Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 62 (Wednesday, April 18, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 18, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H3511-H3527]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

RELIEF FOR ENTREPRENEURS: COORDINATION OF OBJECTIVES AND VALUES FOR
EFFECTIVE RECOVERY ACT OF 2007

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 302 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1361.

{time} 1425

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1361) to improve the disaster relief programs of the Small
Business Administration, and for other purposes, with Mr. Davis of
Alabama in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Chabot) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I will yield myself such time as I may
consume.
After the 2005 gulf coast hurricanes, we witnessed a number of
problems with the Small Business Administration's preparation and
ability to assist entrepreneurs following a disaster. As the agency
responsible for handling the disaster loan program, it was clear they
were not adequately prepared.
During that time, there were significant application backlogs, with
the number ballooning to 204,000 unprocessed applications by December
2005. Those that were lucky enough to get approved for assistance often
waited months to receive any funds. It reached the point where
entrepreneurs were simply avoiding the SBA, believing it was more of a
hindrance than a help.
There is no question the leading factor in SBA's poor response was
its lack of preparation and tools to assist the gulf coast victims.
H.R. 1361, the RECOVER Act of 2007, provides for thorough disaster
planning and directs SBA to ensure they are prepared for a wide range
of disasters.
This legislation will streamline SBA's loan processing and
disbursement, as well as establish a bridge financing program. After
the gulf coast storms, we saw entrepreneurs not only getting declined
for loans but having to wait far too long for relief. This bill
requires that within 36 hours of a disaster, qualified small businesses
are provided with emergency small dollar financing, allowing them to
stay in business and spur economic growth.
For small businesses, success and failure often come down to adequate
financing. Nowhere is that more true than following a disaster. The
changes made in this bill will ensure we avoid the mistakes in the gulf
where 62 percent of small businesses who applied for assistance were
not approved.
We cannot leave entrepreneurs with nothing to help them salvage their
enterprises. For those that did get approved, the average wait time to
receive their loan was 74 days, much longer than the SBA's goal of 21
days.
H.R. 1361 also provides for gulf coast entrepreneurs who still need
assistance. The committee just came back from New Orleans, and there is
no doubt that this community has a long way to go to get where it was
before the hurricanes hit. By helping affected small businesses, we are
also significantly aiding in the revitalization of the gulf coast.
The RECOVER Act of 2007 will establish a grant program that allows
the SBA to help the most significantly damaged small businesses that
have been rejected for a conventional SBA loan. These grants are
intended to spur redevelopment in communities directly affected by the
2005 gulf coast storms where ordinary market forces are simply not
enough. They will be granted under limited circumstances to provide aid
to only the neediest of entrepreneurs that meet a number of
qualifications.
The legislation also fixes SBA's one-size-fits-all approach to the
disaster loan process that has failed businesses in the gulf coast. To
be more responsive to individual disaster victims, H.R. 1361 provides
the SBA administrator with the authority to waive the prohibition on
duplication of benefits for the 2005 hurricane victims. Taking state-
administered grant assistance and replacing it with loans that are not
disbursed efficiently or in adequate amounts have left entrepreneurs
without assistance to build their homes. Small businesses should not
have to choose between their home and their business. This bill makes
sure they are not faced with that choice.
Eighteen months has passed since this Nation saw one of its largest
natural disasters. There is no question small businesses are still very
much in need of assistance. The RECOVER Act of 2007 modernizes and
reforms the SBA's disaster programs and addresses key concerns still
facing hurricane victims.
H.R. 1361 has the support of America's Community Bankers, Independent
Community Bankers of America, American Veterans, Veterans of Foreign
Wars of the United States, the Black Chamber of Commerce and the U.S.
Women's Chamber of Commerce.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for the RECOVER Act of 2007.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve 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,

[[Page H3512]]

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.

{time} 1440

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Shuler).
Mr. SHULER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 1361, the RECOVER Act.
This bill is a strong step in the right direction to ensure that the
problems small businesses face in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and
Hurricane Rita will never repeat.
I know firsthand the difficulties that small businesses face after a
natural disaster. It is vital for our community to know that the
government stands with them in their hour of greatest need.
My district recently suffered disastrous weather, which wiped out
nearly the entire crop of apples, strawberries and ornamental
horticulture. I asked the people of the community to join together in
prayer for the farmers and their families as they work through this
crisis. Just like the small business owners of the gulf region and
other areas affected by disaster, these farmers need the quick and
effective response of their government in their time of greatest need.
I commend Chairwoman Velazquez for her work on this legislation, and
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
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. JORDAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank
the chairwoman of the committee for her hard work and the entire
committee on this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the bill for many of the reasons that
the ranking member has cited. I believe the bill shortsightedly tries
to move a good organization, the U.S. Small Business Administration,
further from its original mission of helping create, strengthen and
maintain small businesses across our country.
The SBA was created by the Small Business Act of 1953. Its mission
was to stand up for small businesses, and its main focus, other than
loan guarantees, was promoting small businesses for Federal contracts.
Since then, the SBA has grown to become the largest backer of small
businesses in America. It has made progress toward its goal of
improving small business and the engine of our free market economy.
Of late, though, the SBA has done more in fueling small business to
coordinating disaster relief for businesses and homeowners. This is
certainly a worthy goal, but again, one that strays from its
fundamental mission. As the ranking member pointed out, this bill would
require the SBA to provide loans it once denied as bad risks. It would
also allow recipients to receive disaster relief.
Small businesses are successful in part because they are uniquely
focused on their mission, and because they watch every single penny.
This RECOVER Act will further blur the focus of SBA's mission while
making it impossible for them, or us, to protect the integrity of tax
dollars.
Finally, I would urge my colleagues to support the amendments that
the ranking member plans to offer. Those will, I think, improve the
legislation and make it worthy of everyone's support in a broad,
bipartisan manner.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) who represents and has been very active
in the committee addressing the issues of the Small Business
Administration Disaster Loan program.
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of
H.R. 1361, the RECOVER Act.
I want to thank Chairwoman Velazquez for her leadership in crafting
this important piece of legislation and in bringing it to the floor.
The storm that hit the gulf coast nearly 2 years ago exposed major
flaws in the disaster planning system across all agencies of the
Federal Government. Perhaps most appalling is that these storms exposed
the fact that so many agencies had no plan at all for disasters such as
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The Small Business Administration was just
one of many agencies caught behind the curve, and the RECOVER Act aims
to ensure that this never happens again by providing commonsense
remedies for the many problems brought to light by the storms.
We are all quite familiar with the problems of the SBA in the
aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Six weeks after the storms,
there had been about 54,000 disaster loan applications received from
the region. Ninety-five

[[Page H3513]]

percent of these applications were denied, while only 1,050 loans were
approved, and only 58 checks, totaling $533,400 or so, were sent out.
During the 6-week period that followed Hurricane Charley in 2004, the
SBA disbursed four times the amount that was disbursed after Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita.
Additionally, many people in the gulf coast region fell victim to
long delays in the process of the applications, and their paperwork was
lost because the SBA lacked a fully functioning disaster processing
system, as well as the required staff. The SBA lacked adequate service
and support for its information and telecommunications systems. Only
one vendor in the region of the SBA's primary telecommunications hub
could service the type of phone system that the SBA uses. The SBA also
failed to completely stress test the agency's sole loan processing
system prior to its implementation.
The RECOVER Act mandates that the SBA develop a comprehensive written
plan in order to deal with catastrophic disasters of this magnitude, as
well as test the capacity of the system at least once each year.
Administrator Steve Preston came before the Small Business Committee
and made the claim that the problems involved in the loan processing
system have been solved through a team case management solution. Yet in
talking with various small business owners and homeowners as well, and
in closely examining the loan processing numbers, doubt is cast on this
assertion.
One such example is Donna Colosino of New Orleans, who came before
the committee and demonstrated the serious flaws that exist that this
bill aims to remedy. After the storms flooded her electrical equipment
business under 12 feet of water, she applied for a disaster loan from
the SBA and was approved for $250,000. After 15 months of resubmitting
paperwork lost by the SBA, she finally received a disbursement of
$10,000 in May of this year.
Under the current repayment structure, she would have to begin paying
back her loan as if she had received the full $250,000, though she has
only received $10,000 to date. This is just one more nonsensical policy
of the SBA Disaster Loan program the RECOVER Act will change by
altering the payment schedule so that repayment only begins on the
money received.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the current program to me, as
well as to many of my constituents back home, is the requirement that
money received from the Road Home program must be used to repay any
outstanding loans from the SBA.
Assume your home has a pre-Katrina value of $150,000, and it was
completely destroyed by the storm. You qualify for an SBA loan in the
amount of $100,000. The Road Home grant comes through in the amount of
$50,000, enough perhaps to cover your pre-Katrina value, but you must
then take the $50,000 Road Home grant and use it, not to complete your
home, but to pay down the SBA loan by $50,000. The result is, you end
up with only $100,000 in your hands to rebuild, $50,000 short of what
you need.
The truth is, replacement cost of a home now is much, much more,
given the spikes in the cost of rebuilding with building materials and
insurance far exceeding their pre-Katrina value. The requirement to pay
down the SBA disaster loan to the extent of the Road Home grant will
leave the homeowner with less than is needed to replace the lost home
no matter the Road Home grant award.
This SBA requirement has also kept many people from closing on their
Road Home awards as they wait for this body to resolve this situation.
The RECOVER Act would address this serious problem by allowing the SBA
administrator to provide grants to replace compensation that has
already been taken by the SBA as a duplication of benefits, as well as
going forward to assist those who have yet to receive the Road Home
awards to fully recover.
The requirement in the bill to impose discretion in the SBA
administrator not to treat a Road Home grant as an automatic double dip
is safeguard enough to prevent true double dipping from occurring.
Grants are authorized in the bill to selective businesses that have
been in business 2 years, who are, in fact, true pioneers in going
back, because there is no guarantee that they are going to have
customers there to meet the demand is a reasonable addressing of the
problem there.
The flaws of the SBA Disaster Loan program have been exposed by the
2005 storms, and it now falls to this body to remedy these flaws. We
have long since moved past the rescue phase. We are now focused on
recovery. Yet we cannot recover under the existing structure, as 77,000
small businesses were damaged, along with 275,000 homes.
Operating under the idea of business as usual is not enough. It is
only through the passage of this bill and careful oversight in the
coming months that we can ensure the SBA fulfills its obligations, not
only to the victims of the storms of 2005, but also to deal more
responsibly and efficiently with future disasters.
I urge my colleagues to oppose any amendments that would weaken this
bill and to vote on this bill for its final passage.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, we reserve the balance of our time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).
Mr. HODES. I thank the chairman. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding
her time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1361, the RECOVER Act.
This bill provided a much-needed overhaul to the Small Business
Administration and its disaster aid program. After a disaster, the SBA
issues loans to help individuals and small businesses rebuild their
lives, often shattered by storms and other natural disasters.

