[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 111 (Monday, August 2, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H6792-H6796]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMENDING SMALL BUSINESS ACT TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS IN GENERAL BUSINESS
LOAN PROGRAM
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 2615) to amend the Small Business Act to make improvements
to the general business loan program, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2615
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LEVELS OF PARTICIPATION.
Section 7(a)(2)(A) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
636(a)(2)(A)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (i) by striking ``$100,000'' and inserting
``$150,000''; and
(2) in paragraph (ii) by striking ``$100,000'' and
inserting ``$150,000''.
SEC. 2. LOAN AMOUNTS.
Section 7(a)(3)(A) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
636(a)(3)(A)) is amended by striking ``$750,000,'' and
inserting, ``$1,000,000 (or if the gross loan amount would
exceed $2,000,000),''.
SEC. 3. INTEREST ON DEFAULTED LOANS.
Subparagraph (B) of section 7(a)(4) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(4)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(iii) Applicability.--Clauses (i) and (ii) shall not
apply to loans made on or after October 1, 1999.''.
SEC. 4. PREPAYMENT OF LOANS.
(a) In General.--Section 7(a)(4) of the Small Business Act
(15 U.S.C. 636(a)(4)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(4) Interest rates and fees.--'' and
inserting ``(4) Interest rates and prepayment charges.--'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Prepayment charges.--
``(i) In general.--A borrower who prepays any loan
guaranteed under this subsection shall remit to the
Administration a subsidy recoupment fee calculated in
accordance with clause (ii) if--
``(I) the loan is for a term of not less than 15 years;
``(II) the prepayment is voluntary;
``(III) the amount of prepayment in any calendar year is
more than 25 percent of the outstanding balance of the loan;
and
``(IV) the prepayment is made within the first 3 years
after disbursement of the loan proceeds.
``(ii) Subsidy recoupment fee.--The subsidy recoupment fee
charged under clause (i) shall be--
``(I) 5% of the amount of prepayment, if the borrower
prepays during the first year after disbursement;
``(II) 3% of the amount of prepayment, if the borrower
prepays during the 2nd year after disbursement; and
``(III) 1% of the amount of prepayment, if the borrower
prepays during the 3rd year after disbursement.''.
SEC. 5. GUARANTEE FEES.
Section 7(a)(18)(B) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
636(a)(18)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
``(B) Exception for certain loans.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), if the
total deferred participation share of a loan guaranteed under
this subsection is less than or equal to $120,000, the
guarantee fee collected under subparagraph (A) shall be in an
amount equal to 2 percent of the total deferred participation
share of the loan.
``(ii) Retention of fees.--Lenders participating in the
programs established under this subsection may retain not
more than 25 percent of the fee collected in accordance with
this subparagraph with respect to any loan not exceeding
$150,000 in gross loan amount.''.
SEC. 6. LEASE TERMS.
Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a))
is further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(28) Leasing.--In addition to such other lease
arrangements as may be authorized by the Administration, a
borrower may permanently lease to 1 or more tenants not more
than 20 percent of any property constructed with the proceeds
of a loan guaranteed under this subsection, if the borrower
permanently occupies and uses not less than 60 percent of the
total business space in the property.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Talent) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo),
as a Member opposed to the bill, each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent).
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time in
support of H.R. 2615 be equally divided between myself and the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent).
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will
not object, I would just join the gentlewoman in her unanimous consent
request.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Talent) seek to yield half his time to the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Velazquez)?
Mr. TALENT. Yes, Mr. Speaker. It was my intention to yield the time
to the gentlewoman, and I join her in her unanimous consent request.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands the 20 minutes in
favor of the bill will be divided equally, so that the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Talent) has 10 minutes and the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Velazquez) has 10 minutes.
Without objection, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) is
recognized.
There was no objection.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2615, a bill to amend
the Section 7(a) loan program at the Small Business Administration. I
want to start by thanking my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Velazquez), the ranking Democrat on the committee, for her
assistance in crafting this bill. Her help has been invaluable, and I
thank her on behalf of myself and the small business community as a
whole.
