[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 78 (Wednesday, May 20, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H5815-H5821]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2352, JOB CREATION THROUGH 
                      ENTREPRENEURSHIP ACT OF 2009

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 457 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 457

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2352) to amend the Small Business Act, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 
     of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Small Business. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Small 
     Business now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute are waived except those arising under clause 
     10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no 
     amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 
     10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
     bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
     bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule 
is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 457.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 457 provides for consideration of H.R. 
2352, the Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act of 2009, under a 
structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled 
by the Committee on Small Business.
  The rule makes in order nine amendments which are listed in the Rules 
Committee report accompanying the resolution. Each amendment is 
debatable for 10 minutes, except the manager's amendment which is 
debatable for 20 minutes.
  The rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 457 and the 
underlying bill, the Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act of 2009. 
I'd like to thank Chairwoman Velazquez, as well as my friend from North 
Carolina (Mr. Shuler) and my colleagues on the Small Business Committee 
for their strong leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill represents a giant step forward in ensuring a 
bright future for all Americans who are struggling to establish or grow 
their own businesses. It will bring hope to our veterans as they return 
home and encouragement to billions of Americans who haven't always had 
equal access to the necessary tools to start a business.

                              {time}  1115

  Fittingly, this legislation is on the floor of the House of 
Representatives during National Small Business Week. It capitalizes on 
untapped resources in the business community by expanding access to 
business counseling, training and networking to small business owners 
everywhere, including underserved

[[Page H5816]]

populations such as women, veterans and Native Americans to help ensure 
all of our prosperity.
  This legislation will help women gain access to jobs by requiring the 
women's business centers to describe their job placement strategies for 
the area in their annual plans. Too often women are denied access to 
jobs in high-paying, high-growth sectors. Promoting gender equity is 
critical for ensuring that all workers benefit from the job creation 
that our economic recovery plan spurs, as well as our other policies.
  This bipartisan bill, which was voice voted out of the Small Business 
Committee, represents what we can accomplish when Republicans and 
Democrats work together. While there are many ideological and political 
differences on how to address the economic crisis, this bill is a 
product of consensus.
  There's nothing more American than small business. This bill is a 
combination of seven bills approved in subcommittee, five of which were 
authored by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and I'm 
especially pleased to report that my friends on both sides of the aisle 
support this important effort.
  According to the Small Business Administration, small firms represent 
99.7 percent of all employer firms, employing half of all private 
sector employees. As the unemployment rate climbs, these small 
businesses have managed to create 60 to 80 percent of the new jobs that 
were created annually over the last decade. It's our responsibility to 
create an environment where small business can thrive and continue to 
produce half of our non-farm GDP.
  This bill will spur job creation and economic growth by expanding 
resources and providing technical assistance to small businesses. Small 
business is the engine that drives our economy, especially during tough 
economic times.
  Unemployment continues to rise, currently at 8.6 percent nationally 
and 7.9 percent in my home State of Colorado. People often turn to 
starting their own small businesses when they become unemployed. These 
businesses are frequently the sole source of income for many American 
families. This legislation will help these entrepreneurs gain the skill 
required to sustain and grow their businesses and succeed.
  A recent report released by the Small Business Administration reveals 
that the economic recession continued to deepen in the first quarter of 
2009. Real GDP fell by 6.1 percent. Small business owners, consumers 
and the public at large remain pessimistic. Poor sales and access to 
credit have crippled many American businesses. With this legislation we 
can help reverse this negative trend and give entrepreneurs the tools 
they need to succeed and embrace growth opportunity for all Americans 
in the future.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time, and I 
will yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have read this bill very, very carefully. It's a 
bipartisan bill supported by some of my colleagues on this side. I 
think that the intent of the bill is very positive. I know the folks 
who are interested in this bill and know that they have the best 
intentions.
  But I want to say that I think that, as a former small business 
person, and someone who has administered programs such as these through 
my work as a former community college president, a university 
administrator, and having been on a school board and dealt with 
agencies that operate these kinds of programs, I want to say that I 
have some concerns about this bill and about the rule.
  I am concerned that because this was a bipartisan bill, that we have 
a closed rule on this. I think that it would have been a great 
opportunity for the majority to have given an opportunity for us to 
offer a lot of amendments to the bill, have a great deal of discussion 
on it. And I'm very concerned about the process, again, because we 
haven't gone through a process that I think would have been fair to our 
side of the aisle.
  However, I also want to say that I think that, while this bill has a 
great title, and the intent is a good intent, that what small 
businesses, the engine of our economy, need are things that are 
different from this bill.
  We're going to have many different programs in here. As I said, I 
went through the bill very, very carefully. I looked for ways that it's 
really going to create jobs, and I can't see the kind of accountability 
that I was hoping to see in the bill and as we talked about yesterday 
in the Rules Committee.
  We're going to be creating, I think, a lot of jobs for bureaucrats; 
but it's very difficult, again, to see how we're going to create jobs 
in the small business arena. And I think that we come from two 
different world views in terms of how we approach this kind of an 
issue.
  We know that people are hurting in this country. We know that many 
jobs have been lost, and we'd like to see those jobs recovered. And we 
know that at least half of the jobs in this country are in small 
businesses. And I talk to those people every day, and they tell me 
they're struggling, they're spending down their savings, the 
individuals are spending down their savings. They're doing everything 
they can to stay in business.
  I talked to a gentleman this morning who had geared up in 
anticipation of receiving stimulus money to repair roads and bridges in 
North Carolina, and he doesn't understand why none of that money is 
coming down the pike.
  So, again, people in small business are struggling, and they want to 
do something to keep their people employed. I just don't believe that 
this bill is going to do it.
  I also don't understand, again, why this bill has been scheduled in a 
getaway week, when, again, with a process that is not as open as it 
could have been, in a noncontroversial bill, where we could have 
discussed it and perhaps amended it and come up with a way to really 
help small businesses.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my side of the aisle to vote 
``no'' on the rule, and we'll discuss more reasons why as we go along 
during this debate.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I believe my good friend on the other side of 
the aisle said that this was a closed rule. This is actually a 
structured rule that allows for nine amendments that have been made in 
order. A number of others have been withdrawn and incorporated into the 
manager's amendment.
  She also mentioned that she wished that there was more opportunity to 
amend this bill. I would just remind my colleagues that there were only 
three amendments that were offered from the other side of the aisle. 
Certainly, we would have encouraged and liked more. Of those three, two 
were nongermane and one, according to the Parliamentarian, of those was 
a violation of PAYGO. The other will, in fact, be ruled in order.
  Certainly, we always appreciate suggestions from all perspectives 
about how to improve these bills, and hopefully we will have many more 
ideas that are offered on legislation going forward.
  This bill expands support for veterans who are working to establish 
their own businesses, particularly at this time of war for our country 
and as we phase out of our involvement in Iraq and many men and women 
return home to an economy that is difficult to find a job in.
  Our men and women in uniform who have made immeasurable sacrifices 
should have the opportunity and assistance they need to start a 
business. Our troops need to know that when they return from harm's 
way, there is a network of job support and business resources waiting 
for them when they come home.
  By directing the administrator of the Small Business Administration 
to establish a Veterans Business Centers program, this bill will 
provide entrepreneurial training and counseling to veterans. This 
training will empower veterans who participate in the program to 
achieve access to capital and start their own businesses, helping to 
rebuild our economy.
  The SBA will provide small business grants through these Veterans 
Business Centers which alleviates a major hurdle to many new 
businesses, access to capital. This bill puts specific emphasis on 
service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses. We owe a special duty 
to our wounded warriors, especially those whose reentry into the work 
force could otherwise be difficult.
  This legislation presents an opportunity to fund efficient growth in 
a

