[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15878-15894]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                SMALL BUSINESS LENDING FUND ACT OF 2010

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 5297, which the clerk will 
report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5297) to create the Small Business Lending 
     Fund Program to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to make 
     capital investments in eligible institutions in order to 
     increase the availability of credit for small businesses, to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax 
     incentives

[[Page 15879]]

     for small business job creation, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Baucus/Landrieu) amendment No. 4594, in the 
     nature of a substitute.
       Reid (for Nelson (FL)) modified amendment No. 4595 (to 
     amendment No. 4594), to exempt certain amounts subject to 
     other information reporting from the information reporting 
     provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
       Reid (for Johanns) modified amendment No. 4596 (to 
     amendment No. 4595), to repeal the expansion of information 
     reporting requirements for payments of $600 or more to 
     corporations.
       Reid amendment No. 4597 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 4594), to change the enactment 
     date.
       Reid amendment No. 4598 (to amendment No. 4597), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Theodore Roosevelt once said:

       Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance 
     to work hard at work worth doing.

  Americans prize hard work. We value a day's pay earned at honest 
labor, and that is one reason the great recession that started in 2008 
has been particularly hard on Americans. The great recession robbed 8 
million Americans of one of the best prizes that life offers--their 
work.
  That is why for 2 years now we have been working hard to create jobs. 
We worked to create jobs by passing the Recovery Act at the beginning 
of last year. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that the 
Recovery Act ``increased the number of full-time equivalent jobs by 2 
million to 4.8 million compared with what would have occurred.''
  We worked to create jobs by passing the HIRE Act in March of this 
year. The Treasury Department found ``an estimated 4.5 million workers 
who have been unemployed for 8 weeks or longer were hired by employers 
who are eligible for the HIRE Act payroll tax exemption.''
  We have been working to create jobs with this small business bill 
before us. We have been working to pass this bill since June. That is 
right, since June. Here it is September. Finally we are going to get 
this bill passed--I hope.
  The economists tell us that this small business jobs bill could help 
small businesses create as many as half a million new jobs.
  This small business jobs bill would provide small businesses with 
access to capital. It would create incentives for investment. It would 
support innovation and entrepreneurship. This small business jobs bill 
would give small businesses $12 billion in tax cuts. It would increase 
small business lending. It would help small business owners get private 
capital to finance expansion and hire new workers. It would reward 
entrepreneurs for investing in new small businesses. It would help Main 
Street businesses compete with big companies. All these things would 
help small businesses to create as many as half a million more jobs.
  The Joint Committee on Taxation has prepared a technical explanation 
of the bill which expresses the Finance Committee's legislative intent 
behind the tax provisions. It is available on the Joint Committee's Web 
site.
  This small business jobs bill has been hard work. For something this 
common sense, it has been harder work than we thought it would be. Some 
folks on the other side of the aisle have thrown obstacles in the way. 
Some have thrown in our way pretty much everything but the kitchen 
sink. Today they are throwing the kitchen sink in our way as well.
  Today, before we can vote on this targeted small business jobs bill, 
some on the other side have resorted to the last refuge of delay. They 
are proposing motions to suspend the rules of the Senate. They are 
throwing two more votes in the way.
  But in case anyone is taking these last-minute antics at face value, 
let me set the record straight. These motions to suspend the rules are 
not serious legislating. These motions are not the way the Senate 
enacts law. We do not enact law by suspending the rules.
  Rather, these motions are the way that folks score points. These 
motions are the way folks try to embarrass other people. These motions, 
quite frankly, are stunts.
  If you take them at face value, these motions address two tax 
provisions that expired at the end of last year. They are two examples 
of what folks around here call tax extenders.
  Here is the irony: We have been trying to extend these and other 
expiring tax provisions for months. Yes, literally for months. We took 
up the extenders bill in March, and we have been trying again and again 
to pass a package of all the expiring provisions pretty much all year 
since then.
  To make it entirely clear, I will try again today. Before the vote on 
the motions to suspend the rules, I will ask unanimous consent to take 
up and pass the full set of expiring provisions. In a few minutes, I 
will ask unanimous consent to take up and pass a paid-for, responsible 
set of expiring provisions. One way or another, Congress will address 
these expiring provisions. We always do. We will do so again this year.
  But no one should be misled. These motions to suspend the rules today 
are not serious legislating. They are merely two more in a series of 
delays thrown up in front of this bill. We should reject these delaying 
tactics. We should get on with passing this bill to create small 
business jobs.
  Creating jobs is what people sent us here to do, and now is the time 
to do it.
  Thanks to Tuesday's vote, we are finally bringing this debate to a 
close. It is certainly time. It is time to get this work done. It is 
time to help small businesses. It is time to help create up to half a 
million new jobs. This bill has been hard work, but this bill is work 
worth doing. So let's bring this debate to a close. Let's reject the 
transparent efforts to delay some have thrown in the way, and let's 
target this targeted tax relief to small businesses today.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, sometime today the majority leader will 
file cloture on the motion to proceed to the Defense authorization 
bill, setting up a vote for next week on this important legislation. 
Under ordinary circumstances, this would be a straightforward, 
noncontroversial vote that could unite the two parties on a matter 
related to our common defense. But not this year.
  This year, Democrats would rather use this bill to manufacture 
controversy. Worse still, in their determination to meet their own 
campaign promises ahead of the upcoming election, Democrats have 
decided to put their own political interests ahead of the collective 
judgment of our military service chiefs who are still in the midst of a 
study about whether don't ask, don't tell can be repealed without 
hurting combat readiness. But this should not surprise anyone. For 
nearly 2 years now, Democrats have done their own thing. Americans have 
been asking Democrats for nearly 2 years to focus on the economy and 
jobs, and what they have gotten instead is one costly government-driven 
job after another that kills jobs and hurts the economy.
  When it comes to matters of national defense, Democrats in Washington 
have established a clear pattern of making political decisions first 
and then analyzing the problem later. Whether it was the decision to 
close Gitmo before figuring out what to do with the terrorists who were 
housed there, to deny our intelligence community the ability to 
interrogate terrorists, an artificial timeline for withdrawal in 
Afghanistan or this latest decision to use a Defense authorization bill 
to move ahead with repeal of don't ask, don't tell before hearing back 
from the service chiefs, Democrats have shot first and asked questions 
later. In other words, they put their own ideological goals ahead of 
everything else.
  I remind my colleagues we are fighting two wars and that our 
volunteer force doesn't ask for much. They ask

[[Page 15880]]

that they be well trained, well equipped, that their families be cared 
for, and that we meet their selfless sacrifice with dignity and 
respect. This bill should be an easy one. We should be united and give 
our troops a responsible defense policy they need and then the Defense 
appropriations bill they need--without strings, without games, and save 
the politics for the campaign trail.
  Another bill the Democrats have made needlessly political is the 
small business bill which we will also be voting on later today. 
Senator Hatch has offered an amendment that would fully extend the R&D 
tax credit, an amendment the Democrats blocked just before the August 
recess but which the President now appears to support. We will also 
have a chance to extend the biodiesel tax credit through the Grassley 
amendment. This amendment is essential to keeping producers 
competitive, but because of the majority's partisan tactics this credit 
has expired.
  It is my hope our friends on the other side will now join the 
President and the Republicans in supporting these two important pieces 
of job-creating legislation. Unfortunately, the Democrats whole game 
plan over the last year and a half and through today is to tick as many 
items as possible off the liberal wish list while they still have a 
chance.
  The American people think our friends on the other side should have 
spent a little more time worrying about 10 percent unemployment rather 
than legislative sideshows. If Senate Democrats truly want to do 
something for the private sector jobs in this country, they should 
support the bipartisan R&D tax credit of Senator Hatch and the 
biodiesel tax credit of Senator Grassley and then work with Republicans 
after that on preventing the looming $1 trillion tax hike Democratic 
leaders have so far ignored.
  It is time our friends on the other side got serious about jobs and 
the economy. It is time they put the liberal wish list on the shelf and 
focused on the priorities of the American people.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we have a tax bill before us that is 
supposed to help small business because small business creates 70 
percent of the new jobs. The President says that. I think we have to 
look at the background of the high unemployment rate, particularly why 
it is staying up there--maybe not why it got up there but why is it 
still there.
  I spoke last night about a lot of uncertainty that comes because of 
the cap-and-trade bill, the bank regulatory reform bill, the health 
care reform bill, the biggest tax increase in the history of the 
country coming up this fall if we do not intervene and prevent the 
biggest tax increase, and a lot of other issues out there that tell us 
how uncertain it is, what Congress is going to do. That uncertainty 
keeps the entrepreneurs of America from opening up and creating jobs.
  If you want to quantify how they are tight-fisted about the situation 
right now, the last figure I saw was about $2.1 trillion in cash in the 
treasuries of major corporations of America. They are not making any 
money by storing that cash, but they do not know what sort of a future 
this Congress is going to give them, so they are very guarded on any 
moves they make. Then we have things such as shutting down all the oil 
drilling--unemploying tens of thousands of people. Then what I am going 
to visit with you about is the fact we did not pass the biodiesel tax 
credit December 31 last year when it sunset and that industry is shut 
down and 20,000 jobs have been lost. It is ironic to me that we spent 
weeks on a bill that is before the Senate, as legitimate as it is, to 
create jobs in small business, when, frankly, there are a lot of 
negative things going on in the Congress of the United States that 
cause people to be laid off or, because of uncertainty, not to be hired 
back. I wish to speak about the biodiesel industry.
  As we are faced today with a 9.6-percent unemployment rate, I have a 
solution that will create 20,000 jobs almost overnight. That solution 
is to extend the biodiesel tax credit today. This tax credit expired 
December 31, 2009. This democratically controlled Congress has failed 
to extend it, even though, on several occasions, I and other Members on 
this side of the aisle have taken action in that direction.
  The Democratic leadership claims, as the President does, that they 
want more green jobs--and I am in favor of that. I am the author of the 
Wind Energy Tax Credit, as an example. I have been a backer of ethanol. 
I have been a backer of biomass and this biodiesel tax credit. So there 
are plenty of opportunities to show that we, on this side of the aisle, 
support the President wanting to create green jobs. If the President 
and the Democratic leadership want to do that, they have not acted to 
prevent the loss of green jobs in the biodiesel industry.
  The biodiesel industry has lost tens of thousands of jobs as a result 
of this neglect. It would be nice if the Democratic leadership's 
rhetoric met with reality.
  I have twice sought to have the biodiesel tax credit simply passed 
through the Senate by unanimous consent. However, both times my request 
was objected to by those on the other side of the aisle. Meanwhile, 
these biodiesel plants in Iowa and throughout the country continue to 
lay off workers. In fact, most of them are just plain shut down because 
the democratically controlled Congress has not extended the biodiesel 
tax credit.
  I made a speech similar to this in December, when we were on the 
health care reform bill. I said: Can't we find some time to pass these 
tax extenders so we do not let them lapse--and all these question 
marks. That was 8 months ago, 9 months ago. But somehow we thought last 
December, since Congress had not been in session on Christmas Eve since 
1895, we ought to be in session once in 115 years--or because we just 
had to pass this health care reform bill before the end of the year 
because it takes effect by 2014, we couldn't find a little bit of time 
to keep 22,000 people employed in the biodiesel industry. So we asked 
for those consents and we did not get them. These workers are laid off 
because the democratically controlled Congress has not extended this 
tax credit.
  This is a simple and noncontroversial tax extension that will likely 
reinstate 20,000 more jobs nationwide and at least 2,000 within my 
State of Iowa. By the way, this is not controversial, and there are 71 
other tax provisions that expired December 31, 2009, and I don't know 
that any of those are controversial. So the biodiesel industry has lost 
its jobs. These jobs have fallen victim to a tactic used by the 
Democratic leadership to hold this popular and noncontroversial tax 
provision hostage in an attempt to advance political objectives.
  Just last February I worked out a bipartisan compromise on tax 
extenders--all of them--with Chairman Baucus to extend the expired tax 
provisions, including biodiesel.
  However, the Senate Democratic leadership decided to put partisanship 
ahead of the job security for tens of thousands of biodiesel workers by 
destroying the compromise to which Chairman Baucus and I agreed. So I 
am here again to try to put tens of thousands of people back to work 
producing clean and renewable fuel that everybody in this Congress says 
they support, and the green jobs from these productions.
  There is a difference between a biodiesel tax credit and the other 
tax provisions in the tax extender bill that has stalled in the Senate. 
The failure to extend the biodiesel tax credit before it expired has 
ground the industry to a

