Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1361) to improve the disaster relief programs of the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, take a moment to travel through the Nation's hospitals and speak to those in this final injury ward, see the young women bending over their soldier husbands who now have lost the use of all of their limbs, 25,000-plus injured and 3,000- plus dead.

It is not the policies of this Democratic majority that is causing this absolute disaster. It is the misdirected policies of those in the administration who are causing harm to our soldiers.

Let me thank our soldiers for their leadership, for their service, and their patriotism. But as I stand here today and look at my Members, the Speaker of the House who went into the Mideast, Mr. Giuliani, there is no white flag on this side of the aisle, and I reject your insult and insensitivity.

This legislation will not give the administration a blank check. It will give a new direction to Iraq. It will begin to redeploy soldiers if the President cannot certify the readiness in July and then in October of 2007. It provides funding for veterans hospitals, for the injured with spinal injuries, with brain injury. And, yes, there are those on this side of the aisle who understand the shedding of blood of our soldiers.

That is why this legislation will allow us to go and fight the terrorists, to find Osama bin Laden, and to do the job that we have not done since the tragedy and the terrorism of 9/11.

This is a sad day in this body. I want us to support the rule and the underlying bill because there is no white flag. We have the solution, and that solution is a policy that responds to the needs of the American people and our soldiers on the battlefield. No more nine soldiers of the 82nd Airborne. We thank them for their service. We declare a military success. And we bring our soldiers home.

And maybe it will be good if some of those who did not serve would understand what it means to serve.

Mr. Speaker, as a proud member of the Progressive and the Out of Iraq Caucuses, I rise to speak in support of the Conference Report on H.R. 1591, the ``U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act.'' I support the Conference Report because this compromise offers us the first real chance to end the misguided invasion, war, and occupation of Iraq. It puts us on the glide path to the day when our troops come home in honor and triumph and where we can ``care for him who has borne the battle, and for his widow and orphan.'' This legislation helps to repair the damage to America's international reputation and prestige. It brings long overdue oversight, accountability, and transparency to defense and reconstruction contracting and procurement. Finally, it places the responsibility for bringing peace and security where it clearly belongs and that is squarely on the shoulders of the Iraqi government.

Mr. Speaker, the House and Senate conferees have approved legislation providing $124.2 billion primarily for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As part of the legislation, conferees approved a sensible plan to redeploy U.S. forces in Iraq paired with progress made by the Iraqi government in meeting diplomatic and security benchmarks. These legislative provisions, which are subject to a Presidential waiver, will ensure adequate rest between tours of duty of both active duty and Guard and Reserve forces, while also requiring that their service in Iraq not be extended beyond a year for any tour of duty.

President Bush would be required to certify that the Iraqi government is meeting the diplomatic and security benchmarks. If he makes that certification, deployment shall begin no later than October 1, 2007, with the goal of

completing the redeployment within 180 days. After that period, a limited number of U.S. forces could remain in Iraq for force protection, training and equipping Iraqi troops, and targeted counterterrorism options. The legislation makes it possible for the U.S. military to focus its resources on Osama bin Laden, whose organization attacked the nation on 9/11, and destroying his base of operations in Afghanistan.

Additionally, the U.S. commander in Iraq would provide regular progress reports to Congress on both the progress of the Iraqi government to take control of that country as well as the status of the redeployment efforts.

Finally, the conferees are also to be commended for providing needed funding to improve health care for returning soldiers and veterans, for continued Hurricane Katrina recovery for the Gulf Coast, to fill major gaps in homeland security, and to provide emergency drought relief for farmers.

Overall, the conference agreement provides more than $100 billion for the Department of Defense, primarily for continued military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The legislation includes a $1 billion increase for the National Guard and Reserve equipment and $1.1 billion for military housing. The legislation also provides $3 billion ($1.2 billion more than the President's request) for the purchase of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAP)--vehicles designed to withstand roadside bombs and more than $5 billion to ensure that returning troops and veterans receive the health care that they have earned with their service.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not point out that the tragic loss of life last week at Virginia Tech still weighs heavily on our hearts and minds. Neither the mind nor the heart can contemplate a cause that could lead a human being to resort to such senseless violence to injure and destroy fellow human beings. The thoughts and prayers of people of goodwill everywhere go out to the victims and their families. In the face of such overwhelming grief, I hope they can take comfort in the certain knowledge that unearned suffering is redemptive.

The war in Iraq has also caused a lot of unearned suffering in Iraq and here at home. This is the same war, Mr. Speaker, whose proponents misrepresented to the nation would last no more than six months and likely less than six weeks. This same war in Iraq, we were led to believe by the Administration, would cost less than $50 billion and would be paid out of the ample revenues from Iraq's oil fields. The war in Iraq, the American people were promised, should have ended years ago with Americans troops greeted as liberators by jubilant Iraqis throwing rose petals at their feet.

The President has threatened to veto the legislation now before us if it passes. According to the President and the Vice-President, H.R. 1591 ``would undermine our troops and threaten the safety of the American people here at home.'' Coming from an Administration that has been wrong on every important question relating to the decision to launch the Iraq War as well the conduct of it, this claim is laughable. Little wonder that nearly 70 percent of Americans disapprove of the way the President is handling the war. But more important, the President's claim is simply not true.

Mr. Speaker, many of the nation's most highly respected generals have endorsed H.R. 1591; all of them oppose the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq. Take, for example, Maj. Gen. John Batiste, U.S. Army, Ret.

``This important legislation sets a new direction for Iraq. It acknowledges that America went to war without mobilizing the nation, that our strategy in Iraq has been tragically flawed since the invasion in March 2003, that our Army and Marine Corps are at the breaking point with little to show for it, and that our military alone will never establish representative government in Iraq. The administration got it terribly wrong and I applaud our Congress for stepping up to their constitutional responsibilities.''

Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, USA, Ret. Supports this legislation because it ``gives General Petraeus great leverage for moving the Iraqi government down the more disciplined path laid out by the Iraq Study Group.'' According to Major Eaton, the real audience for the timeline language is Prime Minister al-Maliki and the elected government of Iraq:

The argument that this bill aides the enemy is simply not mature-- nobody on the earth underestimates the United States' capacity for unpredictability. It may further create some sense of urgency in the rest of our government, beginning with the State Department.

Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), President Reagan's Director of the National Security Agency, supports the bill because it ``gives the president a chance to pull back from a disastrous course, re-orient U.S. strategy to achieve regional stability, and win help from many other countries--the only way peace will eventually be achieved.''

Mr. Speaker, to date, the war in Iraq has lasted longer than America's involvement in World War II, the greatest conflict in all of human history. But there is a difference. The Second World War ended in complete and total victory for the United States and its allies. But then again, in that conflict America was led by FDR, a great Commander- in-Chief, who had a plan to win the war and secure the peace, listened to his generals, and sent troops in sufficient numbers and sufficiently trained and equipped to do the job.

