Ric Keller

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a commonsense piece of legislation that will make sure our neediest college students will not be forced to prematurely terminate their college education due to Hurricane Katrina or other natural disasters. Without this legislation, thousands of college students will be barred from enrolling in future college classes as a result of a hurricane that they had no control over whatsoever. Let us join together now in a bipartisan spirit and help these college students by providing the Secretary of Education with waiver authority for students who are eligible for Pell grants and who have been adversely impacted by natural disasters. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3169.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I support common-sense medical liability reform because it will increase patients' access to lifesaving health care, and it will save taxpayers over $30 billion a year in unnecessary defensive medical tests. Let me give a real-life example. The Orlando Regional Medical Center is a large hospital located in the heart of my district in Orlando, Florida. It is home to the only Level I Trauma Center in central Florida which specializes in treating patients with severe brain and spine injuries. Unfortunately, this important trauma center is in danger of closing because we only have a handful of neurosurgeons left in Orlando, and they cannot afford to pay the medical liability insurance premiums of over $250,000 a year. As a result of this liability crisis, this top- rated trauma center had no choice but to turn away over 1,000 patients last year. Now, what happens when neurosurgeons are not available? We do not have to guess. I personally met with Mrs. Leanne Dyess, who testified before the Committee on the Judiciary. Her husband, Tony Dyess, suffered a very serious head injury in a car accident. The family had excellent medical insurance. What they did not have a was a neurosurgeon. All the neurosurgeons in her area had left town because they could not afford the liability insurance. As a result, it took 6 hours to transport Mr. Dyess to a different location, but it was too late. He needed to be treated within the first hour. Mr. Dyess is now permanently brain damaged. He is unable to communicate, work, or to provide for his family. Mr. Speaker, some opponents of this legislation say it is not Congress' problem, let us just leave it up to the States. Well, it is our problem, because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimates that this legislation will save taxpayers over $30 billion a year by avoiding unnecessary medical tests which are ordered by doctors under Medicare and Medicaid because of defensive medicine. It does not have to be that way. Neurosurgeons in California, where they have a $250,000 cap, pay an average of only $59,000 a year in liability insurance, not the $250,000 they pay in Orlando, Florida. Let us bring common sense back to our health care system and give patients access to trauma centers and neurosurgeons. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote yes.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule, and I support H.R. 525. The number one problem facing small businesses today is the skyrocketing cost of health insurance. Association health plans are a big part of the solution. I met with many small business people in my hometown of Orlando, Florida, and they told me they need association health plans. I agree with them, and here is why: of the 45 million Americans without health insurance, 60 percent are small business employees and their families. They do not have health insurance because their small business employers cannot afford it. If we would allow these small businesses to join together, they could have the same bargaining power as large Fortune 500 corporations, which could lower their health insurance premiums by up to 30 percent. Association health plans will increase access to health care for millions of Americans now without insurance. It certainly is an issue that is personal to me. I had the happy privilege of flying down to Orlando, Florida, with President Bush on Air Force One on March 18 of this year. He asked me what, if anything, he could do to help small businesses in my area. I told him what the small businesses told me: the number one thing they want is association health plans, and he pledged to support it and use his bully pulpit to help it get through the Senate. I also authored a Small Business Bill of Rights that passed this House back in April. It called for the passage of association health plans, fixing the death tax, and cracking down on frivolous lawsuits. This House is on record as supporting that. It is time for us to take the lead today and help small business people provide health insurance to their employees. Vote ``yes'' on the rule and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 525. I urge my colleagues to do these things.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, the number one problem facing small businesses today is the skyrocketing cost of health insurance. Association health plans are a big part of the solution. I met with many small-business people from my hometown of Orlando, Florida, and they told me that they need association health plans. I believe them, and I will tell you why. Of the 45 million Americans now without health insurance, 60 percent are small-business employees and their families. They do not have health insurance because their employers cannot afford it. If we allowed these small businesses to join together, they could have the same bargaining power as a large corporation, which could lower their health insurance premiums by up to 30 percent. Mr. Speaker, association health plans will increase access to health care for millions of Americans now without health insurance. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on association health plans.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act today is literally a matter of life or death because it is helping us to win the war on terrorism. Since we passed the PATRIOT Act in 2001 we have convicted 212 terrorists and $136 million in terrorist assets have been frozen. Passing the PATRIOT Act is purely a matter of common sense. Is it not common sense that we give law enforcement the same tools to go after terrorists as they now have to go after Mafia dons and drug dealers? Is it not common sense that we can share data between the intelligence community and law enforcement now? Is it not common sense that we track deadly terrorists even though they cross jurisdictional lines or switch cell phones? The worst thing that the critics can say about the PATRIOT Act is that supposedly law abiding citizens will have their bookstore and library habits monitored. That is a totally bogus allegation. You must go before a Federal judge, get a court order and prove that it is a matter of international terrorism. How many times has that happened since we passed the PATRIOT Act? Exactly zero, according to our Attorney General. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the PATRIOT Act.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I initially planned to offer an amendment today to increase the maximum Pell grant award to $4,150. By increasing Pell grant funding by $211 million, that would be funding through an offset by cutting administrative expenses under this bill by 4.86 percent. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with Chairman Regula and Chairman Boehner regarding this amendment, and I would consider not offering this amendment if I can hear their comments regarding the possibility of ultimately seeking a maximum higher Pell grant award through good-faith negotiations with the Senate during the conference process.

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by just putting this issue in a bit of a historical perspective. Looking at this chart, it reflects the Pell grant maximum awards over the past 10 years. And you can see, 10 years ago, in 1986 the maximum Pell award was $2,100. This year it is $4,100. The yellow reflects the period of time that the Democrats were in control of Congress, the red reflects the time when Republicans took over Congress. And you can see the relative spikes in the Pell grant funding. It was essentially flatlined for about 10 years before Republicans took over. Now, when I got here to Congress, elected in 2000, we were spending $7.6 billion a year in Pell grants. The maximum award was $3,300. This year we are spending $13.4 billion a year on Pell grants, and the maximum award is up to $4,100. That is an increase of 76 percent in overall total Pell grant funding. In addition to the $13.4 billion we have in the bill this year for Pell grants, the bill also lists a very important addition of $4.3 billion to retire the Pell grant shortfall that has accumulated in the program over the past several years because of higher-than-expected student participation. That is a grand total of $17.7 billion for Pell grants, the largest investment in Pell grants in the history of the United States. I want to commend and thank both the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) for their strong leadership in increasing Pell grants, which has resulted in an additional $1.5 million young people being able to go to college since the year 2000. Mr. Chairman, let me tell you why I drafted this amendment today, though. On January 14, 2005, President Bush gave a speech in Florida where he said, ``We want to increase the Pell grants by $100 per year over the next 5 years. Pell grants are important. That is why we want to expand them.'' I agree with President Bush about the importance of increasing Pell grants. Pell grants are truly the passport out of poverty for so many deserving young people. I myself would not have been able to go to college without Pell grants. And I have the honor and privilege of serving as Chairman of the Congressional Pell Grant Caucus. On February 7, 2005, President Bush followed up his Florida speech on Pell grants by submitting a budget which also called for increasing the Pell grant maximum award of $4,050 by an additional $100 this year. On May 26, 2005, I sent the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) a letter signed by 46 Members of Congress, which encouraged the Appropriations Committee to fully fund the $4,150 request by President Bush. This bill does, in fact, increase the overall award, but only by $50, not the $100 requested by President Bush. And so the purpose of my amendment was to fully fund the President's request. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) at this time to see if he would be willing to work with the Senate during the conference to see if it is possible to increase the Pell grant funding to an amount sufficient to fully fund this $4,150 request by President Bush. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to hear the comments of the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner's) comments on the issue as well.

