[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11800-11804]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1873, SMALL BUSINESS FAIRNESS IN 
                            CONTRACTING ACT

  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 383 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 383

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1873) to reauthorize the programs and 
     activities of the Small Business Administration relating to 
     procurement, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Small Business. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute are waived except those arising under clause 
     9 or 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, 
     no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 
     10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
     bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
     bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a

[[Page 11801]]

     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 1873 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on H. Res. 383.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such times as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 383 provides for consideration of H.R. 
1873, the Small Business Fairness in Contracting Act, under a 
structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the 
Committee on Small Business. The rule makes in order the substitute 
reported by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform as 
original text for the purpose of amendment. The substitute shall be 
considered as read.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill 
except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order eight 
amendments that were submitted for consideration that are printed in 
the Rules Committee report on this accompanying resolution.
  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the Small Business Fairness in Contracting Act, H.R. 
1873, amends key sections of the Small Business Act to assist small 
businesses in participation in Federal procurement.
  The predecessors to the Small Business Administration can be traced 
back to World War II and efforts by President Roosevelt and President 
Truman. In fact, during World War II, it was found to be in our 
national interest to ensure a strong and diverse industrial base.
  Through a series of laws and procurement requirements, Congress 
established a benchmark to give small business every opportunity to 
compete fairly for the awarding of Federal contracts. Despite this 
clear mandate in existence for more than 50 years, small businesses, 
however, have not received their fair share of Federal Government 
contracts.
  For example, in 2006, the Federal Government spent over $417 billion 
on goods and services in 8.3 million separate contract actions. Small 
businesses won approximately $80 billion in contracts, approximately 
21.5 percent of these contracts. This was the sixth straight year that 
the government has failed to meet its 23 percent small business 
contracting goal. This cost entrepreneurs an estimated $4.5 billion in 
lost contracting opportunities last year alone.
  Small businesses suffered this massive loss, despite their importance 
to our national economy. Small businesses are the engine of our 
economy. In fact, they are responsible for creating three out of every 
four jobs in the United States. We cannot afford our budding 
entrepreneurs to be shut out of what would be an open market and be 
denied the opportunity to succeed. Not when their existence is so vital 
to our national economy.
  We should not be shutting them out. Instead, we should be opening 
doors and shepherding their growth to ensure continued prosperity.
  There are many reasons for the failure to break the stranglehold on 
Federal contracting process. In response, H.R. 1873 takes several 
necessary steps to address some key causes. H.R. 1873 seeks to break 
down the barriers for countless entrepreneurs and small businesses that 
are on the road to opportunity.
  First, the bill bans contract bundling. Past practice has been to 
combine two or more smaller contracts into a single, larger package. 
While this bundling may be administratively convenient, it reduces 
competition and opportunity for small businesses.
  Bundling squeezes small businesses out of the contract competition, 
benefiting larger, full-scale businesses in the process; and when there 
is less competition, there is also higher cost on the taxpayer.
  To add insult to injury, Federal agencies are skewing the data with 
respect to small businesses. To give the impression that 23 percent of 
small business contracting goals are being met, agencies are using 
contracts awarded to larger companies and including them towards their 
small business contracting goals. H.R. 1873 seeks to reverse these 
trends and make it easier for small businesses to compete in the 
Federal marketplace.
  Second, the bill makes an appeals process more accessible. Under 
current law, small businesses are only allowed to protest the award of 
a contract if they are directly harmed by it, but they are unlikely to 
do so given the costs involved in the process. Under the bill, small 
businesses and trade associations acting on their behalf that are 
adversely affected, directly or indirectly, by a proposed procurement 
can now request that the SBA appeal the procurement on their behalf.
  H.R. 1873 increases the procurement goals for small businesses. It 
increases the government-wide goal for the number of contracts awarded 
to small businesses from 23 to 25 percent, a goal which has not been 
raised in over 10 years. It also increases from 5 percent to 8 percent 
the government-wide contracting goals for both disadvantaged and women-
owned small businesses.
  The bill raises the threshold for small business contract set-asides 
to the simplified acquisition threshold. It also requires that an 
independent audit of the Central Contracting Registry be conducted on a 
biannual basis to ensure that large firms are not misrepresenting 
themselves as small businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, the opportunity for open competition for Federal 
contracts is immensely important to small businesses. This bill has 
strong bipartisan support. It passed the Small Business Committee by a 
voice vote, and it was sequentially referred to the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform where it also passed by a voice vote.
  I would like to thank both committees for their hard and thoughtful 
work in bringing this legislation to the floor today. In particular, I 
extend my thanks to Chairwoman Velazquez, the subcommittee chairman, 
Mr. Braley, and Chairman Waxman.
  Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the importance of small businesses to 
our economy, and we must act on this bill without further delay.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
thank my friend from California (Mr. Cardoza) for the time, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Small business is the engine that drives our economic strength. The 
almost 26 million small businesses in the United States employ over 
half of all private sector workers and pay approximately 45 percent of 
total U.S. private payroll. Over the last decade, small businesses have 
generated 60 to 80 percent of new jobs each year.
  Congress, for many decades, has acknowledged the important role small 
businesses play in the Federal procurement process. That is evidenced 
in the Small Business Act of 1953 which states: ``It is the declared 
policy of the Congress that the government should aid, counsel, assist 
and protect the interests of small business concerns in order to 
preserve free competitive enterprise and to ensure that a fair 
proportion of the total purchases and contracts or subcontracts for 
property and