[[Page H6793]]
Mr. Speaker, the 7(a) general business loan program provides over $9
billion of financial assistance to small businesses every year. The
bill before us, H.R. 2615, will improve this program and make it more
responsive to the needs of small businesses.
Allow me to briefly describe the proposed changes to the 7(a) program
contained in H.R. 2615. First, the maximum guarantee amount of a 7(a)
loan program is increased to $1 million from the 1988 limit of $750,000
in order to keep pace with inflation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, to fully
keep pace with inflation, the maximum guarantee amount should be
increased to approximately $1,250,000. The committee believes a simple
increase to $1 million is sufficient and has not gone further.
Second, H.R. 2615 removes a provision which reduced SBA's liability
for accrued interest on defaulted loans since the provision's intended
savings have failed to materialize.
The third change to the 7(a) program concerns the problem of early
repayment of large loans, which is jeopardizing the subsidy rate
supporting the program. H.R. 2615 will remedy this problem by assessing
the fee to the borrower for prepayment of any loan with a term in
excess of 15 years within the first 3 years after disbursement.
The committee believes this increase in prepayments is due to a
variety of factors. There have been some instances of misuse by the
program by businesses seeking bridge financing. There have also been
cases where, due to the strong economy, lenders have approached
borrowers offering improved terms, effectively skimming loans, and
avoiding the need to process credit analyses. This removes
authorization dollars from the program which could have been used for
other loans and is a disservice to both the small business borrowers
and the 7(a) lenders. Both parties work to put financing packages
together at the cost of both time and money.
H.R. 2615 also includes three changes designed to encourage the
making of smaller loans. The 80 percent guarantee rate will be expanded
from loans under $100,000 to loans under $150,000. Likewise, the 2
percent guarantee fee will now apply to loans up to $150,000. That
represents a significant savings for these small borrowers.
Finally, for small loans we have included a provision allowing
lenders to retain one quarter of the guarantee fee on loans under
$150,000 as an incentive to make these loans.
These changes add to the innovations that Congress has introduced
over the past several years concerning the availability of loans at the
lower end of the 7(a) spectrum. As a result, since 1994, the number of
loans made under $100,000 significantly. In 1998 alone, 53 percent of
the 7(a) loans were under 100,000. This compares with only 37 percent
in 1994. The figure fluctuates, Mr. Speaker, but the general trend is
definitely in the direction of smaller loans.
Finally, H.R. 2615 modifies current 7(a) program rules prohibiting
loans from passive investments. When Congress last reauthorized the
program, we modified a similar restriction in the 504 program in order
to permit the financing of projects where less than 20 percent of a
business space will be rented out when the small business borrower in
question will occupy the remaining space. It is time we provides
similar options to 7(a) borrowers.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2615 is a common sense bill designed to improve the
financial assistance provided to small businesses, particularly the
smallest of small businesses, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the chairman of the Committee on Small
Business and the ranking member, and I agree with six-sevenths of the
bill. So that is pretty good. My colleagues may say, well, if the
gentleman agrees with six-sevenths of the bill, should that not be
enough? Normally, under most circumstances, I would say yes, but in its
current form, I rise in opposition to the bill and, therefore, will
vote against it.
We should not rush to pass this bill under suspension of the rules
until we actually have more information from the SBA. I realize most of
my colleagues are not versed on the different programs run by the SBA.
The SBA has two main loan programs, the 7(a) program and the 504
program. 7(a) mainly provides start-up capital for new entrepreneurs,
while the 504 program is designed to meet the capital needs of growing
small businesses for expansion or purchases of additional equipment.
We just passed, with my concurrence, H.R. 2614, which increased the
maximum loan guarantee amount in the 504 loan program from $750,000 to
$1 million. I agree with that because growing small businesses already
in existence have greater capital needs. In addition, the 504 loan
program operates at no cost to the taxpayer because the fees it charges
offset its costs. However, H.R. 2615 plans to do the same thing for the
7(a) loan program and I disagree with this policy change.
