Nydia Velázquez

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I don't have any additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I want to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Ohio for his work on this issue. Since 1958, the SBIC program has been an integral part of SBA's mission to provide small businesses with capital and create jobs. To date, the program has invested approximately $63 billion in more than 110,000 U.S. companies. In fact, some of the Nation's most successful corporations, including Apple, FedEx, and Costco, received early-stage financing from SBICs. The key to the program's success is leveraging Federal funds to increase the amount of private capital invested in promising start-up companies. Access to capital is the lifeblood of every small business. After the 2008 financial crisis froze traditional credit markets, many firms sought out alternative providers of financing, particularly SBICs. Demand quickly outpaced the program's capacity, requiring a significant increase in the leverage caps to keep up. Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the leverage cap on an SBIC family of funds nearly doubled to $225 million. As a result, the program experienced unprecedented growth, setting a record in 2012 with over $2.5 billion in equity financings made, an 85 percent increase from 2010. This success has pushed many SBIC licensees against the new leverage caps, reducing the flow of capital to worthy small businesses. As you know, the goal of the SBIC program is to fill the gap between the availability of venture capital and the needs of small businesses in start-up and growth situations. Although this bill only addresses the needs of some in the SBIC community, it will still get additional equity capital flowing. As the economy continues its recovery, every dollar invested in small businesses will be important. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, while I was in the well trying to get the Speaker's attention, rollcall vote 613 was gaveled before I was able to vote. I would have voted ``nay.''

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this partisan legislation. Rather than simply creating a program that offers visas for students graduating in fields we need, this legislation picks ``winners and losers'' among our Nation's immigrants. Rather than tackling the tough issues surrounding immigration reform by building consensus, once again our Republican colleagues are pushing divisive legislation that punishes certain immigrant groups and rewards others. We have another option. My Democratic colleagues have put forth a straightforward STEM proposal that would offer visas to graduates fields like science, mathematics and engineering. Instead, we are debating a measure that would reduce overall immigration levels and create a series of false choices. All of us recognize the value of bringing more immigrants with certain skills and educational backgrounds. Where we seem to disagree is this--those of us on our side of the aisle also recognize that we should not be penalizing other hardworking immigrants from more humble backgrounds. I say to my colleagues--reject this bill. Let us instead focus on real immigration reform that is based on consensus and focuses on making our system fairer and better.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Correct. Just for New York City.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. That's correct. In the long haul, not only do we protect our citizens, but the economy will not suffer. Look at New York. It came to a standstill. Our transportation infrastructure was totally paralyzed. Transportation in terms of bringing gasoline into New York, we couldn't do it. This is the right thing to do in order for our Nation to protect its citizens, but also it could improve the economic conditions of our entire Nation by creating many high-paying jobs at this time when the economy continues to struggle.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Definitely. When it comes to transportation and infrastructure, a lot of the businesses are small businesses, and they are the backbone of our economy. They will be the ones creating the jobs that are so much needed in our local communities.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you for yielding. Mr. Speaker, if Hurricane Sandy taught us anything, it is the importance of infrastructure to New York City and our Nation. Right now, New Yorkers are struggling with day-to-day challenges, many of them without power. In certain parts of the metropolitan area, gasoline shortages continue presenting enormous difficulties. But even as New Yorkers work to rebuild and recover for the short term, we cannot ignore long-term problems. In many ways, the city of New York took a number of prudent steps that reduced damage and sped up recovery time. However, it is painfully clear that more must be done in the future to ensure our Nation's infrastructure can withstand assaults from Mother Nature. As Governor Cuomo said, ``We have a new reality, and old infrastructures and old systems.'' We can start by protecting low-lying areas near the ocean, like Brooklyn and Manhattan in my district, with seawalls, bulkheads, and floodgates. In other areas, soft infrastructure investments such as sand dunes and embankments can minimize flooding. Our electrical system needs to be hardened and protected. Other energy sources must also be safeguarded. Ensuring refineries and petroleum supplies do not fall victims to floods can prevent future fuel shortages. Just as with ensuring automobiles have fuel after disasters, other vital transportation arteries must be protected. Raising entryways to New York's subways could minimize flood damage to our subway system, ensuring our city gets back on its feet faster after the next storm. Constructing a storm surge barrier and implementing infrastructure changes like this, as you said, will not be cheap. It has been estimated costs could run as high as $20 billion just for New York City. But let's remember, in this one storm alone, New York City suffered $26 billion in economic damage and losses--and lives that were lost. Sadly, the question is not if there will be future storms, but when. By investing in our infrastructure now, we can prevent future economic damage, to say nothing of protecting our citizens from danger. Not only will these investments protect our city from disaster down the road, but they can provide a much-needed employment boost. New Yorkers are ready to go to work. Not only strengthening our city for the long haul, making this investment now can create good-paying jobs in the short term and reduce damage from future disasters over the long term. In New York, we're ready to go to work, investing not only in New York's infrastructure but also in our entire Nation's.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. For New York City?

