Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. We do not oppose this amendment. I'm more used to dealing with the gentleman from Texas on some other issues, particularly his commitment as chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, and so many other issues. We have worked together on a whole range of issues attempting to protect children in this country. I want to thank him for his leadership in that area, and I also thank him for offering this amendment.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3867, the Small Business Contracting Program Improvements Act. I strongly support the provisions in the bill that help those Americans, veterans of our Armed Forces, who have provided the great sacrifices to defend our freedom and our way of life. However, there are other provisions that are sufficiently problematic that makes it impossible for me to support the overall bill. In 1997, Congress established the Historically Underutilized Business Zone, or HUBZone program. The program is designed to assist areas of low income and high unemployment by providing incentives for government contractors to relocate in these areas and expand their operations. By making it easier for small businesses located in HUBZones to win Federal contracts, Congress expected more government contractors to relocate in these areas and provide an important component to their revitalization. As anyone who has traveled through many urban and rural districts realizes, they have a large number of HUBZones. Unfortunately, H.R. 3867 could make it more difficult for HUBZone firms to win government contracts and thereby detract from the ability of this program to help revitalize urban and rural areas that need greater economic development. Mr. Chairman, while I concur with the Chair of the committee that we need to ensure that only firms eligible for the HUBZone program participate, it is unnecessary to take punitive action against HUBZone firms as a result of a few bad actors. I am sure that if we scrutinize each of the procurement programs, we could find a few bad actors in each. That justifies taking appropriate legal action against the bad actors. It does not, in our view, necessitate punishing the firms that complied with the letter and spirit of the law. It also is important to note that a number of the issues raised in this legislation are being addressed by the administrator of the SBA. I certainly understand the frustration that Members of Congress have when the executive branch does not implement legislation in a timely manner. Nevertheless, one aspect of this bill involves a program that has not been implemented for 7 years. While that normally would suggest further legislative action, the administrator, we believe, is doing everything possible at this point to issue rules, a process that can take time. In addition, the program is the subject of a lawsuit in which the plaintiffs have not sought any subsequent court action for nearly 2 years since the Federal Court ruled that the SBA violated the Administrative Procedure Act and failed to implement the program. Mr. Chairman, I also would point out that the bill as reported out of committee, in our opinion, would only complicate the implementation of the procurement program. While I understand that the chairwoman will be offering an amendment to correct that problem, it does so by classifying 92 percent of the industries in the United States as historically underrepresented by women businesses and Federal procurement. While I concur that women are historically underrepresented in the Federal procurement arena, the amendment paints, we believe, with a broad, over-inclusive brush, and may include numerous industries in which businesses are not underrepresented by women entrepreneurs. I also need to point out that the bill would classify individuals as economically disadvantaged if they have assets exclusive of their primary residence and their business up to $550,000. So over a half million dollars. According to research by our staff, roughly half the Members of Congress, half the Members of this body would qualify as economically disadvantaged under that standard. I find it very difficult to believe that the average American would consider a Member of Congress to be economically disadvantaged. These are only some of our concerns about the bill that we have before us here today. While some of these concerns are technical in nature, my primary dispute with the bill is that it continues, unfortunately, to segment the small business government contracting arena. The result is that, in our opinion, rather than growing opportunities for all small businesses, it pits all of these deserving groups against one another. That, in our view, undermines their ability to speak as a united front in debates over Federal procurement policy that would promote all of their interests. Despite my disagreement with the chairwoman, I do not doubt her sincere desire to improve the SBA contracting programs. The Chair and her staff, particularly Michael Day and Adam Minehardt, should be commended for their efforts in trying to find a solution that I, in good conscience, could have supported. However, the philosophical gap was simply too large to span. Therefore, I cannot support this legislation. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Chairman, we have no opposition to this amendment. We would thank the gentleman for his hard work in offering the amendment.

Mr. CHABOT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve.

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. We agree with the comments both in the gentleman's points he made in his presentation as well as the gentlelady's, and we support the amendment as well.