As a result of the colossal miscalculation in deciding to invade Iraq, the loss of public trust resulting from the misrepresentation of the reasons for launching that invasion, and the breath taking incompetence in mismanaging the occupation of Iraq, the Armed Forces and the people of the United States have suffered incalculable damage.

The war in Iraq has claimed the lives of 3,316 brave servicemen and women (64 in the first 16 days of this month). More than 24,912 Americans have been wounded, many suffering the most horrific injuries. American taxpayers have paid nearly $400 billion to sustain this misadventure.

The depth, breadth, and scope of the President's misguided, mismanaged, and misrepresented war in Iraq is utterly without precedent in American history. It is a tragedy in a league all its own. But it was not unforeseeable or unavoidable.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act the House passed last month provides real benchmarks and consequences if the Iraqi Government fails to live up to its commitments. First, it requires the President to certify and report to Congress on July 1, 2007 that substantial progress has been made on security, political and reconstruction benchmarks by the Iraqi government.

If the President cannot certify that the Iraqi government has made substantial progress, redeployment of U.S. combat troops must begin, with a goal of being completed within 180 days (by December 31, 2007). If the July certification is made, redeployment of U.S. combat troops must begin by October 1, 2007, with a goal of being completed within 180 days (by March 31, 2008).

The measure changes the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq after redeployment from combat to training and equipping Iraqi troops, targeted counterterrorism operations, and force protection.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, the Iraqi Government is not off to a good start. The Green Zone surrounding Baghdad remains insecure. Two weeks ago, a suicide bomber managed to penetrate the security perimeter of the Iraqi Parliament and detonated a bomb that killed at least three members of the Iraqi parliament and wounded scores of others. Additionally, the market represented by Senator McCain as an example of the improved security situation in Iraq was turned into a killing field within days after Senator McCain's visit. And just last week, we saw the bloodiest and deadliest day in Baghdad since the so-called ``surge'' began when 198 Iraqi civilians were massacred by insurgents.

Mr. Speaker, radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has reasserted his political power by yanking his loyalists from the Cabinet, a move aimed at showing his supporters he retains his credentials as an opposition leader and which increases the pressure on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to loosen his embrace of the U.S. occupation, which many Iraqis blame for violence in the country.

These developments, Madam Speaker, illustrate the wisdom of requiring benchmarks the Iraqi Government must meet to justify continued American blood and treasure in Iraq. Moreover, because those benchmarks are established pursuant to President Bush's policies, it is passing strange indeed that he would threaten to veto the bill since it necessarily means he would be vetoing his own benchmarks for the performance of the Iraqi government. He would be vetoing his own readiness standards for U.S. troops. The President demands this Congress send him an Iraq war bill with ``no strings.'' But the only ``strings'' attached, Madam Speaker, are the benchmarks and standards imposed by the President himself.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the enormous financial cost, the human cost to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces has also been high but they have willingly paid it. Operation Iraqi Freedom has exacerbated the Veterans Administration health care facility maintenance backlog; placed an undue strain on the delivery of medical treatment and rehabilitative services for current and new veterans; and exacted a heavy toll on the equipment, training and readiness requirements, and the families of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.

The emergency supplemental acknowledges the sacrifices made by, and the debt of gratitude, we and the Iraqi people owe to Armed Forces of the United States. But more than that, it makes a substantial down payment on that debt by providing substantial increases in funding for our troops.

The supplemental includes a total appropriation of $2.8 billion for Defense Health Care, which is $1.7 billion above the President's request. The additional funding supports new initiatives to enhance medical services for active duty forces and mobilized personnel, and their family members. Included in this new funding is $450 million for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder/Counseling; $450 million for Traumatic Brain Injury care and research; $730 million to prevent health care fee increases for our troops; $20 million to address the problems at Walter Reed; and $14.8 million for burn care.

Unlike the Republican leadership of the 109th Congress and the Bush Administration, the new Democratic majority is committed to America's veterans. What's more, we back up that commitment by investing in their well-being. For example, the supplemental includes $1.7 billion above the President's request for initiatives to address the health care needs of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and the backlog in maintaining VA health care facilities, including $550 million to address the backlog in maintaining VA health care facilities so as to prevent the VA from experiencing a situation similar to that found at Walter Reed Medical Center.

We provide an additional $250 million for medical administration to ensure there are sufficient personnel to support the growing number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and to maintain a high level of services for all veterans; $229 million for treating the growing number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans; $100 million for contract mental health care, which will allow the VA to contract with private mental health care providers to ensure that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are seen in the most timely and least disruptive fashion, including members of the Guard and Reserve; and $62 million to speed up the processing of claims of veterans returning from Iraq and Aghanistan.

Madam Speaker, when American troops are sent into harm's way, America has an obligation to do all it can to minimize the risk of harm to the troops. That is why it was so important that we included additional funding above the President's request to support our troops. We provide $2.5 billion more to address the current readiness crisis of our stateside troops, including ensuring that they are better equipped and trained. We include $1.4 billion more for military housing allowances and $311 million more for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles for troops in Iraq. And there is included in the supplemental $222 million more for infrared countermeasures for Air Force aircraft to address the growing threat against U.S. air operations in Iraq and Afghanistan

Equally important, Mr. Speaker, the supplemental contains language directing the President to adhere to current military guidelines for unit readiness, deployments, and time between deployments.

The supplemental requires the Defense Department to abide by its current Unit Readiness policy, requiring the chief of the military department concerned to determine that a unit is ``fully mission capable'' before it is deployed to Iraq. The President may waive this provision by submitting a report to Congress detailing why the unit's deployment is in the interests of national security despite the assessment that the unit is not fully mission capable.

The Defense Department is also required to abide by its current policy and avoid extending the deployment of units in Iraq in excess of 365 days for the Army and 210 days for the Marines. The provision may be waived by the President only by submitting a report to Congress detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit's extended deployment is in the interests of national security.

Mr. Speaker, to reduce the incidence of combat fatigue and enhance readiness, it is important that our troops have sufficient ``time out of the combat zone and training between deployments. That is why we require the Defense Department to abide by its current policy and avoid sending units back into Iraq before troops get the required time away from the war theater. The President may waive this provision by submitting a report to Congress detailing why the unit's early redeployment to Iraq is in the interests of national security.

Mr. Speaker, the American people spoke loudly and clearly last November when they tossed out the Rubber-Stamp Republican Congress. They voted for a New Direction in Iraq and for change in America. They voted to disentangle American troops from the carnage, chaos, and civil war in Iraq. They voted for accountability and oversight, which we Democrats have begun to deliver on; already the new majority has held more than 100 congressional hearings related to the Iraq War, investigating everything from the rampant waste, fraud, and abuse of Iraq reconstruction funding to troop readiness to the Iraq Study Group Report to the shameful mistreatment of wounded soldiers recuperating at Walter Reed Medical Center.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the President should sign this measure, in order to get these needed resources to our troops and to our veterans and to hold the Iraqis accountable. By signing this legislation the President can help deliver the message to the Iraqi people that they must take responsibility for their own future. By signing this measure the President can show some leadership in the transitioning of the mission of U.S. troops from combat to training Iraqi troops and counterterrorism. Last, this legislation will help restore and strengthen our military, with a new Strategic Reserve Readiness Fund among other measures.

