[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 24446-24450]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON H.R. 2862, SCIENCE, STATE, JUSTICE, 
        COMMERCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by 
direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2862) making appropriations for Science, 
the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, 
with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and 
agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  The motion was agreed to.


       Motion to Instruct Offered by Ms. Schwartz of Pennsylvania

  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Schwartz of Pennsylvania moves that the managers on the 
     part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes 
     of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 
     2862, be instructed to insist on the House level for the 
     Small Business Administration's Business Loan Program Account 
     and recede to the Senate on Section 525 of the Senate 
     amendment.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz) and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. 
Schwartz).
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The motion the gentleman from New York and I are offering has two 
parts. First, it calls for maintaining the Senate-passed provision 
requiring the Federal Trade Commission to investigate gasoline prices 
and determine if price gouging is occurring; and, secondly, it supports 
allocating $79 million for the Small Business Administration 7(a) loan 
program, the same level of funding provided last year and the same 
level supported by 234 Members of the House this year.
  First, Mr. Speaker, with regard to gasoline prices. Last week, oil 
companies announced record high third quarter profits. Exxon-Mobil 
corporation posted more than $9 billion in profits, the largest amount 
ever by a U.S. company. Royal Dutch Shell Group generated $9 billion, 
an increase of 68 percent over last year. ConocoPhillips made $3.8 
billion, an increase of 89 percent over last year. British Petroleum 
brought in $6.53 billion, up from almost $5 billion last year.
  All told, these profit levels have put the world's five largest 
publicly traded oil companies on track to earn more than $100 billion 
before year's end. Yet, at the same time that Big Oil's bottom line is 
going up, so are Americans' energy costs. This year, the average 
American family will pay $4,500 to meet their energy needs, up nearly 
19 percent from last year. These increases in cost are reflected in 30 
to 70 cents per gallon cost of gasoline. These increases mean that 
everyday Americans are likely to pay double-digit increases in home 
heating oil and costs this winter. From my own constituents in 
northeast Philadelphia and Montgomery County, these increases are 
seriously affecting their budgets and forcing them to stretch their 
hard-earned dollars even further than they have before.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans believe that private enterprises, American 
businesses, have the right to earn profits on the products that they 
sell; but Americans also want to know whether oil companies during a 
time of national emergency and national sacrifice are making egregious 
profits at their expense. They want to know why they are paying record 
high gas prices at the same time that oil refiners' profits are going 
up more than triple over last year, and they want to know why the cost 
of gasoline is rising faster than the actual price of crude oil, and 
they want to know why Congress has failed to examine these questions or 
to act on their behalf.
  The gentleman from New York and I believe that we ought to provide 
our constituents with the answers to their questions and to take 
action, and that is what our motion is about. It would ensure that the 
Federal Trade Commission investigates the profits of all energy 
companies at every level of the process, the refiners, the producers, 
the distributors, and the direct sales companies; and it would result 
in recommendations to Congress on actions needed to protect consumers 
from price gouging.
  My colleagues, hardworking Americans are looking to Congress to take 
immediate action and meaningful steps to combat price gouging. The FTC 
study will examine the costs of the dramatic increases in energy costs 
and will provide us with a road map on how best to address this problem 
now and over the long term. My colleagues, a vote for the Schwartz-
Bishop motion is also a vote to make sure that our Nation's small 
businesses succeed. Small businesses are vital contributors to our 
economy. They are the economic engine that is creating jobs, exploring 
innovation, and expanding opportunities for Americans in every 
community across the Nation. The Small Business Loan program is a 
proven job creator, and should be continued.
  Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has an obligation to ensure our 
national security, promote opportunity, and build economic prosperity. 
The Schwartz-Bishop motion would do that by helping to protect American 
consumers and cultivating small businesses. With this in mind, I urge 
my colleagues to support the Schwartz-Bishop motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I support a study on gas price gouging and want to thank 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for offering this motion 
to instruct. I am very concerned, as I know every Member is over here, 
with regard to high gas prices and their impact on the country; and I 
believe that the Congress needs to address this issue. So I thank the 
gentlewoman from Montgomery County, actually I used to live in 
Montgomery County, Ardmore. Do you know where Ardmore is?
  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. A very nice place to live.
  Mr. WOLF. My father was a Philadelphia policeman, and so I know your 
area very, very well; and I am glad you offered this.
  However, on the other segment of it, and I am going to urge Members 
to just support this, on the 7(a) subsidy, I really do not think that 
is a very good idea. The program is running strong. We do not need to 
provide the subsidy and take critically needed funds that could be used 
to combat terrorism, espionage, drugs, gangs, secure our State 
Department embassies, consulates overseas, providing funding to invest 
in NASA and sciences. Members from your side who have asked and been 
approaching us, if we were to do this, we would take away from almost 
every one of these programs and many of the programs your Members have 
come and we have in a good spirit of bipartisan tried to work to help 
them.
  The 7(a) program has been operating at record levels without a 
subsidy appropriation since the beginning of fiscal year 2005. The SBA 
administrator continues to assure us that the program is running 
strong. I have a letter from him confirming the success of redesigning 
the 7(a) program so that it does not require a subsidy appropriation. 
Media reports all over the country have touted the recent success of 
the 7(a) lending program. Headlines from the Chicago Tribune and the 
Cincinnati Business Carrier state: the SBA