No one should start up a small business with a $1 million loan backed
by the SBA. If a bank needs a 75 percent government-backed guarantee to
feel comfortable with a $1 million loan, then we should think twice
before passing the bill. If someone requires a $1 million loan for
start-up, they are probably buying a lot of new equipment and large
amounts of real estate. They should rethink their business plan because
this is a recipe for failure and the taxpayers will be left paying off
the default.
If a loan is for an already existing small business, then the bank
should make these loans on a sound commercial basis without having to
rely upon the crutch of the taxpayer. These companies already have a
financial track record. It should be on the merits, not an SBA
guarantee, that the bank should make the loans.
If a borrower still needs government backing for an expansion
project, then they should turn to the 504 loan program. The 504 program
should serve capital expansion needs, not the 7(a) loan program.
The question essentially is this: At what point should companies be
weaned off government guaranteed loans; 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, 10
years, 20 years?
If the purpose of the Small Business Administration is to give a
jump-start to companies that otherwise would not be able to start up a
business, then why are we increasing the amount of start-up capital
available to them from $750,000 to $1 million? We should be keeping it
the same and encouraging companies to get off the government help.
It stands to reason that if the SBA has an overall fixed amount of
total loans it can support, then throughout the year, as small business
owners are able to borrower larger amounts, then the overall loan
volume will decrease, to the detriment of the number of small
borrowers.
This is what is really confusing. The SBA maintained, for the longest
period of time, and sent a memo to my office which they have never
corrected in writing, that if the authorization level were kept the
same, which it is, but the level of 7(a) loans went from $750,000 to $1
million, then in excess of 6,000 entrepreneurs, who otherwise would be
applying for and qualifying for small business loans, would be left out
because the bigger borrowers would be in there taking up all the money.
That was SBA's position for the longest period of time until they
mysteriously, and without any empirical evidence, suddenly changed
their mind and said that the small business incentives in the small
business bill means there would be a net loss of people receiving
loans.
We have to think about that. This bill has a small business incentive
in the Small Business Administration loan program.
{time} 1615
So now we are in the process of defining a small business within a
small business to give incentives to small businesses within the small
business loan program.
It makes us wonder why we even have the program in the first place.
But it is here. And if it is here, then it should not be abused. And if
it is here and the money is available, it should be available for the
small entrepreneurs, not the people who can borrow up to $1 million.
The cost implications in the bill are still not clear. H.R. 2615
contains much-needed incentives to encourage the banks to make the
smaller loans. And there we are.
[[Page H6794]]
Now, we have got a system not of set-asides but a system somehow
built into language that says the Small Business Administration should
prefer small businesses.
I want the Members of Congress and the Speaker to think about that
statement. If we are encouraging small business loans within the Small
Business Administration, then I think that we have an agency now that
has lost its mission when it starts dividing up what exactly is a small
business.
When H.R. 2615 was marked up in committee, the sponsors of the bill
readily admitted that any additional revenue that may be raised with
the fees charged to higher dollar loan borrowers will be used to pay
for the small loan incentive contained in the bill. Thus, the impact on
most expensive items in the SBA budget supposedly would be a wash at
best. But we have no empirical data, nothing, that has been furnished
to this Member of Congress, who requested the SBA first of all to come
to an analysis as to the loss of businesses that would be deprived of
start-up capital; and they, on their own, advised this Member of
Congress that it would be in excess of 6,000.
Later on they changed their mind, but they told the press still that
the information given to this Member of Congress was correct.
Therefore, I can come to one conclusion, and that is that the Small
Business Administration itself does not understand the mechanics of
this bill. And if they do not understand the mechanics of this bill and
they do not understand the wording of it and they do not understand the
impact of it, then this bill should not pass, it should come up under
regular order and be subject to an amendment.
I urge my colleagues to reject the bill now and send it back to
committee. Once we have a more clear understanding of how this bill
will impact the budget and small loan borrowers, then we can always act
on this provision. We do not have the information yet.