[[Page H5817]]

sector that reaches everyday Americans. Every dollar invested in these 
incentives and initiatives returns $2.87 to the economy, and in 2008 
alone, the SBA's entrepreneurial development program helped generate 
73,000 new jobs and infused $7.2 billion into the economy. Let me 
repeat that: 73,000 new jobs at a time when we're hemorrhaging 32,000 
jobs a month and we all dread the release of the next unemployment 
report.
  Job creation is vital to our economic recovery. It's during these 
tough economic times that more and more Americans are starting small 
businesses. In fact, the majority of Americans' first job is at a small 
business. As our economy bounces back, Americans returning to work will 
find that it is a small business community in which they will find 
their next opportunities.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for correcting my 
misstatement about the rule. And I'm curious about the number of new 
jobs that the Small Business Administration is said to have created in 
the past. I'm very curious to know how much each of those 73,000 new 
jobs cost us, because we know that in much of the legislation that has 
been passed this year, there has been a great cost to the jobs. And, 
yesterday, in the debate in the Rules Committee, everybody agreed that 
there has been very little accountability and evaluation on the part of 
the Small Business Administration in terms of the effect of the Small 
Business Administration in terms of pinning down numbers.
  We know, by the Small Business Administration, that small businesses 
employ about half of U.S. workers. Of 116.3 million nonfarm private 
sectors in 2005, small firms with fewer than 500 workers employed 58.6 
million, and large firms employed 57.7 million. Firms with fewer than 
20 employees employed 21.3 million. And what we know, from talking to 
these people, is that what concerns them is not so much that we have 
the government out there saying, we're from Washington and we're here 
to help you, but there are very specific things that small businesses 
tell us that they would like.
  Let me talk a minute about the death tax, for example. We all know 
that the voice of small business on Capitol Hill is NFIB, and NFIB has 
been talking for a long time about the permanent death tax repeal. They 
did a member ballot recently, and 89 percent of small business owners 
said they want full repeal of the death tax.
  Opponents of permanently repealing the death tax claim eliminating 
this tax will do nothing to stimulate economic growth. But we know that 
the studies that have been done tell a very, very different story.
  Yet, our colleagues across the aisle are adamantly opposed to 
eliminating the death tax. Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, my 
colleague, Mr. Sessions, talked about this, and he was corrected by our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, saying, no, this is not an 
important issue to small businesses; that it's not one of their top 
issues. But we know that it is. And there's a lot of research to show 
that.
  I will talk some more again about the facts that we have about what 
small businesses would like to see us do.
  Before I do that, I'd like to yield as much time as he may consume to 
my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Mr. Roskam.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. ROSKAM. Thank you. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  You know, I offered an amendment to the Job Creation Through 
Entrepreneurship Act, H.R. 2352, and it's one of those bill titles that 
is sort of inarguable. Who can simply be against job creation through 
entrepreneurship? Nobody. So I put forth an amendment to bring some 
predictability to this entire debate that we're having or, frankly, 
that we're not having about the death tax, because the death tax, as 
you know, is a crushing tax. It's a tax that is imposed on success that 
has been created many times through generations who have worked, who, 
ironically, have paid taxes on their businesses and who are looking for 
some sense of predictability into the future.
  What is happening, coming from this Congress, is sort of an orthodoxy 
that has developed that says we're going to sort of make it up as we go 
along. Here we have the Energy and Commerce Committee that has been 
