[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 56 (Thursday, March 25, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1792-S1800]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PPP EXTENSION ACT OF 2021
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 1799) to amend the Small Business Act and the
CARES Act to extend the covered period for the paycheck
protection program, and for other purposes.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.
Immigration
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the crisis on our southern border
continues to escalate. CBP is tracking the largest surge in migrant
apprehensions in 20 years. Unaccompanied children are literally piling
up in close quarters. It turns out when politicians spend a 2-year
campaign advertising amnesty, people actually listen. As one senior CBP
official said, there is ``no end in sight.'' No end in sight.
The administration still refuses to even admit there is a crisis,
much less address it. We keep hearing strange mixed messaging from the
White House
[[Page S1793]]
podium like ``now is not the time to come,'' as if there will be a good
time to break the law and come illegally, and the White House will let
us all know when that time is, I assume.
The Washington Post put it gently: ``Administration officials have
been plagued by muddled messaging.'' Boy, that is an understatement.
But actually, when you look at Democrats' actions, the message isn't
mixed at all. That is the problem. For months on the campaign trail,
President Biden spoke directly to potential migrants. At one point, he
said, ``You want to flee . . . you should come.'' That was President
Biden.
President Lopez Obrador of Mexico himself stated this week that
President Biden's campaign created expectations that ``caused Central
American migrants, and also from our country, wanting to cross the
border, thinking that it is easier to do so.'' That was the President
of Mexico.
On Inauguration Day, the President followed through--five Executive
orders to roll back immigration enforcement and open up the border. The
administration wasted no time rolling back the policies from the prior
administration that had guarded against this exact outcome. South of
the border, message received. Some migrants are arriving with Biden
campaign flags and T-shirts. One arriving person said, ``Biden promised
us that everything was going to change.''
So what about the Democrats here in Congress? Are the House Democrats
rising to the occasion with solutions? Well, not exactly. They
prioritized passing another amnesty bill. They doubled down on the
wrong direction and the wrong incentives.
The situation is raising eyebrows among Democrats' own rank and file.
As one Texas Democrat put it, ``When you create a system that
incentivizes people to come across . . . that immediately sends a
message.''
Here, in the Senate, our Democratic colleagues decided to go the
route of obstruction. Yesterday, Republicans tried to pass serious
proposals to help address parts of the immigration system. Democrats
rejected every single one of them.
Senator Ernst had a proposal to require detention for migrants
charged with violent crimes. It is not exactly a radical idea.
Democrats blocked it.
Senator Cruz had legislation to raise the stakes for repeated illegal
entry. It is not exactly rocket science. Democrats blocked that one
too.
Senator Blackburn and Senator Lee tried to combat child trafficking
within the asylum process, and Democrats even blocked that.
The furthest left ideology on these issues is keeping Washington
Democrats from upholding the basic responsibility of government:
ensuring the integrity of our borders and protecting our national
security.
Election Security
Madam President, now, on another matter. Yesterday, the Rules
Committee held a hearing on the Democrats' proposal to tilt our entire
political system on a partisan basis. It would forcibly rewrite every
State's election laws in ways that defy common sense and are deeply
unpopular with American voters.
It would mandate nearly unrestricted same-day registration. It would
mandate big loopholes that would render voter ID almost meaningless. It
would make every State legalize ballot harvesting, where paid
operatives can turn up carrying big piles of ballots with other
people's names on them, zero chain of custody.
Democrats want to hide behind the mantle of voting rights. What they
are really proposing is less security, less integrity, and a grab bag
of changes that are deeply, deeply unpopular. Just look at the other
changes with zero relationship to voting rights that Democrats want to
smuggle in behind that smokescreen.
This bill would take the Federal Election Commission from an evenly
split, bipartisan panel to a partisan body so that Democrats could rule
unilaterally over politics as well as citizens' speech, turn the
neutral judge into a partisan prosecutor, and it would send taxpayers'
money to fund political campaigns.
It contains a massive attack on the privacy of citizens who engage in
free speech, a massive and intentional gift to cancel culture. That led
even the leftwing ACLU to oppose this bill 2 years ago and lead senior
ACLU lawyers to torch it again in the Washington Post just recently.
Democrats are desperate to avoid talking about any of these things.
They are desperate to convince the media that a partisan takeover at
the FEC, socialism for political ad makers, and an assault on free
speech and Americans' privacy are just ``voting rights,'' a shameless,
shameless bait and switch.
I noticed something funny yesterday. Remember, this is the same bill
Democrats were shopping around 2 years ago in response to the 2016
election, which they said was a disaster. Now, 2 years ago, Democrats
were marketing this bill as a massive shakeup that our broken elections
badly needed.
Our democracy was in shambles after they lost in 2016. It was broken,
they said. It was insecure, they said, and only this sweeping
transformation could possibly repair it. Of course, it didn't pass, and
the 2020 election came and went without the liberal takeover, and yet
Democrats say it was a huge success.
Democrats said the 2020 election was beyond reproach. They said the
integrity and security were beyond question. They have said only
conspiracy theorists would complain about the last election.
Oh, but curiously enough, they are now still pushing this very same
bill. Now, instead of a sweeping transformation, they are trying to say
it would just preserve our smoothly functioning system so State
legislatures can't mess it up.
So let's get this straight. Two years ago, in 2019, Democrats
suggested this bill was a bold, radical overhaul for a broken system.
In the meantime, what happened was, they got an election they liked,
and now they claim the exact same legislation just does a few modest
things to protect our system just the way it is.
