[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 67 (Wednesday, April 25, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H4101-H4105]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1332, SMALL BUSINESS LENDING
IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2007
Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 330 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 330
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1332) to improve the access to capital
programs of the Small Business Administration, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived
[[Page H4102]]
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Small Business. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall
be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Small
Business now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All
points of order against the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute are waived except those arising under clause
9 or 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII,
no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as 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 in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or
10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the
bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the
bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 1332
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated
by the Speaker.
{time} 1430
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
General Leave
Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
on House Resolution 330.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
House Resolution 330 provides for consideration of H.R. 1332, the
Small Business Lending Improvements Act of 2007 under a structured
rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Small
Business. The rule makes in order the substitute reported by the
Committee on Small Business as an original bill for purpose of
amendment. The rule makes in order all four germane amendments that
were submitted to the Rules Committee. And finally, the rule provides
one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
Madam Speaker, this bipartisan legislation, crafted under the
leadership of my colleague from New York, chairwoman of the Small
Business Committee, Ms. Velazquez, maintains support of a wide range of
organizations, including the Independent Community Bankers of America,
the American Dental Association, the American Veterans, and American
College of Physicians.
Small businesses are the backbone of the American economy. In my home
State of New York, 99 percent of all businesses are small businesses,
and they employ 52 percent of the nonfarm, private sector workforce. In
2005, an estimated 62,000 new small firms began operations in New York,
creating $77 billion in entrepreneurial income for the State of New
York.
In my district and across this country, Americans depend on small
businesses to drive the economy and provide essential everyday
services. Sadly, it is a constant struggle for many of these
entrepreneurs just to keep the lights on, as larger companies continue
to push out the mom and pop businesses in the cities and towns across
the country.
My constituents in upstate New York have experienced this loss
firsthand. I am proud to have the opportunity, as a member of the
distinguished Rules Committee, to manage this rule for such an
important piece of legislation for our Nation's small businesses.
The Small Business Lending Improvements Act will help strengthen our
Nation's small businesses by updating and streamlining two of the Small
Business Administration's largest financing programs, the 7(a) and 504
loan programs.
This bill will make the 7(a) program more affordable for both
borrowers and lenders by reducing fees and increasing the SBA guarantee
on 7(a) loans. It will also modernize the 504 Certified Development
Company Program by improving the ability of CDCs to liquidate defaulted
loans and by requiring their local community leaders be included on
every CDC board of directors. And it will make permanent the Community
Express Program, providing increased access to capital for socially and
economically disadvantaged small business owners.
This bill also establishes two important new 7(a) loan programs, one
to encourage private health care providers to establish practices in
federally designated Health Professional Shortage Areas, and one to
assist our Nation's veterans in starting or expanding a small business.
Despite an abundance of health professionals, New York State has 102
communities designated by the Federal Government as Health Professional
Shortage Areas. Only 16 percent of the physicians practicing in New
York provide services in these medically underserved areas. According
to the Department of Health and Human Services, the district I am
privileged to represent is short nearly 70 dental, primary care and
mental health practitioners. Further, a handful of counties I represent
don't even have a resident OB/GYN, forcing thousands of women to travel
40 to 50 miles just to seek routine care.
Madam Speaker, this problem is not confined to upstate New York. Over
60 million Americans currently live in medically underserved areas
across the country. The Small Business Lending Improvements Act will
address this critical shortage by establishing a 7(a) loan program that
reduces lender and borrower fees by half and increases the government
guarantee to 90 percent of the doctors and dentists serving Health
Professional Shortage Areas.
These financial incentives are critical to encouraging private health
care providers to establish practices in underserved areas and to
expand access to quality health care for millions of Americans.
Madam Speaker, this legislation will also ensure that our returning
servicemen and women are afforded every opportunity to start or expand
a small business by establishing a dedicated 7(a) loan program for
veterans.
An estimated 900 of New York's Reservists currently deployed in Iraq
and Afghanistan are self-employed, and another 100 are considered key
employees within small businesses. The absence of these men and women
during 12- or 15-month deployments often forces the small businesses
they own to operate at greatly reduced levels, at times declining to
near startup conditions by the time the owner returns. An absence due
to deployment is most detrimental to the smallest towns where many
Reserve and Guard members operate businesses essential to the
community.
The Small Business Lending Improvements Act will help address the
obstacles faced by small business owners deployed in Iraq and
Afghanistan by eliminating borrower and lender fees and increasing to
90 percent the government guarantee for loans to veterans under the
7(a) program.
