[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7975-7979]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 22, EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE 
 HOUSE THAT AMERICAN SMALL BUSINESSES ARE ENTITLED TO A SMALL BUSINESS 
                             BILL OF RIGHTS

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 235 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 235

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 22) 
     expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 
     American small businesses are entitled to a Small Business 
     Bill of Rights. The amendments to the resolution and the 
     preamble recommended by the Committee on Small Business now 
     printed in the resolution are considered as adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     resolution and preamble, as amended, to final adoption 
     without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
     question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Small Business; and (2) one motion to recommit, 
     which may not contain instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. 
Capito) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 22 calls for a commonsense Small Business Bill 
of Rights that spells out urgent actions that Congress should take to 
allow small businesses to thrive.
  Ninety percent of all employers in our country are small businesses, 
and 70 percent of all new jobs created in America are created by these 
small locally owned businesses. Small businesses, stores, 
manufacturers, and farms drive the economic engine of many communities 
across the country. They truly are the backbone of America.
  Many obstacles confront a small business owner looking to expand his 
or her company to provide more jobs and investment.
  Frivolous lawsuits are a constant and a costly threat to small 
businesses across the country. The rising cost of health care has made 
it difficult and, in many cases, impossible for small business owners 
to offer health care to their employees. Today, over 60 percent of 
small business employees do not have health insurance.
  Soaring energy costs make it difficult for small manufacturers to 
produce goods at a competitive price. The cost of natural gas and other 
feedstocks is taking up a larger and ever-growing share of the budget 
of manufacturers.
  In the 109th Congress, the People's house has already acted on 
several of the items called for in this resolution. Two weeks ago, we 
passed legislation to permanently repeal the death tax, a tax that puts 
a huge burden on small business owners and takes away resources that 
are vital to families seeking to keep farms and businesses in their 
family.
  Last week, we passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to help reduce the 
cost of energy. The legislation provides money for clean coal 
technology that will help coal continue to provide low-cost energy 
while protecting our environment. Provisions will also open new 
refineries and new oil reserves into the market. All of these measures 
will help lower the cost of energy for small businesses.
  In February, President Bush signed the Class Action Fairness Act into 
law. This law is a strong first step in limiting frivolous lawsuits 
that burden our economy and destroy job growth.
  There is still much more to be done. In the past two Congresses, we 
passed legislation allowing for Association Health Plans. These plans 
would permit small businesses to join together through trade 
associations across State lines to gain purchasing power in the health 
insurance market.
  Health insurance is the biggest challenge facing small business 
today, hands down. Many small business owners want nothing more than to 
offer affordable health care to all of their workers. These owners know 
their employees personally and know their employees' spouses and 
children, making that decision not to offer health coverage an 
agonizing one. Yet many small business owners make this choice because 
of the rising cost of health care.
  We must pass legislation to allow small businesses to have the same 
purchasing power as large corporations in the health insurance market.
  With millions of small business employees among the uninsured, 
association health plans are one of the most important things Congress 
can do for our Nation's workers.

[[Page 7976]]

