Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

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

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

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

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very straightforward. It strikes section 210 of the bill. Section 210 authorizes the administrator to issue grants of up to $100,000 to small businesses located in areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, but only if the business was denied a disaster loan by the SBA. This is really, in my view, the height of fiscal irresponsibility. The SBA's determination of whether to grant a disaster loan is based on its determination of reasonable assurance that you can repay your loan, which is a direct quote from the SBA's rules found in the Code of Federal Regulations. Thus, if the SBA has denied a business a disaster loan, it already has determined that it is unlikely, for whatever reason, to repay the loan. In other words, its capacity as a viable business is seriously called into question. Section 210 provides that despite this determination, the Federal Government should create a grant program of up to $100,000 to help small businesses whose survivability was highly improbable to survive in the first place. Again, the SBA has indicated that they don't think this business is viable, that it is going to survive, and then we are going to turn around and give them up to $100,000. It is just not fiscally responsible. To fully fund all of those eligible, CBO estimates that the costs could be up to $180 million. I want to repeat that: $180 million we are talking about here. This seems again fiscally irresponsible, to fund grants when the SBA already has determined that the businesses are not likely to survive. It also remains unclear whether the grants will be sufficient to satisfy the needs of small businesses. How many will be able to survive on a grant of $100,000 if they could not repay a disaster loan of that amount? CBO did not answer that question, but I suspect very few of these businesses will survive. Although the provision is written to include all small businesses affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, there are limitations on which businesses can apply based on the amount of housing stock in a county or parish that is damaged. It is highly likely that only small businesses in Louisiana will qualify. Was this done to reduce costs? If so, why are only Louisiana businesses favored? Were not many small businesses throughout the region devastated by these hurricanes? It seems patently unfair to single out certain businesses for a very generous grant program. Mr. Chairman, I ask that Members support this amendment. To do otherwise, in my view, is just not a fiscally responsible stand to take. Again, every Member has to stand according to their own vote, and I am sure we will determine this based upon what they consider to be its merits. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is really rather simple. It just strikes section 211 of the bill as amended by the manager's amendment. Even though the manager's amendment addresses the direct cost provision of the original section as determined by the CBO score, section 211 still is fraught with one major problem. And that is that it allows double compensation for the same injury or destruction or problem that the person had. As I understand section 211 in the manager's amendment, here is how that provision operates: For example, a homeowner applies for a physical disaster loan from the SBA for, say, $100,000. The homeowner then receives a grant from the State for $50,000 for the same destruction. Under existing law, the homeowner would have to immediately pay back $50,000 of the SBA loan because the SBA loan only covers amounts not otherwise compensated for through some other financial resource. Typically, that is insurance, but it does not have to be. Section 211 does not change the requirement that the homeowner would have to pay down the $50,000 in the disaster loan. Instead, section 211 would then allow the homeowner to apply for a grant from the SBA to replace the same amount of money that they had just paid to the SBA to reduce their loan. Now you are probably asking yourself why go through this convoluted process. Well, this is the only way for the majority to obtain a program that does not require direct spending, and therefore, it gets around the PAYGO problem. But even though this is an improvement over the bill as reported out of the committee because it has no direct spending and therefore is in compliance with PAYGO, it remains fundamentally flawed. The disaster loan program is just that: the Federal Government's program designed to provide redress to those homeowners and small businesses injured in a disaster. And it is important to note that the vast majority of loan recipients, both businesses and homeowners, receive loans at heavily subsidized interest rates of 3 or 4 percent interest. It is not a grant program and was never designed to be a grant program. The interest rate subsidy, a 30-year term, and the SBA's authority to suspend payment on principal and interest constitute the compensation needed to rebuild many areas, from Chatsworth in California to Homestead in Florida. Now, section 211 of H.R. 1361 has the recipient of a disaster loan obtaining a grant from a source other than the SBA, using that money to pay off all or a portion of the SBA disaster loan, and then apply to the SBA for a grant to replace the grant money that the recipient of the disaster loan just paid the SBA. And, again, I know this sounds very convoluted. In essence, there is a determination that double compensation is needed because the rather robust compensation already included in the Small Business Act and sufficient for other disasters is insufficient compensation. It is also important to note that, for victims of Hurricane Katrina, there are billions of other dollars that have been made available to assist these victims on an ad hoc basis, yet it is never enough. And this bill indicates that. Now comes section 211 of H.R. 