dealing with foisting another tax burden. The chairman of the Ways and 
Means Committee characterized this--and I'm paraphrasing--as a tax that 
is the cap-and-tax initiative. There is no other way to describe it. 
Yet here was this simple amendment that would have repealed the death 
tax and that would have brought some predictability into it. Just on a 
party vote, it was sort of swatted aside. I'm told by listening this 
morning that it was characterized as unimportant. Well, I'll tell you 
what. For companies in my district, for small businesses in the suburbs 
of Chicago, the death tax is not an unimportant issue. Let me just 
highlight a couple of the entities that are in favor of the death tax 
repeal:
  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the National Federation of Independent 
Business, which the gentlelady referenced a minute ago; the National 
Association of Manufacturers; the National Small Business Association; 
the National Association of Realtors; the S Corporation Association of 
America; the Association of Equipment Manufacturers. We know dozens and 
dozens, if not hundreds and if not thousands, of small companies, 
entrepreneurs, and self-employed folks who understand fundamentally how 
important this issue is.
  So it shouldn't be characterized in sort of the inner sanctum of the 
Rules Committee as unimportant when all of these entities have stepped 
forward and have said, No, no, no. This is vital. This is not 
unimportant. This is vital, and it ought not be swatted away. It ought 
just not be said that we're not going to allow a roll call vote on this 
and that the only way you're going to be able to raise this issue is to 
sort of scrap along and bring it up in a rules debate. The House is 
going to be completely silent? Think about the signal that that sends 
to the small business person. Think about the signal that that sends to 
the entrepreneur. Think about the signal that this Congress is sending 
to the self-employed. It is sending a signal that says there is no 
predictability into the future based on what this Congress is going to 
do.
  I would suggest that we are in an economic situation the likes of 
which none of us have ever seen before. We're in an economic situation 
the likes of which no generation has really ever seen before, and the 
pace of change is moving so quickly that it's very difficult for folks 
to get their arms and their heads around it. The Rules Committee had an 
opportunity to say, Look, once and for all, let's get this done. Once 
and for all, let's get this death tax repealed off the books. Take away 
the ambiguity so that people know what they're doing in the future.
  It is said that up to $25,000 a year is spent by small businesses, on 
average, just for attorneys and for consultant fees in order to figure 
out how it is that they need to arrange assets, to put it in different 
places and to title it in certain ways so that they can best get the 
advantage for their families. For a Congress that has come along and 
has sort of given lip service to small business and has given lip 
service to entrepreneurship--I mean think about it. This is the bill 
title that we're talking about right now: Job Creation Through 
Entrepreneurship Act. I mean, hey, fabulous little language, but you 
know what? If you want to create jobs, if you want to create 
opportunity, if you want to help entrepreneurs, the way to do that, in 
part, is to repeal the death tax.
  So I am really disappointed that the majority on the Rules Committee 
was just entirely dismissive of it, was sort of plugging their 
procedural ears, and was unwilling to offer the opportunity to simply 
have a debate in the people's House about the death tax.
  What is it that is so unpleasant. What is it that is so difficult? 
What is it politically that folks are gun shy to take this issue up? Do 
you know what it is? It is the clarity with which this issue speaks 
throughout the entire country, and I think that this Congress has 
missed a golden opportunity. It is with deep regret that I stand in 
opposition to this rule.
  Mr. POLIS. You know, I feel that the five members from the other side 
of the aisle and the two from our side of the aisle whose bills went 
into the bill would not like their efforts characterized as merely 
``lip service to small