There is plenty of time to work on this legislation. An additional
hike in the maximum guarantee amount of the 7(a) loan program can be
included in the regular SBA authorization bill. It would be easy to
bring it up at a later time. We can mark up a separate bill later this
fall. But I do not see the reason for rushing to action on this now
when we have incomplete information.
Thus, I respectfully disagree with my chairman and ranking minority
member and ask that H.R. 2615 be defeated in its current form.
This is the only alternative left to me because I cannot amend the
bill under suspension of the rules. The rest of the bill is fine.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2615, legislation to
improve and update the General Business Loan Guaranty, or 7(a),
program.
With the passage of today's legislation, we will grow the 7(a) loan
program in a reasonable and thoughtful way that expands the program,
while continuing our commitment to those businesses that need access to
start-up capital.
Although SBA administers numerous programs that provide financial and
technical assistance to small firms, the 7(a) program is the agency's
flagship loan program. It is far and away the agency's largest and most
important both in terms of numbers of loans and program level
supported.
Under 7(a), loan guarantees are provided to eligible small businesses
that have been unsuccessful in obtaining private financing on
reasonable terms. The proceeds from a 7(a) loan may be used for
virtually any business purpose and have made the difference for
countless entrepreneurs.
Under a 7(a) partnership between Government and nearly 7,000 banks
and non-bank lenders that participate, small businesses are ensured the
access to capital they need. Since the program's inception, more than
600,000 7(a) loans totaling $80 billion have been made to help this
Nation's small businesses.
One of the important items in this legislation is the increase in the
loan guarantee from $750,000 to $1 million. It has been over a decade
since we increased the loan guarantee. As a matter of fact, if we were
to index the current guarantee using the Consumer Price Index, we would
actually have a loan guarantee that is higher than what is under
consideration today.
I believe what we are doing is reasonable and necessary if the
program is to continue to serve our Nation's small businesses.
To safeguard against the risk that increasing the guarantee will harm
those seeking smaller loans, we have capped the total loan amount that
can be made under the 7(a) program at $2 million. This is in
combination with other provisions of the legislation that will ensure
that the 7(a) program will be available to all who need it.
I would also like to voice my strong support for the small loan
provisions contained in this legislation. The committee has made sure
that small loans are still a priority by adopting such changes as
reducing the program's cost to the borrower of loans of $150,000 or
less from three percent of the loan to two percent, making certain that
small businesses will keep more of their money.
We are also creating incentives for lenders to continue to make small
loans by giving those lenders additional funds guaranteed by the SBA
through an increasing guarantee from 75 percent to 80 percent and a
rebate that could be as high as $600 per loan.
These proposals will ensure that the program continues its mission.
If the 7(a) program is going to continue to serve this Nation's small
businesses, it must keep in step with the changing financial landscape.
The changes made by H.R. 2615 create a balanced approach that updates
the 7(a) program while affirming our commitment to small businesses
that small loans are still accessible. I urge my colleagues to support
H.R. 2615.
I just would like to take a moment to respond to the points made by
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
I am just as concerned that we continue our commitment to small loans
to address this. To address this, the committee has placed several
provisions aimed at encouraging small loans. These provisions offer
incentives for 7(a) lenders to continue to make smaller loans,
especially loans under $150,000.
These incentives include the increase in the loan guarantee amount
from 75 to 80 percent for loans under $150,000 in section 1; the
reduction of borrower's fees from three percent to two percent on loans
up to $120,000 in section 5; and the fee-splitting provision in section
5 that will allow up to 25 percent of the borrower's fees on loans
under $150,000 to go to the 7(a) lenders rather than to SBA.
Without the increase in the loan guarantee that pays for these
incentives, we will be faced with a choice, either increase the
program's subsidy rate, which will require additional funds are
appropriated, and given the current state of the Commerce-Justice-State
appropriations bill we will consider this week, that is unlikely; or
eliminate these important small business loan provisions. And I believe
that that will be short-sighted.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Talent) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the jurisdiction of the small business community, the
legislative jurisdiction of it, is really only over the Small Business
Administration and its programs.