1361 in a clear effort to ensure that victims of Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma and Rita receive double compensation. This raises two distinct questions. First, why do victims of these three hurricanes get special treatment of double compensation, and why should not other disaster victims get double compensation? Yes, Katrina was a tragedy, but so were Hurricane Andrew and Hurricane Charley and the attacks of September 11, for example. This seems incredibly arbitrary to select only those three disasters for something as unusual as double compensation. Second and far more important is the concept, as I indicated, of double compensation. It has been a longstanding tradition of American jurisprudence that a party shall not receive double compensation for the same injury. That concept is codified in the disaster loan provisions of the Small Business Act by prohibiting the SBA from issuing a loan for amounts already compensated for by insurance or other means. Thus under current law, a disaster loan applicant cannot get an insurance claim for $100,000 for a $100,000 loss and also get an SBA disaster loan for the same amount of money. Mr. Chairman, I ask that Members support this amendment. It is fiscally responsible and continues to recognize that individuals should not be granted double compensation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, prior to yielding back all our time, if I could just make a comment or two. I will yield myself as much time as I may consume. I will be very brief. I just want to reiterate that there are things within this bill which I think are very good efforts in resolving some of the difficulties that we saw in Katrina. First of all, the SBA's response time for loans and other things was unacceptable, and it is absolutely critical that it be improved upon. And I think there are some things in this bill that do just that. For example, better coordination between the SBA and FEMA; the requirement of a plan ahead of time, a disaster plan ahead of time that everybody knows about so you are not looking for a plan or trying to put one together after the disaster has already hit; it makes sense to do that ahead of time. This calls for this. It calls for a reserve corps of trained personnel, which I particularly like because you are talking about training people ahead of time, but not necessarily hiring them as new government employees that then one has to pay and pay compensation to over a long period of time. So I like the fact that we are talking about training a reserve corps ahead of time. I think the idea of having simulation exercises called for ahead of time makes a lot of sense so that people are prepared. As I indicated before, however, there are a couple of, in my view, fatal flaws to this particular piece of legislation, which we are going to address in a few moments here in a couple of amendments. And if they pass, then we would be very supportive of the whole act. If they don't, unfortunately, we would have to oppose the bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Today, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1361, the RECOVER Act. While there are many important things that this bill does, there are two provisions in particular, I believe, that unfortunately undermine the good work that has been done by the chairwoman in drafting the legislation. I want to make clear, I think she has worked very hard. I think the staff has worked very hard to craft what they thought was a good bill, and I think it still has the potential. There are two amendments that we are going to offer subsequent to the general debate argument here, and if those amendments are adopted, I think they fix the bill sufficiently that we can support it because, as I indicated, I think there are many good things in this bill. But without those two provisions being passed, we unfortunately have to oppose it in its current form. These two provisions, as I indicated, unfortunately make it impossible for me to support it as drafted, and the manager's amendment offered by the chairwoman, while making one of the provisions less problematic, does not assuage our underlying concerns about the two provisions that I just mentioned. I think everyone can agree that all branches of government failed to respond adequately to the devastation that was Hurricane Katrina, and one of those agencies that did not measure up is the Small Business Administration unfortunately. This is not the conclusion of Democrats or Republicans, or Louisiana or Mississippi Members of Congress. It is a conclusion reached by the GAO, small business owners in the region and even the SBA itself. While much of the focus on the response to Katrina has focused on the immediate aftermath and the failures of FEMA, the SBA plays a key role in the response to disasters by issuing loans to both homeowners and small businesses affected by the disaster. Thus, an inadequate response by the SBA undermines the recovery of communities devastated by natural disasters. It is vital that the SBA be prepared to handle future disasters, including some worst-case possible scenarios. Administrator Preston understands this and has taken a number of steps to improve the SBA's readiness and made efforts to ensure that the inadequate response does not repeat itself. Through his efforts, he has reduced backlogs, streamlined loan processing, improved customer service and identified points where the processing of disaster loans broke down. Administrator Preston also will ensure that the computer systems at the SBA will be improved; establish a reserve corps; utilize non-SBA staff to process loans; establish a new disaster manual that will be finalized by June 1 for the start of the current hurricane season; and continually revise responses to disasters based on the experience of previous disasters. One may ask why a bill is necessary if Administrator Preston is making these changes. Well, as we have seen, other administrators may not have the same priorities and may reduce preparedness in the future to address other needs of the SBA. Therefore, incorporating many of these changes in statute will