anything. but i have another one with medicare and everything. medicare is all right, but it has so many loopholes, a lot of things they will not pay for and everything. you need a carrier that will cover you -- your needs and everything. certain things one covers and another thing another. host: roger on our independent line in vienna, virginia. caller: calling to comment on the question about whether a second stimulus is necessary. i disagreed with several points that were raised by your guest who was obviously a monetarist. you cannot claim that monetary policy is the answer to address slowing growth in the economy and at the same time get worked up about big government spending and inflation, because when you create new money in the economy,

it will raise the inflation rate. the second -- second point is that our economy has near collapse of demand. $1 a stimulus will offset a dollar saved, making the offset less severe. my only problem is the obama administration and congress has been too slow in rolling out. it should have been done within 30 days of the new administration. every day counts when you are fighting a shrinking economy. when it was evident last fall that that term wilt was low with the economy of course the bush administration did nothing to offset that. host: are you still with me? caller: to get that going you said in the first 30 days -- to get it going you have to get it through congress, plus, there would own -- also be questions about transparency, to make sure the money is going where it

should be going, right? caller: i agree with that, but on the other hand you have to realize it is an emergency situation. you have to fast track it. it becomes a matter of national emergency. host: in just a few seconds we will go to the floor of the house of representatives. we also want to let you know that live on c-span3, continuing coverage of health care overhaul, day nine. this is extended health, education, labor and pensions committee and it is live on c- span3. thank you for watching this edition of "washington journal." we will see you again tomorrow morning right here at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. .

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by the chaplain: heavenly father, we come into your presence worshiping your name. in the bible you command your church to always pray and to give thanks to those who are in authority. the united states of america and the whole world are experiencing difficult times. because of it fear and confusion fear the hearts of many. but, lord, we hope you put your this great country of ours will defeat the present crisis. we will enter a new level of prosperity. and be the example and the father, right now i release the

special blessing upon the congress of the united states of america. may your holy spirit -- that enter a new process of legislation. god, we wish them upon each man and each woman. father, also, i pray that your blessings be upon their personal lives and the lives of their loved ones. amen. [speaking spanish] the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. ms. foxx: madam speaker. the speaker: pursuant to clause

1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. ms. foxx: madam speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. foxx: madam speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlewoman from the virgin islands, congresswoman christensen. mrs. christensen: i ask my colleagues to join me in the pledge. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from florida, congressman diaz-balart, is recognized for one minute. mr. diaz-balart: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, it is my distinct pleasure and privilege to be able to welcome pastor alberto delgado to the house of representatives. pastor delgado and his wife, mariam, also a wonderful religious leader, are pillars of strength, faith and good works in south florida. their church, alpha and omega church, with more than 5,000 members, is a sanctuary which opens its doors to over 2,000 worshipers per service with services in both english and spanish. it is a place of miracles where as pastor delgado always reminds the faithful, everything is possible with

faith, and where the family and the word of god are revered. the ministries of alpha and omega church have already spread to various states and this generous land and to other countries as well. including cuba, guatemala, argentina, mexico, belize. and the work of pastor delgado never stops. welcome to the united states congress, alberto and mariam. it's an honor to have you here. thank you for all that you do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the chair will entertain up to 15 further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentlelady from the virgin islands rise? mrs. christensen: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. christensen: thank you, mr. speaker. we in this body will deliver our health care reform package

and fulfill our and the president's promise to america. and that makes us a special time to be in the congress and a great privilege to be a member of one of the main committees that has responsibility for this product. although there's still a need to improve on some measures, because of the public plan and exchange, the improvement in medicare, medicaid and schip, the mandates for coverage, a robust benefits package, accountability care organizations and medical homes and the provisions already included to reduce health disparities, our nation will be a fairer and more just country, and we will not only save money but we will be a more productive and competitive nation as well. but we must not let the cost -- it's significant investment -- its significant investment in health care will reap the benefits in the not too distant future. we hope that appropriate health care is available and accessible to every person living in this country and the 50 states, the district of columbia and all of the offshore areas or territories. let's make sure that universal health care is universal health care. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, house republicans are offering positive solutions to our nation's health care system. we're standing up for individual choice, preserving the all-important doctor-patient relationship and getting families more resources and more of their own money to afford quality health care. our democrat colleagues have abandoned any sense of bipartisan cooperation. that is why their health care proposals currently amount to a $1 trillion big government takeover. republicans are proposing tax relief for families and small businesses who are struggling to afford health care. we want to empower states and small businesses to ban together for affordable insurance options. rather than copy a failed central planning big government system, we are committed to weeding out waste, fraud and abuse. republicans are hard at work developing a set of

patient-first health care reforms. we encourage our democrat colleagues to join us in defending patient choice and quality care against the rationed care of a big government health care takeover. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. inslee: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. inslee: mr. speaker, in our health care reform our aspiration ought to give americans the health care that people get at the mayo clinic and nothing less. and we can do this even though this sounds like a high bar because at the mayo clinic they provide cost-effective health care. medicare spends about $6,700 a year in rochester, minnesota. now other places in the country it's over twice that. in texas it's $14,000 a year. we need in our health care plan to provide quality medical

care, choice of medical care and cost-effective medical care. and that's why in our bill we are going to need to insist on measures of pure profiling for physicians, critical protocols to make sure quality happens and reward for physicians for high quality. when we do this patients will have the same quality as the mayo clinic and the same cost as the mayo clinic to the american taxpayer. that's a good deal. we have to make sure that cost containment is part of our health care plan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. poe: mr. speaker, private first class cross wanted to be a missionary but he decided he needed to mature a little bit first. so he joined the united states army in august of 2008. he was born in texas but his family and he later moved to new york. so he was deployed in afghanistan in february with the 10th mountain division of

new york this year. private first class cross and his unit were out on patrol and he went to get supplies for his fellow soldiers. returning to his platoon driving on a narrow mountain path he saw a group of afghan children herding sheep on the road. peter swerved his humvee to avoid hitting the kids and went off the side of that mountain. peter cross was 20 years of age. this young american soldier's first instinct was to sacrifice his life for a group of children he did not know in a land far from home. peter's father said of his son's sacrifice, his last act in life showed what kind of man he was, selfishly thinking of others. last week the governor of new york ordered all flags ordered at half staff of this texan and new yorker, peter cross, amazing breeds of the united states army. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from pennsylvania rise?

ms. schwartz: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. schwartz: i rise today to discuss comprehensive health care and health care reform, as we move forward to make sure all americans have health care, primary provide thornse frontline of the system, keeping costly conditions from worsening, and yet despite this essential role it is primary care in which we face the most acute provider shortages. fewer and fewer medical students are choosing primary care. it declined from 50% to 20%. by 2025, america will have a shortage of 26,000 primary care providers.

my proposal makes a comprehensive approach to addressing this program, providing scholarships and loan repayments for doctors. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. >> i join the majority of americans who found themselves in utter disbelief when they heard the majority leader say this congress might need to consider a second stimulus package after the first stimulus resulted in record unemployment, the best the administration can propose is spend more.

unemployment has reached 9357b9%, the first stimulus has proven nothing but a tool to fund a broad, sweeping social agenda that's been on the shelf for years. the vice president said we misread the economy. not one republican in this house misread it, none of us voted for it. if we want to stimulate the economy, cut marginal tax rates for all and provide emergency tax relief to the entities that employ 70% of those employed, small businesses. the american people have had enough of the tax and spend mentality of congress. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> my office receives calls from constituents asking for assistance with health care costs. american families are stugging

-- struggling to pay preem judgments. the health care system is broken, this is not just disturbing, it is inhumane, un-american, when you're being denied health care or can't get the coverage you need. in my district, he call small businesses are faced with offering health care coverage to employees or close -- closing their doors. i met with constituents, there's a sharp increase at the emergency room. unemployment -- rising unemployment rates leads to a sharp decline in doctor's visits. no one should be denied, they should be able to have access to health care. health care reform will not be an easy task we must act on behalf of the american families we represent, i urge my colleagues to give the american families peace of mind. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> i rise to discuss h.r. 1551, the kenny call hab act, which i recently introduced. kenny callahan was a journalist and was dige necessaried with pancreatic cancer. he could not live out the waiting period required to receive social security and medicare benefits this named would eliminate the waiting period for social security and medicare benefits for folks diagnosed with terminal illness. this is about starting a compassionate conversation to help those people and their families. it's about a moral orblegation to help those most as a rule herbal in our communities. if ending the disability

waiting period for everyone is not included in the health care reform package, at a minimum, it should be eliminated for the terminally ill. i ask my colleagues to support this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the -- gentleman from florida rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. diaz-balart: last week, the house took an extraordinary first step by creating jobs in the form of unleashing a new generation of energy technology built here in america. whether we agree on any other issue, each of us is committed to keeping this country a safe and the american clean energy and security act is part of that. it will fuel our economic national security. will i was home in south flare, i had the chance to meet with a

