[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 141 (Tuesday, September 12, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8733-H8737]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              SMALL BUSINESS CREDIT EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1995

  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 2150) to amend the Small Business Act and the Small 
Business Investment Act of 1958 to reduce the cost to the Federal 
Government of guaranteeing certain loans and debentures, and for other 
purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:
                               H.R. 2150

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Credit 
     Efficiency Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. FEE FOR LOAN GUARANTEES SOLD ON SECONDARY MARKET.

       Section 5(g)(4)(A) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     634(g)(4)(A)) is amended by striking ``4/10 of one 
     percent'' and inserting ``one-half of 1 percent''.

     SEC. 3. GENERAL BUSINESS LOANS.

       (a) Reduced Level of Participation in Guaranteed Loans.--
     Section 7(a)(2) of the 

[[Page H 8734]]
     Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Level of participation in guaranteed loans.--
       ``(A) In general.--In agreements to participate in loans on 
     a deferred basis under this subsection, such participation by 
     the Administration shall be--
       ``(i) equal to 80 percent of the balance of the financing 
     outstanding at the time of disbursement if such financing is 
     less than or equal to $100,000; and
       ``(ii) equal to 75 percent of the balance of the financing 
     outstanding at the time of disbursement if such financing is 
     greater than $100,000.
       ``(B) Reduced participation.--The guarantee percentage 
     specified by subparagraph (A) for any loan may be reduced 
     upon the request of the participating lender. The 
     Administration shall not use the percent of guarantee 
     requested as a criterion for establishing priorities in 
     approving guarantee requests.
       ``(C) Interest rate under preferred lenders program.--The 
     maximum interest rate for a loan guaranteed under the 
     Preferred Lenders Program shall not exceed the maximum 
     interest rate, as determined by the Administration, which is 
     made applicable to other loan guarantees under this 
     subsection.
       ``(D) Preferred lenders program defined.--In this 
     paragraph, the term `Preferred Lenders Program' means a 
     program under which a written agreement between the lender 
     and the Administration delegates to the lender--
       ``(i) complete authority to make and close loans with a 
     guarantee from the Administration without obtaining the prior 
     specific approval of the Administration; and
       ``(ii) authority to service and liquidate such loans.''.
       ``(b) Guarantee Fees.--Section 7(a)(18) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(18) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(18) Guarantee fees.--
       ``(A) General fee.--For any loan or financing made under 
     this subsection other than a loan repayable in a period of 
     one year or less, the Administration shall collect a 
     guarantee fee equal to--
       ``(i) 2 percent of the gross amount of any loan guaranteed 
     under this subsection of an amount less than $250,000;
       ``(ii) 2.5 percent of the gross amount of any loan 
     guaranteed under this subsection of an amount equal to or 
     greater than $250,000 and less than $500,000; or
       ``(iii) 3 percent of the gross amount of any loan 
     guaranteed under this subsection of an amount equal to or 
     greater than $500,000.

     Such fee shall be payable by the participating lending 
     institution and may be charged to the borrower.
       ``(B) Additional fee to offset cost.--
       ``(i) In general.--In addition to the guarantee fee to be 
     collected under subparagraph (A), the Administration shall 
     collect a fee for loans guaranteed under this subsection 
     (other than loans for which a guarantee fee may be collected 
     under section 5(g)(4)(A)) in an amount equal to not more than 
     four-tenths of 1 percent per year of the outstanding 
     principal portion of such loan guaranteed by the 
     Administration.
       ``(ii) Use.--Fees collected under clause (i) shall be used 
     solely to offset the cost (as defined by section 502(5) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) of guaranteeing loans 
     under this subsection.
       ``(iii) Payment.--Fees collected under clause (i) shall be 
     payable by the participating lending institution and shall 
     not be charged to the borrower.''.
       (c) Repeal of Provisions Allowing Retention of Guarantee 
     Fees by Lenders.--Section 7(a)(19) of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(19)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) by striking ``shall (i) develop'' and inserting ``shall 
     develop''; and
       (B) by striking ``, and (ii)'' and all that follows before 
     the period at the end; and
       (2) by striking subparagraph (C).

     SEC. 4. MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY DEBENTURE 
                   PROGRAM.

