To prohibit entities owned or controlled by foreign governments from conducting certain operations at seaports in the United States, and from entering into agreements to conduct such operations.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As we all know, the recovery process in the gulf area continues to be ongoing. Victims are still digging out from debris, and many are unable to even get back to their homes and businesses. Unfortunately, these problems have been compounded by the failure of the SBA to provide disaster assistance to these victims.

I offer this amendment today to ensure that the thousands of homes and business owners in the gulf area are not unfairly denied the opportunity to file for a disaster loan. This amendment will give the victims of the hurricanes in the gulf the time they need to assess their situation and make informed decisions about applying for disaster loans.

Without this change, the SBA, by imposing an arbitrary deadline, will create additional and unnecessary hardships on a group of people who have already suffered enough.

The SBA's failures are clearly documented. In response to the hurricanes in the gulf, the SBA issued 2.1 million applications to businesses, homeowners and individuals seeking financial assistance. As of just a few weeks ago, only 400,000 of these applications have been submitted to the SBA for processing. The balance of the applications, 1.7 million, or 80 percent, remain outstanding.

The reasons for these low return rates are plentiful. SBA has failed to supply the necessary assistance to fill out the massive application forms. Potential applicants are being incorrectly told that they are not eligible. On top of this, SBA has also failed to implement an outreach plan in communities to make eligible applicants aware of this program.

Rather than recognizing these problems, the SBA has set March 11 and April 10 application deadlines for physical injury loans, which are the main source of assistance for homes and businesses with physical damage. If these deadlines are maintained, it would have the effect of leaving many potential applicants without the ability to secure Federal financial assistance.

This amendment will make sure that SBA stays in the gulf until the job is done.

The failures of the SBA have already created unnecessary hardship and frustration in the gulf region. SBA has declined an unprecedented 65 percent of loans. The agency has a backlog of over 60,000 loans. SBA has a processing time of 80 days, nearly triple the normal time. All of these issues have created confusion and consternation among residents.

By voting for this amendment, we will make sure the victims of this disaster are not punished for the failures of our Federal Government. We cannot turn our back on these victims.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Let me just say that SBA, before we start talking about deadlines, we need to get SBA to process the 60,000 applications that are in backlog. They need to do a better job in educating people so that we can get more than 19 percent of the applications back.

They need to fix the system where they have been declining 60 percent of all the loans that have been submitted to SBA. They need to do the job before they pull out, and that is an excuse for them not to do the job.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Well, let me just say this. Isn't it true that there are 60,000 applications in backlog? Isn't it true that 19 percent, only 19 percent have been processed? Isn't it true that there is 65 percent declined on loans approval?

This is not about partisanship, this is about victims who are suffering, who are losing their businesses, who are losing their jobs. This is what this amendment is all about.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in a hearing yesterday on the disaster loan program, we heard two different stories on this equation in the gulf. We heard from the SBA administrator who said that everything is great. He told the committee that they are processing record numbers of loans and that there are virtually no problems. At the same time, we have a small business owner, Patricia Smith, who came in from New Orleans and told her story.

She told the committee how she could not find a Federal official to help her apply for a loan and how she spent hours working through paperwork. She told us that it took months to hear back on the status of her loan and that she was wrongly denied. The woman also shared that there are thousands out there with the same story.

The view from Washington, and what is actually going on in the gulf coast region is very different. By extending the deadline for disaster loans, we will give victims the ability to assess their situation and make an informed decision about getting an SBA loan.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, while the House will begin debating the budget resolution in the coming weeks, this amendment offers the first vote on one of the initiatives introduced in the President's 2007 budget. This amendments provides Members the opportunity to send a clear message that victims of disasters should not be subject to additional and unnecessary burdens by the Federal Government.

Buried in the President's budget submission was a proposal to raise the interest rates on SBA's disaster loans. This initiative will eliminate the current caps on interest rates and allow for the SBA to charge higher rates on disaster loans. This could mean that interest rates go up by as much as 50 percent.

The end result will force those who had their homes or businesses destroyed to pay for our budget problems here in Washington. I offer this amendment today to ensure that we stop this wrongheaded proposal in its tracks. It puts Congress on record making it clear that an attempt to create additional hardships on disaster victims will not be tolerated.

