[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 159 (Thursday, October 29, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H12069-H12074]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3854, SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING AND 
                         INVESTMENT ACT of 2009

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 875 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 875

       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. 3854) to amend the Small Business Act and the 
     Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to improve programs 
     providing access to capital under such Acts, 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. The amendment 
     printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted 
     in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the 
     purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment 
     to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except the 
     amendments printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules. 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. 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, as amended, to the House with such 
     further amendments as may have been adopted. In

[[Page H12070]]

     the case of sundry further amendments reported from the 
     Committee, the question of their adoption shall be put to the 
     House en gros and without division of the question. 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.
       Sec. 2.  The Chair may entertain a motion that the 
     Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee 
     on Small Business or her designee. The Chair may not 
     entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the 
     bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     legislative day of October 30, 2009, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules relating 
     to a measure addressing unemployment compensation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous remarks on H. Res. 875.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Maine?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, H. Res. 875 provides for consideration of H.R. 3854, 
the Small Business Financing and Investment Act of 2009, under a 
structured rule. The rule self-executes an amendment that removes 
direct spending from the bill, thereby making the underlying bill PAYGO 
compliant. The bill makes in order 16 amendments printed in the Rules 
Committee report. The amendments are debatable for 10 minutes each, 
except for the manager's amendment which is debatable for 20 minutes.
  Additionally, the rule provides authority for the Speaker to 
entertain motions to suspend the rules through Friday of this week for 
a measure addressing unemployment compensation.
  Madam Speaker, today we will pass a very important piece of 
legislation that will directly help small businesses from around our 
country. H.R. 3854, the Small Business Financing and Investment Act of 
2009, increases the loan limits available for small businesses through 
the SBA; it promotes increased private investment in small businesses; 
it provides increased resources for businesses working in the field of 
renewable energy; and it supports our veterans returning from Iraq and 
Afghanistan seeking the capital they need to start or to grow their 
businesses.
  What this bill does beyond anything else is provide much-needed 
support for Main Street to help small entrepreneurs grow, save, and 
create jobs. As President Obama said last week, supporting small 
businesses needs to be our highest priority because when small 
businesses are succeeding, America succeeds.
  When I return to my home State of Maine, I hear from small businesses 
week after week that access to capital is one of the most difficult 
challenges that they face. The credit market has been drying up, and 
small businesses have been hit hard.
  Earlier this year, my office hosted an event focused specifically on 
connecting small businesses with capital, including SBA programs. The 
response was overwhelming. We had hundreds of small businesses RSVP to 
attend, so many that we needed to reserve an overflow room to 
accommodate the demand. These were businesses of all types and sizes, 
and many of them had driven hours to come to the workshop. They came to 
this meeting because they felt they had nowhere else to turn.
  SBA programs have been an important resource for businesses during 
this economic downturn, and this bill will take important steps to 
increase access to and the success of these programs. I want to take a 
minute to give you a couple of examples from my State of how SBA loans 
are working to support small businesses.
  A company named ALCOM was established by Tom Sturtevant and his 
stepson, Trapper Clark, in 2006 and is one of the largest manufacturers 
of aluminum trailers in the northeast. With an SBA loan under the 504 
program, this business was able to construct a new, 70,000-square foot 
manufacturing facility with much-needed space for expansion while 
enhancing the flow of inventory, and they were able to hire 15 new 
workers. This is a family-owned business with good-paying manufacturing 
jobs that has been able not only to survive in the current economic 
climate, but grow thanks to an SBA loan.
  Julia McClure opened Sweets & Meats, a market in Rockland, Maine, 
earlier this year, thanks to financing she received through the SBA's 
7(a) program. Women-owned enterprises is the fastest growing business 
group, and this grocery store, specializing in local meats and produce, 
is a great example of how the SBA has worked to support these 
entrepreneurs.
  Casco Bay Molding in Sanford, Maine, is an injection molding company 
founded by Andy Powell. After working to develop a customer 
relationship with Flotation Technologies, another Maine-based company 
and a world leader in buoyance systems, these two companies worked to 
design and implement a new line of proprietary, deepwater oil and gas 
exploration and harvesting equipment.
  This new demand meant that Casco Bay Molding needed to upgrade to 
compete with much larger molding shops in the region. With a loan under 
the SBA 504 program, this small business was able to upgrade their 
equipment, meet the demand, and employ five additional people in their 
community in good-paying manufacturing jobs. Furthermore, by helping 
Casco Bay Molding to succeed and grow, this loan supported other local 
businesses, like Fiber Materials, providing them the benefits of an 
expert injection molding operation within close proximity to their 
manufacturing facility.

