation and its economy.

Perhaps one of the most common and most alarming concerns is just how difficult it is for entrepreneurs who are starting out to access the capital they need in order to grow. We must provide entrepreneurs a better way to build their businesses. The HALOS Act does just that.

The Helping Angels Lead Our Startups Act expands access to capital by ensuring small businesses are able to continue to connect and interact with angel investors. One popular way in which small businesses connect with angel investors is through demo days. These exciting events are sponsored by universities, nonprofits, local governments, and many other groups that allow entrepreneurs to showcase their products and informally meet investors and customers. However, SEC regulations are threatening to force these events out of business by imposing unwieldy regulations that dictate who is and who is not allowed to simply attend.

These ill-considered regulations would force everybody who merely walks through the door to go through what is essentially a full financial examination--handing over tax documents, bank statements, paycheck information, and on and on. This just doesn't make sense. We should be encouraging participation in demo days, not creating obstacles. We should be allowing the largest group of attendees to gather in the room, not be limiting who can walk through the door. After all, not only are these events places to connect people with our communities' small businesses, but they also provide a great opportunity for our next generation of entrepreneurs to ask questions and learn what it takes for a business to open its doors and be successful.

I thank Chairman Hensarling for his leadership as well as Representatives Sinema and Schneider for working in a cooperative and bipartisan manner.

An identical bill, as the chairman mentioned, passed this House in the last session of Congress in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion. We must continue to work together to create an environment in which our small businesses--the engines of our economy--grow and flourish. This bill is one more step in that direction.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 79.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 288, the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act. This commonsense, bipartisan legislation does two important things. First, it extends the temporary exemption granted to small businesses by the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, from the burdensome disclosure requirements for Internet service providers and the FCC's own Open Internet Order by 5 years. Second, it increases the number of small businesses that can utilize the exemption by raising the threshold from 100,000 subscribers to the much more realistic 250,000 subscribers.

Small businesses frequently feel that the Federal Government exercises its most creativity in looking for new ways to get in their way. Oftentimes, small Internet providers are the only ones willing to take the risk and deploy broadband to particularly hard-to-reach areas of rural America. The last thing they have time for is the FCC imposing a greater regulatory burden on them, diverting precious resources to make Washington bureaucrats busy instead of doing what they do best, providing high quality broadband services to millions of Americans in every corner of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and help reduce a portion of the tedious regulatory burden on small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Tiberi for yielding me this time.

One of two Americans gets up each day and heads to a small business. That is where they work. Small firms are critical to America's success. They create seven out of every 10 new job opportunities and provide the means for millions of our neighbors to put a roof over their head and food on their table and to get ahead in life.

The bill before us today would help those small businesses and the working families that rely on them by providing much-needed certainty. It would make permanent several tax policies that end up being retroactively applied anyway at the end of every year, but not without scrambling at the eleventh hour. We have all seen this happen year after year after year. Let's give these small businesses all over the country the certainty that they need.

These provisions will help small businesses purchase equipment and technology to grow and create more jobs; and, after all, that is what we on both sides of the aisle say we are after is creating more jobs in this economy. Right now businesses are oftentimes operating in the dark. They don't know whether they will be able to utilize these progrowth tax provisions or not. That lack of certainty discourages growth, and it discourages job creation. Passing this bill will make it easier for small businesses to plan for the future, knowing that Washington won't pull the rug from under them.

As chairman of the House Committee on Small Business, I strongly support this measure and any measure that removes barriers to small business job creation. This bill provides relief to our Nation's small businesses and will result in more opportunities to working families all over this country.

I would like to thank my colleague from Ohio, Mr. Tiberi, for his leadership on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

I rise today in support of this bill, H.R. 527, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015.

I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte as well as Chairman Marino for the opportunity to work with them on this important piece of legislation.

Small businesses are critical to this country's success. They provide a means for millions of workers and their families to attain the American Dream. They employ one out of every two private sector workers and create two of every three new private sector jobs.

There are over 926,000 small businesses in my home State of Ohio. Small firms rarely have in-house legal departments or regulatory compliance experts on staff. Often, it is the small business owner, the individual running the business and meeting payroll, who also must keep up with regulations and the payment of taxes.