  In order for small business to grow and produce more jobs in local 
economies, we must have pro-growth policies. A national energy policy, 
association health plans, and legal reform are some of the important 
steps that will benefit small business owners and their employees 
alike.
  This resolution is an opportunity for Members to show their support 
of small business to continue moving forward on crucial issues to 
protect existing jobs and spur economic development. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting the rule and the underlying 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia 
for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this closed rule. Once 
again, the majority has muted debate on a piece of legislation for no 
legitimate reason. The resolution has not been fully debated before the 
committee of jurisdiction and, as a result, it fails to include a 
number of priorities important to small businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the engine of America's economy, 
representing more than 95 percent of all employers, creating half of 
our gross domestic product, and creating 3 out of 4 of new jobs 
nationwide. Small business owners are leaders in innovation, creating 
new technology, new products, and more effective business operations. 
The government should help small business owners achieve their goals, 
not stand in their way. I think this is something all Members can 
support.
  There are some very good elements of this ``small business bill of 
rights'' resolution that I support. I believe small business should not 
be hampered with unnecessary restrictive regulations and paperwork. I 
support the provision insisting that small businesses have the right to 
equal treatment and should have expanded access to capital and credit.
  Opening up assets to government contracts for small businesses should 
be a top priority for Congress. I support the principle in House 
Resolution 22 that we must consider legislation to create a fair and 
open Federal contracting system to make sure that everyone has a fair 
shot in winning a Federal contract. There must be an end to the 
practice of awarding ``mega contracts'' that take opportunities away 
from small businesses at no savings to the taxpayer. We must institute 
a fair contracting appeals process for small businesses to be heard.
  I also support expanding contract opportunities for women, low-income 
individuals, and minorities by strengthening such key business 
development programs as 8(a). These actions will reduce current 
barriers and ensure small businesses have access to perform Federal 
contracts.
  But small businesses have expressed additional priorities, and I wish 
we would have included them in the resolution. Instead, the majority 
chose to insert partisan agenda items.
  During the committee markup, the chairman restricted debate time on 
all amendments to 4 minutes per side. After considering the first 5 
amendments, the chairman moved to cut off debate, which passed on a 
strict party-line vote. This was done despite having two Democratic 
amendments still pending before the committee.
  One of these amendments, offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Barrow) and the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), would have 
strengthened programs for minority entrepreneurs. The other, offered by 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda Sanchez), would express 
support for the microloan program which the administration eliminated 
in its fiscal 2006 budget.
  I understand that the chairman had only allotted an hour for the 
committee markup, but we have an opportunity today with this rule to 
provide time for the debate we should have had. These thoughtful 
amendments should be heard. So far this year, the Committee on Rules 
has only reported one open rule, just one, out of 21 rules. It is time 
to allow Congress to do its job, and part of that job is to openly 
discuss the priorities facing our Nation.
  Why not make time for this debate? The Members that were denied 
debate in committee came before the Committee on Rules last night to 
urge their amendments be made in order. Several other amendments were 
also offered. I cannot help but point out that our legislative schedule 
this week has plenty of room in it. Not surprisingly, however, the 
majority chose not to have a full debate and ignored amendments that 
could have improved this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that the amendments blocked from consideration 
today would have made House Resolution 22 a complete bill of rights. 
For instance, small business owners need access to capital and 
technical expertise if they are to make the most of their 
opportunities. The Small Business Administration provides this critical 
assistance to small business owners. The gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Sanchez) and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean) offered 
amendments recognizing that we should be supporting all of SBA's 
programs, including the microloan and 7(a) lending programs. But, 
again, this rule risks leaving a gaping hole in this list of rights.
  House Resolution 22 could also be strengthened to ensure that 
minority business owners retain their place as a vibrant part of the 
U.S. economy. The Barrow-Moore amendment, if made in order, would do 
just that. While minority individuals comprise nearly one-third of the 
population, only 15 percent of businesses are minority-owned. These 
businesses employ 5 million people and generate nearly $600 billion in 
revenue. Given the gap between the number of individuals and the 
business ownership rate, it is clear that an entrepreneurial divide 
exists in this country. One of the most significant reasons for this 
divide is the fact that minority-owned companies have not seen 
legislative updates for nearly 20 years. Congress must bring these 
programs into the 21st century. Minority business owners deserve the 
right to have these important initiatives modernized.
  The only way to achieve a complete bill of rights is to include all 
of the rights small businesses are asking for. A closed rule does not 
do this. An open rule, a better rule, would allow full debate on small 
business priorities. An open rule today would allow the House of 
Representatives to consider the importance of such issues as access to 
affordable capital and changing the Federal marketplace to meet the 
needs of small business. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this closed 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the author of the resolution and a 
champion of small business.
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia 
for yielding me this time, and I rise today in strong support of the 
rule and H. Res. 22.
  The purpose of the small business bill of rights is to provide a 
blueprint for Congress to follow to help small business employers 
create even more jobs. A job is the best social program in the world. 
It gives a person income and health insurance and dignity. Since 70 
percent of all new jobs in this country are created by small 
businesses, I met personally with 20 very successful small business 
employers in central Florida to learn firsthand what, if anything, 
Congress can do to help them create more jobs. Four top-tier issues 
consistently emerged from these meetings.
  First and foremost, they had the problem of addressing skyrocketing 
health costs, and they wanted the ability to join together to negotiate 
lower prices.
  Second, family-owned businesses, we are seeing one-third of them 
having to liquidate because of the death tax, and they needed some 
commonsense reform there.
  Third, they had a problem with frivolous lawsuits and skyrocketing 
liability insurance. Unlike a big corporation, if someone sues them, 
they do not