Given all the missteps by FEMA and SBA in the gulf, Congress should not be adding to the problems of those hit by a natural disaster. Findings by the General Accounting Office, various inspector generals and congressional panels have revealed the numerous ways the Federal Government has failed our citizens in the gulf. By supporting this amendment, Congress will be saying that we stand together in these difficult times.

I am a firm believer in balancing our spending priorities, but this proposal is beyond the pale. I find it hard to believe, particularly given all the wasteful spending in Washington, that the only place to find funding is on the backs of disaster victims. Whatever happened to compassionate conservatism?

The effect of the administration's proposal will mean increased costs by thousands of dollars for disaster victims. It is alarming that despite all the problems with the management of the disaster loan program the only change the President offered in his budget was to increase the cost on disaster victims.

We agree that changes need to be made to the disaster loan program, but this is not one of them. By voting for this amendment, Congress expresses its commitment to rejecting this bad idea. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Let me just say that this is a cornerstone of the President's budget for SBA, and I think it is important that Congress go on record on this issue, particularly for us Democrats. And what we are saying today is, it is a bad idea, and we need to make it clear from the beginning, from the start, that we want to balance the budget but not at the expense of disaster victims.

And that is exactly what we are doing with this amendment today. We must prevent any of these funds from being used for higher interest loans in disaster loans for victims. We have to make sure that if money is carried over, that it will not be used for higher interest loans that will impact disaster victims.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would ensure that the disaster loan program remains an affordable source of capital for those affected by future disasters. When the program works, it has served to create the public-private partnership that balances the needs of fiscal constraint and compassion for our fellow Americans.

The administration's proposal to raise interest rates on disaster loans will simply leave the victims to fend for themselves.

In the end, it is in our best economic interest to get these communities back up and running and creating the jobs they have proven they can create. By voting ``yes,'' we are telling the administration that raising interest rates on disaster loans is a bad idea and Congress will not support it. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to do that; but I have to tell you, victims in the gulf region cannot wait until we have such a discussion, and that is why this amendment is important to be voted on today.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment is very simple. This amendment would prevent FEMA from evicting from hotels and motels the thousands of families who were affected by the hurricanes on the gulf coast last summer.

Mr. Chairman, 6 months ago, the entire world watched the wealthiest, most powerful country on Earth turn its back on those who couldn't afford to evacuate their homes in advance and during the hurricanes. People were left to fend for themselves on rooftops, trying to save their lives and the lives of their families.

We cannot sweep under the rug the faces and the images of those who were disproportionately abandoned by their government. Unfortunately, today, 6 months after the storm, the majority of these people are still fending for themselves. The people of New Orleans and the gulf coast have experienced more tragedy and more suffering in the last 6 months than anyone should have to face in a lifetime. It is bad enough that they suffered through one of the worst natural disasters in the history of United States, it is bad enough that they lost their homes and their jobs and their livelihoods, it is bad enough that they are suffering mental breakdowns, high suicide rates and high rates of post-dramatic stress. And it is bad enough the insurance companies are trying to dodge their obligations to pay out claims to property owners.

But now to add insult to injury, yesterday their own government, our government, ended payments for hotel and motel rooms for thousands of displaced Katrina evacuees. Where will all of these people go? We already have a huge homeless population in this country. Why are we creating a new generation of Katrina homeless?

This lacks morality and is about as low as you can go. What benefit does the Federal Government have in kicking people when they are down?

Today, the newspapers are filled with accounts of people who were kicked out of their rooms and have no place to go. There are reports of families piling their possessions out of hotels and motels and into trucks, but with nowhere to go. This is just disgraceful. What kind of a message do we send with these evictions? What do we say to the rest of the world? What does it say about our values and our priorities and really what we believe in terms of putting people first?

I believe we have to send a different message, and we can do that today. We

have to reject the actions of FEMA and this administration and prevent people from getting kicked out of their hotel and motel rooms.

By passing my amendment, we would block FEMA from using any money in this bill to evict people living in hotels and motels as a result of Hurricane Katrina. We should not allow FEMA to dump people on the streets. That is just plain wrong. That is all it is, it is wrong. That should not be done. This is unjust.

