Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1332) to improve the access to capital programs of the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Chairman, today, Madam Chairwoman and I rise to support H.R. 1332, the Small Business Lending Improvements Act of 2007. I want to especially thank the chairwoman and the gentlelady, Congresswoman Bean, for working in a cooperative and bipartisan manner to bring this bill before the House, and I want to commend them for again working with us on this.

The Small Business Lending Improvements Act amends the Small Business Act to make necessary improvements and technical changes to the primary lending program offered by the Small Business Administration, the SBA, the 7(a) guaranteed loan program. H.R. 1332 also amends title V of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to make significant and necessary changes to the loan program, sometimes called the 504 loan program.

Before addressing the particulars of the legislation, it is important to note what H.R. 1332 does not do. The legislation does not modify the subsidy rate for the 7(a) guaranteed lending program. The subsidy rate for the program currently is zero. After this bill is enacted, the subsidy rate for the 7(a) lending program will be zero. In fact, if this bill attempted to modify the subsidy rate, it could not because it would require an appropriation. And of course, as an authorizing committee, we are unable to appropriate. So any argument that this bill will cost hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars over 10 years or so is just plain wrong.

At the correct time, I will oppose adding a subsidy for a program that works just fine without one.

And now, I turn my attention to what this bill does. The SBA charges a fee to borrowers which can be viewed as akin to paying points on a mortgage, which many people are familiar with doing. In addition, banks pay an ongoing fee each year on the amount of unpaid balance of the loan as guaranteed. Although some confusion exists about this point, I read the Small Business Act as authorizing the SBA to adjust the up front fee or points paid by borrowers in the same way that the SBA has the unquestioned authority to reduce fees to lenders. Despite the authority that the SBA has, the agency has not in recent memory reduced, except when dictated by Congress, the up front fees paid by borrowers. The SBA, on the other hand, has modified the annual fee paid by the lender. The SBA even testified at a committee hearing recently that it would be reducing the fees paid by lenders.

Section 101 does two very important things. First, it clarifies that the SBA has the authority to reduce or increase the fees paid by the borrower. This should resolve any confusion as to whether the SBA has the power to reduce the points or up front borrowing fee, as well as the annual fee paid by the lender. And as already noted, section 101 requires that these fees be calculated to arrive at a zero subsidy. That is so that the fees will cover the cost of the 7(a) loan program, without an appropriation, as I just mentioned. The section then goes on to restrict the administrator's discretion in only one regard; if an appropriation is made to support the 7(a) loan program, section 101 directs the administrator to first utilize the funds to reduce fees to borrowers and not lenders.

I support this change because the Small Business Act is, first and foremost, legislation designed to assist small businesses, not to assist small banks or any other banks. Therefore, the bill takes the logical step of directing that, should funds be made available, the administrator should reduce the fees to small businesses, not to banks.

Section 101 also requires that the administrator update quarterly the reduction in fees given available funding remaining. That makes sense, because if the SBA did not make that calculation, they would not know how much to reduce fees in an upcoming quarter, if at all. The need for this calculation simply recognizes that loan demand is not constant throughout the year and ensures that administrator properly allocates available funds. Once funds are exhausted, the legislation simply directs the administrator to operate the program at zero subsidy, the up front annual fees needed to cover the cost of the 7(a) loan program as if there was no appropriation.

Finally, to the extent that loan demand is not high, and there are sufficient funds available, the administrator may use any available extra funds to reduce the annual fee paid by banks. Although this is a possibility, the greater probability is that all funds will be utilized to reduce cost to small business owners.

There is more to H.R. 1332 than providing the administrator with a mechanism to reduce fees under the 7(a) loan program, if an appropriation is available. The guaranteed loan program is the largest of the SBA's financing programs, reaching the greatest number of businesses, yet there are businesses whose access to this program remains limited.

The SBA loan program is a fairly complex operation, and many banks, particularly community banks, do not have a sufficient loan volume to justify the expenses associated with a 7(a) loan program. This is particularly true for independent and community banks located in rural areas.

The bill requires the SBA to establish a low-document, or LowDoc, loan program for banks located in rural areas. To the extent that a rural community has no bank willing to participate in the program, there is nothing in the Small Business Act or the bill that prohibits a small business from using a rural lender not in the immediate vicinity.

Title I also makes the Community Express Loan Program permanent. I support this because I believe it can provide the same assistance to low income communities, including those in my district in Cincinnati, which would otherwise be provided under a more costly micro loan program.