technology company. they are on the couldn'ting edge of energy technologies and is creating jobs as we speak. that's the kind of local business this will support. i'm confident florida can be a national leader as well as the rest of the country on clean energy technology and this bill give ours business leaders the tools they immediate to create the jobs and compete in the next great american industry. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: permission to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. foxx: as the american people struggle to make ends meet too many struggle with the challenge of affording basic health care for themselves and their families. republicans want to make high quality health care coverage affordable and accessible for every american and let those who like their current health care coverage keep it. republicans support health care reform that puts patients and their health first and protects

the important doctor-patient relationship. democrats are pushing for a government takeover of health care that would have devastating consequences for families and small businesses. a government takeover of health care will raise taxes, ration care, and let government bureaucrats make decisions that should be made by families and their doctors. republicans want to empower patients by making health care more oy afordable, accessible, and accountable. americans want the peace of mind of knowing they have health care they need when they need it. we cannot allow politicians and special interests to stand between patients and the care they need. the american people need to the freedom to choose the health care that's best for them. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the american people know that

health care reform must happen now. this isn't a republican or democratic issue, the crippling costs are hurting our families, our businesses, and our nation by the end of today, 14,000 of our fellow citizens will lose their health care coverage. reforming health care must have at its base reforming how we do medicare and medicare formulas. my home district is the home to the mayo clinic. as you heard my colleague speak earlier, providing high quality care at a low price is the hallmark of the mayo clinic. but because of the -- because of the way medicare is structured, those who do this are penalized. i urge my colleagues, republican and democrat, make this the hallmark, make the mayo model, the mod el doctor for this country and we'll get high quality care at a low cost. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for run hin. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> just days after the fourth of july events celebrate americans' freedoms, it's ironic that we threaten to destroy the freedom to choose health care we want and ed. quality health care is the foundation for our children to grow and prosper and for our seniors to enjoy a comfortable retirements. we can all agree our health care system must be transformed, but a $1.6 trillion proposal that puts government bureaucrats between doctors and patients and raises health care costs for families and taxes health care plans reduces choices is not the answer to ensure that our health care system remains focused on people. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i rise to mark the retirement of a bhoon has been part of our community. it was 1969 when tom wills came to louisville to work as wade-3 tv's meteorologist. he's been there for louisvillians through it all, whether it was the tornado, the snowstorm of 1994, the ice storm this past winter, tom's reassuring voice has been a fixture on televisions throughout louisville. we in louisville are grateful to have had tom walk us through every sunny day and rainy night. after four decades, i'm proud to join louisville in thanking him for his service and wishing him the best as we moves on to

a well-deserved retirement. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for one minute and rhett . the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> as we approach the debate on health care, there are republican principles that have been out there a long time that will be followed by this legislation. one of those is to make sure that medical decisions are made by patients and doctors, not by government bureaucrats. i'm going to insert in the record an article from yesterday's "wall street journal," the title is "of nice and men," nice being the national institute for helt and clinical excellence in great britain. this talks about what happens when you have rationed care. great britain has one of the lowest survival rates in europe from cancer and in europe generally if you compare europe to the united states, breast cancer survivors, 84% in the united states, 73% in europe, prostate cancer survivors rts, 92% in the united states, 57%

in europe. people need to have more choices not less choices. we need a more competitive marketplace, not a less competitive marketplace. a government competitor will drive away all other competitors. that will be a critical part of this debate, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. >> mr. speaker, the u.s. economy shed 467,000 jobs in june, yet the economic climate would have been worse without the economic recovery legislation we passed in february. one leading independent economist reported last week that our stimulus measures prevented the loss of some 500,000 jobs in the last three months alone. many state and local governments, retailers and service-providing employers have been able to save thousands of jobs that

otherwise would have vanished without money provided? stimulus package to communities and consumers. as a result of our action, the legislation's broad approach will leave the unemployment rate two percentage points lower by the end of the next year. the stimulus impact has and continues to be an economic lifesaver for families all across this country. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> i thank the speaker. we have heard about czarist russia, over a 300-period of time, 18 czars. ronald reagan had one czar, george b. bush had 2414.

this administration has 27. who are these people? we don't know because even though the constitution calls for the u.s. senate to approve powerful people in powerful positions and indeed they vote on hundreds of appointees, the czars go around this process now they get paid $172,000 each and they all have staffs. we are spending millions of dollars on people who have not been vetted by the u.s. senate. we do not know who they are or what they are doing. why would the president use transparency and have these people come before the senate and talk to them? why they're so smart and why you have to have duplication of already-existing cabinet jobs. with this, i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. sanchez: to address the

house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today extremely frustrated and concerned over the continued arrest of pro-democracy dissidents inside of vietnam. the government of vietnam continues to persecute journalists, bloggers and other individuals who simply speak out against human right abuses in the country of vietnam. yesterday, i learned that mr. trong, another young and prominent dissident, was arrested by the government of vietnam. mr. trong is the leader of the movement democratic youth, a group that mobilizes the young people to demand change in the political regime in vietnam. the recent arrest of ding and trong further demonstrate vietnam's continuing disregard for basic civil, political and religious liberties.

i urge my colleagues to speak out on behalf of these brave men and women who are now imprisoned in vietnam. please join me in urging the department of state to place vietnam back on the countries of particular concern list. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. flake: i rise in protest of the way we're handling appropriation bills this year. traditionally, appropriation bills have come to the floor under an open floor, allowing members to offer as many amendments as they would like as long as they give notice of such amendments. now, we have this year a process of closed rules where appropriation bills are brought to the floor under structured rules. members are limited in the number of amendmented they can bring forward. and we're told we need to do this because members will offer so many amendments it will slow the process down.

well, when you have bills come to the floor with literally in some cases more than 1,000 earmarks that have not been vetted by anybody, obviously the appropriations committee is not vetting these earmarks, then we should have a process where people on the floor can at least see what's in these bills. we're not allowed to do that. we're bringing a bill to the floor today with just a few amendments that will be accepted or, i'm sorry, allowed to be offered. mr. speaker, we cannot continue to do this. we're told that people don't care about process. perhaps they don't, but bad process leads to bad policy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. flake: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? ms. castor: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. castor: the economic recovery plan is working in my district. yesterday, i was at the johnny ruth clark community health center in south st. petersburg, florida, where wmade the

announcement that $1 million will go to expand that community health center. that community health center is the lifeline for that community, for the neighbors and businesses in that community. it's going to allow them to build new patient exam rooms. this $1 million grant comes on the heels of a half million dollar grant that will allow them to hire new doctors, nurses and medical professionals. very important because our community health centers are the places where folks receive quality, affordable health care. and, fortunately, in our health care reform bill we will make additional expenses to our community centers. this is one of the ways where we'll make quality health care affordable and convenient for families and small businesses throughout our neighborhoods. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? mr. kagen: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kagen: mr. speaker, it is with a deep sense of sadness that i express my sincere condolences to the families, friends and colleagues of wisconsin's native son, steven drese, who was killed in action in afghanistan on june 28 while serving in operation enduring freedom. his enlistment began in july 25, 2008. he was assigned to the 12th infantry region men out of for the carson, colorado. he counted among his awards three bronze stars and a purple heart. when any soldier falls, we mourn collectively and we pray as one people. and when we lose one of our very youngest soldiers so close to home we are especially grieved. nothing can replace what steve's family has lost but if it's any cons tellation, steven drese remain dutyful and brave

at all times and he was a loyal united states soldier. that such a young man that could serve so selflessly is afforded to the people of wisconsin and the citizens of these united states. steven will never be forgotten. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. wu: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wu: on a mother's day sunday my daughter got a cut on her face and was bleeding and i took her to an emergency room. she got a band-aid and an antiseptic cream. it was a $350 bill. couple years late i took my son to me on a conference. he jumped from the bed to the fireplace in the hotel, split his lip. took him to the emergency room. he got three stitches. he got good treatment. the bill was for $850. why do three stitches cost $850 or a band-aid $350?

you know those 49 million uninsured people in america, we are already paying for their health care, but it's through the dumbest way we can, through expensive products for some of us, even though i have insurance. and what we do need now is change in our health care system so that we cover those uninsured, because it's not only the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do so that we don't have $350 bannedages and $850 stitches. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. polis: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 610 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 85. house resolution 610. resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule

18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 2965, to amend the small business act with respect to the small business innovation research program and the small business technology transfer program, 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 21. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on small business and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on science and technology. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment recommended by the committee on science and technology now printed in the bill, 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 small business 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 10 of rule 21. notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 18, 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. the proponent of any such amendment may modify its amendatory instructions before the question is put thereon. all points of order against such amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. 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. 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. section 2. the chair may entertain a motion that the committee rise only if offered by the chair of the committee on small business or her designee. the chair may not entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill, as described in clause 9 of rule 18. section 3.