[[Page 15881]]

halt because biodiesel is now more expensive than gasoline. Gasoline 
stations, knowing they cannot sell biodiesel, do not buy it, and 
biodiesel producers have, therefore, stopped producing biodiesel 
because they have nobody to sell it to. Consequently, the layoffs.
  While the other tax provisions are important, most are not as time 
sensitive as biodiesel because they are not transactional tax 
incentives like the biodiesel tax credit but, instead, are based on a 
taxable year. Unfortunately, now it is clear the larger extenders bill 
has stalled for the time being. We need to pass the biodiesel tax 
credit separately.
  The last time I sought unanimous consent, which was the second time I 
did it, one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle objected. 
The objection said something like, the biodiesel tax credit was part of 
a larger extenders bill they were working on.
  Now that the tax extenders bill is stalled, the Senate needs to pass 
the biodiesel tax credit by itself. I ask my colleagues to vote yes to 
waive the rules and put 20,000 biodiesel workers back to work.
  I move to suspend rule XXII, paragraph 2, for the purposes of 
proposing and considering amendment No. 4433, which is at the desk. 
Having said my part, I think before Senator Hatch speaks--he will speak 
about a very popular tax extender that needs to be extended and on 
which I do not know that there is one single disagreement. It is a 
noncontroversial provision but has still been languishing here for the 
last 9 months, and losing jobs as a result of it, at the very same time 
we are trying to create jobs through a bill that is before the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague from Iowa. I appreciate his 
leadership on the Finance Committee and the good work he has done over 
all of these years.
  Mr. President, in accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate, I move to suspend rule XXII, paragraph 2, for the purpose of 
proposing and considering the following motion to commit, which is at 
the desk with instructions to H.R. 5297. I move to commit H.R. 5297 to 
the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to 
the Senate with changes to include a permanent extension of the 
research tax credit.
  This motion is a simple one. It is a motion to suspend the rules to 
allow for the consideration of the motion to commit the bill before us 
to the Finance Committee, from which both Senator Grassley and I sit, 
with the specific instruction to add to the bill a permanent research 
tax credit.
  It is a simple motion, but I believe it is a significant moment. The 
American people understand that there is a desperate need for jobs and 
growth, and they have heard that Washington is partisan, broken, and 
unable to respond to their genuine needs. Just last week they heard 
that President Obama proposed a permanent research credit as an 
additional step ``to grow the economy and help businesses spur 
hiring.''
  Well, we can address all three with my simple motion: Make the 
research credit permanent, do it in a bipartisan spirit, and give job 
creation the jump start it badly needs. It seems like a pretty good 
idea to me, but the track record so far is very disappointing. Making 
the credit permanent is exactly what Senator Baucus, the distinguished 
chairman of the Finance Committee, and I proposed to do in the bill we 
introduced last year.
  We have been introducing this same idea for many years now. Yet the 
Senate does not seem to be able to do anything more than extend the 
credit on a very temporary basis. In recent weeks, I have been trying 
to add a research credit extension to the small business lending bill 
that is before us today. Unfortunately, my efforts have been in vain 
because the leader has filled the amendment tree, and I have not had 
the opportunity to offer such an amendment to this bill.
  Frankly, the way this Senate has been run, there has been very much 
to criticize. This is supposed to be the most important deliberative 
body in the world. Yet almost every bill that has any controversy to it 
at all, they bring it to the floor, fill up the tree, forbid the 
minority to have any chance to have any amendments, and in the process 
stultify the legislation.
  It is easy to see why adding a research tax credit incentive to this 
bill is a high priority. Obviously, President Obama thinks it should 
have a high priority. He was very specific last week in making it clear 
that this is a step we should take to grow the economy and to help 
businesses spur hiring, bringing people onboard to work. Here we have a 
small business tax bill that has been proposed by the majority party. 
Yet it does not include a very important provision that has long 
enjoyed bipartisan support by most Members of the Senate. Now we have 
the President of the United States specifically calling for this 
provision to be enacted to grow the economy and help businesses spur 
hiring, for which I give him great credit.
  This, too, I believe is the underlying purpose of this small business 
bill. What is strange is my pleadings for this provision to be added to 
this bill have so far fallen on deaf ears. Therefore, I have had to 
resort to this procedural motion to suspend the rules in order for this 
provision to be added to the bill.
  Since the parliamentary tree is tied up and we do not even have a 
chance for amendments, I could not bring it up as an amendment other 
than this way. I would have thought this would have been unnecessary. 
After last week's proposal by the President, I would have expected that 
Members of his own party might have acted to include the research 
credit extension on the first possible legislative vehicle. This bill 
is that vehicle.
  But, no, this bill is moving forward toward passage in the Senate 
with nary a word from the majority about the provision the President 
proposed last week. He said it was important. He wants it. It is 
something we ought to do. Above all, it would be bipartisan, one of the 
few things we have been able to do in a bipartisan way since this 
administration took over.
  Perhaps most of my colleagues on the other side were on the beach and 
away from the television and the newspapers and did not see or know 
about the President's call for a permanent research credit. For those 
of my colleagues who might not have heard about the President's call 
for a permanent research credit, let me share a couple of facts that 
he, our President, put forward.
  He said a permanent extension of the research credit is ``a win-win--
encouraging job growth and investment now that will pay off with 
stronger economic growth in the future.'' Again, I could not agree more 
with the President.
  President Obama also said economic growth is the single best way to 
bring down the deficit. There are some things our President says that 
make a terrific amount of sense. This is one of them because this bill 
before us today is supposed to be all about job creation and growing 
the economy. Because the President has renewed his call for a permanent 
extension of the very important research credit, it seems to me this 
motion would be unnecessary. I would have thought, as I said before, 
that the leadership would have taken care of adding this item to this 
bill.
  I think most everyone will agree that this might very well be the 
only tax bill that even has a remote chance of passage and enactment 
before the election next month. Surely the majority leader does not 
plan to simply ignore the President's call for passing a permanent 
extension of the research credit.
  Well, since he either forgot to add this priority or decided to 
ignore the President, I am offering this motion as a way to remind him 
and a way to allow it to happen before this bill comes up for a final 
vote. I urge all of my colleagues to consider the implications of this 
country dropping to a second tier industrial power.
  Our economy has been, both short term and long term, filled with 
problems. In the short run, we are not producing the number of new jobs 
we need.

[[Page 15882]]

Our economy is not growing nearly as rapidly as we would all like. It 
is not generating nearly enough moneys or enough revenue to the 
Treasury. In the longer run, we are facing some severe competitiveness 
issues with our U.S. firms in competition with foreign firms. The 
Federal Government has, unfortunately, saddled them with the high 
taxation, more onerous regulations, and an unfriendly business climate. 
We have the second highest corporate taxes in the world.
  In the high-technology area, along with other sectors of our economy 
that are even more global in nature, we have even more difficult 
challenges. Our international tax rules are very inhospitable to U.S.-
based firms. This is one of the reasons the United States no longer 
dominates the list of having the largest companies in the world. In 
fact, in 1980, of the 50 largest companies in the world, we had 39 of 
them headquartered in the United States. Today we have just 16. It is 
because of these stupid rules that have been put in place, these stupid 
tax approaches that we must change if we want to do something about 
jobs in our society today.
  One particular danger is that many of our trading partners have 
enacted very generous tax incentives in an attempt to lure away 
research and development from our country to theirs. There was a time 
not very long ago when the United States was considered the only real 
place in the world where companies wanted to conduct their research and 
development.
  We had the best research scientists and the best facilities in the 
world. That time is no more. We can no longer make this boast. Many 
other places offer world-class facilities and scientists just as well 
trained and experienced as ours, many of whom have been trained right 
here, and we push them out of our country because we will not expand 
our H1B immigration rules. Talk about stupidity.
  Now they also offer tax incentives to companies that are far superior 
to our country's tax incentives for our companies and for companies 
overseas. In fact, at this time we can offer no tax incentives for U.S. 
research and development because the credit expired last December. The 
research tax credit is a provision that has been in the tax law since 
1981. It has been extended by Congress more than a dozen times.
  This credit has wide and deep bipartisan support in this body as has 
been demonstrated numerous times. More importantly, however, is the 
fact that the research tax credit is a vital incentive to business 
enterprises of all sizes in this Nation.
  In my home State of Utah, there are hundreds of small high-technology 
companies, companies and firms, that spend a high percentage of their 
revenue on research and development. In fact, Utah has more than 5,000 
technology companies. Every State wants to attract companies such as 
these because their jobs are generally better paying private sector 
jobs than most private sector jobs.
  On average, high-tech jobs pay 69 percent more. This R&D is vital to 
the future survival of these firms. No high-tech company can afford to 
ignore research that wants to be around next year or maybe even in the 
next quarter. The research credit is, in my thinking, the most urgent 
and important to our economy, our competitiveness, and to those 
hundreds of smaller high-technology companies in Utah.
  We have before us on the Senate floor a small business bill. This 
bill is designed to strengthen our small businesses, which most of us 
acknowledge comprise the strongest component of our job creation engine 
in this economy to help them to do what they obviously are not doing 
very well at this time, and that is to grow and bring on more new 
workers. The tax portion of this small business lending bill is a good 
package that I support.
  I think we do need to pass the tax provisions in the bill before us. 
However, it would be a grave mistake for us to think this is all we 
need to do to solve job-creation problems in our economy--far from it. 
We should be adding many provisions to this small business tax bill. 
These include the extension of the tax relief provisions passed in 2001 
and 2003. That tax relief is important. However, since that is the 
subject of an intense partisan debate in the Senate right now, it does 
not seem possible. It seems reasonable, however, that we could all 
agree to add the most prominent tax provision the President is calling 
for--a bipartisan provision, the research and development tax credit--
and make it permanent. It has wide and deep support on both sides of 
the aisle, here and in the House. Republicans are saying yes to the 
President on this. It is the members of his own party who seem to be 
saying no, even though I think most of them will vote for this if it 
has a chance to be heard and voted upon.
  As Congress tries to address the job situation, we need to keep in 
mind that one of the best things we can do to retain and create good 
jobs in the United States is to incentivize research activities. One of 
the best ways of doing this is to ensure we have an effective tax 
policy to keep research here in our own country. Unfortunately, many of 
our trading partners now have strong tax inducements for companies to 
perform research overseas. Research and development jobs are high-
paying, and they are very desirable jobs.
  Moreover, R&D very often leads to other kinds of economic development 
and the creation of even more jobs. We simply cannot afford to lose our 
lead in research by not keeping the United States as the premier 
location in the world for research and development. Having a robust 
research credit is key to this. The President understands it is the 
key. I surely hope my colleagues will wake up and help make this happen 
before it is too late and we have to work to get back what once was 
ours.
  My understanding is that some might go along with this, but they want 
to increase taxes on oil and gas. They also want to do some other very 
obnoxious things that would be difficult for which to get bipartisan 
support.
  We know that business in this country is having a very difficult time 
right now. My understanding is that they may want to add a carried 
interest provision, which would probably put a lot of venture capital 
funds out of business and would drive a lot of people out of business 
and maybe into bankruptcy. We simply cannot support that. We can 
support--and I think we would have almost 100 percent of the votes here 
in the Senate--the research tax credit. I believe it would show great 
bipartisanship at a time when it is needed. I think it would even 
benefit our Democratic colleagues to work with us on this.
  But there are things in this underlying bill that really are very 
difficult to vote for--one part of it is, in the eyes of many, a new 
mini-TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program. We have seen how bad the 
last one worked. I hate to see us go further down that path when we 
could, in a bipartisan way, resolve these problems.
  Last spring, four of us on the Finance Committee worked out an 
extenders package. We worked diligently together. We agreed on how it 
should be done. It was bipartisan in nature. I believe my friends on 
the other side initially agreed to it because it would have gotten at 
least 95 votes in the Senate. It could have been done early enough to 
create a lot of jobs this year. Then all of a sudden it became a 
partisan exercise again.
  Time after time, if the Democrats can get one Republican to go with 
them, they call it bipartisan. I guess one could say that, but that is 
really stretching the term bipartisanship, especially when I think we 
could have had virtually 100 percent, or at least 95 votes for the 
extenders package we had worked out.
  It is amazing to me how difficult it is to work together around here, 
especially when we want to and especially when we can come up with 
programs and legislation to which virtually everybody in this body 
would agree. It is almost like an arrogance of power: We are just going 
to teach those Republicans that we are not going to do what they think 
is good. I hesitate to say it, but I think that had we had more 
bipartisanship around here over the last year and a half, we would be a 
lot further along. This economy would be