[[Page 7977]]

often have $100,000 to successfully defend the claim, even if 
frivolous. They have to settle it for a nominal amount, $5,000 or 
$10,000.
  The fourth problem they mentioned over and over was paperwork and red 
tape.
  After listening to their concerns, I joined with my original 
cosponsor, a Democrat, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), and 
wrote and filed House Resolution 22.
  We have given plenty of opportunity for people to be heard on H. Res. 
22. For example, other nonbinding House resolutions sometimes go right 
to the floor with no hearings, no markups, no motion to recommit. They 
just get an up-or-down vote on a Suspension Calendar, with no chance to 
amend at any point. Well, that is not what happened here. In this 
particular instance, the minority requested that we have a hearing. We 
readily agreed and had a hearing. At this hearing, witnesses from NFIB 
and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce testified that the four issues 
identified in the small business bill of rights were, in fact, the top 
four issues affecting small businesses in the United States right now.

                              {time}  1130

  The minority was allowed to call witnesses at that hearing, and they 
did. Every member of the hearing, Republican and Democrat, was afforded 
two full rounds of questioning. Afterwards, the minority said, well, 
now we want to have a markup on this nonbinding resolution. We agreed 
to that as well.
  At the markup, in an effort to reach out, I offered a substitute 
amendment which addressed three additional issues that the minority 
thought were important to them, issues relating to energy costs and 
access to capital and contract bundling. The substitute amendment I 
offered was approved by a voice vote.
  Even though I had already included these three additional issues at 
this markup, the minority offered amendment after amendment after 
amendment after amendment. For example, one of the amendments called 
for Members to take a controversial stand on whether or not people 
agreed with the personal retirement accounts under President Bush's 
Social Security proposals. Things like that ate up time. The four 
amendments offered by the minority were defeated. But each time they 
insisted on calling for a roll call vote which ate up additional time.
  Now, it is my understanding that the minority Members had two more 
amendments that they wished to offer, but the chairman had only 
scheduled an hour for the markup under the understanding that the 
minority would have few amendments.
  So what exactly did the minority get in terms of due process here? 
They got a full blown hearing. They got three additional issues added 
to the original resolution, and they got votes on four of the six 
amendments they offered.
  H. Res. 22 was passed by the full committee on a voice vote. Not a 
single person on the committee, Republican or Democrat, voiced 
opposition to H. Res. 22 during that voice vote, and the reason is it 
represents a noncontroversial consensus of what small business 
employers tell us they need.
  Now, what are the Small Business Bill of Rights? There are seven: 
first, the right to join together to purchase affordable health 
insurance for small business employees. The right to simplify tax laws 
that allow family owned businesses to survive over several generations. 
The right to be free from frivolous lawsuits which harm law-abiding 
small businesses and prevent them from creating new jobs. The right to 
be free of unnecessary restrictive regulations and paper work which 
wastes the time and energy of small businesses while hurting production 
and preventing job creation. The right to relief from high energy costs 
which pose a real threat to the survival of small businesses. The right 
to equal treatment as compared to large businesses when seeking access 
to capital and expansion capital and credit. The right to open access 
to the government procurement marketplace through the breaking up of 
large contracts to give small business owners a fair opportunity to 
compete for the Federal contracts.
  This is what the small business people in America tell us that they 
want. This is what we learned from the hearing, and this is what is 
included as the top tier issues in the Small Business Bill of Rights 
affecting small business people.
  Now, if someone is opposed to this Small Business Bill of Rights, 
what would they be for? They would be for higher health insurance 
costs, higher taxes, more frivolous lawsuits, more paper work and red 
tape, higher energy costs, more obstacles to getting capital and more 
obstacles to getting government contracts.
  Now, significantly, at no time in this process, during the markup or 
otherwise, has there been any attempt to strip away one of these seven 
rights. To the extent the minority has a controversy with this, it is 
not anything that is on the board here. It is they think one or two 
additional things should be there.
  Well, let me remind you. The Small Business Bill of Rights is a 
blueprint that lists the top tier issues facing small businesses in the 
United States. It does not list every small business issue known to 
man. If it did, this thing would be as thick as a phone book, and it 
would not list the priorities.
  Some of the business people I met with had things that I did not list 
because, while it was important to that person or this person, it was 
not something that was a consensus issue affecting the small business 
people across the country.
  Now, if a Member has some issue that was not included, and they think 
it is a real important issue, then there is nothing preventing them 
from filing their own nonbinding House resolution and having that 
proceed under the regular order.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule. Plenty of 
opportunity has been heard for both sides to give their input to the 
Small Business Bill of Rights. It is a bipartisan Small Business Bill 
of Rights from the get-go when it was filed by a Democrat and myself, 
and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Small Business Bill of 
Rights, H. Res. 22.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California 
for yielding.
  As we take this week to honor our Nation's small businesses, it is 
important to notice the everyday challenges that are standing in their 
way. As the main job creators and stimulators of the economy, there are 
far too many obstacles that still remain.
  Small businesses have received a number of promises over the last 4 
years. But as the ranking member on the House Small Business Committee, 
I can tell you that what entrepreneurs need now is no more rhetoric. 
What they need is more action. Unfortunately, rhetoric is all that they 
have gotten up to this point.
  One of the most obvious challenges is that a number of small 
businesses are not able to access health care. Six out of every 10 
uninsured families are headed by a small business employee. This is 
simply unacceptable. Yet Congress has passed no solutions to the health 
care crisis.
  My colleagues on the other side love to talk about how many times 
this House has passed association health plans. The bottom line is that 
Republicans control the White House, the Senate, and the House of 
Representatives. How many more times do we have to pass association 
health plans to get it done? Stop the rhetoric. What we need is action.
  With the skyrocketing prices of gas and energy, small businesses are 
having an even more difficult time starting and expanding their 
ventures. Just last week the House passed an energy bill that does not 
do anything to help this Nation's small businesses. For the small 
business owner that works in the transportation industry, this bill has 
done nothing to help reduce the record highs in gas prices we are 
seeing today.
  Compounding entrepreneurs' difficulties even further are regulatory 
burdens. Too often a small business owner