[[Page H5818]]

business.'' This bill provides tangible tools to the Small Business 
Administration in helping entrepreneurs start small businesses.
  With regard to taxation issues, we have a Ways and Means Committee. 
We have a process for discussing those bills. It was the ruling of the 
Parliamentarian that it was not germane to this bill, in fact, quite to 
the contrary of what my friends on the other side of the aisle said. I 
recall a comment from a member on the Rules Committee that this was an 
important issue, one that was worthy of discussion, but of course, 
again, it was not germane to this particular bill that's before us 
today. I'm confident that this is a discussion we'll continue to have 
with regard to the inheritance tax and with taxation in general, but 
this is simply not germane to the matter of this bill.
  Let me put a human face on what the Small Business Administration 
does and how they help people. I had the opportunity to speak yesterday 
to the head of the Boulder Small Business Development Center in my 
district of Colorado. She told me this story of a young woman who had 
just graduated from college. She had broken her arm, and she had a cast 
for her arm. She decorated her cast with cast tattoos, and her friends 
all commented, I want some of those. Those look terrific. The word 
spread about these cast tattoos.
  This young woman approached the SBA and was given the know-how she 
needed to be able to start a business based on those cast tattoos. 
Well, she has created two jobs today directly, not to mention the 
indirect jobs she has created through the manufacturing process. She 
now sells those cast tattoos in several States and continues to grow 
her business amidst this time of general economic uncertainty.
  H.R. 2352 is the opportunity to fund efficient growth in a sector 
that reaches every American on Main Street. It helps us reach 
entrepreneurs who previously didn't have access to capital, access to 
information, and it provides new multilingual, online distance training 
and access to specialists who can help with financial literacy. By 
combining some of the best ideas from both sides of the aisle, in a 
bipartisan way, we can help move American small business forward, which 
will help this country recover from the recession that we're in.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  I appreciate very much the comments by my colleague, but I want to 
say again, going back to my comments that my colleague from Illinois 
made about the title of this bill, Job Creation Through 
Entrepreneurship Act, if what we really are about here is job creation, 
then we would be embracing Mr. Roskam's amendment because we know, from 
a study done by Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Cameron Smith, these 
numbers: Repealing the Federal estate tax would increase small business 
capital by over $1.6 trillion. We would increase the probability of 
hiring by 8.6 percent. We would increase payrolls by 2.6 percent. We 
would expand investments by 3 percent. We would create 1.5 million 
additional small business jobs. We would slash the current jobless rate 
by almost 1 percent--0.9 percent.
  So, again, there is a different world view here. The world view of 
the majority is the government is going to do this. The world view of 
our side is allow the people to keep more of their money. They will 
create the jobs. It will be a minuscule number of people who would ever 
use the resources that are going to be created with this bill.
  Again, the intent is good. Nobody is discounting the good intentions 
of the authors of this bill. However, we could do a lot more by not 
creating more bureaucracy, by not taking more money from the people of 
this country and then having the government deciding how to spend it.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may 
consume, again, to my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Roskam.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Thank you. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Briefly, in response to the gentleman from Colorado, he raised two 
interesting points. They were procedural points largely, and I would 
just like to speak to them. As I recall, one was germaneness and the 
other one was PAYGO.
  I think it's disappointing that the Rules Committee majority decides 
to impose these standards on certain bills and then decides to ignore 
these standards on certain bills. To act as if the majority is as pure 
as the wind-driven snow on PAYGO is a mischaracterization of past 
conduct. This is a majority that has run roughshod over its own rules 
in the past. So, on the PAYGO side, people in my district would 
characterize that as ``spare me.''
  Now, on the germaneness, here we look at the rule, and the rule in 
paragraph 5 waives all points of order against the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. In other 
words, the rule, by declaration, can take care of the germaneness 
issue. So let's not hide behind procedure here. Let's not hide behind a 
rule book that the majority has been very, very willing to cast aside 
in the past to advance its own agenda.
  Instead, why don't we come together. Why don't we come together and 
say, You know what? Let's do something that we absolutely know is going 
to help small businesses. Let's do something that we absolutely know is 
going to help the self-employed, that we absolutely know is going to 
help the entrepreneur, because if you're interacting with those folks 
across the country who are really the ones who we all give lip service 
to, who are really the ones to whom we all say, Well, this is the group 
that creates jobs, then why in the world are we putting this albatross 
around their necks? Why in the world are we allowing this ambiguity? 
They don't know if they're afoot or on horseback on this thing, and 
it's not fair.
  You know what? This Congress can do something about it. This Congress 
can create predictability. If it chooses to, this Congress can say to 
that small business owner and to that family who has created through 
work and risk and toil, Look, we're not going to come through here with 
a confiscatory tax that takes from one generation to another. You know, 
we've seen enough generational theft, frankly, that has come through 
this Congress, where one generation has piled on debt, upon debt, upon 
debt, upon debt on our children. It is, frankly, irresponsible.
  From George Washington to George W. Bush, we've seen how it took 43 
American Presidents, Mr. Speaker, to create $5.1 trillion in debt. Yet, 
with this majority and with this administration, doubling that amount 
in 5 years and tripling that amount of money in 10 years is simply 
staggering.
  Here we have a simple amendment that the Rules Committee sort of 
looks at and says, Oh, no, no, no, no, no. We're not interested. It's 
not important.
  Not important? Not important to the folks in my district? Not 
important to the businesses and to the entrepreneurs in suburban 
Chicago? Not important? It's vitally important. This Rules Committee 
needs to do better. This Rules Committee needs to be bringing things to 
the floor that create prosperity and that create opportunity.
  With all due respect to this bill--and I'm sure it's a fine bill--you 
know what? It falls short of what the possibilities are, because when 
something is so important as the predictability of the repeal of the 
death tax and it is simply swatted away--just sort of all the Democrats 
``yes'' or all the Democrats ``no'' and all the Republicans ``yes'' and 
that's the amount of discussion it gets--then, frankly, it's not good 
enough. It's not good enough for the constituents whom I represent, who 
are deeply disappointed by the way in which this rule has come about. 
The underlying bill could be fabulous, but you know what? This rule is 
deeply disappointing, and I urge opposition to it.
  Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  There are many things that this bill is not, and I fail to find those 
solid grounds for opposition. This bill is not a cure for cancer. This 
bill is not a cut in capital gains. This bill is not about abolishing 
the inheritance tax. There are many things that many of us would like 
to do that are not in this particular bill. Rather, let us discuss the 
merits of this bill in helping our veterans, in helping the 
handicapped, and in helping the unemployed to create small businesses, 
to create value, and to create jobs in the economy.
  I would like to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).