ensure that the administrator and SBA personnel will have the appropriate resources and congressional direction to ensure the SBA will have an adequate response to a disaster in the future. Title I of the bill makes important changes in the SBA's management structure to ensure that the agency is prepared not only for predictable disasters but also the unpredictable ones. Title I requires the administrator to, A, develop a comprehensive disaster response plan; B, conduct an annual disaster simulation exercise; C, maintain a disaster reserve corps; D, create plans to obtain additional office space needed for major disasters; E, coordinate disaster assistance programs with FEMA; and create, from existing personnel, the position of an associate administrator for disaster assistance that has experience in both disaster planning and disaster response. These changes are all beneficial and will ensure that the SBA has the necessary tools and experience to respond to disasters. These changes are supplemented by section 208, which provides enhanced lending authority to banks and other financial institutions that are preferred SBA lenders to process disaster loans in certain circumstances. Given the expertise of SBA preferred lenders, they should be able to supplement the SBA's capability to process disaster loans when necessary. There are other important changes in title II that also are beneficial, and I commend the chairwoman, Chairwoman Velazquez, for including those in this legislation. By themselves, these provisions would have made an effective bipartisan bill that ensures the SBA has the current planning and future capacity to respond to a disaster, whether it is a local tornado or an incident of national significance such as Hurricane Katrina. Unfortunately, the legislation has two critical provisions that, in my view, seriously undercut the otherwise excellent work of the committee in creating a structure that will ensure the SBA is prepared to respond irrespective of the scope of the disaster. The first provision would authorize, according to CBO estimates, $180 million in grants to small businesses that were denied SBA loans. The other provision would grant the administrator the authority to, in essence, create a grant program that replaces grant funds that must be applied against existing disaster loans issued by the SBA. In other words, it allows a double compensation, a person to be compensated for the same damage twice. Given my concern about these two provisions, I will be offering amendments at the appropriate time to strike these two provisions, two amendments that we will be offering. If these two provisions are removed, I think the House would then be able to pass a sound bill on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis that dramatically improves the administrative structure by which the SBA responds to disasters in a fiscally responsible manner. As I indicated before, if the two amendments are not passed, unfortunately I am going to have to oppose this particular piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) who, as one of the newer members of the committee, has been very active and is really contributing much to the committee already.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, we reserve the balance of our time.

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

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, we will continue to reserve our time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, we will continue to reserve our time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, we will reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, we will continue to reserve our time.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 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 in support of H.R. 1468, the Disadvantaged Business Disaster Eligibility Act. This legislation, as the chairwoman indicated, would simply extend for 18 months the period of time that 8(a) Small Business Development Program participants who enrolled in the program prior to August 29 of 2005 could stay in the program by 18 months if they had their businesses primarily located in the area devastated by Hurricane Katrina. The 8(a) Small Business Development Program, administered by the Small Business Administration, provides a useful mechanism for aspiring entrepreneurs and existing small business owners who, for social or economic reasons, may not have the same opportunities other small business owners have had and face challenging barriers to their success. Entrepreneurs who participate in the 8(a) program undergo an extensive 9-year process, where they obtain specialized business training, counseling, marketing assistance, and high-level executive development. They also receive additional help in the form of low- interest loans, access to government surplus office equipment, and bonding assistance. The Small Business Development Program provides many of the tools needed for any small business to succeed. Most significantly, the program assists these entrepreneurs in obtaining Federal Government contracts as a base from which to grow their businesses. Given the devastation to the gulf coast region by Hurricane Katrina, access to Federal Government contracts constitutes an important component of the region's rebirth, and I think we all agree that we all want to see the rebirth in that area occur. Tragically, as every American remembers, the late summer of 2005 proved to be one of the most catastrophic in American history. The 9.7 million Americans residing on the gulf coast of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi were victims of an unprecedented natural disaster, which, unfortunately, has become a nightmare that is etched in all our memories and a daily challenge for those who lived through it. The storms of 2005 drowned 80 percent of New Orleans in seawater, killed in excess of 1,600 people, destroyed more than 200,000 gulf coast homes, and displaced more than 1 million of our fellow Americans. Starting a new business is challenging under normal circumstances. Only two-thirds of them make it through their first 