[[Page 15883]]

back in a much stronger way, and there would have been a lot of jobs 
created.
  If we are just going to keep playing partisan games on these very 
important bills on which we should all agree, then it stultifies jobs 
and the economy. I think it makes this administration look bad. In the 
process, it creates a lot of angst and anger throughout the whole 
country.
  We would have had this done; it would have been done early this year 
had it not been for partisanship, in my opinion. There are things to be 
partisan about. There are things on which both sides disagree 
vociferously. That is the way this body works. We should go after each 
other on these matters. But there are some things on which we can all 
agree.
  When the President comes out and says we need a permanent research 
tax credit, after all of the difficulties we have had, one would think 
our colleagues on the other side would grab Republicans and run with 
it. We could get it done, as we have always done in the past. There is 
no certainty with the current research tax credit, or the one that 
expired last year. Companies cannot plan for the future because we have 
to reinstate this all the time. Sometimes it is late, and even if we 
make it retroactive, it is not as helpful as it would be. Making it 
permanent would be a tremendous boost to scientific companies in this 
country and all other companies where innovation can occur. We have 
seen great results from the research and development tax credit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, this is a motion to suspend rule XXII, 
paragraph 2, for the purpose of proposing and considering a motion to 
commit.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I know we will be voting soon on these 
issues and moving forward on the small business legislation. That is 
what we are really here to do today, to pass legislation that is going 
to help Main Street. This is a bill that is long overdue. I know once a 
train is leaving the station, once legislation has cleared the hurdles 
and is going to pass, a lot of people want to then add other things 
onto that legislation. Those are some of the issues being discussed 
here this morning. But the important thing is not to hold up 
legislation for small businesses one more day. Let's not delay the need 
that Main Street has to get access to capital to help small businesses 
grow our economy.
  In Washington State, we have lost thousands of jobs. Yet if every 
small business in Washington State had the ability to hire one person 
as a result of getting access to capital, we would nearly wipe out our 
unemployment since this recession. It is critical for us not to delay 
this legislation any further, to move it ahead, and to make sure we are 
getting capital into those small businesses.
  I know some of my colleagues have critiqued this legislation, saying 
they will not support it. I know we have had at least two Members on 
the other side who support this legislation moving forward. So, yes, I 
do call that bipartisan. I appreciate the fact that those two 
legislators had enough courage to say this was important to their 
constituents. In the August recess, they listened to small businesses, 
and they knew this was important to get done.
  There is a lot of misinformation out there in the eleventh hour about 
how perhaps certain people weren't supportive of the legislation. My 
colleague from Oregon has a list that keeps growing every single day. 
It is now four or five pages of different organizations that support 
moving forward on this legislation. I haven't heard any of them 
advocating that we hold it up one more day or send it back to the 
committee to add more things to it. No doubt the discussion we are 
having about the extenders package of other policies should happen. If 
we get more bipartisan support, we will get those things done and we 
won't have them held up.
  But if we go back to this basic issue we are trying to address, it is 
really about the implosion that happened on Wall Street that took Main 
Street down with it and about correcting that and moving forward today 
in a way that will help small business help our economy recover.
  I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will look at this 
bill overall, look at the tax credits given to small businesses, the 
fact that the depreciation rates in investment in new manufacturing and 
equipment can help small businesses be competitive, and that they will 
look at the expansion of the SBA programs that were enthusiastically 
endorsed by lots of different organizations--by banks, by lenders, by 
individual businesses--because they know that program that was enhanced 
in January to help give more flexibility was a huge success. When it 
expired in June, we saw a falloff in the type of investment and job 
creation we need to have.
  This is about a philosophy. If my colleagues think our economy is 
about helping those huge businesses at the top or from Wall Street and 
that is somehow going to trickle down, then let's just keep doing 
business as usual. But if Members believe this is about helping small 
businesses grow, which is 75 percent of job growth in America, then 
let's get this bill off the floor today and get this legislation 
passed.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, today, passage of essential legislation 
to support job-creating business investment was relegated to callous 
political brinkmanship. For months, funding for the biodiesel and the 
research and development, R & D, tax credits have been stalled due to 
Republican opposition. Just in June, I voted three times to fund the 
credits--on the 17th, again on the 24th, and finally on the 30th. Each 
time, every Republican voted against the bill that contained these and 
other essential extensions. Then today, as we neared completion of 
another essential piece of legislation, the small business jobs bill, 
motions regarding biodiesel and R & D were presented by Senators 
Grassley and Hatch as a way to slow down progress on the legislation at 
hand.
  Let me be clear--we must extend these credits. R & D credits have 
long been viewed as lifeblood for American innovation and job creation. 
While less known, the biodiesel credits also provide essential economic 
assistance to clean energy small businesses. Without a doubt businesses 
suffer due to our inability to work together. A business in Erie, PA, 
illustrates this point. Hero BX has struggled this year to keep its 
production facility open without the biodiesel credit, putting 40 jobs 
on the line.
  I want to provide Hero BX and other businesses across the 
Commonwealth and beyond with the tools needed to compete and survive. 
Senator Baucus has reintroduced the tax extender package, including the 
R & D and biodiesel credits. I encourage all of my colleagues to 
support the bill. This is not about allowing a victory in an election 
year. Passage is about providing companies the incentives to keep and 
create jobs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I think allocated time is about to 
expire.
  My good friend, the Senator from Iowa, talked about how good it would 
be if we removed uncertainty from the law. The unanimous consent I am 
about to propound would give Senators the opportunity to remove much 
uncertainty. This unanimous consent request, if agreed to, would extend 
the biodiesel tax credit the Senator from Iowa spoke about. It would 
also extend the R&D tax credit the Senator from Utah talked about. This 
consent request would do so completely paid for. The Senator from Iowa 
spoke about his wanting to move the tax extenders for 8 months. The 
unanimous consent request I am about to propound will provide for 
extending all of the tax extenders.
  The consent request will allow Members on the other side of the aisle 
to get what they say they want; that is, to remove uncertainty in the 
law and get these provisions passed.


                  Unanimous-Consent Request--H.R. 4849

  As I mentioned a few moments ago, I now intend to ask unanimous 
consent

[[Page 15884]]

to take up and pass the full set of expiring provisions. So I ask 
unanimous consent that H.R. 4849, the Small Business and Infrastructure 
Jobs Tax Act of 2010, be discharged from the Finance Committee; that 
the Senate proceed to the bill; that the Baucus substitute amendment 
extending expiring provisions that is at the desk be considered and 
agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time, passed, and 
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements 
relating thereto be printed in the Record, as if read; and that this 
all occur with no further intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I reserve the right to object, and I will 
object, because this side wants an open amendment process. We are tired 
of every time a bill comes to the floor in the greatest deliberative 
body in the world, they tie up the parliamentary tree so we can't have 
honest amendments.
  Secondly, the approach of my dear friend and colleague, whom I have 
worked with all of these years on the research tax credit, is not 
permanent and would not make it permanent, which is what the President 
has asked for.
  I object to the unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The debate time has expired.
  Under the previous order, amendments Nos. 4595, 4596, 4597, and 4598 
are withdrawn.


                           Motion to Suspend

  Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes of debate 
equally divided prior to a vote on the motion to suspend rule XXII 
offered by the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley.
  Who yields time? If no time is yielded, the time will be charged 
equally.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I don't see the Senator from Iowa here. 
It is his amendment to suspend the rules.
  Let me say once again this motion to suspend the rules of the Senate 
is not serious legislating. It is simply an attempt to delay the 
passage of the small business bill.
  The biodiesel tax credit is another tax extender. We will address 
these expiring provisions. We will also do so in a fiscally responsible 
manner. This motion today is another delay to passage of the underlying 
small business bill which is before us at this moment. So we reject 
this delay and we reject this motion so we can get on with passing this 
bill to create small business jobs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I have 1 minute to speak to my motion 
to suspend the rules to bring up this bill.
  We are on a bill now on the Senate floor that is supposed to create 
jobs. Hopefully, this bill will create jobs. But it is kind of small 
compared to what this Congress could do by passing the biodiesel tax 
credit. It should have been passed before December 31 last year. 
Senator Baucus and I put together a bipartisan bill to do it in 
February. That bill was delayed by the majority leader, so we are back 
here again for a third time, trying to get attention to jobs. This 
biodiesel tax credit will immediately put 20,000 more people back to 
work, and 2,000 in my State of Iowa.
  I hope we will suspend the rules and create jobs for sure because 
those jobs were there before December 31 and they will be there on 
September 17 if we pass this amendment.
  Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 41, nays 58, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 234 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Alexander
     Bayh
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Dorgan
     Franken
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Klobuchar
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--58

     Akaka
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burris
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coburn
     Corker
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Goodwin
     Gregg
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     LeMieux
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lincoln
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 41, the nays are 
58. Two-thirds of the Senators voting not having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is rejected.


