[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 29, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1929-S1931]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           HEALTH CARE RALLY

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, on Saturday, March 26 several hundred 
medical students from across the country came to our State Capital in 
Montpelier, VT, to rally in support of Vermont going forward with a 
Medicare for All Single Payer health care system.
  These young people were absolutely clear in understanding that for 
them to be the great physicians and nurses that they want to be, our 
health care system must change. They believe, as I do, that health care 
is a right and not a privilege and that a single payer program is the 
most cost-effective way of achieving that goal. I am very pleased to 
submit for the Record the statement of principle signed by these 
medical school students.
  I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       As medical students from around the country converge this 
     weekend on the steps of the State House to support Vermont's 
     movement toward a single-payer health system, we want to 
     contribute additional perspectives on our state's discussion 
     of Health Care Reform.
       As the Vermont legislature considers Health Care Reform, 
     we, a group of UVM medical students who are invested in the 
     future of Vermont, believe that current and future health 
     care legislation should work toward the following goals:
       1. Ensure that every Vermonter has health care coverage 
     through a sustainable system that maintains a desirable 
     environment in which to practice medicine.
       2. Replace the current fee for service system that both 
     limits access to physicians and compromises the quality of 
     care given to patients.
       3. Empower Vermont to retain and attract high quality 
     physicians to ensure adequate health care for future 
     Vermonters.
       Our proposals to help meet these goals are:
       1. Initiate a program that reduces the tuition of out-or-
     state students to in-state levels in exchange for commitment 
     to practice in Vermont after training is complete.
       2. Improve funding for the existing loan repayment program 
     through Vermont AHEC to encourage primary care providers to 
     practice in under-served areas of the state.
       3. Address the current inequity in the ``provider tax'' 
     such that out of state providers treating Vermont patients 
     contribute fairly to the Vermont Medicaid program.
       4. Simplify the administrative burden upon the provider by 
     developing a system that has a single payer with best-
     practice guidelines as opposed to the current fee-for-service 
     system.
       By addressing these issues in upcoming legislation, we are 
     of the opinion that the quality of health care in Vermont 
     will improve. A sustainable system that addresses many of the 
     national problems with medicine will encourage a strong 
     physician population throughout the state, as well as secure 
     Vermont's future as the healthiest state in America.
       As medical students who will inherit the reform currently 
     being debated in Montpelier, we are committed to help shape a 
     sustainable universal health care system. It is our great 
     hope that these changes will be enacted to enable us to 
     provide the best care possible to our future patients.
       Larry Bodden, Calvin Kagan, Bud Vana, Ben Ware, John 
     Malcolm, JJ Galli, Vanessa Patten, Nick Koch, Uz Robison, 
     Pete Cooch, Rich Tan, Bianca Yoo, Prabu Selvam, Dave Reisman, 
     Adam Ackrman, Nazia Kabani, Stas Lazarev, Sara Staples, 
     Therese Ray, Kelly Cunningham, Hannah Foote, Laura Sturgill, 
     Megan Malgeri, Kati Anderson, Serena Chang, Caitlan Baran, 
     Leah Carr, Mariah Stump, Daniel Edberg, Franki Boulos, 
     Chelsea Harris, Vinnie Kan, Mairin Jerome, Jimmy Corbett-
     Detig, Dan Liebowitz, Laura Caldwell, Damian Ray, Mei Lee 
     Frankish.
       The University of Vermont does not endorse this 
     organization or their position in connection with this or any 
     other political campaign, policy position or election.

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish to discuss an amendment entitled 
``the Greater Accountability in the Treasury Small Business Lending 
Fund Act of 2011.''
  As ranking member of the Senate Small Business Committee, it is my 
responsibility to ensure that small businesses have access to 
affordable credit. In this regard, I have worked on a bipartisan basis 
with Senator Landrieu, chair of the Small Business Committee, to 
include provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that 
enhanced the SBA's 7(a) and 504 loan programs. Those measures resulted 
in a 90-percent national increase in SBA lending at a crucial time in 
our Nation's lending crisis. I also authored provisions, recently 
enacted into law, to increase the SBA's maximum loan limits for its 
microloan, 7(a), and 504 loans, to make the SBA more relevant to the 
needs of today's borrowers. Additionally, I have been supportive of 
efforts to increase the arbitrarily imposed cap on member business 
lending at credit unions--at no cost to taxpayers--so that credit 
unions can play

