[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 125 (Thursday, September 16, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7144-S7158]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SMALL BUSINESS LENDING FUND ACT OF 2010
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 5297, which the clerk will
report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 5297) to create the Small Business Lending
Fund Program to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to make
capital investments in eligible institutions in order to
increase the availability of credit for small businesses, to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax
incentives for small business job creation, and for other
purposes.
Pending:
Reid (for Baucus/Landrieu) amendment No. 4594, in the
nature of a substitute.
Reid (for Nelson (FL)) modified amendment No. 4595 (to
amendment No. 4594), to exempt certain amounts subject to
other information reporting from the information reporting
provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Reid (for Johanns) modified amendment No. 4596 (to
amendment No. 4595), to repeal the expansion of information
reporting requirements for payments of $600 or more to
corporations.
Reid amendment No. 4597 (to the language proposed to be
stricken by amendment No. 4594), to change the enactment
date.
Reid amendment No. 4598 (to amendment No. 4597), of a
perfecting nature.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Theodore Roosevelt once said:
Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance
to work hard at work worth doing.
Americans prize hard work. We value a day's pay earned at honest
labor, and that is one reason the great recession that started in 2008
has been particularly hard on Americans. The great recession robbed 8
million Americans of one of the best prizes that life offers--their
work.
That is why for 2 years now we have been working hard to create jobs.
We worked to create jobs by passing the Recovery Act at the beginning
of last year. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that the
Recovery Act ``increased the number of full-time equivalent jobs by 2
million to 4.8 million compared with what would have occurred.''
We worked to create jobs by passing the HIRE Act in March of this
year. The Treasury Department found ``an estimated 4.5 million workers
who have been unemployed for 8 weeks or longer were hired by employers
who are eligible for the HIRE Act payroll tax exemption.''
We have been working to create jobs with this small business bill
before us. We have been working to pass this bill since June. That is
right, since June. Here it is September. Finally we are going to get
this bill passed--I hope.
The economists tell us that this small business jobs bill could help
small businesses create as many as half a million new jobs.
This small business jobs bill would provide small businesses with
access to capital. It would create incentives for investment. It would
support innovation and entrepreneurship. This small business jobs bill
would give small businesses $12 billion in tax cuts. It would increase
small business lending. It would help small business owners get private
capital to finance expansion and hire new workers. It would reward
entrepreneurs for investing in new small businesses. It would help Main
Street businesses compete with big companies. All these things would
help small businesses to create as many as half a million more jobs.
The Joint Committee on Taxation has prepared a technical explanation
of the bill which expresses the Finance Committee's legislative intent
behind the tax provisions. It is available on the Joint Committee's Web
site.
This small business jobs bill has been hard work. For something this
common sense, it has been harder work than we thought it would be. Some
folks on the other side of the aisle have thrown obstacles in the way.
Some have thrown in our way pretty much everything but the kitchen
sink. Today they are throwing the kitchen sink in our way as well.
Today, before we can vote on this targeted small business jobs bill,
some on the other side have resorted to the last refuge of delay. They
are proposing motions to suspend the rules of the Senate. They are
throwing two more votes in the way.
But in case anyone is taking these last-minute antics at face value,
let me set the record straight. These motions to suspend the rules are
not serious legislating. These motions are not the way the Senate
enacts law. We do not enact law by suspending the rules.
Rather, these motions are the way that folks score points. These
motions are the way folks try to embarrass other people. These motions,
quite frankly, are stunts.
If you take them at face value, these motions address two tax
provisions that expired at the end of last year. They are two examples
of what folks around here call tax extenders.
Here is the irony: We have been trying to extend these and other
expiring tax provisions for months. Yes, literally for months. We took
up the extenders bill in March, and we have been trying again and again
to pass a package of all the expiring provisions pretty much all year
since then.
To make it entirely clear, I will try again today. Before the vote on
the motions to suspend the rules, I will ask unanimous consent to take
up and pass the full set of expiring provisions. In a few minutes, I
will ask unanimous consent to take up and pass a paid-for, responsible
set of expiring provisions. One way or another, Congress will address
these expiring provisions. We always do. We will do so again this year.
But no one should be misled. These motions to suspend the rules today
are not serious legislating. They are merely two more in a series of
delays thrown up in front of this bill. We should reject these delaying
tactics. We should get on with passing this bill to create small
business jobs.
Creating jobs is what people sent us here to do, and now is the time
to do it.
Thanks to Tuesday's vote, we are finally bringing this debate to a
close. It is certainly time. It is time to get this work done. It is
time to help small businesses. It is time to help create up to half a
million new jobs. This bill has been hard work, but this bill is work
worth doing. So let's bring this debate to a close. Let's reject the
transparent efforts to delay some have thrown in the way, and let's
target this targeted tax relief to small businesses today.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, sometime today the majority leader will
file cloture on the motion to proceed to the Defense authorization
bill, setting up a vote for next week on this important legislation.
Under ordinary circumstances, this would be a straightforward,
noncontroversial vote that could unite the two parties on a matter
related to our common defense. But not this year.
This year, Democrats would rather use this bill to manufacture
controversy. Worse still, in their determination to meet their own
campaign promises ahead of the upcoming election, Democrats have
decided to put their own political interests ahead of
[[Page S7145]]
the collective judgment of our military service chiefs who are still in
the midst of a study about whether don't ask, don't tell can be
repealed without hurting combat readiness. But this should not surprise
anyone. For nearly 2 years now, Democrats have done their own thing.
Americans have been asking Democrats for nearly 2 years to focus on the
economy and jobs, and what they have gotten instead is one costly
government-driven job after another that kills jobs and hurts the
economy.
When it comes to matters of national defense, Democrats in Washington
have established a clear pattern of making political decisions first
and then analyzing the problem later. Whether it was the decision to
close Gitmo before figuring out what to do with the terrorists who were
housed there, to deny our intelligence community the ability to
interrogate terrorists, an artificial timeline for withdrawal in
Afghanistan or this latest decision to use a Defense authorization bill
to move ahead with repeal of don't ask, don't tell before hearing back
from the service chiefs, Democrats have shot first and asked questions
later. In other words, they put their own ideological goals ahead of
everything else.
I remind my colleagues we are fighting two wars and that our
volunteer force doesn't ask for much. They ask that they be well
trained, well equipped, that their families be cared for, and that we
meet their selfless sacrifice with dignity and respect. This bill
should be an easy one. We should be united and give our troops a
responsible defense policy they need and then the Defense
appropriations bill they need--without strings, without games, and save
the politics for the campaign trail.
Another bill the Democrats have made needlessly political is the
small business bill which we will also be voting on later today.
Senator Hatch has offered an amendment that would fully extend the R&D
tax credit, an amendment the Democrats blocked just before the August
recess but which the President now appears to support. We will also
have a chance to extend the biodiesel tax credit through the Grassley
amendment. This amendment is essential to keeping producers
competitive, but because of the majority's partisan tactics this credit
has expired.
It is my hope our friends on the other side will now join the
President and the Republicans in supporting these two important pieces
of job-creating legislation. Unfortunately, the Democrats whole game
plan over the last year and a half and through today is to tick as many
items as possible off the liberal wish list while they still have a
chance.
The American people think our friends on the other side should have
spent a little more time worrying about 10 percent unemployment rather
than legislative sideshows. If Senate Democrats truly want to do
something for the private sector jobs in this country, they should
support the bipartisan R&D tax credit of Senator Hatch and the
biodiesel tax credit of Senator Grassley and then work with Republicans
after that on preventing the looming $1 trillion tax hike Democratic
leaders have so far ignored.
It is time our friends on the other side got serious about jobs and
the economy. It is time they put the liberal wish list on the shelf and
focused on the priorities of the American people.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we have a tax bill before us that is
supposed to help small business because small business creates 70
percent of the new jobs. The President says that. I think we have to
look at the background of the high unemployment rate, particularly why
it is staying up there--maybe not why it got up there but why is it
still there.
I spoke last night about a lot of uncertainty that comes because of
the cap-and-trade bill, the bank regulatory reform bill, the health
care reform bill, the biggest tax increase in the history of the
country coming up this fall if we do not intervene and prevent the
biggest tax increase, and a lot of other issues out there that tell us
how uncertain it is, what Congress is going to do. That uncertainty
keeps the entrepreneurs of America from opening up and creating jobs.
If you want to quantify how they are tight-fisted about the situation
right now, the last figure I saw was about $2.1 trillion in cash in the
treasuries of major corporations of America. They are not making any
money by storing that cash, but they do not know what sort of a future
this Congress is going to give them, so they are very guarded on any
moves they make. Then we have things such as shutting down all the oil
drilling--unemploying tens of thousands of people. Then what I am going
to visit with you about is the fact we did not pass the biodiesel tax
credit December 31 last year when it sunset and that industry is shut
down and 20,000 jobs have been lost. It is ironic to me that we spent
weeks on a bill that is before the Senate, as legitimate as it is, to
create jobs in small business, when, frankly, there are a lot of
negative things going on in the Congress of the United States that
cause people to be laid off or, because of uncertainty, not to be hired
back. I wish to speak about the biodiesel industry.
As we are faced today with a 9.6-percent unemployment rate, I have a
solution that will create 20,000 jobs almost overnight. That solution
is to extend the biodiesel tax credit today. This tax credit expired
December 31, 2009. This democratically controlled Congress has failed
to extend it, even though, on several occasions, I and other Members on
this side of the aisle have taken action in that direction.
The Democratic leadership claims, as the President does, that they
want more green jobs--and I am in favor of that. I am the author of the
Wind Energy Tax Credit, as an example. I have been a backer of ethanol.
I have been a backer of biomass and this biodiesel tax credit. So there
are plenty of opportunities to show that we, on this side of the aisle,
support the President wanting to create green jobs. If the President
and the Democratic leadership want to do that, they have not acted to
prevent the loss of green jobs in the biodiesel industry.
The biodiesel industry has lost tens of thousands of jobs as a result
of this neglect. It would be nice if the Democratic leadership's
rhetoric met with reality.
I have twice sought to have the biodiesel tax credit simply passed
through the Senate by unanimous consent. However, both times my request
was objected to by those on the other side of the aisle. Meanwhile,
these biodiesel plants in Iowa and throughout the country continue to
lay off workers. In fact, most of them are just plain shut down because
the democratically controlled Congress has not extended the biodiesel
tax credit.
I made a speech similar to this in December, when we were on the
health care reform bill. I said: Can't we find some time to pass these
tax extenders so we do not let them lapse--and all these question
marks. That was 8 months ago, 9 months ago. But somehow we thought last
December, since Congress had not been in session on Christmas Eve since
1895, we ought to be in session once in 115 years--or because we just
had to pass this health care reform bill before the end of the year
because it takes effect by 2014, we couldn't find a little bit of time
to keep 22,000 people employed in the biodiesel industry. So we asked
for those consents and we did not get them. These workers are laid off
because the democratically controlled Congress has not extended this
tax credit.
This is a simple and noncontroversial tax extension that will likely
reinstate 20,000 more jobs nationwide and at least 2,000 within my
State of Iowa. By the way, this is not controversial, and there are 71
other tax provisions that expired December 31, 2009, and I don't know
that any of those are controversial. So the biodiesel industry has lost
its jobs. These jobs have fallen victim to a tactic used by the
Democratic leadership to hold this popular and noncontroversial tax
provision hostage in an attempt to advance political objectives.