What utter nonsense--utter nonsense. This legislation has but one
goal, just one. It has only ever had one goal, just one. That goal was
the same in 2019 as it is today. And that goal is to let Washington
Democrats rig the rules of democracy from top down to hide that
partisan project behind the smokescreen, the smokescreen of voting
rights.
Business Before the Senate
Madam President, now one final matter. Senators will soon head home
for the State work period. We will be seeing an Easter recess of
optimism and hope as the tide of the pandemic continues to turn. Thanks
to science and fueled by five bipartisan bills we passed last year,
vaccines were developed, approved, and preordered in record time.
America was delivering more than a million doses per day before the
current administration even took office.
And because of last year's bipartisan work, our economy was already
poised for a historic comeback. I am also going to be talking with
Kentuckians about their confusion and concern surrounding the
multitrillion-dollar partisan spending plan that Democrats just rushed
through Congress recently, like why teachers unions got huge sums for
schools, much of which won't be spent until years, years into the
future, without any meaningful requirement to reopen, even though
science says it is safe. There are concerns like why Kentucky and other
States whose budgets have come through the crisis intact will actually
be subsidizing massive bailouts to other States for mismanagement that
predates the pandemic, and confusion and concern about the radical,
last-minute provision that tries to prevent States from implementing
any policy, any policy that might be interpreted as a tax cut.
That one could wreak havoc on the plans of local officials in my
State and entire industries as they try to get the Bluegrass growing
again. This provision has the potential to shoot down a State law
designed to help the Commonwealth's small businesses deduct PPP
expenses from their State taxes and unwind planned waivers of hikes on
their unemployment taxes.
Secretary Yellen was asked about this huge uncertainty in a hearing
yesterday, about how this will be defined or enforced. She essentially
had no answers.
So I will be joining Kentuckians to celebrate what has gone well,
thanks to our bipartisan work just last year; to hear their concerns
about all the
[[Page S1794]]
consequences of the Democrats' go-it-alone effort; and to hear what
they think about the multimillion-dollar cousin of the Green New Deal
that Democrats are reportedly planning for a sequel.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Unanimous Consent Request--Amendment No. 1402
Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, there is a problem with the Paycheck
Protection Program. It passed with overwhelming bipartisan support last
December, but the implementation has been botched.
Let me explain what I mean. If you are a small business owner, if you
are an individual that is a sole proprietor of what is called a
schedule C, if you had major issues in trying to be able to cover your
employment last year, you would turn in--make a request for the
Paycheck Protection Program. It was extended in December of last year
for only the hardest hit businesses, those that had a 25-percent loss
or more. Those businesses could not survive into the next year.
So we extended it out and allowed them to be able to get additional
time and an additional couple of months of payroll to be able to make
sure they make it. Now, for these extremely small businesses, these
sole proprietors, and these individuals who are out there, this means
just them or sometimes them and one other person whom they are actually
covering the expenses for. These are not our megabusinesses. These are
our backbone small businesses. This is the truckdriver in Oklahoma.
This is the piano teacher in Oklahoma. These are folks who are actually
trying to be able to make a living the best way they know how.
When it was passed in December, the Small Business Administration
interpreted that rule to say you can only use your net expenses for
that--your net expenses. Then, in March, the Small Business
Administration reinterpreted that and said: No, you could use your
gross expenses on that.
Now, for a lot of folks, they would say: What is the difference on
that?
Well, the difference is usually about $5,000 or $10,000. That is an
enormous difference. And for some folks in this room, $5,000 or $10,000
may not be very much, but it is a lot more for that truck driver and
that piano teacher.
So the logical thing for the Small Business Administration to do
would be to say: OK. We changed the rule in March from what it was
earlier so let's make it retroactive. Then folks who apply early, the
most desperate folks, could actually still get the difference.
But that is not what happened. The Small Business Administration
said: No, if you received the loan earlier, you received the smaller
amount. If you waited and applied later, you get the larger amount.
It is the exact same type of business, exact same situation, but
basically the Small Business Administration said: This is too
complicated to go back and redo this. So we will just allow folks who
applied early, the most desperate, to get the least, and folks who
applied later to get more.
We are bringing an amendment that would just fix that and would allow
the folks who applied early, the most desperate folks, to be able to
get the same level of help as the folks that applied later.
So, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for
me to offer my Amendment 1402.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there an objection?
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, first, let me thank the Senator from
Oklahoma for bringing this to the floor.
Here is our challenge. If it gets onto the bill that we have before
us, it will delay the continuation of the Paycheck Protection Program
because it terminates on March 31. We are not going to have any program
to modify. And the House is not in session until the second week in
April so it is not possible to get this done before the program
expires.
So, for that reason, we have to oppose any amendment on the
underlying bill, which is a clean extension of the PPP.
But I want to thank my friend from Oklahoma for bringing this forward
because I agree with you. As chairman of the Small Business and
Entrepreneurship Committee, I support making the changes that the
administration made in regard to the determination for self-employed
retroactive. I think that is a fair thing to do. I also support making
sure that the business structure that is chosen by a small business
also qualifies, whether it be a partnership or a traditional business
arrangement.
I think we need to make those changes, and I know our staffs are
working on the exact language. There is some challenge on how we draft
the language. And you have my commitment that we will work during this
recess, and I assure you that I want to see this done. I hope we can do
it by UC when we return, when the House is in session, and get this
done as quickly as possible.
The point the Senator from Oklahoma raises is very valid, but let me
go back to the original bill for the self-employed that used, as you
said, a formula that didn't work. In some cases, it was $50 or $80 that
they got on the PPP, which was ridiculous because a self-employed
person doesn't have the same payroll expenses that a traditional small
business has.