Small manufacturers, retailers, and construction firms want to comply with the law. However, when they divert resources to costly regulatory compliance, they cannot hire workers or start new projects or make other job creation investments.

If there is a way to find less expensive means to achieving regulatory objectives of our agencies, small businesses could protect the environment and workers and still create the good middle class jobs that this country needs.

There is such a law, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or RFA, which requires agencies to understand the costs to small businesses and find less costly alternatives while meeting the regulatory missions required by statute. However, despite admonitions by multiple Presidents, including the current one, agencies continue to ignore the RFA.

The bill before us today, H.R. 527, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015, addresses a goal shared by virtually all Republicans and some Democrats and will ensure that agencies no longer ignore the law and craft more cost-effective regulations. The bill will force agencies to analyze both direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect effects of their rules, just as they are required to do when promulgating major regulations that affect the environment under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA.

The bill provides for early input in the regulatory process so that agencies do not craft regulations that are so cost prohibitive that small businesses cannot comply, and seeks to ensure consistent application of the RFA by all agencies through regulations written by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, a process first used to ensure that all agencies performed adequate environmental impact statements under NEPA.

Even with the additional procedures, nothing in H.R. 527 will prevent an agency from issuing a regulation. H.R. 527, to paraphrase President Ronald Reagan, simply requires that agencies know before they regulate. Common sense.

H.R. 527 will ensure that agencies adopt commonsense regulations that achieve their objectives while reducing unnecessary burdens on our best job creators, which are small businesses. About 70 percent of the jobs that are created in our economy nowadays are created by small businesses, after all. That is why the legislation has bipartisan support, and over 150 associations representing the full range of small businesses support passage of this legislation.

Mr. Chair, to fully understand how the bill will work, it is important the committee report filed by the gentleman from Virginia be read together with the committee report on the predecessor bill, H.R. 2542 filed in the 113th Congress by my predecessor as chairman of the Committee on Small Business, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Graves.

With that, I urge my colleagues to support this very good legislation, I believe, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Knight), who is a new member of the Committee on Small Business.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Hardy), who is also a new member of the Committee on Small Business.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Curbelo), who is also a new member of the Small Business Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Chairman, too often, agencies craft one-size-fits-all regulations that do not account for the impact on small businesses. It is our job to remember that what affects small businesses also affects families that depend on those small businesses.

Agencies can still achieve their regulatory objectives while creating smarter, more narrowly-tailored regulations that are sensitive to small businesses.

Some claim that agencies are already doing what the RFA requires-- outreach to small business and assessment of economic impacts. If that is the case, agencies should have no problem meeting the new requirements of this legislation. It simply ensures that agencies comply with the letter and spirit of the RFA, as President Obama stated in a memorandum to agencies on January 18, 2011.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I will

speak in favor of the gentleman's amendment.

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

I want to thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, and I think this is a good example of the way bipartisanship should work. The gentleman offered, I think, a very constructive amendment. We committed that our staffs and the Members would work together on the gentleman's amendment, and most of us have agreed with the amendment and do support it now, so we thank him for his leadership on this amendment.

We strongly support our servicemembers and veterans. Our Nation owes them an enormous debt and the utmost respect.

In the last Congress an amendment was added to this legislation to allow rules that protect the rights and benefits of veterans to bypass the RFA process. That amendment is carried forward in today's legislation.

The legislation, however, does not yet place on the same plane rules written to protect Active Duty servicemembers from predatory lending. This amendment reconciles that difference, and so we again commend the gentleman for offering it.

In addition, the amendment makes a very small number of technical corrections to the text of the bill. In each of these ways, the amendment improves the bill. I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield whatever time he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, this amendment proposes to strike section 10 from the bill, which gives the Small Business Administration's Chief Counsel for Advocacy authority to approve small business size standards for the purposes of any act other than the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958. That includes, of course, authority to approve size standards for the purposes of the RFA.

This makes sense, since the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, not the Small Business administrator, is charged with overseeing agency compliance with the RFA; and the Chief Counsel exercises that authority independently from the SBA administrator.

The theory of the amendment is that, under section 10, a new size standards office, duplicative of the SBA administrator's own size standards office, will be created. But that is just not the case.