[[Page S7146]]
Just last February I worked out a bipartisan compromise on tax
extenders--all of them--with Chairman Baucus to extend the expired tax
provisions, including biodiesel.
However, the Senate Democratic leadership decided to put partisanship
ahead of the job security for tens of thousands of biodiesel workers by
destroying the compromise to which Chairman Baucus and I agreed. So I
am here again to try to put tens of thousands of people back to work
producing clean and renewable fuel that everybody in this Congress says
they support, and the green jobs from these productions.
There is a difference between a biodiesel tax credit and the other
tax provisions in the tax extender bill that has stalled in the Senate.
The failure to extend the biodiesel tax credit before it expired has
ground the industry to a halt because biodiesel is now more expensive
than gasoline. Gasoline stations, knowing they cannot sell biodiesel,
do not buy it, and biodiesel producers have, therefore, stopped
producing biodiesel because they have nobody to sell it to.
Consequently, the layoffs.
While the other tax provisions are important, most are not as time
sensitive as biodiesel because they are not transactional tax
incentives like the biodiesel tax credit but, instead, are based on a
taxable year. Unfortunately, now it is clear the larger extenders bill
has stalled for the time being. We need to pass the biodiesel tax
credit separately.
The last time I sought unanimous consent, which was the second time I
did it, one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle objected.
The objection said something like, the biodiesel tax credit was part of
a larger extenders bill they were working on.
Now that the tax extenders bill is stalled, the Senate needs to pass
the biodiesel tax credit by itself. I ask my colleagues to vote yes to
waive the rules and put 20,000 biodiesel workers back to work.
I move to suspend rule XXII, paragraph 2, for the purposes of
proposing and considering amendment No. 4433, which is at the desk.
Having said my part, I think before Senator Hatch speaks--he will speak
about a very popular tax extender that needs to be extended and on
which I do not know that there is one single disagreement. It is a
noncontroversial provision but has still been languishing here for the
last 9 months, and losing jobs as a result of it, at the very same time
we are trying to create jobs through a bill that is before the Senate.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague from Iowa. I appreciate his
leadership on the Finance Committee and the good work he has done over
all of these years.
Mr. President, in accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the
Senate, I move to suspend rule XXII, paragraph 2, for the purpose of
proposing and considering the following motion to commit, which is at
the desk with instructions to H.R. 5297. I move to commit H.R. 5297 to
the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to
the Senate with changes to include a permanent extension of the
research tax credit.
This motion is a simple one. It is a motion to suspend the rules to
allow for the consideration of the motion to commit the bill before us
to the Finance Committee, from which both Senator Grassley and I sit,
with the specific instruction to add to the bill a permanent research
tax credit.
It is a simple motion, but I believe it is a significant moment. The
American people understand that there is a desperate need for jobs and
growth, and they have heard that Washington is partisan, broken, and
unable to respond to their genuine needs. Just last week they heard
that President Obama proposed a permanent research credit as an
additional step ``to grow the economy and help businesses spur
hiring.''
Well, we can address all three with my simple motion: Make the
research credit permanent, do it in a bipartisan spirit, and give job
creation the jump start it badly needs. It seems like a pretty good
idea to me, but the track record so far is very disappointing. Making
the credit permanent is exactly what Senator Baucus, the distinguished
chairman of the Finance Committee, and I proposed to do in the bill we
introduced last year.
We have been introducing this same idea for many years now. Yet the
Senate does not seem to be able to do anything more than extend the
credit on a very temporary basis. In recent weeks, I have been trying
to add a research credit extension to the small business lending bill
that is before us today. Unfortunately, my efforts have been in vain
because the leader has filled the amendment tree, and I have not had
the opportunity to offer such an amendment to this bill.
Frankly, the way this Senate has been run, there has been very much
to criticize. This is supposed to be the most important deliberative
body in the world. Yet almost every bill that has any controversy to it
at all, they bring it to the floor, fill up the tree, forbid the
minority to have any chance to have any amendments, and in the process
stultify the legislation.
It is easy to see why adding a research tax credit incentive to this
bill is a high priority. Obviously, President Obama thinks it should
have a high priority. He was very specific last week in making it clear
that this is a step we should take to grow the economy and to help
businesses spur hiring, bringing people onboard to work. Here we have a
small business tax bill that has been proposed by the majority party.
Yet it does not include a very important provision that has long
enjoyed bipartisan support by most Members of the Senate. Now we have
the President of the United States specifically calling for this
provision to be enacted to grow the economy and help businesses spur
hiring, for which I give him great credit.
This, too, I believe is the underlying purpose of this small business
bill. What is strange is my pleadings for this provision to be added to
this bill have so far fallen on deaf ears. Therefore, I have had to
resort to this procedural motion to suspend the rules in order for this
provision to be added to the bill.
Since the parliamentary tree is tied up and we do not even have a
chance for amendments, I could not bring it up as an amendment other
than this way. I would have thought this would have been unnecessary.
After last week's proposal by the President, I would have expected that
Members of his own party might have acted to include the research
credit extension on the first possible legislative vehicle. This bill
is that vehicle.
But, no, this bill is moving forward toward passage in the Senate
with nary a word from the majority about the provision the President
proposed last week. He said it was important. He wants it. It is
something we ought to do. Above all, it would be bipartisan, one of the
few things we have been able to do in a bipartisan way since this
administration took over.
Perhaps most of my colleagues on the other side were on the beach and
away from the television and the newspapers and did not see or know
about the President's call for a permanent research credit. For those
of my colleagues who might not have heard about the President's call
for a permanent research credit, let me share a couple of facts that
he, our President, put forward.
He said a permanent extension of the research credit is ``a win-win--
encouraging job growth and investment now that will pay off with
stronger economic growth in the future.'' Again, I could not agree more
with the President.
President Obama also said economic growth is the single best way to
bring down the deficit. There are some things our President says that
make a terrific amount of sense. This is one of them because this bill
before us today is supposed to be all about job creation and growing
the economy. Because the President has renewed his call for a permanent
extension of the very important research credit, it seems to me this
motion would be unnecessary. I would have thought, as I said before,
that the leadership would have taken care of adding this item to this
bill.
I think most everyone will agree that this might very well be the
only tax bill that even has a remote chance of passage and enactment
before the election next month. Surely the majority leader does not
plan to simply ignore
[[Page S7147]]
the President's call for passing a permanent extension of the research
credit.
Well, since he either forgot to add this priority or decided to
ignore the President, I am offering this motion as a way to remind him
and a way to allow it to happen before this bill comes up for a final
vote. I urge all of my colleagues to consider the implications of this
country dropping to a second tier industrial power.
Our economy has been, both short term and long term, filled with
problems. In the short run, we are not producing the number of new jobs
we need. Our economy is not growing nearly as rapidly as we would all
like. It is not generating nearly enough moneys or enough revenue to
the Treasury. In the longer run, we are facing some severe
competitiveness issues with our U.S. firms in competition with foreign
firms. The Federal Government has, unfortunately, saddled them with the
high taxation, more onerous regulations, and an unfriendly business
climate. We have the second highest corporate taxes in the world.
In the high-technology area, along with other sectors of our economy
that are even more global in nature, we have even more difficult
challenges. Our international tax rules are very inhospitable to U.S.-
based firms. This is one of the reasons the United States no longer
dominates the list of having the largest companies in the world. In
fact, in 1980, of the 50 largest companies in the world, we had 39 of
them headquartered in the United States. Today we have just 16. It is
because of these stupid rules that have been put in place, these stupid
tax approaches that we must change if we want to do something about
jobs in our society today.
One particular danger is that many of our trading partners have
enacted very generous tax incentives in an attempt to lure away
research and development from our country to theirs. There was a time
not very long ago when the United States was considered the only real
place in the world where companies wanted to conduct their research and
development.
We had the best research scientists and the best facilities in the
world. That time is no more. We can no longer make this boast. Many
other places offer world-class facilities and scientists just as well
trained and experienced as ours, many of whom have been trained right
here, and we push them out of our country because we will not expand
our H1B immigration rules. Talk about stupidity.
Now they also offer tax incentives to companies that are far superior
to our country's tax incentives for our companies and for companies
overseas. In fact, at this time we can offer no tax incentives for U.S.
research and development because the credit expired last December. The
research tax credit is a provision that has been in the tax law since
1981. It has been extended by Congress more than a dozen times.
This credit has wide and deep bipartisan support in this body as has
been demonstrated numerous times. More importantly, however, is the
fact that the research tax credit is a vital incentive to business
enterprises of all sizes in this Nation.
In my home State of Utah, there are hundreds of small high-technology
companies, companies and firms, that spend a high percentage of their
revenue on research and development. In fact, Utah has more than 5,000
technology companies. Every State wants to attract companies such as
these because their jobs are generally better paying private sector
jobs than most private sector jobs.
On average, high-tech jobs pay 69 percent more. This R&D is vital to
the future survival of these firms. No high-tech company can afford to
ignore research that wants to be around next year or maybe even in the
next quarter. The research credit is, in my thinking, the most urgent
and important to our economy, our competitiveness, and to those
hundreds of smaller high-technology companies in Utah.
We have before us on the Senate floor a small business bill. This
bill is designed to strengthen our small businesses, which most of us
acknowledge comprise the strongest component of our job creation engine
in this economy to help them to do what they obviously are not doing
very well at this time, and that is to grow and bring on more new
workers. The tax portion of this small business lending bill is a good
package that I support.
I think we do need to pass the tax provisions in the bill before us.
However, it would be a grave mistake for us to think this is all we
need to do to solve job-creation problems in our economy--far from it.
We should be adding many provisions to this small business tax bill.
These include the extension of the tax relief provisions passed in 2001
and 2003. That tax relief is important. However, since that is the
subject of an intense partisan debate in the Senate right now, it does
not seem possible. It seems reasonable, however, that we could all
agree to add the most prominent tax provision the President is calling
for--a bipartisan provision, the research and development tax credit--
and make it permanent. It has wide and deep support on both sides of
the aisle, here and in the House. Republicans are saying yes to the
President on this. It is the members of his own party who seem to be
saying no, even though I think most of them will vote for this if it
has a chance to be heard and voted upon.
As Congress tries to address the job situation, we need to keep in
mind that one of the best things we can do to retain and create good
jobs in the United States is to incentivize research activities. One of
the best ways of doing this is to ensure we have an effective tax
policy to keep research here in our own country. Unfortunately, many of
our trading partners now have strong tax inducements for companies to
perform research overseas. Research and development jobs are high-
paying, and they are very desirable jobs.
Moreover, R&D very often leads to other kinds of economic development
and the creation of even more jobs. We simply cannot afford to lose our
lead in research by not keeping the United States as the premier
location in the world for research and development. Having a robust
research credit is key to this. The President understands it is the
key. I surely hope my colleagues will wake up and help make this happen
before it is too late and we have to work to get back what once was
ours.
My understanding is that some might go along with this, but they want
to increase taxes on oil and gas. They also want to do some other very
obnoxious things that would be difficult for which to get bipartisan
support.