       (A) Maximum Loan Amount.--Section 502(2) of the Small 
     Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 696(2)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(2) Loans made by the Administration under this section 
     shall be limited to $1,250,000 for each such identifiable 
     small business concern.''.
       (b) Fee to Offset Cost.--Section 503(b)(3) of the Small 
     Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 697(b)(3)) is 
     amended by inserting before the semicolon the following: 
     ``and includes a one-eighth of 1 percent fee which shall be 
     paid to the Administration and which shall be used solely to 
     offset the cost (as defined by section 502(5) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974) of guaranteeing the 
     debenture.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard] will be recognized for 20 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers].
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2150, the Small 
Business Credit Efficiency Act of 1995. H.R. 2150 is a simple piece of 
legislation. The purpose of the bill is to adjust the fees and 
guarantee levels of the loan programs found in section 7(a) of the 
Small Business Act and section 503 of the Small Business Investment Act 
of 1958 thereby lowering the credit subsidy rate and the cost of both 
programs.
  H.R. 2150 accomplishes this through a few basic changes:
  For the section 7(a) program it increases the annual fee charged to 
the lenders who sell the guaranteed portion of their 7(a) loans on the 
secondary market from 0.4 percent of the outstanding principal balance 
of the guaranteed portion to 0.5 percent. The bill also establishes a 
0.4 percent annual fee on the outstanding principal of all 7(a) 
guaranteed loans that are not sold into the secondary market.
  H.R. 2150 will also reduce and simplify the amount of guarantee 
offered through the 7(a) program. The guarantee percentage will now be 
no more than 80 percent of any loan up to $100,000 and no more than 75 
percent of any loan above $100,000.
  This will significantly simplify the current system where loans under 
$155,000 are guaranteed up to 90 percent; loans over $155,000 are 
guaranteed up to 85 percent; and loans from preferred lenders are 
guaranteed at 70 percent.
  Finally, H.R. 2150 increases the guarantee fees charged on guaranteed 
loans. The current fee is 2 percent of the guaranteed portion of all 
loans. The fees will now increase to 2 percent of the gross amount of 
any loan below $250,000; 2.5 percent of any loan between $250,000 and 
$500,000; and 3 percent of any loan above $500,000. H.R. 2150 also ends 
the practice of allowing lenders to keep one-half of the guarantee fees 
on certain loans.
  In the section 504 development company program H.R. 2150 will 
increase the total loan amount available from $750,000 to $1,250,000 
and add a one-eighth of 1 percent fee to the cost of all loans made by 
a Certified Development Company under this program. This fee is to be 
passed on directly to the Small Business Administration to eliminate 
the subsidy rate.
  Mr. Speaker, the changes proposed in H.R. 2150 are estimated to lower 
the credit subsidy rate for the 7(a) program to 1.06 percent. CBO 
estimates that these changes will result in only $327 million in 
outlays over the next 5 years, instead of $582 million a decrease of 
$255 million. Those figures are based on appropriations that would 
fully fund these programs, and in fact, the actual outlays will 
probably be less.
  Let me give my colleagues some more concrete figures--at the House-
passed 1996 appropriations level of $104.5 million the Small Business 
Administration will be able to guarantee $9.8 billion in 7(a) loans. 
This is an additional $2 billion in loan guarantees for $110.6 million 
fewer than fiscal year 1995, and $85.2 million below the President's 
budget request.
  The changes also lower the subsidy rate on the 504 development 
company program to zero. This means this program will operate without 
the need for any appropriated funds. The 504 program already functions 
in a nearly privatized state and the committee has decided to go the 
final distance. This change represents an $8 million savings over the 
1995 appropriation. So in fiscal year 1996 the 504 program will be able 
to offer $2.6 billion in loan guarantees for zero appropriated dollars.
  In sum, H.R. 2150 will allow us to provide $12.5 billion in loan 
guarantees for small business in fiscal year 1996; $3.3 billion more in 
total assistance for $118.6 million less in appropriations.
  Mr. Speaker, these changes come in the face of growing demand for 
small business credit assistance through the SBA's section 7(a) and 
section 504 loan programs.
  As the number of persons who enter our Nation's economy as small 
business owners increases, the availability of credit continues to fall 
short. Our committee's hearings have regularly pinpointed 
overregulation of the banking industry as one of the root causes of 
this shortage. However, despite the administration's attempts at 
reducing and easing banking regulation the demand for the services of 
the SBA's loan programs continue to rise.
  Over the years there have been numerous supplemental appropriations 
for the 7(a) and 504 business loan programs. The most recent occurred 
in 