during consideration of h.r. 2965, the chair may reduce to two minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under clause 6 of rule 18 and clauses 8 and 9 of rule 20. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one hour. mr. polis: for the purposes of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from north carolina, dr. foxx. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i also ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on house resolution 610. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, house resolution 610 provides for consideration of house resolution 2965, the enhancing small business research and innovation act of 2009, under a structured rule. the rule provides for one hour of general debate with 40 minutes controlled by the committee on small business and 20 minutes controlled by the

committee on science and technology. the rule makes in order five amendments printed in the rules committee report. the amendments are debatable for 10 minutes each except for the manager's amendment, which is debated for 30 minutes. it provides one motion to recommit with or without objection instructions. mr. speaker, i rise in support of house resolution 610 and the underlying bill, house resolution 2965, the enhancing small business research and innovation act, which re-authorizes the small business innovation research program and the small business technology transfer program. programs such as these, programs that successfully create high-wedged wage jobs and ensus our technological and competitive advantage in wide areas from software, defense and medicine, are vital, particularly in light of our economic climate. on behalf of my constituents in colorado, whose businesses have prospered as a result of this program, i thank my friend from pennsylvania, mr. altmire, for crafting this legislation. i also thank chairwoman

velazquez and chairman gordon and their staffs for their hard work and efforts to bring this bill in a timely fashion. with the small business innovation and research extensions set to expire at the enof this month, these committees have carefully debated this legislation, and with deliberate speed, have brought us a bill that is an improvement over existing programs and is deserving of swift passage by this body. since its inception in 1982, the sbir has made awards to more than 94,000 projects totaled over $27.7 billion of funding for small businesses. the sbir program was created to help companies provide research funding that creates jobs and allows federal agencies to benefit from the ingenuity of private industry. sbir's companion, the small business technology transfer program, which began in 1992, goes further by incorporating nonprofit research institutes.

this public-private partnership program is a success story that's not only created jobs but also also yielded dividends to agencies that sponsor the program. americans can be proud that federal resources have been leveraged to create innovations that benefited 11 federal agencies that have sbir programs, including the national institutes of health, the department of energy and the department of defense. the research and development of new technologies and processes that is completed by private companies has created efficiency in the departments that sponsor sbir while freeing the resources and staffs for projects that's essential to the agencies' mission, making our nation safer and our citizens better. the success of this program is clear. while only need to look to the patents that has been awarded by sbir or the people employed by participant companies to get a sense of the real value of this program. less tangible but equally

important are the other benefits of this program. across the country, communities have enjoyed the economic impact of investments in small business. the projects of sbir participants have resulted not only in high wage direct research employment but also have generated manufacturing jobs right here in this country and a host of support industry jobs. in my state of colorado, the labs, small business and academia has driven economic growth in good times and bad. it's had a stabilizing effect in hard times. older-based tech-x corporation has created thousands of jobs and licensed software used in nasa, the department of energy and the department of defense. the legislation before us re-authorizes this program that that allows small businesses to

make big plans and helps them succeed. i remind my colleagues that in the midst of a recession we have an obligation to small businesses to pr provide as much security as possible than provides for long-range planning while allowing congress to correct any deficiencies in the program. this is important when you consider the fast pace of change in the high tech industry. we don't just re-authorize the sbir program with this, we also modernize and improve the program. we increase funding levels for phase one and phase two a awards. we clarify the language regarding which companies can participate so no worthwhile innovation is left behind we streamline the sbir and sttr so they operate more efficiently and put taxpayer dollars to the best possible use.

we also put a greater emphasis on bringing products to market and broaden the pool of businesses that participate with outreach to rural and underserved communities. finally and importantly, we increase outreach to our nation's veterans, ensuring that those who served our country have every opportunity to re-enter the business world and succeed financially when they get home. mr. speaker, today we have a great opportunity to re-authorize a program that the government accountability office has said is clearly doing what congress asked it to do in achiefing commercial sales and developmental funding for the private sector. i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and the underlyi legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. foxx: i want to thank my

colleague from colorado for yielding time. however, i must rise in opposition to this closed rule for h.r. 2965 enhancing small business research and innovation act. while there may be many merits to the underlying bill, this would have been a perfect opportunity for the majority to have opened up this process and allowed the house to work its will. this is a relatively noncontroversial bill which might not even have needed to be considered under a rule, except for the opportunity for some of our democratic colleagues to get some amendments passed. we could have -- we're in a very busy time with appropriations process and the schedule is very, very full this week and had we done this, again, under an open rule, i think the process could have gone very, very quickly. however, the majority has

continued its process of shutting out not only the minority, but many of their colleagues by not allowing their amendments to be made in order and so we will oppose this rule on that basis and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: one minor correction, the vule a standard rule -- a structured rule as opposed to a closed rule, i know my colleague on the rule committees is aware of the difference as well. specifically this rule calls for five amendments to be in order, including three republican amendments and two democratic amendments, i think it's a very fair rule. there were 34 amendments submitted to the rules committee, 13 of those were withdrawn by the sponsors and two were nongermane and with that, i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. beiro.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. barrow: i rise in support of thill. this bill is vital to technology research and innovation. i'm pleased it includes a move i sponsored last year to have minority colleges and universities working together with nonprofits. they'll develop relationships with small businesses to expand the small business opportunity this will help grow small businesses where the need and opportunity are the greatest. i believe this bill is critical to sustained job growth and the exact kind of legislation we need right now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield four minutes to my colleague from arizona, mr.

flake. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from arizona is recognized for four minutes. mr. flake: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i rise in opposition to the rule. i submitted a noncontroversial amendment that would have prevented congressional earmarking to any funds appropriated to the federal agencies while carrying out these programs. my amendment was germane. it would have been in order had they simply ruled it in order this seam -- this same amendment has been added several times by voice vote and roll call vote to several other pieces of legislation. there's no controversy here. but i have to wonder why they wouldn't allow this amendment. let me just speculate far minute. under this program, which continues to grow, according to c.r.s., the sbir awarded $45 million for 700 projects in 1983, the year it was established by fiscal year 2006, more than $1.8 billion

was awarded to 6,000 projects. this is projects awarded by the s.b.a. on -- based on merit for the most part, i guess. that's the way the program is set up. as it should be. if you're going to have a program like this i can't pretend to be a fan of this program, but if you are, you allow it to be -- the projects to be distributed, the money for projects, based on merit. the problem is, as we've discovered here in congress, one way to ingratiate yourselves to your constituents and to win re-election is to earmark those kind of funds for projects in your home district and circumvent the process of merit that should go on with federal agencies. that's what we've dean no -- done in program after program after program after program. we were told, for example, when we had the homeland security department established and we started appropriating money to it, we will never earmark these funds, we were told.

don't worry, we're not going to earmark. the last bill that came to the floor, the homeland security bile bill, had hundreds of earmarks in it. there's a program called the predisaster mitigation program. supposed to be for homeland security to award gant to help communits prepare for disasters. guess what? already a quarter of those funds are lopped off the top, earmarked, mostly by appropriators and powerful committee chairs, to their districts. in fact, i think the last figures were 70% of the money that was earmarked was earmarked by fewer than 25% of this body. so it's a spoil system. now this, when you're awarding money to 6,000 projects this is simply irresistible to members of congress who seek to earmark. mark my words if we don't put protections in here, these funds are going to be earmarked.

so the failure to allow the amendment to stipulate that none of these funds should be earmarked should be taken as notice that we're going to start earmarking these funds. that's unfortunate. it's part of a pattern we've seen this this year. we were bringing appropriation bills to the floor under rules. under a structured or closed rule where very few amendments are allowed to even be offered. we'll be considering the agriculture bill, there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of earmarks in that bill. we'll have amendments to strike man a half dozen. that's not transparency and accountability. what good is transparency if you can't actually challenge a number of these earmarks. but they the real purpose of all this, of all this narrowing down the number of amendments that can be offered, believe me, is that we will be appropriating for the department of defense late they are month. there will be more than a

thousand -- may i ask the gentlelady to yield an additional minute. ms. foxx: certainly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. flake: there will be well over is 1,000, if -- over 1,000, if history proves correct here, most of which will be earmarks to private companies, moves which will be in close proximity to campaign contributions that will be returned, circular fundraising that's become a fixture over the past couple of years under republicans and democrats in this house. the purpose of narrowing these bills down, or narrowing the amendments that can be offered, is so we won't have to to the face those kinds of questions on the house floor. is this money being appropriated for this company? is this company or their executives contributing back to the member who secured the earmark? people don't want those questions asked on this floor. that's why you're seeing amendments that won't be allowed in order here. that's what this is about and

it's a shame. we should do better than that. we owe this institution better than this with that, i yield back and urge opposition to the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: the bill before us today has no earmarks and to elaborate upon the processes for awarding funds, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from -- gentleman from oregon, mr. woo. -- mr. wu. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wu: i want to correct the impression my friend and colleague for arizona left. i respect him for his consistency in pursuing certain topics, but i believe on this topic, he's completely missed the mark. federal rese -- research dollars in this program are allocated on a merit, peer-reviewed process that applies to 97.5% of moneys for

research. the products of the research are customizeable, that's why there's 2.5% that 2.5% is given out by each of the agencies that sponsor that research on a merit-based process that is not subject to congressional influence of any kind whatsoever. it is done by the agencies, by peers who are professionals in the field and any impression that my friend and colleague from arizona has left that there is congressional influence and earmarking is completely wrong. he should take his battles about earmarks to an appropriate field and not this one where both the 97.5% of the research dollars that are granted as a peer-he view process is awarded on merit and the 2.5% of the funds awarded under the sbir program is