Since I became chairman, I have tried to use the oversight
jurisdiction of the committee, which is much broader, to struggle for
tax and regulatory relief for small businesses around the country. And
that is really what we devote a whole lot of our time to on the
committee. But we do take seriously the job of overseeing the programs
in the Small Business Administration.
In order to accomplish that, we periodically work together on a
bipartisan basis and we pass bills designed to update the network of
statutes that on the basis of which those loan programs run. I have
tried to push them in the direction in my chairmanship and with
[[Page H6795]]
the support first of the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and then
of the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) in the direction of
making those programs more efficient and making them run as entirely
private lending programs do whenever we can.
This bill is part of that trend. It contains a number of different
provisions which are important to achieving that effort.
We have worked together on a bipartisan basis. We produced the bill
by a 24-4 vote in the committee. I ask the House to support us in these
efforts. This is important to the people who rely on these programs and
administer these programs and important to what we are trying to
accomplish on the committee.
The gentleman from Illinois said correctly, I think, that he agrees
with six-sevenths of the bill. I say it might be even more than that.
The only dispute is a provision that, in the view of the gentleman,
pushes the portfolio away from the direction of smaller loans.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, there is no question and I do not think
the gentleman would deny that, on balance, this bill continues the
trend of moving the 7(a) portfolio in the direction of smaller loans.
First of all, the bill caps the total size of any guaranteed loan at
$2 million. So a lender cannot issue a 7(a) loan or make a 7(a) loan
for more than $2 million. There has been no statutory cap on loan size.
The bill allows lenders to retain a somewhat greater percentage of
fees that are paid when they make smaller loans, and the bill increases
guarantee rates for smaller loans. So there is no question that this
bill will continue prudently pushing the portfolio in the direction of
smaller loans.
The sole dispute is over one small provision in this bill which
allows the total amount of the guaranteed loan to go up from $750,000
to $1 million. In other words, the portion that the Government
guarantees of any loan is now at $750,000. If this bill passes and the
President signs it, it will be $1 million.
The reason we do that, Mr. Speaker, is that amount has not been
adjusted for inflation for 11 years. It was made $750,000 in 1988 I
believe. We have not changed it at all. We have made a modest
adjustment that does not even keep pace with inflation. It is the only
part of this bill that is in issue.
To be perfectly frank, I simply do not see why it is that big a deal.
We felt it was important to do it because, without some aspect of this
portfolio being somewhat larger loans, it tends to undermine the
stability and the financial prudence of the portfolio as a whole.
We want to push it in the direction of the smaller loans. But if we
go too far and too fast, we yank out of the portfolio the somewhat
larger loans which really support the whole 7(a) portfolio. And we do
not want to do that. That could result in a lot more defaults and a lot
more money that we have to find out of the general revenue in order to
support this program.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I respect the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Manzullo). He and I have worked together on our time on the committee
together. I respect the sincerity of his view here.
I would say it is a small part of this bill. I am happy to work with
the gentleman as we go through the process over in the Senate and then
in conference. But I hope we can have the confidence of the House in
supporting this bill.
It came out of the committee by an overwhelming majority. It may be
housekeeping to most of the House. It is important to these programs.
We try to do a responsible, bipartisan job on the Committee on Small
Business. The ranking member and I are in full agreement, as was the
overwhelming majority of the committee.
Again, I ask the House for its supports. We will continue working on
this issue as we move through the process.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair the amount of
time that I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo)
has 12 minutes remaining.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to concur with the statements of
the chairman of the Committee on Small Business, who has done a
tremendous effort in turning the Committee on Small Business into a
committee that has been very responsive, listening to the needs and the
desires of the people across this Nation.
I chair the Subcommittee on Small Business, Tax, and Trade. I have
seen the chairman conduct other hearings, and I know that he has the
small business person at heart. In fact, when he practiced law before
he came to this body, it was as a person involved in small business and
he knows the needs of the small business community intimately well.