[[Page 24447]]

program looks sound and stable. Funding turns banks on to SBA lending.
  The SBA guaranteed 88,912 loans in fiscal year 2005, an increase of 
22 percent increase over the previous year. In fact, lending at every 
segment of the population, including women and minorities, is up from 
last year's levels. Lending to minorities is up 23 percent, lending to 
women is up 42 percent, lending in rural areas is up 10 percent.
  In summary, Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary to provide a subsidy 
appropriation for the 7(a) loans program. With everyone expressing 
their interest in the deficit, and while I want to commend the 
gentlewoman for the first part of this motion to instruct with regard 
to the gasoline price, on the other one, and I know this is not the 
intention of the author of it, this is a subsidy for banks. Here we are 
in one half of the amendment we want to do what is good by looking at 
the oil companies. Now, on the other half of the amendment, we want to 
give the banking lobby a victory. Why would we want to give the banking 
lobby, and I have seen some of the memos that have gone back and forth 
with regard to the banking lobby, why would we want to give the banking 
lobby, who have record profits at this time, a subsidy of 79 some 
million dollars?

                              {time}  1615

  I just do not understand it. Lending to minorities is up by 23 
percent, lending to women is up by 42 percent, and lending to rural 
areas is up by 10 percent. People are talking about the deficit, and we 
are talking about going after it to make sure the gouging stops, and 
now we are going to help the bankers to do this.
  I wish we could have split these off. I would have been excited about 
your first one, would have spoken for it, would have put my name down 
for it if you would have had me as a cosponsor, but on subsidies to 
bankers, I just do not understand it in these days of high deficits. 
Just look at the profits. Why would we give the banks this subsidy?
  So, with that, I urge my colleagues, particularly because of the 
gentlewoman's first part of the amendment, to support the motion; and I 
will vote for it. But I just wanted the Record to show that, on the 
second part, wow, not a good idea.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, for yielding and for her leadership on 
this motion to instruct the conferees. I will confine my remarks to the 
price-gouging component of the motion to instruct.
  After two bites of the apple, this Congress is running out of 
opportunities to prove to the American people that we will stand in 
their corner as the oil and gas companies continue a campaign of price-
gouging in the wake of human suffering.
  Twice in this session, we have given away tax breaks to the oil and 
gas companies amounting to $14.5 billion and $2 billion, respectively. 
The most recent was passed just in time for Halloween, a treat for BP, 
Exxon-Mobil, and Conoco, but a bad trick on the American families.
  Exxon-Mobil reaped profits of almost $10 billion this quarter alone. 
We have heard the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania talk about these 
numbers, but they are so astounding that they bear repeating. This is a 
record-breaking amount for an American company and represents a 75 
percent increase over the same period last year.
  Shell rang up profits that represented a 68 percent increase, just 
over $9 billion.
  I would be remiss in failing to congratulate the shareholders of 
ConocoPhillips, whose dividends will soar after an almost 90 percent 
increase from last year's quarterly earnings.
  Now there is nothing wrong with healthy profits. In fact, they are 
what this Nation and the world's greatest economy are built on. But 
when profits come at the expense of American families, and when 
profiteering is clearly reflected by a company's bottom line, then 
there is something very wrong, and that is when it is time for us to do 
our job to protect consumers.
  These profits were being earned just as the major oil companies 
claimed they needed more incentives to expand refining capacity after 
Hurricane Katrina. Almost immediately, this House responded by passing 
the so-called Gasoline for America's Security Act, which rolled back 
environmental laws and opened Federal lands and coastal waters to 
drilling and exploration.
  While the public was pleading for relief from profiteering 
corporations, the majority actually reduced penalties for price-
gouging. Let me say that again. This House voted to weaken price-
gouging laws at a time when the public was paying almost an average of 
$3 a gallon.
  Clearly, our failure to do the right thing then contributed to the 
spike in gas prices and the exorbitant increases in the oil companies' 
bottom lines. That is why my colleagues, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Dingell, Ms. 
Schwartz, and I offered a substitute to create a strategic refinery 
reserve expanding refining capacity and, perhaps most importantly, 
increasing price-gouging penalties.
  As winter approaches, families will struggle to put food on the table 
and heat their homes. Still, we keep hearing the same rhetoric from the 
other side that free enterprise is the answer to every one of our 
Nation's problems, and it is the great equalizer that should be applied 
to every challenge. But Hurricane Katrina exposed vulnerabilities that 
still exist in the energy market, a problem that is compounded by the 
administration's energy policy.
  Consequently, it makes little, if any, sense that we gave away one of 
the most generous corporate welfare packages bestowed on any industry 
in the form of the last two energy bills. This is precisely why we must 
vote to instruct the Science-State-Justice-Commerce conferees to adopt 
the Senate position directing the FTC to investigate price-gouging and 
other forms of market manipulation.
  Before we vote next week to slash the budget for food stamps or 
Medicaid or student aid, let us make sure we at least give American 
families a break at the pump by voting for this motion to instruct. Now 
is the time we must act, to prove the interests of middle-class 
Americans are paramount, not the oil companies. Let us put an end to 
price-gouging once and for all. Let us not let another opportunity go 
by without giving middle-class families the relief they so desperately 
need and deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, on price-gouging, the House is down by two strikes. This 
motion makes sure we do not strike out. If we want to do the right 
thing for America and the American taxpayers here and now, vote for 
this motion to instruct.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my 
colleague from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, today's motion to instruct conferees is 
about keeping costs down for the American people. Whether it be 
protecting prices at the gas pump against price-gouging or ensuring 
entrepreneurs have access to affordable loans, the bottom line is that 
we must work to relieve our citizens of rising costs.
  For aspiring entrepreneurs and small business owners, access to 
capital is access to opportunity. Unfortunately, right now, businesses 
all over the country are seeing their capital options dwindle. At the 
same time, the typical small business owner is paying thousands more 
than they did last year to receive a loan.
  The simple economics of this are that if a small business has to give 
the government more of their money, not to the banks, like the chairman 
inferred, but to the Federal Government, then they have less to invest 
into their business and less to create jobs. This is a loss our country 
simply cannot afford today.
  By not funding the largest long-term lending initiative for small 
businesses, the 7(a) loan program, this is exactly

[[Page 24448]]