Last November the American people signaled clearly their loss of confidence in the President's leadership and their desire for a new direction in Iraq. In less than 120 days, the new Democratic majority has begun to deliver. And we will not rest, Madam Speaker, until we are clearly on a glide path to the day when our troops come home.

And even then our work will not be done. We must still be about the business of repairing the damage to America's international reputation and prestige. But this Democratic majority, led by the Progressive Caucus and the Out of Iraq Caucus, has ushered in a new era of oversight, accountability, and transparency to defense and reconstruction contracting and procurement.

I urge all members to join me in supporting the Conference Report to H.R. 1591. This is the best way to ensure accountability to our soldiers who have been sent into battle without proper training or equipment or a clear mission. It is the best way to keep faith with our veterans who are not getting the best medical care when they come home. Passing this supplemental appropriations bill is essential to restoring our military that is being stretched to the limits by the Bush policy. Last, it is absolutely necessary to regain the confidence of the American people who demand a new direction in Iraq.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from Rochester, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strongest opposition to both this rule and the underlying conference report.

Mr. Speaker, this conference report implements a policy of failure. It is nothing more than a cheap attempt to score political points at a time when the American people have understandably become very weary of war. Rather than offering the American people a

policy that allows us to complete our mission in Iraq and bring our troops home, which we all want to do, this bill simply offers them a charade.

The President, Mr. Speaker, has made it very clear that he will veto this policy of failure, which does not have enough support to override his veto. We will be right back here in a matter of days voting on another supplemental. And while this political charade plays out, Mr. Speaker, our troops will be left waiting for the funding that they need to do their jobs, and our country trapped in a political quagmire created by the Democratic leadership in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, this very dangerous game of ``chicken'' could have been avoided entirely. The Democratic leadership may be bereft of ideas, but I know for a fact that this entire body is not. Had we considered the original bill under an open process, which, as we all know, is the tradition for wartime supplementals in this House, we could have had a real debate. We could have considered the worthy ideas of Members in this body.

Instead, Mr. Speaker, all but a very few were shut out of this process entirely. Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives alike, were denied the opportunity to participate in this process. We didn't get any of their ideas, their expertise, their suggestions in bringing this measure to the floor. And what did that very small group in the Democratic leadership come up with? A constitutionally dubious attempt at micromanaging the Iraq war into inevitable defeat; a cynical political ploy that will leave dire consequences for the region and our own security in its wake.

Mr. Speaker, the Constitution lays out a very clear system of checks and balances derived from the ideas of the very brilliant and inspired Framers of our Constitution. James Madison I am thinking of, as I look to my friend from Virginia, Mr. Moran, obviously a native of Virginia. And I will tell you that that Madisonian spirit of giving the three branches of government distinct roles, allows us to guard ourselves against tyranny from any one branch.

The President must seek the support of Congress in order to wage war; it is Congress that has the power to authorize; and, as we all know very well, it must be this institution that funds a war. But, Mr. Speaker, once funding and authorization are granted, the President of the United States serves as the Commander in Chief, with the authority to execute the war.

This conference report ignores the intentions of our Founding Fathers and attempts to turn the Constitution on its head.

I mentioned, looking to my friend Mr. Moran, the father, the author of the Constitution, James Madison. Well, Mr. Speaker, in Federalist No. 51, Madison wrote ``that in framing a government that is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself.''

Mr. Speaker, Madison recognized the inherent challenges in designing a government that is both effective and limited. He knew that without checks and balances, tyranny would ensue.

Mr. Speaker, this conference report, like the bill before it, attempts to diminish these checks and balances. It tries to turn Congress into 535 Commanders in Chief.

This legislation of micromanagement is based, Mr. Speaker, on a disastrous strategy. Its authors fund the war, and then mandate its failure. They seek to tie the hands of our military commanders, and then force them to retreat when they are unable to meet impossible timetables. We heard in a briefing today from General Petraeus, from Secretary England, from Secretary Negroponte and others that the notion of timetables in fact clearly will undermine the potential for success.

Mr. Speaker, that leadership also knew it fell hopelessly short of the necessary support within their own party for passage. But rather than opening up the process so that real ideas and solutions could be considered, they just loaded it up with billions of dollars in unrelated spending. This conference report trades victory for potential electoral gains.

Mr. Speaker, what would the consequences of defeat be? The National Intelligence Estimate, the 9/11 Commission, our people on the ground and those who briefed us today, have all made it very clear that a precipitous withdrawal would have disastrous consequences. Violence will spill out across the country and spread to the entire region.

We heard about Iran and Syria today and the challenges that exist there. In our absence, Iran and Syria will be utterly unfettered in their ability to incite a regional war that threatens global security, with enormous casualties suffered by the people in the region.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, and I know this very well, and I join Americans who have been very discouraged by this war; it has been ugly, it has been difficult, it has been very painful. We all, Mr. Speaker, feel the toll it has taken and are keenly aware of the price that we are paying, especially in a human sense.

I know as I look to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that every single one of us has had the challenge and the difficulty of looking into the eyes of constituents whose family and friends have made the ultimate sacrifice in this war. Their pain is very real, and we all know that their loss is profound.

But, Mr. Speaker, we do not honor those who have sacrificed by abandoning their mission. I have regularly quoted my very good friend, a man who has become a friend of mine, a former marine called Ed Blecksmith, whose son J.P. was killed in the battle of Fallujah 2 years ago this past November. He said that if we were to withdraw, his son will have died in vain.

Mr. Speaker, we do not honor those in the field who are fighting as we speak by tying their hands and depriving them of the means to succeed. We will honor them by winning the war in Iraq so that our men and women come home having completed their mission.

We know that their mission will not be complete in the immediate future. That was pointed out today by General Petraeus and others. As President Bush and General Petraeus have both acknowledged, success will take months, not days or weeks. But to abandon our mission would be disastrous.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the policy of defeat and the potential return of terrorism to our homeland. I urge my colleagues to reject this political charade that leaves our troops in limbo, and let us instead have a real debate with real ideas for a real solution in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I include the following article from the Sunday Times for the Record.

[From the Sunday Times, April 22, 2007]

Al-Qaeda `Planning Big British Attack'

(By Dipesh Gadher)

Al-Qaeda leaders in Iraq are planning the first ``large-

scale'' terrorist attacks on Britain and other western

targets with the help of supporters in Iran, according to a

leaked intelligence report.

Spy chiefs warn that one operative had said he was planning

an attack on ``a par with Hiroshima and Nagasaki'' in an

attempt to ``shake the Roman throne'', a reference to the

West.

