Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

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

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Ellsworth) for his resolution, and I want to join him this morning. And I'm honored to stand here this morning as part of the first National Day of Remembrance for Murder Victims to pay tribute to the memory of those whose lives have been tragically cut short through senseless acts of violence in this country. Let us and their families know that they are not alone. Of course we must continue to devote the resources necessary to the local, State, and Federal levels to protect our communities from falling victim to future criminal acts, but we cannot forget those who have already been victims, particularly the victims of murder and the families that struggle to rebuild their lives after such heinous acts. This day also enables us to recognize and thank those victims assistance organizations, like Parents of Murdered Children, that happen to be headquartered in my district in Cincinnati, Ohio, and the National Center for Victims of Crime, that provide ongoing support to the surviving families. The strength, comfort, and compassion that these organizations provide to families and friends of murder victims is immeasurable and should not go unrecognized. I urge my colleagues to take a moment today to remember these victims and their families and the organizations that provide assistance.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I, first of all, would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia for his leadership on this very important issue. I know Mr. Scott has been one of those who has cared greatly about those families that have suffered the trauma of a lost person within their family. So I want to thank Mr. Scott on this. And I think this is another issue in which we have seen bipartisanship in this House. Sometimes you don't see a lot of instances of that, but I think this is one where we can work together in a bipartisan fashion, and I want to thank Mr. Scott for his leadership on this. Given that tomorrow is the first annual day of remembrance for murder victims, it is only fitting that we recognize and respond to a segment of the victim population that too often goes unrecognized: those victims who are missing and whose remains have yet to be identified. Unfortunately, it is far more common than one would think, just how many families are searching for some clue as to the location of the remains of their missing family members, and too often families are alone in their effort to locate their loved one. On any given day, there are more than 100,000 active missing-person cases in this country. Just think of that: over 100,000 active cases in this Nation. Every year tens of thousands of people vanish under suspicious circumstances. Equally disturbing is the knowledge that the skeletal remains of more than 40,000 individuals are being stored with coroners, medical examiners, and police departments around the country. And these may very well be the very persons that those families are trying to identify. They don't know what happened to their brother, their sister, their mother, their aunt, their uncle, whomever it might be. Many of these jurisdictions do not have the technology to identify these individuals. And even if they do, most States do not require these officials to obtain samples before burying or cremating the remains. Think of that. Your sister could be in the State right next door in the coroner's office or a police station and the remains may be cremated, and you may go the rest of your life and your family never knowing what happened to your sister. I know the impact of this ineffective model on families, because in my own State of Ohio, a very good friend, somebody that, unfortunately, I have gotten to know through a terrible tragedy in her own family, Deborah Culberson, the mother of a murder victim, Carrie Culberson, has been searching for the remains of her daughter for the last 11 years. While Carrie's murderer will, hopefully, spend the rest of his life in jail, her body has never been found. Moreover, speculation exists that Carrie's remains may be in the State of Kentucky, we really don't know, which does not mandate the same requirements for identifying human remains as my State, Ohio. Rapidly advancing DNA technology has proven to be a critical tool that law enforcement and families can access to locate and identify individuals and solve cold cases. Yet as Debbie Culberson's search demonstrates, the technology is not being utilized to its fullest. For example, many family members of the missing or unidentified do not know they can provide their own DNA to assist law enforcement. Some law enforcement officials do not know that this DNA technology can assist in solving cold cases. Even if law enforcement knows the technology exists, States may not mandate DNA testing for this segment of the victim population. We, as elected officials, have a responsibility to take the lead in ensuring, number one, that adequate funding and effective education and training for law enforcement and the public exists; and, two, that all available resources and tools are being used to their fullest ability. This resolution acknowledges Congress's commitment to these victims and to their families, that it will do everything within its authority to locate, identify, and return these sons, daughters, mothers, and fathers to those families who are still searching for their loved ones. I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas, Judge Poe.