We know that business in this country is having a very difficult time
right now. My understanding is that they may want to add a carried
interest provision, which would probably put a lot of venture capital
funds out of business and would drive a lot of people out of business
and maybe into bankruptcy. We simply cannot support that. We can
support--and I think we would have almost 100 percent of the votes here
in the Senate--the research tax credit. I believe it would show great
bipartisanship at a time when it is needed. I think it would even
benefit our Democratic colleagues to work with us on this.
But there are things in this underlying bill that really are very
difficult to vote for--one part of it is, in the eyes of many, a new
mini-TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program. We have seen how bad the
last one worked. I hate to see us go further down that path when we
could, in a bipartisan way, resolve these problems.
Last spring, four of us on the Finance Committee worked out an
extenders package. We worked diligently together. We agreed on how it
should be done. It was bipartisan in nature. I believe my friends on
the other side initially agreed to it because it would have gotten at
least 95 votes in the Senate. It could have been done early enough to
create a lot of jobs this year. Then all of a sudden it became a
partisan exercise again.
Time after time, if the Democrats can get one Republican to go with
them, they call it bipartisan. I guess one could say that, but that is
really stretching the term bipartisanship, especially when I think we
could have had virtually 100 percent, or at least 95 votes for the
extenders package we had worked out.
It is amazing to me how difficult it is to work together around here,
especially when we want to and especially when we can come up with
programs and legislation to which virtually everybody in this body
would agree. It is almost like an arrogance of power: We are just going
to teach those Republicans that we are not going to do what
[[Page S7148]]
they think is good. I hesitate to say it, but I think that had we had
more bipartisanship around here over the last year and a half, we would
be a lot further along. This economy would be back in a much stronger
way, and there would have been a lot of jobs created.
If we are just going to keep playing partisan games on these very
important bills on which we should all agree, then it stultifies jobs
and the economy. I think it makes this administration look bad. In the
process, it creates a lot of angst and anger throughout the whole
country.
We would have had this done; it would have been done early this year
had it not been for partisanship, in my opinion. There are things to be
partisan about. There are things on which both sides disagree
vociferously. That is the way this body works. We should go after each
other on these matters. But there are some things on which we can all
agree.
When the President comes out and says we need a permanent research
tax credit, after all of the difficulties we have had, one would think
our colleagues on the other side would grab Republicans and run with
it. We could get it done, as we have always done in the past. There is
no certainty with the current research tax credit, or the one that
expired last year. Companies cannot plan for the future because we have
to reinstate this all the time. Sometimes it is late, and even if we
make it retroactive, it is not as helpful as it would be. Making it
permanent would be a tremendous boost to scientific companies in this
country and all other companies where innovation can occur. We have
seen great results from the research and development tax credit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). The time of the Senator has
expired.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, this is a motion to suspend rule XXII,
paragraph 2, for the purpose of proposing and considering a motion to
commit.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I know we will be voting soon on these
issues and moving forward on the small business legislation. That is
what we are really here to do today, to pass legislation that is going
to help Main Street. This is a bill that is long overdue. I know once a
train is leaving the station, once legislation has cleared the hurdles
and is going to pass, a lot of people want to then add other things
onto that legislation. Those are some of the issues being discussed
here this morning. But the important thing is not to hold up
legislation for small businesses one more day. Let's not delay the need
that Main Street has to get access to capital to help small businesses
grow our economy.
In Washington State, we have lost thousands of jobs. Yet if every
small business in Washington State had the ability to hire one person
as a result of getting access to capital, we would nearly wipe out our
unemployment since this recession. It is critical for us not to delay
this legislation any further, to move it ahead, and to make sure we are
getting capital into those small businesses.
I know some of my colleagues have critiqued this legislation, saying
they will not support it. I know we have had at least two Members on
the other side who support this legislation moving forward. So, yes, I
do call that bipartisan. I appreciate the fact that those two
legislators had enough courage to say this was important to their
constituents. In the August recess, they listened to small businesses,
and they knew this was important to get done.
There is a lot of misinformation out there in the eleventh hour about
how perhaps certain people weren't supportive of the legislation. My
colleague from Oregon has a list that keeps growing every single day.
It is now four or five pages of different organizations that support
moving forward on this legislation. I haven't heard any of them
advocating that we hold it up one more day or send it back to the
committee to add more things to it. No doubt the discussion we are
having about the extenders package of other policies should happen. If
we get more bipartisan support, we will get those things done and we
won't have them held up.
But if we go back to this basic issue we are trying to address, it is
really about the implosion that happened on Wall Street that took Main
Street down with it and about correcting that and moving forward today
in a way that will help small business help our economy recover.
I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will look at this
bill overall, look at the tax credits given to small businesses, the
fact that the depreciation rates in investment in new manufacturing and
equipment can help small businesses be competitive, and that they will
look at the expansion of the SBA programs that were enthusiastically
endorsed by lots of different organizations--by banks, by lenders, by
individual businesses--because they know that program that was enhanced
in January to help give more flexibility was a huge success. When it
expired in June, we saw a falloff in the type of investment and job
creation we need to have.
This is about a philosophy. If my colleagues think our economy is
about helping those huge businesses at the top or from Wall Street and
that is somehow going to trickle down, then let's just keep doing
business as usual. But if Members believe this is about helping small
businesses grow, which is 75 percent of job growth in America, then
let's get this bill off the floor today and get this legislation
passed.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. CASEY. Madam President, today, passage of essential legislation
to support job-creating business investment was relegated to callous
political brinkmanship. For months, funding for the biodiesel and the
research and development, R & D, tax credits have been stalled due to
Republican opposition. Just in June, I voted three times to fund the
credits--on the 17th, again on the 24th, and finally on the 30th. Each
time, every Republican voted against the bill that contained these and
other essential extensions. Then today, as we neared completion of
another essential piece of legislation, the small business jobs bill,
motions regarding biodiesel and R & D were presented by Senators
Grassley and Hatch as a way to slow down progress on the legislation at
hand.
Let me be clear--we must extend these credits. R & D credits have
long been viewed as lifeblood for American innovation and job creation.
While less known, the biodiesel credits also provide essential economic
assistance to clean energy small businesses. Without a doubt businesses
suffer due to our inability to work together. A business in Erie, PA,
illustrates this point. Hero BX has struggled this year to keep its
production facility open without the biodiesel credit, putting 40 jobs
on the line.
I want to provide Hero BX and other businesses across the
Commonwealth and beyond with the tools needed to compete and survive.
Senator Baucus has reintroduced the tax extender package, including the
R & D and biodiesel credits. I encourage all of my colleagues to
support the bill. This is not about allowing a victory in an election
year. Passage is about providing companies the incentives to keep and
create jobs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I think allocated time is about to
expire.
My good friend, the Senator from Iowa, talked about how good it would
be if we removed uncertainty from the law. The unanimous consent I am
about to propound would give Senators the opportunity to remove much
uncertainty. This unanimous consent request, if agreed to, would extend
the biodiesel tax credit the Senator from Iowa spoke about. It would
also extend the R&D tax credit the Senator from Utah talked about. This
consent request would do so completely paid for. The Senator from Iowa
spoke about his wanting to move the tax extenders for 8 months. The
unanimous consent request I am about to propound will provide for
extending all of the tax extenders.
The consent request will allow Members on the other side of the aisle
to get what they say they want; that is, to remove uncertainty in the
law and get these provisions passed.
Unanimous-Consent Request--H.R. 4849
As I mentioned a few moments ago, I now intend to ask unanimous
consent to take up and pass the full set of expiring provisions. So I
ask unanimous
[[Page S7149]]
consent that H.R. 4849, the Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax
Act of 2010, be discharged from the Finance Committee; that the Senate
proceed to the bill; that the Baucus substitute amendment extending
expiring provisions that is at the desk be considered and agreed to;
that the bill, as amended, be read a third time, passed, and the motion
to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating
thereto be printed in the Record, as if read; and that this all occur
with no further intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I reserve the right to object, and I will
object, because this side wants an open amendment process. We are tired
of every time a bill comes to the floor in the greatest deliberative
body in the world, they tie up the parliamentary tree so we can't have
honest amendments.
Secondly, the approach of my dear friend and colleague, whom I have
worked with all of these years on the research tax credit, is not
permanent and would not make it permanent, which is what the President
has asked for.
I object to the unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The debate time has expired.
Under the previous order, amendments Nos. 4595, 4596, 4597, and 4598
are withdrawn.
Motion to Suspend
Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes of debate
equally divided prior to a vote on the motion to suspend rule XXII
offered by the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley.
Who yields time? If no time is yielded, the time will be charged
equally.
The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I don't see the Senator from Iowa here.
It is his amendment to suspend the rules.
Let me say once again this motion to suspend the rules of the Senate
is not serious legislating. It is simply an attempt to delay the
passage of the small business bill.
The biodiesel tax credit is another tax extender. We will address
these expiring provisions. We will also do so in a fiscally responsible
manner. This motion today is another delay to passage of the underlying
small business bill which is before us at this moment. So we reject
this delay and we reject this motion so we can get on with passing this
bill to create small business jobs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I have 1 minute to speak to my motion
to suspend the rules to bring up this bill.
We are on a bill now on the Senate floor that is supposed to create
jobs. Hopefully, this bill will create jobs. But it is kind of small
compared to what this Congress could do by passing the biodiesel tax
credit. It should have been passed before December 31 last year.
Senator Baucus and I put together a bipartisan bill to do it in
February. That bill was delayed by the majority leader, so we are back
here again for a third time, trying to get attention to jobs. This
biodiesel tax credit will immediately put 20,000 more people back to
work, and 2,000 in my State of Iowa.
I hope we will suspend the rules and create jobs for sure because
those jobs were there before December 31 and they will be there on
September 17 if we pass this amendment.
Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 41, nays 58, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 234 Leg.]
YEAS--41
Alexander
Bayh
Bennet
Bennett
Bond
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Burr
Cantwell
Chambliss
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Dorgan
Franken
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Klobuchar
Lugar
McCaskill
McConnell
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Roberts
Shaheen
Snowe
Specter
Thune
Vitter
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--58
Akaka
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Bunning
Burris
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coburn
Corker
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Goodwin
Gregg
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
LeMieux
Levin
Lieberman
McCain
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Risch
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
NOT VOTING--1
Lincoln
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 41, the nays are
58. Two-thirds of the Senators voting not having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Motion to Suspend
Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes for debate,
equally divided, prior to the vote on the motion to suspend rule XXII
offered by the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, last week President Obama called for a
permanent research tax credit. We have always extended this tax credit.
We failed last December to do it on time. Therefore, we are without it.
We are without the jobs that would be created by it. I think it was a
terrific move by the President to come out for a permanent research tax
credit, and we ought to swiftly move to add it to this particular bill.
The only way I can do that, because of the tying up of the tree--
which is happening all too often around here--is by a motion to suspend
the rules.
This bill is a bill to create jobs. At least that is what it is
supposed to be. But the research tax credit would do the most to
instantaneously create jobs, and these are high-paying jobs. The only
way we can get it is to vote for this motion to suspend. If we do, I
think we would have 95 votes--a bipartisan vote--for this particular
amendment.