[[Page S1930]]

a greater role in helping to address the problems that small businesses 
continue to face in accessing credit.
  But, unfortunately, I was unable to vote in favor of the Small 
Business Jobs Act of 2010, even though it included many of my 
priorities, due to my significant concerns with the Treasury Small 
Business Lending Fund--SBLF or lending fund--provisions included into 
that bill. I opposed the inclusion of the lending fund for several 
reasons. While I will not reiterate all of those here, I will discuss a 
few of them briefly.
  First, the lending fund is essentially an extension of the Troubled 
Assets Relief Program, TARP, which was terminated by the Dodd-Frank 
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This fact was confirmed 
by the bipartisan Congressional Oversight Panel for TARP in its May 
Oversight Report.
  Second, it is possible that instead of promoting quality loans, the 
lending fund could encourage unnecessarily risky behavior by banks. 
Under the current law, the Treasury Department lends funds to banks at 
a 5-percent interest rate, which can be reduced to as low as 1 percent 
if the institutions in turn increase their small business lending. 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 an untenable situation where banks would make risky loans to avoid 
paying higher interest rates--a behavior known as ``moral hazard.''
  Third, I still believe that the lending fund could put taxpayer 
resources at risk. The score for the Small Business Lending Fund is 
convoluted. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, score for the lending 
fund listed it as raising $1.1 billion over 10 years, based on a cash-
based estimate. However, the very same CBO score highlighted that if 
CBO were permitted to base its score on a fair-value estimate, which 
accounts for market risk, the score would be a $6.2 billion loss. In 
fact, the CBO score stated:

       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 
     [Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA)] basis or on a cash 
     basis. CBO estimates that the cost of the SBLF on such a 
     fair-value basis (that is, reflecting market risk) would be 
     $6.2 billion.

  While I favor outright repeal of the Small Business Lending Fund, I 
know that will be very difficult--and likely impossible, given that the 
majority party in the Senate and the President strongly supported its 
enactment. And so I am focusing my efforts on making as many 
improvements to the fund as possible, a responsibility that all of us 
in Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, should be able to 
coalesce around.
  We undoubtedly have a shared responsibility to ensure that taxpayer's 
dollars, in this case $30 billion for the Small Business Lending Fund, 
are used in a transparent, prudent, and responsible manner. If we 
foster an environment in which banks are free to make risky loans to 
avoid higher interest rates, if we permit banks to accept loans without 
any formal guarantee of repayment, we fail our responsibility to our 
constituents and do a disservice to our Nation's 30 million small 
businesses.
  The following is a description of some of the amendment's provisions. 
One section would require that banks that receive Small Business 
Lending Fund distributions, must--within 10 years--repay the money they 
receive. While the current law directs that within 10 years of 
receiving the funds, the banks should repay them to the Treasury 
Department, it also gives discretion to the Treasury Secretary to 
extend--even indefinitely--the period of time that banks have, to repay 
the government. Again, this is a commonsense provision to ensure that 
taxpayer's dollars do not go to waste.
  Another provision would establish a sunset of 15 years for the Small 
Business Lending Fund. Under the current law, no such end date exists. 
The Lending Fund must not be authorized to continue in perpetuity.
  The amendment would also prohibit, moving forward, banks that have 
received TARP distributions from also obtaining small business lending 
funds. Under the current law, banks that have received money through 
the TARP program remain eligible to receive small business lending 
funds as well, unless they default on TARP repayment. My provision is 
not inferring that banks who received TARP funds are bad actors, or 
that they are being penalized for participating in the program. Rather, 
it is a simple recognition that the Federal government should be 
limiting the frequency with which it subsidizes private banks with 
taxpayer funds at favorable interest rates. This crucial amendment will 
prohibit banks from ``double dipping'' into taxpayer funds.
  Another provision would provide that the Small Business Lending Fund 
cease operations if the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is 
appointed receiver of 5 percent or more of any eligible institutions. 
It is essential that the lending fund is not a bailout and if there are 
strong indications that this fund has serious systemic difficulties, it 
must be halted until the problems within the program are corrected.
  Another provision would provide that only healthy banks participate 
in the Small Business Lending Fund. This amendment prevents banks who 
apply for the SBLF from counting expected SBLF funds as tier 1 capital 
in order to artificially strengthen their capital position in order to 
receive government funds. This provision ensures that banks would have 
to stand on their own two feet, rather than being able to count the 
anticipated future receipts of taxpayer funds, when determining if the 
banks are healthy enough to be provided those funds in the first place.
  My amendment would also help ensure that regulators have more 
meaningful controls over the Small Business Lending Fund. For there to 
be meaningful controls over the SBLF, it is essential that all bank 
regulators, whether State or Federal, have a real voice in the lending 
fund's ability to lend to regulated banks. This amendment gives State 
bank regulators the ability to determine whether or not a bank which 
they regulate should receive capital investment through the SBLF 
program. The current lending fund only gives State bank regulators an 
advisory role over whether or not a bank they regulate will receive 
SBLF funds. As this fund is targeted towards community banks, most of 
the banks applying for this program will be regulated at the State 
level. If we are really going to include State regulators and make this 
an inclusive regulator process, it is essential that State regulators 
have the power to affect a bank's application.
  And my amendment would also establish an appropriate benchmark for 
assessing changes in small business lending by recipients of capital 
investments under the Small Business Lending Fund. As it is currently 
written, the SBLF uses 2008 as a benchmark year to determine how much 
banks will have to increase their lending to small firms. My concern is 
that 2008 was a true low mark for small business lending. This 
benchmark shortchanges small businesses. Using 2007, or some other 
measure, as a benchmark may increase the number of loans, banks 
participating in the SBLF program would have to make to small firms.
  This legislation is not a silver bullet, and I recognize that we 
should continue to vet these issues further. But it does attempt to 
deal with many of the significant problems that I have with the lending 
fund. Regrettably, these are precisely the types of issues that could 
have been resolved, had the lending fund received hearings and been 
properly vetted in the Senate--as one would expect of any legislative 
proposal of this magnitude.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the section by section of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