In addition to providing greater assistance in rural communities and low income communities, the bill also reduces the cost of the 7(a) loans to veterans. In addition, the bill also provides for a reduction in fees to medical practitioners seeking to establish or expand practices in areas deficient of such practitioners. These are noble goals and deserve the support of all Members of the House.

Although title I is a significant achievement, I am particularly pleased

with title II of this bill. It modifies and strengthens the loan program operator pursuant to title V of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958.

Certified development companies, or CDCs, are vital to long-term economic and community development in many districts, including mine, around the country. CDCs operate to provide long-term, fixed rate financing for small business concerns who find their financing needs cannot be met due to the loan limits of the 7(a) loan program.

And unlike many 7(a) lenders, CDCs must be locally based so they have a keen understanding of the needs of the communities they serve.

The first thing that title II does is change the name of the program. While this may sound minor, it is actually important. Colloquially, the program is known as the ``504 loan'' program for section 504 of title V of the Small Business Investment Act. This section authorizes the administrator to sell the loans made by the CDCs in a secondary market. It is not at all descriptive of the program or the entities involved in the program. By accurately describing the program, it will provide greater recognition to CDCs and enable them to better promote their important mission.

Section 202 makes important technical changes to the definitions in the CDC program, including, most importantly, defining the term ``certified development company.'' As a corollary, title II eliminates the outdated term ``qualified State and local development company'' from the Small Business Investment Act of 1958.

In my estimation section 203 is the most important provision in the bill. It statutorily establishes the procedures by which the SBA designates entities as CDCs. The most important requirement of these statutory procedures is the mandate that the CDC have local board members familiar with the economic development needs of their communities. Even though the bill authorizes expansion only into neighboring States, the CDC must have representatives that understand the local economic development needs of the new State of operation.

Another very important aspect of the bill authorizes CDCs to perform their own liquidations. Data that I have seen shows that current loan liquidation returns are about 20 cents on the dollar. Think of that. Only 20 cents on the dollar liquidation rate. That is very inadequate. By having CDCs with their local expertise perform liquidations, the government should get a better return when a loan goes bad, and that should save the taxpayers money.

Title II also makes other changes that will benefit greater financial opportunities to small businesses under the CDC program. Together all these changes made will ensure a robust CDC program that will spur economic development.

For these reasons I ask my colleagues to support passage of this important bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin) for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman from Oklahoma for her work on this issue. I know she has worked very hard to make this happen. So I want to commend her for that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to again thank the chairwoman for her leadership on this particular piece of legislation, which I think is very good for small businesses across the country.

Mr. Chairman, as was mentioned in the Rules Committee yesterday I believe by Mr. Dreier, it's preferable for small businesses to get their loans through the private sector if they're able to do so. And as one who believes in less government as opposed to more government, that would certainly be my preference. But there are some cases in which the private sector at this point just wouldn't cover those particular entities, some of the start-up small businesses, especially some in struggling areas, some disadvantaged areas as we have in some urban areas, and some rural areas as well. And so there is an appropriate place for 7(a) loans and the 504 loans. As I mentioned, the name of that particular program is going to be changed as a result of this bill.

I think these are vital improvements. A streamlining of the process will be helpful to small businesses all across the country. I think we have a responsibility to improve the climate for small businesses, especially when one considers that somewhere between 60 and 80 percent of the new jobs that are created in this country are created not by large corporations, but by small businesses. So I think this bill helps businesses who need it most. I think this is a good bill, and so I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment. We commend the gentleman for offering this helpful amendment.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding. We would also agree with this amendment. I think they are both excellent amendments. And I meant to comment on the other one as well. When the gentleman included our Reserve forces as well as other member veterans in Armed Forces, I think when one considers how patriotic our Reservists are and how many of them, especially with our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, are literally putting their lives on the line, I think this is a very helpful and important amendment, both of them. And so we would commend the gentleman for introducing them.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I want to commend the gentleman from Texas for offering a very thoughtful amendment here.

Oftentimes when you have a bill as complicated as this one is, the point of the bill obviously is pretty straightforward: It is to streamline and improve the process, make it more accessible to small business people, because that is one of the main problems that we have, that small businessmen have, and small businesswomen as well, is access to capital.