awarded by peers in the field, based on merit. this has nothing to do with any congressional earmarking process and any allegation to the contrary is just -- just completely misses the mark. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield an additional minute to mr. flake from arizona. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman from oregon for clarifying that. all my amendment would do is say this program should continue to be based on merit, rather than be subject to congressional earmarking. i appreciate what the gentleman has said. unfortunate, we have seen -- unfortunately, we have seen program after program that started off as a merit-based program be earmarked later. all this amendment would have done, would have done what we've done in many other bills by voice vote and roll call vote to stimstip late in the

future, or for the life of this authorization, those moneys that are meant for merit-based programs are not earmarked by congress. so i thank the gentleman for clearing that up, i wish we would have made this in order and the fact that we didn't worries me because this becomes irresist to believe republicans and democrats alike to start earmarking these funds. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. with the nation facing a historically tight credit market, h.r. 2965 makes it easier for small businesses to participate in sbir, find capital and let business owners, not washington bureaucrats, decide how to raise the capital. the common sense improvements of the sbir program, clarifying its mission, will make an already successful program run more efficiently and yield better results for taxpayers and american businesses. the new focus on bringing products to market will help

create more job growth in manufacturing as well as support industry ares. america can be competitive and will continue to be competitive in manufacturing jobs in the high tech sector. as technology improves at a lightning pace, the investments we make today will ensure our nation's technological advantage for years to come. the success of these companies brings new technology, efficiency and economic activity to federal agencies and private industry alike. but more importantly, these successes will spark interest in science and technology now yufmente the advances we make now need a steady pipeline of new minds to keep us on track. we can leave no better legacy to the next generation of americans than our example of intellectual prowess. our colleagues on the small business committee and technology committee uh understand the importance of taking action now for the economic future. it's for this reason that both committees voted unanimously to

bring this legislation to the floor of the house of representatives. mr. speaker, let us follow the example of our colleagues by putting partisanship aside and re-authorizing this program that has been so beneficial to our constituents. let us show the american people that this is what we can accomplish when democrats and republicans work together for the mmn common good. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. manzullo. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. manzullo: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to the rule. there were several germane amendments submitted that would have corrected a fatal flaw in this legislation, and some of those amendments were submitted by congressman markey and gingrey. the bill sets the precedent to redefine what it means to be a small business by allowing large business interests to take advantage of a small business program. i'm not disparaging the venture

capital industry. it's extremendously important, plays a great part and vital role in our economy because venture capitalists fulfill a vacuum that banks simply cannot touch. banks generally do not lend money for long-range research projects that are based on little collateral. however, because venture capital do not get involved in investment, the equivalent of phase 1 funding in the sbir program, efforts to dramatically expand the sbir program to v.c.-owned firms, will go to the small inventor looking for the first phase of feasibility funding. according to the latest data from the small business administration, venture capitalists funded 237 startup or seed investment deals for 894 million in the entire united states in 2005.

in contrast, the sbir program funded 6,010 startup or seed investment deals for 1.86 billion in 2005. in addition, the venture capitalist seed deals were primarily concentrated on five states, california, maryland, massachusetts, pennsylvania and new york. but sbir awards were no dispersed geographically throughout america. that's the problem. -- more dispersed geographically throughout america. that's the problem. ms. foxx: i yield one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. manzullo: thanks the problem, mr. speaker, because the bill comes up as a small business bill. but the language has been changed to allow these large venture capitalist firms to displace funding designated for

years for small businesses. i chaired the small business committee for six years, and year after year this issue came up as to what size company should be involved in getting this type of a grant? and it just does not make sense to now expand the definition of small business to include many of these joint venture firms. or venture capitalist firms. and the protections of the markey amendments or the gingrey amendments, funding designed for small businesses simply will go away. so i would urge the house to oppose the rule and vote against the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: to address the points made by my colleague, mr. manzullo of illinois, previous to this change we are effectively requiring that recipient companies take government money in phase 1 in

order to be eligible for phase 2. by making this change we're saying, you know what, you don't need to rely on the government. you can raise private capital to make yourself eligible for phase 2 and we can have more funding available for phase 2 by reducing the need for phase 1 money by using private capital sources rather than government capital, rather than the taxpayer money that would otherwise go into it. we have protections that would ensure that the majority of the company are owned by those inventors and entrepreneurs that start the company. venture capital investment is typically 30%, 40% of the company. under this bill we also stipulate that it can't be a majority of the company that's owned by the venture capitalist. mr. manzullo: will the gentleman yield? mr. polis: i will. mr. manzullo: a company that gets an sbir grant, but the majority of the stakeholders in the majority owned company have to be individuals.

it still allows the big v.c. companies to come in and gobble up the companies that would otherwise go to small businesses. the venture capitalists do tremendous work, but certainly not in this situation where the money gets diverted from the big companies to the little guys. mr. polis: reclaiming my time. why should companies be forced to accept government grants when there's private capital out there that would be willing to save taxpayer money, bring that technology to the next stage and preserve that taxpayer money and preserve those products and technologies? with that i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, the chairman of the subcommittee of technology and innovation, mr. wu. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. wu: i'd like to address the points raised by mr. manzullo, which i also believe to be erroneous. first, the history of this program has been that from 1982 until 2003 venture capital

investment in sbir companies was not restricted in any way whatsoever. the national acad meese of science studied this issue and said that during that period there's absolutely no evidence that v.c. funding helped crowd out any small businesses. the legislation then and the legislation today limits the businesses that receive sbir grants to those with 500 employees or less. the quintessential definition of what a small business is. now, what happened in 2003 is that a single administrative law judge in boston, massachusetts, interpreted a domestic ownership provision in the law to say that it has to be owned by real american people as opposed to american v.c.'s. that was permitted before. the 2003 ruling has been expanded in effect to bar majority v.c. ownership. that is wrong.

it prevents the public sector from giving money to -- of giving money under this program to very good technologies. it prevents companies from raising money from both the public sector and the private sector, and this argument is completely erroneous about big v.c.'s. we are talking about small companies. we are talking about small companies getting sbir grant funds, and those small companies may have board members from v.c.'s, but they are independent of v.c.'s. and quite frankly, i don't know of a single v.c. -- can i have another minute? mr. polis: i yield another minute to the gentleman from oregon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wu: i don't know a single v.c. that wants to spend the time or energy to control an investment company. what they want to do is to get their money out with a big return.

what the gentleman is concerned about is a scenario that just doesn't occur in the real world. mr. manzullo: will the gentleman yield? mr. wu: and paradoxically what the gentleman is pressing is something that will penalize the smaller companies because it is precisely the smaller company that has to give away more of its equity to v.c.'s to raise the same amount of money. so if you are a three-employee company you might have to give away 60% of your company to raise $1 million. whereas, if you have 30 employees or 300 employees you might only give away 10% of your employee to raise the same amount of money. paradoxally what the gentleman is asking for actually penalizes small startup companies. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker.

i would yield the gentleman from illinois an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. manzullo: when i chaired the small business committee, i had a steady trail of v.c.'s coming to my office wanting to change the law, pleading poverty. and i asked one gentleman, what's your net worth? he said, $40 million. and the meeting ended. the problem with this bill is that it will crowd out the little guys for whom it was originally intended. and the decision that was correctly made by the judge that these are very special setasides. 2.5% are designed for the little guys. the big guys can go after the 97.5%, and what little crumbs were left for the little guys will be eaten away by allowing the v.c.'s to come in under the proposed changes. that's my -- that's my concern with this. and that's based upon six years of people lobbying me to change the bill, and i refused to do that when i chaired the small business committee.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i would share with my colleague from illinois that in my previous career before i came to congress i have been on various sides of this equation. i've been in a venture capitalist investor. i have raised money from individual investors as well. i can't see any good reason why the government should discriminate on the form of capital -- based on form of the capital the company raised. it might be private capital from individual investors. it might be professional venture capital. it might be a grant under darpa. it might be phase 1 grant under sbir. these are all valid ways to raise money. personally, i think it's better when they raise money from people other than taxpayers. if they raise money from venture capitalists, it's a plus. if they raise money from a bank, that's a plus too. the truth is that certain types of businesses are not tangible.