Let us help at least stabilize their lives and give them a safe place to sleep without worrying about being on the streets. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who is a real leader and was down there helping people save their lives during this tragedy.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

This issue speaks to who we are as a country. We know there are people living on the streets, and we know there are people who have been really just played around with in terms of you have to evict, you do not. You have 5 more days; you have 10 more days. You have to call this number and get a voucher. Maybe we will extend it another week; maybe it will be 2 weeks. The deadline is tomorrow.

What in the world are these people supposed to do, Mr. Chairman? I think until we fix this where everybody has decent transitional housing, we should just say ``no'' to evictions. That is what this is about. ``No'' to evictions to people who have already been traumatized and hurt.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I would like to thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) for working with me on this amendment and for his leadership and for being here to speak on this today.

This amendment is not about the war, although I offered an alternative to keep us out of Iraq when this war began. This amendment is not about bringing our troops home, although I believe we should do that and do it right away.

This amendment is not about holding the President accountable for misleading us into an unjust and unnecessary war, although he should.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering is very simple. It would provide that no funds would be used under this bill to enter into military base agreements between the United States and Iraq. Stating this will clearly indicate that the United States has no intention of making military bases permanent.

Mr. Chairman, can't we all agree on that right here and now, that we should not be in Iraq permanently? Unfortunately, this administration's position is unclear.

The President shares our views and said as much, I thought. On April 13, 2004, President Bush said, ``As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation, and neither does America.''

But just yesterday, General Abizaid, the general in charge of U.S. troops in Iraq, told a Defense Appropriations Committee that the U.S. could end up having bases in Iraq. So I think we need to be clear. The aim of my amendment is to simply codify the sentiment that the President and many of our constituents and many of us strongly believe here.

As we stand here today, the United States has renewed a bombing campaign against the insurgents, the largest assault since the invasion; and this is taking us in exactly the wrong direction. Destroying villages in the hopes of routing out insurgents only creates more insurgents.

In adopting this amendment, we can take the target off our troops' backs by sending a strong and immediate signal to the Iraqi people, the insurgents, and the international community that the United States has no designs on Iraq.

This very simple point is supported by a poll conducted by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes earlier this year. They found that 76 percent of Iraqis believe that the United States

will maintain bases in Iraq permanently even if the newly elected government asks the United States to leave Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, we need to be on record that we must not have permanent military bases in Iraq. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Northern California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

I believe Mr. Hinchey needs another minute and Mr. Moran needs 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I will just close by thanking you, Mr. Lewis, for giving us time and for allowing for those who have a real perspective, the passion, the understanding to speak on this issue tonight. It is so important that the country understand that whether we agreed or disagreed with the war, that many of us believe there should be no permanent presence in Iraq.

We support our troops. We want them out of harm's way. We know that any notion of a permanent occupation or permanent bases continues to put our young men and women in harm's way. It is about time now that these signals be clear to the rest of the world. As I

said, we get mixed signals from the administration.

I think it is now the time for this House to say that whatever we believed, when this war started, we do not want to be a permanent occupying force, and we do not want permanent military bases in Iraq.

Thank you for being so generous, Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Three years ago, Congress and the American people were told that the Iraq War would be quick and inexpensive. Senior administration officials told us that rebuilding Iraq would cost less than $2 billion. And we were told that Iraq would be able to finance its own reconstruction with its oil revenues.

Well, 3 years later, we know that these assurances were completely unfounded. The war has cost hundreds of billions of dollars. We squandered over $20 billion on reconstruction projects that have left basic services below prewar levels. And these massive costs have contributed to record budget deficits at home.

There are multiple causes for the enormous burden placed on the taxpayer. President Bush and his advisors grossly underestimate the insurgency. They failed to engage our allies in the rebuilding effort, and they vastly overestimated the amount of oil Iraq could sell to funds its reconstruction.

The amendment I am offering with Mr. Dingell addresses part of the problem, rampant waste, fraud and abuse in Federal contracting under the Bush administration. The largest contractor operating in Iraq is Halliburton. Government auditors have repeatedly caught Halliburton red-handed. They have found over a billion dollars in unreasonable and unsupported charges.

Let me repeat this. Federal auditors have found Halliburton's unreasonable and unsupported bills exceed $1 billion. Yet over and over again, this administration has ignored its own auditors. The Pentagon's auditors have found over $260 million in unreasonable and unsupported costs when they examine Halliburton's no-bid contract to restore Iraq's oil field.