One has to look at this sometimes what do you do to benefit rural communities, and sometimes it is more urban communities. I happen to represent an overall fairly urban community, the city of Cincinnati. But I know the gentleman has a much larger district in mind, one in which the challenges may be somewhat different. And I think it is very good that the gentleman took the time to go through this bill with such care to find a way that he can benefit the people in his community and at the same time make it a better bill.

So I again commend the gentleman for his thoughtful approach to this bill, thank him for offering this amendment, and we are in a position to accept it. And I again thank him for his hard work on this.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding. We are in a position to accept this amendment as well, and I commend the gentleman for offering it.

Madam Speaker, let me say at the outset that I always enjoy listening to my colleague from Washington State, Mr. Hastings, both on the floor and in the Rules Committee.

I want to respond to a couple of things he said. He talked about the Democrats and taxes. Let me remind him that the biggest tax increase that is looming that could impact small businesses is the alternative minimum tax, or so-called AMT. And the Democratic majority is actually working on a solution so that millions of Americans won't be unfairly burdened with that tax. That is an issue that, when the gentleman's party was in the majority, they chose not to deal with. And the Democrats will deal with that.

Let me say one other thing, Madam Speaker. It is always interesting to hear the gentleman from Washington complain about the rule.

Let me state for my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, that every single germane amendment that was offered to this bill was made in order by the Rules Committee. That is something that very rarely happened when the gentleman's party was in the majority. So I think this is a good rule.

He complains that a nongermane amendment was not made in order, one that deals not with the issue of loans, which the underlying bill deals with, but instead the Buyer amendment deals with contracting. And the gentleman says that we need to do this for our veterans. Well, I want to do all we can for our veterans, and maybe in the right vehicle we can deal with that issue. But I also want to point out to my colleagues here in Congress that when the gentleman's party was in control, veterans health and veterans benefits were woefully underfunded. I mean, we are dealing with scandals at Walter Reed. We are dealing with scandals all over the country dealing with veterans health because of the inadequacy of the funding that came out of the Republican majority, budget after budget after budget after budget.

The Democrats take control and have literally pumped billions of dollars more into veterans programs, including veterans health programs. And I will say to the gentleman from Washington that today he will have the opportunity, in the conference report on the supplemental appropriations bill, to vote for a conference report that adds

even billions of dollars more to help our veterans. So if people are concerned about helping our veterans, then they will have an opportunity this afternoon to vote that way.

I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I would like to reclaim my time, if I may.

What the gentleman knows full well is that even with an open rule, the Buyer amendment would still not be germane and subject to a point of order by any Member of this House. I mean, we have germaneness rules for a reason.

Let me also point out another interesting fact that I think my colleagues should remember. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), during the last Congress, time and time and time again went before the Republican Rules Committee asking for a waiver on an amendment that would repeal the tax cut for the top 1 percent income earners in this country, the multibillionaires, if you will, so that those savings could be put into veterans programs. He needed a germaneness waiver. Time and time and time again, the Republican Rules Committee denied him the right to offer that amendment.

Now, I guess my point is that it is a little bit curious that the gentleman voted routinely to uphold the germaneness rules with regard to amendments to help veterans in the past, but now somehow is complaining that we need a different standard now that they are in the minority.

Madam Speaker, I would simply say that this is a fair rule. Every germane amendment that was offered is made in order. Anybody could have offered an amendment. And this is something that was very rarely afforded to us when we were in the minority. And I think it is a good rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I am going to wait with bated breath while the gentleman gives his closing statement. I have no further requests for time.

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

Madam Speaker, let me begin by responding to a couple things the gentleman from Washington said.

First of all, on the issue of veterans funding, I don't know too many people who will get up and say that the funding under the previous majority for veterans was anywhere near adequate. The fact of the matter is we have more and more veterans each and every day as a result of the wars that we are involved with. The number of disabled veterans has gone up, and we have seen the direct impact of underfunding veterans health with the terrible tragedy at Walter Reed and so many of our other hospitals.

That is one of the reasons why, when the Democratic majority took over this place in January, one of the first items of business was to increase veterans health. And in the conference report on the supplemental appropriations bill that is coming before us today, there are billions of dollars more for veterans health. If you want to help veterans, vote for the money. It is not about rhetoric; it is about action.