if you're in soft mayor or in e-commerce, you can't borrow. you need to rely on equity capital. by discriminating based on equity capital, by is what we're talking about --hich is what we're talking about, you need to have bankable asset that they're purchasing. sure, certain companies are -- many of the very technology companies we need to support and are going to be a powerful growth sector in biotech and computer technology are going to be companies that can only raise money through equity capital. and by allowing them to do that through allow venture capital-backed companies to be allowed for these programs, we're furthering economic growth. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. wu. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. wu: to address the points raised by mr. manzullo, this is a program that permitted unlimited venture capital participation from 1982 until 2003. the national academies of

sciences studied the program then and now. there is absolutely no evidence that v.c. investment crowds out any small business whatsoever. that was the finding of the national academies of sciences. they also found that by permitting venture capital majority participation companies to apply for sbir it improved the quality pool of the applicants for sbir funds. now, i think one needs to understand that there are two very different segments of this industry. one is the industries that mr. polis and i are more familiar with in biotech and high tech, where companies typically pick up one of these grants or maybe just a couple and they rocket up and grow and become a public company. they get some v.c. investment. it's a hockey puck growth curve. it's the classic high tech startup. there is another group of companies that basically is

concentrated around the defense department, and they are in effect the remp arm of the defense department, -- research arm of the defense department and they are steady state small businesses that are going to have a stream of sbir and sttr grants. and this is how they fund themselves. both are valid business models. this has been a very acrimonious battle between these two very different groups of folks who haven't taken enough time to understand each other. and quite frankly, i came from the high tech high growth model, but i've tried to come to understand this other defense-oriented steady state, many sbir grant model. may i have one more minute, sir? mr. polis: i yield one minute to the gentleman from oregon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wu: thank you, mr. speaker. and what we have in the bill is a careful set of protections so that this is approved by many of the parties around the table, but evidently not all,

that we are going to permit majority venture capital ownership again to improve the quality of applicants so that we choose the proper technologies, the best technologies for both the public and the private sectors. but that there would be certain restrictions on v.c.'s that are owned by large corporations and that no v.c. could control a board of any of these applicants. the provisions in the bill are carefully crafted, and they are emphatically in the interest of the smallest investees, that is those small companies that have to give away more of their equity to get a certain amount of money from a venture capitalist. those are the companies that have been disqualified under the a.l.j. ruling, under the judge's ruling, and the historic norm from 1983 to 2002 will be partially restored by this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from north

carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my understanding that this program has created -- has resulted in many good things happening in our country. we're now going to be spending this year $260.5 million on this program. however, i think that we need to call attention to the many ways that the democrats are harming small businesses in our country. this is a small program, but what they're going to be doing in terms of what we've understood from the democrat health plan that's going to be introduced later this week from press reports, it's going to be partially paid for by imposing a surtax on individuals with income in excess of $250,000 a year. but because most small businesses do not pay corporate income taxes and instead pay taxes on small business income on their individual returns,

small businesses are going to be particularly hard hit by this tax increase. while preseist data is not currently available on the democrat proposal, data is available on many small businesses that pay taxes at the top rate and i want to talk a little bit about that. we have results of a sur vay that nfib has done and it shows that out of all small businesses, 21% of those with 10 to 19 employee, and 40% of those with 20 to 249 employees would be impacted by a tax increase on incomes above $250,000. so while the democrats are giving to a small group of small businesses in this country through this program, they're going to be hurting many, many, many more small

businesses and this, i think, in some ways is a sop to our small business community when what republicans want to do is help all our small businesses and we can do that by keeping our taxes lower instead of raising them on them. i would now like to yield two minutes to my colleague from iowa, mr. king. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. king: i thank the gentlelady for north carolina for yielding and for managing this time. i initially remark that it is refreshing to at least hear from a democrat or two that sound like they do believe and understand in business. that's refreshing, i would think you're not democrats for that reason. i appreciate the dialogue and i look forward to a lot more. maybe we can get to how this free market system really works. i'm curious about the metaphor hockey puck growth curve. i think that's the obama hockey puck growth curve, when you

drop the hockey puck in the middle of the aradio in a -- arena, that's what happened with the economy since the stimulus passed, but i'll let him explain that. i'd like to talk about two amendments i offered in committee, we should be about equal opportunity under the law and opportunities for everyone succeed in this community in a free-market economy. we have a situation where we're going to approve organizations to improve information, yet one of the organizations that could qualify is acorn which ha prozz -- which has produced over 400,000 fraudulent voter registrations, and admitted to that they and their employees are under investigation in 14 states thravepls clear consensus that they're an organization that has at least the image of a criminal organization and those investigations and we're in a

situation where they're coming into the census as well and this congress can't have a voice. eliminate acorn from this, no, we can't have a vote on that on the floor of the house, according to the rule committees and we also have special preferences that are set up in this bill that i believe are unconstitutional. equal protection under the law. these preferences go to either the -- they go to underserved organizations or disabled veterans or women or minorities. if you're not a disabled veteran, the only way you qualify as a woman or minority -- may i have an additional 15 seconds. ms. foxx: i yield an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: i ask the body to think about what that means. we have equal protection under the law, a constitution that should protect us all equally, yet we have legislation before the congress that defines, it will go especially to women and

minorities and if you look at the cross-section of american society, it specifically excludes white men. i think it's discriminatory, i think we need to preserve these resources to go to disabled veterans, that's my amendment, it was turned down and the chair declared my amendment about acorn to be partisan. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: when we were talking about this bill, we were talking about a pro-business bill. there are no taxes in this bill. this is all budgeted for already in the budget that was passed. the democrats have already delivered a number of tax cuts for small businesses. tax cuts are certainly part of the solution. we have done that through the american recovery and reinvestment act, soon we'll be taking up health care, it will be of tremendous benefit to the small businesses of this country this bill, h.r. 2965, which invests in small businesses, is supported by the

advanced technology association, the medical device manufacturing association, the national venture capital association, it's also supported by many patient advocacy group os who recognize that this type of investment will help address the health concerns of many american families. it's supported by the cystic fibrosis foundation, the par sinson action network, the a.l.s. foundation. these are critical reasons for the -- for why we need to pass this rule and pass this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: i find it interesting that my colleague from colorado would be praising a budget passed earlier this year has that has the seeds of the largest tax increase in the history of this country in it and will impact all small businesses adversely. i now would like to yield two

minutes to my colleague from georgia, mr. gingrey. excuse me, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. gingrey: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. with all due respect to my colleague from oregon, my former subcommittee chairman on the science committee of technology and innovation, i do rise in opposition to this rule. i had an amendment that would have been -- would have addressed my concerns. while i'm generally supportive of the bill. i have some concerns relating to venture capital involvement and unfortunately, the rule does not provide for any common sense amendment offered by members on both sides of the aisle, both sides of the aisle that would address these concerns. the gentleman from illinois, mr. manzullo, speck a few minutes ago, former chairman of the small business committee, about these same concerns. venture capital helps small business entrepreneurs gain

credibility on solid ideas that have the potential for commercialization. while venture capital serves as an important component in facilitating small business success, it must also be closely monitored and scrutinized. bauds these grants are intended, mr. speakerfor small businesses for small business research and development we must assure that venture capital does not represent a majority of the financial interest within the company of sbir applicants. existing law and regulation limits a single venture capital firm from owning 49% of the interest of the company applying for the grant. this bill leaves open the possibility that multiple venture capital firms could own the majority of the financial interest within the company. any one could own up to 30% or they could own up to 90% of the company. i believe this goes against the snoifert program, mr. speaker. sbir program is designed to

provide assistance to small business that may have an idea that could be considered a diamond in the rough without necessarily having the financial banking to bankroll a promising idea. we had hearings on this issue and venture capitalists came before us and they were in the business of kind of, it seemed to me, mr. speaker work all due respect, of churning this program. i have great concerns about that. i think overall it's a good program. and mr. polis, you can put me down as supporting the program with all those other organizations that you mentioned, but we should have improved this. we should have had better oversight on venture capital. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. again there is no good economic reason to discrimination -- discriminate on the form of capital, the form of private invest thament go into companies. when you have a company that borrows that has access to

credit, one can argue if they're worth less than they boar re, the bank owns the company, yet they could be eligible for sbir grant. the delofle company cannot reside with venture capitalists. this is a positive step toward making sure that regardless of the source of capital, we invest in the very best techling ins, products, and services for the american people. with that, i yield two and a half minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma mr. boren. mr. boren: i want to thank the chair for bringing this to the floor. the small business innovation research program is an effort by congress to increase the portion of federal research and development dollars provided to small businesses. noticing that small businesses were being crowded out of government r&d grants by large corporations, congress

established the sbir program this program guarantees small businesses a portion of the federal government's large r&d budget. mr. speaker, by any reasonable measure, the sbir program has been a tremendous success. but some members of congress have raised concerns about how the funds are allocated. crics have argued that certain business sectors receive too large a share of the available federal r&d dollars and certain demographics have little success obtaining any sbir award money this bill, brought to the floor by the small business committee, makes a strong effort to address these issues. found in the legislation are attempts to reach out to minority-owned businesses, businesses owned by women, and most-important -- and most important, veteran-owned businesses. it is with the same spirit i ask the small business committee to consider my language which directs agencies with an sbir program to make a concerted effort to reach out

to native american and tribal-owned businesses. my state of oklahoma is home to 38 federally recognized tribes, 17 of which reside in my district. it is my hope that my language, found in the manager's amendment, will make it easier for native american-owned businesses to obtain these valuable sbir awards. again, i want to thank the chairwoman and ranking member of the small business committee for accepting my proposal and i strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation and the rule. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: we are not talking about taxes being in this bill, many, as i've said, support this legislation. however, we do know that this is a drop in the bucket compared to the jobs that the democrats are killing in this country right now. i'll talk a little more about that later.