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 1908, the Patent Reform Act, that we are considering here now. While this bill has been improved since its introduction back in April, the scheduling of this bill for consideration today makes one question whether reform really is the majority's objective. Why else would we push a bill through on a Friday afternoon under a structured rule that will only allow a few selected amendments even to be considered? In fact, since this bill was reported from the Judiciary Committee in July, several of us, as well as the stakeholders, have asked the leadership to slow this bill down to ensure that we have a true reform bill that is fair and equitable to all who use the patent system. I believe the bill in its current form, and even if the manager's amendment is adopted, fails to strengthen the system Congress created to foster and protect innovation. In fact, more than 100 companies, unions, universities, coalitions and other organizations have voiced their concerns with this bill. These entities, users of the patent system, believe that the changes proposed by this act and the amendments we are considering today will be harmful to their respective businesses, will be bad for the economy, and could threaten our status as the number one patent system in the world. If that is even possible, why would we rush to pass a bill that could jeopardize the very industries and employees that have made this Nation what it is today? Innovation is the heart and soul of this country. What has made the U.S. the strongest patent system in the world is its ability to adapt to different business models and innovations, protecting those who invent, while at the same time encouraging public dissemination. Of course, our patent system is not perfect. The Small Business Committee that I happen to be the ranking member of held a hearing on March 29th, 2007, examining how small businesses use the patent system and the impact that this patent reform would have on them. The most revealing aspect of the hearing was the consensus among members and panelists that Congress should be very careful in making significant change to the system. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I stand with my colleagues today to honor the memory of Paul Gillmor. He was really a great guy. He actually ran the first time in 1988 for this esteemed institution, for the Congress, the same year I first ran. He won and I didn't. But in 1994 I did get to join him here. He was one of the guys that, as other Members have said, he was just an all around good guy. He really was. You liked to talk to him. For some reason, he used to call me Mr. Steve; I don't know why he did that. So I started calling him Mr. Paul, and that is the way we referred to each other. Yesterday evening after we had our votes, we had all come back into town from the August recess and we were asking each other what did you do over the break, what happened. He was telling me how he had stayed pretty close to home. He had worked with his constituents, been with his family for some time, and he wanted to know what I had done. I said I had done some of those same things, and that I had also had an opportunity to go to Darfur where there is probably one of the greatest human tragedies that we have seen on Earth in a number of years, and he was very interested and wanted to know what we can do to help the people in Darfur. So we spent a period of time discussing that right outside those doors just last evening. I was just shocked when I learned that Paul had passed away suddenly so recently. He was somebody that really I think made a difference in this institution. As has been mentioned, he loved his Buckeyes. He would talk about what they had done and how the game had been played and how he couldn't wait to go to the next game. And he loved our State of Ohio. He loved the people that he represented. And most especially, he loved his family. We are all going to miss Paul Gillmor, and we wish the best to his wife, Karen, and his five children. God bless you, Paul.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I would urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2992, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2992, the SBA Trade Programs Act of 2007. The committee worked in a cooperative and bipartisan basis to bring these changes in the SBA's operation of its programs to enhance small business participation in the global economy. H.R. 2992 represents the Small Business Committee's continued commitment to promotion of international trade by America's small businesses. The Small Business Administration has a number of general entrepreneurial assistance programs that provide technical advice to small business owners. However, international trade is an area that is fraught with regulatory issues requiring specialized knowledge that may not be available from the SBA's entrepreneurial partners. It is not surprising to find that the SBA created other programs to meet the needs of small business exporters that rely on personnel with specialized knowledge about the international trade regulatory regime. These programs, as well as the SBA efforts to coordinate with other agencies such as the Department of Commerce, have resulted in remarkable gains in exports. There are about a quarter of a million small businesses that export. Revenue increased from $102.8 billion to $203 billion in 2004. There's no doubt that small businesses are playing a vital role in reducing America's trade deficit. Continuation of this success and even greater impetus on small business exporting will benefit the American economy. H.R. 2992 requires the Small Business Administration to expand its trade outreach initiatives and improve coordination of its trade promotion activities with those of other Federal agencies such as United States Trade Representative, the Department of Commerce, and the Export-Import Bank. The bill will increase the capacity of America's small businesses to export. This will reduce our trade deficit and increase our national and economic security. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. I will continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3020, the Microloan Amendments and Modernization Act. The chairwoman and I have worked together on a cooperative basis to bring this technical but important piece of legislation to the floor. H.R. 3020 represents the first substantive change in the Microloan Program in more than 6 years. According to Dr. Mohammad Yunus, the 2006 Nobel Laureate in Peace and founder of the Grameen Bank, ``microcredit views each person as a potential entrepreneur and turn on the tiny economic engines of a rejected portion of society.'' Unlike Bangladesh or other countries that have emulated the Grameen Bank, microcredit in the United States is not aimed at a rejected portion of society, but rather at those individuals who do not have access to commercial financial institutions and the typical resources to manage those funds. Despite the different target audiences, microlending in the United States represents a variation of the concept developed by Dr. Yunus. The Small Business Administration created a pilot program based on the success of the Grameen Bank, and Congress created a permanent authority for the program back in 1992. SBA does not provide microcredit directly to entrepreneurs; instead, the SBA provides below market-rate loans to nonprofit intermediaries. These institutions then make loans to entrepreneurs. As with other SBA financing programs, the SBA does not provide all the funds for financing. Intermediaries must contribute 15 percent of the value of loans in non-Federal funds. But the key to the success of microlending is not the loans; rather, it is the education and counseling that the intermediaries provide to their borrowers. With this knowledge, these entrepreneurs are able to manage their financial resources and ensure repayment of loans. This success is demonstrated by the very low number of defaults by borrowers and cost- effective means by which it produces nearly 10,000 jobs a year in areas, including parts of my district in Cincinnati, that need economic revitalization. Despite its success, the Microloan Program needs to be revised in light of changes to the economy during the past 6 years and, in some cases, to update matters that have not been altered since the program's inception more than 15 years ago. Microlenders exist, mainly because normal commercial lending institutions did not provide access to credit for those who are highly credit risky. One way to improve that is to have borrowers' histories passed along to credit bureaus. I think having the SBA work with the intermediaries to accomplish the delivery of credit histories will benefit borrowers. H.R. 3020 also enables the intermediaries to determine the length of credit that will be made available to the borrowers. Given the expertise of the intermediaries, it makes abundant sense for the determinations on the length of loans to rest with the intermediaries and borrowers. I want to emphasize that this change has no impact on the loan obligations of the intermediaries to the SBA. The change involves no risk to the Federal Treasury. H.R. 3020 also raises the level of the average loan size in an intermediary's portfolio from $7,500 to $10,000. This level has not been changed since 1992, and an adjustment is appropriate to take account of inflation in the intervening 15 years. The SBA rightly focuses on the number of small businesses that receive help from its entrepreneurial training partners. However, ensuring that only those individuals with the right aptitude start small businesses is as important as the provision of the technical assistance to businesses that have been in existence for years. The Microloan Amendments and Modernization Act recognizes the importance of this training and increases the amount of pre-loan training that intermediaries may provide. H.R. 3020 also provides for an increase in the amount of technical assistance training that intermediaries can contract for from other sources. As the committee heard in testimony from Professor Lisa Servon, this will enable intermediaries to focus on those services that they are best able to perform. Finally, the committee heard from two different witnesses that the cap on interest rates should be removed. We also heard that a rise in interest rates will enable intermediaries to recoup more of their costs, thereby reducing the amount of funds that they must raise from other sources. I would ask that the chairwoman work with us as the bill moves through legislative process to ensure that intermediaries have maximum flexibility to operate their loan programs with the elimination of the interest rate cap. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time on the minority side and yield myself such time as I may consume. In recent years, it has become painfully clear that America is far too dependent on foreign oil. We import nearly two-thirds of the oil we consume. With gas prices in my district back in Cincinnati and throughout the country hovering around $3 a gallon, it is important for Congress to continue exploring ways that we can produce more energy domestically rather than relying on oil from the volatile Middle East or from Nigeria or Venezuela or other unstable areas in the world. In fact, according to the Government Accountability Office, Americans paid $38 billion more for gasoline in the first 6 months of last year than they paid during the first 6 months of the previous year. That is just unacceptable. It is critical that we adopt a diversified and balanced energy strategy to become more self-sufficient. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, passed when the current minority was actually in the majority, took significant steps in that direction. For example, we must increase our production of traditional fuel such as oil and natural gas, and strengthen conservation and efficiency efforts. It is also important to provide incentives for the research and development of promising new technologies such as, for example, hydrogen fuel cells. And, renewable energy, the vast majority of which is produced in our Nation's rural communities, is serving an important role in meeting America's energy needs. Biofuels have the potential to help wean Americans off foreign oil and to provide an economic boost for farmers and rural communities. The potential should have fostered a serious and long overdue debate about reforming our Nation's agriculture policy which, in my view, with its subsidies and tariffs is in dire need of reform. Unfortunately, the farm bill that this new majority passed just this last week will cost $286 billion over the next 5 years, with billions in subsidies, price guarantees, and direct payments going to large agra businesses that already stand to benefit from increased market opportunities for renewable fuels. This energy bill only exacerbates the problems which will be made worse by the farm bill that was passed last week. It authorizes the creation, for example, of government-backed venture capital firms to invest in renewable and biofuels enterprises under a new program at the SBA, the Small Business Administration. Nothing prohibits the existing small business investment companies, which are backed by the Federal Government's full faith and credit, from investing in companies that are involved in biofuels and renewable energy already. To compound matters, this so-called energy bill before us today even authorizes the SBA to fund the development of business plans for these venture capital programs. There is nothing to demonstrate that a market failure exists in the development and construction of such facilities. As a result, I see no reason to provide further incentives through the creation of a totally new program at the Small Business Administration. We are just growing government. I would urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as we have remaining to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 3206. This bill is very simple: it extends the authorization of all programs authorized by the Small Business Act, the Small Business Investment Act, and any program operated by the Small Business Administration for which Congress has already appropriated funds. This extension will last until December 15, 2007. This extension is necessary because authorization for various programs operated by the SBA ceases on July 31, 2007, tomorrow. Working in a bipartisan manner with Chairwoman Velazquez and myself, the committee has ordered 12 bills to be reported out, of which nine have passed this body, the House of Representatives. While the pace has been furious, more needs to be done in the examination of programs within the committee's jurisdiction. These include small business government contracting programs, investment programs for small businesses, and improving the management of the SBA. This work cannot be done in a deliberative, thoughtful, and bipartisan manner by midnight tomorrow. Even if the committee and the House finish its deliberations on all aspects of the SBA and its programs, we operate, after all, in a bicameral legislative system. Time is needed for the legislative process in both bodies to function and, if necessary, for the two bodies to meet in a conference to iron out any disagreements concerning each body's deliberations about how best to ensure that the SBA and its myriad programs are best promoting the health of America's entrepreneurs. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3206 Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, it's very unfortunate that we have to come back year after year to urge that restrictions should be lifted for high-level visits by appointed and democratically elected leaders of Taiwan. Our misguided Taiwan policy is nothing new. The so-called ``One China'' policy is a bipartisan mistake--begun in the Nixon-Kissinger era and exacerbated by President Carter's abrogation of our Mutual Defense Treaty in 1980. It continues to this day. Just last week, dozens of Members of Congress welcomed Taiwan's Democrat Progressive Party's nominee for the Presidency, Mr. Frank Hsieh, to our Nation's Capitol. There was a little gallows humor at the gathering because, in fact, if Mr. Hsieh wins the election next year, he will no longer be able to come to visit with his friends in Washington, D.C. Our insulting policy toward our democratic friend and ally should be cast aside to reflect the reality of our strong relationship with Taiwan. Taiwan is a vibrant democracy of some 23,000,000. It is our 8th largest trading partner and the world's 18th largest economy. The Taiwanese people enjoy a full range of freedoms not enjoyed on the other side of the Taiwan Strait--freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom to elect all of their leaders. Taiwan is a model for young democracies and a great friend to the United States. We should recognize that friendship by abandoning our insulting policy on high level visits and welcoming our Taiwanese friends with open arms. It is the right thing to do. I urge support of the resolution.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. With that understanding, we would be happy to withdraw the amendment and work with the gentleman on that issue.