Secondly, in terms of fiscal policies, I think there was a reason for the result in the last elections. I think Americans, Democrats and Republicans, were horrified with the fiscal policies of the previous Republican majority. We went from huge surpluses under Bill Clinton and a huge economic boom under Bill Clinton to now record deficits. We have the largest debt in the history of our country. And I think most Americans, no matter what their party affiliation is, have been justifiably horrified by that result. They want a change. They want fiscal responsibility. That is why we are back to pay-as-you-go, and that is why we are for responsible tax relief. And that is what the Democratic majority is going to pursue.

Madam Speaker, the Small Business Lending Improvements Act will go a long way towards strengthening our Nation's small businesses by establishing much-needed improvements to the SBA's primary loan programs. Today we have an opportunity to encourage entrepreneurship, particularly for those who are socially or economically disadvantaged and those who

serve our Nation in the Armed Forces, and provide some additional opportunities for small business owners looking to expand.

I want to again commend my colleague from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for her leadership in bringing this promising and long overdue legislation to the floor.

I think this is a fair rule. Everybody who wanted to offer a germane amendment to this bill could have done so. All the germane amendments are made in order. That is somewhat of a departure from the previous Congress, where we were routinely handed closed rules. So I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

(The information contained herein was provided by

Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the

109th Congress.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow

the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an

alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be

debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman

from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first

recognition.''

Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic

majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is

simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on

adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is

not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of

the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual

published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page

56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using

information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American

Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is

defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition

member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages

an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the

pending business.''

Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,

the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a

refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a

special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the

resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,

section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the

motion for the previous question on a resolution reported

from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member

leading the opposition to the previous question, who may

offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time

for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Democratic

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, the Small Business Administration was originally created to assist small businesses which are vital sources of job creation and economic growth here in America, but are often disadvantaged when it comes to access to capital.

The Small Business Administration's two largest small business finance programs, the 7(a) loan guarantee program and the 504 loan program, have assisted thousands of small businesses every year that otherwise would not have attained a commercial loan for the purpose, amount and on the terms that small business borrowers need.

The Small Business Lending Improvement Act enhances and streamlines these finance programs and makes the 7(a) program more affordable and accessible to borrowers and lenders by providing the Small Business Administration with the authority to use funds to reduce fees on both lenders and borrowers. This bill encourages increased lender participation in the 7(a) program by reducing application burdens for borrowers and lenders in rural areas and expediting the loan consideration time.

This bill was favorably reported by the Committee on Small Business by a voice vote, and it enjoys strong bipartisan support.

Madam Speaker, our Nation's small businesses are the engine that drives our economy. Small business represents 99.7 percent of all employers and have generated 60 to 80 percent of new jobs annually over the last decade. Clearly, we must act to help our Nation's small businesses continue to grow and create job opportunities.

While I support the underlying Small Business Lending Improvement Act, more must be done to help small businesses overcome the challenges they face. Congress must act quickly to continue tax incentives for small business expenses that spur job creation and grow the economy.

In the last Congress, I supported the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act, which extended through 2009 the enhanced section 179 small business expensing allowance. In 2007 the maximum allowance will be $112,000. But in 2010, this maximum amount will plummet to $25,000 without an extension of the current law.

I am disappointed that the Democrat majority has chosen not to provide small businesses more significant tax relief in a form that has an opportunity to become law. We cannot afford to halt our Nation's economic growth and job creation opportunities by letting small business tax relief policies expire and become part of the Democrats' proposed largest tax increase in American history.

Congress must also act to provide regulatory relief and make health care more affordable for small business employees and the self- employed.

Madam Speaker, because of the way health insurance is priced and regulated, small businesses usually pay more for similar coverage than larger corporations, and I think this is simply unfair. It is currently estimated that 60 percent of those without health insurance work for or depend on small employers who lack the ability to provide health benefits for their workers.

The high cost of health insurance prevents many small business owners from providing health insurance to their employees, and we must look for ways to make health care more affordable. One way is to expand Health Savings Accounts so that individuals can choose a health plan that best meets their needs. Health Savings Accounts allow individuals to make their own decisions about their health care, while building, at the same time, savings tax free to pay for future medical expenses.

Another way to make health insurance more affordable and accessible is to allow small businesses to join together to use the marketplace to buy health insurance as a group. This would provide small businesses with greater bargaining power and lower health plan costs that larger companies now often afford.

We must also provide fairness to self-employed individuals who purchase their own health insurance, but yet are treated differently under the U.S. Tax Code than those who receive health insurance benefits from their employer.