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, natural disasters profoundly impacted our Nation this year. From wildfires out west to drought in the Plains to violent storms in the Northeast, millions of households were affected. These unanticipated events leave families and small businesses facing significant costs when rebuilding. Typically, insurance covers monetary losses, but that is not always the case. To complement insurance coverage, Congress authorized the SBA to provide disaster loans to affected families and small businesses. Since its inception in 1953, the SBA has approved roughly 1.9 million disaster loans, amounting to approximately $47 billion. Over the years, the program has evolved to better assist victims. As chairwoman of the Small Business Committee, I worked to incorporate bipartisan reforms in the 2008 farm bill to help disaster victims get back on their feet. These included new disaster bridge loans, greater loan amounts, extending deferment periods, and enabling more private sector involvement. The current program makes the government the lender of last resort by subsidizing reduced interest rates only for those who cannot get credit elsewhere. The goal is to assist as many victims as possible and ensure risk-sharing remains a public-private partnership. This bill, however, would eliminate the ``credit elsewhere'' test, offering taxpayer- subsidized, low-interest loans to all applicants. At a time when government resources are scarce, we should not be shifting more borrowers and additional risk into this initiative. This is not my only concern. The bill also arbitrarily limits interest rates--with no empirical data to show why these levels are appropriate. Capping interest rates could greatly increase the taxpayers' burden in the future as costs rise and revenue remains flat. The SBA is also directed to issue refunds on previously approved loans. The bill is silent on how to carry that out, creating an administrative nightmare for the SBA. Continuing to improve the program is important, but in doing so, we should not create unintended consequences. If the regular committee hearing and markup process had been followed, Members could have addressed this bill's shortcomings. Placing it on suspension has further limited Members' participation. I would like to direct the attention of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to the fact that this bill creates $50 million in direct spending. To offset the cost, it will eliminate public funding of political conventions, undoing years of campaign finance reform in the process. Today, Federal election rules seek to keep soft money and undue influence out of the Presidential race. Since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, it's become clear that powerful stakeholders will spend millions to help a candidate win. If public funding were terminated, special interests will once again compete to curry favor with Presidential candidates by bankrolling nominating conventions. Mr. Speaker, it is certainly appropriate to provide relief to homeowners and businesses affected by a disaster; however, it is inconsistent with the intent of the program to ask taxpayers to subsidize loans for those who can get credit elsewhere. Is this the best use of government resources? I don't know. But I'm confident we could have investigated this and other concerns if the committee process were not bypassed in favor of today's suspension vote. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Ranking Member, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill before us today. Republicans love to focus on small businesses when it's convenient for them. They claim it is imperative to pass today's bill because, if we don't, small firms will be harmed. However, today's bill is only good for millionaires and billionaires, not the Nation's job creators. The argument that a partial extension of tax cuts hinders small business hiring relies on distorted facts. Republicans are using a warped definition of a ``small firm'' that counts Mitt Romney as a small business owner. I don't think the average person considers 237 people whose incomes average more than $200 million as small business owners. Contrary to Republican claims, this is not what the American taxpayers think of when they hear ``small business.'' When most people think of entrepreneurs, they envision small manufacturers, architects, Main Street restaurants, and hardware stores--those Americans who risk their savings to create jobs in our communities. Tax cuts should go to real small businesses that are creating jobs, not to people who are simply moving money around for their own profits. Instead of addressing the top concern of small business owners--a lack of demand for their goods and services--this bill simply gives more tax cuts to the very rich. The numbers don't lie. Over 80 percent of the value of these cuts goes to millionaires. That is an average tax cut of $164,000. Let's call this bill what it really is--a tax cut for the rich, not for small businesses. That is not what our economy needs. Vote ``no.''