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, in light of the comments by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the comments of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) to at least make a good-faith effort to try to increase the maximum Pell grant award during the conference process, I will not offer my amendment at this time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Honda

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

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that both Republican and Democrats have accepted my amendment and that it has passed today as part of the unanimous consent agreement. Mr. Chairman, I believe it was a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars by the U.S. Department of Education to pay $240,000 to columnist Armstrong Williams to promote The No Child Left Behind Act. This amendment ensures that it will never happen again by providing that no taxpayer funds shall be used, either directly or indirectly, by private contractors, which include public relations firms, journalists, and media commentators, to support or defeat legislation pending before this Congress. The policy behind my amendment is straightforward. Using taxpayer dollars to bribe journalists to bias their news coverage in favor of legislation is a waste of taxpayer money, it is a black eye on the independence of our free press, and it undermines the integrity of our democracy. Mr. Chairman, let me give you some background as to why this amendment is necessary. In January of this year, media reports revealed that the U.S. Department of Education entered into a $1 million contract with a private contractor, known as the Ketchum Public Relations firm. This PR firm then turned around and paid $240,000 in a sub-contract to newspaper columnist and TV commentator Armstrong Williams to promote The No Child Left Behind Act. Specifically, under the contract, Armstrong Williams was paid to ``regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts,'' to ``encourage the producers'' of a cable TV program to ``periodically address'' the NCLB law, and it specified that the Secretary of Education and other education officials would have the right to appear from ``time to time'' as guests on Williams' TV programs. Shortly after learning about this situation, President Bush criticized the Education Departments $240,000 payout to Armstrong Williams and ordered his cabinet secretaries not to hire columnists or commentators to promote administration policies. Specifically, President Bush stated: ``All our cabinet secretaries must realize that we will not be paying commentators to advance our agenda. Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet. We need to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again.'' I agree with President Bush. This is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It's a common sense issue. For example, while the Armstrong Williams matter happened during the Bush administration's watch, similar problems happened during the Clinton administration. For example, the GAO noted that the Clinton administration's Health and Human Services department used actors in October of 1999 to portray reporters in fake news segments that were distributed to TV stations, without disclosing that the government had actually funded and produced the supposed news segments. Mr. Chairman, it is dead wrong to use taxpayer dollars to pay private contractors, such as public relations firms, journalists and media commentators, to promote legislation pending before this Congress, and for that reason, I wholeheartedly thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for voting ``yes'' on my amendment.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pay tribute to two central Floridians marking a special anniversary. Doc Holliday and Johnny Magic have been a team on the Orlando airwaves for 15 years now. In an industry where many hear the words ``you are fired'' more often than Donald Trump's would-be apprentices, the Doc and Johnny Show on XL 106.7 has stood the test of time. These guys are like gum under a bus seat. They have survived four presidents, three hurricanes, and have gotten themselves in trouble too many times to count. The idea for the Doc and Johnny show came the way many great ideas in this country come about, over a beer. Doc Holliday is a huge sports fan with a reputation for enjoying the big game with a big beverage. Johnny Magic is a single guy in his 40s, loved by the station's female fans, which sort of makes him the Fonz of Orlando. They have worked together 15 years and are still going strong. And behind one of the most successful morning radio shows in Central Florida are two men who have shown a strong commitment to making my home town of Orlando a better place. Let me give you three examples. First, in 1991, Doc and Johnny helped 30 needy families make sure they had Christmas presents under the tree for their children. Last year, the Baby DJ Program help make sure 5,000 kids had toys at Christmas. It is a program I am proud to have personally donated to. Second, after the events of September 11, 2001, Doc and Johnny broke from their regular format and instead had numerous elected and law enforcement officials on their radio show to make sure the people of Orlando had the very latest information on the war in terrorism in what was a very uncertain time for our