[[Page H 8735]]
1993 when the SBA received a $175 million appropriation that nearly 
doubled the 1993 appropriation for the 7(a) loan program.
  However, the committee recognizes that supplemental appropriations 
and liberal use of the taxpayer's dollars are things of the past. 
Fiscal responsibility dictates that we reduce the credit subsidy rate 
of the section 7(a) program and the section 504 program in order to 
enable the Small Business Administration to meet the needs of our 
Nation's small businesses and operate at a minimal cost to the 
taxpayer.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2150 meets both those goals. I urge my colleagues 
to support this bill, the small business men and women it will help, 
and the fiscally responsible fashion in which it helps them.
                              {time}  1240

  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2150, the Small Business 
Credit Efficiency Act, because I believe it will allow the Small 
Business Administration to better meet the loan demands of our 
country's growing small business community. This bill passed the Small 
Business Committee by voice vote last month, because the committee 
recognizes the importance of providing small business owners and 
entrepreneurs the opportunity to create jobs and spur economic growth 
in many areas of America which are facing challenging and often 
difficult economic times.
  The SBA's 7(a) and 504 loan programs demonstrate the importance of 
the SBA in providing financial assistance to our small business 
community. In my congressional district, located in central and 
southern Illinois, the multitude of successes these two loan programs 
have had can be seen throughout many of our rural towns and local 
business districts. From the construction company in Marion, IL to the 
Greenhouse Nursery in Sullivan, the SBA has provided important 
opportunities to hundreds of my constituents through its loan program 
services.
  As Congress works to balance the Federal budget, it is important we 
make Government work better and smarter for the people it serves, and 
that is what I believe we are doing here today. By adjusting the 
guarantee levels and fees for 7 (a) and 504 loans, we make these SBA 
programs available to a greater number of potential borrowers. In 
addition, we reduce the amount of appropriations needed to fund SBA 
loan guarantees by a total of $255 million over 2 years, while still 
maintaining the attractiveness of the SBA's many loan programs to the 
small business and financial communities.
  In closing, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] 
for her leadership in bringing this important legislation before the 
Small Business Committee. Thanks should also go to the ranking Democrat 
member, the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] for his work on this 
bill. I strongly believe the changes we are making in these two 
important loan programs will allow Congress and the SBA to meet the 
needs of our small business owners more effectively and responsibly.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
[Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise, with some reluctance, in support 
of this bill. My reluctance grows out of the fact that, because this 
measure is on the Suspension Calendar, the ranking minority member, Mr. 
LaFalce, will not be able to offer a perfecting amendment. His 
amendment was cooperatively withdrawn to allow time for a hearing on 
it, so that the markup of the bill could proceed. Just before the 
recess, the full committee marked up H.R. 2150, the Small Business 
Credit Efficiency Act of 1995.
  At that time, Mr. LaFalce introduced an amendment that would restore 
to 90 percent the amount of a guarantee on financing for 1 year or less 
under the Small Business Administration's Export Working Capital 
Guarantee Program. The SBA 7(a) Program is designed to provide greater 
access to capital for the small business. It is the startup and 
expansion for primary loan guarantee program for those small businesses 
seeking commercial loans of $750,000 or less. Without the SBA loans 
many smaller businesses would not have an opportunity. Minorities and 
women are prime b eneficiaries of this loan guarantee program, as well 
as small exporters. The program has grown over the last 5 years. For 
fiscal year 1995, the SBA is expected to handle some 56,000 loans, 
totaling $7.8 billion. the SBA serves as a facilitator and guarantees a 
percentage of a loan a small business might arrange with a commercial 
lending insitution.
  The bill, H.R. 2150, is designed to increase the leverage of 
Government dollars against private dollars and to reduce the subsidy 
rate for the 7(a) program to approximately 1 percent. This is 
accomplished in several ways, by increasing the fees for loans sold; by 
reducing the guarantee on loans; by changing the guarantee fee on 
loans; by repealing the provision that allows lenders to retain half 
the fee on small and rural loans; and by other methods. This bill is 
important, and I support it. But, I also supported the LaFalce 
amendment because I believe it was consistent with the thrust and 
spirit of H.R. 2150, while at the same time insuring that the goals of 
the 7(a) program are met. The LaFalce amendment was about a policy with 
which financial institutions, the Government and participants alike 
have become familiar and support.
  Considerable resources have been committed over the past year by both 
SBA and the Ex-Im Bank in an effort to make the program work. Much of 
that effort will be lost with an abrupt, unnecessary change at this 
point. The Export Working Capital Guarantee Program is vital to women, 
minorities including small exporters. We should keep it working. 
Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, and 
I want to thank Chairman Meyers and ranking member LaFalce for their 
work in drafting this legislation. This bill will help meet the growing 
demand for small business capital, while reducing the cost to the 
taxpayers.
  Since 1992, the demand for the Small Business Administrations 7(a) 
and 504 Loan Guaranty Programs has increased considerably, and the SBA 
has experienced difficulty in meeting this demand. The SBA requested 
that legislation be enacted to decrease the credit subsidy rate of the 
7(a) Loan Guaranty Program, and the 504 Equipment Lease Program. The 
Small Business Committee has responded quickly by drafting the bill we 
have before us today.
  The legislation will reduce the taxpayer subsidy necessary to fund 
the loan loss reserve by $253 million in both fiscal years 1996 and 
1997. Rather than rely on annual appropriations, the 7(a) and the 504 
Loan Guaranty Programs will generate income from lender and borrower 
fees similar to the private market.
  This will eliminate the chronic quarterly funding shortfalls that 
have plagued the programs in recent years, particularly the 7(a) 
program. This bill adjusts the guaranty levels and fees of the 7(a) and 
504 Loan Programs in order to reduce the SBA's loan subsidy rate.
  This is an important first step in restructuring the SBA Loan 
Guaranty Program to increase the pool of capital available for small 
business. By ultimately eliminating the taxpayer subsidy and making 
these programs self-sufficient, we should also be able to increase that 
pool and thus capital infusion into America's small businesses. This 
legislation will result in an increase in the amount guaranty, and thus 
capital.
  I urge the committee to raise and eventually lift the loan guaranty 
cap once it can be determined that the programs are truly self 
financing and creditworthy.
  This transformation would result in a fannie-mae-like small business 
guaranty entity resulting in an increased secondary market, and thus 
greater capital, allowing more businesses to grow and create new jobs.
  What the 7(a) and 504 programs are about is not the lending of 
capital, but the lending of credit in order to raise capital for those 
companies which cannot otherwise obtain such credit or afford the cost 
due to size. This is a good 