We based the PPP calculations on the payroll amount. That didn't
apply to the self-employed. So that is why the gross receipts are the
right way to make those calculations, and that is what we want to do.
That is what this administration did in its recalculation, but it made
it prospective only. It needs to be retroactive.
So I agree with the gentleman, but I cannot consent to agree to it
today. And it is not going to delay the Senate consideration of it
because the House is not in session for the next 2 weeks.
So the first time we can really get this done is the second week in
April, and you have my commitment that we will work together to get the
provision made retroactive and to cover the legal structures that are
used by some of our small businesses that are not currently covered
under the current interpretation--I think legal, this is a legal issue
that we have to resolve.
For all those reasons, I do object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I do want to thank my friend from
Maryland. This is an important issue. It does need to be resolved. It
has not had enough attention on this. As he and I talked about it the
last several days, and several others joined in, this deals with
partnerships, whether it be ag. This deals with individuals.
So my friend from Kansas, he and I worked together on this to be able
to combine a piece of legislation to make sure we are dealing with all
types of businesses that will be affected, and I do hope to be able to
get this through by unanimous consent in the days ahead to get this
resolved as quickly as possible as well as continue to reach out to the
Small Business Administration and to see what they can to do to be able
to communicate with those folks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas.
Amendment No. 1403
Mr. MARSHALL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to complete my remarks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MARSHALL. Madam President, I thank the gentleman, my neighbor
from Oklahoma, for yielding. And I thank the gentleman from Maryland,
our chairman of the Small Business Committee, for his cooperation.
Our amendment will allow farmers and ranchers categorized as a
partnership, including LLPs, S corps, to utilize gross income when
calculating their PPP maximum loan amount.
It is no secret that our Nation's farmers and ranchers have faced
incredible difficulties through the COVID-19 pandemic when we literally
couldn't pay people to come get our cattle and hogs. In December, we
made changes to allow farmers to use gross income in calculating their
PPP loan. Before it passed, the payments were based on farmers' net
income. This net income number is often low or negative because of the
amount of depreciation farmers claim on equipment. These changes were
helpful and provided assistance for much of the agriculture industry.
[[Page S1795]]
Unfortunately, certain farm and ranch partnerships, many of which are
small family partnerships, were left out of changes made in the program
in December. I believe Congress intended to include partnerships;
however, the SBA, interpreting the statute we passed, did not. They
made it crystal clear, short of legislation, they would not include
partnerships under this new interpretation.
My amendment, in a nutshell, would let farmers categorized as a
partnership use gross income rather than net income for the PPP loan. I
encourage all my colleagues to support this amendment and help our
farmers during this difficult time.
I yield back to the gentleman from Oklahoma. Thank you.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent that there be two minutes of
debate, equally divided, before each vote in today's series.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Louisiana
Amendment No. 1401
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, without order, there can be no justice.
We all know that. Without order, there can be no justice.
This past year, we have seen felony rioting throughout the United
States. It doesn't matter whether that felony rioting happened here at
the Capitol. It doesn't matter whether it happened in Portland or
Chicago or Atlanta or at any of our other wonderful communities
throughout the United States. It is wrong, and we have all condemned
it. It should be punished, and it certainly shouldn't be rewarded.
My amendment is very simple. It says that if you were one of those
rioters and you have received due process, you have been convicted by a
court of law of competent jurisdiction, and you have been adjudged to
have committed a felony with respect to a riot or civil disorder in the
past 2 years, then you cannot participate in the PPP program. We
already have that law at the SBA for disaster loans. This would extend
it to the PPP program.
What you allow is what will continue. What you allow is what will
continue, and that is why I would respectfully ask consideration for my
amendment.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. I rise in opposition to the Kennedy amendment.
Let me be clear. Any amendment that is put on this clean extension
will mean that the program will terminate in less than 1 week, and
hundreds of thousands of small businesses will not be able to get their
PPP loans. These are newly eligible. We changed the calculations on how
much you can apply for. Those who have difficulty finding a financial
institution to write the forgivable loan, those in hard-to-serve
communities, all are going to be denied. The SBA has indicated there
are hundreds of thousands of eligible applicants that have not been
able to get in by the due date.
Now, in regard to the Kennedy amendment, the SBA COVID-19 relief is
for existing businesses and current business owners with proven reentry
track records. Anyone who has rebuilt their life after being
incarcerated should be celebrated and supported. There is no reason why
a business owned by someone with an unrelated criminal record should be
treated any differently.
I would urge my colleagues, for the sake of getting this bill to the
President and signed so we can help our small businesses, to reject the
Kennedy amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do I have left?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. No time remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY. Could I ask unanimous consent for another 30 seconds?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, this is the third time I have brought
this amendment--the third time.
Now, you either approve of the rioting that happened this summer and
at the Capitol or you don't. The riots this summer killed 47 people.
There was well over $1 billion worth of damage.
No. 2, I can't help it if Speaker Pelosi has decided to go home,
which prevents us from offering amendments to make this bill better. We
all support extension of the PPP program, but this is not right, and it
would be a lot more intellectually honest if my colleague, who opposed
my amendment, said: Look, we just don't think that if you rioted you
should be punished with respect to the PPP program, because that is
what a ``no'' vote is saying.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Time has expired.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds
to respond.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. CARDIN. The gentleman's amendment goes well beyond that. The
gentleman's amendment goes back 2 years. It could have been a civil
disturbance on a college campus if someone now has an existing business
totally unrelated to any economic crime. It is just something that
should not be in this law, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. KENNEDY. I would like to ask my colleague for 30 more seconds.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I just wanted to read the language to
you. It says that you are prohibited from getting a PPP loan if you
have been convicted of a felony in relation to a riot or a civil
disorder in the past 2 years. You either support violence or you don't.