So I call on this new majority to bring forth legislation to the House floor that not only makes improvements to small business lending programs, as this bill does, but that provides real tax and regulatory relief to small businesses and makes health insurance more accessible.

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that this House Resolution 330 is a structured rule. I am even more concerned that an amendment offered by my colleague from Indiana, Mr. Buyer, the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, was not made in order by the Rules Committee. In fact, it was rejected by the Democrat majority on a party line vote.

Mr. Buyer's thoughtful amendment would authorize Federal contracting officials to treat small businesses owned by service-disabled veterans under the same rules as those applied to businesses in SBA's 8(a) program. Under House Resolution 330, Members are denied the opportunity to consider a full range of ideas on this floor to the Small Business Lending Improvement Act.

Accordingly, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question and against House Resolution 330.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding.

Let me first talk about the issue of the structured rule and about Mr. Buyer's amendment, which I am going to call for a vote on the previous question so we can rectify what we didn't do in Rules last night, and that is simply this: The Rules Committee exists to make rules for debate on the floor of this House. We, on a regular basis, waive the rules for whatever. In fact, we are going to have the supplemental budget on the floor, and line 1 of that supplemental rule talks about waiving rules.

So the point is this: If we had had an open rule, as I suggested last night, Mr. Buyer could have offered his amendment.

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my friend has any more requests for time. If he is prepared to yield back, I will make my closing statement and then yield back.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me respond. I appreciate at least the short time that the gentleman yielded to me. I wish I could have made my point, but I will finish making it here.

And that is if we had had an open rule, Mr. Buyer could have come to the floor and attempted to offer his amendment. Somebody would have probably raised the germaneness issue under a point of order, and I have all the confidence in the world that the Speaker would have ruled it out of order because that is what the rules are.

But now, because we have established a policy here of going through structured rules, we want to give every Member in this body an opportunity to see if we should have this amendment considered that allows for disabled veterans who have businesses to be treated as others would under that section of the SBA Act.

The second point I want to make in response to my friend's talking about tax relief, he talked about this majority's attempt, and I think he used the word ``attempt,'' or intention to address the AMT. I agree it needs to be addressed. There is a huge cost, as the gentleman knows; so we, in the past Congresses, have addressed it. But the tax relief issues that I was talking about in my remarks are already in place. They are already in place. They have been acted on. They were voted on, and the American people have enjoyed the tax relief. And they are going to go away if the majority follows at least the proposed budget that was passed by this body. It would result in the largest tax increase in American history, not only in the one that I cited but in others.

So with that, the last thing I would like to mention to my friend, because he talked about veterans funding, we not only dealt with and resolved the concurrent receipt issue, but in the last 6 years, veterans funding has increased by 50 percent. We all know that it is important that veterans get their due care because of what they have given us and our freedoms. So I just want to set the record straight that in the last 5 years, there has been a great deal of increase.

So we will be asking to vote, Madam Speaker, on the previous question. I will be asking for a ``no'' vote so that I can amend this rule to allow the House to consider an amendment offered by Mr. Buyer and provide the appropriate waivers. As I stated before, the Buyer amendment would authorize Federal contracting officials to treat small businesses owned by service-disabled veterans under the same contracting rules as those applied to businesses in the 8(a) program.

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, the Rules Committee met yesterday, and they rejected, on a party-line vote, making it in order.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Small businesses are this country's economic drivers, yet they continually face challenges that make it hard for them to succeed in today's marketplace. Entrepreneurs are already dealing with rising energy and health care costs as well as the increasing regulatory burden. The last thing they need is for accessing affordable capital to be another barrier in the way of their success.

What we continue to see is a steady increase in costs and a decrease in access for the very programs that are intended to help entrepreneurs. Over the

past 2 years, for the 7(a) program alone, costs have doubled for smaller loans, and the average loan size has declined by 37 percent.

A recent study released by the National Small Business Association found that access to capital is the number two concern for entrepreneurs. This means that it is more of a concern than taxes and even the regulatory burden.

The Small Business Lending Improvements Act of 2007 is a bipartisan effort introduced by Ms. Bean and Mr. Chabot. This bill will make loans more economical, while providing long-term stability for small business owners.

H.R. 1332 touches all aspects of the SBA lending initiative, including the 504 program.