[[Page 11802]]

services for the government be placed with small business 
enterprises.''
  In 2006, the Federal Government spent over $417 billion on goods and 
services in 8.3 million separate contracts. Small businesses won a 
little over 21 percent of those contracts.
  H.R. 1873, the Small Business Fairness in Contracting Act, seeks to 
assist small businesses' participation in the Federal procurement 
process.

                              {time}  1115

  Among its provisions, it expands and clarifies the definition of 
contract bundling to try to ensure that small businesses can fairly 
compete for Federal contracts. Contract bundling combines two or more 
contracts into a single larger package. Bundling can put small 
businesses at a disadvantage in the procurement process because the bid 
price usually goes beyond what small businesses can afford.
  This legislation, the underlying legislation, sets a target of 25 
percent for the overall number of Federal contracts awarded to small 
businesses and a target of 8 percent for contracts awarded to minority- 
and women-owned businesses. The bill also provides a mechanism for the 
SBA to work with Congress when it believes that the Federal contract 
was improperly bundled.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the majority on the Rules Committee reported 
out yet another restrictive rule, going back once again on the promise 
for a more open and fair legislative process. What makes this rule most 
unfortunate is that it does not include even one Republican amendment. 
So I think the question is begged, how can the majority claim to be 
fostering an open legislative process when it totally shuts out the 
minority?
  During testimony at the Rules Committee, Small Business Ranking 
Member Chabot explained that the Government Oversight Committee 
subsequently made several major changes to the bill that would harm 
small businesses. He proposed several amendments to strike the harmful 
provisions and restore those in the original bill that came out of the 
Small Business Committee. Now these amendments were even supported by 
the Small Business Committee chairwoman, Ms. Velazquez, but the 
majority in the Rules Committee ignored both Committee Chairwoman 
Velazquez and Ranking Member Chabot and did not make the amendments in 
order. That was totally uncalled for, and Mr. Speaker, this rule should 
be defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just like to respond to the gentleman and my good friend from 
Florida who serves with me on the Rules Committee. I would like to 
remind him that while it is true that no Republican amendments by 
themselves were in order, there certainly was made in order Ranking 
Member Mr. Chabot's suggested return of amendments the way it was in 
the Small Business Committee. He paired with Congresswoman Bean of 
Illinois, with Congressman Shuler of North Carolina and with Mr. Sestak 
of Pennsylvania in coauthoring three amendments that were, in fact, 
made in order.
  So to say that no Republican suggestions were made in order was 
simply not totally accurate. In fact, Mr. Speaker, three Democratic 
amendments and four Republican amendments were not made in order, but a 
significant number of them are going to be considered today.
  We believe that this is, in fact, a very good use of the time of the 
Members of this House. The Committee on Government Reform is the 
watchdog committee for this House. They had some issues that they 
wanted to clarify in the legislation, and I think that the Rules 
Committee felt that their suggestions had merit in at least two cases.
  I also want to make the point, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation is 
supported by the NFIB, the National Federation of Independent Business; 
the Women's Chamber of Commerce; the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; the 
Women Impacting Public Policy; the National Small Business Association; 
and the Associated General Contractors of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker who requests some time who 
is not yet here, and so I reserve my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is quite 
interesting to see that now it is important for the minority to pair 
with members from the majority party in order to be considered, that 
pairing with someone from the other side makes the denial of amendments 
to all Republican amendments apparently fair.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I appreciate him for providing leadership on this issue.
  I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that small business is indeed important 
and vital, but what is before us is not H.R. 1873, the Small Business 
Fairness in Contracting Act. What is before us is how this House will 
deal with that bill when it comes to the floor. What is before us is 
the rule that will allow or not allow open and active debate on this 
bill.
  Now, the new majority has promised us an open and fair process. They 
promised the American people an open and fair process. But once again, 
this new majority has put forward a closed and restrictive rule which 
will not allow an up-or-down vote on many amendments, including one 
that I offered that would have applied pay-as-you-go spending 
principles to this legislation.
  As my good friend from Florida mentioned, there are eight amendments 
that have been allowed, all of them, Mr. Speaker, with primary authors 
being from the majority party. Is that open? Is that fair?
  Last term, Speaker Pelosi said, ``Because the debate has been limited 
and Americans' voices silenced by this restrictive rule, I urge my 
colleagues to vote against the rule.'' Well, I agree, Mr. Speaker. What 
changed?
  Last term, Mr. Speaker, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said, ``Mr. 
Speaker, once again this House majority is resorting to heavy-handed 
tactics that are designed to do one thing only, to achieve a 
preordained result by shutting down a full and fair debate in this 
House.'' I agree, Mr. Speaker. What changed?
  Last term, Mr. Speaker, the current Chair of the Rules Committee, Ms. 
Slaughter, said, ``If we want to foster democracy in this body, we 
should take the time and thoughtfulness to debate all major legislation 
under open rule, not just appropriations bills . . . An open process 
should be the norm and not the exception.'' Well, I agree, Mr. Speaker. 
What changed?
  In fact, what has changed is that less than 3 percent of the bills 
that have been brought to this floor under this majority under a rule 
have been under an open rule, less than 3 percent. What changed, Mr. 
Speaker?
  Last term, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern, said, ``I 
would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if you want 
to show some bipartisanship, if you want to promote a process that has 
some integrity, this should be an open rule. All Members should have an 
opportunity to come here and offer amendments to this bill to improve 
the quality of deliberations on this House floor. They should be able 
to come and offer amendments to clean this place up.'' And I agree, Mr. 
Speaker. So what changed? What changed?
  Mr. Speaker, last term, current Democrat Caucus Chair, Mr. Emanuel 
said, ``Let us have and up-or-down vote. Do not be scared. Do not hide 
behind some little rule. Come on out here. Put it out on the table, and 
let us have a vote. So do not hide behind the rule. If this is what you 
want to do, let us have an up-or-down vote.'' I agree, Mr. Speaker. 
What changed?
  H.R. 1873, the bill today that we will talk about, seeks to increase 
the opportunity for small businesses to earn Federal contracts by 
addressing current barriers that face small businesses, and this is 
important. That is extremely important, but we should do so in a 
fiscally responsible way.
  My amendment would have allowed or would have applied the principles 
of