                           Motion to Suspend

  Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes for debate, 
equally divided, prior to the vote on the motion to suspend rule XXII 
offered by the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, last week President Obama called for a 
permanent research tax credit. We have always extended this tax credit. 
We failed last December to do it on time. Therefore, we are without it. 
We are without the jobs that would be created by it. I think it was a 
terrific move by the President to come out for a permanent research tax 
credit, and we ought to swiftly move to add it to this particular bill.
  The only way I can do that, because of the tying up of the tree--
which is happening all too often around here--is by a motion to suspend 
the rules.
  This bill is a bill to create jobs. At least that is what it is 
supposed to be. But the research tax credit would do the most to 
instantaneously create jobs, and these are high-paying jobs. The only 
way we can get it is to vote for this motion to suspend. If we do, I 
think we would have 95 votes--a bipartisan vote--for this particular 
amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I deeply appreciate the remarks of my 
good friend from Utah. The fact is, any motion to suspend the rules in 
this context is not fair and, without being disparaging, it is not 
serious legislating. This is an attempt to throw another roadblock to 
delay passage of the small business bill.
  In addition, the extenders bill, which I tried to get up by UC, would 
extend the R&D tax credit. We will find our way there later this year. 
We cannot suspend the rules at this point to delay passage of the small 
business bill. Rather, let's not accept this motion so we can get on to 
passing the small business bill and take up the R&D tax credit later on 
this year. We will definitely take it up. It will be passed later this 
year.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

[[Page 15885]]


  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 235 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Franken
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bingaman
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Goodwin
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Sessions
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 
48. Two-thirds of the Senators present and voting not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The clerk will now read the Budget Committee letter.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation for H.R. 5297, as 
     amended by amendment No. 4594.

       Total Budgetary Effects of H.R. 5297 for the 5-year 
     Statutory PAYGO Scorecard: net increase in the deficit of 
     $2.009 billion;
       Total Budgetary Effects of H.R. 5297 for the 10-year 
     Statutory PAYGO Scorecard: net increase in the deficit of 
     $2.253 billion.

  Also submitted for the Record is a table prepared by the 
Congressional Budget Office, which provides additional information on 
the budgetary effects of this Act, as follows:

            CBO ESTIMATE OF THE STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR SENATE AMENDMENT 4594 IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 5297, THE SMALL BUSINESS JOBS AND CREDIT ACT OF 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        By fiscal year in millions of dollars--
                                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         2010     2011      2012       2013       2014       2015       2016       2017       2018       2019       2020    2010-2015  2010-2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (-) IN THE ON-BUDGET DEFICIT
 
Total On-Budget Changes..............................        0   83,938    -11,175    -13,920    -11,272    -44,124      8,275     -5,049     -3,543     -2,669     -2,499      3,445     -2,035
Less:
    Current-Policy Adjustment for Tax Provisionsa....        0    2,789      1,845     -1,529       -966       -702       -543       -343       -194        -94        -44      1,436        218
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact.......................        0   81,149    -13,020    -12,391    -10,306    -43,422      8,818     -4,706     -3,349     -2,575     -2,455      2,009     -2,253
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. Assumed enactment date October 1, 2010.
aSection 7 of the Statutory-Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 provides for current-policy adjustments related to increases in the limitations on expensing depreciable business assets for small
  businesses under section 179(b) of the Internal Revenue Code. The effects are all changes in revenues.
Sources: Congressional Budget Office and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation.

                           Amendment No. 4594

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The substitute amendment is agreed to.
  The time until noon is equally divided.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. The Chair has announced that the time between now and 
noon will be equally divided?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the case.
  Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded, and I ask unanimous consent for up to 
5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I know we are getting ready to vote on 
a very important piece of legislation--the Small Business Job Creation 
Act--that we have actually been working on now for a year and a half. 
It is hard to believe that a year and a half has gone by, but it has, 
despite the extraordinary work that has been done on this bill from the 
Democratic leadership, from a handful of Republican Senators who 
stepped up to make this a possibility, and from the administration and 
Treasury and literally hundreds of organizations that have brought this 
vote to the floor today. I wish it could have been 6 months ago. I wish 
it could have been 8 months ago. Every day, every week we have waited 
to pass this bill has been another tough week for small businesses 
throughout our country. But this week is a good week for them. They 
have a bill that they can be proud of, that I believe we can be proud 
of, and it is overdue that we pass this bill today.
  I know Members understand the significance of the three major parts 
of the bill: $12 billion in directed tax cuts; an infusion of resources 
and strength to the core small business programs in the SBA that we 
know are effective in stimulating loans to Main Street, that create the 
jobs that will put this recession in the rearview mirror; and we know 
the third part of this bill is a very significant and new strategic 
lending partnership we are establishing with healthy community banks, 
the 7,000 community banks in every neighborhood--in rural areas, in 
suburban areas, in all of our States, and in almost every single one of 
those communities in those States.
  I thank Chairman Baucus particularly for his help and Senator Reid 
particularly for his help. I thank Senator Boxer and Senator Cantwell 
and Senator Merkley. But I also thank Senator Levin, Senator Warner, 
Senator Stabenow, many members of my Small Business Committee, Senator 
Shaheen, Senator Murray, Senator Schumer, Senator Lincoln, Senator 
Hagan, Senator Cardin, Senator Burris, and many others--Senator Sherrod 
Brown has been down to the floor time and time again.
  I also thank two colleagues particularly from the other side of the 
aisle, Senator Voinovich and Senator LeMieux, who listened to their 
Florida bankers, who listened to their Ohio bankers, who listened to 
their small businesses in Florida and Ohio and said that this is the 
kind of bill we need--tax cuts, strengthening of SBA programs, and a 
smart strategic lending program.
  I thank Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Gene Sperling and Don 
Graves, and of course I thank the staff of the Small Business Committee 
and my staff in particular who did so much work.
  In addition, I thank the National Small Business Association, 
Independent Community Bankers, the American Bankers Association, the 
National Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders, and the hundreds 
of organizations that helped push and pull this Senate to this vote 
today.
  In the last minute I have, I wish to submit two things for the Record 
that I think need clearing up and amplification. One is a letter from 
the Chief Economist of the SBA that answers directly a criticism that 
was published in the Washington Post yesterday about the ``myth'' that 
small business is not

[[Page 15886]]

the business that grows jobs in America. The economist was misquoted. 
This is a letter for the Record specifically outlining that. I think it 
is worth review today.
  Second, and more important, a banker from California--and I thank 
Senator Boxer. I met with a banker from California and from Florida. I 
am from Louisiana, but they wanted to see me, I wanted to see them, and 
I met with them. Got a standing ovation. I am very proud, of course, 
because they said to me: Senator, this may be one of the most 
significant bills to help get our banks where we need to be to start 
lending.
  I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    Small Business Administration,


                                           Office of Advocacy,

                               Washington, DC, September 15, 2010.
     Hon. Mary Landrieu,
     Chair, Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chair Landrieu: I am writing to clarify and apologize 
     for my statements about small business to Ruth Marcus in her 
     September 15, 2010, Washington Post article.
       When I stated, ``It's not true'' . . . ``It's half the 
     story'' in relation to small businesses being the major 
     source of net job creation, I misspoke. I meant to state, 
     ``While true, it's only half the story.'' Meaning that while 
     we know that small businesses are the major job creator, 
     there are different types of small businesses, and that is 
     where the story is.
       Oddly enough, the fact that small businesses are the major 
     job creator has been corroborated by all three papers 
     mentioned in the article; even though all used different time 
     periods, different methodology and different data.
       The article discusses an academic debate that is playing 
     out with John Haltiwanger, a University of Maryland 
     Professor, in one camp and myself in the other. The topic is, 
     ``What group within the small business sector is driving new 
     job creations.'' John believes it is start-ups and young 
     small businesses; while I believe it is the relatively few 
     small firms with fast growth. In many senses we are both 
     correct.
       So the debate is not, who creates more jobs, small or large 
     firms. We know the answer; small firms create the majority of 
     net new jobs, as shown from Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
     Business Employment Dynamics data. They show firms with fewer 
     than 500 employees accounted for 65 percent of the net new 
     jobs in the private-sector over the last seventeen years.
       My study on high growth firms finds a similar figure when 
     looking at all three time periods and firms with volatile 
     employment changes (meaning using a net concept of fast 
     growers and fast decliners).
       Unfortunately, I was quoted as stating, ``it would appear 
     that both small and large firms contribute about equally to 
     employment growth.'' While a further examination of my study 
     would show that this comment only refers to high-growth 
     firms, not the entirety of all firms. When one includes all 
     firms, the results show that small firms create two-thirds of 
     the net new jobs.
       I have spent my career developing the field of small 
     business economics. I take pride in what I have been able to 
     accomplish, but regret the damage I may have caused by the 
     way in which I conveyed the information to Ms. Marcus. 
     Attached is a copy of my study High Impact Firms: Gazelles 
     Revisited. I am happy to supply any further assistance you 
     may need.
           Sincerely,
                                                Zoltan Acs, Ph.D.,
     Chief Economist.
                                  ____

     From: Richard M. Sanborn [mailto:rsanborn--sccombank.com]
     Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 11:40 PM
     To: Gillers, David (SBC)
     Cc: David H. Bartram
     Subject: Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010--HR 5297
       Mr. Gillers, I want to thank you for taking the time this 
     evening to call in reference to my comments to Senator 
     Landrieu at the California Bankers/Florida Bankers meeting. 
     My whole team and I are extremely grateful to the Senator for 
     championing the Act through the Senate as it will have a 
     profound impact on our institution.
       Once passed and signed into law, the Act will allow us to 
     apply for (and hopefully receive) an approximate $1.8 million 
     investment by the US Treasury through the Small Business 
     Lending Fund component of the Act. We can leverage that 
     Capital investment approximately 10 X, resulting in our 
     ability to lend to small businesses and grow our loan 
     portfolio an additional $18 million. While $18 million in new 
     loans to small businesses does not seem like much, as we are 
     primarily focused on lending to small businesses through the 
     SBA's 7(a) lending program, to achieve $18 million in loan 
     grow, we could originate approximately $180 million in new 
     SBA loans to small businesses . . . which is a lot for a 
     small bank like ours (we're only a $130 million asset bank). 
     Of course that assumes we originate all $180 million with a 
     90% SBA guarantee and sell 100% of that guaranteed portion.
       Originating $180 million in new SBA small business means 
     that we can provide needed capital to approximately 275 
     businesses, based on our current average SBA loan size of 
     $650 thousand. If we apply the SBA's overall average loan 
     size of $220 thousand, we could help over 800 small 
     businesses get much needed capital.
       This will be a great program, if passed, and will help the 
     small businesses in the markets we serve. Again, please thank 
     the Senator for her help with this important measure.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Rick Sanborn.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Seacoast is a small bank. It only has $130 million in 
assets. According to this banker's testimony to me yesterday, he is 
going to take this bill and all of its provisions, and he believes he 
can leverage $180 million in SBA loans to small businesses. Based on 
their record and based on the average SBA loan size of $650,000, this 
one bank in southern California believes it can make 275 business 
loans.
  If this one small bank in South Carolina can take this bill and its 
provisions and leverage it to 275 good-quality loans in South Carolina, 
there is hope on the way. This is a real step to putting this recession 
behind us. I thank the Democratic leadership for making it a 
possibility. I hope next time a bill like this is brought to the floor 
of the Senate, it will not take so long; we will not have to jump over 
the barriers and barricades that were put in front of this bill. So I 
hope Members on the other side of the aisle will lower those barriers 
next time because our small businesses cannot wait.