Independent industry experts call Halliburton's charges ``highway robbery.'' But as this chart shows, the Bush administration ignored these findings and paid Halliburton for 97 percent of its overcharges and then gave Halliburton millions in additional bonuses. These same Pentagon auditors rejected $200 million in dining hall expenses because Halliburton charged for meals it never served to the troops. But the Bush administration ignored the auditors and paid 75 percent of the challenged costs and tripled Halliburton's profit on the contract.

The auditors got so frustrated with Halliburton that they warned Pentagon officials not to enter into any more contracts with the company. But 3 days later, the Bush administration gave Halliburton a new $1.2 billion contract in Iraq. And these are not the only problems.

More than 50 cases of contract fraud in Iraq are currently under investigation. And administration officials cannot account for over $8 billion in Iraqi oil proceeds. This kind of incompetent and egregious mismanagement is hard to believe. No matter how many times they bilk the taxpayer, politically favored companies keep getting more and more Federal contracts.

The administration has a duty to safeguard taxpayer dollars, but it is shirking that responsibility. We need to pass this amendment to end this costly cycle.

This is an amendment that is very simple. It will prohibit the administration from using the funds in this bill to award new contracts to any company that has overcharged the government by $100 million or more in Iraq.

This is just common sense. No company that squanders over $100 million of taxpayers money should be rewarded with new contracts. If the administration will not protect the taxpayer against waste, fraud and abuse, the Congress must act. For the sake of the taxpayers and the troops, I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you we were very careful in drafting this amendment. It is prospective. It would not affect the funding of existing contracts for troop support. They will continue untouched. The amendment simply says we will not reward companies with new contracts after they overcharge the taxpayers by $100 million. I hope that will allay the gentleman's concerns.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We have been working on this investigation about Halliburton for years, and we have written letters asking for hearings over and over again. The committee has not held a hearing on these overcharges. I do not know why the Armed Services Committee has not held a hearing on it, but it sounds to me a bit disingenuous when they say we have not had a chance to look at this matter.

I support hardworking people on the ground that are working for Halliburton and other private contractors, but I do not think they would support the idea of their own corporate CEOs and shareholders getting rich unfairly for charges that are not reasonable. That is what this amendment is all about.

So it seems to me that it rings a bit false when we hear these kind of arguments against the amendment. Oh, we have not looked at it. Why haven't they looked at it? Oh, it might affect people serving the troops now. Well, that is just absolutely untrue.

So I continue to urge support for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, says that reasonableness is something that could be subjective. Some people think that certain weapons systems may not be reasonable. Well, reasonableness is not some vague standard we picked out of the air. It comes directly from section 31.201-3(a) of the Defense Contract Audit Agency's ``Contract Audit Manual.'' That provision reads: ``A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.''

Every government auditor knows this standard. It is a standard that the Pentagon's own auditors apply to Halliburton. It is the standard that was flouted by the Bush administration, and it is the standard that my amendment would reaffirm.

Now, this last argument, Halliburton's got an expertise and, therefore, they should get future contracts

because we may not be able to find someone else with the expertise, and, therefore, we should ignore overcharges, unreasonable charges in excess of $100 million dollar in the past, that is an incredible argument. No matter how many times we may be the victims, or our taxpayers may be the victims, of waste, fraud and abuse, we should continue to pay? That is absurd.

Now, I just submit that we are following the very clear standard in the law, and our amendment does not plow any new ground, and I would urge support for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, $40 for a case of soda, $100 for a bag of laundry, torching an $80,000 truck instead of replacing flat tires, charging 40 times more to transport fuel than reasonable, these are some of the things that Halliburton has been called to task for, not by Democrats, but by the auditors, the professional auditors at the Department of Defense; and they should have been penalized for doing that.

Now, what was, was; but let's don't in the future give them contracts to abuse us again.

Mr. Chairman, the system has failed because the Bush administration paid 97 percent of the charges that the Pentagon auditors found to be unreasonable. So our amendment is structured to apply in the future.

We will have a chance to continue to look at this. I feel comfortable that this is not going to jeopardize anything that is going on in Iraq today and certainly not the existing contracts such as the ongoing logistical contract which Halliburton still has; but for the future, if any company has overcharged by $100 million, we should not be rushing out there and giving them a new contract.