                              {time}  1400

  This is a great example of the exponential impact that investment in 
small businesses has in all of our communities, one that expands small 
businesses, creates new, good-paying jobs, rewards ingenuity, and 
supports Main Street through this economic downturn.
  The problem is there are not enough of these success stories. Small 
businesses are desperate for credit to expand and grow, and SBA 
programs, as they currently stand, simply cannot meet this demand. That 
is why this bill is so important. It will expand and develop these 
vital programs, including the 7(a) and 504 programs, to better meet the 
needs of all small businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, all across this country, small businesses have struggled 
during these difficult times through no fault of their own. They didn't 
cause this economic crisis, but they can help to lead us out of it, and 
we have to help them access the funding they need to survive, grow and 
to expand their businesses. The jobs they create today will bring 
economic growth and prosperity to our communities tomorrow if we just 
give them the chance.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill today and the underlying 
bill. As Rumery's Boatyard, another SBA loan recipient from Maine told 
me, it is imperative that we support our small businesses and ensure 
that they are ready to go once the economy fully recovers.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me 
the time. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we've just heard our good friends from the Democratic 
Party talk about wanting to support small business. I think it's 
interesting that today this bill is all about making sure the 
government has money available to loan to small business because we 
want them to be successful, and yet this committee and this Congress, 
under the Democrat leadership, ignores the leading four or five 
different items that small business would say they need the most to be 
successful to grow, to expand, to continue employment, which is the 
backbone of the economy.
  High taxes, depreciation--this next week the biggest killer of them 
all, after we pass this bill, the health care bill is going to come on 
the floor which will kill small business. President Obama's own numbers 
say 4.7 million

[[Page H12071]]