Madam President, I would like to ask that my amendment, Kennedy
amendment No. 1401, be called up.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an
amendment numbered 1401.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we
dispense with the reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To prohibit paycheck protection program loans and second draw
loans for applicants convicted of a felony in relation to a riot or
civil disorder during the 2-year period preceding the date of the
application)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM LOANS AND
SECOND DRAW LOANS FOR APPLICANTS CONVICTED OF A
FELONY IN RELATION TO A RIOT OR CIVIL DISORDER.
(a) In General.--Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 636(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (36), by adding at the end the following:
``(W) Prohibition.--An applicant is not eligible to receive
a covered loan if an owner of 20 percent or more of the
equity of the applicant has, as of the date of the
application, been convicted of a felony in relation to a riot
or civil disorder during the 2-year period preceding the date
of the application.''; and
(2) in paragraph (37), by adding at the end the following:
``(P) Prohibition.--An applicant is not eligible to receive
a covered loan if an owner of 20 percent or more of the
equity of the applicant has, as of the date of the
application, been convicted of a felony in relation to a riot
or civil disorder during the 2-year period preceding the date
of the application.''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to an application for a loan under
paragraph (36) or (37) of section 7(a) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(36)) that is submitted on or after the
date of enactment of this Act.
Vote on Amendment No. 1401
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question occurs on agreeing to
the amendment.
Mr. CARDIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
(Mr. HICKENLOOPER assumed the Chair.)
(Mr. SCHATZ assumed the Chair.)
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:
[[Page S1796]]
[Rollcall Vote No. 137 Leg.]
YEAS--48
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS--52
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Portman
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The amendment (No.1401) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Amendment No. 1405
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1405 and ask
that it be reported by number.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S1796, March 25, 2021, first column, the following
appears: Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1450
and ask that it be reported by number.
The online Record has been corrected to read: Mr. RUBIO. Mr.
President, I call up my amendment No. 1405 and ask that it be
reported by number.
========================= END NOTE =========================
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the
amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Florida [Mr. Rubio], for himself and
others, proposes an amendment numbered 1405.
The amendment is as follows
(Purpose: To establish appropriate limitations on the Administrator of
the Small Business Administration establishing new priorities for
processing lender applications)
On page 2, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
(d) Limitation on Prioritization.--During the period
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on
the last day of the covered period, as defined in section
7(a)(36)(A)(iii) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
636(a)(36)(A)(iii)), as amended by this Act, the
Administrator of the Small Business Administration may not
establish or enforce any priority for processing lender
applications under paragraph (36) or (37) of section 7(a) of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)), except for any
priority reasonably necessary to carry out the set-asides
established under section 323(d) of the Economic Aid to Hard-
Hit Small Businesses, Nonprofits, and Venues Act (title III
of division N of Public Law 116-260).
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, the very reason we even have to do an
extension is that the new administration has unfairly and unnecessarily
restricted eligible businesses and nonprofits from applying. It has
created confusion.
People haven't been able to get in by the deadlines, and unless we
put in more guardrails, there is little assurance that this is not
going to continue. In particular, the one thing that would undermine
this popular, bipartisan program is if people came to the conclusion
that it was being used arbitrarily to give priority to politically
favored groups.
So all this amendment does is prohibit the Small Business
Administration from setting up any new set-asides beyond those that
this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, already created last year when we
passed this at the end of 2020.
What were those priorities? Smaller businesses, businesses in low-
income areas, community financial institutions. All it says is, if you
want to change those priorities, Congress has to do it, not the Small
Business Administration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Rubio
amendment.
The policy that Senator Rubio is objecting to is implemented by the
Small Business Administration to help the underserved communities.
During that 14-day period, 400,000 small businesses with 20 employees
or less were able, at long last, to get PPP help. And almost half were
first-time borrowers under the PPP program, those that had been shut
out in the past.
But, specifically, the Rubio amendment, if it were adopted--and it is
wrong policy--would require the House to concur. The House is not in
session for 2 weeks. That could take us beyond the 31st of March, and
the program would end, costing hundreds of thousands of small
businesses the opportunity that--some are now eligible for the first
time; some are trying to figure out the calculations.
So for all those reasons--and one last point: The Chamber of Commerce
of the United States urges all of us to vote in favor of the underlying
bill and oppose any amendment that would derail the expeditious
approval of this measure.
Let's follow the Chamber's advice. Let's vote down the Rubio
amendment.
Vote on Amendment No. 1405
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Rubio
amendment.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 138 Leg.]
YEAS--48
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS--52
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Portman
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The amendment (No. 1405) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Point of Order
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, in 2010, Congress passed what is known as
pay-go. Pay-go was signed into law and requires that if you want to
spend new money, you have to spend for it, hence the name ``pay as you
go.''
The idea was that if you wanted to spend money on something, you
would either need to cut spending or raise taxes, but you couldn't just
simply borrow more money. And if you don't cut something, the cuts
would be automatic. Except we have now waived pay-go 60 times since we
passed pay-go. Debt has gone from $13.5 trillion to $30 trillion
because Congress continues to evade the rules they put in place.
It brings us back to the $1.9 trillion spending bill the other side
just passed. They want to now waive the pay-go rule. This will be the
61st time to waive pay-go.
