Providing for Consideration of H. Res. 22, Expressing the Sense of the House that American Small Businesses are Entitled to a Small Business Bill of

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 22, EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE HOUSE THAT AMERICAN SMALL BUSINESSES ARE ENTITLED TO A SMALL BUSINESS BILL OF RIGHTS -- (House of Representatives - April 27, 2005)

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I might consume.

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this closed rule. Once again, the majority has muted debate on a piece of legislation for no legitimate reason. The resolution has not been fully debated before the committee of jurisdiction and, as a result, it fails to include a number of priorities important to small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the engine of America's economy, representing more than 95 percent of all employers, creating half of our gross domestic product, and creating 3 out of 4 of new jobs nationwide. Small business owners are leaders in innovation, creating new technology, new products, and more effective business operations. The government should help small business owners achieve their goals, not stand in their way. I think this is something all Members can support.

There are some very good elements of this ``small business bill of rights'' resolution that I support. I believe small business should not be hampered with unnecessary restrictive regulations and paperwork. I support the provision insisting that small businesses have the right to equal treatment and should have expanded access to capital and credit.

Opening up assets to government contracts for small businesses should be a top priority for Congress. I support the principle in House Resolution 22 that we must consider legislation to create a fair and open Federal contracting system to make sure that everyone has a fair shot in winning a Federal contract. There must be an end to the practice of awarding ``mega contracts'' that take opportunities away from small businesses at no savings to the taxpayer. We must institute a fair contracting appeals process for small businesses to be heard.

I also support expanding contract opportunities for women, low-income individuals, and minorities by strengthening such key business development programs as 8(a). These actions will reduce current barriers and ensure small businesses have access to perform Federal contracts.

But small businesses have expressed additional priorities, and I wish we would have included them in the resolution. Instead, the majority chose to insert partisan agenda items.

During the committee markup, the chairman restricted debate time on all amendments to 4 minutes per side. After considering the first 5 amendments, the chairman moved to cut off debate, which passed on a strict party-line vote. This was done despite having two Democratic amendments still pending before the committee.

One of these amendments, offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) and the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), would have strengthened programs for minority entrepreneurs. The other, offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. LINDA SÁNCHEZ), would express support for the microloan program which the administration eliminated in its fiscal 2006 budget.

I understand that the chairman had only allotted an hour for the committee markup, but we have an opportunity today with this rule to provide time for the debate we should have had. These thoughtful amendments should be heard. So far this year, the Committee on Rules has only reported one open rule, just one, out of 21 rules. It is time to allow Congress to do its job, and part of that job is to openly discuss the priorities facing our Nation.

Why not make time for this debate? The Members that were denied debate in committee came before the Committee on Rules last night to urge their amendments be made in order. Several other amendments were also offered. I cannot help but point out that our legislative schedule this week has plenty of room in it. Not surprisingly, however, the majority chose not to have a full debate and ignored amendments that could have improved this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the amendments blocked from consideration today would have made House Resolution 22 a complete bill of rights. For instance, small business owners need access to capital and technical expertise if they are to make the most of their opportunities. The Small Business Administration provides this critical assistance to small business owners. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sánchez) and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean) offered amendments recognizing that we should be supporting all of SBA's programs, including the microloan and 7(a) lending programs. But, again, this rule risks leaving a gaping hole in this list of rights.

House Resolution 22 could also be strengthened to ensure that minority business owners retain their place as a vibrant part of the U.S. economy. The Barrow-Moore amendment, if made in order, would do just that. While minority individuals comprise nearly one-third of the population, only 15 percent of businesses are minority-owned. These businesses employ 5 million people and generate nearly $600 billion in revenue. Given the gap between the number of individuals and the business ownership rate, it is clear that an entrepreneurial divide exists in this country. One of the most significant reasons for this divide is the fact that minority-owned companies have not seen legislative updates for nearly 20 years. Congress must bring these programs into the 21st century. Minority business owners deserve the right to have these important initiatives modernized.

The only way to achieve a complete bill of rights is to include all of the rights small businesses are asking for. A closed rule does not do this. An open rule, a better rule, would allow full debate on small business priorities. An open rule today would allow the House of Representatives to consider the importance of such issues as access to affordable capital and changing the Federal marketplace to meet the needs of small business. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this closed rule.

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

http://thomas.loc.gov