Mr. CHABOT. If the gentleman would yield, I would be happy to work with the gentleman in good faith, and perhaps we could work out something that would boost up the money for our cities.

Mr. CHABOT. We happened to go to the same college, by the way. As far as the committee report, it says that the committee directs that the remaining $15 million will be available to jurisdictions experiencing a high rate of violent and drug trafficking crime involving firearms. And we certainly support that. What we are trying to do is increase that, because we think there should be additional funding because we do believe that gang activity and violence is plaguing a number of communities, including the one that I happen to represent, the city of Cincinnati. And when we looked into the bill, when we called the committee for further clarification about what the other $15 million went toward, we were told that this provision had been inserted in previous Congresses, but that they weren't really sure what, if any, reentry program that they were referring to. So rather than just let the money sit, I propose to give it to those jurisdictions that are falling victim to violent crime and drug traffickers, particularly those that are committed with firearms. And I don't believe that the $15 million, as I said, that is currently in the bill is sufficient. And since this money was available and wasn't designated, to our knowledge, in any particular program, we thought that it would be appropriate to increase the funding so that we could help more cities better fight against gang activity and violence, and particularly when those are involved with firearms.

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to first of all compliment him for the fact that he also attended an institution which I think is probably one of the best colleges in the country.

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

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is really very straightforward. It would add $15 million to the $15 million presently designated for jurisdictions experiencing a high rate of violent and drug trafficking crime involving firearms. My amendment would offset this increase by taking $15 million from a new offender reentry program that the underlying bill appears to authorize. Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that reentry programs play a critical role in the criminal justice system, ensuring that offenders who are released back into our communities receive the assistance they need to make them productive members of our communities. Indeed, millions of offenders are released back into our communities each year. More often than not, these individuals are released back into society without support, increasing the likelihood of recidivism, jeopardizing the safety of our communities, and ultimately increasing the cost to society. In fiscal year 2006, more than $13 million in Federal funds were awarded to States to assist them with their reentry programs. During that same year, more than $146 million was allocated to the Federal Bureau of Prisons to help community corrections centers across the Nation get inmates who are close to being released the assistance they needed. This Congress, the House is set to consider H.R. 1593, the Second Chance Act of 2007, of which I am an original cosponsor. This legislation would, among other things, reauthorize State and local adult and juvenile reentry programs at a level of $65 million for fiscal year 2008 and 2009. Yet, at the same time we cannot forget the needs of our communities. More must be done to give State and local law enforcement the resources they need to combat the violent crime and gang activity that continues to plague our cities, including my city, Cincinnati, particularly violent crimes committed with firearms. According to the Bureau of Justice statistics, in 2005, 65 percent of all murders, 42 percent of all robberies, and 21 percent of all aggravated assaults that were reported to police were committed with firearms. Moreover, the violent crime associated with gang activity continues to leave residents in our Nation's cities and towns feeling like prisoners in their own homes. In my own city, Cincinnati, crimes committed with firearms, local gang activity, and drug trafficking continue to threaten the well-being of law-abiding citizens. In fact, this past spring the Cincinnati City Council voted to obtain the help of renowned Professor David Kennedy to assist the city in fighting violent crime. Making additional funds available in this jurisdiction and jurisdictions across the country will empower residents of cities and towns to take back their communities and make them a safer place to live and work and raise our families. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment, with the understanding we can work together.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.