Nation. Finally, when my State was hit last summer with hurricane after hurricane, Doc and Johnny's Neighbor Helping Neighbor program set up shop at a local mall and gave listeners a place to donate and pick up hurricane relief supplies, all free of charge. When I asked their long term sidekick, Grace Vazquez, her favorite memory about Doc and Johnny, she wrote about a time when the show was on the road in Key West. Grace fell off a moped and broke her arm. Through it all she writes, ``One, they never left my side. Two, they still made me laugh. Or maybe it was the painkillers''. Mr. Speaker, Doc may be a fast-talking guy from New Jersey, and Johnny may be a southerner from North Carolina, but my home town of Orlando, Florida, is a better place because they decided to make their home there. I wish them a happy 15th anniversary on their radio show.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Kelsey Ryan, a 9-year old little girl from Celebration, Florida, my home district. Kelsey is a true hero to her community and her country. We are honored that she is here with us today. Kelsey possesses a life-threatening allergy to peanuts. She is not alone; 4 percent of our population has some form of life threatening allergy, either to peanuts, shellfish, insects or other items. Kelsey decided to do something about it and took action. She traveled to Tallahassee, Florida, where she testified before six separate committees of the Florida legislature. She explained that by allowing her and other school children to use this Epipen it would help save the lives of 100,000 different school children in Florida who also suffer from life-threatening allergies. She was so effective that the Florida House and Florida Senate unanimously passed the Kelsey Ryan Act, and it will be signed into law by the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, in a matter of days. On behalf of the United States Congress, I was pleased today to present Ms. Kelsey Ryan with a Certificate of Special Congressional Recognition, an award we humbly give to true American heroes. Mr. Speaker, we are proud of Kelsey in Florida. And today we honor the achievements of an amazing 9-year-old lady who has selflessly helped save the lives of up to 100,000 different school children in my home State of Florida. We are proud of her in Congress. We are proud of her in Florida. We are proud of her back in Celebration.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) just urged a ``no'' vote. Now what does that mean: A Member is not for the things that we have here in the bill of rights, seven things that no person at any time on the Committee on Small Business has ever moved to strike, and we are voting on this Small Business Bill of Rights. We are not voting on what is not here; we are voting on what is in front of us. I want to be very clear to Members who are heeding this gentleman's advice that they should vote ``no.'' If a Member votes ``no'' on what we are advocating, you are voting ``yes'' for higher health insurance costs, ``yes'' for higher death taxes, ``yes'' for more frivolous lawsuits, ``yes'' for more paperwork, ``yes'' for higher energy costs, ``yes'' for more obstacles to getting capital, and ``yes'' for more obstacles for getting contracts from the Federal Government for small businesses. I believe the appropriate vote here is a ``yes'' vote to send a message to the small business people in this country that we appreciate the fact that they are creating 70 percent of all the new jobs in this country. We hear their concerns. We want to help them. We have listened to their top priorities; and by golly, we are going to work to pass each and every one of these items in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will respond to the comments of the gentlewoman from California. Mr. Speaker, no one, no one, at the hearing of this resolution, either submitted written testimony or spoke about the Small Business Administration's microloan program. That is not to say that the program is unimportant. The Committee on Small Business has argued against eliminating the microloan program in the past. However, the main purpose of this resolution is to include only those issues that affect a broad cross-section of all small businesses. The microloan program serves a small niche marketplace. Access to capital issues are already addressed in the Small Business Bill of Rights. We specifically say small businesses should be entitled to the right to equal treatment as compared to large businesses when seeking access to startup and expansion capital and credit. Again, this is an example of someone criticizing the resolution not for what it says. They do not disagree with what it says. It is something that is not even there in it, and it confounds me a little bit. And I have to tell my colleagues when I interviewed various businessmen, they had a lot of ideas that they thought should be included and focused on in Congress that, frankly, I did not include in this resolution, even though I like them and they are sincere and it is important to them, because it was not a top-tier issue. It did not affect a broad cross-section of people. It was not a consensus noncontroversial issue. Just to give one example, one of the businessmen I interviewed was Mr. Bruce O'Donohue, who installs traffic lights. He says the biggest frustration as a small business person is getting reimbursed from the local, State, and