what is happening. In a little more than a year, costs for lenders and 
borrowers have increased by 110 percent. These new program costs have 
already resulted in the termination of important programs that direct 
capital to rural areas and minority businesses. The situation will only 
worsen if Congress fails to provide funding.
  This winter, it is projected that there will be yet another round of 
fee increases. In addition, the program will feel even greater cost 
pressures as the impact of Hurricane Katrina starts to bear down. In 
the gulf region today, there are over $2 billion in SBA loans. Even OMB 
acknowledges that significant loan defaults will occur as a result of 
this year's hurricanes. In fact, some estimates place this amount as 
high as $500 billion. The program costs that will result will not only 
affect those firms in the gulf region but will impact businesses in 
every district across the country as the cost to cover these loans 
rises.
  Without an appropriation, the only way to cover this additional cost 
will be through more fee increases. Unfortunately, in a little over a 
year, we have run out of room to increase fees. The results will be 
program caps, limits on program size, and even the possibility of a 
shutdown next year. This is something our Nation's small business 
owners should not have to endure.
  Clearly, spending decisions are difficult. However, on this, we 
should not be penny wise and dollar foolish, and that is exactly what 
this body will be doing by eliminating the funding for a program that 
makes up less than two-tenths of a percent of the entire bill but 
provides 30 percent of all long-term lending for small businesses and 
is a proven job creator.
  I just would like to say to the chairman, how could we say that the 
program is doing better? The program is not doing better. Small 
businesses now pay double what they paid last year to get a loan. Of 
course, the Small Business Administration is going to say that they are 
doing more loans, but they are not telling us that those loan sizes are 
much, much smaller. Loans are much smaller, even though the cost of 
operating a business are much higher, and fewer and fewer lenders are 
participating in the program.
  This is not a program that is doing better. The African-American 
business owner gets half the loan size than in mainstream business. Is 
that minority businessperson doing better when they are getting half 
the loan size that a mainstream business gets? I do not think so.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Schwartz-Bishop 
motion to instruct conferees.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, small businesses, large corporations, schools, families, 
everyone is worried about how they are going to cover their energy 
costs this year. Recent efforts to address this issue have failed. We 
cannot allow another opportunity to bring relief to consumers to go by. 
We owe Americans an examination of current gasoline prices and ways to 
bring down these costs, and we owe small businesses our commitment to 
help them grow and succeed.
  Mr. Speaker, my motion is simple. It is about ensuring our Nation's 
economic well-being, it is about protecting the financial security of 
hard-working Americans, and it is about promoting the continued success 
of America's small business.
  I appreciate the chairman's support on this motion to instruct, and I 
urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Schwartz-Bishop motion 
to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take a lot of time, but I 
think it is important for the Record to demonstrate I think Members 
should vote ``aye'' on this instruction.
  There were $2 billion more in loans, though, this year than last 
year. The Record has to demonstrate this. It was $12 billion, then to 
$14 billion. It went from $12 billion to $14 billion. When we say it is 
not for the banks, and I am not saying that is your intention, let me 
just stipulate, I do not believe it is your intention. But let me just 
read you what it is saying here.
  This is an article from the Chicago Tribune. ``Clearly there were 
Members of Congress that felt this program was worthy of receiving an 
appropriation,'' said James Ballentine, Director of Community and 
Economic Development of the American Bankers Association.
  It was the bankers. You did not get any letter from small businesses 
asking for this. It is the bankers. It is the bankers. And the 
inconsistency of dealing with the one thing which I honor you and say 
great, but this was the bankers. The loans are up. So I think truth has 
to demonstrate that the loans are really up. It is $2 billion more.
  We are always talking about lowering the deficit and reducing 
spending. Last year, the Congress reconfigured and the chairman of the 
committee, Mr. Manzullo, supported this. So why would we want to turn 
our backs on successful reform? We have a stable program.
  I would like to submit, if I may, for the Record, the articles from 
the Business Courier and also the Chicago Tribune saying that the Small 
Business Administration's Federal funding is on more stable footing 
this year than it was last year. ``That gives lenders more confidence 
in making SBA loans,'' said Michael Shepherd, Fifth Third Bancorp's SBA 
national manager. So they are up, and it has worked.
  Members on both sides want to deal with the deficit. I think the 
gentlewoman from Montgomery County has a good thing.
  With regard to the oil prices on the 7(a) and what we have been doing 
about that, I would just say, working with the minority on your side on 
the money that we have saved from this, we have helped you on other 
things. And there is, as my mother used to say, there is not a money 
tree; it just reaches a certain point. So with the money that we have 
saved from this with additional loans, $2 billion, not just $1 million, 
$2 billion more, we have actually helped programs that you all are 
interested in.
  We have increased the National Science Foundation. Do you want to 
take away from the National Science Foundation? Hello. Go back to 
Montgomery County and tell them you are cutting funding for sciences, 
for math, for chemistry, for biology. Tell them that. They would not 
want to cut that out. That is what we did with this.
  We put it in NSF loans. We put it in NASA with regard to education. 
We put it into the Jason program that Dr. Bell, who discovered the 
Titanic, is able to teach young kids math and science and physics and 
chemistry by learning that.