Some will say that Republicans didn't seem to care about the debt
when they voted to cut taxes. However, honest observers will note that
I also forced a vote on pay-go when we cut taxes. Interestingly, every
Democrat in this body at that time voted to evade the pay-go rules and
add taxes to the deficit, as I am sure they will today.
So do deficits matter? The answer is a resounding yes. There is no
free money. When we borrow or print new money, that money must be
repaid. We have racked up nearly $30 trillion in debt. That is almost
150 percent of our entire economy. We borrow $6.6 million every minute.
Get that. We borrow $6.6--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent to have 1 minute to conclude my
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
[[Page S1797]]
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PAUL. The deficit has gone from $3 trillion last year; it will be
$3.5 trillion this year.
In Washington, every day is a good day to spend money. Big spenders
like to say the Federal Government is no different than a family
budget. We have the Federal Reserve that can print money to buy our
debt, but all that does is cause inflation. Even with inflation not
spiking, we have lost 17 percent of the dollar over the last several
years.
Who is responsible for the $30 trillion debt? Republicans? Democrats?
The answer is yes and yes. Both parties are to blame. The vote I have
called for is a litmus test for fiscal responsibility. Anyone who cares
about the debt should vote to enforce the pay-go rule.
According to the CBO, the bill before us will increase the deficit by
$15 billion in fiscal year 2021; therefore, I raise a point of order
against the measure pursuant to section 404(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 of
the 111th Congress.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Motion to Waive
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I have been advised by the administration
there is an excess of $50 billion available at the end of this month
for the extension. So pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, the waiver provisions of applicable budget
resolutions in section 4(g)(3) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of
2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and
applicable budget resolutions for purpose of the pending measure, and I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 64, nays 36, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 139 Leg.]
YEAS--64
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Cramer
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Portman
Reed
Romney
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--36
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
Moran
Paul
Risch
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). On this vote, the yeas are 64, the
nays are 36.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The bill was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 6 minutes, 3
minutes equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PAUL. Since the implementation of PPP last April, 38 Planned
Parenthood affiliates applied for and received $80 million in taxpayer
funds meant for small business relief.
Pursuant to the longstanding affiliation rules, which stipulate that
affiliated organizations are considered one organization, the Small
Business Administration found that Planned Parenthood was ineligible
for PPP funds and sent letters to each of the 38 organizations that
wrongfully received funds.
After months of delay, though, SBA finally revealed that they have
now given secondary loans to more Planned Parenthood organizations.
These approvals come long after the SBA had determined that the initial
ones were illegal.
Further extending the PPP program could allow all 49 Planned
Parenthood affiliates time to access both the first or second draw of
PPP loans, given the Biden administration's apparent recent actions.
I urge everyone who believes that taxpayers should not be forced to
pay for abortion to vote no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, I want to thank Senator Collins for
her leadership on this issue. I want to thank Senator Shaheen for her
help in getting this done.
This bill is widely supported. It passed the House by 415 to 3,
supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the NFIB, and numerous other
stakeholders in small business.
It will be 1 year since the passage of the CARES Act, and the PPP
program has saved millions of small businesses from being shuttered. It
has helped save our unemployment insurance system by keeping small-
employer employees on the payroll. It has kept workforce together for
small businesses, which is critically important to get through this
pandemic.
Small businesses need additional time because we have changed the
eligibility, we have changed the calculation, and you have to find
private banks that are willing to take on this loan. And we are now
into a second round. There is over $50 billion available at the end of
this month to continue the program.
I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
I would yield the remainder of our time to Senator Collins.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support
passage of H.R. 1799, the PPP Extension Act of 2021. It is imperative
that we act immediately to pass this bill because we are just days away
from the PPP being closed to applications for assistance. This bill
mirrors legislation I introduced with my colleagues, Senators Cardin
and Shaheen, which is cosponsored by Senators Marshall, Sullivan,
Rosen, Murkowski, Leahy, Wyden, Tillis, Ossoff, Capito, Merkley,
Heinrich, Portman, Klobuchar, and Manchin.
Last March, Senators Rubio, Cardin, Shaheen, and I crafted the
Paycheck Protection Program, PPP--a forgivable loan program designed to
help keep small employers afloat and their employees paid during the
pandemic.
The bipartisan bill we are considering today would simply extend the
current application deadline for new PPP loans from March 31 to May 31
of this year and then provide an additional 30-day period during which
time the Small Business Administration may continue processing
applications received prior to the new May 31 deadline. This bipartisan
bill passed the House last week by an overwhelming margin of 415 to 3.
The PPP has been a lifeline for small businesses in Maine and across
the country, providing the support they need to survive the pandemic
and continue paying their employees. In 2020, more than 5 million small
employers received forgivable PPP loans, helping to sustain upwards of
50 million American jobs. This included more than 28,000 Maine small
businesses, which received nearly $2.3 billion in forgivable PPP loans.
The average loan size in Maine during this time was $80,000.
Recognizing the importance of this program for our Nation's small
employers, the bipartisan December 2020 COVID-relief law provided an
additional $284.5 billion to reopen the Paycheck Protection Program and
allow the hardest hit small employers to receive a second forgivable
loan. The December law also made other improvements to the PPP, such as
expanding forgivable overhead expenses to include supplier costs and
investments in facility modifications and personal protective equipment
needed to operate safely.