[[Page 11803]]

pay-as-you-go to any new spending authorized by this legislation by 
requiring that any new spending have a specific offset, be paid for, 
common sense. It is what we all have to do at home. It is what all of 
our constituents have to do at home.
  Mr. Speaker, this majority, when it was running to take the majority 
last year, said, ``Our new direction is committed to pay-as-you-go 
budgeting, no more deficit spending. We are committed to auditing the 
books and subjecting every facet of Federal spending to tough budget 
discipline and accountability, forcing the Congress to choose a new 
direction and the right priorities for all Americans.'' Mr. Speaker, 
what happened? What happened?
  Last month, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was quoted and said, ``We 
want to get the budget deficit under control. We have said fiscal 
responsibility was necessary, but we are not going to be hoisted on the 
torrent of fiscal responsibility.'' Mr. Speaker, heaven forbid that we 
should be hoisted on the torrent of fiscal responsibility.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, rules are not rules if you only follow them when 
you want to, and the Democrats, the majority party, promised to use 
PAYGO rules for everything. Instead, they are picking and choosing when 
to do so. At home, we call that breaking a rule and breaking a promise.
  So I urge the new majority to rededicate itself to its campaign 
promises, its promises of pay-as-you-go spending and of an open and 
fair process. Fiscal responsibility and an open process should not be 
something that you just talk about solely before elections. We should 
be good stewards of the hard-earned money that Americans send to 
Washington in the form of their taxes all the time, not just during 
political campaigns.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose this closed and restrictive rule.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in the last Congress, in both sessions, the Rules 
Committee reported a grand total of three open rules that were not 
appropriation rules. Two of them were open rules with a preprinting 
requirement. In this session, the new majority, we have already done 
seven open rules, six with preprinting requirements. And that is just 
in over 4 months.
  Say what you want, we have already had a fairer and far more open 
process than happened in just the last 2 years of the prior majority's 
rule, when their party ran this place.
  Mr. Speaker, Mr. Price from Georgia indicated that he has proposed a 
rule to get our fiscal house in order, an amendment that would do that. 
Yet, he has offered that same amendment several times in other pieces 
of legislation. Every time when it was allowed and came to the floor, 
his amendment failed.
  Further, I would like to just mention the fact that the current 
majority has, in fact, instigated PAYGO rules in the House of 
Representatives, and so we have made that the law of the House. We, in 
fact, are bringing fiscal responsibility to this House on a daily 
basis, something that the prior party in charge was not able to do over 
14 years while they were in charge. In fact, the deficit went up at an 
astounding rate while they were in control of this institution, and it 
has been the Democrats who have come back to power and are instigating 
PAYGO rules and fiscal responsibility in the House of Congress.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARDOZA. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia for a question.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding, and I appreciate you also stating that time and time again 
this majority party has defeated PAYGO, an amendment that would have 
provided responsible fiscal spending on the part of the Federal 
Government, that I have offered.
  What it does, does it not, bring clarity to the issue----
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time. The point of my claim 
was the gentleman's amendment had failed because we have already 
instituted the PAYGO rules in our rules of the House of 
Representatives, and we do that on a daily basis.
  When the gentleman's party was in power for a number of years, we saw 
the largest deficit increases in the history of our country, more 