{time} 1450

After Hurricane Katrina, the average time for the SBA to process a
loan, not including closing, was 74 days, far above the agency's goal
of 21 days. This is absolutely unacceptable.
As I speak here today, people all across my home State of New
Hampshire are dealing with the aftermath of a recent powerful
nor'easter. On April 15, 2007, New Hampshire experienced a severe storm
that dropped almost 6 inches of water in a matter of hours. The State
as a whole has experienced sustained power and communications outages,
and there are currently over 100 local communities that are reporting
significant damage to local infrastructure. Our Governor has declared a
state of emergency.
More than 60 percent of the businesses in New Hampshire are small
businesses. This program is absolutely vital to my constituents now
more than ever. We owe it to our small businesses nationwide to have
access to critical relief services. I encourage my colleagues in the
House to support this overhaul of SBA disaster aid, and reject proposed
amendments.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise enthusiastically to
support the Relief for Entrepreneurs: Coordination of Objectives and
Values for Effective Recovery Act of 2007, to solve the frustration of
those in my district who are fleeing Hurricane Katrina, and I thank the
gentlewoman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1361, the Recovery Act of
2007, which amends the Small Business Act to direct the Small Business
Administration (SBA) to develop, implement and maintain a comprehensive
written disaster response plan and to maintain a disaster reserve
corps; to establish an Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance;
to authorize SBA disaster loans for incidents of national significance;
to direct the Administrator to carry out an immediate Disaster
Assistance program; to provide a revised disbursement process for SBA
disaster loans; to provide enhanced lending authority for private
lenders; to authorize SBA grants to small businesses located in
disaster areas upon their certification that they will reestablish the
business in the same area; and to require annual SBA reports on
disaster assistance operations.
Mr. Chairman, I applaud Chairwoman Velazquez for bringing this bill
to the floor and in doing so acknowledging that we need to be better
prepared to respond to the needs of disaster victims from the affected
areas. In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, we all
saw the devastating consequences that came from not having disaster
preparedness plans in place.

[[Page H3514]]

After those devastating hurricanes, small businesses and in
particular minority and disadvantaged businesses, in the affected areas
were severely and negatively impacted because they did not receive
financial support necessary to rebuild their businesses and participate
in the rebuilding of the affected community.
The Homeland Security Committee has learned that small businesses in
particular are very important to economic recovery and stability in an
affected region in the aftermath of a disaster-regardless of whether
the disaster is natural or man-made. The Committee also has learned
that it is good common sense to use the local business owners in the
disaster recovery process because they are most connected, and
knowledgeable about the local area and what the local community needs.
That is why I offered two amendments to H.R. 1361 that would require
the Small Business Administration (SBA) Administrator to include in its
disaster recovery processes, pre-negotiated contracts and to encourage
inclusion of local, minority, and disadvantaged businesses in the
disaster recovery response process.
My first amendment would have encouraged the SBA to include local
businesses from the affected area in the recovery process and to have
in place in advance pre-negotiated contracts with these local
businesses. Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and have proven that failure to
include small businesses in the recovery process was detrimental to
speedy and efficient recovery for the affected areas and lead to
astronomical costs for the affected areas as well as the entire
country. These costs include money, time and lives. These are costs
that we cannot afford to pay in future disasters.
I also offered an amendment that would encourage the inclusion of
minority and disadvantaged businesses in the disaster recovery response
plans. In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, small,
minority, and disadvantaged businesses from the region were shut out of
disaster-related contracts because goals and preferences were not in
place. We must correct this very serious problem that is often
representative of problems that the most vulnerable members of our
society consistently face.
Mr. Chairman, the federal contracting goal for small, minority and
disadvantaged businesses is a 23% participation rate as set forth by
the Small Business Administration. My amendment that I offered would
have required the SBA to include in its comprehensive response plan, a
contracting goal and work to meet that goal. If the SBA plans well,
then this goal should be achievable.
I understand that the bill also allows for mitigation loans and
grants. We would hope that the SBA encourages similar inclusion
measures with respect to minority and disadvantaged businesses in its
loan and grant authorizations as those used in federal contracting in
general.
Since the late 1960s, it has been the policy of the federal
government to assist small businesses owned by minorities and women to
become fully competitive, viable business concerns. As a result, the
Small Business Administration set forth government-wide goals to level
the playing field for small and minority businesses seeking federal
government contracts. My amendment to encourage the inclusion of
minority and disadvantaged businesses in the disaster loan and grant
process would have gone a long way to meet these goals. If these
businesses are disadvantaged before disasters occur, then those who are
negatively impacted after disasters would presumably suffer
exponentially and disproportionately. Therefore, it is especially
crucial to encourage the inclusion of minority and disadvantaged
businesses in the disaster mitigation loan and grant recovery process.
We have seen over and over again the incredible need to include
local, minority and disadvantaged businesses in the recovery and
rebuilding process. It is time to seriously address this extremely
important need.
I urge the Committee to support H.R. 1361 and to be ever-mindful of
the need to include local, minority and disadvantaged businesses in
disaster recovery response plans. Further, I vigorously oppose the
Chabot amendment, which one in particular is particularly punitive
against a business suffering from disaster by requesting a recipient of
a grant to pay an SBA disaster loan back that they may have received.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Ellsworth).
(Mr. ELLSWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
Less than 2 years ago, a devastating tornado ripped through my
community in Evansville, Indiana, and although 25 residents of those
two counties lost their lives, our emergency services organizations
were applauded for their response to that devastating tornado. There is
only one reason that we handled that; it is because we had a disaster
plan in place and because we practiced that plan and we worked that
plan so that when it hit, we did our job.
A few months after that tornado, a much larger disaster, Hurricane
Katrina, showed the horrors of these disasters on a more massive scale.
In the days and weeks that followed, Hoosiers watched the citizens of
New Orleans searching for food, clean water, and a safe place to sleep.
With the local government underwater, people relied on the government
in Washington to come to their aid. The failures of the Federal
Government at that time are far too many to list right here. While we
work to fulfill our promises to the citizens recovering from this
disaster, we must also prepare for the future.
America has suffered massive disasters in the past; and,
unfortunately, we are going to see them in the future. As our families
prepare themselves for the possible scenarios, Congress must ensure
that a failure that we saw before does not happen again.
The RECOVER Act, and I am proud to support this, is an important step
in improving the government's response to large-scale disasters. And I
am proud to support it, as I said.
The RECOVER Act requires the Small Business Administration to prepare
for future disasters by developing a comprehensive disaster plan. The
government would be required to conduct regular disaster simulations
and update its disaster plan in response to new challenges as we see
them.
This bill also requires the SBA to start to implement a new disaster
plan, a 1,000-person disaster reserve corps that will receive annual
training for future disaster responses. These additional employees
would be prepared to meet the challenges posed by sudden disasters.
If programs like these were in place before Hurricane Katrina, the
government might have been able to invigorate the local economy and
speed up the rebuilding effort. I can understand we can't change the
past, but we can improve our response to disasters in the future.
The RECOVER Act will make those improvements and help the government
fulfill its responsibility to protect the citizens in the aftermath of
disasters. I am proud to lend my support to the RECOVER Act, and I urge
my colleagues to join me in helping protect disaster victims.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, we will continue to reserve our time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Clarke).
Ms. CLARKE. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to commend Chairwoman
Velazquez for her leadership on this issue and for bringing this bill
to the House floor.
I rise in support of H.R. 1361, a bill to improve the disaster relief
program of the Small Business Administration and to provide relief for
entrepreneurs. This bill addresses the problems with the SBA's disaster
loan program, which was implemented to provide timely financial
assistance in the form of low-interest loans and working capital for
businesses devastated by disasters.
In New York City, after 9/11, small businesses that once prospered
near the World Trade Center had difficulty recovering from that
tragedy. Four years later, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and
Hurricane Rita, many applicants of SBA disaster assistance were
frustrated with the agency's response or lack thereof.
Many businesses found their loan applications were delayed in
backlogs that took over a year to process without a well-informed,
centralized point of contact within the agency.
For entrepreneurs struggling to get back on their feet, the old adage
``time is money'' is much more than a cliche. Economic distress can
quickly digress into systemic unemployment for the thousands of
employees and bring extreme hardship to America's families.
I support the intent of this bill because it will ensure that the SBA
performs comprehensive, risk-based, disaster planning on an annual
basis and that the agency has mechanisms in place to maintain its
disaster readiness over the long term.
This new bill will also enhance the SBA's disaster loan program by
improving the manner in which disaster