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank the ranking member for yielding. I rise in opposition to this ill-conceived measure which will do nothing to promote small business growth. Small businesses everywhere need help. They require affordable credit and greater demand for their services. Yet today we are focused on legislation that does nothing to address these challenges and, instead, pushes an extreme agenda. Despite what some assert, regulation is not among entrepreneurs' top concerns. In fact, surveys note that 85 percent of small business owners believe regulation is necessary. And I have with me a survey that was conducted last February by the American Sustainable Business Council, and I will enter this survey into the Record. Opinion Polling: The Economic State of Small Business [Feb. 2012] (By the American Sustainable Business Council, Main Street Alliance, and Small Business Majority) Summary In January and February 2012, the American Sustainable Business Council, Main Street Alliance and Small Business Majority released polling that asked small employers across the country about key issues impacting the small business community. These included access to credit; proposals in the American Jobs Act to boost the economy; regulations; taxes; and money in politics. Respondents were politically diverse: 50% identified as Republican, 32% as Democrat and 15% as independent. The poll found nine in 10 small business owners have a negative view of the role money plays in politics. The results showed 90% of small business owners see the availability of credit as a problem for small business and they strongly favor increasing the lending authority of community banks and credit unions. We also learned that entrepreneurs support current proposals being debated in Congress that aim to boost the economy and create jobs, particularly investments in infrastructure. The polling revealed that consumer demand--not regulation-- is small business owners' greatest concern. In fact, 86% see regulation as a necessary part of a modern economy and three- quarters believe it is necessary to level the playing field between small and large businesses. Lastly, 90% of small business owners believe large corporations use loopholes to avoid taxes that small businesses have to pay, and three- quarters say their own business suffers because of it. Below are the extended main findings of the poll. Methodology The poll reflects an Internet survey of 500 small business owners across the country, conducted by Lake Research. It has a margin of error of +/-4.4%. The survey was conducted between December 8, 2011 and January 4, 2012. Researchers used a random sample of small business owners obtained from Harris Interactive, with additional samples from InfoUSA. Money in Politics Polling results that revealed small business owners' attitudes toward money in politics and the Citizens United decision were released on Jan. 18. Small business owners view the Citizens United decision as bad for small business: 66% of those surveyed said the two- year-old ruling that gives corporations unlimited spending power in elections is bad for small businesses. Only 9% said it was good for small business. Small business owners have a negative view of the role money plays in politics overall: 88% of respondents view the role money plays in politics negatively; 68% view it very negatively. Access to Credit and Proposals to Boost the Economy Poll results that revealed small business owners' attitudes toward credit availability were released on Jan. 26, 2012 in conjunction with results showing their views on proposals in the American Jobs Act. Small business owners say access to credit is a problem: 90% of respondents agree the availability of small business loans is a problem, and 60% have faced difficulty themselves when trying to obtain loans that would grow their businesses. Small business owners agree it is harder now to obtain loans: 61% of respondents say it is harder now than it was four years ago to get a loan. Small business owners support making it easier for community banks and credit unions to lend more: 90% of owners support making it easier for community banks and credit unions to lend to small businesses, and more than three- quarters, or 77%, support creating incentives for community banks to lend more. By more than a 2:1 ratio, respondents support increasing credit unions' lending cap from 12.25% to 27.5% of a credit union's assets. Support for reforming and regulating credit cards is extremely high among small business owners: 82% support tighter credit card regulations, such as clearer disclosure of terms and caps on interest rates, including 47% who strongly support these regulations; 52% of entrepreneurs have used credit cards to help finance their own business. Respondents favor reducing collateral requirements: 60% of small business owners support reducing collateral requirements so loans can become more accessible. The housing and mortgage crisis has harmed consumer demand for small businesses: Almost three-quarters of small business owners, or 73%, feel their business has been hurt by a drop in consumer demand stemming from the housing and mortgage meltdown. Small business owners believe reducing the principal on underwater mortgages will boost spending: 57% of respondents agree reducing the principal on underwater mortgages to the current market value would boost consumer spending, helping small businesses regain their vigor through increased profits. Small business owners strongly support investment in infrastructure: 69% favor investing $50 billion in infrastructure projects that would create jobs. Entrepreneurs favor creating a nationwide wireless network: 59% of those surveyed are in support of creating this kind of network and expanding access to high-speed wireless services. Regulations Polling results that revealed small business owners' attitudes