Federal Government when they install traffic lights. It has a big impact on a small business guy to do work and then wait 4 or 5 months to get paid much more than it does a Fortune 500 company. I am sure for him this is more important than death tax laws and association health plans and frivolous lawsuits, and I do not doubt the sincerity. But I did not include it because it was the only time I heard it. It did not come up in the hearing. It was not a broad consensus issue. So I could have made this piece of legislation as thick as a phone book and included everything in the world, but then nothing would ever get done. Instead, we decided to go with a blueprint of the top-tier issues that essentially says to Congress these are important; and if we do nothing else, let us at least achieve these top priorities. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, just to respond to one allegation by the gentlewoman which essentially was that Republicans have been in power for a while and have done nothing to help small businesses with respect to tax relief. I would dispute that pretty vigorously, and I do not need to look for too many examples of that. When I was elected to Congress in the year 2000, small businesses, most of which are subchapter S pass-through entities, were paying a tax rate of 40 percent. On the other hand, the Fortune 500 corporations were paying a corporate tax rate of 35 percent. President Bush thought that was unfair, and we passed President Bush's tax relief initiative and brought small businesses from 40 percent down to 35 percent. We have seen 2 million new jobs created in the past year in large part because of that tax policy, and, in fact, 70 percent of those new jobs were created by small business people. He also thought it was important that people have incentives to invest, so he asked us and we complied, and we lowered the capital gains tax from 20 percent down to 15 percent. We have had extraordinary tax growth. So I think the President has taken the lead with respect to tax relief, and the Congress has agreed with him, and we have had some pretty good success with that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I respect the comments and enthusiasm of the gentleman from Illinois, and I wish I had his wonderful voice, by the way; maybe I would be more persuasive. We hear criticisms that, well, this is just a blueprint, we need action. And then it is criticized because it does not have a thing or two that they want in there. So if it is, in fact, a meaningless blueprint and does not in fact do what I say it does, and that is provide a blueprint of action for this Congress, why are they so desperately trying to get their provisions in here? I have to tell my colleagues that there are some folks who do not agree with their characterization that this is not important. The NFIB, which represents 600,000 small businesses, sent out a letter yesterday to every Member of Congress, please vote for the Keller Small Business Bill of Rights. This is important to us to have this blueprint. The Chamber of Commerce sent out a letter on April 25, 2 days ago, which represents 3 million people, asking each Member of Congress, please vote for this Small Business Bill of Rights. This is a blueprint that is critical to have on the record so that this Congress will follow it. I believe that we do need to have action after this. I believe that the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) was smart and right to cosponsor the Association Health Plans. I share her criticism as to why the Senate has not acted, but we are going to act on this, and we are going to demand they act. She inquired of me earlier, well, you, and I assume she meant my party, control the White House and the Senate; why do you not do something and get the President to act? I have to share with my colleagues that on March 18, just a little while ago, I had the happy privilege of flying down to my home district of Orlando with President Bush on Air Force One and he invited me up to his cabin there where his mom, Barbara Bush was, and I got the chance to chat with them, just he and I and Senator Martinez, for an hour. He said, if you could have me do anything, what would you want me to do? I said, sir, I want you to use your bully pulpit to help us pass association health plans in the Senate. He said he supports it and he would agree to do that. So I do not know what more I can do, other than asking the Commander in Chief, one on one, and getting his commitment that he is going to push for that. But I have tried. I wish I were a dictator for a day sometimes, because if I was, we would have association health plans. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 235, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 22) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that American small businesses are entitled to a Small Business Bill of Rights, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, with respect to what was considered by the committee, the committee, minority members included, got a full hearing. Everybody got to ask questions twice. They then had three provisions added to the original Small Business Bill of Rights by me through substitute amendments, and then they got a vote on four of their six amendments before time expired. No, there was not a vote on the 8(a) program. There is nothing in here that says 8(a) is bad or good.