[[Page H3515]]

loans are processed, approved and disbursed, and by providing the
agency with the additional financial assistance tools that are intended
to better fit the various needs of small businesses following a
disaster.
I will cast an ``aye'' vote in support of an unamended H.R. 1361, and
I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
The RECOVER Act of 2007 is a bill that will ensure that members of
Congress are adequately informed about all aspects of SBA's disaster
assistance and disaster planning programs so that they may provide the
SBA with the support they need to fulfill their vital mission following
a disaster.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, we will continue to reserve our time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Braley).
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me this time, and for her extraordinary leadership on this
important measure.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today as the voice for 350,000 Iowans who lost
power during an ice storm in February, to express my strong support for
H.R. 1361, the RECOVER Act. This bill will develop a disaster plan so
that the Small Business Administration can adequately assist small
businesses in emergencies.
Just this February, Iowa was hit with a massive ice storm, one of the
worst in its history, which caused millions of dollars worth of damage
throughout the State and left hundreds of thousands of people without
power.
Weather in Iowa, like in many parts of the country, can be
unpredictable and dangerous, and this was no exception. I was
personally affected by this ice storm when a 40-foot ice-coated branch
struck my home in Waterloo. With the help of my neighbors and our chain
saws, I was able to cope with some minor property damage and personal
inconvenience; but my situation paled in comparison to the constituents
I met while visiting emergency storm shelters in Iowa's First
Congressional District. These Iowans were there seeking refuge after
they had been displaced from their homes and businesses as a result of
the ice storm.
On March 15, the Small Business Committee held a markup of the
RECOVER Act. I introduced an amendment that day to expand the scope of
Federal disaster assistance available to small businesses. Currently,
the SBA has to wait for the President to make a formal disaster
declaration before giving disaster loans to small businesses.
There are exceptions, however. These include severe situations such
as ``floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, fires, explosions,
volcanoes, windstorms, landslides or mudslides, tidal waves'' and other
civil disorders.
The amendment I proposed adds ``ice storms and blizzards'' to this
list of exceptions. The language will benefit small business owners who
are trying to get back on their feet following severe winter weather.
I was pleased that the amendment received overwhelming bipartisan
support and was passed by the committee unanimously. I urge my
colleagues to recognize the importance of assisting small businesses in
reopening following a disaster and ask them to support the RECOVER Act.

{time} 1500

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, we will reserve the balance of our time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Melancon). And I want to take this opportunity to thank
him for his leadership in working with us on this comprehensive
legislation.
Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank Chairman Velazquez
for the continued commitment to helping rebuild the gulf coast. Over a
year and a half has passed since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated
south Louisiana and other Gulf Coast States. I am pleased my colleagues
remain committed to seeing us fully recover and rebuild.
I come to the floor today to support H.R. 1361, the RECOVER Act.
Recovering from the two hurricanes that devastated our State and the
gulf coast in 2005 is the biggest and most important challenge
Louisiana and the gulf coast have ever faced. Katrina was the biggest
natural disaster ever in the United States, and Rita, which may have
been dubbed the ``forgotten storm,'' was the third worst disaster.
First and third in our Nation's history, and they hit the same region
within one month each.
After these storms hit, it became very clear that SBA was not
prepared for a disaster of this caliber. SBA was understaffed, poorly
trained, poorly managed and, overall, unprepared to respond effectively
to the urgent need of disaster relief loans. The SBA's disastrous
response effectively discouraged small business owners from applying
for business or home loans.
Also, inadequate and inaccurate communications from SBA's employees
kept many customers from finishing applications. I have personally
heard of several instances in which small business owners were
frustrated to the point of giving up on the SBA and the hope of getting
financial assistance. I remind my colleagues again that this was a
critical time, when these people needed help more than ever.
H.R. 1361 addresses those serious shortfalls experienced in the
aftermath of Katrina. The RECOVER Act will better prepare the SBA to
handle and fund disasters by requiring, among other things, that the
agency develop a comprehensive disaster response plan, improve employee
training, streamline their information tracking systems and follow-up
process, and more efficiently distribute disaster loans by partnering
with the private local lenders. SBA's unwillingness to immediately and
effectively delegate responsibility to qualified private lenders
created a critical choke point in loan disbursements following these
hurricanes.
H.R. 1361 includes a commonsense solution that will cure this problem
and allow for large, maximum loan amounts and create a more streamlined
application process by allowing private, local, SBA-approved bankers to
administer these loans. These private lenders have the unique advantage
of being on the ground and knowing the community and, more importantly,
the people in the businesses within them. By allowing these private
lenders to participate, it will greatly increase the speed and
efficiency in getting the funds in the hands of the small businesses
after a disaster.
Another problem we faced after the storms was SBA's unwillingness or
inability to provide maximum flexibility in the administration of these
disaster loans. Instead of nurturing struggling businesses as they
adapted to the new environment following Katrina and Rita, the SBA
often strangled them with red tape and bureaucratic hurdles.
After the storm, some businesses along the gulf coast were denied
sufficient loans because the SBA judged their application solely based
on their prestorm capabilities, rather than on the new realities they
were trying to adjust to or their ability to meet poststorm demands.
The RECOVER Act will make the SBA a more flexible agency and will
permit them to approve larger grants for businesses that become major
sources of employment following disasters.
The RECOVER Act also addresses one of the most notorious problems
that arose after the storms, the duplications of benefit provisions.
Under current law, storm victims who took the initiative to apply for
SBA loans are now being forced to repay their SBA loans with Road Home
money. Hurricane victims in Louisiana and along the gulf coast need all
the help they can get with rebuilding their homes and getting their
lives back to normal. They don't need the Federal Government giving
with one hand and taking with the other.
Rebuilding in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita has been the
biggest challenge the people on the gulf coast have ever faced. In
order to continue to recover and rebuild, recovery money must stay in
the disaster regions, not sent back to Washington.
I understand the administration does not want people to double dip
and must be effective stewards of taxpayers' money, but in this
instance, victims of catastrophic disaster are essentially being
punished for receiving these disaster loans before they get their
recovery grants. Under this bill, borrowers will still have to repay
their SBA loans; they will just be able to pay them over the extended
time frame they originally agreed to when they got the loan.
I am a fiscal conservative, but this policy is absolutely ridiculous.
It is dooming the recovery to failure, and it is time that we correct
it.

[[Page H3516]]

I urge my colleagues to support the RECOVER Act today. With hurricane
season approaching fast, this bill is critical to the survival of small
businesses. Small businesses are the lifeblood of this country, and we
must be ready to protect them from another, possible, future disaster.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, we will continue to reserve our time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers. If the
minority is ready to close, I am ready to close.
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.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, we are now barely over a month away from hurricane
season. Many small businesses have been struggling for a year and half
to recover after the gulf coast storms of 2005. Following the
hurricanes, delays in disaster loans, overwhelming amounts of paperwork
and a lengthy application process left many small business owners
frustrated and discouraged. In fact, entrepreneurs avoided what is
supposed to be their primary source of assistance, the SBA.
Our Nation's 25 million small businesses need to know that the next
time a disaster happens they will not be left with nothing, but will
have efficient and reliable assistance. They need to know that what
happened after the gulf coast hurricanes will not ever happen again.
The RECOVER Act of 2007 will require that the SBA have a disaster
plan in place, provides assistance to the neediest of entrepreneurs and
helps in the redevelopment of the community. H.R. 1361 will given
entrepreneurs the relief and assistance they deserve after a disaster.
With 44 days left till hurricane season, we simply cannot afford not
to act.
At this point, I want to take a moment to thank the staff who worked
on this legislation. From Mr. Chabot's staff, Kevin Fitzpatrick, Mike
Smullen and Barry Pinellis; from the majority staff, Michael Day, Adam
Minehardt and Andy Jiminez and Tim Slattery.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1361, the
Relief for Entrepreneurs: Coordination of Objectives and Values for
Effective Recovery (RECOVER) Act of 2007. This bill makes crucial
improvements to the Small Business Administration's disaster relief
programs. It will help provide greater access to, and more effective
distribution of, loans and grants to those affected individuals in the
aftermath of natural disasters.
One of the many lessons learned from Hurricanes Rita and Katrina is
that the Federal Government must be better prepared to assist all the
people of this Nation in times of greatest need. In legislating to
improve disaster relief programs, Congress must keep in mind the
multifaceted nature of any solution and strive to create equitable
access for all affected communities.
While this bill takes great strides in making funds available to
individuals affected by natural disasters, more must be done to ensure
access for the segments of the population that may not be reached
through standard means, including limited English proficient
communities. Among the communities severely impacted by Hurricane
Katrina were the Vietnamese American and Cambodian American shrimpers
of the Gulf Coast. For many, their livelihoods were destroyed as their
boats were left damaged and not seaworthy. These losses were compounded
by the inaccessibility of government aid as many of these shrimpers are
limited English proficient and were unable to learn of government
programs that could have helped them. Unfortunately, the Federal
Government fell short of servicing the needs of this segment of the
American population.
Mr. Chairman, it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to
ensure equitable access to Federal disaster relief programs for all
Americans. We do not know where the next disaster will strike, but we
will be better prepared if we acknowledge that different communities
have different needs; access to information in the appropriate language
is vital. Congress must do its part. The RECOVER Act certainly adds
necessary amendments to the Small Business Act, but I stress to my
colleagues in the House, we cannot stop there. To ensure equitable
access to all affected individuals and communities, Congress and the
Small Business Administration must take the extra steps to ensure that
information, outreach, and loan and grant disbursement are made
available to communities that are difficult to serve. I trust that this
House will continue to ensure proper preparation and full and equitable
access to relief programs for affected individuals and communities in
the next natural disaster to affect this Nation.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of
House Report 110-97 is adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment
under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 1361