Another plot could be timed to coincide with Tony Blair

stepping down as prime minister, an event described by Al-

Qaeda planners as a ``change in the head of the company''.

The report, produced earlier this month and seen by The

Sunday Times, appears to provide evidence that Al-Qaeda is

active in Iran and has ambitions far beyond the improvised

attacks it has been waging against British and American

soldiers in Iraq.

There is no evidence of a formal relationship between Al-

Qaeda, a Sunni group, and the Shi'ite regime of President

Mah-moud Ahmadinejad, but experts suggest that Iran's leaders

may be turning a blind eye to the terrorist organisation's

activities.

The intelligence report also makes it clear that senior Al-

Qaeda figures in the region have been in recent contact with

operatives in Britain.

It follows revelations last year that up to 150 Britons had

travelled to Iraq to fight as part of Al-Qaeda's ``foreign

legion''. A number are thought to have returned to the UK,

after receiving terrorist training, to form sleeper cells.

The report was compiled by the Joint Terrorism Analysis

Centre (JTAC)--based at MI5's London headquarters--and

provides a quarterly review of the international terror

threat to Britain. It draws a distinction between Osama Bin

Laden and Al-Qaeda's core leadership, who are thought to be

hiding on the Afghan-Pakistan border, and affiliated

organisations elsewhere.

The document states: ``While networks linked to AQ [Al-

Qaeda] Core pose the greatest threat to the UK, the

intelligence during

this quarter has highlighted the potential threat from other

areas, particularly AQI [Al-Qaeda in Iraq].''

The report continues: ``Recent reporting has described

AQI's Kurdish network in Iran planning what we believe may be

a large-scale attack against a western target.

``A member of this network is reportedly involved in an

operation which he believes requires AQ Core authorisation.

He claims the operation will be on `a par with Hiroshima and

Naga-saki' and will `shake the Roman throne'. We assess that

this operation is most likely to be a large-scale, mass

casualty attack against the West.''

The report says there is ``no indication'' this attack

would specifically target Britain, ``although we are aware

that AQI . . . networks are active in the UK''.

Analysts believe the reference to Hiroshima and Nagasaki,

where more than 200,000 people died in nuclear attacks on

Japan at the end of the second world war, is unlikely to be a

literal boast.

``It could be just a reference to a huge explosion,'' sald

a counter-terrorist source. ``They [Al-Qaeda] have got to do

something soon that is radical, otherwise they start losing

credibility.''

Despite aspiring to a nuclear capability, Al-Qaeda is not

thought to have acquired weapons grade material. However,

several plots involving ``dirty bombs''--conventional

explosive devices surrounded by radioactive material--have

been foiled.

Last year Al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq called on nuclear

scientists to apply their knowledge of biological and

radiological weapons to ``the field of jihad''.

Details of a separate plot to attack Britain, ``ideally''

before Blair steps down this summer, were contained in a

letter written by Abdul al-Hadi al-Iraqi, an Iraqi Kurd and

senior Al-Qaeda commander.

According to the JTAC document, Hadi ``stressed the need to

take care to ensure that the attack was successful and on a

large scale''. The plan was to be relayed to an Iran-based

Al-Qaeda facilitator.

The Home Office declined to comment.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, our good friend from Miami (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indianapolis who has been a hardworking fighter on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Burton.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I will yield to my friend some additional time.

I just entered into the Record, and I didn't mention this in my opening remarks, an article that was in the Sunday Times of London last, this past Sunday, ``Is al Qaeda Planning a Big British Attack?,'' and this is a report on intelligence that has just come forward of a massive, large scale terrorist attack on Britain and other Western targets with the help of supporters in Iran. According to a leaked intelligence report that came forward, they talk about this attack being on a par with Hiroshima and Nagasaki in an attempt to shake the Roman Empire. And I have entered this article in the Record that was in the Sunday Times, and I think it is very important that this be related to the remarks the gentleman has made. And I thank him for yielding. And I would yield whatever the balance of my time is on this side to him.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to a hardworking member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Morristown, New Jersey, Mr. Frelinghuysen.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the former member of the Rules Committee, now working hard on the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to one of our hardest-working fighters, the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, just a few weeks ago we lost a very dear friend of mine, one of our Nation's great former leaders, a woman who was a lifelong Democrat, and in 1984 she became a Republican when she addressed the Republican National Convention. Her name was Jeane Kirkpatrick; she served as Ronald Reagan's ambassador to the United Nations.

I will never forget the speech that she delivered at our party convention in 1984. She quoted the contemporary French writer, Jean- Francois Revel, who said, ``Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything that it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself.''

Mr. Speaker, I was struck with that because that was at a time when there were many people who were maligning the United States of America; they said that we had gone to hell in a handbag. They were attacking all of the policies of Ronald Reagan, tax cuts which were ruining the country. And I have to say that on a regular basis, Mr. Speaker, I continue to hear the same kind of criticism, and yet we have what is obviously the greatest Nation the world has ever known.

Today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average crashed through 13,000. We saw last month 185,000 new jobs created, an unemployment rate of 4.4 percent. It is amazing that during this very difficult time in which we are trying to successfully prosecute the war on terror, we are enjoying such success because of the greatness of the United States of America and because of our people.

I am very proud of the record that we have put forward, and I am saddened regularly when I hear people malign us. And now we have this debate, we have this debate, which led, as was said by my friend from Marietta and by the gentleman from Dallas, the statement by the majority leader of the United States Senate that this war has been lost. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the American people are convinced that we can be successful.

I know that there are many who today are critical of the fact that we have gone to war. People are very upset about the fact that we have gone into Iraq. I happen to still at this moment believe that we did the right thing, but I know there are many people who have said that it was the wrong thing. And I've had constituents who have come up to me. In fact, just over this most recent district work period, I was at numerous meetings in California and a number of people came to me and they said, you know, I didn't support our going into Iraq, I think it was a mistake, but the fact of the matter is we are where we are. We have our men and women in uniform who are in Iraq.

We have seen elections take place in Iraq. We know the threat that continues to exist from Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, al Qaeda, you can go right down the line. And people have said we want to figure out a way for victory. I've had people who said we shouldn't have gone into Iraq say to me, we need to figure out a way that we can be victorious. And the word ``victory'' is one that unfortunately we really haven't heard from the other side of the aisle. In fact, one of the questions asked today at the briefing with General Petraeus is, how do we define what victory is? Well, it is really twofold. It still is. It is, Mr. Speaker, an Iraq that can defend itself. And General Petraeus said to us today that there are members of the Iraqi Security Forces who are fighting and dying for their country, those are the exact words that he used, and an Iraq that can govern itself, Mr. Speaker.

We understand the fragility of this government, with the Shia, Sunni and Kurdish populations and the challenges that Prime Minister Maliki faces, but we do believe that we can be successful because we have to be successful.

