[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.

                          ____________________