Since reopening in January, more than 3.1 million additional
forgivable loans--totaling nearly $196 billion--have been approved for
small businesses across the country. In Maine, more than 12,700 small
employers have
[[Page S1798]]
been approved for $797 million in forgivable loans since PPP's
reopening. In total, Maine small employers have been approved for
upwards of $3 billion in forgivable loans since the program was created
last year.
I have heard from numerous small employers about the impact this
program has had on them and their employees. The PPP has helped the
owners of Pottle Transportation in Hermon, Anglers Restaurants in
Hampden, and the Harraseeket Inn in Freeport keep their businesses
alive and their employees paid. Hodgdon, America's oldest boat builder,
was able to keep its family-owned East Boothbay business in operation
with the help of two forgivable PPP loans. The owner of Channel X Radio
in Aroostook County told me that two forgivable PPP loans kept his
business going. The Boys & Girls Clubs of Southern Maine and the Y in
Bangor have been able to provide childcare and other services to
children due to support from the PPP.
With the ongoing distribution of COVID-19 vaccines and reopening of
our Nation's economy, I am hopeful that better times will soon be
ahead. We are not there yet, which is why we need to extend the
deadline to apply for new PPP loans. Extending the deadline would
provide more time for the Small Business Administration to resolve
error messages generated by its computer systems that prevented
eligible small businesses from receiving approval for a PPP Loan. It
would also give us more time to address an inequity facing certain sole
proprietors who received their PPP loans before the Biden
administration unexpectedly announced a change in the maximum loan
amount calculation for these types of businesses.
By extending the PPP for another 2 months and then providing an
additional 30 days after that time for the SBA to process applications
that are still pending, the bill before us today would help our
Nation's small employers retain access to forgivable PPP loans.
This bill has been endorsed by more than 90 organizations, including
the National Federation of Independent Business, U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, American Hotel & Lodging Association, International Franchise
Association, National Restaurant Association, the U.S. Travel
Association, and the Independent Community Bankers of America. I would
ask unanimous consent that these letters of support be printed in the
Record at the conclusion of my statement.
I would like to once again thank my colleagues, Senators Cardin and
Shaheen, for partnering with me on this legislation, and Senator Rubio
for working to craft the PPP and oversee its implementation. I look
forward to working with them and the new administrator of the Small
Business Administration to ensure that the PPP is implemented according
to Congressional intent.
I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Consumer Bankers Association,
Washington, DC, March 15, 2021.
Hon. Susan Collins,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Ben Cardin,
Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Jeanne Shaheen,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins, Chairman Cardin, and Senator Shaheen:
On behalf of the Consumer Bankers Association (CBA), I write
to express our support of S. 723, The PPP Extension Act of
2021. I thank you for your continued leadership as our nation
rises to meet the challenges posed by the COVID-19 crisis.
CBA commends the work of Congress, the Small Business
Administration (SBA), and all the lenders across the country
who together worked dutifully to make the Paycheck Protection
Program (PPP) a reality and provide much needed relief to
millions of small businesses.
Lenders remain committed to serve their small business
customers and have engaged considerable resources to process
PPP loan applications so they can ensure our nation's small
businesses have the support they need to endure these
challenging economic times. Unfortunately, operational
changes made by SBA during this current round of PPP lending
has slowed the funding of PPP loan applications.
With just weeks before the program sunsets, our members are
working tirelessly to resolve complications with the
processing and approval of PPP applications. Issues flagged
during SBA's processing of applications, such as loan hold
and error codes, continue to be major hurdles for successful
PPP funding. Despite lenders' efforts to work with their
customers and the SBA to quickly resolve them, these issues
continue to significantly delay the funding of requests to
businesses that have very pressing financial concerns. This,
coupled with the recent changes by the SBA allowing Schedule
C borrowers to qualify for more PPP relief, makes it
imperative that more time is provided.
Extending the PPP and providing a window for lenders and
the SBA to process received applications will ensure any
small business that wants access to the program is able to do
so. The PPP Extension Act of 2021 will provide the SBA,
lenders, and small businesses the critical time that is
needed to properly implement recent alterations to the
program and resolve any outstanding processing issues,
ultimately allowing small businesses to fully realize the
benefits of the PPP.
Again, thank you for your time and consideration on these
important matters. CBA and our members remain eager to work
with Congress and the SBA to help small businesses in these
uncertain economic times.
Sincerely,
Richard Hunt,
President and CEO,
Consumer Bankers Association.
____
March 15, 2021.
Hon. Ben Cardin,
Chair, Senate Small Business Committee,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Susan Collins,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Jeanne Shaheen,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Carolyn Bourdeaux,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Nydia Velazquez,
Chair, House Small Business Committee, Washington, DC.
Hon. Blaine Luetkemeyer,
Ranking Member, House Small Business Committee, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Young Kim,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Cardin, Collins and Shaheen and
Representatives Velazquez, Luetkemeyer, Bourdeaux and Kim:
The undersigned organizations are writing to thank you for
your bicameral leadership and swift bipartisan action to
provide relief to America's small businesses through this
economic emergency. We strongly support the PPP Extension Act
of 2021, which will extend the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) Paycheck Protection Program (PPP)
application period beyond the March 31, 2021 sunset date.
While we realize the Small Business Administration (SBA) is
under tremendous time constraints and is struggling with
internal resource issues, our members are highly concerned by
the lack of progress on major Paycheck Protection Program
(PPP) processing issues, including hold/error codes and
application rejections due to Taxpayer Identification Number
(``TIN'') issues or mismatches, in addition to many
unresolved technical problems with the current PPP process.
These delays and denials may put many applicants in danger of
not making the March 31st authorization deadline.