I urge my colleagues to support the motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I deeply appreciate the remarks of my
good friend from Utah. The fact is, any motion to suspend the rules in
this context is not fair and, without being disparaging, it is not
serious legislating. This is an attempt to throw another roadblock to
delay passage of the small business bill.
In addition, the extenders bill, which I tried to get up by UC, would
extend the R&D tax credit. We will find our way there later this year.
We cannot suspend the rules at this point to delay passage of the small
business bill. Rather, let's not accept this motion so we can get on to
passing the small business bill and take up the R&D tax credit later on
this year. We will definitely take it up. It will be passed later this
year.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:
[[Page S7150]]
[Rollcall Vote No. 235 Leg.]
YEAS--51
Alexander
Barrasso
Bayh
Bennet
Bennett
Bond
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Franken
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagan
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Klobuchar
Kyl
LeMieux
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Risch
Roberts
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Thune
Vitter
Warner
Wicker
NAYS--48
Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bingaman
Brown (OH)
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Goodwin
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Sessions
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are
48. Two-thirds of the Senators present and voting not having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The clerk will now read the Budget Committee letter.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation for H.R. 5297, as
amended by amendment No. 4594.
Total Budgetary Effects of H.R. 5297 for the 5-year
Statutory PAYGO Scorecard: net increase in the deficit of
$2.009 billion;
Total Budgetary Effects of H.R. 5297 for the 10-year
Statutory PAYGO Scorecard: net increase in the deficit of
$2.253 billion.
Also submitted for the Record is a table prepared by the
Congressional Budget Office, which provides additional information on
the budgetary effects of this Act, as follows:
CBO ESTIMATE OF THE STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR SENATE AMENDMENT 4594 IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 5297, THE SMALL BUSINESS JOBS AND CREDIT ACT OF 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year in millions of dollars--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2010-2015 2010-2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (-) IN THE ON-BUDGET DEFICIT
Total On-Budget Changes.............................. 0 83,938 -11,175 -13,920 -11,272 -44,124 8,275 -5,049 -3,543 -2,669 -2,499 3,445 -2,035
Less:
Current-Policy Adjustment for Tax Provisions a... 0 2,789 1,845 -1,529 -966 -702 -543 -343 -194 -94 -44 1,436 218
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact....................... 0 81,149 -13,020 -12,391 -10,306 -43,422 8,818 -4,706 -3,349 -2,575 -2,455 2,009 -2,253
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. Assumed enactment date October 1, 2010.
a Section 7 of the Statutory-Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 provides for current-policy adjustments related to increases in the limitations on expensing depreciable business assets for small
businesses under section 179(b) of the Internal Revenue Code. The effects are all changes in revenues.
Sources: Congressional Budget Office and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation.
Amendment No. 4594
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The substitute amendment is agreed to.
The time until noon is equally divided.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. The Chair has announced that the time between now and
noon will be equally divided?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the case.
Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded, and I ask unanimous consent for up to
5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I know we are getting ready to vote on
a very important piece of legislation--the Small Business Job Creation
Act--that we have actually been working on now for a year and a half.
It is hard to believe that a year and a half has gone by, but it has,
despite the extraordinary work that has been done on this bill from the
Democratic leadership, from a handful of Republican Senators who
stepped up to make this a possibility, and from the administration and
Treasury and literally hundreds of organizations that have brought this
vote to the floor today. I wish it could have been 6 months ago. I wish
it could have been 8 months ago. Every day, every week we have waited
to pass this bill has been another tough week for small businesses
throughout our country. But this week is a good week for them. They
have a bill that they can be proud of, that I believe we can be proud
of, and it is overdue that we pass this bill today.
I know Members understand the significance of the three major parts
of the bill: $12 billion in directed tax cuts; an infusion of resources
and strength to the core small business programs in the SBA that we
know are effective in stimulating loans to Main Street, that create the
jobs that will put this recession in the rearview mirror; and we know
the third part of this bill is a very significant and new strategic
lending partnership we are establishing with healthy community banks,
the 7,000 community banks in every neighborhood--in rural areas, in
suburban areas, in all of our States, and in almost every single one of
those communities in those States.
I thank Chairman Baucus particularly for his help and Senator Reid
particularly for his help. I thank Senator Boxer and Senator Cantwell
and Senator Merkley. But I also thank Senator Levin, Senator Warner,
Senator Stabenow, many members of my Small Business Committee, Senator
Shaheen, Senator Murray, Senator Schumer, Senator Lincoln, Senator
Hagan, Senator Cardin, Senator Burris, and many others--Senator Sherrod
Brown has been down to the floor time and time again.
I also thank two colleagues particularly from the other side of the
aisle, Senator Voinovich and Senator LeMieux, who listened to their
Florida bankers, who listened to their Ohio bankers, who listened to
their small businesses in Florida and Ohio and said that this is the
kind of bill we need--tax cuts, strengthening of SBA programs, and a
smart strategic lending program.
I thank Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Gene Sperling and Don
Graves, and of course I thank the staff of the Small Business Committee
and my staff in particular who did so much work.
In addition, I thank the National Small Business Association,
Independent Community Bankers, the American Bankers Association, the
National Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders, and the hundreds
of organizations that helped push and pull this Senate to this vote
today.
In the last minute I have, I wish to submit two things for the Record
that I think need clearing up and amplification. One is a letter from
the Chief Economist of the SBA that answers directly a criticism that
was published in the Washington Post yesterday about the ``myth'' that
small business is not the business that grows jobs in America. The
economist was misquoted. This is a letter for the Record specifically
outlining that. I think it is worth review today.
Second, and more important, a banker from California--and I thank
Senator Boxer. I met with a banker from California and from Florida. I
am from Louisiana, but they wanted to see me, I wanted to see them, and
I met with them. Got a standing ovation. I am very proud, of course,
because they said to me: Senator, this may be one of the most
significant bills to help get
[[Page S7151]]
our banks where we need to be to start lending.
I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Small Business Administration,
Office of Advocacy,
Washington, DC, September 15, 2010.
Hon. Mary Landrieu,
Chair, Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chair Landrieu: I am writing to clarify and apologize
for my statements about small business to Ruth Marcus in her
September 15, 2010, Washington Post article.
When I stated, ``It's not true'' . . . ``It's half the
story'' in relation to small businesses being the major
source of net job creation, I misspoke. I meant to state,
``While true, it's only half the story.'' Meaning that while
we know that small businesses are the major job creator,
there are different types of small businesses, and that is
where the story is.
Oddly enough, the fact that small businesses are the major
job creator has been corroborated by all three papers
mentioned in the article; even though all used different time
periods, different methodology and different data.
The article discusses an academic debate that is playing
out with John Haltiwanger, a University of Maryland
Professor, in one camp and myself in the other. The topic is,
``What group within the small business sector is driving new
job creations.'' John believes it is start-ups and young
small businesses; while I believe it is the relatively few
small firms with fast growth. In many senses we are both
correct.
So the debate is not, who creates more jobs, small or large
firms. We know the answer; small firms create the majority of
net new jobs, as shown from Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Business Employment Dynamics data. They show firms with fewer
than 500 employees accounted for 65 percent of the net new
jobs in the private-sector over the last seventeen years.
My study on high growth firms finds a similar figure when
looking at all three time periods and firms with volatile
employment changes (meaning using a net concept of fast
growers and fast decliners).
Unfortunately, I was quoted as stating, ``it would appear
that both small and large firms contribute about equally to
employment growth.'' While a further examination of my study
would show that this comment only refers to high-growth
firms, not the entirety of all firms. When one includes all
firms, the results show that small firms create two-thirds of
the net new jobs.
I have spent my career developing the field of small
business economics. I take pride in what I have been able to
accomplish, but regret the damage I may have caused by the
way in which I conveyed the information to Ms. Marcus.
Attached is a copy of my study High Impact Firms: Gazelles
Revisited. I am happy to supply any further assistance you
may need.
Sincerely,
Zoltan Acs, Ph.D.,
Chief Economist.
____
From: Richard M. Sanborn [mailto:rsanborn--sccombank.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 11:40 PM
To: Gillers, David (SBC)
Cc: David H. Bartram
Subject: Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010--HR 5297
Mr. Gillers, I want to thank you for taking the time this
evening to call in reference to my comments to Senator
Landrieu at the California Bankers/Florida Bankers meeting.
My whole team and I are extremely grateful to the Senator for
championing the Act through the Senate as it will have a
profound impact on our institution.
Once passed and signed into law, the Act will allow us to
apply for (and hopefully receive) an approximate $1.8 million
investment by the US Treasury through the Small Business
Lending Fund component of the Act. We can leverage that
Capital investment approximately 10 X, resulting in our
ability to lend to small businesses and grow our loan
portfolio an additional $18 million. While $18 million in new
loans to small businesses does not seem like much, as we are
primarily focused on lending to small businesses through the
SBA's 7(a) lending program, to achieve $18 million in loan
grow, we could originate approximately $180 million in new
SBA loans to small businesses . . . which is a lot for a
small bank like ours (we're only a $130 million asset bank).
Of course that assumes we originate all $180 million with a
90% SBA guarantee and sell 100% of that guaranteed portion.
Originating $180 million in new SBA small business means
that we can provide needed capital to approximately 275
businesses, based on our current average SBA loan size of
$650 thousand. If we apply the SBA's overall average loan
size of $220 thousand, we could help over 800 small
businesses get much needed capital.
This will be a great program, if passed, and will help the
small businesses in the markets we serve. Again, please thank
the Senator for her help with this important measure.
Sincerely,
Rick Sanborn.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Seacoast is a small bank. It only has $130 million in
assets. According to this banker's testimony to me yesterday, he is
going to take this bill and all of its provisions, and he believes he
can leverage $180 million in SBA loans to small businesses. Based on
their record and based on the average SBA loan size of $650,000, this
one bank in southern California believes it can make 275 business
loans.
If this one small bank in South Carolina can take this bill and its
provisions and leverage it to 275 good-quality loans in South Carolina,
there is hope on the way. This is a real step to putting this recession
behind us. I thank the Democratic leadership for making it a
possibility. I hope next time a bill like this is brought to the floor
of the Senate, it will not take so long; we will not have to jump over
the barriers and barricades that were put in front of this bill. So I
hope Members on the other side of the aisle will lower those barriers
next time because our small businesses cannot wait.
Tier 1 Capital
Madam President, as one of the two lead sponsors of the Small
Business Lending Fund, I am deeply convinced of the ability of this
program to provide small businesses with the credit they need to grow
and create jobs. As you know, the purpose of this fund is to provide
community banks with Tier 1 capital to increase their lending to small
businesses, along with incentives for doing so. With up to $30 billion
in capital, community banks that participate in the Small Business
Lending Fund will be able to support many multiples of that amount in
new lending. To allow that to occur, it has always been our intent and
our understanding that the bank regulators should treat these
investments as Tier 1 capital, in a manner consistent with that
accorded to other capital securities issued to Treasury by eligible
institutions and in consideration of the strong public interest in
promoting lending to small businesses.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I thank Senator Landrieu for her
leadership on this issue. I agree that the intention of this
legislation from the very start has always been that investments made
through the Small Business Lending Fund should be treated as Tier 1
capital in a manner consistent with that accorded to other capital
securities issued to Treasury by eligible institutions. This treatment
will allow these institutions to use Treasury funds to expand small
business lending as intended.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator. With access to Tier 1 capital, I
believe that the community banks that participate in this program will
be able to provide small businesses with the credit they need to grow
and hire.