toward government regulations were released on Feb. 1, 2012. Weak demand is small business owners' biggest problem: 34% of respondents said weak demand is their biggest problem, while 15% cited the cost of health coverage and other benefits. Only 14% said it is the level of government regulation. The level of taxes came in fourth place with 12% and competition with larger companies garnered 10%. Small business owners believe eliminating incentives to move jobs overseas would do the most to create jobs: 24% of small business owners said eliminating incentives for employers to move jobs overseas would do the most to create jobs, and 14% called for tax cuts. Thirteen percent of respondents said increasing consumer purchasing would be the biggest job creator and 12% believe jobs lie in improving infrastructure like roads and bridges. Only 10% of respondents said reducing regulation would do the most to create jobs. Small business owners see regulations as a necessary part of a modern economy and believe they can live with them if they're fair and reasonable: 86% of small business owners agree some regulation of business is necessary for a modern economy, and 93% of them agree their business can live with some regulation if it is fair, manageable and reasonable. Small businesses believe some regulations are needed to level the playing field with big business and that enforcement should be just as tough on large corporations as it is on small businesses: 78% of respondents said some regulations are important to protect small businesses from unfair competition and to level the playing field with big businesses. Additionally, 95% believe the enforcement of regulations should be at least as tough on large corporations as it is on small businesses. Another 76% of respondents believe regulations on the books should be enforced. Respondents feel strongly that specific regulations play an important role: 78% believe policies are needed to hold health insurance companies accountable so they don't increase insurance rates by excessive amounts; 84% support policies that ensure food safety for businesses and customers that buy or sell food products and 80% support disclosure and regulation of toxic materials. Small business owners support clean energy policies: 79% of small business owners support having clean air and water in their community in order to keep their family, employees and customers healthy, and 61% support standards that move the country towards energy efficiency and clean energy. Small business owners believe in streamlining the process for regulatory compliance and documentation: 73% of respondents believe we should allow for one-stop electronic filing of government paperwork. Taxes Polling results that revealed small business owners' attitudes toward taxes were released on Feb. 6. Small business owners overwhelmingly believe big corporations use loopholes to avoid taxes that small businesses have to pay: a sweeping 90% believe this to be true; 92% say big corporations' use of such loopholes is a problem. Nine out of 10 small business owners say U.S. multinational corporations using accounting loopholes to shift their U.S. profits to offshore subsidiaries to avoid taxes is a problem: 91% of respondents agreed it is a problem, with 55% saying it is a very serious problem. Majority of small business owners say their business is harmed when big corporations use loopholes to avoid taxes: Three-quarters of respondents agree that their small business is harmed when loopholes allow big corporations to avoid taxes. More than one-third say it harms their business a lot. Small business owners say big corporations are not paying their fair share of taxes: 67% believe big corporations pay less than their fair share of taxes. An even bigger majority, 73%, says multinational corporations pay less than their fair share. Small business owners say households making more than $1 million a year pay less than their fair share in taxes: 58% of owners say households whose annual income exceeds $1 million pay less than their fair share. Small business owners support a higher tax rate for individuals earning more than $1 million a year: 57% of respondents agree that individuals earning more than $1 million a year should pay a higher tax rate on the income over $1 million. Only one small business owner out of 500 polled reported their annual household income to be more than $1 million. Four out of five small business owners disapprove of the ``carried interest'' loophole that gives hedge fund managers a big break on their taxes: 81% of small business owners favor hedge fund managers paying taxes at the ordinary income tax rate, with a top bracket rate currently set at 35%, rather than the 15% capital gains rate--with 61% strongly supporting this change. A majority of small business owners believe Congress should let tax cuts expire on taxable household income exceeding $250,000 a year: 51% of respondents believe Congress should let tax cuts on taxable household income exceeding $250,000 a year expire (40% said they should be extended). About the Organizations American Sustainable Business Council The American Sustainable Business Council is a network of business organizations representing over 100,000 companies and 200,000 business leaders. ASBC advocates for public policies that meet the realities of the 21st century global economy including strategic investments in workforce and infrastructure; standards and safeguards that promote innovation, prevent abuse and protect critical resources; and a new sustainable economic model that fosters a growing, economically-secure middle class. www.asbcouncil.org Main Street Alliance The Main Street Alliance is a national network of small business coalitions. MSA creates opportunities for small business owners to speak for themselves to advance public policies that benefit business owners, their employees, and the communities