[[Page 7978]]

does not have the resources to comply with a number of Federal 
regulations. Despite the promises made by this administration, small 
firms have seen little relief. The reality is that this administration 
holds the record for the single largest increase in paperwork burden in 
1 year in our Nation's history. Again, the rhetoric needs to end.
  Our Nation's entrepreneurs deserve to see some real action, some real 
solutions. And as we honor our Nation's entrepreneurs this week for 
National Small Business Week, all Congress is going to give them is 
this legislation, the Small Business Bill of Rights. Let me tell you, 
this Nation's small businesses deserve much more than some rhetoric 
included in House Resolution 22. And that is all this bill does. They 
deserve to be assured that Congress will work to address their 
challenges, that we will go on the record listing the priorities we 
will work to address for their businesses. Sadly, that is not what 
House Resolution 22 does.
  Yes, the Small Business Bill of Rights contains some lofty rhetoric 
on taxes, regulations, and capital. But what it fails to do is really 
recognize the fact that small businesses do not get capital the same 
way that large businesses do. Small firms cannot head over to Wall 
Street. Instead, they rely heavily on loan programs. To tell them that 
loan programs are not important is disingenuous.
  House Resolution 22 also says that some contract bundling is okay and 
that is okay for small businesses to lose out on contracting 
opportunities. The Small Business Committee has always been on the 
record protecting small businesses. Every economic analysis and 
indicator says that contract bundling is bad. Yet, this bill wants to 
say it is okay.
  Most upsetting is that House Resolution 22 mentions absolutely 
nothing about the needs of minority and women business owners, the 
fastest growing sectors of our economy. This is despite the fact that 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow), the gentlewoman from Wisconsin 
(Ms. Moore), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) 
all tried to include these provisions in a markup in which the chairman 
of the committee blocked these amendments from even being offered.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) spoke about due process that 
was provided. What the gentleman does not tell you is that the chairman 
took the unprecedented step of moving the previous question. I will 
challenge any chairman to come to the floor and talk about when they 
moved the previous question to block the minority from offering 
amendments. They were then rejected again by the Rules Committee.
  Despite the overwhelming growth of minority- and women-owned 
businesses, this Small Business Bill of Rights tells them that their 
needs are not a top priority, and that is ridiculous.
  This is Small Business Week, and all we are giving to our Nation's 
entrepreneurs, the main job creators, are some promises in House 
Resolution 22. These promises are not helping to give small businesses 
more loans. They are not opening up the fair marketplace, and they are 
certainly are not giving small firms any solutions to the health care 
crisis. Maybe next time Congress can promise to help small businesses 
to pay their bills and again follow through with no action.
  This rhetoric needs to end. Our Nation's small businesses deserve 
much more than rhetoric this week. They deserve commitment and action 
all year long to address their challenges. Clearly, House Resolution 22 
will not do that. We should vote down this rule, and we should not be 
passing promises without action in the House of Representatives.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from 
California for yielding this time. And I would also like to thank the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member, for her 
consistent and valuable advocacy on behalf of the small businesses in 
this country. It is an honor to serve with the gentlewoman.
  It is a funny situation to be here today during Small Business Week 
speaking on a resolution that is intended to benefit our Nation's small 
businesses; but, in reality, this resolution ignores a pressing issue 
that has the potential to very severely burden the small business 
community of our country.
  I believe this resolution has less to do with priorities and more 
about a partisan political agenda that does not address a myriad of 
realities for small businesses. And I want to talk about one reality. 
The reality in this situation is this:
  The President has spent millions of dollars pitching privatized 
personal accounts as the answer to Social Security. But he has failed 
to address how these personal accounts will adversely affect the 
administrative costs for small businesses.
  Small firms are already responsible for withholding billions of 
dollars a year of payroll taxes for their employees. The creation of 
private savings accounts sticks them with a severe logistical headache, 
in fact an unfunded mandate.
  Consider this: under a personal savings plan, small businesses would 
be responsible for everything from providing, collecting, filing 
paperwork, to establishing an accounting system to ensuring proper 
payment over time, to handling quarterly and annual reporting to the 
employee.
  Furthermore, the administration has been telling Americans that this 
plan is only, is just like a Thrift Savings Plan. The truth of the 
matter is that there are tremendous costs associated with administering 
these types of plans, and most often those costs will fall on the 
employers.
  And judging by the experience with TSPs and other retirement 
accounts, employees will look to their employers if there is a problem. 
Who knows how responsibility and liability will be determined? Small 
firms will be sued if anything goes wrong with an account or with the 
investment.
  In light of the facts that I have laid out, Congress should be taking 
a harder look at the realities of having small businesses assume the 
administrative burden of collecting and paying out for private 
accounts. A proposed blueprint that does not address all the realities 
and the real needs of small businesses is once again a one-way street 
with a dead end.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