2 years. And needless to say, the devastation along the gulf coast compounds this difficulty exponentially. This legislation provides some additional time for those businesses facing the 9-year participation deadline provided for in the 8(a) program to get back on their feet. Nothing in the Small Business Act currently allows for an extension of participation as a result of extraordinary circumstances such as those created by Hurricane Katrina. For business owners that may not have had access to their businesses or their customers for months, the rigidity of the Small Business Act seems unduly harsh. An additional 18 months of assistance to firms who face an uphill battle before the storms hit who are now hanging on by a thread after the storms have passed is truly the least that we can do. Today I encourage my colleagues to support this necessary legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding; and, Mr. Speaker, I want to especially thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and Mrs. Nita Lowey for their hard work in bringing this thoughtful resolution to the House floor today. I was in Bangladesh about 3 weeks ago where I had the opportunity to meet with the new caretaker government, that leadership, as well as the leaderships in the two main political parties that are vying for power and have held power the last several decades. In fact, I met with our ambassador and members in the business community. But one of the highlights and I think the most significant thing that I had an opportunity to do was to meet with the gentleman, Shoaib Choudhury, who is a journalist, and we have heard much talk about his situation this morning. But I think the gravity of it is significant, and I think it is important that this House is taking this action today. Mr. Choudhury is a journalist in Bangladesh, known for his viewpoints which are favorable to expanding dialogue between Muslims and Jews and Christians and for developing ties with Israel. As was indicated, he was actually arrested on his way to Israel at the airport, and he is also trying to have more equality relative to religion and especially his observance and opposition to Islamic extremism, which unfortunately is on the rise in Bangladesh and in a number of regions. Just as Islamic extremism and fundamentalism have been a danger in other areas of the world, it is a real problem in Bangladesh, and he has had the courage to speak out on this important issue. Unfortunately, in a place where journalists are not necessarily given broad freedom of speech as our media would have here in this country, Mr. Choudhury was arrested and charged with sedition and accused of espionage and unjustly incarcerated for 17 months during which he received less than adequate treatment for glaucoma and other conditions from which he suffers. He is now facing charges which could bring the death penalty under Bangladesh law. Now, several government leaders indicated that they do not intend to pursue the death penalty in this particular case; but when one considers the actions for which Mr. Choudhury was charged, this is not a person that should be jailed in the first place. This is a person who should be honored, as he has been around the world. You have to admire his strength and his resilience. I asked him how he was being treated and spoke with him about the prospects for his trial. His next trial appearance was supposed to be February 28. At the time of my visit, Mr. Choudhury was encouraged by recent government assurances that his charges might be dropped or that they did not intend to go forward with the death penalty; but as it turns out, a radical Islamist-affiliated judge recently signed an order forcing the trial and the court proceedings to proceed. He is being accused of a threat to the security of Bangladesh. So much for a fair trial and just treatment. This is something that really should get the attention not only of this House but the world. This bipartisan resolution on the floor today urges the Bangladeshi Government to drop all charges against Mr. Choudhury. The United States Congress should show Mr. Choudhury that he can count on our full support and that the success of fledgling democracies such as Bangladesh lies squarely on the very freedoms that Mr. Choudhury embodies. I am glad to be a cosponsor of this important resolution. I thank the Speaker for recognizing this and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. One of the most cherished protections in our democracy is the ability to vote freely and anonymously and without fear of retribution. The bill before us today would take this right from American workers when deciding whether or not to bargain collectively and open the doors to fear and intimidation and coercion. The underlying bill would hit small businesses particularly hard because they operate in smaller environments. Card checks could cause serious management problems in these smaller environments, because each employee could know how every other employee voted, the results of which could be seriously disruptive for the small business. This bill would also mandate compulsory, binding arbitration between the employer and the employee, where all decisions would be made through a third party government official. In essence, this means that the fate of a small business owner, the one who has built a company through years of hard work, the one who may have placed every penny earned back into the business, and the one who employs families, friends and neighbors and who contributes to the local economy, in the hands of organized labor and bureaucrats in Washington. Is that fair? No. I submitted an amendment to the Rules Committee that would have exempted small businesses and protected small business employees from this ill-conceived legislation. Unfortunately, the majority blocked consideration of it on the floor today. They seem intent on limiting debate on this bill, and with a bill this bad, that is understandable. Madam Chairman, this bill sacrifices the right of American workers to freely determine their future on the altar of big labor, and it dares small businesses to survive after having the rug of independent elections pulled out from under them. This is a bad bill, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. It is a very dangerous bill.