but just the bill that passed just before we went home for the independence break, the cap and tax bill, we know is going to eliminate between one million and seven million jobs in this country, if it's enacted system of the jobs -- many, many more jobs are being killed by this congress than are being created by this small bill. i'd now like to yield two minutes to our colleague from new york, mr. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lee: i want to thank my friend for the time and i rides to strongly oppose the rule for h.r. 2165 because i strongly support the sbir and sttr programs, i tried to offer an amendment to ensure that focus remains on the original mission to support true smalm businesses, flame-owned startups that rely on these programs as their main source of seed capital. embedded in this legislation is an erroneous provision that

makes venture capital funded companies eligible to participate in these two critical grant programs. this is a serious flaw. i have major concerns about the potential for highly organized and well funded venture capital organizations to swamp the system and crowd out those small businesses. those small businesses that are creating jobs in this country from getting access to capital. many of these small businesses reside in my district in western new york and there's such a hard time right now trying to stay afloat this bill now allowing venture capital to come in is the wrong message. this sentiment has been echoed by members of the 26th -- my 26th congressional district advisory board and one of the members wrote, it appears likely that the change pross posed in this bill will result in a distribution of dollars to areas with a greater number of venture capital-backed companies, such as

massachusetts and california. my amendment was not accepted which sun fortunate, because just last year, the senate forged a sensible, bipartisan compromise on this issue. hopefully they will play a similar role now given the house ice failure to lead on this issue. washington is simply not doing enough to support small businesses in these tough economic times, that's why i urge my colleagues to vote down this rule swow can craft a stronger bill, with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time this ethe gentleman from cog. -- colorado. poil pohl theris somewhat of a mis-- mr. polis: there is somewhat of a misunderstanding of what venture capital is. it's not if the company is large or small. there is a provision if it is a small company. whether they receive their financing from a bank, from individual investors, from

labor financing, which means people not taking a salary and kind of working for free or on spec, there's a variety of ways to finance companies and it shouldn't be the business of the government to discriminate on how a particular company chooses to finance itself. with that i'd like to yield 1 1/2 minuteto the gentleman from virginia, mr. pierriello. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from recognized for -- the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. pierriello: small businesses cree aids over 2/3 of new jobs. they play a vital role in research and development of new technologies. small businesses are at the cutting edge of the new clean energy economy. before leaving for the fourth of july we bravely passed an energy bill declaring our independence from oil executives and petro dictators. as we return to do the people's business, we must pass legislation that will help our small businesses drive and promote the research and energy in alternative fuels. there are many businesses in my

district leading the nation on new technology. from the production of biodiesel at red birch and henry, to nanotechnology at luna nanoworks around danville. we must ensure that our small businesses, the dynamic engine of our economy are not left behind in the conduct of new breakthrough research. while i share concerns about opening the program up to venture capitalist firms, i ask my colleagues to support the small businesses over the petro dictators. vote for this rule and this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd now like to yield three minutes to our distinguished colleague from michigan, mr. ehlers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. ehlers: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i'm pleased that the bill

before us today leaves the amount set aside for extra budgets of 2.5% for the sbir and .3% for sttr programs, and that that remains unchanged. last year the house considered legislation which would have increased the setasides for these programs. however, an amendment i offered at that time on the floor of the house to leave the setasides unchanged was voice voted on the floor and approved. there's a good reason for this. if we do want to increase the amount of money going into the sbir and sttr programs, the money should come from increasing the allocations to the basic research programs from which these particular programs receive a percentage. i believe that the amendment proved -- i offered last year proved to be noncontroversial because of the overwhelming support for increasing funding for these important programs by increasing the overall research funding at the agencies. i understand, however, that the senate version of this bill

does include an increase in the setaside. by increasing the setaside we will only eat away the base funding for the research for our agencies. i'd much rather see us fight for extra funding increases, which will benefit the tech transfer activities of these programs, and i certainly hope that the house conferees will stand strong on this issue in conference with the senate. the house has done the right thing, and we must support our conferees on that point. a coalition of more than 100 scientific and professional societies, universities and research institutions have written a letter of support for maintaining their current allocation levels, stating that increase in setasides would have $1 billion for research dollars when future funding levels are uncertain.

another letter says, we believe there is no justification for such increases, especially as such increases would come at the expense of peer reviewed and applied basic research programs. i've included a copy of this letter and another one for the record. it is my hope that the conferees will support sbir and sttr growth through overall funding increases for our innovationation instead of increasing the setasides. in other words, the house today is taking the right action precisely as they did last year. it's extremely important for us to stand together when dealing with the senate conferees and assist on taking this approach. this is a much better approach to take. and i congratulate the house committee on dealing with that. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i'd like to inquire of the gentlewoman from north carolina if she has any remaining speakers.

ms. foxx: we have -- i will close for us if you have no more speakers. mr. polis: yes, i am the last speaker for our side so i'll reserve the balance of my time until the gentlewoman has closed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. we've had a very good debate on this rule. we've explained why the rule should not be -- we've explained why the rule should not be approved. amendments to the bill were not accepted, and we should be dealing with those amendments. we want to make sure that the money that is going to help small businesses this this country is being used as wisely as it can be. we know right now that the american people are hurting and continuing to lose jobs. the impact of the policies of this administration and the democratically controlled congress have been devastating, not only to large but also to

small businesses. the obama administration and congressional democrats promised us earlier this year that their $1 trillion stimulus would create jobs immediately, and unemployment would not rise above 8%. in june alone, almost half a million jors were lost, driving un-- jobs were lost, driving unemployment to .5%, the highest level in almost -- 9.5%, the highest level in almost three decades. it's clear that the democrats' $1 trillion stimulus bill isn't working. every american has the right to ask, where are the jobs that were promised by them? every american has to ask on every piece of policy that we pass here, how is it going to impact jobs? how is it going to impact me as an american? small businesses, particularly, have a concern about this. we have been spending hours and hours and hours doing things like honoring sports teams and

athletes for their achievements . we've honored people retiring from their jobs. universities on various anniversaries and other items that are not critical to the operations of our government. we want to acknowledge the achievements of all of these people and all of these groups, but what we should be doing is spending time talking about what we need to be doing to bring back this economy. but the democrats constantly say they have the schedule that they have to adhere to, and as a result of it, they have to limit the amendments that can be offered on the floor to these important bills. those are very not good excuses while the american people, i think, are hurting. they, again, have the right to ask, where are the jobs that were promised? what is happening to this economy? the american people also know we cannot tax and spend and bail our way back to a growing

economy. the democrats in this body are on the side of more government and more taxes. small businesses, not government, are the engine of our economy. house republicans are on the side of the american people, and what we want to do is focus on small businesses to help put america back to work. we know that the health care bill that's going to come forward, we believe, later this week or next week, will have lots of tax increases in it that are going to finance their health, quote, reform proposal. however, what it's going to do is have a negative impact on small businesses. as i mentioned earlier, the cap and tax bill, which passed here 10 days ago, will eliminate between one million and seven million jobs in this country if it is enacted. so while there is this small

sock to small businesses and to the american people in the form of this bill, i am going to urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule for h.r. 2965, enhancing small business research and innovation act, because we could be doing better for the american people and particularly better for small businesses. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: mr. speaker, if small businesses are the engine that drives our economy, then investment is the fuel. by ensuring that a portion of federal research dollars are invested in small businesses, sbir and sttr are fueling job creation and technological innovation. since 1992, sbir has issued 65,000 grants to small companies that are engaged in cutting edge research to cure diseases, strengthen our national defense and reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources.

this congress has been tasked with helping american families keep their jobs through the worst economic downturn since the great depression. we now have an unemployment rate of 9.25%. while there's been disagreement on the best prescription to get our economy moving again, we're fortunate that we have in place programs that are time tested. every year the sbir program invests $2.2 billion in small businesses, helping 1,500 new firms get off the ground. mr. speaker, i speak on behalf of tech exs in boulder, community power corporation in littleton and the many other small businesses which have benefited from the sbir in my state of colorado and across the country. and, again, i commend the members and staff who've worked diligently to bring this bipartisan bill to the floor. mr. speaker, as i have said before and will continue to say, so much of our work thus far in congress has moved us in the direction of creating more jobs. whether it was passing the budget or work on health care,

clean energy, education, the recovery act, the green schools bill, and even the water quality investment act created jobs. this bill is just another step on the road to recovery. i urge a yes vote on the previous and on the rule, and yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. all those in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on adoption of house resolution 1610 will be followed by five-minute votes on motions to suspend the rules on h.r. 1275, if ordered, and motion to

suspend the rules on h.r. 1945, if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 233, the nays

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 236, the nays are 187. the resolution is adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing h.r. 1275 as amended. which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: union calendar number 96, h.r. 1275, a bill to direct the exchange of certain land and -- in grand san juan county, utah, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- >> mr. speaker, on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 420, the nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 423, are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing h.r. 1945, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 1945, a bill to require the secretary of the interior to conduct a study on the feasibility and suitable of

constructing a storageres. vaw, outlet works for the tule river indian tribes in the state of california to provide a water -- water supply for industrial, residential and agricultural purposes, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. mr. hastings: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on

this vote, the yeas are 417, the nays are three. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are susp and the bill is passed, without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york rise? the house will come to order. please remove conversations from the floor. house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york rise?