The SBA administrator will retain the authority to set size standards under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958. But alternative size standards for the purposes of RFA compliance are a different matter, and under existing law, agencies must consult with the Chief Counsel for Advocacy with regard to those alternative size standards.

To authorize the Chief Counsel for Advocacy to actually approve size standards about which it already must be consulted is simply to formalize an existing reality, not to create a duplicative function or a duplicative office. Stated differently, it is erroneous to think that the Office of Advocacy will have to establish a new office of size standards to do what the Office of Advocacy already essentially does. Therefore, I would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

And just in summary, I would reiterate that 70 percent of the jobs that are created in this economy today are created by small businesses. They are overregulated. The RFA was basically set up to avoid the impact on small businesses by all these regulations that are being imposed upon them.

For small businesses, it is much more expensive for them to comply than it is for larger corporations who have lots of staff. They have attorneys. They have accountants and everything else. If you are a small business owner, it can be the death of that business. And it is not just that business that goes down the drain, but those jobs do, too. That affects families all over this country all the time.

The purpose of this legislation is to improve the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and that is why virtually all Republicans and many Democrats also have endorsed and supported this legislation in the past and do this time.

There is something like 160 different companies and agencies around the country that are supportive, and I just wanted to name a few of those:

The American Dental Association; the Farm Bureau; the Trucking Association; Associated Builders and Contractors; the credit unions; the National Association of Manufacturers; the Realtors; the National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB, which is the principal organization that advocates on behalf of small businesses in this country; the National Restaurant Association; the Retail Federation; the independent drivers; the Chamber; and on and on. Obviously, I don't have time to read them all.

This is good legislation. I would urge my colleagues to support it.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, a little while ago, a number of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle came down and made, I believe, the ludicrous allegation that this bill is somehow an attack on women's health care, and, therefore, we ought to be spending time on the infrastructure and on a whole range of issues.

If you want to talk about an attack on women's health care, it is called ``ObamaCare.'' It is an attack on the health care of women and men and children in this country--deductibles up, premiums up, the quality of health care down. Most of the folks who came down to the mike--I can't say all of them. I think probably all of them if they were here--voted for ObamaCare, and the American people are having to live with the results of that. Now, that is an attack on the health care of American women.

This legislation simply says that there ought not to be taxpayer dollars going to pay for abortions in this country, that one person shouldn't have to pay for the abortion of another person whether it is on moral grounds, conscience, or one's religion. You shouldn't make one person pay for another person's abortion. It is pretty simple, and the American people overwhelmingly agree with that point of view. That is what this legislation is about. It is in ObamaCare as well. It is the same thing. Through insurance or otherwise, you shouldn't force one person to pay for another person's abortion because one is opposed to it.

Today happens to be a day that is important to me. It is the day I was born. It is my birthday. It also happens to be the date that, I would say, the infamous decision of Roe v. Wade came down. My birthday was in 1953, and this was in 1973 that Roe came down. On this day, I can't help but think of those millions and millions and millions of Americans who do not exist today because of that decision.

This, obviously, is related to that, but it is mostly about the choice that a person has to make; and if she makes that choice, should somebody else have to pay for it? The law says ``no.'' I agree with the law. Support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to join with my colleague and friend, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, in opposition to the December 17 announcement by President Obama to change U.S. policy toward Cuba. We will also be joined by some of our other colleagues, and I want to particularly thank Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen for her leadership on all issues regarding Cuba. She has been a leader on this issue for a long, long time and will continue to be, I am sure.

This policy change was a unilateral decision made without consulting Congress and with complete disregard of long-term national security consequences. Similarly, the so-called prisoner exchange was terribly flawed.

In 2013, Secretary Kerry stated that swapping convicted Cuban spies for Alan Gross was off the table, testifying before Congress that since Mr. Gross was wrongly imprisoned, there was no equivalency to pursue a spy for spy tradeoff. Let us be clear: the freedom of Alan Gross is welcome news, but this exchange was totally one-sided. It was tragically flawed. It was not in the best interest of the people of the United States, and it was not in the best interest of the people of Cuba.

As my colleague, Representative Ros-Lehtinen, has rightly highlighted these past few weeks since the decision and the prisoner exchange occurred, Cuban spies have been responsible for the deaths of American lives. It is absolutely true that they have been. And they have been released. Those are the people who were responsible for American deaths. Cuban patriots who have risked their lives every day to fight for basic rights and freedoms feel betrayed.