Not only will this legislation put affordable financing back into the hands of entrepreneurs, but will also accomplish a number of important public policy initiatives. H.R. 1332 provides incentives for medical professionals to locate in low income areas, establishes a rural lender program, and allows for veterans to secure funds to start or expand their firms.

With the number of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, the need for affordable financing is more important than ever. When Congress passed the GI bill, we made a commitment to education and homeownership for veterans. Today we have an opportunity to show our commitment to their entrepreneurial endeavors.

Small businesses must have the ability to continue spurring economic growth and creating jobs. For these reasons, H.R. 1332 has the support of American Community Bankers, Independent Community Bankers of America, American Veterans, Credit Union National Association, National Small Business Association, Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Bankers Association, the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and the American Dental Association.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for the Small Business Lending Improvements Act of 2007.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean), who is a member of the Small Business Committee and sponsor of the legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I know that the gentlelady has worked tirelessly to ensure that certain independently owned and operated franchises are afforded access to the SBA's 7(a) loan program. You have my assurance that I will work to address this concern as the bill moves forward.

Mr. Chairman, again I thank the gentlewoman for raising this important issue. I agree that this is an issue that we need to address, and I will make a commitment to work with you and your staff as this legislation heads to conference.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), a member of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler), a member of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a former member of the Small Business Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, this week is Small Business Week, a time to honor entrepreneurs for the contributions they make to this country. Small businesses create three out of every four new jobs. They are the economic backbone, and our largest job creators.

However, it is not easy to be a small business owner. They struggle every day to provide health care for their employees, to comply with increasing regulatory burdens, and to access financing to keep their businesses up and running.

This week, rather than just talk about supporting our Nation's 26 million small businesses, we have an opportunity to do something, provide them with the support they deserve, and ensure it is not a struggle to access much needed capital.

H.R. 1332 will make loans more economical while providing long-term stability for small business owners. Ensuring loans are affordable and that relief from rising capital costs is available is critical for small firms to remain a driving force in today's economy. Let's put the money back into the hands of entrepreneurs where it belongs.

I want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Chabot, for his work and his leadership in working with me on this legislation. I also want to thank the staff that worked on this bill; from the minority staff, Mike Smullen, Barry Pineles and Kevin Fitzpatrick; and from the majority staff, Michael Day, Adam Minehardt, Andy Jiminez and Tim Slattery, and Elizabeth Hart and Sam Hodas from Representative Bean's staff.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for the Small Business Lending Improvements Act of 2007.

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

I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment, and I will yield to Mr. Chabot for any comments that he may have.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept this amendment. I want to thank you for bringing this issue.

I yield to the ranking member, Mr. Chabot, for any comment.

In our hearings, Mr. Chairman, the committee heard testimony on the various challenges facing the 7(a) program. One of the more troubling developments has been a steady decline in the number of lenders participating in the 7(a) program, particularly among small lenders and community banks located in rural areas. With fewer lenders in the program, we all lose.

The rural lender outreach program is intended to help remedy this problem. With simpler application standards and a streamlined lending process, the rural lender outreach program will facilitate participation in the 7(a) among small lenders in rural communities.

I look forward to working with my colleague to ensure that this amendment will help the rural lender outreach program achieve its important objectives.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio for any comments that he might have.

Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment. I yield to the ranking member for any comments that he might have.

Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion.

Madam Speaker, I withdraw my point of order against the motion, and I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, it amazes me if the gentleman from Louisiana is so concerned about the state of small businesses in our country, why is it that every time that I brought an amendment to any bill to reduce the cost of the 7(a) business loan program, you voted against that bill, against those amendments? That is the way we provide relief to small businesses.

The problem with the gentleman from Louisiana is that he doesn't believe that the minimum wage should be raised, and that 10 years is not long enough. So by supporting this motion to recommit, you are voting against providing relief to small businesses.

What we are doing with this bill is reducing up to $50,000 in fees to borrowers in this country. That is real relief.

So I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion, and to support the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its current form.

Madam Speaker, the motion to recommit that I am offering makes an important point about how we treat small businesses, the engine that drives much of our economy and creates many of our jobs in this country.

The underlying bill makes permanent the Community Express Program, which provides loans up to $250,000 to businesses which are owned by certain favored groups such as women, minorities, veterans, or socially or economically disadvantaged individuals. The measure does not define what it means for a business owner to be ``economically disadvantaged.''

This would require that the Small Business Administration would consider as economically disadvantaged those business owners that can demonstrate that they have been adversely impacted by an increase in the Federal minimum wage.