Deduction for Health Insurance Coverage
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I would like to ask the chairman of
the Finance Committee a question on the application of a provision in
the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010.
Section 2042 of the bill will allow self-employed persons to deduct
the cost of health coverage for themselves, their spouses, and their
children who have not reached age 27 by the end of the year for
purposes of determining their liability for self-employment taxes. Is
it correct that the provision is not intended to affect the
determination of earned income for other purposes? For example, earned
income for purposes of determining the maximum amount of health
insurance premiums a self-employed person may deduct for income tax
purposes is not affected by this provision.
Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator from New Mexico is correct. Since the 108th
Congress, he has introduced legislation to correct this inequity in the
Tax Code. I would like to congratulate and thank the Senator from New
Mexico for his leadership in championing this provision.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, the Senate is on the verge of passing the
Small Business Jobs Act which has been many months in the making and
has been debated on the Senate floor for numerous weeks. I commend
Senators Reid, Baucus, and Landrieu for their tenaciousness in pursuing
this legislation. It is essential we help small businesses attain the
investment and capital necessary to create jobs and grow our economy.
Small business growth is critical to restoring our economy. Over the
past 15 years, small businesses have created two-thirds of all new
jobs. Unfortunately, small businesses have been hit
[[Page S7152]]
hard by the recession--losing more than 6 million jobs since December
2007. The Small Business Jobs Act provides the long overdue assistance
to small businesses that will help create as many as 500,000 new jobs.
To assist small business owners and their employees, the Small
Business Jobs Act will create jobs through a combination of much-needed
tax credits, enhancements to Small Business Administration, SBA,
lending programs, and the development of new community bank lending
facilities.
I am very pleased this legislation will extend the successful loan
enhancement provisions that Senator Schumer and I successfully included
in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The bill extends the
provisions in the economic stimulus to increase the SBA guarantee rate
to 90 percent and reduces fees on small business 7(a) and 504 loans
obtained through the SBA. These provisions have supported more than $30
billion in lending to small businesses across the country and helped
create or retain more than 710,000 jobs. SBA lending in Massachusetts
has nearly doubled in the past year as a result of this program.
As the former chairman of the Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, I have been a long time advocate of small businesses
and appreciate the role they play in our economy. The Small Business
Jobs Act includes provisions that I have worked on for several years.
The loan increases included in the bill build upon my legislation
from last Congress. With 7(a) loan limits increased from $2 million to
$5 million and 504 loans from $1.5 million to $5.5 million, small
businesses will be better able to expand and meet their financial needs
for sustainability and growth.
The Small Business Jobs Acts expands upon the small business capital
gains provision included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009. The bill temporarily increases the small business capital
gains exclusion from 75 percent to 100 percent and eliminates the AMT
preference.
Back in 1993, I worked with Senator Bumpers to enact legislation to
exclude half of capital gains from the sale of small business stock
that is held for 5 years. The bill before us expands on this provision.
I have also worked with Senator Ensign on a provision included in
this legislation that would remove cell phones and other similar
devises from the definition of listed property so their cost can be
deducted or depreciated like other business property, without onerous
recordkeeping requirements.
In 1989, Congress passed a law which added cell phones to the
definition of listed property under the Internal Revenue Code. Back in
1989, cell phone technology was an expensive technology worthy of
detailed log sheets. Only a few top executives had cell phones. At that
time, it was difficult to envision cell phones that could be placed in
a pocket or handbag. Congress was skeptical about the daily business
use of cell phones.
With technology changing rapidly and many people owning a cell phone
and a blackberry, a strict substantiation requirement to determine
personal use is burdensome, inefficient, and administratively
impracticable given their frequent use in a fast-paced global
environment. The Tax Code should keep pace with technological advances.
There is no longer a reason that cell phones and mobile communication
devices should be treated differently than office phones or computers.
Investing in small businesses is essential to turning around the
economy. Not only will investment in small business spur job creation,
it will lead to new technological breakthroughs. This bill is long
overdue and I am pleased that it is close to becoming a reality. I urge
all my colleagues to support this critical legislation for our economy.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise today to express my support
for the passage of H.R. 5297, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. I am
pleased that we got cloture on this legislation earlier this week, so
we can get a final vote on the bill before the Senate completes its
work for the week.
Things are more challenging now for our Nation than at any time
during my life. Americans are worried about our Nation's future and
their own personal well-being, and this uncertainty reveals itself in
the answers to two questions I often ask when I speak to people. The
two questions I ask are, one, do you have a better standard of living
than your parents had? To which I always hear yes. And two, do you
believe your children will have a better standard of living than the
one you have? To which I almost always hear no.
To recover from this recession, we need to restore the faith of the
American people in their future. We need to convince them that the
glass is half full, and not half empty. And until we stabilize and
repair our broken economy, and restore the flow of credit to businesses
and individuals, the uncertainty and pessimism will remain.
This small business bill gives us one opportunity to address our
economic challenges. The small business bill will improve the
environment for small businesses by, among other things, including a
number of small business tax breaks, expanding Small Business
Administration loan programs, providing tax incentives for new small
business investment, and expanding small business access to credit.
The bill will increase the guarantee of SBA's most popular loan
program, which provides credit for small businesses that cannot
otherwise obtain favorable loan terms, and it would provide higher
maximum loan amounts for investments in major fixed assets, such as
land, buildings, equipment, and machinery. It would also provide a
variety of export assistance tools to help our small businesses expand
their reach into world markets and compete better in the global
economy. These include a new grant program, counseling and education,
redirecting SBA personnel, and improving export financing programs.
Finally, this bill will extend tax incentives, such as section 179
expensing and bonus depreciation, which will generate new investment.
I have heard from many Ohio businesses regarding this small business
bill, especially manufacturing businesses, which are the backbone of
Ohio's economy. These small business owners have asked me to work with
my colleagues and finish work on this legislation. A number of
manufacturing organizations, which represent small businesses in Ohio
and around the country, have written to me in support of the bill,
including the Ohio Manufacturers Association, the Precision Machined
Products Association, PMPA, the Precision Metalforming Association,
PMA, the National Tooling and Machining Association, NTMA, and the
Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association. They share many of the
same concerns; they are worried about their member companies' ability
to obtain credit and keep afloat long enough to get out of this
recession.
Many small businesses have been unable to obtain credit from their
traditional lenders, which has led to less spending and more layoffs.
For example, I was told that a Cleveland-based PMPA manufacturer that
has been in business for over 50 years, and whose owner has served on
the board of directors of several major banks, could not find
sufficient credit in the United States. As a result, the company had to
seek offshore lending, which it eventually found in Germany. I have
heard similar stories from a number of small business owners. They
complain that they cannot get loans or their lines of credit are being
reduced or withdrawn despite their company's creditworthiness.
These groups, which represent thousands of small businesses and their
employees, have sent me letters in support of this legislation, and I
will ask that these letters be printed in the Record. I wanted to share
one comment from a longtime friend of mine, James B. McGregor, Sr.,
vice chairman of McGregor Metalworking Companies in Springfield, OH,
who said that this bill would ``help to jumpstart manufacturing in
America by improving the credit market for small businesses.'' Jim is
the owner of a family-owned manufacturing company, and he knows as well
as anyone how tough things are out there for manufacturers.
In addition to small manufacturers, others organizations also support
this small business bill. Many community banks say it would allow them
more latitude to lend to small businesses. The Independent Community
Bankers Association, which represents 5,000 of the Nation's 8,000
community banks,
[[Page S7153]]
said in a letter to the two Senate leaders that of all the provisions
in this bill, the Small Business Lending Fund, SBLF, ``holds the most
promise for small business creation in the near term. Failure to even
consider the SBLF in the Senate would be a missed opportunity that our
struggling economy cannot afford . . . [i]t would provide another
option for community banks to leverage capital and expand credit to
small business.''
The American Bankers Association, ABA, has expressed support for the
bill because it would allow ``community banks to find new sources of
capital . . . [and] provides an option for banks to . . . continue
meeting the needs of their communities.'' The ABA also supports the
bill because it would enhance SBA loan programs, which it says is
``critically important and will help lenders provide loans so that
small businesses can create jobs in their communities.''
Other business organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce and
Financial Services Roundtable support the bill because they know it
contains important tax provisions, strengthens existing SBA programs,
and helps our economy.
So, my support for the small business legislation is based upon the
many calls of support I heard from Ohio's small and medium
manufacturers, most of whom are still struggling to recover from this
recession. At the same time, these manufacturers are experiencing the
fiercest competition I have seen in my lifetime.
My support of Ohio's manufacturers is not new, and my support of this
bill is a part of my longstanding concern for and support of Ohio's
manufacturing companies. As Governor of Ohio, I am proud that we gave
high priority to manufacturing and that it grew for the first time in
many years during my administration. We instituted several incentives
for manufacturing, including a job-creation tax credit, a manufacturing
and equipment investment tax credit, and the technology investment tax
credit. As Governor, I went on nine business, trade, and investment
missions, with the intention of helping open new markets for Ohio
products, and I am hopeful that the export promotion efforts in this
legislation will help Ohio's manufacturers take advantage of selling in
the global market.
When I came to the Senate, I continued to support manufacturing,
making it a key priority of my legislative efforts. For example, during
President Bush's first term, I worked with the administration, when it
filed the section 201 action, to support the U.S. steel industry at a
time when imports were coming in at an increasing rate and threatening
the industry's existence. And after a painful period of adjustment, the
steel industry came back. I am afraid of what might have been the fate
of this important industry had President Bush not taken action. I am
also proud that I was the chief advocate to the President and Secretary
of Commerce Don Evans of the need for an Assistant Secretary of
Manufacturing as well as a plan to support manufacturing. From 2006 to
2008, I worked closely with Senator Bayh, who is also from a
manufacturing State, to pass legislation to improve our Nation's
intellectual property theft enforcement efforts. These efforts were
rewarded when the PRO-IP Act became law in October 2008. Our efforts to
pass this legislation may have surprised some who view IP theft as
something related to knockoff purses and software, but IP theft has
such a damaging effect on our manufacturers, we both viewed this as an
important way to help our manufacturers compete on a level playing
field in the global economy.
Most recently, I have worked to protect manufacturing from onerous
cap-and-trade legislation that would have a devastating effect on
manufacturing, while doing little to improve emissions from countries
such as China and India. I have also worked on a bipartisan basis to
reauthorize the surface transportation act. This is another must-pass
bill that would provide certainty to a number of industries and would
help our manufacturers recover from this recession. I have spoken to
the President about the need to pass a highway bill, and I was
encouraged that he has promised to take a leading role in getting it
done.