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Relief for
Entrepreneurs: Coordination of Objectives and Values for
Effective Recovery Act of 2007'' or the ``RECOVER Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--PLANNING

Sec. 101. Comprehensive disaster response plan.
Sec. 102. Annual disaster simulation exercise.
Sec. 103. Disaster reserve corps.
Sec. 104. Plans to secure additional office space.
Sec. 105. Coordination of disaster assistance programs with FEMA.
Sec. 106. Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

TITLE II--LENDING

Sec. 201. Incidents of National Significance.
Sec. 202. Information tracking and follow-up system.
Sec. 203. Immediate Disaster Assistance program.
Sec. 204. Increased deferment period.
Sec. 205. Revised repayment terms.
Sec. 206. Revised disbursement process.
Sec. 207. Revised collateral requirements.
Sec. 208. Enhanced lending authority for private lenders.
Sec. 209. Disaster processing redundancy.
Sec. 210. Grant program.
Sec. 211. Waiver of prohibition on duplication of certain benefits.
Sec. 212. Increase legislative limit.
Sec. 213. Net earnings clauses prohibited.
Sec. 214. Economic injury disaster loans to nonprofits.
Sec. 215. Applicants that will constitute a major source of employment
due to changed economic circumstances.
Sec. 216. Preliminary application process for assistance for small
business concerns with essential employees ordered to
serve on active duty in the Armed Forces.
Sec. 217. Economic injury disaster loans in cases of ice storms and
blizzards.
Sec. 218. Economic injury disaster loans for businesses affected by
lack of snowfall.

TITLE III--OVERSIGHT

Sec. 301. Reports on disaster assistance.

[[Page H3517]]

TITLE I--PLANNING

SEC. 101. COMPREHENSIVE DISASTER RESPONSE PLAN.

The Small Business Act is amended by redesignating section
37 as section 99 and by inserting after section 36 the
following:

``SEC. 37. COMPREHENSIVE DISASTER RESPONSE PLAN.

``(a) Plan Required.--The Administrator shall develop,
implement, and maintain a comprehensive written disaster
response plan. The plan shall include the following:
``(1) For each region of the Administration, a description
of the disasters most likely to occur in that region.
``(2) For each disaster described under paragraph (1)--
``(A) an assessment of the disaster;
``(B) an assessment of the demand for Administration
assistance most likely to occur in response to the disaster;
``(C) an assessment of the needs of the Administration,
with respect to such resources as information technology,
telecommunications, human resources, and office space, to
meet the demand referred to in subparagraph (B); and
``(D) guidelines pursuant to which the Administration will
coordinate with other Federal agencies and with State and
local authorities to best respond to the demand referred to
in subparagraph (B) and to best use the resources referred to
in that subparagraph.
``(b) Completion; Revision.--The first plan required by
subsection (a) shall be completed not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this section. Thereafter,
the Administrator shall update the plan on an annual basis
and following any incident of national significance (as
declared by the President or his designee).
``(c) Knowledge Required.--The Administrator shall carry
out subsections (a) and (b) through an individual with
substantial knowledge in the field of disaster readiness and
emergency response.
``(d) Report.--The Administrator shall include a report on
the plan whenever the Administrator submits the report
required by section 47(a).''.

SEC. 102. ANNUAL DISASTER SIMULATION EXERCISE.

The Small Business Act is amended by inserting after
section 37 (as added by section 101) the following:

``SEC. 38. ANNUAL DISASTER SIMULATION EXERCISE.

``(a) Exercise Required.--The Administrator shall conduct a
disaster simulation exercise at least once each fiscal year.
The exercise shall include the participation of, at a
minimum, not less than half of the individuals in the
disaster reserve corps and shall test, at maximum capacity,
all of the information technology and telecommunications
systems of the Administration that are vital to the
activities of the Administration during such a disaster.
``(b) Report.--The Administrator shall include a report on
the disaster simulation exercise whenever the Administration
submits the report required by section 47(a).''.

SEC. 103. DISASTER RESERVE CORPS.

The Small Business Act is amended by inserting after
section 38 (as added by section 102) the following:

``SEC. 39. DISASTER RESERVE CORPS.

``(a) Corps Required.--The Administrator shall maintain
within the Administration a disaster reserve corps, the
purpose of which is to perform the functions of the
Administration related to disaster response. The corps shall
consist of at least 1,000 individuals, each of whom--
``(1) does not ordinarily have the duties of a full-time
officer or employee of the Administration; but
``(2) is able to assume duties related to disaster response
when the Administrator so requires.
``(b) Training.--The Administrator shall ensure that each
individual in the corps receives training each year in one or
more functions relating to disaster response. To the maximum
extent practicable, the function in which an individual is
trained in one year shall be different from the function in
which the individual was trained in prior years.
``(c) Geographic Distribution.--The Administrator shall
ensure that not more than 30 percent of the individuals in
the corps reside in any one region of the Administration.
``(d) Report.--The Administrator shall include a report on
the corps whenever the Administration submits the report
required by section 47(a).''.

SEC. 104. PLANS TO SECURE ADDITIONAL OFFICE SPACE.

The Small Business Act is amended by inserting after
section 39 (as added by section 103) the following:

``SEC. 40. PLANS TO SECURE ADDITIONAL OFFICE SPACE.

``(a) Plans Required.--The Administrator shall develop
long-term plans to secure additional office space to
accommodate an expanded workforce in times of disaster.
``(b) Report.--The Administrator shall include a report on
the plans whenever the Administration submits the report
required by section 47(a).''.

SEC. 105. COORDINATION OF DISASTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS WITH
FEMA.

The Small Business Act is amended by inserting after
section 40 (as added by section 104) the following:

``SEC. 41. COORDINATION OF DISASTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS WITH
FEMA.

``(a) Coordination Required.--The Administrator shall
ensure that the disaster assistance programs of the
Administration are coordinated, to the maximum extent
practicable, with the disaster assistance programs of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
``(b) Regulations Required.--The Administrator, in
consultation with the Director of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, shall establish regulations to ensure that
each application for disaster assistance is submitted as
quickly as practicable to the Administration or directed to
the appropriate agency under the circumstances.
``(c) Completion; Revision.--The initial regulations shall
be completed not later than 270 days after the date of the
enactment of this section. Thereafter, the regulations shall
be revised on an annual basis.
``(d) Report.--The Administrator shall include a report on
the regulations whenever the Administration submits the
report required by section 47(a).''.

SEC. 106. ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR DISASTER ASSISTANCE.

The Small Business Act is amended by inserting after
section 41 (as added by section 105) the following:

``SEC. 42. ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR DISASTER ASSISTANCE.

``(a) In General.--There is established in the
Administration an Associate Administrator for Disaster
Assistance, appointed by the President by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate, from among individuals who have--
``(1) proven management ability; and
``(2) substantial knowledge in the field of disaster
readiness and emergency response.
``(b) Director of Disaster Planning.--
``(1) Appointment.--There is established in the
Administration a Director for Disaster Planning, appointed by
the Administrator from among the personnel of the
Administration.
``(2) Duties.--Subject to the authority, direction, and
control of the Associate Administrator for Disaster
Assistance, the Director shall--
``(A) develop and implement the Administration's plans for
responding to disasters; and
``(B) direct the Administration's training exercises with
respect to disasters.
``(3) Coordination.--In carrying out the duties under
paragraph (2), the Director shall coordinate with--
``(A) the Associate Administrator for the Office of
Disaster Assistance of the Administration;
``(B) the Director of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency; and
``(C) other Federal, State, and local disaster planning
offices, as necessary.
``(c) Director of Disaster Lending.--
``(1) Appointment.--There is established in the
Administration a Director for Disaster Lending, appointed by
the Administrator from among the personnel of the
Administration.
``(2) Duties.--Subject to the authority, direction, and
control of the Associate Administrator for Disaster
Assistance, the Director shall direct all aspects of the
disaster lending program under section 7(b).
``(d) Resources.--The Administrator shall ensure that the
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, the Director
of Disaster Planning, and the Director of Disaster Lending
have adequate resources to carry out the duties under this
section.''.

TITLE II--LENDING

SEC. 201. INCIDENTS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE.

(a) Disaster Loans to Private Nonprofit Organizations.--
Section 7(b)(2) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
636(b)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (D) by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following:
``(E) an incident of national significance, as declared by
the President or his designee, in which case assistance under
this paragraph may be provided, subject to the other
applicable requirements of this paragraph, to a private
nonprofit organization (as that term is defined in section
29(a)(2)) that is located in an area affected by the incident
of national significance.''.
(b) Mitigation Loans to Small Business Concerns.--Section 7
of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636) is amended by
inserting after subsection (d) the following:
``(e) Disaster Mitigation Loans.--
``(1) Authority.--The Administrator may make or guarantee a
mitigation loan to a small business concern that receives a
loan under section 7(b)(1)(A) for the damage or destruction,
by reason of an incident of national significance (as
declared by the President or his designee), of property owned
by the small business concern.
``(2) Amount of loan.--The amount of a loan under paragraph
(1) shall not exceed 20 percent of the total amount of the
cost of the damage or destruction referred to in paragraph
(1). The total amount shall be calculated without regard for
any costs for which the small business concern is reimbursed
under any insurance policy or otherwise.''.
(c) Applicability for Fiscal Year 2006 to Hurricanes
Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.--
(1) In general.--For fiscal year 2006, the Administrator--
(A) may carry out subsection (e) of section 7 of the Small
Business Act (as added by subsection (b) of this section)
with respect to a private nonprofit organization that was
located, as of August 28, 2005, in a hurricane-affected area;
and
(B) may carry out such subsection (e) with respect to a
small business concern that was located, as of August 28,
2005, in a hurricane-affected area, for damage or destruction
by reason of Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita, or Hurricane
Wilma.
(2) Hurricane-affected area defined.--In this section, the
term ``hurricane-affected area'' means a county or parish in
the State of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, or
Texas, that has been designated by the Administrator of the
Small Business Administration as a disaster area by reason of
Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita, or Hurricane Wilma under
disaster declaration 10176, 10177, 10178, 10179, 10180,
10181, 10203, 10204, 10205, 10206, 10222, or 10223.

