[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 100 (Wednesday, June 20, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1362]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          SBA ENTREPRENEURIAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS ACT OF 2007

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. DONALD A. MANZULLO

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 20, 2007

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the SBA 
Entrepreneurial Development Programs Act of 2007. I am a strong 
supporter of Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs). These centers 
continue to do a lot of good work to promote job creation and small 
business development throughout our nation. There are three SBDCs that 
serve constituents in the 16th District of Illinois and they do 
phenomenal work in oftentimes a difficult local economic climate with 
limited resources. But I fear that the various SBDC bills we debate 
this week may kill the program with kindness.
  The bills all taken together proposes to create nine new grant 
initiatives within the SBDC program. According to the non-partisan 
Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bills would add $122 million in 
additional spending in Fiscal Year 2008 alone and $365 million over the 
next five fiscal years. When you consider that the Democrat-controlled 
House Appropriations Financial Services Subcommittee recently provided 
a generous increase of $11 million for the regular SBDC program to 
reach $100 million for Fiscal Year 2008, these bills taken together 
proposes to more than double the size of the SBDC program. In an era of 
tight budgets, I don't think any program deserves a 122 percent 
increase.
  I am sympathetic to many of these initiatives. I am particularly 
supportive of making sure that Small Business Administration (SBA) 
employees do not interfere in hiring decisions of local SBDCs. I also 
support provisions in Section 207 to require more information, 
primarily through Internet Web-based technologies, about regulatory 
compliance to small business owners.
  But there are still significant outstanding budgetary issues. 
Throughout my tenure as the former Chairman of the House Small Business 
Committee, I tried numerous times to see the National Regulatory 
Assistance and the Native American Entrepreneurial Assistance SBDC 
initiatives, among others, become law. Last year, we reached a common-
sense consensus that in order to get these new initiatives into law, 
the high $135 million authorization level for the overall SBDC program 
should be proportionally reduced. However, that consensus is not in 
these bills that we are debating this week. I find it odd that the 
``pay-go'' fiscal conservative rhetoric of the Democrats is not met by 
reality. There are no spending offsets in these bills.
  Some of these initiatives also are duplicative of existing Federal 
programs. For example, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) 
program administered by the Department of Commerce through local 
centers across the nation offers the very same services that are 
outlined in Section 203 of H.R. 2359. The National Veterans Business 
Development Corporation (or Vets Corp) offers the same services as 
those being proposed in H.R. 2366.
  I also have concern that some of the provisions in H.R. 2359 go 
beyond the mission of SBDCs, which historically has been primarily 
targeted at helping new or struggling small businesses. For example, 
Section 206 requires that SBDC grant recipients ``shall also attempt to 
negotiate lower health insurance premiums for small business concerns 
that seek the assistance of the recipient.'' In my view, it is not the 
role of SBDCs to get involved in the pricing health insurance premiums. 
Section 204 of H.R. 2359 establishes a new program to help transition 
so-called ``mature'' small businesses even though there is no 
definition of what the authors of this legislation mean by 
``transition'' or ``mature'' small business. Again, I don't think it is 
the role of SBDCs to be involved in initiatives that could result in 
the closure of small businesses.
  I also fear that creating these nine new initiatives all at once will 
give false hope to SBDCs seeking to receive these grants. These 
initiatives will not start until a specific amount separate from the 
regular SBDC appropriation is allocated from the Appropriations 
Committee. In principle, this is a good policy to help insure that the 
money to run the regular SBDC program is not raided to fund these new 
initiatives. However, noting that the Democrat-controlled House 
Appropriations Financial Services Subcommittee just provided a long-
overdue increase for the regular SBDC program, I seriously doubt that 
any of these specific SBDC initiatives will be funded at a significant 
level in the near future, further diminishing the expectations behind 
this legislation.
  Finally, these nine new initiatives create many hoops for local SBDCs 
to jump through in order to qualify for these grants. These bills will 
create a paperwork and accounting nightmare for SBDCs to keep track of 
various grants, particularly if they apply and receive multiple awards 
under different initiatives, for the programs they administer. In 
retrospect, it is probably best that Congress provides an overall 
increase in the appropriation for the regular SBDC program and then 
require that all SBDCs provide some services (even if it is to network 
with another specialized SBDC or another Federal partner such as a 
local MEP center or the Vets Corp) in the nine issue areas outlined in 
H.R. 2359, H.R. 2366, and H.R. 2284 as opposed to the micro-management 
approach as contained in these bills.
  Mr. Speaker, last year, I predicted that if Democrats took over 
control of Congress, spending on the Small Business Administration 
(SBA) would dramatically increase. Never in my wildest dreams did I 
think they would be so brazen. Elections do matter. Thus far this year, 
the CBO estimates that the Democrat-controlled House Small Business 
Committee has authorized $5.4 billion in new spending over the next 5 
years--$1.379 billion in fiscal year 2008 alone. With these bills on 
the suspension calendar this week, proposed spending on the SBA will 
grow once again. All totaled, the CBO estimates that spending on the 
SBA will increase by nearly $5.8 billion over 4 years and $1.525 
billion in fiscal year 2008 alone. To put this massive spending 
increase in perspective, the House Appropriations Financial Services 
Subcommittee recommends providing $582 million in total spending on the 
SBA in fiscal year 2008. I urge my colleagues to stand up for fiscal 
responsibility and to prevent mission-creep within the SBDC network by 
voting against these bills.

                          ____________________