I would only suggest to the chairman of the Committee on Small
Business, my friend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) this fact:
With the increase of the loan amounts from $750,000 to $1 million,
financially there is less money in the overall pot. Because there has
been no increase in the authorization.
{time} 1630
As the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) says, there is
little opportunity, little likelihood that there would be an increase
in the authorization. Simply based upon the fact that there is less
money in the pot, who is going to be the recipient of not getting the
money? Is it going to be the little guy, or the people who have the
attorneys and the CPAs and the bankers that can increase their amounts
from $750,000 to $1 million? That begs the basic question as to what
the purpose of the Small Business Administration is.
I am trying the best I can to preserve some type of mission that the
SBA has. We have absolutely no empirical data, nothing to refute the
original data that the SBA gave me, nothing in writing, no words from
the SBA, nothing from either of the speakers here to refute the fact
that the memo they gave me stated unequivocally and in concurrence with
Mr. Hocker who testified at the Small Business hearing that unless the
authorization were increased, the fact that we are increasing the
amount that could be borrowed from $750,000 to $1 million means that in
excess of 6,000 small businesspeople who otherwise would qualify for an
SBA loan will be excluded from the process. To aggravate that, in the
past 3 years, as the amount of SBA loans go up, the number of small
business recipients goes down and the number of small businesspeople
receiving the loan has now dropped to about 53 percent of the total,
meaning that the larger applicants are getting the lion's share of the
money and that is the dangerous trend. I am trying to stop that.
Is it worth objecting to an entire bill because you are opposed to
one-seventh of the bill? The answer is yes. The name of the bill is
small business. Does anybody think that borrowing $1 million today is
small business? It could be, but if it is of that magnitude, then the
bank should be willing to kick in the extra amount and to guarantee the
extra amount, not put it upon the shoulders of the taxpayers to say we
want you to guarantee up to $1 million. If you are solvent enough to
borrow $750,000 with an SBA guarantee, then the banks themselves should
be willing to loan the rest of the amount of money based upon their own
private arrangement with the borrower. It is just that simple.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would just like to echo the comments made by the gentleman from
Missouri. You have to continue updating a program. What works in the
1980s does not necessarily work in the 1990s. No bank would allow its
loan program to go a decade without updating it. If we are going to
make SBA a cutting edge financial institution of the 21st century, we
must continue to improve these programs. It just makes sense.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me repeat again both my friendship and my respect for the passion
and the commitment of the gentleman from Illinois to small business. He
and I have talked over this issue. We had a full debate over it in
committee. I do want to continue working with him as this bill goes
through the process. I do want to emphasize the importance to
[[Page H6796]]
Members of the House who may not, and I certainly could not blame them
if they were not familiar with the ins and outs of all these programs,
but I hope they will understand that these programs are important, that
the committee does oversee them and that it is important that we move
this legislation through to make all the different corrections that are
in there.
So I would ask of the House, let us get this bill out and get it in
conference. I pledge to continue working with the gentleman. It is a
small part of the bill over which we have a disagreement. There is no
question that the bill as a whole moves in the direction of pushing the
portfolio gently towards smaller loans. I like that. We have worked for
that under my chairmanship. He have worked for that with the ranking
member. This is a modest inflationary update. I would hope that we
would have the House's confidence in being able to make it and that we
can move this bill through.
I would urge the House to support H.R. 2615.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TALENT. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. MANZULLO. Based upon the gentleman's assertions that he is
willing to continue discussing this figure of $750,000 increased to $1
million, I would still be opposed to the bill, I will vote ``no'' on an
oral vote but not call for a recorded vote.
Mr. TALENT. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate very much the
gentleman's most gracious concession in that regard. I certainly will
be glad to keep working with him. He and I disagree on this. My major
concern is making sure that we have a proper balance in the portfolio
so that we do not have the unintended impact of undermining the
stability of the smaller loans that we do make by not allowing this
minor inflationary update. But perhaps we can provide for that in some
other context. I am happy to work with the gentleman in that regard.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2615.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________