Existing contracts are existing contracts. They should not be rewarded for that overcharging.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I respect that. I agree with you. That is why we were very careful in the way we drafted this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to attach to this bill, the Sail Only If Scanned Act, the SOS Act. This act was developed by me and Mr. Oberstar, with the support of Minority Leader Pelosi, to address the issue of shipping container security.

This amendment would require that every shipping container be scanned with the most modern technology and sealed with a tamper-proof seal before it is placed on a ship bound for the United States so that we can have absolute assurances that no nuclear weapons or radiological bombs are being brought into our ports.

Only 1 percent of the more than 11 million shipping containers destined for the United States are scanned before they are loaded on a ship overseas. This is unacceptable.

The United States cannot own or control the entire global trade network, but we can and should ensure the security of every single container destined for this country. The controversy over the proposed Dubai Ports World deal has woken up the American people and made them think about how critical our ports are for national security. But who owns the ports and who operates the ports, while important, is far less important than what comes into the ports.

Ninety-five percent of all of the 11 million, 40-foot boxes that come into our ports are uninspected, not scanned. Not scanned by x-rays, not examined for radioactivity before they get here. Any one of them could have an atomic bomb or radiological bomb. That is unacceptable.

If there is a bomb inside a container, it is too late to discover that in Newark or Miami or Los Angeles. Reading the manifest is not enough. Having shipments only from low-risk shippers is not enough, because any one container could have a catastrophic bomb inside it.

My amendment is quite simple. It would require that all containers must be scanned using the best available technology, including scanning for radiation and density before they are loaded on a ship bound for the United States.

The scans must be submitted to U.S. Government officials for review before the container is loaded, and the containers must be sealed with a device that indicates if the container is tampered with in transit, and automatically notifies U.S. officials of any breach before the containers come within a few hundred miles of the United States.

Steve Flynn of the Council of Foreign Relations and a port security expert wrote in the New York Times a few days ago: ``This is not a pie- in-the-sky idea. Since January 2005, every single container entering the truck gates of two of the world's busiest container terminals in Hong Kong has passed through scanning and radiation detection devices. Images of the containers' contents are then stored on computers so they can be scrutinized by American or other customs authorities almost in real-time. Customs inspectors can then issue orders not to load a container that worries them. The Department of Homeland Security has greeted this private sector initiative with only tepid interest.''

Mr. Chairman, we cannot simply stand by while the Bush administration twiddles its thumbs and fails to secure the movement of containers before they reach the United States. The terminal operations in Hong Kong prove we can scan 100 percent of the containers without disrupting the economy or the flow of goods. The cost to scan a container is $6.50.

The entire cost to amortize all of the equipment is $20 a container. Given that it costs $4,000 to ship a container across the Pacific if there is between 50 and $500,000 worth of merchandise in each container, a $20 cost is trivial.

Congress needs to make 100 percent scanning the policy of the United States. This amendment would do that. I realize, Mr. Chairman, this amendment may not be allowed under the rules of the House.

I fully expect the Republicans to raise a point of order against it. I would note, however, that the underlying bill includes a provision blocking the proposed takeover of U.S. terminals by Dubai Ports World. I support that provision.

But if we can include language on the Dubai deal in this bill, then certainly the Republican majority should allow us to include language that secures shipping containers and prevents atomic bombs from going off in port cities.

At the very least, they could easily waive the rule and allow a vote on this amendment. If they care more about these rules that they waive every day than they do about protecting the American public from nuclear bombs and shipping containers, I truly fear for our safety.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment to attach the Sail Only if Scanned Act, the SOS Act, to this bill. The only way we will adequately protect our citizens is if the Republicans in Congress join with us to force the Bush administration to take seriously the issue of container security and make sure that every single container is scanned and sealed with a tamper-proof seal before being placed on a ship bound for the United States.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations raises a point of order that this legislates on an appropriations bill. And it might.