Now we have gone through this process and we have heard people say on both sides of the aisle that we want to make sure that we get funding to our troops. Mr. Speaker, the best way for us to get funding to our troops is to defeat this rule and defeat the conference report. Why? Everyone has acknowledged that the President of the United States will veto a bill that guarantees failure, which is what this bill would do by establishing these arbitrary deadlines for withdrawal. So we have all acknowledged that the President is going to veto the bill.

Mr. Speaker, why don't we make sure that our troops have the support that everyone has said that they need by not going through the challenge of the Presidential veto, the time-consuming process of the Presidential veto, having this bill go to the other body to be considered tomorrow. Let's defeat it right now, defeat the rule. And if we don't defeat the rule, at least defeat the conference report itself so that we can immediately get down to work. When we do that, Mr. Speaker, I hope very much that we won't have a small cadre of individuals within the Democratic leadership preventing Democrats and Republicans from participating in this very important process to make sure that we have everything that is necessary so that the American people, who want victory, can in fact see victory achieved.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Today, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1361, the RECOVER Act. While there are many important things that this bill does, there are two provisions in particular, I believe, that unfortunately undermine the good work that has been done by the chairwoman in drafting the legislation.

I want to make clear, I think she has worked very hard. I think the staff has worked very hard to craft what they thought was a good bill, and I think it still has the potential. There are two amendments that we are going to offer subsequent to the general debate argument here, and if those amendments are adopted, I think they fix the bill sufficiently that we can support it because, as I indicated, I think there are many good things in this bill. But without those two provisions being passed, we unfortunately have to oppose it in its current form.

These two provisions, as I indicated, unfortunately make it impossible for me to support it as drafted, and the manager's amendment offered by the chairwoman, while making one of the provisions less problematic, does not assuage our underlying concerns about the two provisions that I just mentioned.

I think everyone can agree that all branches of government failed to respond adequately to the devastation that was Hurricane Katrina, and one of those agencies that did not measure up is the Small Business Administration unfortunately. This is not the conclusion of Democrats or Republicans, or Louisiana or Mississippi Members of Congress. It is a conclusion reached by the GAO, small business owners in the region and even the SBA itself.

While much of the focus on the response to Katrina has focused on the immediate aftermath and the failures of FEMA, the SBA plays a key role in the response to disasters by issuing loans to both homeowners and small businesses affected by the disaster. Thus, an inadequate response by the SBA undermines the recovery of communities devastated by natural disasters. It is vital that the SBA be prepared to handle future disasters, including some worst-case possible scenarios.

Administrator Preston understands this and has taken a number of steps to improve the SBA's readiness and made efforts to ensure that the inadequate response does not repeat itself. Through his efforts, he has reduced backlogs, streamlined loan processing,

improved customer service and identified points where the processing of disaster loans broke down. Administrator Preston also will ensure that the computer systems at the SBA will be improved; establish a reserve corps; utilize non-SBA staff to process loans; establish a new disaster manual that will be finalized by June 1 for the start of the current hurricane season; and continually revise responses to disasters based on the experience of previous disasters.

One may ask why a bill is necessary if Administrator Preston is making these changes. Well, as we have seen, other administrators may not have the same priorities and may reduce preparedness in the future to address other needs of the SBA. Therefore, incorporating many of these changes in statute will ensure that the administrator and SBA personnel will have the appropriate resources and congressional direction to ensure the SBA will have an adequate response to a disaster in the future.

Title I of the bill makes important changes in the SBA's management structure to ensure that the agency is prepared not only for predictable disasters but also the unpredictable ones. Title I requires the administrator to, A, develop a comprehensive disaster response plan; B, conduct an annual disaster simulation exercise; C, maintain a disaster reserve corps; D, create plans to obtain additional office space needed for major disasters; E, coordinate disaster assistance programs with FEMA; and create, from existing personnel, the position of an associate administrator for disaster assistance that has experience in both disaster planning and disaster response. These changes are all beneficial and will ensure that the SBA has the necessary tools and experience to respond to disasters.

These changes are supplemented by section 208, which provides enhanced lending authority to banks and other financial institutions that are preferred SBA lenders to process disaster loans in certain circumstances. Given the expertise of SBA preferred lenders, they should be able to supplement the SBA's capability to process disaster loans when necessary.

There are other important changes in title II that also are beneficial, and I commend the chairwoman, Chairwoman Velazquez, for including those in this legislation. By themselves, these provisions would have made an effective bipartisan bill that ensures the SBA has the current planning and future capacity to respond to a disaster, whether it is a local tornado or an incident of national significance such as Hurricane Katrina.

Unfortunately, the legislation has two critical provisions that, in my view, seriously undercut the otherwise excellent work of the committee in creating a structure that will ensure the SBA is prepared to respond irrespective of the scope of the disaster. The first provision would authorize, according to CBO estimates, $180 million in grants to small businesses that were denied SBA loans. The other provision would grant the administrator the authority to, in essence, create a grant program that replaces grant funds that must be applied against existing disaster loans issued by the SBA. In other words, it allows a double compensation, a person to be compensated for the same damage twice. Given my concern about these two provisions, I will be offering amendments at the appropriate time to strike these two provisions, two amendments that we will be offering.

If these two provisions are removed, I think the House would then be able to pass a sound bill on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis that dramatically improves the administrative structure by which the SBA responds to disasters in a fiscally responsible manner.

As I indicated before, if the two amendments are not passed, unfortunately I am going to have to oppose this particular piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) who, as one of the newer members of the committee, has been very active and is really contributing much to the committee already.

Mr. Chairman, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Chairman, we will continue to reserve our time.

Mr. Chairman, we will reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Chairman, prior to yielding back all our time, if I could just make a comment or two. I will yield myself as much time as I may consume. I will be very brief.

I just want to reiterate that there are things within this bill which I think are very good efforts in resolving some of the difficulties that we saw in Katrina.

First of all, the SBA's response time for loans and other things was unacceptable, and it is absolutely critical that it be improved upon. And I think there are some things in this bill that do just that. For example, better coordination between the SBA and FEMA; the requirement of a plan ahead of time, a disaster plan ahead of time that everybody knows about so you are not looking for a plan or trying to put one together after the disaster has already hit; it makes sense to do that ahead of time. This calls for this.

It calls for a reserve corps of trained personnel, which I particularly like because you are talking about training people ahead of time, but not necessarily hiring them as new government employees that then one has to pay and pay compensation to over a long period of time. So I like the fact that we are talking about training a reserve corps ahead of time.

I think the idea of having simulation exercises called for ahead of time makes a lot of sense so that people are prepared.

As I indicated before, however, there are a couple of, in my view, fatal flaws to this particular piece of legislation, which we are going to address in a few moments here in a couple of amendments. And if they pass, then we would be very supportive of the whole act. If they don't, unfortunately, we would have to oppose the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

This amendment is really rather simple. It just strikes section 211 of the bill as amended by the manager's amendment. Even though the manager's amendment addresses the direct cost provision of the original section as

determined by the CBO score, section 211 still is fraught with one major problem. And that is that it allows double compensation for the same injury or destruction or problem that the person had.