                              {time}  1145

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 
state my opposition to House Resolution 22 and the rule expressing the 
sense of the House that American small businesses are entitled to a 
small business bill of rights.
  I want to especially thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Velazquez) and applaud her for her hard work on behalf of 
small businesses. If the only rights small businesses are entitled to 
are listed in House Resolution 22, I feel sorry for all small 
businesses; because for all small businesses give to this country, this 
bill gives them nothing in return.
  Small businesses, including minor-
ity- and women-owned businesses, are the backbone of this country, and 
most especially to my State of Texas. Where are the small businesses 
rights to, one, participation in the Federal marketplace; two, 
assistance from the government's lending programs which account for 40 
percent of all long-term small business financing; three, targeted tax 
relief similar to that provided to the big corporations; and, four, 
strong technical assistance from the Federal Government that deals with 
issues faced by small businesses; and, five, protection from contract 
bundling, combining two and three contracts together to eliminate small 
businesses competition?

[[Page 7979]]

  These are challenges and there are many challenges facing small 
businesses as they attempt to gain a foothold in this Federal 
marketplace.
  We should be about the business of ensuring full and fair access for 
small firms. We should be about helping them overcome the obstacles in 
their way instead of coming up with the blank checks under the guise of 
giving them rights that large companies are afforded.
  Vote against this rule. Vote against this bill, because it does 
nothing to allow for rights that small business need or the 
opportunities. Amendments to correct all this were attempted in the 
Committee on Rules but denied. So I would say go and fix it or defeat 
it.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question 
so we can change this rule to include three very important Democratic 
amendments that were not allowed by the Committee on Rules last night. 
In fact, two of the amendments, one offered by my colleagues, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) and the gentlewoman from Wisconsin 
(Ms. Moore), related to the rights of minority business owners. Another 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda Sanchez) relating 
to expanding the microloan program was denied not only in the Committee 
on Rules but in the Committee on Small Business as well.
  The third amendment denied by the Committee on Rules, offered by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean), would have put the House on 
record in support of the 7(a) loan program.
  Mr. Speaker, this should not be about partisan politics. It is about 
fairness. It is bad enough that most Democratic amendments are blocked 
from floor considerations around here; now the Republican leadership 
does not even want them considered in the committees of original 
jurisdiction. I am very disturbed by the pattern of abuse that seems to 
be spreading in this House, first on the House floor and now in the 
committee process as well. This must stop.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can include these three 
thoughtful amendments. I want to make it very clear, that a ``no'' vote 
will not stop us from considering this legislation; however, a ``yes'' 
vote will block these amendments from any type of congressional action 
in the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendments immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This resolution outlines the areas that the 109th Congress needs to 
highlight for all small businesses.
  In previous Congresses we have initiated many areas of small business 
in terms of trying to help them grow and flourish where they are 
employing so many Americans. They are the very engine of our Nation's 
economy and it is time that we start acting on legislation to help them 
continue to do so.
  I thank the gentleman from Florida for bringing the measure to the 
floor. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the underlying resolution.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Matsui is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res. 235 and H. Res. 22--Expressing the Sense 
  of the House of Representatives That American Small Businesses Are 