[[Page H5819]]

  Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  I'm glad that during this period of economic downturn we are ensuring 
that we are doing everything we can to support our small businesses. We 
need to protect those taxpayers. We need to make sure that the backbone 
of the country stays intact.

                              {time}  1145

  I think it's also pertinent that this week we're recognizing National 
Small Business Week and celebrating the great efforts of American small 
businesses and everything that they're doing right now to survive this 
economic downturn.
  For a second, I'd like to mention a small business in my district, 
AGM in Tucson, which last week was named by the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce the Small Business of the Year for 2009. This is a Tucson-
based manufacturer that is a leader in demonstrating intelligent 
business judgment and showing a true commitment to its employees and to 
its customers.
  Arizona is a unique State. We have a lot of entrepreneurs, minority-
owned businesses, and women-owned businesses. Altogether, there are 
about 100,000 small businesses that represent over 95 percent of the 
States' employers who, like AGM, are making vital contributions to our 
local economy.
  Before I got involved with politics, I was the President and CEO of 
my family's small tire and automotive company. I know exactly how hard 
it is to compete in this day and age.
  Small businesses are looking for the tools and resources that they 
need to operate and grow during this tough economic climate. That is 
why I'm supporting H.R. 2352, the Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship 
Act. This bill will reauthorize and modernize the SBA's entrepreneurial 
development programs. It's going to foster veterans' business 
opportunities and spur job creation and economic growth.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
legislation and help foster American competitiveness.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I want to 
say that I know that the motivation behind this bill is good, but we 
know not how many jobs are going to be created. We know not how many 
people are going to be assisted by this bill, because there is nothing 
in the bill that directs that. It's only after 8 years that there will 
be any accountability for the money being spent in this bill.
  I was encouraged yesterday when my colleagues acknowledged the fact 
that we've had no accountability by the Small Business Administration 
for how they spend the money. And I thought, Well, we're going to have 
some great accountability in this bill. But when I read the bill very 
carefully, I saw that it's only after 8 years that performance 
standards are going to be established for the projects to get this 
money.
  We have no idea how much money is going to be spent in 
administration. We don't know how many people are actually going to be 
served. But, as my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Roskam, said, we know 
how much would be accomplished by eliminating the estate tax. And let 
me talk a little bit more about that.
  We know that if the owner of a small business with assets of $3 
million passed away this year, the heirs of the estate would have to 
pay Federal estate taxes of about $460,000. Why? They've have already 
paid taxes on that money twice--and they're going to be paying again. 
Why? Just because the Federal Government says so.
  Now the May, 2006, Joint Economic Committee Study has told us that a 
primary reason why small businesses fail to survive beyond one 
generation is the estate tax. Close to two-thirds of respondents--64 
percent--in one survey reported that the estate tax makes survival of 
the business more difficult.
  Eighty-seven percent of black-owned firms and 93 percent of 
manufacturing firms responded that the estate tax was an impediment to 
survival.
  A survey of family business owners by Prince and Associates found 
that 98 percent of heirs cited a need to raise funds to pay estate 
taxes, when asked why family businesses fail.
  If only a small percentage of the 550,000 small businesses that fail 
annually are attributable to the estate taxes, the cumulative number 
affected over time could be substantial.
  In the context of the survey and tax data described here, it's easy 
to see how the estate tax has contributed to the failure of thousands 
of small and family-run businesses.
  A 2004 survey of Hispanic business owners by the Impacto Group, 66 
percent of respondents said the estate tax affects their ability to 
meet company goals by distracting their attention and wasting 
resources. Half of all respondents in that survey report knowing of a 
Hispanic small business that has experienced hardship because of the 
estate tax liability, including selling off equipment or the business. 
One-quarter of respondents said they themselves would sell part of the 
business to pay the tax, and 10 percent would delay expansion of the 
business.
  So we know, again, that by getting rid of the estate tax, we would be 
saving thousands of small businesses, creating millions of jobs. And it 
is germane to this bill.
  Another issue that is of great concern to small businesses--and I 
talked to a lady this week about it. She had read about the required 
paid sick leave bill that is before the Congress right now. And she 
said, I'm struggling. She said, I have been paying my salaries of my 
employees out of my savings. If this bill goes through, we will have to 
shut down because we can't afford this--we already give some sick 
leave. And we're certainly very good to our employees. They can use 
their vacation for sick leave. But if we're mandated to do 7 days of 
paid sick leave, and we know that, in many cases, people will simply 
take those days whether they're sick or not, then we will shut down our 
business.
  So this Congress is acting over and over and over again to kill small 
businesses, and they offer us a very small bill here, as my colleague 
again said, that sounds wonderful. However, what it's going to do is be 
out there as an idea that will help small businesses, but they're going 
to ignore all of the things that prove they will help small businesses.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, there 
are many things that our country can do for small business. When we 
talk about taxes, of course predictability in the inheritance tax rate 
would be a good thing, and I hope we work towards that end.
  We talk about the corporate income tax rate. There's evidence that we 
might be higher than many other countries in the world and, for that 
reason, many companies may be locating offshore. Maybe we need to 
reduce that.
  These are all very, very important discussions. We need to look at 
the revenue impact, we need to look at the benefit, we need to look at 
how it affects American business. Business needs to be a part of that.
  That's wonderful that my good friend on the other side of the aisle 
cited the interest in the inheritance tax issue for many affiliations 
and small businesses. That's a very important discussion to have. But 
none of that should stand in the way of the important work of the Small 
Business Administration in giving entrepreneurs the tools that they 
need to succeed. They're in these very difficult economic times.
  Yesterday, I had the chance to talk to Sharon King at the Boulder 
Small Business Development Center in my district. They offer a number 
of programs that would benefit tremendously from this legislation. They 
feel that the ability of the SBA to help small businesses has atrophied 
considerably under the Bush administration.
  This bill will help restore their ability to help give Americans the 
tools they need to start their businesses at a time when demand is 
higher than ever.
  Not only do existing small businesses need help in accessing credit, 
which is becoming ever more difficult, but more and more Americans are 
unemployed, which gives them the opportunity to maybe start their own 
business, to start their own ability to earn money because they lack 
another job.
  I'd like to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to just 
mention one more issue that comes to me all the time, and I know it has 
to be coming to other Members of Congress as they talk to small 
business owners and even large business owners, and that has to do with 
the issue of regulations.

[[Page H5820]]