ms. ve laz quezz texas spi ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection; so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 610 and the rule 18, the chair declares the housed in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for trgs of h.r. 2965. the chair appoints the gentleman from arkansas, mr. ross, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the committee will be in order. the committee is in the

committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2965, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend the small business act with respect to the small business innovation program and the small business transfer program and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the -- the chair: the bill is considered read the first time, debate shall not exceed one hour, with 40 minutes equally divided by the chair and ranking minority member on the committee on small business, the gentlelady from mes, brfrives each will control 20 minutes, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. gordon and the gentleman from texas, mr. hall, each will control 10 minutes.

the gentlewoman from new york. ms. velazquez: i rides in support of h.r. 2965, updating an and enhancing the sbir and sttr. the chair: the gentleman is recognize. ms. velazquez: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in support of h.r. 28965 which will re-authorize and improve the s.b.a.'s, sbir and sttr programs this bill has strong bipartisan support and would work to invest in entrepreneurial innovation and job growth. while our economy is recovering, it still has a ways to go. even now we need to be be 230e cused on putting americans back to work. we need growth that's lasting and industries that are sustainable. we need jobs that cannot be shipped overseas and will not evaporate -- evaporate in the

next cycle of boom and bust. those jobs aren't going to appear out of thin air they need to be created, by expanding existing industries and unlocking new ones, h.r. 2965 will generate the jobs we need. these programs are vital to small business growth. they help jump start 1,500 new companies. at the very least, that is 1,500 new employers. over time, that is millions and millions of direct and indirect positions. but while this initial -- these initiatives are crucial, they're not living up to their full potential. through h.r. 2965 we can improve sbir and sttr so they're running at maximum capacity. job creation, mr. chairman, is the primary goal of r&d but in order to generate new positions, we have to first develop new industries. commercialization is critical to

that process. but unfortunately most research never makes it to the market. to address that issue, we are creating commercialization bench marks. we're also encouraging conversations between sbir officers and purchasing agencies. ultimately those dialogues will enhance the flow of information between buyers and sellers, helping more ideas from the drawing board to the marketplace. when all is said and done, commercialization means more than new products. it means new jobs. once a product hits the mainstream, it opens up a world of opportunity in a wide range of industries from retail to manufacturing. by stimulating these sectors, we can help our economy on its route to recovery. even as our economy rebounds, small firms struggle to find funding, particularly equity investment. just a year ago venture capital

firms drove $5.7 billion into small companies. today we have seen almost a 50% decline. in terms of what that means for the economy, there are now 3.-- $3.7 billion fewer to help small businesses creats jobs. the programs -- the regulations only compound those challenges. by shutting venture capital out, we are blocking billions of dollars to create jobs. and limiting our ability to innovate. what are we supposed to say to a venture-backed firm that is researching curious for pancreatic reatic canser? with we supposed to shake our heads and say, sorry, you've done some promising research but we just can't help you find a cure? mr. chairman, this program is better than that. that is why h.r. 2965 gives

small firms not washington bureaucrats the final say in how their firms are financed. this bill provides for the reasonable use of venture capital while maintaining important safeguards. make no mistake, sbir and sttr are and forever will be small business programs. this provision doesn't change that. what it does do is give small firms the funding they need to develop new products. even with the necessary capital, small firms struggle to see r&d from start to finish. that is because it is a complex process. measures to block funding delays and increased efficiently is stream line r&d, helping more products make it out of the laboratory and into the marketplace. meanwhile, we're going to broaden the scope of american invention.

silicone valley doesn't hold the franchise on innovation which is why h.r. 2965 reaches out to underserved rural areas. through cutting edge technology and grassroots marketing, it also seeks to bring women, minorities and veterans into the sbir and sttr programs. innovation is the first stop on the path to prosperity. by enhancing and expanding sbir and sttr we can encourage small business growth in all parts of the country. in doing so, we will help our small firms to grow, innovate and most importantly, create homegrown jobs. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas. i'm sorry, the gentleman from missouri. mr. graves: it's ok, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume.

the chair: the gentleman from missouri is voiced. mr. graves: i rise in support of h.r. 2965, the enhancing small business research and innovation act of 2009. innovation happens every day. whether it is a new development in the fight for cancer, a new computer system designed to protect our soldiers, more and more good ideas are coming from america's small businesses. the small business innovative research, the sbir, and the small business technology transport, sttr, programs help to take ideas and turn them into practical products. by all accounts, the sbir and sttr programs are highly successful federal initiatives designed to encourage economic growth and innovation within the small business community. created in 1982, the sbir program offers competition-based awards to stimulate technological innovation among small private sector businesses while providing government agencies with new cost effective solutions to meet their needs. this program is not only critical to the unique needs that each of the participating federal agencies but also to our

national economy. small businesses invigorate the u.s. economy by introducing new products and lower cost methods of doing business. sometimes with substantial economic benefits. they play a key role in introducing new technologies to the market, often responding quickly to new market opportunities. our committee worked in a bipartisan manner to produce this legislation. we held several hearings on this topic over the last few months, inviting the small business administration, sbir and sttr program managers from federal agencies, various small businesses, academics, to discuss this program's successes and consider amendments to improve them. i'm happy to say that many of the ideas that were presented to the committee have found their way into this legislation. for example, the topic that dominated much of the discussion at our heangs was the appropriate level of venture capital involvement in the sbir program. unfortunately there have been several misconceptions stated about this provision in the bill. in 2003, the small business

administration reversed a 20-year-old policy by ruling the small businesses that are majority owned by venture capital companies can no longer compete for grants under the sbir program regardless of how few employees the companies have. as a result, this has jeopardized the development of innovative treatments, therapies and technologies. the goal of our proposal is to ensure that america's small billses continue to be the world's leader in innovative research and development and to provide the best small companies with the greatest commercialization potential access to sbir and sttr programs. in addition, access to capital is a real concern for small businesses across all industries and our provision provides small businesses another path to acquire the capital they need to be successful. it is also important to keep in mind that these programs are -- remain open for competition among all small businesses and federal agencies will choose the best small business to win the award. h.r. 2965 contains significant and dedicated safeguards to ensure that the sbir program remains a small business

program. it for bid as small business with one venture capital firm for having over 50% ownership from qualifying for that small business award. the bill also has safeguards that prohibit large companies from taking control of a small business and receiving small business grants. the legislation also bans a business whose board's majority is from a capital firm, it prevents them from participation in the program. finally, because venture capital investments are often done as a group to reduce risk, the bill strictly limits the amount of participation of venture capital firms that they are themselves owned by a business of over 500 employees. a comprehensive bill also takes significant strides to bring the programs into the 21st century by increasing the award sizes, enhancing data collection and reporting requirements for better oversight and providing federal agencies with a mechanism by which they can meet and share best practices. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation and i would reserve the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman from missouri reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york. the gentleman from oregon. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. in today's economy, small business is where innovation happens. the science and technology committee intends to promote science and technology research that drives an innovation economy. that is why i rise in support of h.r. 2965, the enhancing small business research and innovation act. at more than $2.3 billion per year, the small business innovation research and small business technology transfer programs comprise the largest source of federal support for technological innovation in the private sector. given the current economic climate, we need robust sbir and sttr programs to create the next generation of companies that

will provide high paying jobs and grow our economy. however, these programs originated more than 25 years ago. given the economic changes we have seen during the past two decades, we need to update these programs to reflect the current economic realities of our increasingly competitive innovation economy. the committees on small business and the committee on science and technology have held numerous hearings on sbir and sttr over the past several years. witnesses shared many recommendations about how sbir and sttr can be strengthened. recently both committees overwhelmingly supported h.r. 2965 with each committee voting favorably to re-authorize sbir and sttr through 2011 with some much needed modernization and changes. the legislation has been endorsed by more than 100 organizations, including the

american association of universities, bio, the national venture capital association, the energy sciences coalition and the cystic fibrosis foundation. the bill increases the award sizes for phase one and phase two to reflect the actual cost of doing high-tech research today. it also increases the flexibility of sbir by allowing cross agency awards and allowing applicants to apply directly for phase two funding. h.r. 2965 allows venture capital-backed small businesses to once again apply for awards and specifically defines their eligibility requirements. this temporary ban on venture capital majority ownership was the result of a ruling in 2003 by administrative law judge in -- by an administrative law judge in boston. for 20 years since the inception of the program venture

capital-funded companies could freely participate in these programs. there is no evidence, there is no evidence anywhere that during that time there was any crowdout of other businesses by v.c.-backed businesses. there has been a lot of debate over the role of venture capital participation, but the national academy studies recently released states that venture-backed companies are important, they contribute greatly to technological development and they do not, emphatically, do not crowd out other small businesses. the goal of sbir is to encourage innovation. it is time that we fix the administrative ruling of a single judge and support more innovative small businesses and the best technology that we can help bring to market. today we recognize our leadership by re-authorizing sbir and sttr and i want to commend chairwoman have a lazzkess, in particular, for her commitment to small business innovation. i urge my colleagues to support