The importance of this motion is clear in the face of the failure of this House and the conferees on the supplemental appropriations bill that will be considered later tonight to adequately provide tax relief to those small businesses most impacted by an increase in the minimum wage.

The agreement reached by the majority and inserted into the supplemental does provide a larger dollar figure for relief than was passed by the House earlier this year, but almost none of the added tax revenues will provide relief to the small businesses most in need of assistance because of the increase in the minimum wage.

For example, more than 53 percent of the tax relief is in the form of a 44-month extension of the work opportunity tax credit. While extending the work opportunity tax credit may be good policy, and I happen to like that credit, more than 90 percent of the credits are claimed by firms with gross receipts over $50 million, hardly small businesses.

Other provisions, while well intentioned, will have little or no impact on small businesses. The S-Corp reforms, which costs almost $1 billion, have no direct relation to firms impacted by the minimum wage.

I support the changes in the package to the low income housing tax credit, but that $237 million in tax relief, again, does nothing towards satisfying the stated purpose of helping small businesses cope with the increase in the minimum wage.

While the work opportunity tax credit was expanded and was given a longer extension than in the House-passed package, provisions to help small businesses by increasing expensing were not given similar treatment. Other depreciation changes included in the Senate-passed bill that could have helped small businesses were completely left out of the conference agreement. In fact, barely $1 billion of the total almost $5 billion package provides relief to small businesses; and almost half of that, $457 million of it, exists solely to protect restaurant owners from the tax increase they would otherwise face from a minimum wage increase. Thus, only about one-eighth of the new benefits are targeted at small businesses.

That minimal relief for small businesses looks even smaller when compared against the Congressional Budget Office's estimate that the increase in the minimum wage will impose more than $16 billion in costs on the private sector over the next 5 years.

It should come as no surprise to anyone to learn that the National Federation of Independent Business, a small business association, released a statement today criticizing Congress for failing to deliver meaningful tax relief to the American small business community in the face of a mandated Federal minimum wage hike.

I submit for printing in the Record the entire statement of NFIB.

Tax Package Tied to Minimum Wage Hike Fails To Deliver Relief for Small

Business

NFIB disappointed in diminished small-business tax relief in the

federal supplemental spending bill

Washington, D.C., April 25, 2007--Dan Danner, executive

vice president of the National Federation of Independent

Business, today made the following statement in reaction to

the reduced small-business tax-relief package contained in

the federal minimum wage increase legislation, now attached

to the Iraq spending bill.

It's truly disheartening that during National Small

Business Week Congress has decided to renege on their promise

to deliver meaningful tax relief to the American small-

business community in the face of a mandated federal minimum

wage hike.

While small businesses appreciate the increased and

extended expensing limit, the tax package as a whole simply

does not offer enough growth-oriented tax relief to allow

small businesses to invest and stay competitive. NFIB is

disappointed to see that the reduced tax package falls short

of truly offsetting the costs small businesses will be forced

to absorb as a result of a minimum wage increase.

Small-business owners have always opposed mandated wage

levels because it leaves them with fewer choices in how they

compensate their employees. But in the face of an inevitable

wage hike, the small-business community was pleased to hear

that Congress was planning to offer a tax package aimed at

helping small businesses cope with additional labor costs.

From the beginning of this debate, the accompanying tax

package was supposed to be about helping the country's small

businesses. Instead, Congress has spent more time catering to

big business demands than providing real tax relief to those

who need it most--American small-business owners.

As this debate continues, NFIB will continue its efforts to

educate members of Congress about why small businesses need

and deserve meaningful tax relief.

Last week my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, indicated that the tax package on the supplemental was the final deal. I suppose he meant the final deal on taxes associated with the minimum wage increase. And I guess he meant that, even if the supplemental is vetoed, that we don't go back to square one, that there will still be no renegotiation of the tax package. That is unfortunate, and that is what brings us here today.

The majority has said it is unwilling to reconsider ways to ensure that we provide tax relief to the businesses most in need and to examine the shortcomings of the tax package. Thus, we must find other ways to help small businesses continue to be the engines of job creation in our economy. By making small businesses adversely affected by a minimum wage increase eligible for the community express program, Madam Speaker, we are offering the House an opportunity, a chance, to make good on the promise to help those businesses impacted by an increase of the minimum wage.

Madam Speaker, I urge passage of the motion.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.