Technical corrections only. The diff between v3 and v4 consists of updates to legislative status information and minor formatting adjustments. There are no substantive policy changes to the bill's text.
DLARA
- Sponsor
- Rep. Moore, Tim [R-NC-14]
- Committees
- Budget Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 24, 2026
Bottom line
The bill significantly increases oversight and reporting requirements for the SBA's disaster loan programs, aiming to improve fiscal transparency and proactive management of funds.
What it actually does
This bill enhances accountability and transparency within the Small Business Administration's (SBA) disaster loan program by mandating more detailed monthly reports, requiring specific budget disclosures from the President, and establishing an early warning system for low funding levels. It also commissions two Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports to assess the program's financial performance and the impact of recent administrative changes. A key feature is the distinction between general SBA disaster loans and COVID-EIDL loans for reporting purposes.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is crucial for ensuring the efficient and responsible use of taxpayer funds in the SBA's disaster loan program. They contend that enhanced reporting, detailed budget requests, and independent GAO reviews will provide Congress and the public with a clearer understanding of program costs, disbursement rates, and potential funding shortfalls, ultimately leading to better resource allocation and more effective disaster response.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that while accountability is important, the extensive new reporting requirements could place a significant administrative burden on the SBA, potentially diverting resources and personnel from the core mission of processing and disbursing disaster loans to affected communities. Some might also contend that the specific punitive measure of restricting the Administrator's travel for non-compliance is overly prescriptive and could hinder necessary operational activities.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 4
Monthly Disaster Loan Reports
This section amends existing law to require the SBA Administrator to submit more comprehensive monthly reports to Congress on disaster loan activities. It removes limitations that tied reports to specific major disasters, making them continuous. Crucially, it changes the reporting on funding duration to include specific dates when funds will reach 10% of the most recent appropriation and when they will be depleted. It also adds a requirement to detail changes in financial estimates and assumptions. A new punitive measure prohibits the Administrator's official travel if a report is not submitted on time.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that these changes will provide Congress with critical, real-time data on the financial health of the disaster loan program, enabling more proactive and informed decision-making regarding appropriations and program management. The travel ban is seen as a strong incentive for compliance.
Critics contend
Opponents might suggest that the detailed reporting could divert significant administrative resources from the SBA's primary mission of assisting disaster victims. The travel ban, while intended to ensure compliance, could be viewed as an overly harsh or impractical penalty that might hinder the Administrator's ability to perform essential duties.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for enhanced transparency and accountability with the potential for increased administrative burden on the SBA. The specific funding depletion dates aim for precision but rely on accurate forecasting.
Section 5
Budget Request Relating to Disaster Loans
This section amends title 31 of the U.S. Code, which governs the President's budget submission. It mandates that the President's annual budget request include separate, detailed statements for both SBA disaster loans (excluding COVID-EIDL) and COVID-EIDL loans. These statements must specify the requested appropriations for the fiscal year, the 10-year average cost for each loan type (both for loan costs and administrative costs), and provide an explanation for any differences between the requested amount and the 10-year average.
Section 6
Limitations on Disaster Loans (Funding Low Notification)
This section adds a new requirement to the Small Business Act, mandating that the SBA Administrator notify key congressional committees within 24 hours if the balance of funds available for direct SBA disaster loans falls below 10% of the 10-year average annual cost. This 10-year average is to be derived from the most recent Presidential budget request or, if unavailable, the immediately preceding 10-year period. This creates an early warning system for potential funding shortfalls in the disaster loan program.
Section 7
GAO Report on SBA Disaster Loan Account
This section mandates that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) submit a report within 180 days of the bill's enactment. The report must analyze the average weekly rate at which the SBA obligates disaster loan funds, the average weekly disbursement amounts to borrowers during the initial 12 weeks (broken down by home, business, and economic injury loans for two specific historical periods), and the average amount of fully disbursed loans from a recent period, also separated by loan type. The SBA Administrator is then required to respond to this report within 90 days with an implementation plan for any recommendations.
Section 8
GAO Report on Disaster Loan Changes
This section requires the GAO to submit a report within one year on the financial impact of two specific SBA final rules (from 2023 and 2024) that made changes to the disaster assistance loan program. The report must assess the 'cost' (as defined by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990) of changes such as increased home loan limits, extended deferment periods, expanded mitigation options, modified credit elsewhere criteria, and altered collateral requirements. It also requires an analysis of the effect of these changes on the subsidy for such loans.
Section 9
Budget and Forecasting Report Regarding the Cost of Direct Disaster Loans
This section requires the SBA Administrator to submit an initial report within 30 days detailing the corrections the Administration will implement to improve its forecasting, data quality, and budget assumptions for SBA disaster loan budget submissions. Following this, the Administrator must provide updates every 90 days until all corrections are implemented, explaining the actions taken and how they relate to the initial plan.
The bill consistently distinguishes between 'SBA disaster loans' (direct loans under 15 U.S.C. 636(b) excluding CARES Act section 1110 loans) and 'COVID-EIDL loans' (direct loans authorized under CARES Act section 1110). This distinction is critical for applying the new reporting and budget requirements.
Sections 3(3), 5(j), 6(17)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to precisely define terms and scope, ensuring that new provisions apply only to the intended categories of loans. It reflects a deliberate policy choice to differentiate ongoing disaster relief from the specific, temporary COVID-19 related programs.
Case for: Clearly separating these loan types ensures that accountability measures are tailored to the specific characteristics and ongoing needs of each program, preventing unintended consequences or misapplication of oversight.
Case against: No specific case against, as it's a technical clarification. However, a very broad critic might argue that it adds complexity to the legislative text.
Estimated impact: Ensures that the new reporting and budget transparency measures are accurately applied to the intended disaster loan programs, preventing confusion or misallocation of oversight resources.
If the Administrator fails to submit a required monthly disaster loan report on time, no funds are authorized for official travel by the Administrator until the report is submitted.
Section 4(3)
Why it matters:While not intentionally 'buried' to hide it, its placement at the end of a detailed amendment section means it's not immediately apparent as a major new enforcement mechanism. It's a specific consequence for non-compliance rather than a core reporting change.
Case for: Proponents would argue this provides a strong, direct incentive for the Administrator to comply with reporting deadlines, ensuring timely information flow to Congress and upholding accountability.
Case against: Critics might argue that such a specific travel ban could hinder the Administrator's ability to conduct essential oversight, engage with stakeholders, or respond to disasters in person, potentially undermining the very program it seeks to improve.
Estimated impact: Could significantly impact the Administrator's ability to perform duties requiring travel if reports are delayed, serving as a powerful, albeit potentially disruptive, enforcement tool.