foreign debt that they piled on to our Nation, and in fact, we are 
reversing the course that they set out in their prior control of 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  I thank my friend, my colleague from California, for having admitted 
on the record that the new majority has seen fit during this Congress 
to pass one open rule, and that was on the Advanced Fuels 
Infrastructure Research and Development Act, and I think that's 
important to be noted.
  Now, rules where there are requirements with having to print 
amendments before the debate begins are not open rules, even though our 
friends on the majority side have tried to redefine definitions, 
redraft definitions. But the reality of the matter is that there has 
been an admission on the floor that there has been one open rule with 
regard to a noncontroversial bill, and that's the fact.
  Now, why is that important? Because they were the party that 
campaigned on opening the process. So that's why it's a relevant fact 
that there has been one open rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished friend, a great 
leader from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida, a member of 
the Rules Committee, who I look up to and is a great mentor. I thank 
the gentleman for yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in strong opposition to this rule, which 
completely shuts out the minority from offering any amendments to 
improve this legislation.
  Last night, the Rules Committee met to consider the 14 amendments 
offered by Members to improve this legislation; and the Democratic 
majority voted along party lines to prevent any amendments offered by a 
Republican from being considered.
  I wish I could say that I was surprised by this outcome, but this is 
nothing new. This new Democratic majority decided to break its campaign 
trail promises to open up legislative process for all Members. Instead, 
they have chosen, once again, to play party politics and to help the 
Rules Committee to solidify its position and reputation as the 
graveyard of good ideas in the House of Representatives.
  I offered one of the Republican amendments that will not be 
considered by the House today because of the partisanship in the Rules 
Committee. My amendment would have struck section 303, which mandates 
the automatic annual recertification of successful small businesses, 
whether this recertification is necessary or not.
  Section 303 will create an administrative nightmare for small 
businesses who wish to contract with the Federal Government. Mandating 
this annual recertification creates a disincentive for businesses to 
contract with the government, because filing this unnecessary paperwork 
takes time, takes money and takes manpower, proving that the actions we 
take here in Congress actually do have real-world consequences.
  The Small Business Administration already has the discretion to 
determine how frequently small businesses must recertify, and the SBA 
studied and rejected this annual recertification because it would 
create, as they call it, an unnecessary burden for small business.
  The SBA has already passed a recertification rule that goes into 
effect in June of this year. This rule will protect small business 
contracts without the added costs and headaches associated with the 
Democratic majority's heavy-handed proposal. Congress should have 
allowed the SBA rule to take effect before mandating this new, 
unnecessary statutory paperwork.
  The failure of the Democratic majority to include my amendment proves

[[Page 11804]]

that this bill is more about politics than it is about policy. 
Yesterday, person after person from both parties talked about how great 
it would be for us to help the great engine of this economy, small 
business. Yet we find out, when it really comes down to it, they want 
to put rules and regulations on small businesses, whether they are 
needed or not.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask to insert in the Record the Statement of 
Administrative Policy for the bill which specifically states that the 
bill would impose additional detailed reporting requirements on 
agencies and prime contractors that would increase costs without clear 
benefits.

Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 1873--Small Business Fairness 
                           in Contracting Act


           (Representative Braley (D), IA and 29 cosponsors)

       The Administration supports efforts to increase 
     opportunities for small businesses to compete for Federal 
     government acquisitions. The Administration, however, opposes 
     H.R. 1873, because it would impose broad, burdensome 
     statutory restrictions on Federal agencies' ability to 
     conduct acquisitions and establish unrealistic small business 
     procurement goals. Although the Administration appreciates 
     the efforts of the House Oversight and Government Reform 
     Committee to address some of the Administration's concerns, 
     its reported bill contains many of the same objectionable 
     provisions as the introduced bill and the bill as reported by 
     the House Small Business Committee.
       Among its objectionable provisions, H.R. 1873 would impose 
     costly and time-consuming requirements on thousands of agency 
     acquisitions through an overly-expansive definition of 
     ``contract bundling'' that would include construction 
     contracts, new procurements not previously performed by or 
     considered suitable for small businesses, and task and 
     delivery orders under existing contracts even when bundling 
     justifications were already performed under such contract. 
     These requirements would be in addition to existing rules 
     that already require review of all agency procurements for 
     small business opportunities.
       Additionally, the bill would establish unrealistic 
     government-wide and individual agency small business 
     procurement goals that could undermine the small business 
     procurement goal process. Moreover, both the increase in 
     goals and the restrictions on allowing a small business to be 
     counted for only one preferred small business contracting 
     category raise constitutional questions by establishing new 
     race- and gender-based Government preferences without 
     presenting a strong basis in evidence that these preferences 
     meet constitutional standards.
       The bill also would overturn a recently issued small 
     business regulation that guards against the abuse of small 
     business preferences while allowing an affected small 
     business a reasonable period of time to take advantage of 
     such preferences during performance of a Federal procurement 
     contract. Finally, the bill would impose additional detailed 
     reporting requirements on agencies and prime contractors that 
     would increase costs without clear benefits.
       The Administration would strongly oppose amendments to 
     require the Office of Management and Budget intervention in 
     individual agency acquisition decisions, thereby removing the 
     discretion and flexibility that agencies must have to 
     accomplish their missions by contracting for needed supplies 
     and services. The Administration also would strongly oppose 
     any amendments that require individual agency goals to be no 
     lower than government-wide statutory small business goals, or 
     that apply small business goals to overseas acquisitions.
       The Administration looks forward to working with Congress 
     to increase opportunities for small businesses without 
     unnecessarily disrupting agency operations and imposing 
     burdensome requirements on agencies and contractors.

  I ask for all my colleagues to oppose this partisan rule, this 
restrictive rule that will do very little to help small businesses.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to respond to my good 
friend from Texas and state the committee considered his amendment, 
proposed amendment, and rejected it for a large reason, because we feel 
that it is important to make companies certify that they are, in fact, 
small businesses, that there have been mistakes made in the past, that 
companies have gotten beyond the threshold and have won contracts that 
they may not be authorized to do.
  Just because the Small Business Administration periodically will go 
and check that, we don't believe that that is enough of a cause to 
require that other small businesses be shut out of the process because 
companies that grow beyond the requirements are allowed special 
treatment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time for my close.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would like to thank Mr. 
Cardoza, my good friend, and all those who have spoken during this 
debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate my call for the defeat of this 
restrictive rule. It is an unfair rule, it is unnecessarily 
restrictive, and it closes down debate. For that reason, I urge the 
defeat of this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, in my close, I just want to assure the 
Members of Congress that we are, in fact, running the most open process 
in this Congress, that, in fact, we have provided seven open rules.
  Now those rules may have a pre-printing requirement, as Mr. Diaz-
Balart mentioned, the gentleman from Florida. In fact, though, 
requiring a pre-printing requirement allows every Member who desires to 
put forward an idea to come and have their ideas presented to the 
House. That is much more than what happened in the prior Congress, when 
they were in charge. We are keeping our commitment to running an open 
process.
  As I mentioned, this legislation is very worthy of this rule and of 
passage. As I mentioned, small businesses have not received their fair 
share of Federal Government contracts, despite their importance to our 
economy. The bill before us today, H.R. 1873, addresses some of the key 
causes.
  By making a few targeted reforms to the procurement process, we can 
help thousands of small businesses and give a much-needed jolt to our 
national economy. We must continue to shepherd our small businesses to 
give them every opportunity to succeed for today and for tomorrows yet 
to come. This bill will move us in that direction, and a small business 
will be that much closer to making their dreams of prosperity a 
reality.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. 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 question will be postponed.

                          ____________________