[[Page H3518]]

SEC. 202. INFORMATION TRACKING AND FOLLOW-UP SYSTEM.

The Small Business Act is amended by inserting after
section 42 (as added by section 106) the following:

``SEC. 43. INFORMATION TRACKING AND FOLLOW-UP SYSTEM FOR
DISASTER ASSISTANCE.

``(a) System Required.--The Administrator shall develop,
implement, and maintain a centralized information system to
track communications between personnel of the Administration
and applicants for disaster assistance. The system shall
ensure that whenever an applicant for disaster assistance
communicates with such personnel on a matter relating to the
application, the following information is recorded:
``(1) The method of communication.
``(2) The date of communication.
``(3) The identity of the personnel.
``(4) A summary of the subject matter of the communication.
``(b) Follow-up Required.--The Administrator shall ensure
that an applicant for disaster assistance receives, by
telephone, mail, or electronic mail, follow-up communications
from the Administration at all critical stages of the
application process, including the following:
``(1) When the Administration determines that additional
information or documentation is required to process the
application.
``(2) When the Administration determines whether to approve
or deny the loan.
``(3) When the primary contact person managing the loan
application has changed.''.

SEC. 203. IMMEDIATE DISASTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

The Small Business Act is amended by inserting after
section 43 (as added by section 202) the following:

``SEC. 44. IMMEDIATE DISASTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

``(a) Program Required.--The Administrator shall carry out
a program, to be known as the Immediate Disaster Assistance
program, under which the Administration participates on a
deferred (guaranteed) basis in 85 percent of the balance of
the financing outstanding at the time of disbursement of the
loan if such balance is less than or equal to $25,000 for
businesses affected by a disaster.
``(b) Eligibility Requirement.--To receive a loan
guaranteed under subsection (a), the applicant must also
apply for, and meet basic eligibility standards for, a loan
under section 7(b).
``(c) Use of Proceeds.--A person who receives a loan under
section 7(b) must use the proceeds of that loan to repay all
loans guaranteed under subsection (a), if any, before using
the proceeds for any other purpose.
``(d) Approval or Disapproval.--The Administrator shall
ensure that each applicant for a loan under the program
receives a decision approving or disapproving of the
application within 36 hours after the Administration receives
the application.''.

SEC. 204. INCREASED DEFERMENT PERIOD.

Section 7 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636) is
amended by inserting after subsection (e) (as added by
section 201(b)) the following:
``(f) Additional Requirements for 7(b) Loans.--
``(1) Increased deferment authorized.--
``(A) In general.--In making loans under section 7(b), the
Administrator may provide, to the person receiving the loan,
an option to defer repayment on the loan.
``(B) Period.--A deferment under subparagraph (A) may not
exceed 4 years.''.

SEC. 205. REVISED REPAYMENT TERMS.

Section 7 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636) is
amended in subsection (f) by adding after paragraph (1) (as
added by section 204) the following:
``(2) Revised repayment terms.--In making loans under
section 7(b), the Administrator--
``(A) shall not require repayment to be made until 12
months after the date on which the final disbursement of
approved amounts is made; and
``(B) shall calculate the amount of repayment based solely
on the amounts disbursed.''.

SEC. 206. REVISED DISBURSEMENT PROCESS.

Section 7 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636) is
amended in subsection (f) by adding after paragraph (2) (as
added by section 205) the following:
``(3) Revised disbursement process.--In making loans under
section 7(b), the Administrator shall disburse the loan
amounts in stages as follows:
``(A) Loans up to $150,000.--If the total amount approved
is less than or equal to $150,000--
``(i) the first disbursement shall consist of 40 percent of
the total loan amount, or a lesser percentage of the total
loan amount if the Administrator and the borrower agree on
such a lesser percentage;
``(ii) the second disbursement shall consist of 50 percent
of the amounts that remain after the first disbursement, and
shall be made when the borrower has produced satisfactory
receipts to demonstrate the proper use of the first half of
the first disbursement; and
``(iii) the third disbursement shall consist of the amounts
that remain after the preceding disbursements, and shall be
made when the borrower has produced satisfactory receipts to
demonstrate the proper use of the first disbursement and the
first half of the second disbursement.
``(B) Loans from $150,000 to $500,000.--If the total amount
approved is more than $150,000 but less than or equal to
$500,000--
``(i) the first disbursement shall consist of 20 percent of
the total loan amount, or a lesser percentage if the
Administrator and the borrower agree on such a lesser
percentage;
``(ii) the second disbursement shall consist of 30 percent
of the total loan amount remaining after the first
disbursement, and shall be made when the borrower has
produced satisfactory receipts to demonstrate the proper use
of the first half of the first disbursement;
``(iii) the third disbursement shall consist of 25 percent
of the total loan amount remaining after the first and second
disbursements, and shall be made when the borrower has
produced satisfactory receipts to demonstrate the proper use
of the first disbursement and the first half of the second
disbursement; and
``(iv) the fourth disbursement shall consist of the amounts
that remain after the preceding disbursements, and shall be
made when the borrower has produced satisfactory receipts to
demonstrate the proper use of the first and second
disbursements and the first half of the third disbursement.
``(C) Loans greater than $500,000.--If the total amount
approved is more than $500,000--
``(i) the first disbursement shall consist of at least
$100,000, or a lesser amount if the Administrator and the
borrower agree on such a lesser amount; and
``(ii) the number of disbursements after the first, and the
amount of each such disbursement, shall be in the discretion
of the Administrator, but the amount of each such
disbursement shall be not less than $100,000.''.

SEC. 207. REVISED COLLATERAL REQUIREMENTS.

Section 7 of the Small Business Act is amended in
subsection (f) by adding after paragraph (3) (as added by
section 206) the following:
``(4) Revised collateral requirements.--In making a
business loan under section 7(b), the total approved amount
of which is less than or equal to $100,000, the Administrator
shall not require the borrower to use the borrower's home as
collateral.''.

SEC. 208. ENHANCED LENDING AUTHORITY FOR PRIVATE LENDERS.

The Small Business Act is amended by inserting after
section 44 (as added by section 203) the following:

``SEC. 45. ENHANCED LENDING AUTHORITY FOR PRIVATE LENDERS.

``(a) Program Authorized.--The Administrator may, and
during a period specified in subsection (b) shall, carry out
a program under which the Administrator permits banks and
other financial institutions to process, approve, close, and
service disaster loans under section 7(b) for a fee not to
exceed 2 percent of the total loan amount.
``(b) Periods During Which Program Is Required.--The
program under subsection (a) is required to be carried out
during the following periods:
``(1) Any period of an incident of national significance
(as declared by the President or his designee).
``(2) Any period during which the average time for the
Administration to approve disaster loans in response to any
single disaster is 30 days or more.
``(c) Exclusion of Lenders.--If the number or rate of
defaults on loans processed, approved, and closed by a lender
under the program under subsection (a) are inordinate, as
determined by the Administrator, the Administrator may do any
one or more of the following:
``(1) Exclude the lender from participating in the program
under subsection (a).
``(2) Exclude the lender from participating in the
Preferred Lenders Program under section 7(a)(2)(C)(ii).
``(d) Factor in Preferred Lenders Program.--In determining
whether a lender is to be certified or recertified to
participate in the Preferred Lenders Program under section
7(a)(2)(C)(ii), the Administrator may consider as a factor
the following:
``(1) The loans processed, approved, and closed by the
lender under the program under subsection (a).
``(2) The participation or non-participation of the lender
in the program under subsection (a).''.

SEC. 209. DISASTER PROCESSING REDUNDANCY.

The Small Business Act is amended by inserting after
section 45 (as added by section 208) the following:

``SEC. 46. DISASTER PROCESSING REDUNDANCY.

``(a) In General.--The Administrator shall ensure that the
Administration has in place a facility for disaster loan
processing that, whenever the Administration's primary
facility for disaster loan processing becomes unavailable, is
able to take over all disaster loan processing from that
primary facility within 2 days.
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such
sums as may be necessary.''.

SEC. 210. GRANT PROGRAM.

Section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b))
is amended by inserting immediately after paragraph (3) the
following:
``(4) Grants to disaster-affected small businesses.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator may make a grant of up
to $100,000 to a small business concern that--
``(i) was located in a designated disaster area affected by
disaster declaration 10176, 10177, 10178, 10179, 10180,
10181, 10203, 10204, 10205, 10206, 10222, or 10233, and was
located in a county or parish that, as a result of Hurricanes
Katrina, Rita, or Wilma of 2005, experienced a loss of at
least 100 housing units, experienced a loss of at least 1
percent of available housing stock, and required Federal
infrastructure assistance of a least $200,000;
``(ii) submits to the Administrator a certification by the
owner of the concern of intent to reestablish the concern in
the same county or parish in which the business was
originally located, or in any other county or parish
described in clause (i);
``(iii) has applied for, and was rejected for, a
conventional disaster assistance loan under section 7(b); and

[[Page H3519]]

``(iv) was in existence for at least 2 years before the
date on which the applicable disaster declaration was made.
``(B) Priority.--In making grants under this paragraph, the
Administrator shall give priority to a small business concern
that the Administrator determines is economically viable but
unable to meet short-term financial obligations.
``(C) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term `disaster-
affected area' means an area that has been designated by the
Administrator as a disaster area.
``(D) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated for grants under this paragraph
such funds as may be necessary.''.