jobs will be lost with the health care bill. It will tax small 
business. It will bring enormous rules and regulations, and yet here we 
are, talking about wanting to help small business today. If you really 
want to help, first of all, you ought to get out of the way; secondly, 
don't pass rules, regulation, laws, taxation that diminish small 
business.
  So, with that said, I am delighted to be on the floor to talk about 
this Small Business Financing and Investment Act. In the Rules 
Committee, it was plain and simple that not allowing an open rule this 
year is where we continue. There is plenty of time for my friends on 
the other side of the aisle to allow for an open rule today to discuss 
the 42 amendments that were offered in the Rules Committee, of which 
only 16 were made in order.
  I offered an amendment to the Rules Committee last night that was 
voted down by my Democrat colleagues. My amendment would have benefited 
small businesses by allowing them to choose the asset depreciation 
schedule that best suits their individual businesses. Today we have a 
depreciation schedule that is entirely formulated by the government, to 
the detriment of the free enterprise system and small businesses. The 
current system of asset depreciation inhibits economic growth. That's 
right. It forces companies to depreciate their assets over an arbitrary 
period of time. It competes against business, and certainly small 
business, by making sure the government gets their money first. 
Congress needs to create incentives for American businesses to reinvest 
in their companies, buy new equipment and hire more workers, not the 
opposite.
  Small business employs about half of all Americans, and they are 
critical to our economic growth. But tax policies out of Washington by 
this Democratic Congress are making it harder and harder for them to do 
business. Also add in rules, regulations and a political agenda that 
will lose a net 10 million American jobs, most of them small business, 
just with the three biggest political agenda items that the Democratic 
Party has, 10 million American jobs lost, and that's the political 
agenda.
  If this Democrat majority really wants to help small businesses, they 
would have allowed some commonsense amendments to come forth to the 
floor, by the way, amendments that small businesses ask for the most. I 
plan on using this opportunity to talk about our economy, the Nation's 
diminishing job numbers, the future of government mandates, and tax 
increases that will continue to stifle our economy and cut U.S. jobs. 
This is the Democratic Party's agenda, to kill the free enterprise 
system in America, and the starting blow is these three major political 
agendas that will lose a net 10 million American jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration promised Americans that if 
Congress passed the stimulus package, that unemployment would not go 
above 8 percent, that it would create and save millions of jobs. Here 
we are 9 months later with a record 9.7 percent unemployment rate, the 
highest in 26 years, and more than 2 million Americans have lost their 
jobs since the stimulus package of $1.2 trillion.
  What do we see from the White House? Lavish parties, trips to New 
York, just a whole lot of fun, everything but this President focusing 
on what any economist would say will create jobs in this country, what 
will keep the jobs that we have in this country. So my colleagues on 
the Democratic side continue to push their agenda that increases costs, 
increases taxes for individuals, while shrinking our Nation's 
workforce.
  By the way, the Nation's workforce is called American jobs. By the 
way, those evil corporations that our friends, the Democrats, are after 
are called employers. Let's just put them at bay, and you will see no 
job employment.
  In June, my friends on the other side of the aisle passed a cap-and-
trade, or what is commonly called cap-and-tax, bill that will raise 
prices on energy, raise prices on goods, raise prices on services for 
every single hardworking American in this country. In my home State of 
Texas, the average household can now expect to spend more than $1,100 