The Greater Accountability in the Treasury Small Business Lending Fund 
                             Act (``Act'')

       *This Act revises the Department of Treasury (``Treasury'') 
     Small Business Lending Fund (``Lending Fund'') program 
     established in H.R. 5297, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 
     (``Jobs Act'').

     SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This legislation shall be referred to as ``the Greater 
     Accountability in the Lending Fund Act of 2011.''

     SEC. 2. REPAYMENT REQUIREMENT.

       This section requires that financial institutions that 
     receive Lending Fund distributions must--within 10 years--
     repay the

[[Page S1931]]

     money that they receive. Under current law, the Secretary of 
     Treasury (``Secretary'') has the authority to postpone, 
     indefinitely, repayment.

     SEC. 3. SUNSET ON THE LENDING FUND.

       Under existing law, the Lending Fund is authorized to exist 
     forever. This section requires that the Lending Fund sunset 
     within 15 years of the date that the Lending Fund was 
     enacted.

     SEC. 4. TRIGGER TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

       This section prohibits the Secretary from making any new 
     purchases (i.e. prohibits the Secretary from providing 
     additional money, through the Lending Fund) if the Federal 
     Deposit Insurance Corporation is appointed receiver of 5 
     percent or more of the number of eligible financial 
     institutions that have obtained a capital investment under 
     the Lending Fund program.

     SEC. 5. DISALLOWING FUTURE LENDING FUND PURCHASES OF 
                   FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE 
                   TROUBLED ASSET RELIEF PROGRAM (``TARP'').

       This section prohibits--as of the date of this Act being 
     enacted--the Secretary from making additional purchases, 
     through the Lending Fund, of a financial institution (i.e. 
     providing money to a bank) that participated in the TARP 
     program. This section would end the double-dipping practice 
     of financial institutions that have previously received 
     taxpayer funds, at low (subsidized) interest rates, through 
     TARP, doing so again, through the Lending Fund.

     SEC. 6. ALLOWING ONLY ``HEALTHY'' FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TO 
                   PARTICIPATE IN THE LENDING FUND.

       Under current law, when determining whether a bank is 
     financially sound, for the purpose of receiving Lending Fund 
     dollars, the Secretary can take into consideration what the 
     bank's strength would be after receiving the funds. This 
     section changes the law to require that the Secretary 
     determine whether a bank is financially stable, without being 
     able to include future Lending Fund distributions into the 
     equation. Therefore, a bank must be stable on its own, 
     (without regard to future Lending Fund dollars), in order to 
     be approved to participate in the program.

     SEC. 7. ENSURING THAT REGULATORS HAVE MORE MEANINGFUL 
                   CONTROLS OVER THE LENDING FUND.

       This section requires that the Secretary must obtain 
     prudential regulators' approval--rather than consultation--
     before an individual applicant financial institution can 
     receive distributions through the Lending Fund program.

     SEC. 8. BENCHMARK ADJUSTMENT.

       This section changes the benchmark by which a financial 
     institution's small business lending has increased from the 
     current level (the 4 full quarters immediately preceding the 
     date of the Jobs Act being enacted) to a new benchmark of 
     calendar year 2007. This section addresses concerns that the 
     Lending Fund may reward banks that would have increased their 
     lending even in the absence of government support, as the 
     Fund's incentive structure is calculated in reference to 
     lending levels, which were low by historical standards.

                          ____________________