                             Tier 1 Capital

  Madam President, as one of the two lead sponsors of the Small 
Business Lending Fund, I am deeply convinced of the ability of this 
program to provide small businesses with the credit they need to grow 
and create jobs. As you know, the purpose of this fund is to provide 
community banks with Tier 1 capital to increase their lending to small 
businesses, along with incentives for doing so. With up to $30 billion 
in capital, community banks that participate in the Small Business 
Lending Fund will be able to support many multiples of that amount in 
new lending. To allow that to occur, it has always been our intent and 
our understanding that the bank regulators should treat these 
investments as Tier 1 capital, in a manner consistent with that 
accorded to other capital securities issued to Treasury by eligible 
institutions and in consideration of the strong public interest in 
promoting lending to small businesses.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I thank Senator Landrieu for her 
leadership on this issue. I agree that the intention of this 
legislation from the very start has always been that investments made 
through the Small Business Lending Fund should be treated as Tier 1 
capital in a manner consistent with that accorded to other capital 
securities issued to Treasury by eligible institutions. This treatment 
will allow these institutions to use Treasury funds to expand small 
business lending as intended.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator. With access to Tier 1 capital, I 
believe that the community banks that participate in this program will 
be able to provide small businesses with the credit they need to grow 
and hire.


                Deduction for Health Insurance Coverage

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I would like to ask the chairman of 
the Finance Committee a question on the application of a provision in 
the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010.
  Section 2042 of the bill will allow self-employed persons to deduct 
the cost of health coverage for themselves, their spouses, and their 
children who have not reached age 27 by the end of the year for 
purposes of determining their liability for self-employment taxes. Is 
it correct that the provision is not intended to affect the 
determination of earned income for other purposes? For example, earned 
income for purposes of determining the maximum amount of health 
insurance premiums a self-employed person may deduct for income tax 
purposes is not affected by this provision.

[[Page 15887]]


  Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator from New Mexico is correct. Since the 108th 
Congress, he has introduced legislation to correct this inequity in the 
Tax Code. I would like to congratulate and thank the Senator from New 
Mexico for his leadership in championing this provision.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, the Senate is on the verge of passing the 
Small Business Jobs Act which has been many months in the making and 
has been debated on the Senate floor for numerous weeks. I commend 
Senators Reid, Baucus, and Landrieu for their tenaciousness in pursuing 
this legislation. It is essential we help small businesses attain the 
investment and capital necessary to create jobs and grow our economy.
  Small business growth is critical to restoring our economy. Over the 
past 15 years, small businesses have created two-thirds of all new 
jobs. Unfortunately, small businesses have been hit hard by the 
recession--losing more than 6 million jobs since December 2007. The 
Small Business Jobs Act provides the long overdue assistance to small 
businesses that will help create as many as 500,000 new jobs.
  To assist small business owners and their employees, the Small 
Business Jobs Act will create jobs through a combination of much-needed 
tax credits, enhancements to Small Business Administration, SBA, 
lending programs, and the development of new community bank lending 
facilities.
  I am very pleased this legislation will extend the successful loan 
enhancement provisions that Senator Schumer and I successfully included 
in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The bill extends the 
provisions in the economic stimulus to increase the SBA guarantee rate 
to 90 percent and reduces fees on small business 7(a) and 504 loans 
obtained through the SBA. These provisions have supported more than $30 
billion in lending to small businesses across the country and helped 
create or retain more than 710,000 jobs. SBA lending in Massachusetts 
has nearly doubled in the past year as a result of this program.
  As the former chairman of the Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship, I have been a long time advocate of small businesses 
and appreciate the role they play in our economy. The Small Business 
Jobs Act includes provisions that I have worked on for several years.
  The loan increases included in the bill build upon my legislation 
from last Congress. With 7(a) loan limits increased from $2 million to 
$5 million and 504 loans from $1.5 million to $5.5 million, small 
businesses will be better able to expand and meet their financial needs 
for sustainability and growth.
  The Small Business Jobs Acts expands upon the small business capital 
gains provision included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
of 2009. The bill temporarily increases the small business capital 
gains exclusion from 75 percent to 100 percent and eliminates the AMT 
preference.
  Back in 1993, I worked with Senator Bumpers to enact legislation to 
exclude half of capital gains from the sale of small business stock 
that is held for 5 years. The bill before us expands on this provision.
  I have also worked with Senator Ensign on a provision included in 
this legislation that would remove cell phones and other similar 
devises from the definition of listed property so their cost can be 
deducted or depreciated like other business property, without onerous 
recordkeeping requirements.
  In 1989, Congress passed a law which added cell phones to the 
definition of listed property under the Internal Revenue Code. Back in 
1989, cell phone technology was an expensive technology worthy of 
detailed log sheets. Only a few top executives had cell phones. At that 
time, it was difficult to envision cell phones that could be placed in 
a pocket or handbag. Congress was skeptical about the daily business 
use of cell phones.
  With technology changing rapidly and many people owning a cell phone 
and a blackberry, a strict substantiation requirement to determine 
personal use is burdensome, inefficient, and administratively 
impracticable given their frequent use in a fast-paced global 
environment. The Tax Code should keep pace with technological advances. 
There is no longer a reason that cell phones and mobile communication 
devices should be treated differently than office phones or computers.
  Investing in small businesses is essential to turning around the 
economy. Not only will investment in small business spur job creation, 
it will lead to new technological breakthroughs. This bill is long 
overdue and I am pleased that it is close to becoming a reality. I urge 
all my colleagues to support this critical legislation for our economy.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise today to express my support 
for the passage of H.R. 5297, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. I am 
pleased that we got cloture on this legislation earlier this week, so 
we can get a final vote on the bill before the Senate completes its 
work for the week.
  Things are more challenging now for our Nation than at any time 
during my life. Americans are worried about our Nation's future and 
their own personal well-being, and this uncertainty reveals itself in 
the answers to two questions I often ask when I speak to people. The 
two questions I ask are, one, do you have a better standard of living 
than your parents had? To which I always hear yes. And two, do you 
believe your children will have a better standard of living than the 
one you have? To which I almost always hear no.
  To recover from this recession, we need to restore the faith of the 
American people in their future. We need to convince them that the 
glass is half full, and not half empty. And until we stabilize and 
repair our broken economy, and restore the flow of credit to businesses 
and individuals, the uncertainty and pessimism will remain.
  This small business bill gives us one opportunity to address our 
economic challenges. The small business bill will improve the 
environment for small businesses by, among other things, including a 
number of small business tax breaks, expanding Small Business 
Administration loan programs, providing tax incentives for new small 
business investment, and expanding small business access to credit.
  The bill will increase the guarantee of SBA's most popular loan 
program, which provides credit for small businesses that cannot 
otherwise obtain favorable loan terms, and it would provide higher 
maximum loan amounts for investments in major fixed assets, such as 
land, buildings, equipment, and machinery. It would also provide a 
variety of export assistance tools to help our small businesses expand 
their reach into world markets and compete better in the global 
economy. These include a new grant program, counseling and education, 
redirecting SBA personnel, and improving export financing programs. 
Finally, this bill will extend tax incentives, such as section 179 
expensing and bonus depreciation, which will generate new investment.
  I have heard from many Ohio businesses regarding this small business 
bill, especially manufacturing businesses, which are the backbone of 
Ohio's economy. These small business owners have asked me to work with 
my colleagues and finish work on this legislation. A number of 
manufacturing organizations, which represent small businesses in Ohio 
and around the country, have written to me in support of the bill, 
including the Ohio Manufacturers Association, the Precision Machined 
Products Association, PMPA, the Precision Metalforming Association, 
PMA, the National Tooling and Machining Association, NTMA, and the 
Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association. They share many of the 
same concerns; they are worried about their member companies' ability 
to obtain credit and keep afloat long enough to get out of this 
recession.
  Many small businesses have been unable to obtain credit from their 
traditional lenders, which has led to less spending and more layoffs. 
For example, I was told that a Cleveland-based PMPA manufacturer that 
has been in business for over 50 years, and whose owner has served on 
the board of directors of several major banks, could not find 
sufficient credit in the United

[[Page 15888]]

States. As a result, the company had to seek offshore lending, which it 
eventually found in Germany. I have heard similar stories from a number 
of small business owners. They complain that they cannot get loans or 
their lines of credit are being reduced or withdrawn despite their 
company's creditworthiness.
  These groups, which represent thousands of small businesses and their 
employees, have sent me letters in support of this legislation, and I 
will ask that these letters be printed in the Record. I wanted to share 
one comment from a longtime friend of mine, James B. McGregor, Sr., 
vice chairman of McGregor Metalworking Companies in Springfield, OH, 
who said that this bill would ``help to jumpstart manufacturing in 
America by improving the credit market for small businesses.'' Jim is 
the owner of a family-owned manufacturing company, and he knows as well 
as anyone how tough things are out there for manufacturers.
  In addition to small manufacturers, others organizations also support 
this small business bill. Many community banks say it would allow them 
more latitude to lend to small businesses. The Independent Community 
Bankers Association, which represents 5,000 of the Nation's 8,000 
community banks, said in a letter to the two Senate leaders that of all 
the provisions in this bill, the Small Business Lending Fund, SBLF, 
``holds the most promise for small business creation in the near term. 
Failure to even consider the SBLF in the Senate would be a missed 
opportunity that our struggling economy cannot afford . . . [i]t would 
provide another option for community banks to leverage capital and 
expand credit to small business.''
  The American Bankers Association, ABA, has expressed support for the 
bill because it would allow ``community banks to find new sources of 
capital . . . [and] provides an option for banks to . . . continue 
meeting the needs of their communities.'' The ABA also supports the 
bill because it would enhance SBA loan programs, which it says is 
``critically important and will help lenders provide loans so that 
small businesses can create jobs in their communities.''
  Other business organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce and 
Financial Services Roundtable support the bill because they know it 
contains important tax provisions, strengthens existing SBA programs, 
and helps our economy.
  So, my support for the small business legislation is based upon the 
many calls of support I heard from Ohio's small and medium 
manufacturers, most of whom are still struggling to recover from this 
recession. At the same time, these manufacturers are experiencing the 
fiercest competition I have seen in my lifetime.
  My support of Ohio's manufacturers is not new, and my support of this 
bill is a part of my longstanding concern for and support of Ohio's 
manufacturing companies. As Governor of Ohio, I am proud that we gave 
high priority to manufacturing and that it grew for the first time in 
many years during my administration. We instituted several incentives 
for manufacturing, including a job-creation tax credit, a manufacturing 
and equipment investment tax credit, and the technology investment tax 
credit. As Governor, I went on nine business, trade, and investment 
missions, with the intention of helping open new markets for Ohio 
products, and I am hopeful that the export promotion efforts in this 
legislation will help Ohio's manufacturers take advantage of selling in 
the global market.
  When I came to the Senate, I continued to support manufacturing, 
making it a key priority of my legislative efforts. For example, during 
President Bush's first term, I worked with the administration, when it 
filed the section 201 action, to support the U.S. steel industry at a 
time when imports were coming in at an increasing rate and threatening 
the industry's existence. And after a painful period of adjustment, the 
steel industry came back. I am afraid of what might have been the fate 
of this important industry had President Bush not taken action. I am 
also proud that I was the chief advocate to the President and Secretary 
of Commerce Don Evans of the need for an Assistant Secretary of 
Manufacturing as well as a plan to support manufacturing. From 2006 to 
2008, I worked closely with Senator Bayh, who is also from a 
manufacturing State, to pass legislation to improve our Nation's 
intellectual property theft enforcement efforts. These efforts were 
rewarded when the PRO-IP Act became law in October 2008. Our efforts to 
pass this legislation may have surprised some who view IP theft as 
something related to knockoff purses and software, but IP theft has 
such a damaging effect on our manufacturers, we both viewed this as an 
important way to help our manufacturers compete on a level playing 
field in the global economy.
  Most recently, I have worked to protect manufacturing from onerous 
cap-and-trade legislation that would have a devastating effect on 
manufacturing, while doing little to improve emissions from countries 
such as China and India. I have also worked on a bipartisan basis to 
reauthorize the surface transportation act. This is another must-pass 
bill that would provide certainty to a number of industries and would 
help our manufacturers recover from this recession. I have spoken to 
the President about the need to pass a highway bill, and I was 
encouraged that he has promised to take a leading role in getting it 
done.
  I know that my Republican colleagues have concerns with the lending 
facility and what it means for the role of government in the private 
sector. I have heard their concerns, but based on the feedback I have 
heard, mostly from Ohio's small businesses, I reached the conclusion 
that this $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund will help banks that 
serve local communities to expand their lending at a time when credit 
to small businesses has tightened for a variety of reasons. These are 
the community banks that make the small but necessary loans to 
restaurants, small manufacturers, home improvement contractors and the 
like to keep their businesses afloat and hopefully begin to expand as 
the economy recovers. In addition, the program is voluntary for these 
banks, and the lending fund is estimated by the Congressional Budget 
Office to save money. In other words, the lending fund will not add to 
the budget deficit or the national debt, and it will not increase 
taxes. So this fund amounts to a relatively modest, voluntary, revenue-
neutral financial tool for small community banks helping to restore the 
flow of credit small businesses desperately need.
  Finally, for those who are trying to make this a partisan bill, I 
will say there is enough blame to go around. The Democrats in Congress 
delayed passing this bill for many weeks. They denied Republicans the 
opportunity to amend the bill for many weeks, while we held political 
votes on a number of issues. The President then went on to politicize 
the bill, ignoring legitimate complaints about the lack of amendments 
from my side of the aisle. It is worth remembering the Senate moved to 
the bill on June 29, then abandoned it repeatedly to vote on 
unemployment benefits multiple times, financial regulation, 
supplemental appropriations, executive nominations, the DISCLOSE Act, 
and the teacher bailout, which took us into the August recess. Then 
when discussions about Republican amendments were finally starting to 
receive serious consideration, these amendments were countered by 
Democratic amendments, leading to an amendment tit for tat, which is 
too often the case.
  But while I am disappointed that my colleagues were unable to offer 
amendments to this bill, which is one of the traditions of the Senate, 
I felt we could no longer wait to pass this legislation. We needed to 
do something now to help the economy get going, and hopefully we will 
get back to the Senate tradition of offering amendments and having 
votes. Finally, I am pleased that there was a vote on at least one 
Republican amendment, the amendment offered by Senator Johanns, which 
would repeal an extremely burdensome reporting requirement for small 
businesses included in the health care reform bill. While I am 
disappointed that