Mr. KELLER. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia for yielding me this time, and I rise today in strong support of the rule and H. Res. 22. The purpose of the small business bill of rights is to provide a blueprint for Congress to follow to help small business employers create even more jobs. A job is the best social program in the world. It gives a person income and health insurance and dignity. Since 70 percent of all new jobs in this country are created by small businesses, I met personally with 20 very successful small business employers in central Florida to learn firsthand what, if anything, Congress can do to help them create more jobs. Four top-tier issues consistently emerged from these meetings. First and foremost, they had the problem of addressing skyrocketing health costs, and they wanted the ability to join together to negotiate lower prices. Second, family-owned businesses, we are seeing one-third of them having to liquidate because of the death tax, and they needed some commonsense reform there. Third, they had a problem with frivolous lawsuits and skyrocketing liability insurance. Unlike a big corporation, if someone sues them, they do not often have $100,000 to successfully defend the claim, even if frivolous. They have to settle it for a nominal amount, $5,000 or $10,000. The fourth problem they mentioned over and over was paperwork and red tape. After listening to their concerns, I joined with my original cosponsor, a Democrat, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), and wrote and filed House Resolution 22. We have given plenty of opportunity for people to be heard on H. Res. 22. For example, other nonbinding House resolutions sometimes go right to the floor with no hearings, no markups, no motion to recommit. They just get an up-or-down vote on a Suspension Calendar, with no chance to amend at any point. Well, that is not what happened here. In this particular instance, the minority requested that we have a hearing. We readily agreed and had a hearing. At this hearing, witnesses from NFIB and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce testified that the four issues identified in the small business bill of rights were, in fact, the top four issues affecting small businesses in the United States right now. The minority was allowed to call witnesses at that hearing, and they did. Every member of the hearing, Republican and Democrat, was afforded two full rounds of questioning. Afterwards, the minority said, well, now we want to have a markup on this nonbinding resolution. We agreed to that as well. At the markup, in an effort to reach out, I offered a substitute amendment which addressed three additional issues that the minority thought were important to them, issues relating to energy costs and access to capital and contract bundling. The substitute amendment I offered was approved by a voice vote. Even though I had already included these three additional issues at this markup, the minority offered amendment after amendment after amendment after amendment. For example, one of the amendments called for Members to take a controversial stand on whether or not people agreed with the personal retirement accounts under President Bush's Social Security proposals. Things like that ate up time. The four amendments offered by the minority were defeated. But each time they insisted on calling for a roll call vote which ate up additional time. Now, it is my understanding that the minority Members had two more amendments that they wished to offer, but the chairman had only scheduled an hour for the markup under the understanding that the minority would have few amendments. So what exactly did the minority get in terms of due process here? They got a full blown hearing. They got three additional issues added to the original resolution, and they got votes on four of the six amendments they offered. H. Res. 22 was passed by the full committee on a voice vote. Not a single person on the committee, Republican or Democrat, voiced opposition to H. Res. 22 during that voice vote, and the reason is it represents a noncontroversial consensus of what small business employers tell us they need. Now, what are the Small Business Bill of Rights? There are seven: first, the right to join together to purchase affordable health insurance for small business employees. The right to simplify tax laws that allow family owned businesses to survive over several generations. The right to be free from frivolous lawsuits which harm law-abiding small businesses and prevent them from creating new jobs. The right to be free of unnecessary restrictive regulations and paper work which wastes the time and energy of small businesses while hurting production and preventing job creation. The right to relief from high energy costs which pose a real threat to the survival of small businesses. The right to equal treatment as compared to large businesses when seeking access to capital and expansion capital and credit. The right to open access to the government procurement marketplace through the breaking up of large contracts to give small business owners a fair opportunity to compete for the Federal contracts. This is what the small business people in America tell us that they want. This is what we learned from the hearing, and this is what is included as the top tier issues in the Small Business Bill of Rights affecting small business people. Now, if someone is opposed to this Small Business Bill of Rights, what would they be for? They would be for higher health insurance costs, higher taxes, more frivolous lawsuits, more paper work and red tape, higher energy costs, more obstacles to getting capital and more obstacles to getting government contracts. Now, significantly, at no time in this process, during the markup or otherwise, has there been any attempt to strip away one of these seven rights. To the extent the minority has a controversy with this, it is not anything that is on the board here. It is they think one or two additional things should be there. Well, let me remind you. The Small Business Bill of Rights is a blueprint that lists the top tier issues facing small businesses in the United States. It does not list every small business issue known to man. If it did, this thing would be as thick as a phone book, and it would not list the priorities. Some of the business people I met with had things that I did not list because, while it was important to that person or this person, it was not something that was a consensus issue affecting the small business people across the country. Now, if a Member has some issue that was not included, and they think it is a real important issue, then there is nothing preventing them from filing their own nonbinding House resolution and having that proceed under the regular order. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule. Plenty of opportunity has been heard for both sides to give their input to the Small Business Bill of Rights. It is a bipartisan Small Business Bill of Rights from the get-go when it was filed by a Democrat and myself, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Small Business Bill of Rights, H. Res. 22.