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Speaker, I first want to express our appreciation to the brave men and women of our Armed Forces. I have met with our troops in Iraq and in Afghanistan and our wounded soldiers in Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval Hospitals and the families of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice defending our freedoms. We thank them for their unwavering commitment to our country and believe we owe it to them to have an open and honest debate regarding our next steps in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the war in Iraq has been challenging. We are fighting a war against terrorists and radical Islamic militants who are determined to kill as many Americans as possible. They believe that killing American soldiers will drive us out of Iraq and out of the Middle East, allowing radical terrorists free rein and a base to expand their influence around the world. These are the same radical Islamic militants who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, the Khobar Towers in 1996, the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and the USS Cole in 2000. We surely can't forget the slaughter of 3,000 innocent American citizens on our soil. And just last year a couple arrested in Britain planned to use their 6-month-old baby as a human bomb to destroy a civilian airliner over the Atlantic Ocean. We must recognize that we are dealing with irrational, radical, maniacal monsters who will not respond to diplomatic niceties. Mr. Speaker, we all know that the vast majority of Americans do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, just as they do not support a never-ending deployment of U.S. forces there. They want us, they expect us, to work together and with the President to find a way to win the war on terror while bringing our troops home as soon as possible. We should be past the point of political posturing when it comes to Iraq. Yet this resolution is more of the same, once again placing politics over policy. Instead of encouraging substantive discussion on options in Iraq, the majority has once again shut us out of the process and refused to consider any alternative to their point of view. That is truly unfortunate because this nonbinding resolution does nothing to increase the accountability of the Iraqi government or provide for our troops or even propose a new course in Iraq. We all agree that this administration has made mistakes in Iraq. Most harmful, I believe, has been the slow pace of training Iraq troops and security forces to take responsibility for their own country. Early lapses in this area are a principal reason why our troops remain in Iraq today. But the administration has taken action to accelerate this training and better prepare Iraqi forces. So now it is time for the Iraqi government to demonstrate that it has the ability to confront the problems facing their country, both politically and militarily. That is why it is so important that we hold the Iraqi government accountable for what they say they are going to do and require them to take the lead in securing their Nation. The Iraqi government and the Iraqi people must recognize that they, not American troops, are responsible for the future of their country. With that being said, we must continue to support our troops and commanders on the ground by giving them the resources they need to be successful. It would be a tragic mistake to cut off funding or limit support for our troops fighting against terrorists abroad. We also must be very careful about the message we send to our allies and our enemies and, most importantly, to our troops in the field who have performed with great courage. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group has stated that it could support a shorter redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective, and that is a quote from the Iraq Study Group report. Well, General Petraeus says that it can be effective. Clearly, the path forward must include military and political strategic benchmarks so that we are in a position to measure the progress and commitment of the Iraqi government, but we must also be willing to give our troops, who have sacrificed so much for our Nation, the opportunity and the resources to be successful and provide the short-term support needed to achieve increased stability in Iraq. There are serious consequences to our national security if we fail in Iraq. Cutting off funding, limiting military options or pushing for immediate withdrawal will only make our future more dangerous. It is time to stop the politics, stop the games, stop the finger pointing, and do what is best for America. Let us put partisanship aside and discuss concrete plans on how we can defeat radical terrorists and protect our Nation from those who mean us great harm.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. This bill simply, as the chairwoman indicated, extends all the programs, including pilot programs, the authorities or provisions of the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act as they are presently constituted until July 31 of this year. The programs and authorities of the Small Business Administration expired on February 2. We would have preferred a longer extension, but the other body insisted on a shorter extension date of July 31. Passage of this bill will hopefully give the Small Business Committees in both the House and the Senate the time necessary to work in a bipartisan manner on a more comprehensive SBA reauthorization bill. Many of the programs of the SBA do not operate under a direct appropriation. This legislation will reaffirm their legality to operate, including the Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs. Mr. Speaker, this bill is quite simple. It contains the exact same language, with only the date changed, that passed the House last month by an overwhelming vote of 413-2. Again, I look forward to working in a bipartisan manner with Chairwoman Velazquez and other committee members to produce a good, fiscally responsible SBA reauthorization bill that can eventually be signed into law by the President. I especially want to thank Chairwoman Velazquez for her graciousness in agreeing to bring up this bill in such a quick manner. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 434 with the Senate amendments so that our Nation's small businesses will see no interruption of service from the SBA over the next 5 months while we work to adopt a comprehensive reauthorization bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. We also have no further speakers, and we yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill simply extends all the programs, including pilot programs, the authorities or provisions of the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act as they are presently constituted until the end of this year. Currently, the programs and authorities of the Small Business Administration expire on February 2. Passage of this bill will give the committee the time necessary to work in a bipartisan manner on a more comprehensive Small Business Administration reauthorization bill during the rest of this session. I am pleased to enclose for the Record a letter dated January 8, 2007, from the administrator of the SBA, Steven Preston, endorsing a longer-term extension of the authorities of the SBA. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of the Administrator, Washington, DC. Hon. Steve Chabot, Ranking Member, Committee on Small Business, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Chabot: I am writing to you regarding the authorization of the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) programs for fiscal year 2007. As you know, those programs were temporarily extended by Public Law 109-316. That authorization is due to expire on February 2, 2007. While SBA's major loan programs will still function without that express authorization several other important authorizations will expire. These include SBA's co- sponsorship authority which enables our district offices to conduct much of their outreach and assistance functions. Therefore, rather than place the SBA in the unfortunate position of suspending the operation of these programs, I ask that you and your colleagues extend the authorization of SBA's programs through the end of fiscal 2007. Continuing the current authorization without any further amendment will prevent any interruption in the services of the SBA and allow SBA and Congress to work unimpeded on multi-year authorization legislation. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. If you or your staff have any questions please contact C.E. ``Tee'' Rowe in our Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs at (202) 205-6703. Sincerely yours, Steven C. Preston. Mr. Speaker, many of the programs of the SBA do not operate under a direct appropriation. This includes the 7(a) General Business Loan Guarantee Program, the Certified Development Company Program and the Small Business Investment Company Program. Passage of this bill will make it absolutely certain that there is no legal ambiguity as to whether or not the Federal Government can continue to guarantee these critical loan and debenture programs for the rest of this year. In addition, this bill would extend the authority of the Small Business Administration to operate several smaller programs, including grants to small business development centers to participate in the Drug-Free Workplace Program, sustainability funding for women business centers, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Pilot Program, the New Markets Venture Capital Program, and BusinessLinc. It would also extend the SBA's cosponsorship and gift authority, which enables the SBA to accept private donations to help put on events or print publications, thus saving the taxpayer substantial dollars. Finally, H.R. 434 gives the SBA all the authority it needs to continue the operations of the Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs. Mr. Speaker, this bill is quite simple. It contains the exact same language, with only the dates changed, that was signed into law four times in the 108th Congress. It was also passed one time in 2006 when Congress confronted the same problem during previous efforts to pass an SBA reauthorization bill into law. Extending the authorities of the SBA until December 31 of this year will give the Small Business Committee unimpeded time to develop a comprehensive SBA reauthorization bill without having to confront every few weeks another expiration deadline. I look forward to working in a bipartisan manner with Chairwoman Velazquez and other committee members to produce a good, fiscally responsible reauthorization bill that can eventually be signed into law by the President. I especially want to thank the graciousness of Chairwoman Velazquez for agreeing to bring up this bill in such an expeditious manner, and look forward to working with her in the upcoming session of Congress. I want to emphasize what the chairwoman said about the importance of small business to our country. After all, about 99 percent of the businesses in this country have fewer than 500 employees, which by definition means they are small business, and 60 to 80 percent of new jobs in this country are created by these small businesses. Oftentimes the regulations, the taxation, the litigation, there are a whole range of problems which they have to bear. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can over the next 2 years work in a bipartisan manner in order to help small businesses. It is really not a Democrat or Republican issue, it is an issue which benefits all Americans. So I think this is especially a committee in which I think bipartisanship is called for, and I am optimistic we will be able to do that. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 434, so that our Nation's small businesses will see no interruption of service from the SBA over the next 11 months while Congress works uninterrupted on a comprehensive reauthorization bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.