The exchange was flawed. The policy itself is flawed, and the announcement

has also let down one of the United States' strongest ally in the world, Israel. Year after year, Israel has stood at the United States' side--one of the very few--supporting the United States at the United Nations in 98 percent of all votes, including votes that the world's worst actors pushed through to condemn the U.S. embargo on Cuba.

Unfortunately, those who have long nourished and fostered cozy relationships with Cuba, most notably Russia and Venezuela and various terrorist organizations around the world, are welcoming the policy changes with open arms.

We need to be honest about the implications of President Obama's new policy. His unilateral decision to change Cuba policy poses a threat to U.S. national security. If the trade embargo is lifted, money will flow into the hands of the Castro brothers, allowing them to financially support surreptitious espionage activities with terrorist groups like Hezbollah and nations like North Korea.

Since the President made his public announcement, nearly 100 Cubans have already been detained. The United States should always stand for democracy and freedom around the world. We should demand that the Castro regime release all political prisoners and hold free and fair elections before establishing diplomatic relations.

I once again thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her leadership in this area for many, many years, and it is an honor to speak this evening with her.

Amendment XXVI:

Section 1:

``The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.''

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, in the fall, we made a commitment to the American people, a commitment to produce solutions that grow our economy and create more opportunity and help our small businesses and make life better for working families. Today, the new American Congress begins the work of making good on that commitment, and we start with a bill that helps two groups critical to America's success: our veterans and our small businesses.

The Hire More Heroes Act is a bipartisan bill which passed the House, as has been mentioned before, with more than 400 votes last year. It would make it easier for small businesses to hire veterans by exempting those veterans who already receive health care at the VA from ObamaCare's costly employer mandate. This commonsense solution offsets the cost of hiring a veteran by addressing one of ObamaCare's many failures, and there are many.

As I have said many times before, I and many of my colleagues believe that ObamaCare should be repealed in its entirety. It may take awhile to do that, and so we can do some other things in the meantime. This is one of those things, a realistic thing which will actually help the American people.

ObamaCare is placing tremendous burdens on small businesses looking to grow and individuals looking for work. This bill alleviates one of the many burdens ObamaCare places on our small businesses and, in doing so, helps our returning war fighters find meaningful work.

Small businesses are responsible for the majority of new jobs created in America today. As the new incoming chairman of the House Small Business Committee, my goal each day will be to make life better for America's small businesses so they can continue to innovate and create jobs for more Americans who are seeking them.

Even though unemployment has come down to some degree, we need to do a lot better. The bill before us today is an important step towards that goal and towards our commitment to the American people to create more jobs, real jobs in the private sector. I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today a proud alumnus of Cincinnati's La Salle High School because, for the first time in the school's 54-year history, the Lancers have won the Ohio State football championship.

Last Friday evening the Lancers claimed the title with a 55-20 victory, breaking the record for most points ever scored in an Ohio Division II championship game.

La Salle's offense was so strong this season that in each of their five playoff games they averaged nearly 50 points. Leading the offense was junior running back Jeremy Larkin, who ran over 2,500 yards in just 15 games, scored 42 touchdowns, and is now a finalist for the coveted Ohio Mr. Football Award.

All season long, La Salle competed with the best of the best, finishing with 14 wins and one nail-biting loss to the St. X Bombers, including victories over such powerhouses as Moeller, Elder, and Colerain High Schools.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, La Salle is my alma mater. I graduated in 1971 and played football all 4 years. I played on the defensive line. And in my senior year, we won seven games, lost one-- coincidentally, to future Speaker John Boehner's Moeller High School, where he played football too, although he had already graduated 3 years earlier--and we tied Elder 0-0 in the Pit and tied St. X's 18-18.

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today a very proud alumnus of my high school.

I also want to mention that my brother Dave, who is 10 years younger than me, also played football at La Salle, and he was a defensive back there.

La Salle will always have a special place in my heart. I learned many of life's most important lessons in her halls and on the football field. As a matter of fact, my political career got my start at La Salle when I was first elected to student council there.