  There's a study entitled: ``Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual 
Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State,'' which is issued by the 
Competitive Enterprise Institute. And just a few statistics about it 
because, again, we could be dealing with some issues that would reduce 
the role of regulations in the lives of small business owners.
  I want to bring that up because this is a third point I think that 
hurts our small businesses tremendously. Given that in 2007 government 
spending stood at $2.73 trillion, the hidden tax of regulation now 
approaches half the level of Federal spending itself. Regulatory costs 
rival estimated 2007 individual income taxes of $1.17 trillion.
  Of the 3,882 regulations now in the works, 757 affect small 
businesses. Regulatory costs of $1.16 trillion absorb 8.5 percent of 
U.S. gross domestic product.
  Regulations dwarf the $150 billion economic stimulus package passed 
in 2008, and rolling back these would constitute a deregulatory 
stimulus.
  So I would like to urge my colleagues on the other side to let us 
look at this issue of regulatory costs and look at ways that we can do 
this.
  I've introduced a bill that would require more transparency in the 
cost of regulations, both to government and to the private sector. If 
we really want to help small businesses, then I think that that's 
something that we should be doing. It's H.R. 2255, Unfunded Mandates 
Information and Transparency Act. I'd like to work with my colleagues 
on this and other issues where we really could help small businesses.
  Again, I know the intent of the underlying bill to this rule today is 
well-intentioned, but I believe that we have many other ways that don't 
cost any money to help small businesses.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. If we're 
talking about things we can do to help small businesses that are not in 
this bill, let me add a number of others that we have already 
accomplished.
  I'd like to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle every 
single Republican Member voted against the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act, which included $15 billion of tax cuts for American 
small businesses, including increasing section 179 expensing limits to 
let small business owners fully depreciate capital purchases for items 
likes trucks, computers, and other equipment in the same year it was 
purchased.
  We also extended the carryback period for net operating losses, 
helping many small businesses in America use their losses from years 
past, from 2 years to 5 years. We also delayed the 3 percent 
withholding tax on payments to government contractors.
  We also provided relief for the alternative minimum tax, which hit 
tens of thousands of American small business owners. We also 
established tax credits for small businesses that hired recently 
discharged veterans and out-of-work youth.
  In addition to those tax cuts, the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act also generated $21 billion in new lending and investment for small 
businesses; provided direct interest-free loans of $35,000; and makes 
loans less expensive for small business borrowers by eliminating fees 
that were normally built into SBA-backed loans.
  In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we increased to 90 
percent the amount of an SBA-backed loan that the government 
guarantees, making it easier for small businesses to get loans from 
local banks. We also unclogged the market for SBA-backed loans to help 
gain access to credit, to our markets.
  In every area of our country, small businesses continue to encounter 
the same difficulties. They're having difficulty borrowing money and 
face significant difficulty raising capital from equity and other 
sources. Until these problems are addressed, our economic recovery will 
be slowed.
  Fortunately, with this bill and the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act, the Congress and the President can continue to make 
important strides to remove these barriers to small business growth and 
help small business succeed in leading this recovery.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate my 
colleague for pointing out some of the good things that the majority 
has tried to do. But I have to tell you that not one single person has 
come to me to tell me that he or she has benefited from any of these 
things that have passed. To the contrary. They come to me and tell me 
how they try and try to get assistance--and can't get assistance.
  Of course, I think these small amounts of tax credits are being 
offset by the tremendous burden that we are putting on the people of 
this country by increased taxes, not the least of which is the cap-and-
tax bill that is passing, which is going to put a minimum of $3,000 a 
year increased tax burden on every family in this country, as well as 
several other things that are coming down the pike.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to defeat not only the rule but 
also the previous question so that I might amend the rule to make in 
order the amendment offered by Representative Terry of Nebraska, which 
would amend the Small Business Act's loan program to allow qualified 
struggling car dealers to apply for Small Business Administration 
loans.

                              {time}  1200

  Many American car dealers are small businessmen and women who have 
been left literally holding the bag by the corporate carmakers. If this 
bill is truly meant to assist small business owners, this amendment 
would prove extraordinarily timely. This amendment is about small 
business. This amendment is about jobs. So I will ask people to defeat 
the previous question.
  I also ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and 
extraneous materials printed in the Congressional Record just prior to 
the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pastor of Arizona). Is there objection 
to the request of the gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  The main point of the amendment is to give SBA loans to the dealers 
to help them buy their own inventory since they're on the hook for the 
cost of their inventory since the manufacturers are going under. It is 
short and sweet. It's a take it or leave it or build on it. It would 
waive PAYGO. They waived PAYGO to bail out the manufacturers, but they 
don't want to waive PAYGO to help out the dealers when the 
manufacturing plan fails.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. In talking to the Boulder Small Business Development 
Center yesterday in my district in Colorado, they told me about the 
seminars that they have in gaining access to contract decision-makers, 
consulting, the seminars they do to help train minority-owned 
businesses. Our local center also offers scaling up, which teaches 
entrepreneurs how to gain access to capital and grants. Finally, 
they're working on a turnaround program for downtown Boulder 
businesses, helping retailers and restaurants. Like many communities 
across our country, our vacancy rate has increased, and many retail 
businesses are having trouble in this recessionary environment. Without 
the resources that are made available by this bill, the Boulder Small 
Business Development Center, along with many other centers around the 
country, will be forced to cut programs and training. The 21st century 
will demand innovative small businesses stay up to date on 
groundbreaking technologies.
  H.R. 2352 includes a green entrepreneurial development program to 
provide education classes and instruction in starting a business in the 
fields of energy efficiency and green or clean tech. This, at its core, 
is a training program that's important for the future of America. With 
the right training and access to the right resources, the sky is the 
limit for America's entrepreneurs.
  So much of our work so far in this Congress has moved us in the 
direction of creating more jobs, passing the budget, work on health 
care, clean energy, education, the Recovery Act, the green schools 
bills, the Water Quality Investment Act. This important bill for the 
Small Business Administration is another step on the road to recovery.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Foxx is as follows:

[[Page H5821]]

     Amendment to H. Res. 457 Offered by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina

       After ``except those printed in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution'' insert ``or contained 
     in section 3 of this resolution''.
       After ``shall not be subject to a demand for division of 
     the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole'' 
     insert ``, except as provided in section 2''.
       At the end of the resolution, insert the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. The amendment printed in section 3, if offered by 
     Mr. Terry of Nebraska or his designee, shall be debatable for 
     10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and opponent. All points of order against such amendment are 
     waived.
       Sec. 3. The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 50, after line 16, add the following new title:

            TITLE VIII--ASSISTANCE TO MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS

     SEC. 801. ASSISTANCE TO MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS.

       Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating the second paragraph (32), as added by 
     section 208 of the Military Reservist and Veteran Small 
     Business Reauthorization and Opportunity Act of 2008 (Public 
     Law 110-186; 122 Stat. 631), as paragraph (33); and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(34) Motor Vehicle Dealers.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administration may provide loans 
     under this subsection to motor vehicle dealers for the 
     purchase of motor vehicle inventory.
       ``(B) Amount.--Notwithstanding any other limitation on the 
     amount of a loan under this subsection, the maximum amount of 
     a loan under this paragraph shall be $20,000,000 and the 
     Administration may participate in a loan not exceeding such 
     amount in the manner described in paragraph (2).
       ``(C) Motor vehicle.--For purposes of this paragraph, the 
     term `motor vehicle' includes passenger automobiles, tractor-
     trailers, motor homes, motorcycles, motorized heavy 
     equipment, and motorized agricultural implements.''.
                                  ____

       (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.
                                  ____


             [From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 31, 2009]

                     Night of the Living Death Tax

       Lawrence Summers, President Obama's chief economic adviser, 
     declared recently that ``Let's be very clear: There are no, 
     no tax increases this year. There are no, no tax increases 
     next year.'' Oh yes, yes, there are. The President's budget 
     calls for the largest increase in the death tax in U.S. 
     history in 2010.
       The announcement of this tax increase is buried in footnote 
     1 on page 127 of the President's budget. That note reads: 
     ``The estate tax is maintained at its 2009 parameters.'' This 
     means the death tax won't fall to zero next year as scheduled 
     under current law, but estates will be taxed instead at up to 
     45%, with an exemption level of $3.5 million (or $7 million 
     for a couple). Better not plan on dying next year after all.
       This controversy dates back to George W. Bush's first tax 
     cut in 2001 that phased down the estate tax from 55% to 45% 
     this year and then to zero next year. Although that 10-year 
     tax law was to expire in 2011, meaning that the death tax 
     rate would go all the way back to 55%, the political 
     expectation was that once the estate tax was gone for even 
     one year, it would never return.
       And that is no doubt why the Obama Administration wants to 
     make sure it never hits zero. It doesn't seem to matter that 
     the vast majority of the money in an estate was already taxed 
     when the money was earned. Liberals counter that the estate 
     tax is ``fair'' because it is only paid by the richest 2% of 
     American families. This ignores that much of the long-term 
     saving and small business investment in America is motivated 
     by the ability to pass on wealth to the next generation.
       The importance of intergenerational wealth transfers was 
     first measured in a National Bureau of Economic Research 
     study in 1980. That study looked at wealth and savings over 
     the first three-quarters of the 20th century and found that 
     ``intergenerational transfers account for the vast majority 
     of aggregate U.S. capital formation,'' The co-author of that 
     study was . . . Lawrence Summers.
       Many economists had previously believed in ``the life-cycle 
     theory'' of savings, which postulates that workers are 
     motivated to save with a goal of spending it down to zero in 
     retirement. Mr. Summers and coauthor Laurence Kotlikoff 
     showed that patterns of savings don't validate that model; 
     they found that between 41% and 66% of capital stock was 
     transferred either by bequests at death or through trusts and 
     lifetime gifts. A major motivation for saving and building 
     businesses is to pass assets on so children and grandchildren 
     have a better life.
       What all this means is that the higher the estate tax, the 
     lower the incentive to reinvest in family businesses. Former 
     Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin 
     recently used the Summers study as a springboard to compare 
     the economic cost of a 45% estate tax versus a zero rate. He 
     finds that the long-term impact of eliminating the death tax 
     would be to increase small business capital investment by 
     $1.6 trillion. This additional investment would create 1.5 
     million new jobs.
       In other words, by raising the estate tax in the name of 
     fairness, Mr. Obama won't merely bring back from the dead one 
     of the most despised of all federal taxes, and not merely 
     splinter many family-owned enterprises. He will also forfeit 
     half the jobs he hopes to gain from his $787 billion stimulus 
     bill. Maybe that's why the news of this unwise tax increase 
     was hidden in a footnote.

  Mr. POLIS. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and the nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________