extra a year if this bill passes as a result of this legislation, and 
this legislation could diminish over 1.38 million manufacturing jobs.
  In my book, manufacturing is small business. Just today congressional 
Democrats had a great big press conference that looked more like a 
victory lap to me, thinking that they're going to pass this bill that 
was 1,990 pages, a sweeping health care bill that effectively will 
continue to shrink the employer base. It will shrink the employer-based 
insurance market and force 114 million people into an unsustainable 
government-run program, a program where government bureaucrats will be 
choosing what doctors a patient can see and, further, what procedures 
will be paid for for that doctor.
  This trillion-dollar package also raises taxes on individuals, it 
raises taxes on small businesses that do not participate in the 
government plan, and up to $800 billion will be spent, according to a 
model developed by the President's own economic adviser, and it will 
diminish between 4.7 and 5.5 million more American jobs, using the 
President's own figures. Most of those will come from small business.
  Well, hold it. I thought we were here to help small business today. 
But don't worry, next week we'll go ahead and pass a bill that will 
diminish between 4.7 and 5.5 million more American jobs. No wonder the 
American public can't figure out what's going on in Washington. One 
week we're saying, We're trying to help you, and the next week, I'm 
sorry about that, but somebody else's job is more important than yours.

  Earlier this month, the Treasury Department reported that the Federal 
budget deficit reached a record $1.1417 trillion during the month of 
September. The Treasury Department also reported that the national debt 
reached $11.9 trillion. This means that since 2007, the Obama 
administration and this Democrat Congress have increased the Federal 
deficit by over $1.25 trillion and increased the national debt by over 
$3 trillion. When will it stop? No wonder we're losing small business 
jobs. No wonder we're losing American jobs. No wonder the American 
people are saying, What is going on in Washington, D.C.?
  The Democratic majority is taxing, spending with more rules and 
regulations, and the jobs--let's get this right--are leaving. They're 
leaving this country, and they're going somewhere else. We aren't just 
losing the jobs. They're going somewhere else. We've asked this 
administration, we've asked this Democrat majority, Where are the jobs? 
Where are the jobs you promised? We've spent a lot of money. Where are 
the jobs?
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, this legislation--yeah, I would offer some 
assistance to small business, but I believe there are more effective 
ways to assist them during the economic crisis. For instance, not 
growing the size of government just to give them, small business, a 
loan. We should be doing things to improve small business by expensing, 
by permanently repealing the death tax, by extending tax relief, by 
improving regulatory reform, by not adding a cap-and-trade bill, and by 
golly, for sure not next week trying out and then passing a health care 
bill which will diminish American jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a lot to say. There is a lot of time today, but 
what we want is for the American people to become engaged in what's 
going on in Washington, and I think they're watching.
  I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question, a ``no'' 
vote on the rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to one of my 
colleagues, I do want to point out that while my good colleague from 
Texas (Mr. Sessions) has indeed stated many issues of concern to small 
businesses, that the amendment he proposed in the Rules Committee was 
nongermane and also violated the PAYGO rule. I suspect that's why my 
colleagues on the Democratic side voted against that particular 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise on the rule to support the underlying 
bill, H.R. 3854, the Small Business Financing and Investment Act of 
2009. This is an important piece of legislation that