[[Page 15889]]

it failed and small businesses continued to be threatened by this 
burden, I am hopeful that this amendment process has brought enough 
attention to the problem and it can be fixed before the end of this 
year.
  Finally, Mr. President, I will continue to work to pass a robust 
highway reauthorization bill this year, which I strongly believe would 
help improve our economy, and once again, I ask President Obama and 
Majority Leader Reid, to work with the relevant committees to complete 
work on a multiyear, paid for, reauthorization of the highway bill 
before the 111th Congress adjourns.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record the letters to which I referred.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Precision Metalforming Association and National Tooling & 
           Machining Association,
                                                    July 23, 2010.
     Hon. George V. Voinovich,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Voinovich: On behalf of One Voice, the joint 
     effort between the National Tooling and Machining Association 
     (NTMA) and the Precision Metalforming Association (PMA), and 
     our nearly 3,000 metalworking member companies, thank you for 
     your continued efforts to support small businesses 
     manufacturing in America. Your vote on the Small Business 
     Loan Fund Amendment was critical to helping support small 
     businesses access timely and sufficient credit and to 
     domestic manufacturing growth.
       Many small and medium-sized manufacturers continue to face 
     challenges accessing timely and sufficient credit for day-to-
     day operations, investing in capital equipment and raw 
     materials, increasing worker hours, and hiring more 
     employees. The lack of availability of credit has led to 
     decreased spending, increased layoffs, and depleted 
     collateral in many industries, including metalworking. In the 
     current environment, many lenders are steering clear of 
     perceived ``at risk'' industries such as manufacturers who 
     are temporarily impaired. This legislation will improve the 
     lending environment and will help America's small 
     manufacturers strengthen their businesses and continue to 
     lead our nation's economic recovery.
       Thank you again for your long history of supporting 
     America's manufacturers. We look forward to continuing to 
     work with you and your staff on issues critical to 
     strengthening manufacturing in America.
           Sincerely,
     William E. Gaskin,
       PMA President.
     Robert Akers,
       NTMA Chief Operating Officer.
                                  ____

                                                Precision Machined


                                         Products Association,

                                                    July 23, 2010.
     Hon. George V. Voinovich,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Voinovich: On behalf of the Precision Machined 
     Products Association (PMPA) and the roughly 100,000 employees 
     nationwide in our industry, thank you for your vote on the 
     Small Business Loan Fund to ensure that small businesses gain 
     access to timely and sufficient credit, an issue of 
     increasing importance as manufacturers seek new business and 
     the economy improves.
       As you know, the economic downturn hit our vital industry 
     particularly hard, as it did countless manufacturers in Ohio. 
     However, as the economy begins to recover, many small 
     manufacturers continue to face challenges accessing adequate 
     and timely credit to buy the raw materials and increase work 
     hours to meet improving demand. Lack of capital is stunting 
     economic growth and the Loan Fund program is an important 
     component of improving the situation and spurring the 
     economy.
       As we work to recover and strengthen manufacturing in 
     America, access to sufficient and timely credit is a critical 
     component. Thank you for your support, and we look forward to 
     continuing to work with you to help strengthen small business 
     manufacturing in America.
           Cordially,
                                                 Robert C. Kiener,
     PMPA Director of Government Affairs & Communications.
                                  ____

                                                Precision Machined


                                         Products Association,

                                   Brecksville, OH, Sept. 10, 2010
     Hon. George V. Voinovich,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Voinovich: On behalf of the Precision Machined 
     Products Association (PMPA) and the roughly 100,000 employees 
     nationwide in our industry, thank you for your support of the 
     Small Business Jobs Act, particularly your efforts to help 
     small businesses gain access to timely and sufficient credit. 
     Improving the lending environment for small manufacturers is 
     essential to jumpstarting the nation's economy.
       As you know, the economic downturn hit our vital industry 
     particularly hard, as it did countless manufacturers in Ohio. 
     As the economy begins to recover, many small manufacturers 
     continue to face challenges accessing adequate and timely 
     credit to buy the raw materials and increase work hours to 
     meet improving demand. Lack of capital is stunting economic 
     growth and this bill is an important component of improving 
     the situation and spurring job growth.
       As an Ohio-based association with thousands of employees in 
     the Buckeye State, thank you for your years of leadership on 
     behalf of manufacturers. We look forward to continuing to 
     work with you and your staff in the coming months as we move 
     forward to strengthen manufacturing in America.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Mike Duffin,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                              National Tooling and


                                        Machining Association,

                               Ft. Washington, MD, Sept. 10, 2010.
     Hon. George Voinovich,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Voinovich: On behalf of the National Tooling 
     and Machining Association (NTMA) and our 150 member companies 
     in the State of Ohio, thank you for your support of the Small 
     Business Jobs Act to improve the lending environment for 
     small businesses. Our members are small and medium-sized, 
     mostly family-owned businesses who rely on timely and 
     adequate lines of credit to purchase raw materials and make 
     significant investment in their operations.
       As you know, the vast majority of small businesses turn to 
     their local community banks for lines of credit. However, due 
     to numerous market conditions and regulatory restrictions, 
     lenders have reduced or revoked credit lines even for 
     profitable companies in Ohio seeking to purchase equipment 
     and hire workers to meet increased demand and new job orders. 
     Tool and die makers in particular are expected by their 
     customers to invest significant capital up front when 
     manufacturing a product and are often not paid for several 
     months and at times for over a year. The nature of this 
     industry requires an adequate and stable credit market and 
     this legislation is an important step to jumpstarting 
     American manufacturers.
       Thank you for your support of this legislation and your 
     continued leadership in Washington on behalf of small and 
     medium-sized manufacturers. We especially appreciate the 
     dedication and time your staff has committed over the years 
     supporting the needs of over 16,000 manufacturing companies 
     in Ohio.
           Sincerely,
                                             Robert L. Akers, Jr.,
     Chief Operating Officer.
                                  ____

                                            Precision Metalforming


                                                  Association,

                                 Independence, OH, Sept. 10, 2010.
     Hon. George Voinovich,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Voinovich: On behalf of the Precision 
     Metalforming Association (PMA) based in Independence, Ohio, 
     and our more than 100 member companies in the State, thank 
     you for your years of leadership in Columbus and Washington 
     supporting small and medium-sized manufacturers. Your efforts 
     to help pass the Small Business Jobs Act is critical to 
     jumpstarting the economy. Our members continue to report 
     challenges accessing timely and sufficient credit to help run 
     day-to-day operations, invest in their facilities and hire 
     new employees. Your support of this bill will improve the 
     credit environment for small manufacturers and expand growth.
       Ohio manufacturers are the backbone of our economy, 
     employing more than 600,000 people in our state. Many of 
     these companies report they are ready to expand and take on 
     new business but the tight capital markets restrict their 
     ability to increase production and purchase raw materials. 
     One year ago, 72 percent of respondents to our industry 
     survey expected to encounter challenges with credit when the 
     economy improves--their predictions have come true.
       Senator, as you recently said, ``We don't have time 
     anymore. This country is really hurting.'' Nowhere is this 
     more true than in Ohio. You and your staff have tirelessly 
     worked to strengthen manufacturing in America and your 
     support of this legislation to improve the lending 
     environment for our businesses is critical.
       Thank you again and we look forward to continuing to work 
     with you on this and other important issues.
           Sincerely,
                                                William E. Gaskin,
     President.
                                  ____

                                            Precision Metalforming


                                                  Association,

                                                   Sept. 10, 2010.