I know that my Republican colleagues have concerns with the lending
facility and what it means for the role of government in the private
sector. I have heard their concerns, but based on the feedback I have
heard, mostly from Ohio's small businesses, I reached the conclusion
that this $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund will help banks that
serve local communities to expand their lending at a time when credit
to small businesses has tightened for a variety of reasons. These are
the community banks that make the small but necessary loans to
restaurants, small manufacturers, home improvement contractors and the
like to keep their businesses afloat and hopefully begin to expand as
the economy recovers. In addition, the program is voluntary for these
banks, and the lending fund is estimated by the Congressional Budget
Office to save money. In other words, the lending fund will not add to
the budget deficit or the national debt, and it will not increase
taxes. So this fund amounts to a relatively modest, voluntary, revenue-
neutral financial tool for small community banks helping to restore the
flow of credit small businesses desperately need.
Finally, for those who are trying to make this a partisan bill, I
will say there is enough blame to go around. The Democrats in Congress
delayed passing this bill for many weeks. They denied Republicans the
opportunity to amend the bill for many weeks, while we held political
votes on a number of issues. The President then went on to politicize
the bill, ignoring legitimate complaints about the lack of amendments
from my side of the aisle. It is worth remembering the Senate moved to
the bill on June 29, then abandoned it repeatedly to vote on
unemployment benefits multiple times, financial regulation,
supplemental appropriations, executive nominations, the DISCLOSE Act,
and the teacher bailout, which took us into the August recess. Then
when discussions about Republican amendments were finally starting to
receive serious consideration, these amendments were countered by
Democratic amendments, leading to an amendment tit for tat, which is
too often the case.
But while I am disappointed that my colleagues were unable to offer
amendments to this bill, which is one of the traditions of the Senate,
I felt we could no longer wait to pass this legislation. We needed to
do something now to help the economy get going, and hopefully we will
get back to the Senate tradition of offering amendments and having
votes. Finally, I am pleased that there was a vote on at least one
Republican amendment, the amendment offered by Senator Johanns, which
would repeal an extremely burdensome reporting requirement for small
businesses included in the health care reform bill. While I am
disappointed that it failed and small businesses continued to be
threatened by this burden, I am hopeful that this amendment process has
brought enough attention to the problem and it can be fixed before the
end of this year.
Finally, Mr. President, I will continue to work to pass a robust
highway reauthorization bill this year, which I strongly believe would
help improve our economy, and once again, I ask President Obama and
Majority Leader Reid, to work with the relevant committees to complete
work on a multiyear, paid for, reauthorization of the highway bill
before the 111th Congress adjourns.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record the letters to which I referred.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Precision Metalforming Association and National Tooling &
Machining Association,
July 23, 2010.
Hon. George V. Voinovich,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich: On behalf of One Voice, the joint
effort between the National Tooling and Machining Association
(NTMA) and the Precision Metalforming Association (PMA), and
our nearly 3,000 metalworking member companies, thank you for
your continued efforts to support small businesses
manufacturing in America. Your vote on the Small Business
Loan Fund Amendment was critical to helping support small
businesses access timely and sufficient credit and to
domestic manufacturing growth.
Many small and medium-sized manufacturers continue to face
challenges accessing timely and sufficient credit for day-to-
day
[[Page S7154]]
operations, investing in capital equipment and raw materials,
increasing worker hours, and hiring more employees. The lack
of availability of credit has led to decreased spending,
increased layoffs, and depleted collateral in many
industries, including metalworking. In the current
environment, many lenders are steering clear of perceived
``at risk'' industries such as manufacturers who are
temporarily impaired. This legislation will improve the
lending environment and will help America's small
manufacturers strengthen their businesses and continue to
lead our nation's economic recovery.
Thank you again for your long history of supporting
America's manufacturers. We look forward to continuing to
work with you and your staff on issues critical to
strengthening manufacturing in America.
Sincerely,
William E. Gaskin,
PMA President.
Robert Akers,
NTMA Chief Operating Officer.
____
Precision Machined
Products Association,
July 23, 2010.
Hon. George V. Voinovich,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich: On behalf of the Precision Machined
Products Association (PMPA) and the roughly 100,000 employees
nationwide in our industry, thank you for your vote on the
Small Business Loan Fund to ensure that small businesses gain
access to timely and sufficient credit, an issue of
increasing importance as manufacturers seek new business and
the economy improves.
As you know, the economic downturn hit our vital industry
particularly hard, as it did countless manufacturers in Ohio.
However, as the economy begins to recover, many small
manufacturers continue to face challenges accessing adequate
and timely credit to buy the raw materials and increase work
hours to meet improving demand. Lack of capital is stunting
economic growth and the Loan Fund program is an important
component of improving the situation and spurring the
economy.
As we work to recover and strengthen manufacturing in
America, access to sufficient and timely credit is a critical
component. Thank you for your support, and we look forward to
continuing to work with you to help strengthen small business
manufacturing in America.
Cordially,
Robert C. Kiener,
PMPA Director of Government Affairs & Communications.
____
Precision Machined
Products Association,
Brecksville, OH, Sept. 10, 2010
Hon. George V. Voinovich,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich: On behalf of the Precision Machined
Products Association (PMPA) and the roughly 100,000 employees
nationwide in our industry, thank you for your support of the
Small Business Jobs Act, particularly your efforts to help
small businesses gain access to timely and sufficient credit.
Improving the lending environment for small manufacturers is
essential to jumpstarting the nation's economy.
As you know, the economic downturn hit our vital industry
particularly hard, as it did countless manufacturers in Ohio.
As the economy begins to recover, many small manufacturers
continue to face challenges accessing adequate and timely
credit to buy the raw materials and increase work hours to
meet improving demand. Lack of capital is stunting economic
growth and this bill is an important component of improving
the situation and spurring job growth.
As an Ohio-based association with thousands of employees in
the Buckeye State, thank you for your years of leadership on
behalf of manufacturers. We look forward to continuing to
work with you and your staff in the coming months as we move
forward to strengthen manufacturing in America.
Sincerely,
Mike Duffin,
Executive Director.
____
National Tooling and
Machining Association,
Ft. Washington, MD, Sept. 10, 2010.
Hon. George Voinovich,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich: On behalf of the National Tooling
and Machining Association (NTMA) and our 150 member companies
in the State of Ohio, thank you for your support of the Small
Business Jobs Act to improve the lending environment for
small businesses. Our members are small and medium-sized,
mostly family-owned businesses who rely on timely and
adequate lines of credit to purchase raw materials and make
significant investment in their operations.
As you know, the vast majority of small businesses turn to
their local community banks for lines of credit. However, due
to numerous market conditions and regulatory restrictions,
lenders have reduced or revoked credit lines even for
profitable companies in Ohio seeking to purchase equipment
and hire workers to meet increased demand and new job orders.
Tool and die makers in particular are expected by their
customers to invest significant capital up front when
manufacturing a product and are often not paid for several
months and at times for over a year. The nature of this
industry requires an adequate and stable credit market and
this legislation is an important step to jumpstarting
American manufacturers.
Thank you for your support of this legislation and your
continued leadership in Washington on behalf of small and
medium-sized manufacturers. We especially appreciate the
dedication and time your staff has committed over the years
supporting the needs of over 16,000 manufacturing companies
in Ohio.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Akers, Jr.,
Chief Operating Officer.
____
Precision Metalforming
Association,
Independence, OH, Sept. 10, 2010.
Hon. George Voinovich,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich: On behalf of the Precision
Metalforming Association (PMA) based in Independence, Ohio,
and our more than 100 member companies in the State, thank
you for your years of leadership in Columbus and Washington
supporting small and medium-sized manufacturers. Your efforts
to help pass the Small Business Jobs Act is critical to
jumpstarting the economy. Our members continue to report
challenges accessing timely and sufficient credit to help run
day-to-day operations, invest in their facilities and hire
new employees. Your support of this bill will improve the
credit environment for small manufacturers and expand growth.
Ohio manufacturers are the backbone of our economy,
employing more than 600,000 people in our state. Many of
these companies report they are ready to expand and take on
new business but the tight capital markets restrict their
ability to increase production and purchase raw materials.
One year ago, 72 percent of respondents to our industry
survey expected to encounter challenges with credit when the
economy improves--their predictions have come true.
Senator, as you recently said, ``We don't have time
anymore. This country is really hurting.'' Nowhere is this
more true than in Ohio. You and your staff have tirelessly
worked to strengthen manufacturing in America and your
support of this legislation to improve the lending
environment for our businesses is critical.
Thank you again and we look forward to continuing to work
with you on this and other important issues.
Sincerely,
William E. Gaskin,
President.
____
Precision Metalforming
Association,
Sept. 10, 2010.
Manufacturers Applaud Senator Voinovich for his Support of Small
Business Jobs Act
The Ohio-based National Tooling and Machining Association
(NTMA) and Precision Metalforming Association (PMA) applauded
Senator George Voinovich's (R-OH) announcement that he would
vote to support the Senate moving forward to consider the
Small Business Jobs Act, a bill that would help small and
medium sized manufacturers access credit needed to help
finance their day-to-day operations, invest in expansion of
domestic operations and ensure that a disruption in the
critical supply chain does not occur.
The bill, already passed by the House, creates a $30
billion lending pool that community bankers can use for small
businesses, and $12 billion in tax incentives. The Senate is
expected to vote on the bill next week.
``Senator Voinovich's support of this bill continues his
long history of standing with small and medium sized
manufacturers in this country,'' said PMA member James B.
McGregor, Sr. vice chairman of McGregor Metalworking
Companies in Springfield, OH. ``We greatly appreciate his
support in helping to jumpstart manufacturing in America by
improving the credit market for small businesses.''
McGregor, who also serves on the Manufacturing Council, a
forum established by the U.S. Department of Commerce to
ensure regular communication between the federal government
and the manufacturing sector, added: ``While a slew of
proposals to boost manufacturing have been announced in the
past couple of weeks by both political parties, most of these
proposals are months, if not years, away from Congressional
action. By improving access to credit, the Small Business
Jobs Act can help small and medium sized manufacturers now.
We urge the Senate to pass this bill as soon as possible.''
For additional information or to arrange an interview with
a PMA or NTMA manufacturer, please contact Caitlin Andrews at
202-828-7637 or [email protected]
About NTMA: NTMA is the national association representing
the precision custom manufacturing industry, which employs
more than 440,000 skilled workers in the United States. Its
mission is to help members of the U.S. precision custom
manufacturing industry achieve business success in a global
economy through advocacy, advice, networking, information,
programs and services. Many NTMA members are privately owned
small businesses, yet the industry generates sales in excess
of $40 billion a year. NTMA's nearly 1,600 member companies
design and manufacture special tools, dies, jigs, fixtures,
gages, special machines and
[[Page S7155]]
precision-machined parts. Some firms specialize in
experimental research and development work.
About PMA: About PMA: PMA is the full-service trade
association representing the $113-billion metalforming
industry of North America--the industry that creates
precision metal products using stamping, fabricating,
spinning, slide forming and roll forming technologies, and
other value-added processes. Its nearly 1,000 member
companies also include suppliers of equipment, materials and
services to the industry. PMA leads innovative member
companies toward superior competitiveness and profitability
through advocacy, networking, statistics, the PMA Educational
Foundation, FABTECH and METALFORM tradeshows, and
MetalForming magazine.
____
Motor & Equipment Manufacturers
Association,
Washington, DC, Sept. 14, 2010.