                              {time}  1630

  That is what we did. If we were to take this $79 million and give it 
back to the bankers, the big bankers, we would be taking money from 
education. You could not explain that. I do not care what district it 
is, you cannot explain why you were taking money from the NSF. You 
cannot explain why you were taking money from embassy security.
  Thirty people from my district died in the attack on the Pentagon. 
You cannot explain, whether it be New York City where two of my 
children live, or Philadelphia where I am from, and my district, why 
you are taking money from the FBI to give money to bankers so we do not 
have money for the FBI to do what they are doing.
  So I was going to ask, can we split these things out and give you an 
opportunity to offer both? I understand that we cannot. I do not think 
you want it down on the record that you supported taking $79 million 
out of the National Science Foundation or out of the FBI or out of 
embassy security so we can give money to the banking lobby. That is 
just not a good vote.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let me just say for the record that I am here not to do the job for 
banks. I

[[Page 24449]]

am here to fight to protect small businesses, small businesses that 
create 99 percent of the jobs in this country.
  And let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I will include in the Record the 
letter sent to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and to the 
ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan).
  Mr. Speaker, that contains 25 groups. They are not banks. They are 
the National Small Business Association, the National Black Chamber of 
Commerce, the National Association of Convenience Stores, the National 
Association for the Self-employed, American Society of Travel Agents, 
and the list goes on and on. These are 25 national groups in support of 
restoring the funding for the 7(a).
  And let me just also say to you, sir, that the SBA is going to claim 
that they are doing record levels, of course, because the numbers that 
they are using, they are comparing their numbers when the program was 
shut down by SBA. But comparing the last two quarters, SBA lending is 
actually declining by nearly $50 million in the last quarter alone.
  And when comparing the fourth quarter 2005 to the fourth quarter 
2004, SBA has done $150 million less in lending to small businesses. 
SBA claimed that they would do $16 billion, but they were $2 billion 
below for fiscal year 2005.

                                                 October 27, 2005.
     Hon. Frank Wolf,
     Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Science, State, 
         Justice and Commerce, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Alan Mollohan,
     Ranking Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on Science, 
         State, Justice and Commerce, Longworth House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard Shelby,
     Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, 
         and Science, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
     Ranking Member Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, 
         Justice, and Science, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairmen Wolf and Shelby and Ranking Members Mollohan 
     and Mikulski: As the House and Senate prepare to go to 
     conference on the Science, State, Justice and Commerce (SSJC) 
     and Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) appropriations 
     bills, we wanted to bring to your attention an issue that is 
     of critical importance to small businesses and small business 
     lenders, and to request your assistance in ensuring that this 
     Nation's entrepreneurs have access to affordable capital 
     through an adequately funded small business lending program. 
     The Small Business Administration 7(a) program supports 
     nearly one-third of all long-term capital financing for our 
     Nation's small businesses. Notably, both the House and Senate 
     have included funds in their FY 2006 appropriations bills for 
     the 7(a) program. As the House and Senate are preparing to go 
     to conference on SSJC-CJS, we are writing to express our 
     strong support for the modest funding of this vital program.
       The fees associated with the 7(a) program are becoming 
     prohibitively expensive for both small business borrowers and 
     lenders. For FY 2005, the full cost of the program was 
     shifted to small businesses and their lenders through a 
     series of fee increases. As a result, small businesses are 
     being forced to pay substantial upfront fees to use the 
     program--more than $2,000 for a small loan and nearly $16,000 
     for a mid-size loan. For smaller loans of less than $150,000, 
     fees are doubled, which translates into nearly $1,500 more in 
     upfront closing costs for entrepreneurs. For a loan of 