[[Page H12072]]

will provide our country's small businesses with additional tools that 
they need during these uncertain economic times.
  I'm particularly pleased that the Rules Committee adopted an 
amendment that I authored and included it in Chairwoman Velazquez' 
manager's amendment. I want to thank her and commend her for her hard 
work on this important piece of legislation.
  The amendment that has been included gives priority to small 
businesses applying for stabilization loans in cities that have been 
hit especially hard by high levels of unemployment. For cities in my 
district and in the San Joaquin Valley, like Delano, Firebaugh and 
Mendota, that have over 30 percent unemployment, this will be an 
additional help for the struggling small businesses in those 
communities. But in communities throughout the country that are 
experiencing high, above-average unemployment levels, it will of course 
be very helpful.
  Overall, the legislation helps facilitate small businesses by 
lending, by bolstering vital programs within the SBA, the Small 
Business Administration. It also encourages small lenders to 
participate in programs to help rural businesses and veteran-owned 
businesses to secure loans, loans which have been difficult for them to 
obtain. This bill is expected to produce over $44 billion in lending to 
small businesses across the country, help create jobs and get our 
economy back on the path to recovery.
  I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to a very distinguished 
young gentleman who is an arch supporter of not only small business but 
who remembers that, if we will balance the budget, the free enterprise 
system will grow, the gentleman from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman. I doubt I will take 8 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I submitted an 
amendment to the Rules Committee that would have prevented the Small 
Business Administration from engaging in the practice of making direct 
loans to private small businesses. I should mention that this amendment 
was germane. There was no problem. It wasn't out of order, and it 
should have been made in order here today.
  The Capital Backstop Program, authorized by this legislation, would 
allow the SBA to make direct loans during a time of recession to small 
businesses that are denied loans by private lenders. In other words, 
the Federal Government will begin making loans using taxpayer dollars 
to finance small businesses that are unable to secure loans through the 
private sector.
  Now, let's back up just a bit.
  What the Small Business Administration does is it guarantees loans 
made by banks to businesses. In this case, if a bank won't lend money 
to a business even if that money is guaranteed by the Federal 
Government, then we might step in and lend money directly to that 
business. This is something we have not done in decades with the SBA.
  Ask yourself: If a bank out there won't lend money with Federal 
guarantees, is it the proper role of the Federal taxpayer to step in 
and lend money directly to that business?
  Maybe we ought to step back and say, There might be a problem here 
with that business. If a bank won't lend them money when that loan is 
guaranteed, why should we be lending them money? Why should we be 
exposing the taxpayer here?
  Government interference in the private sector is not the only cause 
for concern over this program. Not long ago, Congress undertook a 
series of studies and hearings on the government-run Reconstruction 
Finance Corporation, which was a relic of the Great Depression that 
engaged in direct lending to private entities. I will mention we 
haven't done this for a long time, but we did at one point lend money 
directly to businesses.
  The Depression had long since ended, but the RFC remained intact, and 
there were reports of corruption. One of the studies, called the Hoover 
Commission, submitted a report to the Congress in 1949. It warned--and 
I'll read directly from the report:
  Direct lending by the government to persons or enterprises opens up 
dangerous possibilities of waste and favoritism to individuals and 
enterprises. It invites political and private pressure or even 
corruption.
  This is what they found happened when we lent money directly to 
businesses in this fashion. Yet here we are today, willing to ignore 
our own reports in Congress, willing to ignore the lessons of the past, 
and willing to start engaging in this practice again.
  Again, this bill authorizes a program which, after a bank has passed 
on giving a loan to a business even after we step in and say we'll 
guarantee that loan, the bank says, No, we still won't do it. So we 
say, Okay. We'll put taxpayers on the hook.
  Now, why in the world wouldn't we allow an amendment today to have an 
up-or-down vote on whether to strike that provision of this new 
authorization? Why shouldn't we decide that here in this House? Why is 
it so important to rush this bill through without giving the Members of 
this body the opportunity to stand up and say, Hey, you know, we've 
produced reports in this Congress; we've had commissions which report 
that there is a problem when we have direct lending programs like this 
that, maybe, we ought to consider?
  No. The Rules Committee says, We don't even want you to vote on that. 
We don't want anything to do with it. We'll just not allow it on the 
floor. We'll have a structured rule, and you won't have an opportunity 
to vote on it.
  That simply isn't right, Mr. Speaker. I'm disappointed that we won't 
be able to debate the merits on this.
  I would ask that the Members of this body vote ``no'' on this rule. 
Go back to the Rules Committee. Allow a rule to come to the floor that 
allows the Members of this body to actually exercise our franchise 
here. When we see a program that might have a problem, let's at least 
have an up-or-down vote and at least be able to decide if we should be 
doing this or not instead of just turning a blind eye and saying that 
the reports that this Congress has produced in the past and that the 
studies of the commissions that we've appointed don't matter because we 
know better now.
  So, Mr. Speaker, let's vote down this rule, if we can't change this 
bill, to prohibit the direct lending to small businesses that banks 
won't even lend to after we guarantee those loans. If that provision 
isn't removed, we ought to vote down the bill.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the 
gentleman who just spoke does have one amendment in order under the 
rule.
  I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Small Business Committee, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule to consider 
the Small Business Financing and Investment Act.
  This bill improves access to capital for small businesses, which is a 
vital step towards growing our economy and creating jobs. Time after 
time, I hear from small business owners in western Pennsylvania saying 
they would like to hire more employees and would like to expand their 
services, but they cannot acquire the loans necessary no matter how 
good their credit scores.
  I would like to highlight a provision that I drafted that this rule 
makes in order as part of the manager's amendment to this bill.
  My provision directs the New Market Venture Capital companies to 
prioritize providing financing to veteran-owned small businesses in 
low-income areas. The New Market Venture Capital program encourages 
equity investments in small businesses in low-income areas by providing 
tax credits, and it is just the kind of targeted program that America 
needs to recover from economic hardship.
  This provision I added, with the support of my colleagues, gives 
priority to the heroes of America's Armed Forces as they apply for 
funding in areas that qualify for the New Market Venture Capital 
program in order to start new lives following their service to this 
country. We can never fully repay our veterans, but with this 
provision, we can honor them by offering new opportunities to use their 
strength and experience to create jobs in communities that need them 
the most.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the bill.