According to American Veterans National Commander Thomas C. McGriff,
``These lenders fees, which can amount to thousands of dollars, are due
up front and can deter entrepreneurs from seeking financial assistance
altogether.''
Madam Speaker, by creating a lender structure tailored specifically
for veterans, this bill will encourage entrepreneurship and help to
repay the enormous debt we owe to our brave men and women in uniform.
[[Page H4103]]
Madam Speaker, it is our Nation's small businesses that keep our
Nation's economy moving full speed ahead. Let's take this opportunity
to provide further encouragement for the creation of new small
businesses and for our Nation's existing small business owners to
expand
I am proud to support this bipartisan legislation and encourage my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) for yielding me the customary 30
minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, the Small Business
Administration was originally created to assist small businesses which
are vital sources of job creation and economic growth here in America,
but are often disadvantaged when it comes to access to capital.
The Small Business Administration's two largest small business
finance programs, the 7(a) loan guarantee program and the 504 loan
program, have assisted thousands of small businesses every year that
otherwise would not have attained a commercial loan for the purpose,
amount and on the terms that small business borrowers need.
The Small Business Lending Improvement Act enhances and streamlines
these finance programs and makes the 7(a) program more affordable and
accessible to borrowers and lenders by providing the Small Business
Administration with the authority to use funds to reduce fees on both
lenders and borrowers. This bill encourages increased lender
participation in the 7(a) program by reducing application burdens for
borrowers and lenders in rural areas and expediting the loan
consideration time.
This bill was favorably reported by the Committee on Small Business
by a voice vote, and it enjoys strong bipartisan support.
Madam Speaker, our Nation's small businesses are the engine that
drives our economy. Small business represents 99.7 percent of all
employers and have generated 60 to 80 percent of new jobs annually over
the last decade. Clearly, we must act to help our Nation's small
businesses continue to grow and create job opportunities.
While I support the underlying Small Business Lending Improvement
Act, more must be done to help small businesses overcome the challenges
they face. Congress must act quickly to continue tax incentives for
small business expenses that spur job creation and grow the economy.
In the last Congress, I supported the Tax Increase Prevention and
Reconciliation Act, which extended through 2009 the enhanced section
179 small business expensing allowance. In 2007 the maximum allowance
will be $112,000. But in 2010, this maximum amount will plummet to
$25,000 without an extension of the current law.
I am disappointed that the Democrat majority has chosen not to
provide small businesses more significant tax relief in a form that has
an opportunity to become law. We cannot afford to halt our Nation's
economic growth and job creation opportunities by letting small
business tax relief policies expire and become part of the Democrats'
proposed largest tax increase in American history.
Congress must also act to provide regulatory relief and make health
care more affordable for small business employees and the self-
employed.
Madam Speaker, because of the way health insurance is priced and
regulated, small businesses usually pay more for similar coverage than
larger corporations, and I think this is simply unfair. It is currently
estimated that 60 percent of those without health insurance work for or
depend on small employers who lack the ability to provide health
benefits for their workers.
The high cost of health insurance prevents many small business owners
from providing health insurance to their employees, and we must look
for ways to make health care more affordable. One way is to expand
Health Savings Accounts so that individuals can choose a health plan
that best meets their needs. Health Savings Accounts allow individuals
to make their own decisions about their health care, while building, at
the same time, savings tax free to pay for future medical expenses.
Another way to make health insurance more affordable and accessible
is to allow small businesses to join together to use the marketplace to
buy health insurance as a group. This would provide small businesses
with greater bargaining power and lower health plan costs that larger
companies now often afford.
We must also provide fairness to self-employed individuals who
purchase their own health insurance, but yet are treated differently
under the U.S. Tax Code than those who receive health insurance
benefits from their employer.
So I call on this new majority to bring forth legislation to the
House floor that not only makes improvements to small business lending
programs, as this bill does, but that provides real tax and regulatory
relief to small businesses and makes health insurance more accessible.
Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that this House Resolution 330 is a
structured rule. I am even more concerned that an amendment offered by
my colleague from Indiana, Mr. Buyer, the ranking member of the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, was not made in order by the Rules
Committee. In fact, it was rejected by the Democrat majority on a party
line vote.
Mr. Buyer's thoughtful amendment would authorize Federal contracting
officials to treat small businesses owned by service-disabled veterans
under the same rules as those applied to businesses in SBA's 8(a)
program. Under House Resolution 330, Members are denied the opportunity
to consider a full range of ideas on this floor to the Small Business
Lending Improvement Act.
Accordingly, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the
previous question and against House Resolution 330.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me say at the outset that I always
enjoy listening to my colleague from Washington State, Mr. Hastings,
both on the floor and in the Rules Committee.