Nearly one year into the COVID-19 pandemic, the continued
liquidity challenges of the small business sector are acute,
especially for those business limited by dramatic capacity
restrictions and other critical health and safety protocols
in place to protect the public, consumers and workers from
COVID-19. Thank you for extending the window of opportunity
for pandemic programs to effectively impact the affected
small business sector, especially those traditionally under-
invested and underserved groups which must also be given the
chance to succeed.
We stand ready to work with you during this critical
moment, and thank you for considering our views.
Sincerely,
Accessories Council (AC); AICC, The Independent Packaging
Association; American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA);
American Bankers Association; American Beverage Licensees;
American Council of Engineering Companies; American Dental
Association; American Farm Bureau Federation; American Hotel
& Lodging Association; American Lighting Association;
American Mold Builders Association; American Rental
Association; American Society of Travel Advisors; American
Subcontractors Association; American Supply Association;
AMT--The Association For Manufacturing Technology; Asian
American Hotel Owners Association; Associated Builders and
Contractors; Associated General Contractors of America;
Association of the Wall and Ceiling Industry; Auto Care
Association.
Bank Policy Institute; Brea Chamber of Commerce; Building
Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) International;
Chemical Fabrics & Film Association (CFFA); Coalition of
Franchisee Associations; Consumer Bankers Association;
Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA); Economic
Innovation Group; Electronics Representatives
[[Page S1799]]
Association; Energy Marketers of America; Foodservice
Consultants Society International--The Americas; Foodservice
Equipment Distributors Association; Franchise Business
Services; Global Business Travel Association; Global Cold
Chain Alliance; Golf Course Superintendents Association of
America; Independent Electrical Contractors; International
Council of Shopping Centers; International Franchise
Association; ISSA--The Worldwide Cleaning Industry
Association.
Korean American Chamber of Commerce of Orange County; La
Habra Chamber of Commerce; National Association of
Development Companies (NADCO); National Association of
Government Guaranteed Lenders (NAGGL); National Association
of Home Builders; National Association of Professional
Insurance Agents; National Association of the Remodeling
Industry; National Association of Theatre Owners; National
Association of Trailer Manufacturers; National Association of
Women Business Owners (NAWBO); National Automatic
Merchandising Association (NAMA); National Community
Pharmacists Association; National Cotton Council; National
Council of Chain Restaurants; National Electrical Contractors
Association; National Electrical Manufacturers
Representatives Association (NEMRA); National Federation of
Independent Business (NFIB); National Fisheries Institute;
National Franchisee Association.
National Independent Venue Association; National Ready
Mixed Concrete Association; National Restaurant Association;
National Retail Federation; National Roofing Contractors
Association; National RV Dealers Association (RVDA); National
Small Business Association; National Tooling and Machining
Association; North American Association of Food Equipment
Manufacturers (NAFEM); North American Die Casting
Association; Orange County Business Council; Pet Industry
Distributors Association; Precision Machined Products
Association; Precision Metalforming Association; Promotional
Products Association International (PPAI); San Gabriel Valley
Economic Partnership; Secondary Materials and Recycled
Textiles Association; Service Station Dealers of America and
Allied Trades (SSDA-AT).
Small Business Council of America; Small Business &
Entrepreneurship Council; Small Business Legislative Council;
Small Business Majority; Specialty Equipment Market
Association; Specialty Tools & Fasteners Distributors
Association (STAFDA); SPRI; Tile Roofing Industry Alliance;
Tire Industry Association (TIA); The Real Estate Roundtable;
Travel Goods Association (TGA); United States Hispanic
Chamber of Commerce; United Veterinary Services Association;
U.S. Chamber of Commerce; U.S. Travel Association; Yorba
Linda Chamber of Commerce.
____
Independent Community
Bankers of America,
Washington, DC, March 16, 2021.
Hon. Ben Cardin,
Chairman, Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Susan Collins,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Jeanne Shaheen,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Cardin and Senators Collins and Shaheen: On
behalf of community banks across the country, with more than
50,000 locations, I write to thank you for introducing the
PPP Extension Act of 2021 (S. 723). This legislation is
needed to ensure that thousands of Paycheck Protection
Program applicants--small businesses, churches, and other
non-profit employers--are not stranded by an abrupt shutdown
of the Program and would do so using funds that have already
been appropriated.
Community banks are doing everything in their power to
complete and submit PPP applications to the SBA before the
March 31 deadline. Unfortunately, they have no assurances
that qualified applications submitted timely will be
approved. The CARES Act does not allow for approval of
applications after March 31, regardless of when they were
submitted and the quality of the applications. Unless a
statutory change is made, thousands of applications will be
rejected simply because the clock has run out.
This outcome would be especially unfair because of the
thousands of applications have been in limbo at the SBA for
weeks because they were flagged and put on hold by an
automated program for possible waste, fraud, or abuse. These
applications require SBA review in order to be cleared of
holds and approved for funding. If they cannot be cleared by
March 31, cash starved applicants and the people they employ
will be denied access to funds they had anticipated and
planned for. We do not believe this outcome was intended by
Congress.
The PPP Extension Act would resolve this problem by
extending the application deadline until May 31 and creating
a second deadline of June 30 for SBA approval. This will give
applicants more time, and the two-tiered deadline will ensure
the Program does not end abruptly.
additional changes needed to ensure equitable distribution of ppp funds
Any extension of the deadline will give Congress the
opportunity to refine and improve the Program rules and
formulas to ensure equitable distribution of funds to those
borrowers that can make the best use of them. ICBA urges
Congress and the SBA to make fixes to resolve the problems
identified below.