SEC. 211. HURRICANE ASSISTANCE REPLACEMENT GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) Program Established.--The Administrator may carry out a
program under which the Administrator may, in the
Administrator's discretion, make grants to individuals who--
(1) are victims of a disaster under disaster declaration
10176, 10177, 10178, 10179, 10180, 10181, 10203, 10204,
01205, 10206, 10222, or 10223; and
(2) receive (whether before, on, or after the date of the
enactment of this Act) 7(b) disaster assistance because of
that disaster.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section.
(c) Eligibility.--An individual is eligible to receive a
grant under this section only if the individual--
(1) receives benefits (other than the 7(b) disaster
assistance) because of the disaster; and
(2) is required to remit those benefits to the Small
Business Administration because of a duplication of benefits.
(d) Amount.--The amount of a grant under this section to an
individual shall not exceed the amount of the benefits
required to be remitted by the individual, as described in
subsection (c).
(e) Time.--The Administrator shall ensure that, to the
maximum extent practicable, a grant made under this section
is made--
(1) concurrent with the Administration's receipt of the
remittance, if the remittance is made after the date of the
enactment of this Act; and
(2) as soon as possible after the Administration's receipt
of the remittance, in all other cases.
(f) Treatment of Grants.--Grants made under this section
shall not be considered a duplication of benefits by the
Administrator.
(g) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of
the Small Business Administration.
(2) The term ``7(b) disaster assistance'' means assistance
under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 7(b)(2) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)).

SEC. 212. INCREASE LEGISLATIVE LIMIT.

Section 7(b)(3)(E) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
636(b)(3)(E)) is amended by striking ``$1,500,000'' and
inserting ``$3,000,000'' both places such term appears.

SEC. 213. NET EARNINGS CLAUSES PROHIBITED.

Section 7 of the Small Business Act is amended in
subsection (f) by adding after paragraph (4) (as added by
section 207) the following:
``(5) Net earnings clauses prohibited.--In making loans
under section 7(b), the Administrator shall not require the
borrower to pay any non-amortized amount for the first 5
years after repayment begins.''.

SEC. 214. ECONOMIC INJURY DISASTER LOANS TO NONPROFITS.

(a) In General.--Section 7 of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 636) is amended in subsection (b)(2)--
(1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)--
(A) by inserting after ``small business concern'' the
following: ``, private nonprofit organization,''; and
(B) by inserting after ``the concern'' the following: ``,
organization,''; and
(2) in subparagraph (D) by inserting after ``small business
concerns'' the following: ``, private nonprofit
organizations,''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Such section is further amended
in subsection (c)(5)(C) by inserting after ``business'' the
following: ``, organization,''.

SEC. 215. APPLICANTS THAT WILL CONSTITUTE A MAJOR SOURCE OF
EMPLOYMENT DUE TO CHANGED ECONOMIC
CIRCUMSTANCES.

Section 7(b)(3)(E) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
636(b)(3)(E)) is amended by inserting after ``constitutes''
the following: ``, or will due to changed economic
circumstances constitute,''.

SEC. 216. PRELIMINARY APPLICATION PROCESS FOR ASSISTANCE FOR
SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS WITH ESSENTIAL
EMPLOYEES ORDERED TO SERVE ON ACTIVE DUTY IN
THE ARMED FORCES.

Section 7(b)(3) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
636(b)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (C)--
(A) by striking ``90 days'' and inserting ``1 year''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following: ``The Administrator
may, when appropriate (as determined by the Administrator),
waive the ending date specified in the preceding sentence and
provide a later ending date.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(G) The Administrator shall establish a process under
which a small business concern described in subparagraph (B)
may file a preliminary application for assistance under this
paragraph, accompanied by supporting documentation, before
the date on which the essential employee is ordered to active
duty. The Administrator may not actively consider such an
application or provide assistance to the small business
concern based on such an application until the date on which
the essential employee is ordered to active duty.''.

SEC. 217. ECONOMIC INJURY DISASTER LOANS IN CASES OF ICE
STORMS AND BLIZZARDS.

Section 3(k)(2) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
632(k)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``and'';
(2) in subparagraph (B) by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) ice storms and blizzards.''.

SEC. 218. REPORT REGARDING LACK OF SNOWFALL.

Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration
shall conduct a study of, and submit a report to the
Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of
the Senate that describes--
(1) the ability of the Administrator to provide loans under
section 7(b)(2) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
636(b)(2)) to small business concerns that depend on high
snowfall amounts and sustain economic injury (as described
under that section) due to a lack of snowfall;
(2) the criteria the Administrator would use to determine
whether to provide a loan under section 7(b)(2) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)(2)) to a small business
concern that has been adversely affected by a lack of
snowfall;
(3) other Federal assistance (including loans) available to
small business concerns that are adversely affected by a lack
of snowfall; and
(4) the history relating to providing loans under section
7(b)(2) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)(2)) to
small business concerns that have been adversely affected by
a lack of snowfall.

TITLE III--OVERSIGHT

SEC. 301. REPORTS ON DISASTER ASSISTANCE.

The Small Business Act is amended by inserting after
section 46 (as added by section 209) the following:

``SEC. 47. REPORTS ON DISASTER ASSISTANCE.

``(a) Annual Report Required.--Not later than 45 days after
the end of a fiscal year, the Administrator shall submit to
the Committee on Small Business of the Senate and the
Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives a
report on the disaster assistance operations of the
Administration for that fiscal year. The report shall--
``(1) specify the number of Administration personnel
involved in such operations;
``(2) describe any material changes to those operations,
such as changes to technologies used or to personnel
responsibilities;
``(3) describe and assess the effectiveness of the
Administration in responding to disasters during that fiscal
year, including a description of the number and amounts of
loans made for damage and for economic injury; and
``(4) describe the plans of the Administration for
preparing to respond to disasters during the next fiscal
year.
``(b) Incidents of National Significance.--During the
period of an incident of national significance (as declared
by the President or his designee), the Administrator shall,
on a monthly basis, submit to the committees specified in
subsection (a) a report on the disaster assistance operations
of the Administration with respect to that incident of
national significance. The report shall specify--
``(1) the number of applications distributed;
``(2) the number of applications received;
``(3) the average time for the Administration to approve or
disapprove an application;
``(4) the amount of disaster loans approved;
``(5) the average time for initial disbursement of loan
proceeds; and
``(6) the amount of disaster loan proceeds disbursed.''.

The CHAIRMAN. No further amendment to the committee amendment is in
order except those printed in part B of the report. Each further
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a
Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be
debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Chabot

The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed
in part B of House Report 110-97.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Chabot:
Strike section 211.

{time} 1510

[[Page H3520]]

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.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, for the overwhelming majority of
disaster victims, the problem wasn't that the Federal Government gave
them too much assistance but that they weren't provided with enough. We
heard from disaster victims about how the Federal Government was its
own worst enemy, giving money to victims on the one hand through state-
administered grant programs, then taking it away.
The prohibition on ``duplication of benefits'' was originally
established to prevent disaster victims from double dipping. But this
can only happen if assistance is given out in the first place. Many
disaster victims have been waiting for 18 months and are still waiting
today.
H.R. 1361 gives the SBA the flexibility to break from its overly
rigid statutory prohibition. Most importantly, however, this provision
has been narrowly tailored to ensure that it will only apply for
victims of the 2005 hurricanes. It does not carry forward to future
disasters and will only be implemented if the administrator feels it is
necessary. It is not a requirement.
This amendment will strike that flexibility from the legislation,
leaving disaster victims subject to the unworkable standards that
currently exist in the statute.
Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Jefferson).
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
The flaw in Mr. Chabot's argument and in this amendment is that the
present statute automatically assumes in every instance where one
receives a grant and a loan that there is double dipping. That is just
not true. In the case where there is double dipping that is true double
dipping, this bill permits the administrator to make a decision about
that and to prevent it. In a case where there has been an insurance
award, one would assume the SBA would not make a disaster loan award if
there is sufficient insurance. Only in a case where the insurance isn't
sufficient will we assume that the loan would be justified.
So fundamentally here what we are doing is taking away the automatic
assumption that is built into this law that, every time you receive a
payment of this or that nature, it is a double dip. We remove that
notion from the statute and put in place a more reasonable and
commonsensical one and one that gives the administrator flexibility
where he determines whether or not a double dip may take place. If it
doesn't, then he permits the victim of the storm to receive the award.
If it is, then, of course, he denies it.
So I think there is no danger here of double dipping in this bill.
None of us agree to double dipping in this bill.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker).
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time.
I wish to express concern about the operative effects of the
gentleman's amendment. For many outside the storm impact area, you
would not have an understanding of how processes work. But if you were
eligible under the Road Home program, that was the federally funded
program to assist people to return to their homes, the maximum
allowable money that you could receive regardless of your circumstance
was $150,000. But under current rule, if you are eligible for $150,000
and you, for example, had purchased Federal flood insurance in the
amount of $150,000 and got paid $150,000 pursuant to the flood
insurance premium, you would get nothing out of the Road Home program.
Because of that inequitable application of benefits, this House has
already voted to eliminate the duplication of benefits in the flood
insurance area.
Now what is being suggested by the underlying bill is we should do
the same thing with regard to an SBA loan. The argument here is even
more persuasive. The person may have entered into the SBA obligation
far in advance of the onslaught of Katrina. It

[[Page H3521]]

might be several hundred thousand dollars of loans that were made
available to this individual through the SBA.