     $700,000, this increase would raise the fees by approximately 
     $3,000 and for larger loans this fee can approach $50,000.
       These fee increases are making it more expensive for 
     lenders to lend and businesses to borrow. As a result, many 
     small businesses--particularly those in the areas affected by 
     Hurricane Katrina--may be unable to access the capital they 
     need to hire new employees or expand their operations. Most 
     recently, actions have been taken that have made the program 
     more costly and less accessible to small businesses. On 
     October 1st, a third fee increase was levied on the program's 
     participants--making 7(a) loans more costly than ever. And, 
     in an attempt to cut the program's costs, the SBA eliminated 
     the popular 7(a) LowDoc program, which has been a key 
     initiative used by community banks and rural small 
     businesses.
       We are also concerned about the impact of Gulf Coast 
     hurricanes on the program, as SBA's loan portfolio contains 
     more than $2 billion in loans to businesses in hurricane-
     affected areas. There is the potential that a sizeable 
     portion of these loans will default, leading to increased 
     program costs. Without a 7(a) appropriation, the only 
     possibility to cover these increased program costs will be to 
     raise fees on small businesses and lenders, place a cap on 
     the program or on loan size, or, in the worst case scenario, 
     shut down the program altogether. These undesirable measures 
     would be extremely counterproductive at a time when adequate 
     small business lending will be more important than ever in 
     recovery and rebuilding post-Katrina.
       We urge you to support our Nation's small businesses. 
     Securing funding for this important program is a top priority 
     for the broad small business and lending community and we are 
     pleased that both the House and Senate appropriations bills 
     contain needed funding for the 7(a) program. We urge the 
     SSJC-CJS conferees to work to ensure that the 7(a) program is 
     provided with an appropriation of $79.132 million for FY 2006 
     and that such funding be used to reduce the fees for business 
     borrowers and their lenders.
       We recognize your commitment to our Nation's small 
     businesses and truly appreciate your efforts in supporting 
     the SBA's 7(a) loan program. In order to ensure the vibrancy 
     of our local communities, we want to stress our strong 
     support for funding for the 7(a) program. We are eager to 
     work with you to accomplish this goal. By giving 
     entrepreneurs access to affordable capital, we can ensure 
     that they can continue to serve as the catalyst for our 
     Nation's economy.
           Sincerely,
       National Small Business Association.
       National Black Chamber of Commerce.
       National Association of Convenience Stores.
       National Association for the Self-Employed.
       Associated Equipment Distributors.
       Aeronautical Repair Station Association.
       American Society of Travel Agents.
       Independent Office Products & Furniture Dealers 
     Association.
       Silver Users Association.
       Small Business Majority.
       National Procurement Council.
       United Motorcoach Association.
       Office Furniture Dealers Alliance.
       U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce.
       American Bus Association.
       National Ready Mixed Concrete Association.
       National Propane Gas Association.
       Women Impacting Public Policy.
       American Subcontractors Association.
       American Dental Association.
       National Office Products Alliance.
       American Hotel and Lodging Association.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the record just has to 
show, again, SBA guaranteed 88,912 loans in fiscal year 2005, an 
increase of 22 percent over the previous year.
  Mr. Speaker, let me stipulate that I know the gentlewoman is a strong 
supporter of small business. But where will you take the money from? 
Will you take it from NSF, education, National Science Foundation, will 
you take it from math, will you take it from science, or would you just 
take it from the air?
  We just cannot take things from the air, and the end result is we 
will cut embassy security.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) 
will invite me to be a conferee, I will work with you.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I work with your ranking 
member. We are good friends. Ask the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan) if we have been fair. The next time you see him, ask him.
  The next time you see him, ask him; and ask him if the two ought to 
meet. We would not be able to deal with this issue. We would have to 
cut FBI, embassy security, NSF, NASA, NIST, NOAA. That is where we 
would get it from, and we would get it to give it to the bankers.