As I understand section 211 in the manager's amendment, here is how that provision operates: For example, a homeowner applies for a physical disaster loan from the SBA for, say, $100,000. The homeowner then receives a grant from the State for $50,000 for the same destruction. Under existing law, the homeowner would have to immediately pay back $50,000 of the SBA loan because the SBA loan only covers amounts not otherwise compensated for through some other financial resource. Typically, that is insurance, but it does not have to be. Section 211 does not change the requirement that the homeowner would have to pay down the $50,000 in the disaster loan. Instead, section 211 would then allow the homeowner to apply for a grant from the SBA to replace the same amount of money that they had just paid to the SBA to reduce their loan.

Now you are probably asking yourself why go through this convoluted process. Well, this is the only way for the majority to obtain a program that does not require direct spending, and therefore, it gets around the PAYGO problem. But even though this is an improvement over the bill as reported out of the committee because it has no direct spending and therefore is in compliance with PAYGO, it remains fundamentally flawed.

The disaster loan program is just that: the Federal Government's program designed to provide redress to those homeowners and small businesses injured in a disaster. And it is important to note that the vast majority of loan recipients, both businesses and homeowners, receive loans at heavily subsidized interest rates of 3 or 4 percent interest. It is not a grant program and was never designed to be a grant program. The interest rate subsidy, a 30-year term, and the SBA's authority to suspend payment on principal and interest constitute the compensation needed to rebuild many areas, from Chatsworth in California to Homestead in Florida.

Now, section 211 of H.R. 1361 has the recipient of a disaster loan obtaining a grant from a source other than the SBA, using that money to pay off all or a portion of the SBA disaster loan, and then apply to the SBA for a grant to replace the grant money that the recipient of the disaster loan just paid the SBA. And, again, I know this sounds very convoluted. In essence, there is a determination that double compensation is needed because the rather robust compensation already included in the Small Business Act and sufficient for other disasters is insufficient compensation. It is also important to note that, for victims of Hurricane Katrina, there are billions of other dollars that have been made available to assist these victims on an ad hoc basis, yet it is never enough. And this bill indicates that.

Now comes section 211 of H.R. 1361 in a clear effort to ensure that victims of Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma and Rita receive double compensation. This raises two distinct questions. First, why do victims of these three hurricanes get special treatment of double compensation, and why should not other disaster victims get double compensation? Yes, Katrina was a tragedy, but so were Hurricane Andrew and Hurricane Charley and the attacks of September 11, for example. This seems incredibly arbitrary to select only those three disasters for something as unusual as double compensation.

Second and far more important is the concept, as I indicated, of double compensation. It has been a longstanding tradition of American jurisprudence that a party shall not receive double compensation for the same injury. That concept is codified in the disaster loan provisions of the Small Business Act by prohibiting the SBA from issuing a loan for amounts already compensated for by insurance or other means. Thus under current law, a disaster loan applicant cannot get an insurance claim for $100,000 for a $100,000 loss and also get an SBA disaster loan for the same amount of money.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that Members support this amendment. It is fiscally responsible and continues to recognize that individuals should not be granted double compensation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very straightforward. It strikes section 210 of the bill. Section 210 authorizes the administrator to issue grants of up to $100,000 to small businesses located in areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, but only if the business was denied a disaster loan by the SBA.

This is really, in my view, the height of fiscal irresponsibility. The SBA's determination of whether to grant a disaster loan is based on its determination of reasonable assurance that you can repay your loan, which is a direct quote from the SBA's rules found in the Code of Federal Regulations. Thus, if the SBA has denied a business a disaster loan, it already has determined that it is unlikely, for whatever reason, to repay the loan. In other words, its capacity as a viable business is seriously called into question.

Section 210 provides that despite this determination, the Federal Government should create a grant program of up to $100,000 to help small businesses whose survivability was highly improbable to survive in the first place.

Again, the SBA has indicated that they don't think this business is viable, that it is going to survive, and then we are going to turn around and give them up to $100,000. It is just not fiscally responsible.

To fully fund all of those eligible, CBO estimates that the costs could be up to $180 million. I want to repeat that: $180 million we are talking about here. This seems again fiscally irresponsible, to fund grants when the SBA already has determined that the businesses are not likely to survive.

It also remains unclear whether the grants will be sufficient to satisfy the needs of small businesses. How many will be able to survive on a grant of $100,000 if they could not repay a disaster loan of that amount? CBO did not answer that question, but I suspect very few of these businesses will survive.

Although the provision is written to include all small businesses affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, there are limitations on which businesses can apply based on the amount of housing stock in a county or parish that is damaged. It is highly likely that only small businesses in Louisiana will qualify. Was this done to reduce costs? If so, why are only Louisiana businesses favored? Were not many small businesses throughout the region devastated by these hurricanes? It seems patently unfair to single out certain businesses for a very generous grant program.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that Members support this amendment. To do otherwise, in my view, is just not a fiscally responsible stand to take. Again, every Member has to stand according to their own vote, and I am sure we will determine this based upon what they consider to be its merits.

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

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

After the 2005 gulf coast hurricanes, we witnessed a number of problems with the Small Business Administration's preparation and ability to assist entrepreneurs following a disaster. As the agency responsible for handling the disaster loan program, it was clear they were not adequately prepared.

During that time, there were significant application backlogs, with the number ballooning to 204,000 unprocessed applications by December 2005. Those that were lucky enough to get approved for assistance often waited months to receive any funds. It reached the point where entrepreneurs were simply avoiding the SBA, believing it was more of a hindrance than a help.

There is no question the leading factor in SBA's poor response was its lack of preparation and tools to assist the gulf coast victims. H.R. 1361, the RECOVER Act of 2007, provides for thorough disaster planning and directs SBA to ensure they are prepared for a wide range of disasters.

This legislation will streamline SBA's loan processing and disbursement, as well as establish a bridge financing program. After the gulf coast storms, we saw entrepreneurs not only getting declined for loans but having to wait far too long for relief. This bill requires that within 36 hours of a disaster, qualified small businesses are provided with emergency small dollar financing, allowing them to stay in business and spur economic growth.

For small businesses, success and failure often come down to adequate financing. Nowhere is that more true than following a disaster. The changes made in this bill will ensure we avoid the mistakes in the gulf where 62 percent of small businesses who applied for assistance were not approved.

We cannot leave entrepreneurs with nothing to help them salvage their enterprises. For those that did get approved, the average wait time to receive their loan was 74 days, much longer than the SBA's goal of 21 days.

H.R. 1361 also provides for gulf coast entrepreneurs who still need assistance. The committee just came back from New Orleans, and there is no doubt that this community has a long way to go to get where it was before the hurricanes hit. By helping affected small businesses, we are also significantly aiding in the revitalization of the gulf coast.