First Draw Increase Eligibility. Certain borrowers who have
not yet filed for and received forgiveness of their first
draw 2020 PPP loan may apply for an increase in that loan.
However, borrowers whose first draw 2020 loans have already
been forgiven cannot apply for a first draw loan increase,
even if they otherwise meet the criteria for an increase.
This is unfair because it punishes borrowers who filed
forgiveness applications early. The statute should be amended
to allow borrowers who have received first draw loan
forgiveness to be eligible to receive a first draw loan
increase.
Second Draw Eligibility. Those applying for a first draw in
2021 should be allowed access to a second draw. Community
bankers have solicited and received numerous applications for
first draw loans in 2021. In many cases, these applicants
would have applied for first draw loans in 2020, if they had
the benefit of better information and advice, and would now
be eligible for second draw loans. They have effectively left
money on the table that could be used for critical
expenditures.
Second Draw Use of Proceeds Requirement. Borrowers with a
modest shortfall in using first draw dollars for eligible
purposes shouldn't be shut out from second draw loans,
especially if they've already repaid the remaining balance on
the first draw loan. Congress should consider creating a
percentage-based de minimis test to define a level of
spending on ineligible expenses that would not disqualify a
borrower for a second draw loan.
Farm Partnerships. Current law allows self-employed farmers
and ranchers that report farm income on Schedule F to use the
gross income method, rather than the net income method, to
calculate their maximum loan amount and owner's compensation.
However, SBA has limited this treatment to 1040 Schedule F
filers. It is not available to thousands of self-employed
farmers and ranchers whose businesses are organized as
partnerships or S corporations. Congress should direct the
SBA to make the gross income method available to these
farmers and ranchers.
Schedule C Borrowers. Schedule C filers should be able to
apply for an increase under new SBA rules that allow Schedule
C borrowers with no employees to use gross income rather than
net profit to determine the loan amount. This is a welcome
change, but those borrowers who have already obtained loans
have no opportunity to apply for an increase based on the new
rules. They may qualify for significantly larger loans but
are effectively being punished for submitting their
applications early.
Save Our Stages Applicants. Live action venues eligible for
Save Our Stages grants should be allowed to apply for PPP
loans while waiting to find out if they will receive a grant.
If such a venue eventually does receive a grant, the amount
of the grant could be reduced by the amount of the PPP loan,
thereby avoiding the double dipping prohibited by the
statute.
Thank you again for introducing the PPP Extension Act. We
look forward to working with you to advance this important
legislation. We urge you to use this opportunity to address
the problems with the Program discussed above.
Sincerely,
Rebeca Romero Rainey,
President & CEO.
____
NFIB,
March 25, 2021.
Dear Senator: On behalf of NFIB, the nation's leading small
business advocacy organization, I write in support of H.R.
1799, the PPP Extension Act of 2021, which will extend
authorization for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP)
beyond March 31, 2021. H.R. 1799 will be considered an NFIB
Key Vote for the 117th Congress.
NFIB research indicates economic conditions remain
challenging for our nation's small businesses. According to
NFIB's latest monthly survey, small business optimism remains
below its historic 47-year average. Small business owners
expecting better business conditions over the next six months
remains at a net negative 19%, a poor reading. Moreover, the
economic recovery continues to be uneven for small
businesses, especially those still managing state and local
regulations and restrictions, with 15% recently reporting
that they will have to close their doors if current economic
conditions do not improve over the next six months.
Many small business owners are continuing to evaluate their
financial needs as they assess the future of government
restrictions on their businesses as well as progress in
controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, the
timeframe for making decisions regarding a first or second
draw PPP loan after passage of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2021 has been short, particularly as
Congress and the Administration have recently made additional
changes to the program.
For these reasons and given the high level of uncertainty
over future economic conditions, it makes sense to extend the
authorization of the PPP program through May 31, 2021 to give
small businesses additional time to consider their needs and
apply. NFIB is also pleased that this legislation will
provide an additional 30 days for SBA to process pending
applications, which will help to ensure small businesses are
not unfairly harmed by PPP processing delays, which continue
to pose a challenge to the program.
[[Page S1800]]
NFIB supports H.R. 1799, the PPP Extension Act of 2021 and
will consider final passage of the legislation as an NFIB Key
Vote for the 117th Congress.
Sincerely,
Kevin Kuhlman,
Vice President,
Federal Government Relations, NFIB.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I urge all of our colleagues to vote yes
on this bill, which will provide a crucial 2-month extension for the
Paycheck Protection Program.
This program has been a lifeline to countless small businesses and
has saved more than 50 million jobs in this country.
I salute my colleagues Senator Cardin and Senator Shaheen for their
work on this extension, which was overwhelmingly passed by the House.
Let's talk about briefly what would happen if we do not act. If we do
not act, there are approximately 190,000 loans still under review,
which prevents any of these businesses from receiving a second PPP
loan. These small businesses need this assistance now in order to pay
their employees and stay afloat during this pandemic.
We cannot wait. The House has gone home. We cannot allow an
interruption of this vital program that has made such a difference to
our small businesses and their employees.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this 2-month extension, with
an additional month for SBA to review the applications.
Vote on H.R. 1799
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
Mr. CARDIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse)
would have voted ``yea.''
The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 7, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 140 Leg.]
YEAS--92
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Portman
Reed
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--7
Crapo
Cruz
Hawley
Lee
Paul
Risch
Shelby
NOT VOTING--1
Sasse
The bill (H.R. 1799) passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Van Hollen). The majority leader.
____________________