   Manufacturers Applaud Senator Voinovich for his Support of Small 
                           Business Jobs Act

       The Ohio-based National Tooling and Machining Association 
     (NTMA) and Precision Metalforming Association (PMA) applauded

[[Page 15890]]

     Senator George Voinovich's (R-OH) announcement that he would 
     vote to support the Senate moving forward to consider the 
     Small Business Jobs Act, a bill that would help small and 
     medium sized manufacturers access credit needed to help 
     finance their day-to-day operations, invest in expansion of 
     domestic operations and ensure that a disruption in the 
     critical supply chain does not occur.
       The bill, already passed by the House, creates a $30 
     billion lending pool that community bankers can use for small 
     businesses, and $12 billion in tax incentives. The Senate is 
     expected to vote on the bill next week.
       ``Senator Voinovich's support of this bill continues his 
     long history of standing with small and medium sized 
     manufacturers in this country,'' said PMA member James B. 
     McGregor, Sr. vice chairman of McGregor Metalworking 
     Companies in Springfield, OH. ``We greatly appreciate his 
     support in helping to jumpstart manufacturing in America by 
     improving the credit market for small businesses.''
       McGregor, who also serves on the Manufacturing Council, a 
     forum established by the U.S. Department of Commerce to 
     ensure regular communication between the federal government 
     and the manufacturing sector, added: ``While a slew of 
     proposals to boost manufacturing have been announced in the 
     past couple of weeks by both political parties, most of these 
     proposals are months, if not years, away from Congressional 
     action. By improving access to credit, the Small Business 
     Jobs Act can help small and medium sized manufacturers now. 
     We urge the Senate to pass this bill as soon as possible.''
       For additional information or to arrange an interview with 
     a PMA or NTMA manufacturer, please contact Caitlin Andrews at 
     202-828-7637 or [email protected]
       About NTMA: NTMA is the national association representing 
     the precision custom manufacturing industry, which employs 
     more than 440,000 skilled workers in the United States. Its 
     mission is to help members of the U.S. precision custom 
     manufacturing industry achieve business success in a global 
     economy through advocacy, advice, networking, information, 
     programs and services. Many NTMA members are privately owned 
     small businesses, yet the industry generates sales in excess 
     of $40 billion a year. NTMA's nearly 1,600 member companies 
     design and manufacture special tools, dies, jigs, fixtures, 
     gages, special machines and precision-machined parts. Some 
     firms specialize in experimental research and development 
     work.
       About PMA: About PMA: PMA is the full-service trade 
     association representing the $113-billion metalforming 
     industry of North America--the industry that creates 
     precision metal products using stamping, fabricating, 
     spinning, slide forming and roll forming technologies, and 
     other value-added processes. Its nearly 1,000 member 
     companies also include suppliers of equipment, materials and 
     services to the industry. PMA leads innovative member 
     companies toward superior competitiveness and profitability 
     through advocacy, networking, statistics, the PMA Educational 
     Foundation, FABTECH and METALFORM tradeshows, and 
     MetalForming magazine.
                                  ____

                                   Motor & Equipment Manufacturers


                                                  Association,

                                   Washington, DC, Sept. 14, 2010.
     Hon. George V. Voinovich,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Voinovich: The Motor & Equipment Manufacturers 
     Association (MEMA), along with its affiliated associations, 
     Automotive Aftermarket Suppliers Association (AASA), Heavy 
     Duty Manufacturers Association (HDMA), and Original Equipment 
     Suppliers Association (OESA), applaud and thank you for your 
     leadership in ending the stalemate in the Senate on the Small 
     Business Jobs and Credit Act (H.R. 5297).
       A vibrant parts manufacturing industry is critical not only 
     to the state of Ohio, but to the entire nation. This bill is 
     critical to help smaller manufacturers, including parts 
     suppliers, access the credit they need to reinvest in and 
     grow their businesses. MEMA strongly supports H.R. 5297 and 
     believes that both the creation of a Small Business Lending 
     Fund to assist banks in increasing small business capital 
     investment lending as well as the establishment of a State 
     Small Business Credit Initiative that allocates federal funds 
     for states to partner with financial institutions will 
     directly and immediately help small manufacturers.
       Again, thank you for your willingness to step in and help 
     move this important bill forward for Senate passage. We are 
     very grateful for your leadership and political courage.
           Sincerely,
                                                Robert E. McKenna,
                                                President and CEO.

  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, it has been nearly 2\1/2\ months since 
the majority leader first brought small business jobs legislation to 
the floor, and now this bill will pass the Senate through a constrained 
process under which the majority has continually stunted our ability to 
offer amendments, dictating to our side which amendments they 
considered worthy--something I find abhorrent and antithetical to this 
institution. And I might add, before the votes we held Tuesday on the 
Johanns and Nelson amendments on the 1099 issue, we had voted on just 
one amendment during consideration of this bill--an amendment to 
reinstate an ill-conceived and divisive lending fund into the bill. And 
with the failed votes on the 1099 issue, we inexplicably and 
regrettably punted on a chance to help millions of small businesses 
save the time, cost, and effort of sending billions of new information 
reporting forms to the IRS and to other businesses.
  As ranking member of the Senate Small Business Committee, I have come 
to the floor several times during recent months to express my regret 
over the procedural twists and turns that have gotten us to this point. 
Clearly, we have had ample opportunity to consider and pass meaningful 
small business jobs legislation. Yet time after time other priorities 
have taken precedence. Most recently, it was the August recess that 
took us away from Washington for 5 weeks while small businesses 
continued to call for help. They didn't get an August recess. They 
didn't have the luxury of putting things on hold while the economic 
situation failed to improve. As I said in July on the Senate floor, it 
seems as if we have forgotten how to talk to one another here, how to 
work together and forge a bipartisan and sensible solution to a problem 
that plagues our economy.
  A prime example of this is the recent votes we took to repeal the 
onerous and imprudent mandate in the health care legislation regarding 
the filing of 1099 forms by millions of businesses. It will require 
that, starting in 2012, every business in America must report to the 
IRS on business purchases that exceed a threshold of only $600 per 
vendor or supplier. This mandate would include purchases of supplies 
and equipment, as well as purchases of services ranging from cell phone 
coverage to window washing to utilities.
  This new mandate was imposed in the health reform law, yet it has 
nothing to do with health insurance reform. It makes the Federal 
Government a more intrusive and burdensome presence in every aspect of 
American business--which is the very last thing American business needs 
during these tumultuous economic times. What small firms are clamoring 
for is certainty. They look to the Federal Government to help foster an 
entrepreneurial environment under which they can do what they do best--
create new jobs--and not saddle them with an incessant and unnecessary 
paperwork burden like this new 1099 filing requirement. This new system 
of 1099s has absolutely nothing to do with a direct tax liability in a 
given year. Instead, this reporting regime will allow the IRS to track 
business purchases that exceed $600. Businesses typically have an 
intense focus on carefully tracking their sales to customers with 
marketing professionals. Rather than tracking sales to customers, this 
new government mandate will force a change in business focus to a 
detailed accounting of purchases from suppliers.
  While controlling costs is clearly a vital component of business 
profitability, this new government mandate on cost accounting and 
reporting to the IRS is an inordinate shift of priorities that will 
harm competitiveness and profitability because it will shift focus and 
resources away from customers. We had bipartisan support to eliminate 
this provision, and yet we couldn't agree to repeal this provision 
because 52 Democrats opposed Senator Johanns amendment. How out of 
touch and disconnected can the majority be? American business owners 
are desperate for relief from taxes and regulation, and we can't even 
agree to help them. Instead, we are going to impede their ability to 
thrive and grow.

[[Page 15891]]

  Indeed, for the small businesses that attempt to comply with this tax 
reporting mandate, this paperwork burden will be imposed with a 
crushing effect. New tracking systems will have to be implemented for 
purchases in order to ensure that aggregated purchases exceeding $600 
are reported to the IRS. In fact, according to a National Federation of 
Independent Business, or NFIB, small business survey, at $74 an hour, 
tax paperwork is the most expensive paperwork burden placed on small 
businesses by the Federal Government. The Small Business Administration 
has found that the cost of tax compliance is already 67 percent higher 
in small firms than in large firms. And because this new 1099 reporting 
burden would be so ubiquitous for firms attempting to be compliant--by 
requiring new processes of making business purchases and tracking of 
business purchases--this compliance cost statistic is likely to become 
woefully outdated as costs soar ever higher. Mr. President, we ought to 
be reducing the small business regulatory compliance burden, not 
augmenting it.
  So, once again, here we are, and the only amendment that the majority 
has seen prudent to approve reinstates an ill-conceived Treasury 
lending fund that has been widely recognized as ``TARP Jr.,'' while we 
fail to vote in favor of an amendment introduced by Senator Johanns 
that could have helped small businesses.
  Simply put, we will rely on small businesses to lead us out of the 
present economic morass. According to the Small Business 
Administration, or SBA, small firms have created 64 percent of net new 
jobs over the past 15 years. And since they represent 99.7 percent of 
all employer firms and employ slightly more than half of all private 
sector employees, it is more than evident that our overall economy's 
health is based on the well-being of our Nation's almost 30 million 
small businesses. With our Nation's unemployment rate hovering near 10 
percent since last August--over a whole year ago--and standing at a 
regrettable 9.6 percent today, it will require nearly unprecedented 
economic growth to reverse this trend.
  We have 14.9 million Americans on the unemployment rolls, searching 
for opportunities in what often seems to them a hopeless situation. 
According to the most recent ADP Employment Report, we learned that 
private-sector companies actually shed 10,000 jobs in August--news 
which the firm noted ``. . . confirms a pause in the recovery, already 
evident in other economic data.'' From February through July, ``. . . 
the average monthly gain in employment was 37,000 with no evidence of 
acceleration.'' By any measure, these job creation figures are 
lackluster and insufficient.
  Yet if we are to spur a full-fledged recovery that recoups the jobs 
we have lost since the start of the recession in December 2007, the 
NFIB's latest Economic Trends survey notes that ``. . . to restore 2007 
employment levels and unemployment rates by 2013, we need a net 400,000 
new jobs every month for 3 years''--which, given the numbers coming 
from both the Department of Labor and ADP, would be next to impossible. 
We have hit the mark of 400,000 jobs in 1 month only once this year--in 
May--and that was due to the hiring of 411,000 census workers. Indeed, 
the private sector only grew by 41,000 jobs that month.
  Furthermore, with respect to our economic growth, the Bureau of 
Economic Analysis late last month revised its estimate of GDP growth 
downward to an astonishingly low 1.6 percent for the second quarter of 
2010, from an earlier prediction of 2.4 percent.
  Let's be clear. This kind of growth is insufficient to reduce 
unemployment and bolster our economic future, and it certainly will not 
instill the level of confidence that small business owners require in 
decisions to take risks and invest in their businesses. In fact, just 
before the July 4th recess, I met with the president of the Boston 
Federal Reserve, Eric Rosengren. And as he noted, the ``growth'' the 
economy has shown thus far is for the most part in inventory--and this 
is not actually ``real growth.'' Right now, our government is the only 
real growth industry in this country, and that is not a recipe for 
future prosperity and the kind of innovation that has always placed 
America on the vanguard in an exceptionally competitive global 
marketplace.
  So what will be required? In the Federal Reserve's analysis, roughly 
a 6-percent growth in GDP will be necessary just to equalize the job 
losses we have suffered by the end of 2012. That rate would be almost 
the same level of growth we experienced during the recovery from the 
1982 recession and approximately double the growth following the 1991 
and 2001 recessions. Indeed, even to attain a 5-percent unemployment 
rate by the end of 2015, it would require annual growth of 4.2 percent. 
The last time we witnessed sustained annual GDP growth near that level 
was the late 1990s, peaking at 4.8 percent growth in 1999. So we have 
our work cut out for us.
  Yet, while small businesses are looking to Washington for some 
certainty in the tax and regulatory policies they deal with on a daily 
basis, there has been a stark disconnect between Washington and the 
entire rest of the country. This vast chasm is vividly discernible in 
the NFIB's July Small Business Economic Trends report, which describes 
small businesses' optimism as being at an ``unprecedented'' low. The 
report went on to state that ``the U.S. economy faces hurricane force 
headwinds and the government is at the center of the storm, making an 
economic recovery very difficult.''
  The NFIB's June survey noted that the optimism index remained in 
``recession'' territory, and even with some signs of life in our 
economy, ``Washington, D.C. . . . seem[s] determined to undermine any 
economic forward momentum for small business owners.'' That report 
further stated that ``Congress continues to pass and propose 
legislation that increases the cost of running a business and create 
huge uncertainty about future costs.'' And the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
added its own dire analysis of Washington's actions in an open letter 
in mid-July, asserting that, ``By straying from the proven principles 
of American free enterprise, policymakers are needlessly prolonging the 
economic agony of the recession for millions of Americans and their 
families.'' These candid assessments of how small business owners view 
the actions of this Congress and this administration must 
unquestionably be heeded if we are to ever regain the trust of the 
American people. As I said earlier, the majority is detached from 
reality.
  So clearly there is a demonstrable necessity for a broad jobs package 
that will get our Nation's small businesses back on track and spark the 
idling engines of our economy. The substitute amendment that has been 
laid down contains a solid foundation for investing in jobs that 
includes many of the provisions I have championed over the last year 
and a half and that formed the core of my Small Business Job Creation 
Act, S. 3103. This includes crucial measures to bolster Small Business 
Administration, or SBA, lending, increase the number of small companies 
that export to foreign markets, and provide immediate tax relief to our 
Nation's true job creators. In fact, the Small Business Committee has 
approved many of these provisions unanimously, and the President of the 
United States has called for them to be included a jobs package.
  One of the critical starting points of this legislation is taking 
steps to stem the endemic credit crisis our Nation's business community 
is still facing. This bill will address this stifling credit crunch 
that is placing a perilous chokehold on our economy across the country 
so that we can do something viable and bold to confront such a 
universally-acknowledged problem.
  We can begin to turn around this deplorable trend by boosting the 
SBA's capacity for facilitating access to credit. This bill includes 
key lending provisions from a measure I introduced with Small Business 
Committee Chair Landrieu, which was reported out of our committee by a 
vote of 17 to 1, to increase the maximum limits for SBA 7(a) and 504 
loans from $2 million to $5 million; raise the maximum microloan limit 
from $35,000 to $50,000; and allow for the refinancing of conventional 
small business loans through the SBA