The RECOVER Act of 2007 will establish a grant program that allows the SBA to help the most significantly damaged small businesses that have been rejected for a conventional SBA loan. These grants are intended to spur redevelopment in communities directly affected by the 2005 gulf coast storms where ordinary market forces are simply not enough. They will be granted under limited circumstances to provide aid to only the neediest of entrepreneurs that meet a number of qualifications.

The legislation also fixes SBA's one-size-fits-all approach to the disaster loan process that has failed businesses in the gulf coast. To be more responsive to individual disaster victims, H.R. 1361 provides the SBA administrator with the authority to waive the prohibition on duplication of benefits for the 2005 hurricane victims. Taking state- administered grant assistance and replacing it with loans that are not disbursed efficiently or in adequate amounts have left entrepreneurs without assistance to build their homes. Small businesses should not have to choose between their home and their business. This bill makes sure they are not faced with that choice.

Eighteen months has passed since this Nation saw one of its largest natural disasters. There is no question small businesses are still very much in need of assistance. The RECOVER Act of 2007 modernizes and reforms the SBA's disaster programs and addresses key concerns still facing hurricane victims.

H.R. 1361 has the support of America's Community Bankers, Independent Community Bankers of America, American Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, the Black Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for the RECOVER Act of 2007.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) who represents and has been very active in the committee addressing the issues of the Small Business Administration Disaster Loan program.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Ellsworth).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon). And I want to take this opportunity to thank him for his leadership in working with us on this comprehensive legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers. If the minority is ready to close, I am ready to close.

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

Mr. Chairman, we are now barely over a month away from hurricane season. Many small businesses have been struggling for a year and half to recover after the gulf coast storms of 2005. Following the hurricanes, delays in disaster loans, overwhelming amounts of paperwork and a lengthy application process left many small business owners frustrated and discouraged. In fact, entrepreneurs avoided what is supposed to be their primary source of assistance, the SBA.

Our Nation's 25 million small businesses need to know that the next time a disaster happens they will not be left with nothing, but will have efficient and reliable assistance. They need to know that what happened after the gulf coast hurricanes will not ever happen again.

The RECOVER Act of 2007 will require that the SBA have a disaster plan in place, provides assistance to the neediest of entrepreneurs and helps in the redevelopment of the community. H.R. 1361 will given entrepreneurs the relief and assistance they deserve after a disaster.

With 44 days left till hurricane season, we simply cannot afford not to act.

At this point, I want to take a moment to thank the staff who worked on this legislation. From Mr. Chabot's staff, Kevin Fitzpatrick, Mike Smullen and Barry Pinellis; from the majority staff, Michael Day, Adam Minehardt and Andy Jiminez and Tim Slattery.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, for the overwhelming majority of disaster victims, the problem wasn't that the Federal Government gave them too much assistance but that they weren't provided with enough. We heard from disaster victims about how the Federal Government was its own worst enemy, giving money to victims on the one hand through state- administered grant programs, then taking it away.

The prohibition on ``duplication of benefits'' was originally established to prevent disaster victims from double dipping. But this can only happen if assistance is given out in the first place. Many disaster victims have been waiting for 18 months and are still waiting today.

H.R. 1361 gives the SBA the flexibility to break from its overly rigid statutory prohibition. Most importantly, however, this provision has been narrowly tailored to ensure that it will only apply for victims of the 2005 hurricanes. It does not carry forward to future disasters and will only be implemented if the administrator feels it is necessary. It is not a requirement.

This amendment will strike that flexibility from the legislation, leaving disaster victims subject to the unworkable standards that currently exist in the statute.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker).

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will eliminate an important tool for helping otherwise viable businesses rebuild. These businesses need financial assistance that the disaster loan program cannot provide.

The committee has heard victims and experts testify that the SBA's current disaster loan program has been inadequate to help. Largely, this has been the result of pursuing a one-size-fits-all approach to SBA disaster assistance. If the SBA is to be successful in responding to catastrophic disasters, the agency must have tools that are more responsive to victims' needs. The limited grant program in this bill will provide SBA with the authority to help the most severely affected small businesses damaged by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma.

This has been very narrowly tailored to ensure that grants only go to businesses located in communities most in need. Only a small number of businesses are expected to meet the requirements for one of these grants. If the administrator feels that grants are inappropriate, he will not need to exercise this authority. Furthermore, this program will not be carried forward to future disasters.

This is an extraordinary tool to address an extraordinary situation, and this is a leading reason why this measure enjoys bipartisan support.

I urge opposition to this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).

While not opposed to the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, and I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for offering this creative solution to a pressing problem. In our hearings, my committee heard testimony on how individuals affected by the 2005 hurricanes were victimized twice, once by the storm and a second time by the SBA.

The SBA routinely provides disaster victims with a 12-month deferment before requiring repayment on disaster loans. Following the 2005 gulf coast hurricanes, however, the SBA was plagued by lengthy delays and a massive backlog of loan disbursements that has taken months to clear. Now, many disaster victims are scheduled to begin repayment on loan amounts that have yet to be disbursed by the SBA. Clearly, this is an unfair and absurd result that we cannot permit to occur.

The amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana would provide the SBA with authority to help those victims who have been negatively affected by its delays in loan processing and disbursement. Most importantly, this amendment preserves the discretion of the administrator in deciding which situations should have an increased deferment period. This flexibility ensures that this program will only be applied in appropriate situations, and I support the amendment from the gentleman from Louisiana.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) for any comments he may have.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

What amazes me is if the gentleman from North Carolina is so concerned about this legislation, where were you when the Small Business Committee was considering this legislation? We had a number of Members who do not sit on the Small Business Committee come before our committee to discuss issues related to the disaster loan legislation. Where were you?

And let me say more. Let me say more. If you had come before our committee, you would have learned that what this motion to recommit does is to reinstate policies that the SBA already does. This amendment merely restates what the Small Business Administration does and could actually have the opposite effect and allow more individuals with questionable character to get SBA disaster loans.

The Small Business Administration already has a standard operating procedure that provides that no loans shall be made to individuals of low character. The SBA rules and regulations provide that individuals with criminal records and arrest records or who are on probation are considered to be in that category. Simply put, this means that felons are not able to get SBA loans.

I will also note that adopting this motion will for all intents and purposes kill the bill, meaning a little over 1 month before hurricane season, the Federal Government will not have a plan to respond to disasters. Disaster victims will be trapped in the bureaucracy between FEMA and SBA. Small businesses impacted by disasters will continue to struggle with backlogs that could extend up to 3 months. New programs to leverage the private sector to assist entrepreneurs in days not months will not be available. Economic recovery in the gulf will lag as much-needed assistance continues to be denied.