               [From the Business Courier, May 27, 2005]

              Stable Funding Turns Banks on to SBA Lending

                           (By Steve Watkins)

       The news is getting better for small businesses looking for 
     financing.
       The Small Business Administration's federal funding is on 
     more stable footing this year than it was last year. That 
     gives lenders more confidence in making SBA loans, said 
     Michael Shepherd, Fifth Third Bancorp's SBA national manager.
       ``We're not afraid the program will be pulled out from 
     under us,'' Shepherd said. ``Borrowers are in a much better 
     position than they have been in the past.''
       That's good news for small-business borrowers, who are 
     reaping the benefits of more activity. Fifth Third's SBA loan 
     volume is up 20 percent to 25 percent so far this year 
     compared with last year, Shepherd said.
       National City Bank's entry into the market should heat up 
     the SBA loan business. National City was the top SBA lender 
     in both Ohio and Kentucky for the third

[[Page 24450]]

     straight year in the SBA's 2004 fiscal year ending in 
     September.
       National City Corp. bought Cincinnati-based Provident 
     Financial Group Inc. in July 2004, marking its first entry to 
     the local retail banking market. Small business has been a 
     big push.
       ``Mike Price (CEO of National City's Greater Cincinnati 
     market) started the small-business program at National City 
     some seven years ago,'' said Joe Chasteen, National City's 
     area manager of small business banking for Cincinnati and 
     Northern Kentucky.
       National City already has boosted its local small-business 
     banking unit by 50 percent, to 12 bankers, since July, 
     Chasteen said.
       U.S. Bank, PNC, Bank One, Huntington Bank and KeyBank also 
     play a big role in making SBA loans.
       ``It's always a competitive market,'' Shepherd said.
                                  ____