they serve. Making health reform work for small businesses is a top priority of the MSA network and its state coalitions. www.Mainstreetalliance.org Small Business Majority Small Business Majority is a national nonpartisan small business advocacy organization, founded and run by small business owners, and focused on solving the biggest problems facing America's 28 million small businesses. We conduct extensive opinion and economic research and work with small business owners, policy experts and elected officials nationwide to bring small business voices to the public policy table. www.smallbusinessinajority.org This survey says that eight out of 10 think regulations have a role to play in leveling the playing field between small businesses and larger competitors that seek an unfair advantage. Even surveys by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Businesses, who, themselves are vehemently against regulation, they find that small businesses rank economic uncertainty and poor sales, respectively, as the most important concerns, not regulation. There are a number of proposals that this House could pass to generate demand for small company services and empower them to hire. Tax credits for new employees, expanding payroll tax cuts, and extending tax cuts for working families all come to mind. Let's reject this legislation and move on to a real small business jobs act.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the Chair how much time is left on both sides.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, with that, I am prepared to close. What will small businesses lose if health care reform is repealed? Small business tax credits that save employers $435 million in 2011 will be abolished. Insurers will be able to continue price-gouging their customers and denying coverage for preexisting conditions. Repeal will mean millions of families and employers will no longer receive the benefits of lower premiums on insurance company rebates worth over $300 million this year alone. I urge a ``no'' vote because the ACA was a step in the right direction. Without it, the self-employed and small business employees will continue to be uninsured at high rates with no hope of Republican action to fix the broken health care system. Mr. Speaker, instead of holding this vote, we should be spending our time on targeted measures to help our Nation's small businesses grow and create jobs. Maybe what we should be doing today is debating the jobs bill that the President presented to us in the House of Representatives. With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I rise in strong opposition to the bill before us today. The Supreme Court's recent ruling upholding the health care bill was a historic win for this Nation's small businesses and their employees. Repealing the Affordable Care Act will be an enormous step backwards for 26 million small firms who not only want relief from high health care costs, but for Congress to focus on job creation. This bill will not help a single small business secure a loan, break into new public markets, or invest in its operations. The other side acknowledges this legislation is going nowhere, just like the previous vote we took at the beginning of this Congress. Not only is the health care bill good law, it is good policy and has already led to major achievements for small companies since its enactment. The tax credits from the health care bill have saved over 300,000 small firms an average of $1,400 on their insurance costs. The qualifying therapeutic discovery project program has invested $1 billion in over 4,600 small innovative firms that are developing groundbreaking therapies and creating jobs. Small firms are receiving more value for their premium dollars because the 80/20 rule is now in effect. Because of this, not only is the small group market receiving $321 million in rebates this summer, they are benefiting from lower premiums. The future of health reform will bring expanded coverage for preventive services and new State health exchanges in 2014, allowing more employers to purchase affordable insurance. Soon, prior medical conditions will not bar anyone from obtaining coverage. As the implementation of health care reform continues, improving the health of the Nation's citizens will remain a priority for Congress going forward. At a time when economic growth is critical, we should be focusing on how to help small businesses raise capital and create jobs. Today's bill does none of this. Instead, it threatens our Nation's job creators. It imposes a tax increase by eliminating critical small business tax credits, which have generated $485 million worth of savings. By doing away with reforms that establish new health insurance markets, it would limit small businesses' ability to secure coverage and eliminate choices for entrepreneurs. Small businesses already pay 18 percent more for coverage than their corporate counterparts. The loss of new safeguards would compound this problem. Because of health reform, insurers are no longer able to raise rates arbitrarily. Passage of this bill will strip new protections that provide bargaining power to small companies. Rather than making improvements to the law, the Republicans want to eliminate it without offering any alternatives. While I agree that more can be done to make healthy living more attainable for Americans, voting for today's bill will not do that. One of the first votes I took this Congress was against Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. I will continue opposing any efforts repealing a law that is beneficial to millions of small firms. I urge Members to oppose the bill, and I urge the leadership to focus on meaningful ways to address this Nation's economic challenges. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, since I have two speakers on this side, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).