[[Page H 8736]]
program because it provides for a hand up, not a hand out.
  By removing the taxpayer subsidy, providing for self generating loan 
loss reserve with strong creditworthiness, and lifting the cap we can 
safely expand the pool of capital. I pledge to work with my chair, Mrs. 
Meyers, and ranking member, Mr. LaFalce, to further address this issue 
in the SBA reauthorization bill and put us on the path toward a 
privitized, secondary market corporation to raise capital to fund the 
growth of America's small businesses.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen], who is 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Programs of the Committee on 
Small Business.
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Kansas 
[Mrs. Meyers] for yielding this time to me. I want to applaud the 
effort of the gentlewoman from Kansas, the chairman of the full 
committee, for the great work she has done in getting this bill to the 
floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, we are looking at reauthorizing the 7(a) program, and 
many people will understand the importance of it, but, just to 
reiterate, the 7(a) program is the principal, certainly not the only, 
but the principal, lending program, or guarantee program, of the Small 
Business Administration. This year, because we are looking at the very 
important objective of balancing the budget, we have to look at all 
areas for reducing spending. Under the leadership of the gentlewoman 
from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] we are going to see the subsidy rate reduced 
from 2.73 percent to 1.06, a very substantial reduction, and, because 
of that, we are going to see an additional $2 billion being lent, 
although the amount that taxpayers are going to contribute to this is 
going to be less than half what it is right now. That is a very 
substantial savings for the taxpayers. It is also a very substantial 
increase in loans that are going to be made.
  Because of this revised 7(a) program, another issue that was brought 
up was the nature of whether or not to change the guaranteed percentage 
for the Exim, for foreign assistance or export loans. Currently that is 
90 percent. Under this bill that will be reduced to 75 percent and the 
reason for loans over $100,000. And the reason for that is we wanted 
some consistency. Under the old program, depending on what one used 
their loan program for, they might have a different guarantee 
percentage than over a different loan. We thought that was unfair. We 
thought that individuals who are seeking to create jobs in the United 
States should be able to see a consistent guarantee percentage whether 
they use that loan for exports or for other purposes that are going to 
create jobs in the United States. Because of that consistency, and also 
because of that slight reduction in the amount of loan being guaranteed 
through, we are able to offer more loans to more people and, again, at 
less cost to the taxpayers.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this bill, I think, is a win-win situation. It is a 
win for Americans as taxpayers. It is a win for Americans as people who 
want to work and create jobs. So, I hope the bill is suspended, the 
rules are suspended, and the bill is passed. It is a terrific bill, and 
it deserved the support of Members.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce], the ranking Democrat member of 
the Committee on Small Business.
  (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, the 
Small Business Credit Efficiency Act of 1995, and I ask unanimous 
consent to revise and extend my remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation addresses a very important need--to 
stretch very few Federal dollars being provided to the Small Business 
Administration, or SBA, to carry out the loan guarantee programs it 
administers.
  SBA's budget in the current fiscal year apparently will be sufficient 
to permit the Agency to meet loan requests for both 7(a) loan 
guarantees and for development company financings during the remainder 
of this month. Previously, we thought the programs would run out of 
funding before the end of the year, however, the Agency has 
administratively reduced 7(a) loan eligibility by capping the maximum 
amount of a loan which the Agency will guarantee by less than one-half 
of the statutory amount and, more recently, by prohibiting the use of 
loan proceeds to repay existing indebtedness. These actions have 
reduced demand substantially.
  This bill would stretch the reduced amount of funding for the 7(a) 
program beginning in fiscal year 1996 by reducing the cost of 
delivering the financial assistance. This would be done by reducing the 
percentage of loss which the SBA would agree to pay in the event of 