{time} 1520

Under the current rule, any assistance that might be offered to that
homeowner who happened to have the SBA loan would all go back to
repaying the SBA obligation.
So get the picture. The Federal Government puts a stamp on the check,
drops it in the mailbox and sends it to the house. But before it gets
there, another Federal agent picks it up and hauls it over and deposits
it at the SBA. Do you see where the hole is in this argument? No money
at all gets to the affected individual.
So what the bill now provides is that without increasing the overall
expenditure, the money made available to assist people via Katrina and
Rita has been appropriated by the Congress. It is over, that is it. We
are talking about available resources, not new dollars.
Secondly, once the money gets to the individual, the individual is
still capped by the rules of the Road Home program, and that is, there
shall be no enrichment above that $150,000 level. This is a reasonable
proposal. It will enable people to recover appropriately from the
disaster which is so overwhelming.
I suggest if any still have doubt whether this level of assistance is
required and justifiable, walk the streets of New Orleans, as I did
this past weekend. Sure, the business district and the French Quarter
look terrific. The shops are empty, the restaurants aren't full and
people are not coming back. But get out into the neighborhoods where
the devastation still exists. We need this help, and we need it now.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 15
seconds.
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, our concern, and this could have been
clarified, but the majority party has chosen not to clarify it, our
problem is the question about the fact that somebody could be
compensated multiple times for the same damage. That just is plain old
double dipping. That is something that could have been simplified with
an amendment.
So I oppose the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate having expired, the question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be postponed.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Chabot

The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed
in part B of House Report 110-97.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Chabot:
Strike section 210.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 302, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
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.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will eliminate an important tool for
helping otherwise viable businesses rebuild. These businesses need
financial assistance that the disaster loan program cannot provide.
The committee has heard victims and experts testify that the SBA's
current disaster loan program has been inadequate to help. Largely,
this has been the result of pursuing a one-size-fits-all approach to
SBA disaster assistance. If the SBA is to be successful in responding
to catastrophic disasters, the agency must have tools that are more
responsive to victims' needs. The limited grant program in this bill
will provide SBA with the authority to help the most severely affected
small businesses damaged by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma.
This has been very narrowly tailored to ensure that grants only go to
businesses located in communities most in need. Only a small number of
businesses are expected to meet the requirements for one of these
grants. If the administrator feels that grants are inappropriate, he
will not need to exercise this authority. Furthermore, this program
will not be carried forward to future disasters.
This is an extraordinary tool to address an extraordinary situation,
and this is a leading reason why this measure enjoys bipartisan
support.
I urge opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).
Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this bill has the potential to help thousands of small
businesses and business owners still struggling to recover from these
hurricanes that devastated the U.S. gulf coast.
I rise today in opposition to this amendment. After surviving
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, two of the

[[Page H3522]]

worst natural disasters in our country's history, the citizens of the
gulf coast were then faced with a man-made disaster, one of the most
disorganized, chaotic Federal responses that anyone has ever seen. Many
of the Federal agencies that were created to help these people recover
wound up making matters worse. One of these agencies was the SBA.
After these storms, 81,000 businesses were economically impacted.
Over 18,000 were completely or severely destroyed. Astonishingly,
however, following these hurricanes, only 38 percent of small business
disaster loans were approved. In hearings, the SBA admitted that after
``typical'' disasters, they approved 60 percent of these business
loans. After Katrina and Rita, conversely, over 60 percent did not
receive SBA assistance and were left with nowhere to turn for help.
One of the many reasons that the SBA failed the people of the gulf
coast was because it did not have the proper tools nor the flexibility
it needed to sufficiently and adequately address the demands caused by
the extraordinary storms. These were unprecedented natural disasters
and they called for unprecedented response. This was not a one-size-
fits-all storm, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to
perceive.

{time} 1530

In the resourceful, self-sufficient economy of south Louisiana and
Mississippi, small businesses are the lifeblood of the local economy.
Many of these mom-and-pop shops are homegrown and family-run
businesses, such as those in the shrimping industry in south Louisiana
and Mississippi that do not fit the traditional mold of current SBA
loan qualifications. These are the businesses that are being denied
assistance, yet these are the businesses that are the local economy's
most critical assets. I am a fiscal conservative, but this policy is
ridiculous. It's dooming the recovery to failure, and it's time that we
correct it.
To these business owners, these grants are critical investment
capital which will help them pay utilities, keep the lights on, rent to
keep the doors open and new equipment expenses to continue to recover
and grow despite the incredibly difficult business climate that
continues to persist in this area. Without this grant program, these
small businesses will remain too debt-burdened to take the next
decisive step required to move from recovery to rebuilding.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment today. Help
these small businesses along the gulf coast get back on their feet and
help America be the proud Nation that it should be.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be postponed.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Jindal

The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed
in part B of House Report 110-97.
Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Jindal:
Page 14, line 20, insert ``(a) In General.--''before
``Section 7''.
Page 15, after line 6, insert the following:
(b) Retroactive Application Victims of Hurricanes Katrina,
Rita, and Wilma.--
(1) In general.--Section 7(f)(1) of the Small Business Act
(as added by subsection (a)) applies retroactively to any
loan under section 7(b) of that Act that was made--
(A) in response to Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita, or
Hurricane Wilma of 2005; and
(B) for a small business located in a county or parish
designated by the Administrator of the Small Business
Administration as a disaster area by reason of such Hurricane
Katrina, Hurricane Rita, or Hurricane Wilma, as applicable.
(2) Disclosure of accrued interest.--Whenever the
Administrator provides an option to defer repayment under
paragraph (1), the Administrator shall disclose the accrued
interest that must be paid under the option.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 302, the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.

Amendment, As Modified, Offered by Mr. Jindal

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my
amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Jindal:
At the end of title II, insert the following:

SEC. 219. GULF COAST DISASTER LOAN REFINANCING PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Small Business
Administration may carry out a program to refinance Gulf
Coast disaster loans.
(b) Terms.--The terms of a Gulf Coast disaster loan
refinanced under the program shall be identical to the terms
of the original loan, except that the Administrator may
provide an option to defer repayment on the loan. Such a
deferment may not exceed 4 years after the date on which the
initial disbursement under the original loan was made.
(c) Amount.--The amount of a Gulf Coast disaster loan
refinanced under the program shall not exceed the amount of
the original loan.
(d) Disclosure of Accrued Interest.--Whenever the
Administrator provides an option to defer repayment under
subsection (b), the Administrator shall disclose the accrued
interest that must be paid under the option.
(e) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Gulf Coast
disaster loan'' means a loan--
(1) made under section 7(b) of the Small Business Act;
(2) in response to Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita, or
Hurricane Wilma of 2005; and
(3) for a small business located in a county or parish
designated by the Administrator as a disaster area by reason
of such Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita, or Hurricane Wilma
under disaster declaration 10176, 10177, 10178, 10179, 10180,
10181, 10203, 10204, 10205, 10206, 10222, or 10223.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section.

Mr. JINDAL (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment, as modified, be considered as read and
printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. JINDAL. I want to thank the chairwoman, and I want to thank
Ranking Member Chabot as well for their working together with me. I
especially want to thank the committee for helping me with this
legislation and for this underlying bill for all they are trying to do
and all they are doing to help the small businesses in Louisiana
recover from the 2005 hurricanes.
As my colleagues from Louisiana have already pointed out, prior to
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, there were an estimated 347,436 small
businesses in Louisiana. These businesses created jobs and income for
countless families all across the State. More than 65,000 of the new
jobs in Louisiana in the past decade were created by small businesses,
and in 2004, over 97 percent of the 96,000 Louisiana firms were small
businesses. The devastation caused by the 2005 hurricanes is
unprecedented, with total losses, both insured and uninsured,
approaching $140 billion. According to the United States Chamber of
Commerce, over 125,000 businesses were disrupted by Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita in 2005. In Louisiana alone, over 81,000 small businesses were
damaged or economically impacted, with 18,700 businesses
catastrophically destroyed by the storms.
As one example, in St. Bernard Parish, one of the Louisiana parishes
hardest hit by Hurricane Katrina, only 370 businesses have reopened,
far below the total of 1,400 businesses in operation before Katrina.
The Nation's small businesses are the backbone of our economy, and when
they are devastated by storms like Katrina, Rita and Wilma, we need to
do everything possible to help them rebuild and recover.
I am offering an amendment today that builds upon a provision in the
underlying bill by providing Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma
disaster victims with the option of receiving a 4-year deferment period
to pay back their disaster loans. Section 204 of the underlying bill
extends the deferment period to future disaster victims. My