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Chairman, we have no opposition to this amendment. We would thank Mr. Welch of Vermont for his hard work on this and his leadership on the committee.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment, even though I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3678, the Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments Act, as amended by the Senate. The Internet has changed the way we communicate, learn, and do business--all for the better. Since the Internet tax moratorium was first adopted, tremendous investment, growth and innovation in the scope and use of the Internet has occurred. By preventing unnecessary taxation of the Internet, Congress has fostered growth in productivity, spurred innovation, and widened public access to information. This expansion is impressive. However, there is still more that Congress can do to ensure equal Internet access among all Americans. As I stated when the House passed its 4-year extension, permanently prohibiting unnecessary taxes, such as an Internet access, is the best course of action for accomplishing this goal. The surest way to stifle achievement, progress, and growth is to involve the government. I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 3678's 7-year extension and use this time to work together to permanently extend the moratorium in order to foster the innovation and the free market that have been the formula for economic growth and prosperity.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the passing of a former member of this body from my home state of Ohio--Mr. Charles Vanik--who represented Ohio's 21st Congressional district, the east side of Cleveland, which later became the 22nd District. After serving on the Cleveland City Council and in the Ohio State Senate, Charlie Vanik enlisted in the Naval Reserves during World War II and fought in both the Atlantic and the Pacific. He later went on to serve as a local judge before being elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1954. Known for his black suits and bow ties, Charlie was a champion of working class families and was most famous for his strong stance against nations that denied freedom to its citizens--particularly the Soviet Union. In 1974 he partnered with then-Senator Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson to craft what became known as the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which denied normal trade relations to certain countries that oppressed its people and restricted the freedom of emigration. That amendment was offered to a trade reform bill and was intended to allow Jewish refugees to escape from the Soviet Union. The Jackson-Vanik Amendment is still on the books today. Charlie Vanik is survived by his wife, two children and two grandchildren. I ask my colleagues to keep his family and friends in their thoughts and prayers in the coming months.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3678, the Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments Act. The Internet has changed the way we communicate, learn, and do business--all for the better. Since the Internet tax moratorium was first adopted, tremendous investment, growth and innovation in the scope and use of the Internet has occurred. By preventing unnecessary taxation of the Internet, Congress has fostered growth in productivity, spurred innovation, and widened public access to information. This expansion is impressive. However, there is still more that Congress can do to ensure equal Internet access among all Americans. Permanently prohibiting unnecessary taxes, such as an Internet access, is the best course of action for accomplishing this goal. Mr. Speaker, the surest way to stifle achievement, progress, and growth is to involve the Government. I urge my colleagues to use H.R. 3678 and its four year extension to work together to permanently extend the moratorium in order to foster the innovation and the free market that have been the formula for economic growth and prosperity.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I won't use the full 5 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I have already explained when discussing the underlying bill, this amendment adopts a bright-line test for determining whether a business that receives funding from a venture capital company is considered affiliated with that firm and any other firms that the venture capital company may own. The test is simple and sensible and I think easily applied. In my view, it strikes the correct balance between allowing needed venture capital funding for small businesses, while protecting against the possibility that venture capital firms will be able to create conglomerates that would have an unfair competitive advantage against independently owned and operated small businesses. As the chairwoman already mentioned, so I won't go into great detail, the venture capital company can't have more than 50 percent. As a result, I believe that this amendment alleviates many of the concerns that the Small Business Administration has, although maybe not all, with title V. I ask that Members support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers. I just want to again thank the chairwoman for her cooperation in drafting what is essentially, I believe, a very good bill, which will improve small business' ability to have access to capital all across the country. Without further ado, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, but I am not opposed and we are prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. CHABOT. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves) who has been one of the two principal sponsors of this important legislation.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. And we are prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. I will claim the time in opposition, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, we have heard the gentleman's amendment and we are prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 3567, the Small Business Investment Expansion Act of 2007. Risk-taking and entrepreneurship have been part of the American fabric since this country's founding, whether it was emigres from France founding a munitions company in the early years that would later become DuPont or an immigrant peddler who would go on to create Lazarus stores in my district, Cincinnati, now Macy's, or two Dayton, Ohio bicycle mechanics who invented the airplane. The rise of America is replete with stories of entrepreneurs taking risks to change the economy and ultimately the world. Recent history continues that trend. The most powerful computer software company in the world, Microsoft, was created by two college dropouts working out of a Seattle garage. Steven Jobs was tinkering in his garage when he developed the computer that would lead to the creation of the Apple. Fred Smith created Federal Express based on a paper written for an undergraduate class at Yale. All of these entrepreneurs succeeded because they had an idea and were able to raise the money they needed to perfect and market that idea. Yet, America has changed. Investors, venture capitalists, hedge funds, and private equity firms use sophisticated global investment strategies to maximize their returns. The budding entrepreneur with a great idea today might get lost in the search by investors for a company with a significant business history and record of returns. To maintain America as the leader of innovative entrepreneurial firms, we must ensure economic and fiscal policy that provides capital to entrepreneurs. There is little doubt that efforts of Congress, when Republicans controlled it, to adopt tax policies that spurred investment and growth provided significant incentives to invest in businesses. That is why I would very much like to see those tax policies ultimately made permanent, so we don't go back and raise taxes. But the Committee on Small Business has heard that the market does not provide adequate equity funding to the smallest of startup businesses, including those that will become the next Dell Computer, Nike, Outback Steakhouse or Callaway Golf Clubs. H.R. 3567 takes, in my view, a balanced approach to ensure that these new businesses have access to capital. It balances the need for limited Federal funding with fiscal restraint and protects the Federal taxpayers. Now, during the markup of this bill, I did voice strong objections to title V as it was introduced. There are five titles in this particular piece of legislation. Since markup of the legislation, however, to the credit of the gentlewoman from New York, Nydia Velazquez, we worked together and we negotiated in good faith and reached a bipartisan agreement to address the concerns that we voiced. I believe that the compromise that we reached adequately addresses my concern. I want to again compliment the chairwoman for her leadership in that effort. It eliminates some of the more egregious decisions of the SBA concerning venture capital investment in small businesses while maintaining the integrity of the Federal procurement process for small business by preventing conglomerations of venture-owned firms to bid as small businesses. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would again like to thank the chairwoman for working in a bipartisan manner on this bill. I would also like to thank her staff, particularly Michael Day and Adam Minehardt, for their work on this important piece of legislation. I also want to thank Barry and Kevin Fitzpatrick for their help, as well, on this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.