default on a 7(a) loan, and also by charging more fees to the borrower 
and to the lender.
  I do not favor either of these changes. I believe that these changes 
will result in some small firms being unable to obtain financing. I 
also believe that the added cost of debt service on new borrowers may 
cause some of them to default and lose their businesses and their 
savings.
  But, under the budget levels Congress has adopted, we do not have any 
choice.
  The bill also slightly stretches funding for the 504 or development 
company loan program by slightly increasing the fees. These increases 
are minimal, however, and most importantly will make the program self 
supporting.
  We cannot assert this about the changes being proposed for 7(a) 
loans. We have a very difficult decision to make. Either we can 
increase fees and decrease Federal reimbursements, or we can continue 
the current program and only be able to approve some 30 percent of the 
loan applications we receive.
  Thus, with reluctance, I support this bill, including its provisions 
which substantially increase fees under the 7(a) program, while at the 
same time reducing the Government guarantee.
  I must point out, however, one change which I believe is a serious 
mistake. The bill reduces the maximum Government guarantee to between 
75 and 80 percent, depending upon the size of the loan. I accept the 
necessity to do this except as to working capital loans for export 
purposes. I believe these loans need a 90 percent guarantee, and we 
could provide it at minimal cost.
  SBA has historically offered loan programs to finance exports, but 
the programs have been little used. Several years ago, SBA and the 
Export-Import Bank decided to rework their loan programs to make them 
more useful.
  They did so and only last year Congress approved this agreement and 
statutorily authorized SBA to issue guarantees for 90 percent of the 
loan amount, whereas other loans would be made at slightly lower rates. 
I would note that there was no dissent to this proposal. In fact, the 
Members applauded it as it would encourage exports.
  As a result, beginning with the start of this fiscal year, SBA began 
guaranteeing up to $750,000 at 90 percent and Eximbank began providing 
90 percent guarantees on larger amounts.
  The results have been promising. Even though the year is not over, 
SBA has already approved 132 export working capital loans worth $44.3 
million, an amount double last year's level.
  I believe that it is a bad mistake to remove the Federal incentive, 
that is, the existing higher guarantee rate, for companies needing to 
finance export contracts.
  Last week the Small Business Committee held a hearing on this precise 
question. The witnesses were unanimous in stressing the benefits and 
advisability of continuing these export loans at the 90 percent rate.
  But the bill takes the opposite approach and provides no exception 
for export loans. I believe this is a serious mistake and we will come 
to realize this when program usage seriously declines, along with a 
concomitant decline in exporting by small business.
  Nonetheless, I support this bill as being the best we can do under 
the circumstances. I hope that we will soon recognize that we can and 
must do more to support small business, and that this anticipated 
recognition will result in a change in our legislative priorities.
                              {time}  1300

  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

[[Page H 8737]]

  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say in response to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. LaFalce] that I have appreciated very much the 
cooperation of the minority on this bill, and particularly of the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] and the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Poshard].
  Mr. Speaker, I philosophically do not think the Government should 
guarantee small business loans as high as 90 percent, but I did not 
want to make that determination in committee. We did have a hearing on 
this, with two of our subcommittees meeting together, and there was not 
a consensus in there that we should depart from the 80 percent and 75 
percent that we have in the bill. So I am very, very pleased. I am 
sorry about the concern the gentleman expressed, but I am very pleased 
for his support for the bill.
                             general leave

  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on H.R. 2150, as amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Kansas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shays). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2150, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________