               [From the Chicago Tribune, Dec. 27, 2004]

                        SBA Program Looks Sound

                            (By Rob Kaiser)

       Holiday magic isn't the likely reason the U.S. Small 
     Business Administration and its numerous critics appear in 
     harmony for the first time in years.
       A more likely explanation is the $16 billion stocking 
     stuffer for the SBA's flagship 7(a) loan program, which will 
     likely keep it from suffering short-falls in 2005 that drew 
     the ire of banks and small-business owners this year.
       ``The risk of a cap or a shutdown is basically nil,'' said 
     Tony Wilkinson, president of the National Association of 
     Government Guaranteed Lenders and a frequent SBA critic.
       Such an outlook is a vast improvement from recent years, 
     when frequent loan limits and speculation about shutdowns 
     sent bankers scurrying to submit loan applications and left 
     many business owners in limbo--often with unpaid bills--when 
     expected loans suddenly evaporated.
       To achieve the peace, bankers grudgingly accepted a return 
     to paying higher fees as the Bush administration got its wish 
     to wipe away a nearly $80 million subsidy that had been 
     supporting the 7(a) program. In return, the bankers expect to 
     inherit a more stable program.
       Such stability would have saved Julie Valenza a lot of time 
     and money.
       Valenza was close to purchasing her second Jimmy John's 
     sandwich franchise in January when the $250,000 loan she 
     expected to secure through the 7(a) program was suddenly 
     stalled when SBA stopped accepting new applications due to a 
     funding short-fall.
       To salvage the deal to purchase an existing store in 
     Westmont, Valenza recruited her sister as a investor.
       ``At least I didn't have to bring in a stranger off the 
     street,'' she said.
       Still, the setback delayed the purchase by two months and 
     means Valenza now has to split the store's profits.
       Paul Andreotti, an executive vice president at National 
     City Bank in Chicago, said SBA loans exist so such situations 
     are avoided.
       Without 7(a) loans, many business owners would have to 
     finance growth on their credit cards or through other 
     expensive means.
       ``If the SBA wasn't guaranteeing loans, banks couldn't be 
     as aggressive and provide as much capital,'' said Andreotti, 
     whose bank is putting together a 7(a) loan so Valenza can 
     open a third Jimmy John's location in Oak Lawn.
       While he's not happy to see the fees climbing, Andreotti 
     said, ``In the long run I think it will positively impact 
     small businesses.''
       Fees for the 7(a) program are now 2 percent on loans up to 
     $150,000, up from 1 percent. Loans between $150,001 and 
     $700,000 carry a 3 percent fee, up from 2.5 percent. Loans 
     for more than $700,000 still carry a 3.5 percent fee.
       The loan applicant usually pays these fees. Banks have to 
     pay another fee, which has also increased recently.
       The SBA guarantees 85 percent of 7(a) loans up to $150,000 
     and 75 percent of loans for more than $150,000.
       Previously, the highest loan guarantee was $1 million, but 
     under the new legislation that figure was raised to $1.5 
     million. This means the program will now guarantee 75 percent 
     of a $2 million loan, the largest 7(a) loan available.
       Still, not everyone in the SBA universe is sold that the 
     recent compromise was the best solution.
       ``Clearly there were members of Congress that felt this 
     program was worthy of receiving an appropriation,'' said 
     James Ballentine, director of community and economic 
     development at the American Bankers Association.
       Balentine said some business owners as well as leaders may 
     be dissuaded from taking part in the program because of the 
     fees.
       Early indications, though, are that participation in the 
     7(a) program is at record levels.
       From Oct. 1, the beginning of the fiscal year, through Dec. 
     10, the program has done more than 18,000 loans, worth nearly 
     $2.8 billion. During the same period last year, the program 
     did fewer than 15,000 loans, worth $2.4 billion.
       In all of the last fiscal year, the 7(a) program did nearly 
     75,000 loans, worth $12.6 billion. The program has $16 
     billion in loans available for the current fiscal year.
       ``We think that should be sufficient,'' said Jodi Polonet, 
     senior vice president of Business Loan Express LLC in New 
     York. ``We are satisfied.''

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will appoint conferees at a later 
time.

                          ____________________