What this motion to recommit is is a cheap political ploy to kill this legislation that is so much needed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the majority leader, Mr. Steny Hoyer.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you in opposition to this resolution. Once again, it champions a dismally irresponsible and dangerous course of action. Setting a date certain for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq would envelope Iraq in a cloud of chaos and self destruction and expose us to a heightened threat of terrorism at home. It ignores the President's plan for success in totality. It makes no consideration for the effort to make progress on diplomatic and economic fronts--essential components for that success to occur. They offer no solutions in this bill, only criticism.

Mr. Hoyer's failed attempt on April 19th to correlate my involvement regarding the U.S. efforts in Bosnia in the 1990s to that of the situation in Iraq today stretches into the realm of absurdity. However, what was clear from that debate was that Mr. Hoyer at the time, as well as Mr. Murtha, agreed that we should not tie the hands of our President in military operations, even in operations that the Congress did not approve.

Mr. Speaker, let me refresh everyone's memories of that debate which took place in this Chamber, a debate in which I was the lead sponsor of three significant resolutions or amendments that set the course of this Congress--all three which passed by significant margins with support from both sides of the aisle.

But before I begin let me remind the Nation that there are significant differences and some similarities between the debate of Bosnia and today in Iraq. First, Congress did not authorize the President to use force in Bosnia. Congress did authorize the President to use military force in Iraq. Second, we did not begin the conflict in Bosnia, but we did in Iraq. Third, the Republican majority in Congress did in fact try to work with President Clinton to find a solution. Former Senator Bob Dole and I with others traveled with President Clinton to Bosnia and worked with him to set benchmarks for the civil implementation of the Dayton Accords. I did not assign a date certain to define success for each benchmark, this would have been folly. At the time the leaders of the peace were once leaders during the war and they focused more on these differences than that which brought them together as a nation. President Clinton did a very good job focusing the Bosnian leaders to accomplish the benchmarks and move to resolve their differences and build their new nation.

Last week on the House Floor my colleague, Steny Hoyer attempted to re-write the history of my involvement, claiming that I supported a date certain for withdrawal of our troops from Bosnia and therefore I should do the same with our forces in Iraq. The two contexts are dissimilar. Let me set the record straight.

On October 30, 1995, the House agreed to House Resolution 247, a bill that I sponsored with my Democrat colleague, Paul McHale of Pennsylvania, by a vote of 315 to 103. Representatives Hoyer, Murtha, and Pelosi voted ``no,'' Mr. Skelton voted ``yes.'' The bill stated that there should not be a presumption that the United States Armed Forces would be deployed to enforce a peace agreement that resulted from the negotiations regarding the conflict in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In early December 1995, the Dayton Accords concluded, laying a basis for the path to peace in Bosnia.

On December 13, 1995, I sponsored House Resolution 302 with Ike Skelton, a bipartisan bill that passed the House by a vote of 287 to 141. Representatives Hoyer, Murtha, and Pelosi voted ``no.'' That bill reiterated the serious concerns and opposition to the President's policy that would result in the deployment of 20,000 members of the U.S. Armed Forces on the ground in the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Despite the expressed will of the House, President Clinton chose to proceed with the deployment of those members of the Armed Forces to enforce the Dayton peace agreement in Bosnia. H.R. 302 declared the policy of the House was that the President should rely on the judgment of the commanders of U.S. forces on the ground on all matters affecting safety, support, and well being of U.S. forces. Congress also declared to furnish the resources to support the needs of President and the Secretary of Defense.

Also on December 13, 1995, the President expressed to Congress that the military mission in Bosnia would be accomplished in 1 year, and our troops would be pulled out no later than December 1996. No one believed that the goal could be accomplished within 1 year. A date certain does not define success, the mission does.

However, despite that assertion, in November 1996, without the consent of Congress, President Clinton announced that the timeline was slipping and that our troops would not be withdrawn until June 1998.

By that point, the United States Armed Forces had acted quickly to achieve their military objectives in Bosnia. In short order, the courage, dedication, and professionalism of those personnel resulted in a significant mitigation of the violence and suffering in that region.

However, the implementation of the civil infrastructure--the humanitarian support, the establishment of a judicial system and a validated police force--all of the fundamental parts that help make a society function had stalled and there was no definitive plan to remedy the situation.

In response, on June 24, 1997, I offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 1998 that passed the House by a vote of 278 to 148. Representatives Hoyer, Murtha, and Pelosi voted ``no'', Skelton voted ``yes.'' That amendment would have cut funding to U.S. military operations in Bosnia after June 30, 1998--a date set by the President. I did not set the date Mr. Hoyer, this was President Clinton's date. This amendment was later incorporated into the conference report that included provisions that would allow U.S. forces to remain if the President made certain certifications and accomplished certain benchmarks. While I used the date certain given to us by the President, I made it clear that I supported benchmarks that set the conditions for a withdrawal of U.S. forces after the mission had been successfully completed.

President Clinton had set an arbitrary date without articulating a comprehensive plan--he did not identify the conditions to be met into order to trigger a troop withdrawal from Bosnia. He simply set a date, and then revised that date. We in Congress took that date, and required certain benchmarks to be met, while at the same time allowing the President the flexibility to allow troops to remain if he thought it was in the interests of U.S. national security.

In Bosnia, we worked in a bipartisan manner with the President to set the conditions for success in Bosnia and gave the President maximum flexibility. Today, this President gets no such deference or flexibility from the Democrat majority. Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Murtha want to enforce a date certain for this President. They do not want to work with this President to set the conditions for success. They simply want to trigger a date for withdrawal, before the mission is done.

It is ironic that Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Murtha voted against that amendment--they did not want to set a date certain for withdrawal and tie the hands of their President. They wanted to give him the latitude that he needed to insure that the mission in Bosnia met with success; to re-establish civility, an effective government, a validated police force and civil infrastructure. Today, their position is the opposite. President Bush is not setting a date certain as President Clinton had done.

Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer and Mr. Murtha all are seeking to tie the hands of this President. They want to cut off funds to our forces who are only doing what this Congress has asked them to do.

Congress should not tie the hands of the President with a date certain for withdrawal from Iraq. Unlike President Clinton with Bosnia, President Bush had the approval of Congress to go into Iraq. He has given us a plan, conditions that must be met before we start to bring our troops home. Yet, Mr. Hoyer and his party want to set an arbitrary date, a date certain for withdrawal that does not correspond to those conditions whatsoever--cut off funding for our troops who seek only to succeed in their mission. This is defeatist strategy.

We need to help establish a stable Iraq before we withdrawal our forces--the provisions in this bill do not allow us that flexibility and

the price that we will pay is chaos in Iraq and further exposure to terror here at home.

The majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid talks about polling data from Senator Schumer that indicate ``political'' gains by their party on Iraq. It is unfortunate that the Democrat majority think of Iraq in terms of political points, not national security. If we do not resolve this issue with immediacy, the readiness of our troops will be compromised. They are struggling to determine how they will redistribute funds to pay for their operations while we are here politicking. We must stop the defeatist strategy of the majority now-- the one by which they hope to gain political capital from to the detriment of our troops in the field.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.