I want to respond to a couple of things he said. He talked about the
Democrats and taxes. Let me remind him that the biggest tax increase
that is looming that could impact small businesses is the alternative
minimum tax, or so-called AMT. And the Democratic majority is actually
working on a solution so that millions of Americans won't be unfairly
burdened with that tax. That is an issue that, when the gentleman's
party was in the majority, they chose not to deal with. And the
Democrats will deal with that.
Let me say one other thing, Madam Speaker. It is always interesting
to hear the gentleman from Washington complain about the rule.
{time} 1445
Let me state for my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, that
every single germane amendment that was offered to this bill was made
in order by the Rules Committee. That is something that very rarely
happened when the gentleman's party was in the majority. So I think
this is a good rule.
He complains that a nongermane amendment was not made in order, one
that deals not with the issue of loans, which the underlying bill deals
with, but instead the Buyer amendment deals with contracting. And the
gentleman says that we need to do this for our veterans. Well, I want
to do all we can for our veterans, and maybe in the right vehicle we
can deal with that issue. But I also want to point out to my colleagues
here in Congress that when the gentleman's party was in control,
veterans health and veterans benefits were woefully underfunded. I
mean, we are dealing with scandals at Walter Reed. We are dealing with
scandals all over the country dealing with veterans health because of
the inadequacy of the funding that came out of the Republican majority,
budget after budget after budget after budget.
The Democrats take control and have literally pumped billions of
dollars more into veterans programs, including veterans health
programs. And I will say to the gentleman from Washington that today he
will have the opportunity, in the conference report on the supplemental
appropriations bill, to vote for a conference report that adds
[[Page H4104]]
even billions of dollars more to help our veterans. So if people are
concerned about helping our veterans, then they will have an
opportunity this afternoon to vote that way.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the
gentleman's yielding.
Let me first talk about the issue of the structured rule and about
Mr. Buyer's amendment, which I am going to call for a vote on the
previous question so we can rectify what we didn't do in Rules last
night, and that is simply this: The Rules Committee exists to make
rules for debate on the floor of this House. We, on a regular basis,
waive the rules for whatever. In fact, we are going to have the
supplemental budget on the floor, and line 1 of that supplemental rule
talks about waiving rules.
So the point is this: If we had had an open rule, as I suggested last
night, Mr. Buyer could have offered his amendment.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to reclaim my time, if I
may.
What the gentleman knows full well is that even with an open rule,
the Buyer amendment would still not be germane and subject to a point
of order by any Member of this House. I mean, we have germaneness rules
for a reason.
Let me also point out another interesting fact that I think my
colleagues should remember. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey),
during the last Congress, time and time and time again went before the
Republican Rules Committee asking for a waiver on an amendment that
would repeal the tax cut for the top 1 percent income earners in this
country, the multibillionaires, if you will, so that those savings
could be put into veterans programs. He needed a germaneness waiver.
Time and time and time again, the Republican Rules Committee denied him
the right to offer that amendment.
Now, I guess my point is that it is a little bit curious that the
gentleman voted routinely to uphold the germaneness rules with regard
to amendments to help veterans in the past, but now somehow is
complaining that we need a different standard now that they are in the
minority.
Madam Speaker, I would simply say that this is a fair rule. Every
germane amendment that was offered is made in order. Anybody could have
offered an amendment. And this is something that was very rarely
afforded to us when we were in the minority. And I think it is a good
rule.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I wonder if my friend has
any more requests for time. If he is prepared to yield back, I will
make my closing statement and then yield back.
Mr. McGOVERN. I am going to wait with bated breath while the
gentleman gives his closing statement. I have no further requests for
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Let me respond. I appreciate at least the short time that the
gentleman yielded to me. I wish I could have made my point, but I will
finish making it here.
And that is if we had had an open rule, Mr. Buyer could have come to
the floor and attempted to offer his amendment. Somebody would have
probably raised the germaneness issue under a point of order, and I
have all the confidence in the world that the Speaker would have ruled
it out of order because that is what the rules are.
But now, because we have established a policy here of going through
structured rules, we want to give every Member in this body an
opportunity to see if we should have this amendment considered that
allows for disabled veterans who have businesses to be treated as
others would under that section of the SBA Act.
The second point I want to make in response to my friend's talking
about tax relief, he talked about this majority's attempt, and I think
he used the word ``attempt,'' or intention to address the AMT. I agree
it needs to be addressed. There is a huge cost, as the gentleman knows;
so we, in the past Congresses, have addressed it. But the tax relief
issues that I was talking about in my remarks are already in place.