But I would challenge the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the Republican majority, if you are going to insist on a technical interpretation of the rule on this amendment, I would challenge the Republicans to allow this bill to the floor for a vote or allow this bill as an amendment on some other bill. Because to fail to do that, to insist on a technical reading of this rule, and not allow this or something like it on the floor, is to jeopardize the lives of every single American for a trivial cost. And I urge that the Republicans allow, we have been trying some version of this for 3 years now. We have never been able to get a vote. But the safety of the American people is at risk if we allow 11 million shipping containers, 40-foot boxes into the ports of our country without scanning them, and knowing only what someone says is in them, not what is really in them.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The chairman of the Small Business Committee opposes this amendment, the chairman of the authorizing committee. This amendment keeps the application period for SBA disaster loans open indefinitely. This could expose the disaster loan program to waste, fraud, and abuse that would virtually be impossible for the SBA to accurately verify losses as more time elapses from when the hurricanes struck the gulf coast.

This amendment is also unnecessary because the administration has already had the ability to extend the application deadline, and has done so three times. So if they have the ability to do it, and they have done it, and they have done it three times, and your authorizing chairman would oppose it, why would you want to do it? In fact, the deadline was just extended for another 30 days, to April 10, for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

So, if there was a need, the administration would do it again. If the gentlewoman wants to change the parameters of the disaster loans, she should work within her position and with the ranking member and come up with something that everyone could agree on.

In the interest of time, I would just say that I oppose the amendment. It can lead to a lot of problems.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

The administration has extended this several times.

Secondly, the gentlewoman seems to constantly be criticizing SBA at every turn. We are going to ask the National Academy for Public Administration, somebody, to find truth out here and then begin. If you constantly browbeat and it is not accurate, you should be careful when you say things, because words mean things.

The chairman was before our committee yesterday. And so what we are going to do is, we are going to ask the National Academy of Public Administration to take a look at all these charges that go back and forth, because if we are constantly attacking Federal employees in program after program after program, I mean words matter. We just can't use this institution to attack people.

This place has turned into a partisan pit and it is time to bring some objectivity. So what we are going to do, we are going to take all of your charges, all of your comments, all of your complaints, all of your criticisms, all your condemnations and ask the National Academy of Public Administration to look at it to find out some truth.

This is a bad amendment. You are on the authorizing committee. You could do it. If we are going to do everything here, why do we even need an authorizing committee?

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?

Then I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?

Several years ago, you said if we abolished the loan guarantees, the world would come to an end. We abolished them, and now the number of loans are up. They are at a record number.

So what we are going to do, and I think the body should know, we want the SBA to work well, we want them to make the loans, but if we are constantly hammering and criticizing and condemning and governing by press release we don't get very far. So what we are going to do is we are going to ask the National Academy of Public Administration, a nonpartisan group, to come in and look at the gentlewoman's charges and all these things and come back and give us an honest report so we will know. But if we are just harassing Federal employees and criticizing them at every step of the way, we really don't accomplish very much.

And I would say that you did say, and I will submit for the record what you said about abolishing the loan guarantees, but by doing that, we saved the taxpayer about $170 million. The loans are up. That was basically a subsidy for the bankers. The banking lobby wanted that and we took it away and now we saved the taxpayers money.

This is a bad amendment. Vote it down.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This amendment has absolutely, positively, categorically nothing to do with an emergency supplemental bill that we are considering today. It is an attempt to stop a legislative proposal related to the fiscal year 2007 budget, which, as an authorizer, you will get to have that opportunity. And it will come out on the floor one way or the other, and the Congress will have the opportunity to vote on it.

The proposal will have to be considered by the committee. SBA cannot unilaterally make the changes. So the Congress should know that the authorizers in the Congress set the rate. It is not the administration. So we are going to have that opportunity when Mr. Manzullo and the members, minority and majority, make it.

Lastly, it is not necessary and it will have no effect, because it is just simply an attempt to prejudge a proposal by the administration for next fiscal year, and that is not something that you would do in a supplemental. If you would do that in a supplemental bill, we should just abolish every other bill and put everything in a supplemental bill, because then everything is a supplemental.

So it is a bad amendment, and I urge you to vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We would like to work with your staff and have our staff sit down so we can ask NAPA questions that you think are important, issues like this and other issues. What we want to do is work with you, get the National Academy of Public Administration to answer these questions and so we can find out one way or the other. Would that be appropriate?

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

But if there is something wrong with regard to the SBA, I think it is important to find that out and identify that with Mr. Manzullo and ask any questions you want to have NAPA answer so we can put it together and finally get to the bottom.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.