Hon. George V. Voinovich,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Voinovich: The Motor & Equipment Manufacturers
Association (MEMA), along with its affiliated associations,
Automotive Aftermarket Suppliers Association (AASA), Heavy
Duty Manufacturers Association (HDMA), and Original Equipment
Suppliers Association (OESA), applaud and thank you for your
leadership in ending the stalemate in the Senate on the Small
Business Jobs and Credit Act (H.R. 5297).
A vibrant parts manufacturing industry is critical not only
to the state of Ohio, but to the entire nation. This bill is
critical to help smaller manufacturers, including parts
suppliers, access the credit they need to reinvest in and
grow their businesses. MEMA strongly supports H.R. 5297 and
believes that both the creation of a Small Business Lending
Fund to assist banks in increasing small business capital
investment lending as well as the establishment of a State
Small Business Credit Initiative that allocates federal funds
for states to partner with financial institutions will
directly and immediately help small manufacturers.
Again, thank you for your willingness to step in and help
move this important bill forward for Senate passage. We are
very grateful for your leadership and political courage.
Sincerely,
Robert E. McKenna,
President and CEO.
Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, it has been nearly 2\1/2\ months since
the majority leader first brought small business jobs legislation to
the floor, and now this bill will pass the Senate through a constrained
process under which the majority has continually stunted our ability to
offer amendments, dictating to our side which amendments they
considered worthy--something I find abhorrent and antithetical to this
institution. And I might add, before the votes we held Tuesday on the
Johanns and Nelson amendments on the 1099 issue, we had voted on just
one amendment during consideration of this bill--an amendment to
reinstate an ill-conceived and divisive lending fund into the bill. And
with the failed votes on the 1099 issue, we inexplicably and
regrettably punted on a chance to help millions of small businesses
save the time, cost, and effort of sending billions of new information
reporting forms to the IRS and to other businesses.
As ranking member of the Senate Small Business Committee, I have come
to the floor several times during recent months to express my regret
over the procedural twists and turns that have gotten us to this point.
Clearly, we have had ample opportunity to consider and pass meaningful
small business jobs legislation. Yet time after time other priorities
have taken precedence. Most recently, it was the August recess that
took us away from Washington for 5 weeks while small businesses
continued to call for help. They didn't get an August recess. They
didn't have the luxury of putting things on hold while the economic
situation failed to improve. As I said in July on the Senate floor, it
seems as if we have forgotten how to talk to one another here, how to
work together and forge a bipartisan and sensible solution to a problem
that plagues our economy.
A prime example of this is the recent votes we took to repeal the
onerous and imprudent mandate in the health care legislation regarding
the filing of 1099 forms by millions of businesses. It will require
that, starting in 2012, every business in America must report to the
IRS on business purchases that exceed a threshold of only $600 per
vendor or supplier. This mandate would include purchases of supplies
and equipment, as well as purchases of services ranging from cell phone
coverage to window washing to utilities.
This new mandate was imposed in the health reform law, yet it has
nothing to do with health insurance reform. It makes the Federal
Government a more intrusive and burdensome presence in every aspect of
American business--which is the very last thing American business needs
during these tumultuous economic times. What small firms are clamoring
for is certainty. They look to the Federal Government to help foster an
entrepreneurial environment under which they can do what they do best--
create new jobs--and not saddle them with an incessant and unnecessary
paperwork burden like this new 1099 filing requirement. This new system
of 1099s has absolutely nothing to do with a direct tax liability in a
given year. Instead, this reporting regime will allow the IRS to track
business purchases that exceed $600. Businesses typically have an
intense focus on carefully tracking their sales to customers with
marketing professionals. Rather than tracking sales to customers, this
new government mandate will force a change in business focus to a
detailed accounting of purchases from suppliers.
While controlling costs is clearly a vital component of business
profitability, this new government mandate on cost accounting and
reporting to the IRS is an inordinate shift of priorities that will
harm competitiveness and profitability because it will shift focus and
resources away from customers. We had bipartisan support to eliminate
this provision, and yet we couldn't agree to repeal this provision
because 52 Democrats opposed Senator Johanns amendment. How out of
touch and disconnected can the majority be? American business owners
are desperate for relief from taxes and regulation, and we can't even
agree to help them. Instead, we are going to impede their ability to
thrive and grow.
Indeed, for the small businesses that attempt to comply with this tax
reporting mandate, this paperwork burden will be imposed with a
crushing effect. New tracking systems will have to be implemented for
purchases in order to ensure that aggregated purchases exceeding $600
are reported to the IRS. In fact, according to a National Federation of
Independent Business, or NFIB, small business survey, at $74 an hour,
tax paperwork is the most expensive paperwork burden placed on small
businesses by the Federal Government. The Small Business Administration
has found that the cost of tax compliance is already 67 percent higher
in small firms than in large firms. And because this new 1099 reporting
burden would be so ubiquitous for firms attempting to be compliant--by
requiring new processes of making business purchases and tracking of
business purchases--this compliance cost statistic is likely to become
woefully outdated as costs soar ever higher. Mr. President, we ought to
be reducing the small business regulatory compliance burden, not
augmenting it.
So, once again, here we are, and the only amendment that the majority
has seen prudent to approve reinstates an ill-conceived Treasury
lending fund that has been widely recognized as ``TARP Jr.,'' while we
fail to vote in favor of an amendment introduced by Senator Johanns
that could have helped small businesses.
Simply put, we will rely on small businesses to lead us out of the
present economic morass. According to the Small Business
Administration, or SBA, small firms have created 64 percent of net new
jobs over the past 15 years. And since they represent 99.7 percent of
all employer firms and employ slightly more than half of all private
sector employees, it is more than evident that our overall economy's
health is based on the well-being of our Nation's almost 30 million
small businesses. With our Nation's unemployment rate hovering near 10
percent since last August--over a whole year ago--and standing at a
regrettable 9.6 percent today, it will require nearly unprecedented
economic growth to reverse this trend.
We have 14.9 million Americans on the unemployment rolls, searching
for opportunities in what often seems to them a hopeless situation.
According to the most recent ADP Employment Report, we learned that
private-sector companies actually shed 10,000 jobs in August--news
which the firm noted ``. . . confirms a pause in the recovery,
[[Page S7156]]
already evident in other economic data.'' From February through July,
``. . . the average monthly gain in employment was 37,000 with no
evidence of acceleration.'' By any measure, these job creation figures
are lackluster and insufficient.
Yet if we are to spur a full-fledged recovery that recoups the jobs
we have lost since the start of the recession in December 2007, the
NFIB's latest Economic Trends survey notes that ``. . . to restore 2007
employment levels and unemployment rates by 2013, we need a net 400,000
new jobs every month for 3 years''--which, given the numbers coming
from both the Department of Labor and ADP, would be next to impossible.
We have hit the mark of 400,000 jobs in 1 month only once this year--in
May--and that was due to the hiring of 411,000 census workers. Indeed,
the private sector only grew by 41,000 jobs that month.
Furthermore, with respect to our economic growth, the Bureau of
Economic Analysis late last month revised its estimate of GDP growth
downward to an astonishingly low 1.6 percent for the second quarter of
2010, from an earlier prediction of 2.4 percent.
Let's be clear. This kind of growth is insufficient to reduce
unemployment and bolster our economic future, and it certainly will not
instill the level of confidence that small business owners require in
decisions to take risks and invest in their businesses. In fact, just
before the July 4th recess, I met with the president of the Boston
Federal Reserve, Eric Rosengren. And as he noted, the ``growth'' the
economy has shown thus far is for the most part in inventory--and this
is not actually ``real growth.'' Right now, our government is the only
real growth industry in this country, and that is not a recipe for
future prosperity and the kind of innovation that has always placed
America on the vanguard in an exceptionally competitive global
marketplace.
So what will be required? In the Federal Reserve's analysis, roughly
a 6-percent growth in GDP will be necessary just to equalize the job
losses we have suffered by the end of 2012. That rate would be almost
the same level of growth we experienced during the recovery from the
1982 recession and approximately double the growth following the 1991
and 2001 recessions. Indeed, even to attain a 5-percent unemployment
rate by the end of 2015, it would require annual growth of 4.2 percent.
The last time we witnessed sustained annual GDP growth near that level
was the late 1990s, peaking at 4.8 percent growth in 1999. So we have
our work cut out for us.
Yet, while small businesses are looking to Washington for some
certainty in the tax and regulatory policies they deal with on a daily
basis, there has been a stark disconnect between Washington and the
entire rest of the country. This vast chasm is vividly discernible in
the NFIB's July Small Business Economic Trends report, which describes
small businesses' optimism as being at an ``unprecedented'' low. The
report went on to state that ``the U.S. economy faces hurricane force
headwinds and the government is at the center of the storm, making an
economic recovery very difficult.''
The NFIB's June survey noted that the optimism index remained in
``recession'' territory, and even with some signs of life in our
economy, ``Washington, D.C. . . . seem[s] determined to undermine any
economic forward momentum for small business owners.'' That report
further stated that ``Congress continues to pass and propose
legislation that increases the cost of running a business and create
huge uncertainty about future costs.'' And the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
added its own dire analysis of Washington's actions in an open letter
in mid-July, asserting that, ``By straying from the proven principles
of American free enterprise, policymakers are needlessly prolonging the
economic agony of the recession for millions of Americans and their
families.'' These candid assessments of how small business owners view
the actions of this Congress and this administration must
unquestionably be heeded if we are to ever regain the trust of the
American people. As I said earlier, the majority is detached from
reality.
So clearly there is a demonstrable necessity for a broad jobs package
that will get our Nation's small businesses back on track and spark the
idling engines of our economy. The substitute amendment that has been
laid down contains a solid foundation for investing in jobs that
includes many of the provisions I have championed over the last year
and a half and that formed the core of my Small Business Job Creation
Act, S. 3103. This includes crucial measures to bolster Small Business
Administration, or SBA, lending, increase the number of small companies
that export to foreign markets, and provide immediate tax relief to our
Nation's true job creators. In fact, the Small Business Committee has
approved many of these provisions unanimously, and the President of the
United States has called for them to be included a jobs package.
One of the critical starting points of this legislation is taking
steps to stem the endemic credit crisis our Nation's business community
is still facing. This bill will address this stifling credit crunch
that is placing a perilous chokehold on our economy across the country
so that we can do something viable and bold to confront such a
universally-acknowledged problem.
We can begin to turn around this deplorable trend by boosting the
SBA's capacity for facilitating access to credit. This bill includes
key lending provisions from a measure I introduced with Small Business
Committee Chair Landrieu, which was reported out of our committee by a
vote of 17 to 1, to increase the maximum limits for SBA 7(a) and 504
loans from $2 million to $5 million; raise the maximum microloan limit
from $35,000 to $50,000; and allow for the refinancing of conventional
small business loans through the SBA 504 program. These loans are
critical to small businesses that utilize this capital in starting
their firms and investing in equipment and expansion. It should be
evident to everyone in this Chamber why 81 business organizations have
endorsed these provisions.