La Salle is a great school. I want to thank the coaches and the teachers and the staff and especially the parents who have made the sacrifices to pay the tuition there to make it possible for their sons to receive a tremendous education at La Salle.

Mr. Speaker, boxing legend Muhammad Ali once said ``Champions aren't made in the gyms. Champions are made from something they have deep inside them--a desire, a dream, and a vision.''

This season, the Lancers had the desire to make every practice count and play every game as if it were their last. They shared a dream that was strong enough to overcome the many distractions that high school kids often face in today's world, and their coaches gave them the vision that their hard work and sacrifice would pay off in the end.

Mr. Speaker, Lancers roll deep. This season illustrated that to the team, the school, and the community. Congratulations on a season well played and a job well done. Go, Lancers.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Royce for his leadership on this important issue, and I also want to thank my friends and colleagues, Mr. Engel and Ms. McCollum, for their leadership and their support as well.

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that we are living in challenging times. The international community is having to confront new evils it seems like every day. It is critical that we confront these evils with determination and resolve and intelligence. This bill, the one before us today, really actually does this.

With this bill, Congress has the opportunity to address an injustice that is holding girls back from fully participating in society but, worse, exposing them to the particularly horrific evils of human trafficking.

There are 230 million children around the globe under the age of 5 who have never been recognized as being born. Their births were simply never recorded.

In eastern and southern Africa, for example, only 38 percent of children are registered by their fifth birthday. So think of that; nearly two-thirds of the children born in those regions in Africa are not registered. There is no recording of their birth. They, in essence, don't exist to the government.

These children, a majority of whom are girls, become invisible members of society and miss a critical first step in securing their fundamental human rights. Being recognized by your government is necessary, for example, for determining identity and citizenship and age and obtaining access to education and health care and many other things.

When a girl is not counted at birth, it is difficult, if not impossible, for her to own land or start her own business or vote, and she is at risk of being confined to home and, oftentimes, left unpaid.

Lack of a birth certificate keeps girls from fully participating in society. It increases the risk of child marriage, forced labor, recruitment into militant groups, human trafficking, and sexual exploitation.

The Girls Count Act would help put an end to these horrors. The bill directs the Department of State and USAID to work with our international partners to support the issuance of birth certificates in developing countries. The bill will ensure that the most important step in a new citizen's life, the registration and recognition of their very birth by their government, actually occurs.

Mr. Speaker, the lack of a birth certificate denies children their fundamental human rights that we as Americans oftentimes take for granted. This bill would make it U.S. policy to encourage the registration of all children worldwide and make sure that girls do truly count.

With that, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I want to once again thank Mr. Royce and Mr. Engel for their support and leadership in this.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5108) to establish the Law School Clinic Certification Program of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 5108, currently under consideration.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 5108, a bill to establish the Law School Clinic Certification Program of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

This bill has bipartisan support. I would like to thank the gentleman from New York, Congressman Jeffries, for his leadership on this issue, and I know that he will be speaking here on this matter shortly. It is my pleasure to be the principal Republican cosponsor of the bill which would make this successful pilot program available to law schools all across the country.

This program was first established by the Patent and Trademark Office in 2008 and has allowed law students at 45 participating schools to practice patent or trademark law before the Patent and Trademark Office under the guidance of a supervisor. This practical experience is invaluable and is a worthwhile investment in our Nation's future attorneys.

Expanding this program will also benefit our Nation's small businesses. Through this program inventors and entrepreneurs will gain access to quality legal services and protections that they otherwise often could not afford. Additionally, establishing this program will improve the quality of applications submitted to the Patent and Trademark Office thereby hopefully streamlining the review process.

I am pleased to say that several universities from Ohio, my home State, were already selected to participate in the current pilot program. Those are Case Western Reserve University School of Law in the Cleveland area and the University of Akron School of Law.

The CBO has examined and scored this bill finding that the costs are quite reasonable, about $200,000 a year to operate in all 45 participating schools so we are really getting a bang for our buck with this program.

I look forward to following the successes of this worthwhile program as it unfolds, and I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Once again I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries) for his leadership and the fact that this is a bipartisan bill. It is a good thing to see this type of bill move its way through the House.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, having no further requests for time, I will yield back the balance of my time.

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