Mr. President, tomorrow--September 30, 2006--many of the SBA's programs and authorities expire. Our committee worked together to come up with a bipartisan package, a true give-and-take on ideas,…
Mr. President, tomorrow--September 30, 2006--many of the SBA's programs and authorities expire. Our committee worked together to come up with a bipartisan package, a true give-and-take on ideas, including many reforms driven by needs identified in the response to the gulf hurricanes last year. That comprehensive small business reauthorization bill, S. 3778, is opposed by the administration, and is being blocked from consideration in the full Senate through various holds.
We finished our work at the end of July, and the bill has been pending on the Senate calendar for consideration since August 2. The administration and other opponents have had 9 weeks to work out a compromise. But they don't want to. SBA has told the small business community that they don't want an SBA reauthorization bill this year; they only want to reauthorize their ability to cosponsor events with the private sector.
In the absence of passing that legislation, which is a replay of our last reauthorization bill, S. 1375, that was obstructed, the agency is at the mercy of a continuing resolution, CR. Unfortunately, a continuing resolution doesn't extend all the authorities needed for the agency to operate. H.R. 6159 was put forward to catch some of the programs that would fall through the cracks. However, according to CRS and the Senate Legislative Counsel, as drafted, the bill still doesn't close the gaps. The gaps leave open the Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs, the New Markets Venture Capital Program, and the Program for Investment in Micro-entrepreneurs.
There are disagreements over the interpretations of what needs to be authorized, and some of our colleagues have argued that even if there are disagreements on the interpretation of what programs are covered by H.R. 6159, we should move the bill anyway because we have a letter from SBA committing to cover those provisions considered ambiguous. Specifically, SBA gave Chairman Snowe a letter on September 27, 2006, committing to run the programs we are concerned about. Our colleagues argue that SBA would be bound by those written interpretations. However, I am sure my colleagues can understand why we might not feel comfortable relying on that letter given that on September 19, 8 days earlier, SBA sent a list to my staff regarding which programs are covered by a CR, those with ``hard sunset dates,'' and it contradicted the letter to our chairman. The contradictions raise valid concerns, and I am sorry that the Senate did not adopt the language that eliminates any vagueness. Neither CRS nor Legislative Counsel has an agenda with regard to SBA's reauthorization, so we prefer to go with their interpretations.
What are the contradictions?: *The Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs, *The SBDC Drug-Free Workplace program, *The Pre- Disaster Mitigation program,
In the e-mail, SBA said:
Those marked with an * do not need authorization language
in the CR to operate the core mission of the SBA on a short-
term basis. Grants for the year have already been given out
and other programs have the ability to operate without
authorizing language or are not operating and/or do not have
an appropriation.
In the letter, SBA said these programs ``would not be
covered by the CR and that [they] would cease to operate if
H.R. 6159 were not enacted.''
Also, problematic is the date. The bill extends the programs through February 2, 2007, instead of November 17, consistent with the CR. Because the SBA has the cosponsorship authority, there is no incentive for the agency to come negotiate with us on the comprehensive reauthorization bill.
We were given this bill last week, and told we had one hour to approve it. We tried, but our conversations, as referenced above, with CRS and Senate Legislative Counsel identified holes in the legislation. We asked Legislative Counsel to draft the corrections and told our colleagues that we were waiting for the draft. They moved forward without us. This take-it-or-leave-it approach is unnecessary.
Let the record reflect that we have been willing to compromise all along and only asked that the language accomplish: extension of programs or authorities that would fall through the cracks based on discussions with CRS and Senate Legislative Counsel and a date change to keep folks working to pass, this 109th Congress, S. 3778, the Senate's bipartisan, comprehensive SBA Reauthorization Act. We did not include provisions outside those goals.
It is disappointing that our goal was not shared. I am hopeful that the Veterans Committee will continue and that SBA will not pull resources from the New Markets Program or later argue that not addressing PRIME was a statement from the Senate that we didn't mean for it to be extended. That would be inaccurate, as reflected in S. 3778, where PRIME is moved to the Small Business Act and reauthorized.