I would note that enhancing SBA loans has already paid tremendous
dividends. In the stimulus, we included initiatives to increase SBA
maximum 7(a) loan guarantees from 80 percent to 90 percent and to
reduce certain 7(a) and 504 lender and borrower fees. But, regrettably,
these provisions have lapsed, and these initiatives, which are credited
with increasing loan volumes by a remarkable 90 percent nationwide and
236 percent in Maine, have, to my dismay, come to a close. At a time
when unemployment hovers at unsustainable levels and consumer
confidence hangs in abeyance, nothing could be more counterintuitive
than to allow these provisions to remain moribund. In fact, we have
seen the dramatic results to SBA lending since the expiration of these
critical enhancements. In August alone, the SBA approved only $1.097
billion in SBA 7(a) guaranteed loans, a 43-percent decrease from the
$1.9 billion in 7(a) loans it approved in May, the last month of the
fee relief and higher guarantees.
That is why I introduced an amendment to this bill along with
Senators Grassley, Enzi, Isakson, and Collins, to resuscitate these
highly effective programs--and I am pleased that the majority leader
has included a modification of our amendment in the most recent
substitute. This language would provide $505 million to reinstate SBA
fee reductions and the elevated guarantee on SBA 7(a) loans through the
end of 2010.
Additionally, we must provide tax incentives to the small business
community in order to foster job creation. We know from survey after
survey that small business owners consider taxes to be one of the
biggest impediments to the growth of their firms. Indeed, in the
National Small Business Association's 2009 Year-End Economic Report, 38
percent of respondents to their survey noted Federal taxes as one of
the three most significant challenges to the future growth and survival
of their businesses--a category trumped only by the ongoing economic
uncertainty pervading our Nation. To help mitigate this uncertainty,
the tax portion of this bill that Chairman Baucus and ranking member of
the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, helped negotiate
includes three critical components: cash flow, investment incentives,
and fairness.
The lifeblood of a small business is its cash flow, and so this bill
contains several provisions that will improve the cash flow status of a
company. The provision that is most remarkable will
[[Page S7157]]
also address a fundamental injustice of the TAX CODE: permitting the
self-employed, like realtors, a full deduction for the first time ever
for health insurance premiums against not only income taxes but also
against payroll taxes. At a rate of 15.3 percent, for many small
business owners the self-employment tax, or SECA tax, imposed on the
health benefits of the business owner is an expensive injustice that
only adds to the already exorbitant cost of health insurance.
Regrettably, the health reform bill that was jammed through Congress
earlier this year fell far short for small businesses. So allowing the
full deduction for health insurance for the self-employed is critical
for affordability.
This substitute will also allow for general business credits to be
carried back 5 years and taken against the alternative minimum tax, or
AMT. When Congress implements policies through the TAX CODE, we expect
businesses to utilize these incentives. Unfortunately, during a
downward business cycle as we have been in for 2 full years, businesses
do not have income tax liability that can be offset with a credit. The
5-year carryback of credits will allow business owners to reach back to
prior years when they had taxable income and offset prior tax liability
with these credits to get an immediate cash infusion. They can use this
cash as they choose, but, as we have seen with net operating loss
relief, they use these funds for anything from meeting payroll to
investing in new equipment. This same principle applies with respect to
the provision that allows credits to be used against the alternative
minimum tax.
And with regard to investing in new equipment, more businesses will
be incentivized to make equipment purchases or upgrade their physical
spaces. Real property has never been included in ``expensing,'' and
this would allow ``Main Street'' businesses such as retail,
restaurants, and dentist offices, to renovate and make other
improvements to their buildings in 2010 and 2011 and immediately deduct
those costs. In this legislation, we also increase the expensing
limitation to $500,000 for equipment. This is double the amount
previously permitted. However the bill would also bifurcate that amount
so that up to $250,000 of expenses for real property can be expensed
and the business can still purchase up to $250,000 of equipment.
One final tax provision I would like to discuss concerns investment
in small business. Senator Kerry and I have long championed allowing
for the complete exclusion on capital gains attributable to small
business stock held for 5 years. The President touted this effort in
his State of the Union Address. I hope this will help jumpstart
critical investment in our Nation's small businesses.
Furthermore, this bill would take critical steps to inject some
fairness into the Federal contracting process for small businesses. And
it also includes $50 million in funding for small business development
centers, which provide critical technical assistance and counseling to
small businesses at over 1,000 locations nationwide. The SBDC program
has a proven track record of job creation. According to an annual
report by Dr. James Chrisman at Mississippi State University, between
2007 and 2008, employment levels of SBDC clients increased 10 percent
more than for U.S. businesses in general. As a result of the additional
funding included in this package, Dr. Chrisman estimates that over
20,000 new jobs would be created, while tens of thousands more will be
saved.
Just as there is much we can do right away domestically, our
legislation will also take action to help our small businesses compete
globally. Given that fewer than 1 percent of U.S. small businesses
export, it is all the more vital that we take advantage of this
untapped market and help those enterprises sell their goods and
services to the 95 percent of the world's customers who live outside
our borders. In his State of the Union Address, President Obama made
clear that we must double our exports over the next 5 years, and small
businesses are a critical component of the administration's strategy
and our national competitiveness.
For this reason, this bill includes small business exporting
provisions from legislation I introduced with Chair Landrieu. The
provisions in this bill--larger SBA export loan limits, expanded export
technical assistance, and enhanced assistance for trade promotion--have
bipartisan support, they were reported unanimously by our committee
last December, and they have administration support and have also been
endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These provisions could create
roughly 46,000 new American jobs in the year after enactment and
200,000 jobs over the next 5 years.
Another theme that I frequently hear from small businesses is that
the regulatory environment promoted by Washington is too complex and
often detrimental to their ability to expand operations and create
jobs. As such, this legislation strengthens the Regulatory Flexibility
Act by requiring agencies to respond to the SBA Chief Counsel of
Advocacy's comments in the final rules that they promulgate. This will
help to ensure that the potentially devastating impacts to small
business job creation are fully considered during the Federal
rulemaking process. It also seeks more independence for the Office of
Advocacy by mandating a separate line item in the administration's
annual budget. These provisions are strongly supported by a variety of
groups, including the National Federation of Independent Business, the
U.S. Chamber, and the National Small Business Association.
Yet, despite all of these provisions--many of which I helped craft
and many of which have broad, bipartisan support--regrettably, I cannot
support this bill as it stands because of the reckless and wrongheaded
$30 billion lending fund contained in the legislation. I have spoken at
length about this on the Senate floor before, but let me remind my
colleagues--once again--what we are voting on with this lending fund.
First, regardless of what proponents of the lending fund will say, it
is essentially an extension of the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or
TARP, which just terminated with the enactment of financial regulatory
reform legislation. This is not simply my analysis. In a May 17, 2010,
letter that Mr. Barofsky, the special inspector general of TARP, wrote
to the Members of the House of Representatives, he states that ``. . .
in terms of its basic design, its participants, its application
process, and, perhaps its funding source from an oversight perspective,
the SBLF [Lending Fund] would essentially be an extension of TARP's CPP
[Capital Purchase Program] program. . . .'' So if the experts tell us
that it looks like TARP--well, let's not kid ourselves--regardless of
how the proponents want to spin this, it is still TARP.
Additionally, there are unintended consequences that may result from
Treasury's Small Business Lending Fund which certainly raise a red flag
for me. It is possible that instead of promoting quality loans, the
proposal could encourage unnecessarily risky behavior by banks. The
Treasury Department proposes to lend funds to banks, at a 5-percent
interest rate, which can then be reduced to as low as 1 percent if the
institutions in turn increase their small business lending. However, if
the banks fail to increase their small business lending, the interest
rate they pay could rise to a more punitive 7 percent. This could lead
to the ``moral hazard'' of banks making risky loans to avoid paying
higher interest rates.
Finally, I have serious concerns about the cost of the program. The
lending fund provision that is in the Reid substitute remains virtually
identical, for scoring purposes, to how it was in the House-passed
small business bill, H.R. 5297. That score is based on a cash--based
estimate. Under a cash-based estimate, the Congressional Budget Office,
or CBO, listed the official score for the lending fund as raising $1.1
billion over 10 years.
Although CBO was bound to score the provision under a cash-based
estimate, the office also highlights in that same score--and I quote--
``Estimates prepared on a `fair-value' basis include the cost of the
risk that the government has assumed; as a result, they provide a more
comprehensive measure of the cost of the financial commitments than
estimates done on a FCRA basis or on a cash basis. CBO estimates that
the cost of the SBLF [Lending Fund] on such a fair-value basis (that
is, reflecting market risk) would be $6.2 billion.'' That is right, CBO
is warning that although it is bound to score the
[[Page S7158]]
provision using a cash-based estimate, a more comprehensive scoring
method reveals a potential $6.2 billion loss to taxpayers. I raised
this issue on the floor during the debate on the lending fund, but my
opponents have simply ignored this concern. Certainly, this should have
been taken into full consideration when evaluating the potential costs
and benefits of the program and its effect on our increasing budget
deficit.
Finally, I note that this past Tuesday, the Washington Post ran an
article demonstrating that, while larger banks are generally associated
with TARP, ``. . . it's a collection of smaller banks that continued to
plague the Treasury Department's bank bailout program.'' In fact, the
article cited that ``the latest report from the agency shows that more
than 120 institutions--nearly all of them small banks--have missed
their scheduled quarterly dividend payments.'' So I do not understand
why the majority wants to create a new program for small banks that has
the same characteristics of TARP, when many of those banks are already
participating in TARP and have been delinquent on their payments.
So I am truly disappointed that we have arrived at this point. This
bill could have been better. We could have considered amendments from
the outset, and we could have moved on this bill months ago. I know
that I have been calling for sensible legislation to help small
businesses since January. Yet, regrettably, for the reasons I have
discussed, I cannot support it.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The cloture motion having been
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the
motion.
The assistant executive clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 5297, the
Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010.
Mary L. Landrieu, Max Baucus, Dianne Feinstein, Patty
Murray, Charles E. Schumer, Christopher J. Dodd, Al
Franken, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Maria Cantwell, Sheldon
Whitehouse, Byron L. Dorgan, Benjamin L. Cardin, Ron
Wyden, Kent Conrad, Roland W. Burris, Jeff Merkley,
Debbie Stabenow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call is waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate on
H.R. 5297, the Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010, shall be
brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 61, nays 38, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 236 Leg.]
YEAS--61
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Goodwin
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
LeMieux
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--38
Alexander
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Wicker
NOT VOTING--1
Vitter
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 61, the nays are
38. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Postcloture time is yielded back.
The clerk will read the bill for the third time.
The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I wanted to announce what the schedule
will be in the next few days. I have been working with the Republican
leader to try to make this as convenient for everyone and still cover
as much as we can in the short period of time we have. The next vote,
which will happen in a minute or two, will be the last vote this week.
On Monday, September 20, as has been previously announced, there will
be no votes. The next rollcall vote will be at 2:15 on Tuesday,
September 21, which will be cloture on the motion to proceed to the DOD
authorization bill. I will have a conversation about that when this
vote is completed as to how I propose to proceed to that matter.
I ask for the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the
bill pass?
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 38, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 237 Leg.]
YEAS--61
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Goodwin
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
LeMieux
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--38
Alexander
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Wicker
NOT VOTING--1
Vitter
The bill (H.R. 5297), as amended, was passed.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________