[[Page H12073]]

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform my colleague that I 
do not anticipate having any additional speakers at this time, and I 
would allow the gentlewoman to run down any time she has with the 
knowledge that, before she would close, I would do the same.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. I thank the gentlewoman from Maine for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do rise in strong support of the rule and of the 
underlying bill, the Small Business Financing and Investment Act. This 
bill couldn't be more timely. Many of the provisions that we passed in 
the American Recovery Act to expand the opportunity of small business 
loan programs are about to expire.
  I know, in my district in western Wisconsin, I haven't been on the 
phone more often than in the past year talking to small business owners 
who are struggling to get credit in order to keep their doors open. In 
fact, earlier this week, I was on the phone with the owner of a small 
manufacturing business that makes boats. He said that he has got 
customers lining up who are willing to make purchases of those boats, 
but because lines of credit are not available to them, they can't move 
forward and close the deals. This has a tremendous ripple effect 
throughout our entire economy.
  I would submit to my colleagues here today that, unless we figure out 
a way of freeing up the capital markets so that they are more free-
flowing and are more efficient, especially for small businesses and 
farmers, this will be a very difficult recovery to endure. That's why 
the Small Business Financing and Investment Act is important. We are 
expanding and extending the 7(a) and 504 loan programs, not to mention 
expanding the ARC program, as well as the Working Capital Loan Fund.
  I want to just take a moment and commend the regional director of the 
Small Business Administration in my area, Eric Ness, with whom I've 
teamed up in the last 6 months to hold multiple small business forums 
throughout western Wisconsin, which help inform small business owners 
and farmers about the availability of the SBA programs, as well as the 
local lenders, so that they do know what's available and how it works.
  Now, my good friend and colleague from the State of Texas--and he is 
my friend--had a few mischaracterizations that I want to clarify. As 
President Reagan is fond of saying, facts can be a stubborn thing. The 
facts are these:
  When we passed the American Recovery Act, we did have accelerated 
depreciation and expensing for small businesses in it. We had a net 
operating loss carryback for small businesses so that the profits that 
they took in previous years could be immediately written down over the 
last couple of years when they were suffering losses. This has worked 
to have an immediate cash infusion into those small businesses. What 
we're doing here today is directly beneficial to small businesses in 
trying to free up these capital markets that are not working well. 
These are proven programs that we clearly need to extend and expand 
upon.
  I commend Chairwoman Velazquez of the Small Business Committee, and I 
commend every member on that committee for the attention and the energy 
that they have devoted to the plight of small business owners.
  In my region of the world, in my district, I know, unless small 
businesses have the ability to keep their doors open--to make payroll, 
to make investments, and to expand jobs--we're not going to see the 
type of job growth that is required to recover from the worst economic 
recession since the Great Depression.
  I would encourage my colleagues to support this rule and to support 
the underlying bill. Show your support for small businesses, support 
that they need today.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, over the last few months, the American 
people have written and called their Members of Congress. They've 
attended town hall meetings. They've been in the media, on the news, in 
the newspapers, and they have asked that all Members of Congress read 
their bills before they vote on them. The American people are outraged.
  That's why, today, we will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the 
previous question, because we believe that this process is closed and 
not open to amendments that would need to be done, which the American 
people are asking for, including small businesses. We can see what's 
getting ready to happen next week when we handle the health care bill. 
So I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we 
can amend the rule and can allow the House to consider an open bill for 
H. Res. 544, a bipartisan bill by my colleagues Representatives Baird 
and Culberson. They have gathered together to make sure that all of the 
bills of interest would be allowed to be read for 72 hours.
  I also ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record an amendment and 
extraneous materials prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I want to again highlight what we 
are considering here today.
  This is a bill that will support small businesses when they need it 
most--access to the financing they need to survive, to grow, to expand, 
and to create the jobs that will drive our economy. I know this is 
essential as I have heard from businesses throughout the 125 towns in 
my congressional district.
  In fact, I have owned small businesses for most of my adult life. For 
many years, I owned a business that sold our products around the 
country and grew to employ 10 people in a town with just 350 residents. 
I currently own an inn and a restaurant that uses produce grown in my 
community and seafood caught locally. I know what it is to be the last 
person to lock the doors at the end of the day, to meet a payroll, and 
to argue with the bank about borrowing money to expand.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been lucky to own a small business which has been 
an important part of my community and which has provided jobs, but I 
never would have been able to survive without access to the investment 
the business has needed to grow.
  When facing the economic climate that we currently do, it is vital 
that we do everything in our power to support the small businesses that 
create 64 percent of the new jobs in this country, that comprise more 
than 99 percent of all employer companies, and that are the backbone of 
the communities that we live in.
  This bill is an important step in supporting those small businesses--
with $44 billion in lending that will help save or create 1.3 million 
jobs each year and by ensuring that small businesses have the necessary 
capital to stay in business and to expand as the economy recovers. This 
bill is more than simply an investment in small business; it is an 
investment in American job growth.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

            Amendment to H. Res. 875 Offered by Mr. Sessions

       At the end of the resolution, insert the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 4. On the third legislative day after the adoption of 
     this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention 
     of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the 
     consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 554) amending the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives to require that 
     legislation and conference reports be available on the 
     Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and 
     for other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption 
     without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
     question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Rules; (2) an amendment, if offered by the 
     Minority Leader or his designee and if printed in that 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at least one legislative 
     day prior to its consideration, which shall be in order 
     without intervention of any point of order or demand for 
     division of the question, shall be considered as read and 
     shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit

[[Page H12074]]

     which shall not contain instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX 
     shall not apply to the consideration of House Resolution 554.
                                  ____

       (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 form 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.

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield back the balance of my time and move 
the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________