this bill and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i consume. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized. >> thank you. i'm pleased to rise in support of h.r. 2965. as the country continues to suffer through this deep economic recession, we have regular debates in this house and in washington regarding what policies will best help to alleviate the current downturn and accelerate recovery. all too often in these debates, it seems there is a tendency to overlook an important fundamental fact. government does not create wealth and prosperity. it is created, rather, in the private sector by risk-taking entrepreneurial americans with ideas in capital and their own hard work and there's arguably no element of the private sector better equipped to drive the economic turnaround than america's high-tech small businesses. to this end, there are ways that government can help turn our economy around, by minimizing its interference in the economy

and fostering an environment where private sector innovators can flourish and their ideas can be developed into new goods and services which increase productivity and our quality of life. by providing small amounts of early stage funding to entrepreneurs with cutting edge ideas, the small business innovation research program and small business technology transfer program can help do that. with 12 participating agencies and total funding in excess of $2.3 billion, the sbir and sttr programs re-authorized in this bill serve to facilitate increased private sector commercialization of these promising ideas while helping the government advance its r&d goals and meet its technology needs. the legislation before us provides statutory clarity to what have been venture capital

backed companies. i think the growing consensus in support of this legislation's proposed change sass strong indication they are on target. maximizing the eligible of legitimate small businesses while minimizing the inappropriate eligibility of large businesses. i want to note my strong support of title 3 for this bill which includes language i included in a similar bill last year. the language requires agencies to give priority consideration to rural areas so as to increase award recipients from these areas. this is important to reach areas such as my home state of nebraska which has low participation in the programs but are home to entrepreneurial business owners. i want to commend chairman gordon, ranking member hall, and chairman wu, as well as our colleagues on the small business committee for their work on this legislation. i look forward to working with them to ensure smooth and timely passage of this bill as

it moves to the senate and into conference. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman fro -- the gentlewoman from new york. ms. velazquez: mr. speaker, i -- mr. chairman, i yield to the gentleman from virginia, mr. nye for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. nye: i'd like to thank chairman velazquez for his leadership and ranking member graves. as leader of the group on small business technology, i've held several hearings to discuss how we can do more to help the businesses of tomorrow. two things became clear. small businesses are the single most innovative sector of the economy and with the right support, they have the power to lead us out of this recession. sbir is a vital program that

limits the risk that small business innovators face. the sbir program is critical to technology created by small businesses. each year it helps 1rks50 0 countries get off the ground. startups that receive grants are productive job creators. the employment growth rate for these businesses is nearly four times that of larger firms, employing 40% of high tech workers. these firms have triggered extraordinary achievements. take, for example, night vision goggles or technology for unmanned aviation. it's crucial to improving tools that support our national security. at $1.23 billion, the d.o.d. makes up more than half of all sbir funding. were it not for critical breakthroughs accounting for improvements in technology from our defense to health care, may have never made it to market. yet countless other new

technologies don't make it past the laboratory doors. innovation is a risky, resource-intensive process. without proper funding, even the most brilliant invention may never make it. sbir and sttr are important tools were developing new products. but not just as a means for invention. by sparking innovation they mark the surest path to unlocking new markets, expanding new industries and most importantly, creating new jobs. this bill is an important step toward lasting growth and i look forward toits passage. i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman from missouri. mr. graves: i yield five minutes to the ranking member of the contracting subcommittee, mr. schock.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. schock: i rise in support of this bill. it incorporates language i introduced in h.r. 2172, the sbir and sttr improvement act. i would i thinklike to thank my colleagues for moving this piece of legislation forward and doing so in a bipartisan way. i also want to thank my colleague congressman nye for his work with me on the subcommittee level to ensure the process of modernizing the small business innovation research program was done in an effective, efficient, and bipartisan fashion with the input from those who are most important, that is, the small business sector who utilizes this important program. the small business innovation research, or sbir program, as we refer to it, was established over 20 years ago and is an important resource in assisting

small business owners wishing to bring their technological advancements to the marketplace. while small business owners represent some of the brightest innovators our country has, because of the high cost of doing technological research for the government, small businesses are unfortunately often underrepresented in receiving such research-intensive government contracts. when the federal government looks to the private sector for the development of new technologies and ideas, they must look beyond large corporate conglomerates to the small businesses that drive our economy and create american jobs. i am encouraged that this legislation and the language contained in it will make a number of necessary and overdue changes to the sbir program, ensuring its continued yution to help in the commercialization of those innovations made in small businesses. additionally, it will equip the sbir program with important new tools to bring it more in line with the needs of small

business owners in the 21st century. included are important provisions to allow for increased oversight, more transparency and greater flow of information between the recipient and participating agencies. we'll have more timely solicitation responses from the agency the creation of an online database to properly study and measure those participating in the program and new restrictions regarding potential program abusers. these will help sbir continue to be one of the few government-assisted program that actually work. finally, by responsibly increasing grant limits, which are not been altered in over 20 years since the program's inception, while same all tainusly not increasing the total funding fool, we ensure this program is streamlined to become more effective and efficient to focus on granting funds to those potentially successful ideas that need this type of support to transition

from concept to reality. rather than throw manager taxpayer money at an unnecessarily large amount of grant the sbir program will focus on those inside that possess the potential to reach full commercialization phase. today this house will make the important changes to the sbir program. tone sure its continued use as a resource to allow businesses to bring new and novel ideas to the market, which helps bring value to our economy which we know desperately needs it. knowing that over 60% of american citizens get their paycheck from a small business, it only seems right in this tough economic time that we focus on beefing up those support efforts at the federal government level to help the largest employers in our country, small businesses. i urge a yes vote and patsage of the bill, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from

oregon. mr. wu: i'd like to recognize mr. tonko, a lead for the energy innovation, and yield him two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. tonko: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as you know, small businesses are the engine that will repower america's economy. research and innovation in the small business venue have contributed to advances in science and technology across the board. in fact, the city of schenectady in my congressional district, the ninth largest city in new york city is nicknamed the electric city after thomas edison moved his company, edison machine works there, in 1887, followed by the opening of g.e. headquarters in 1892. today we are considering the enhancing small business research and innovation act of 2009. rise in full support of h.r. 2965. this program has proven to be one of the most successful federal programs for

technological innovation in the united states history, delivering more than 60,000 patents and hundreds of valuable innovations in agricultural in defense, in energy, in health sciences, meland security, space, trsportation, and other fields. through phase one and phase two sbir, countless jobs have been created in the capital region of new york state. it is through programs such as sbir that my district has developed underpinnings of support for a boom in high technology innovation and economic recovery. in fact, just over a month ago a constituent of mine, dr. james wu of intervines, inc., in troy, new york, was at a conference in virginia that was to showcase navy sbir projects to large manufacturers for transition. a great majority in attendance supported protecting the small business opportunity that was been part of this program. the reason is because small,

innovative companies should have a genuine place at the federal table. this place is for backyard inventors and local contractors, for small and very small businesses where the research is not likely a breakthrough in technology, but a breakout of implementation. at a time when our national unemployment is at 9.5%, we should do nering our power to strengthen small businesses that generate 70% of new job nours country. it is important that we continue this and mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from nebraska. >> i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york. ms. velazquez: i yield to the bill's sponsor, mr. jason altmire, for four minutes. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for four minutes. mr. altmire: i thank the chairman, some of these innovative small business that are involved in this bill used

to qualify for venture capital funding under the previous rulings that were in effect until the year 2003. i introduced the enhancing small business innovation and research act to modernize key program nrs country's greatest innovators, america's small businesses. since its inception in 1983, the sbir program has facilitad american competitiveness prorkviding quality research and spurring technological innovation. but technology has changed since the last re-authorization. more than a decade ago. my legislation re-authorizes the program to keep up with the needs of modern small businesses. additionally, this bill expands the talent pool from which the programs can draw by broadening the types of businesses that can participate to a more diverse set of firms and making sbir reserge more available to all areas of the country, even those not traditionally

considered to be hotbeds of r&d. under this bill, federal funding will be focused on supporting the work most likely to develop new products by targeting research toward small businesses with the highest likelihood of commercialization. perhaps most important, this bill helps firms participating in the sbir programs to attract private investment. as we respond to the recession, sbir and the small business technology transfer programs are two critical tools to provide valuable seed money for entrepreneur whors willing to explore untested concepts and develop new products. today, it is difficult for small businesses to access financing by any means, venture capital or otherwise. we should be helping small firms to raise capital, not penalizing those that do. in my home region of western pennsylvania, venture capital

investments have spurred a resurgence in life science and biotech startups. some of these innovative small businesses have partnered with businesses in cleveland, ohio to promote prives investment and growth and now more than 80 venture capital funds have invested in dozens of health care enterprises throughout this tech beltre john. allowing cutting edge firms to compete for sbir grants will foster innovation and accelerate job growth. small businesses are our nation's greatest innovators. ski my colleagues to support the small businesses in their districts by supporting this bill. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of miz time -- of his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. graves: at this time, i reserve the balance of my time, i don't have any more speakers. the chair: the gentleman from oregon. mr. wu: i'd like to inquire how much time remains -- the