              Entitled to a Small Business Bill of Rights

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the resolution (H. Res. 22) expressing the sense 
     of the House of Representatives that American small 
     businesses are entitled to a Small Business Bill of Rights. 
     The amendments to the resolution and the preamble recommended 
     by the Committee on Small Business now printed in the 
     resolution are considered as adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and 
     preamble, as amended, to final adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) one 
     hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Small 
     Business; (2) the amendments printed in section 2, if offered 
     by the Member designated or a designee, each of which shall 
     be in order without intervention of any point of order or 
     demand for division of the question, shall be considered as 
     read, and shall be separately debatable for 20 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit, which may not 
     contain instructions.
       Sec. 2. The amendments referred to the first section of 
     this resolution are as follows:
       (1) Amendment by Representative Barrow of Georgia or 
     Representative Moore of Wisconsin.

                  Amendment to H. Res. 22, as Reported

      Offered by Mr. Barrow of Georgia and Ms. Moore of Wisconsin

       Page 6, after line 7, insert the following:
       (8) Minority business owners have the right to participate 
     fully in the Federal marketplace and to receive the ``maximum 
     practicable opportunity'' promised them under section 8 of 
     the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637). To accomplish this, 
     programs aimed at minority business development must be 
     modernized, adequately funded, and supported by the Small 
     Business Administration. This will ensure that the Nation's 
     minority entrepreneurs receive the support they need and 
     rightfully deserve, allowing them to serve as an important 
     catalyst to the economy.
       In the fourteenth whereas clause, strike ``and'' at the 
     end.
       After the fourteenth whereas clause, insert the following:
       Whereas a business ownership divide exists in this country. 
     Despite the fact that people of color represent 32 percent of 
     the United States population, these individuals own only 15 
     percent of businesses. These same barriers exist for 
     minority-owned companies attempting to access the Federal 
     marketplace. Today, fewer than 5 percent of Government 
     contracts go to minority businesses. This is due, in large 
     part, to a lack of support by Federal officials for key 
     minority business development programs designed to assist 
     this segment of the business population. Programs once 
     embraced by agencies and administrations have stagnated and 
     been allowed to deteriorate without legislative improvements 
     for nearly 20 years, leaving minority business owners without 
     the assistance they need to reach their full potential; and
                                  ____

       (2) Amendment by Representative Sanchez.

                  Amendment to H. Res. 22, as Reported

             Offered by Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California

       In the fourteenth whereas clause, strike ``and'' at the 
     end.
       After the fourteenth whereas clause, insert the following:
       Whereas traditional lenders do not make loans to many of 
     the Nation's low-income entrepreneurs, which creates a gap in 
     the capital markets; and
       Page 6, after line 7, insert the following:
       (8) The right to a strengthened and expanded microloan 
     program under section 7(m) of the Small business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 636(m)), which will ensure that low-income small 
     businesses can contribute to the economic development of 
     local communities.
                                  ____

       (3) Amendment by Representative Bean of Illinois.

                  Amendment to H. Res. 22, as Reported

                    Offered by Ms. Bean of Illinois

       Page 6, line 3, insert before the period, ``which would be 
     accomplished by restoring funding for the loan program under 
     section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a))''.

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________