[[Page H3523]]

amendment simply applies this option to those severely affected by the
2005 hurricanes. These cash-strapped small businesses are truly in need
of repayment flexibility.
My amendment allows the SBA to refinance the existing Katrina, Rita
and Wilma disaster loans under identical loans, but with the added
option of deferment of up to 4 years after the date on which the
initial disbursement was made. This is a revised version of my original
amendment that complies with all the budgetary and PAYGO rules.
By allowing small businesses that received certain small business
loans to defer their repayment on those loans, we are freeing up money
for these businesses to use for other purposes, such as rebuilding,
expanding or continuing to hire new employees. The importance of small
business as the gulf coast continues to rebuild cannot be overstated.
It is critical that we help small businesses get up and running again
and provide the job opportunities people so desperately need in these
impacted areas.
I certainly urge my colleagues to support my amendment. Again, I want
to thank the chairman and ranking member for their work on the
underlying bill and their work with me on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition to the
amendment?
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. While not opposed to the amendment, I ask unanimous
consent to claim the time in opposition, and I am prepared to accept
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for
offering this creative solution to a pressing problem. In our hearings,
my committee heard testimony on how individuals affected by the 2005
hurricanes were victimized twice, once by the storm and a second time
by the SBA.
The SBA routinely provides disaster victims with a 12-month deferment
before requiring repayment on disaster loans. Following the 2005 gulf
coast hurricanes, however, the SBA was plagued by lengthy delays and a
massive backlog of loan disbursements that has taken months to clear.
Now, many disaster victims are scheduled to begin repayment on loan
amounts that have yet to be disbursed by the SBA. Clearly, this is an
unfair and absurd result that we cannot permit to occur.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana would provide
the SBA with authority to help those victims who have been negatively
affected by its delays in loan processing and disbursement. Most
importantly, this amendment preserves the discretion of the
administrator in deciding which situations should have an increased
deferment period. This flexibility ensures that this program will only
be applied in appropriate situations, and I support the amendment from
the gentleman from Louisiana.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) for any comments he may have.
Mr. JEFFERSON. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
I also would like to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal)
for offering this amendment. If anyone has been to the gulf coast
recently, particularly if anyone has been to New Orleans recently, you
will see that there are still many businesses that are still shuttered
from the storm that happened now going on close to 2 years, and they
are not at all ready to begin repaying loan obligations. There are
still many obstacles to their recovery. This rightly recognizes that
the reality is that these businesses will take a long time to get
themselves back together.
It is very important to understand one simple thing here. This is not
just a call from the people of our State for humanitarian assistance in
the wake of a natural disaster. The Corps has admitted that its
negligence in constructing, maintaining and designing our levees is the
major reason why our city drowned and why so many businesses were put
out of business. And so there is a special responsibility, it seems to
me, to make special rules to overcome these problems. I really
appreciate this solution that is being offered here because I think it
helps to address this extraordinary devastation we have caused in great
respect by the action, or lack of action, the negligence, of an agency
of our Federal Government.
I thank you for the amendment. I really urge the Members to support
it.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal), as modified.
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 printed in part B by Mr. Chabot of Ohio.
Amendment No. 2 printed in part B by Mr. Chabot of Ohio.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second electronic
vote in this series.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Chabot

The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on amendment No. 1 printed in part B of House Report 110-97
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) on which further
proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice
vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 178,
noes 246, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 222]

AYES--178

Aderholt
Akin
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOES--246

[[Page H3524]]

Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--14

Brady (PA)
Cantor
Cooper
Faleomavaega
Ferguson
Higgins
Jones (OH)
Lampson
Millender-McDonald
Sessions
Turner
Walsh (NY)
Westmoreland
Young (AK)

{time} 1605

Messrs. ELLISON, BRADY of Texas, OBEY, SKELTON, CLAY and RENZI
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. RAMSTAD, BILIRAKIS, SHAYS and DENT changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 222, the Chabot amendment
No. 1 to H.R. 1361, I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Chabot

The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on amendment No. 2 printed in part B of House Report 110-97
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) on which further
proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice
vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174,
noes 252, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 223]

AYES--174

Aderholt
Akin
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Goode
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOES--252

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--12

Bartlett (MD)
Brady (PA)
Cantor
Faleomavaega
Ferguson
Gohmert
Higgins
Jones (OH)
Lampson
Linder
Millender-McDonald
Walsh (NY)

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1616

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments, under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Weiner) having assumed the chair, Mr.

[[Page H3525]]

Davis of Alabama, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under
consideration the bill (H.R. 1361) to improve the disaster relief
programs of the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes,
pursuant to House Resolution 302, he reported the bill, as amended by
that resolution, back to the House with a further amendment adopted by
the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. McHenry

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. McHENRY. In its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. McHenry moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1361 to the
Committee on Small Business with instructions to report the
same back to the House promptly with the following amendment:
At the end of title II of the bill, insert the following:

SEC. 219. PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE.

A person or small business concern shall not receive
assistance under this Act or section 7(b) of the Small
Business Act, as amended by this Act, if the person or small
business concern pleaded nolo contendre to, or is convicted
of, a felony, including, but not limited to, murder,
kidnapping, or sexual assault under Federal or State law.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing complicated about this
motion to recommit today. It simply says that anyone who has pleaded no
contest or has been found guilty of a felony cannot receive Federal
funding under this bill.
I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to
especially listen to the explanation of this motion to recommit,
because some of them voted for a similar motion to recommit just weeks
ago on this House floor.
This motion to recommit is very simple. It says that Federal funding
cannot under this provision of this bill go to anyone who has been
found guilty of a felony or has pleaded no contest. If you vote against
this motion to recommit, you are saying to your constituents back home
that you don't care if these Federal funds go to convicted murderers,
rapists, or kidnappers for that matter.

{time} 1620

Mr. Speaker, the new Speaker of the House pledged to have the most
ethical Congress in our Nation's history. If you vote for this motion
to recommit, you are sending a message that you are willing to reward
good behavior by supporting ethical oversight of taxpayer funds.
Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. The RECOVER Act is another massive
Democrat spending spree. That is why I am opposed to it. The
Congressional Budget Office states that the Democrats' bill will cost
the Federal taxpayers $562 million over the next 6 years. It makes
government bigger while creating new programs, positions and offices.
It expands the role of government in people's lives.
But I think we owe our taxpayers the common courtesy of saying these
funds should not go to felons. And while I and many of my colleagues in
the House are at odds with the Democrats' ideology of big government is
good government, we all can agree that kidnappers should not receive
Federal funds under this bill here today.
And in this motion to recommit, we fix this error in the Democrats'
drawing up of this bill; this omission that the Democrats have
permitted to be in this bill here today before us.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
motion to recommit and reassure your constituents you actually care
where their taxpayer dollars are going.
And for those Democrats who voted for a similar motion to recommit on
the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007 just a few weeks
ago, for those on the other side of the aisle, the 55 Democrats who
voted for the motion to recommit on the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing
Recovery Act of 2007, they will recognize the language of this motion
to recommit. It is very similar. It says, felons cannot receive these
Federal funds. Felons, such as murderers, rapists, kidnappers, those
are the type of people who would not be eligible for funds under this
act, and I encourage those same 55 Democrats to cross the aisle and
work in a bipartisan way to fix a Democrat mistake.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. What amazes me is if the gentleman from North Carolina
is so concerned about this legislation, where were you when the Small
Business Committee was considering this legislation? We had a number of
Members who do not sit on the Small Business Committee come before our
committee to discuss issues related to the disaster loan legislation.
Where were you?
And let me say more. Let me say more. If you had come before our
committee, you would have learned that what this motion to recommit
does is to reinstate policies that the SBA already does. This amendment
merely restates what the Small Business Administration does and could
actually have the opposite effect and allow more individuals with
questionable character to get SBA disaster loans.
The Small Business Administration already has a standard operating
procedure that provides that no loans shall be made to individuals of
low character. The SBA rules and regulations provide that individuals
with criminal records and arrest records or who are on probation are
considered to be in that category. Simply put, this means that felons
are not able to get SBA loans.
I will also note that adopting this motion will for all intents and
purposes kill the bill, meaning a little over 1 month before hurricane
season, the Federal Government will not have a plan to respond to
disasters. Disaster victims will be trapped in the bureaucracy between
FEMA and SBA. Small businesses impacted by disasters will continue to
struggle with backlogs that could extend up to 3 months. New programs
to leverage the private sector to assist entrepreneurs in days not
months will not be available. Economic recovery in the gulf will lag as
much-needed assistance continues to be denied.
What this motion to recommit is is a cheap political ploy to kill
this legislation that is so much needed.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the majority leader, Mr. Steny
Hoyer.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
As she has said, this is the law. This is another attempt, another
opportunity not to substantively legislate because this is already the
law. This is an effort to kill this bill indirectly and without telling
the public that that is what you are doing.
I am asking all of our Members to vote ``no'' on this. This is simply
a procedural motion to kill this bill. If they wanted to add a
substantive amendment, they could have done it. This was a modified
open rule. All they had to do was file and notice it.
So I ask all of my colleagues, we are not going to go down this road
and play this political game. We want to substantively legislate. We
are going to vote ``no'' on this motion.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).
Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Speaker, here we go again.
We had a similar motion to recommit, the gentleman is right, 2 or 3
weeks ago, and 50 people fell for it. They fell for it because it came
to the floor just minutes before we had to vote, and it sounded like
people such as myself would condone felons getting loans, when the law
already prevents that.
For God's sake, the people in the gulf coast of the United States
have suffered enough. And now we want to take

[[Page H3526]]

away or at least put some procedures in this just to screw with them
some more. Let's vote this bill straight up and down. Let's kill this
motion to recommit. It is a fallacy. It is fake. It is there just to
disrupt. The people of this country and the people of the gulf coast
need your help. Support the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on passage of H.R. 1361, if ordered, motion to suspend
the rules and agree to H. Res. 293, and motion to suspend the rules and
agree to H. Res. 300.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 204,
noes 218, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 224]

AYES--204

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--218

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--11

Brady (PA)
Cantor
Ferguson
Higgins
Jones (OH)
Lampson
Marshall
Millender-McDonald
Ryan (WI)
Space
Walsh (NY)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1647

Mr. McNERNEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The Chair would announce that the two postponed suspension votes
following this vote will be taken in the following order:
House Resolution 300; and
House Resolution 293.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 267,
noes 158, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 225]

AYES--267

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Drake
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)

[[Page H3527]]

Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth

NOES--158

Aderholt
Akin
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--8

Brady (PA)
Cantor
Ferguson
Higgins
Jones (OH)
Lampson
Millender-McDonald
Walsh (NY)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weiner) (during the vote). Members are
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1655

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________