They are already in place. They have been acted on. They were voted on,
and the American people have enjoyed the tax relief. And they are going
to go away if the majority follows at least the proposed budget that
was passed by this body. It would result in the largest tax increase in
American history, not only in the one that I cited but in others.
So with that, the last thing I would like to mention to my friend,
because he talked about veterans funding, we not only dealt with and
resolved the concurrent receipt issue, but in the last 6 years,
veterans funding has increased by 50 percent. We all know that it is
important that veterans get their due care because of what they have
given us and our freedoms. So I just want to set the record straight
that in the last 5 years, there has been a great deal of increase.
So we will be asking to vote, Madam Speaker, on the previous
question. I will be asking for a ``no'' vote so that I can amend this
rule to allow the House to consider an amendment offered by Mr. Buyer
and provide the appropriate waivers. As I stated before, the Buyer
amendment would authorize Federal contracting officials to treat small
businesses owned by service-disabled veterans under the same
contracting rules as those applied to businesses in the 8(a) program.
Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, the Rules Committee met yesterday, and
they rejected, on a party-line vote, making it in order.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous material into the Record immediately prior to
the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DeGette). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, let me begin by responding to a couple things the
gentleman from Washington said.
First of all, on the issue of veterans funding, I don't know too many
people who will get up and say that the funding under the previous
majority for veterans was anywhere near adequate. The fact of the
matter is we have more and more veterans each and every day as a result
of the wars that we are involved with. The number of disabled veterans
has gone up, and we have seen the direct impact of underfunding
veterans health with the terrible tragedy at Walter Reed and so many of
our other hospitals.
That is one of the reasons why, when the Democratic majority took
over this place in January, one of the first items of business was to
increase veterans health. And in the conference report on the
supplemental appropriations bill that is coming before us today, there
are billions of dollars more for veterans health. If you want to help
veterans, vote for the money. It is not about rhetoric; it is about
action.
Secondly, in terms of fiscal policies, I think there was a reason for
the result in the last elections. I think Americans, Democrats and
Republicans, were horrified with the fiscal policies of the previous
Republican majority. We went from huge surpluses under Bill Clinton and
a huge economic boom under Bill Clinton to now record deficits. We have
the largest debt in the history of our country. And I think most
Americans, no matter what their party affiliation is, have been
justifiably horrified by that result. They want a change. They want
fiscal responsibility. That is why we are back to pay-as-you-go, and
that is why we are for responsible tax relief. And that is what the
Democratic majority is going to pursue.
Madam Speaker, the Small Business Lending Improvements Act will go a
long way towards strengthening our Nation's small businesses by
establishing much-needed improvements to the SBA's primary loan
programs. Today we have an opportunity to encourage entrepreneurship,
particularly for those who are socially or economically disadvantaged
and those who
[[Page H4105]]
serve our Nation in the Armed Forces, and provide some additional
opportunities for small business owners looking to expand.
I want to again commend my colleague from New York (Ms. Velazquez)
for her leadership in bringing this promising and long overdue
legislation to the floor.
I think this is a fair rule. Everybody who wanted to offer a germane
amendment to this bill could have done so. All the germane amendments
are made in order. That is somewhat of a departure from the previous
Congress, where we were routinely handed closed rules. So I would urge
a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is
as follows:
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
____
Amendment to H. Res. 330 Offered by Rep. Hastings of Washington
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendment printed in section 4 shall be in
order as though printed as the last amendment in the report
of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative Buyer
of Indiana or a designee.
That amendment shall be debatable for 30 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as
follows:
Add at the end of the bill the following:
TITLE III--8(a) PROGRAM
SEC. 301. AUTHORITY TO AWARD CONTRACTS UNDER 8(A) PROGRAM TO
SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY
SERVICE-DISABLED VETERANS.
Section 8 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(o) Small Business Concerns Owned and Controlled by
Service-Disabled Veterans.--
``(1) Award of contracts.--The Administrator may award a
contract under subsection (a) to a small business concern
owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans on the same
basis as a contract awarded under that subsection to a
socially and economically disadvantaged small business
concern.
``(2) Annual certification required.--The Administrator
shall require each small business concern owned and
controlled by service-disabled veterans that is a Program
Participant under section 7(j)(15) or that is awarded a
contract under subsection (a) to certify, on an annual basis,
that such concern is a small business concern owned and
controlled by service-disabled veterans within the meaning of
section 3(q).
``(3) Disadvantaged owner.--For purposes of this section,
in the case of a small business concern owned and controlled
by service-disabled veterans, the term `disadvantaged owner'
means an owner who is a service-disabled veteran.''.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________