[[Page 15892]]

504 program. These loans are critical to small businesses that utilize 
this capital in starting their firms and investing in equipment and 
expansion. It should be evident to everyone in this Chamber why 81 
business organizations have endorsed these provisions.
  I would note that enhancing SBA loans has already paid tremendous 
dividends. In the stimulus, we included initiatives to increase SBA 
maximum 7(a) loan guarantees from 80 percent to 90 percent and to 
reduce certain 7(a) and 504 lender and borrower fees. But, regrettably, 
these provisions have lapsed, and these initiatives, which are credited 
with increasing loan volumes by a remarkable 90 percent nationwide and 
236 percent in Maine, have, to my dismay, come to a close. At a time 
when unemployment hovers at unsustainable levels and consumer 
confidence hangs in abeyance, nothing could be more counterintuitive 
than to allow these provisions to remain moribund. In fact, we have 
seen the dramatic results to SBA lending since the expiration of these 
critical enhancements. In August alone, the SBA approved only $1.097 
billion in SBA 7(a) guaranteed loans, a 43-percent decrease from the 
$1.9 billion in 7(a) loans it approved in May, the last month of the 
fee relief and higher guarantees.
  That is why I introduced an amendment to this bill along with 
Senators Grassley, Enzi, Isakson, and Collins, to resuscitate these 
highly effective programs--and I am pleased that the majority leader 
has included a modification of our amendment in the most recent 
substitute. This language would provide $505 million to reinstate SBA 
fee reductions and the elevated guarantee on SBA 7(a) loans through the 
end of 2010.
  Additionally, we must provide tax incentives to the small business 
community in order to foster job creation. We know from survey after 
survey that small business owners consider taxes to be one of the 
biggest impediments to the growth of their firms. Indeed, in the 
National Small Business Association's 2009 Year-End Economic Report, 38 
percent of respondents to their survey noted Federal taxes as one of 
the three most significant challenges to the future growth and survival 
of their businesses--a category trumped only by the ongoing economic 
uncertainty pervading our Nation. To help mitigate this uncertainty, 
the tax portion of this bill that Chairman Baucus and ranking member of 
the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, helped negotiate 
includes three critical components: cash flow, investment incentives, 
and fairness.
  The lifeblood of a small business is its cash flow, and so this bill 
contains several provisions that will improve the cash flow status of a 
company. The provision that is most remarkable will also address a 
fundamental injustice of the TAX CODE: permitting the self-employed, 
like realtors, a full deduction for the first time ever for health 
insurance premiums against not only income taxes but also against 
payroll taxes. At a rate of 15.3 percent, for many small business 
owners the self-employment tax, or SECA tax, imposed on the health 
benefits of the business owner is an expensive injustice that only adds 
to the already exorbitant cost of health insurance. Regrettably, the 
health reform bill that was jammed through Congress earlier this year 
fell far short for small businesses. So allowing the full deduction for 
health insurance for the self-employed is critical for affordability.
  This substitute will also allow for general business credits to be 
carried back 5 years and taken against the alternative minimum tax, or 
AMT. When Congress implements policies through the TAX CODE, we expect 
businesses to utilize these incentives. Unfortunately, during a 
downward business cycle as we have been in for 2 full years, businesses 
do not have income tax liability that can be offset with a credit. The 
5-year carryback of credits will allow business owners to reach back to 
prior years when they had taxable income and offset prior tax liability 
with these credits to get an immediate cash infusion. They can use this 
cash as they choose, but, as we have seen with net operating loss 
relief, they use these funds for anything from meeting payroll to 
investing in new equipment. This same principle applies with respect to 
the provision that allows credits to be used against the alternative 
minimum tax.
  And with regard to investing in new equipment, more businesses will 
be incentivized to make equipment purchases or upgrade their physical 
spaces. Real property has never been included in ``expensing,'' and 
this would allow ``Main Street'' businesses such as retail, 
restaurants, and dentist offices, to renovate and make other 
improvements to their buildings in 2010 and 2011 and immediately deduct 
those costs. In this legislation, we also increase the expensing 
limitation to $500,000 for equipment. This is double the amount 
previously permitted. However the bill would also bifurcate that amount 
so that up to $250,000 of expenses for real property can be expensed 
and the business can still purchase up to $250,000 of equipment.
  One final tax provision I would like to discuss concerns investment 
in small business. Senator Kerry and I have long championed allowing 
for the complete exclusion on capital gains attributable to small 
business stock held for 5 years. The President touted this effort in 
his State of the Union Address. I hope this will help jumpstart 
critical investment in our Nation's small businesses.
  Furthermore, this bill would take critical steps to inject some 
fairness into the Federal contracting process for small businesses. And 
it also includes $50 million in funding for small business development 
centers, which provide critical technical assistance and counseling to 
small businesses at over 1,000 locations nationwide. The SBDC program 
has a proven track record of job creation. According to an annual 
report by Dr. James Chrisman at Mississippi State University, between 
2007 and 2008, employment levels of SBDC clients increased 10 percent 
more than for U.S. businesses in general. As a result of the additional 
funding included in this package, Dr. Chrisman estimates that over 
20,000 new jobs would be created, while tens of thousands more will be 
saved.
  Just as there is much we can do right away domestically, our 
legislation will also take action to help our small businesses compete 
globally. Given that fewer than 1 percent of U.S. small businesses 
export, it is all the more vital that we take advantage of this 
untapped market and help those enterprises sell their goods and 
services to the 95 percent of the world's customers who live outside 
our borders. In his State of the Union Address, President Obama made 
clear that we must double our exports over the next 5 years, and small 
businesses are a critical component of the administration's strategy 
and our national competitiveness.
  For this reason, this bill includes small business exporting 
provisions from legislation I introduced with Chair Landrieu. The 
provisions in this bill--larger SBA export loan limits, expanded export 
technical assistance, and enhanced assistance for trade promotion--have 
bipartisan support, they were reported unanimously by our committee 
last December, and they have administration support and have also been 
endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These provisions could create 
roughly 46,000 new American jobs in the year after enactment and 
200,000 jobs over the next 5 years.
  Another theme that I frequently hear from small businesses is that 
the regulatory environment promoted by Washington is too complex and 
often detrimental to their ability to expand operations and create 
jobs. As such, this legislation strengthens the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act by requiring agencies to respond to the SBA Chief Counsel of 
Advocacy's comments in the final rules that they promulgate. This will 
help to ensure that the potentially devastating impacts to small 
business job creation are fully considered during the Federal 
rulemaking process. It also seeks more independence for the Office of 
Advocacy by mandating a separate line item in the administration's 
annual budget. These provisions are strongly supported by a variety of 
groups, including the National Federation of Independent Business, the 
U.S. Chamber, and the National Small Business Association.

[[Page 15893]]

  Yet, despite all of these provisions--many of which I helped craft 
and many of which have broad, bipartisan support--regrettably, I cannot 
support this bill as it stands because of the reckless and wrongheaded 
$30 billion lending fund contained in the legislation. I have spoken at 
length about this on the Senate floor before, but let me remind my 
colleagues--once again--what we are voting on with this lending fund.
  First, regardless of what proponents of the lending fund will say, it 
is essentially an extension of the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or 
TARP, which just terminated with the enactment of financial regulatory 
reform legislation. This is not simply my analysis. In a May 17, 2010, 
letter that Mr. Barofsky, the special inspector general of TARP, wrote 
to the Members of the House of Representatives, he states that ``. . . 
in terms of its basic design, its participants, its application 
process, and, perhaps its funding source from an oversight perspective, 
the SBLF [Lending Fund] would essentially be an extension of TARP's CPP 
[Capital Purchase Program] program. . . .'' So if the experts tell us 
that it looks like TARP--well, let's not kid ourselves--regardless of 
how the proponents want to spin this, it is still TARP.
  Additionally, there are unintended consequences that may result from 
Treasury's Small Business Lending Fund which certainly raise a red flag 
for me. It is possible that instead of promoting quality loans, the 
proposal could encourage unnecessarily risky behavior by banks. The 
Treasury Department proposes to lend funds to banks, at a 5-percent 
interest rate, which can then be reduced to as low as 1 percent if the 
institutions in turn increase their small business lending. However, if 
the banks fail to increase their small business lending, the interest 
rate they pay could rise to a more punitive 7 percent. This could lead 
to the ``moral hazard'' of banks making risky loans to avoid paying 
higher interest rates.
  Finally, I have serious concerns about the cost of the program. The 
lending fund provision that is in the Reid substitute remains virtually 
identical, for scoring purposes, to how it was in the House-passed 
small business bill, H.R. 5297. That score is based on a cash--based 
estimate. Under a cash-based estimate, the Congressional Budget Office, 
or CBO, listed the official score for the lending fund as raising $1.1 
billion over 10 years.
  Although CBO was bound to score the provision under a cash-based 
estimate, the office also highlights in that same score--and I quote--
``Estimates prepared on a `fair-value' basis include the cost of the 
risk that the government has assumed; as a result, they provide a more 
comprehensive measure of the cost of the financial commitments than 
estimates done on a FCRA basis or on a cash basis. CBO estimates that 
the cost of the SBLF [Lending Fund] on such a fair-value basis (that 
is, reflecting market risk) would be $6.2 billion.'' That is right, CBO 
is warning that although it is bound to score the provision using a 
cash-based estimate, a more comprehensive scoring method reveals a 
potential $6.2 billion loss to taxpayers. I raised this issue on the 
floor during the debate on the lending fund, but my opponents have 
simply ignored this concern. Certainly, this should have been taken 
into full consideration when evaluating the potential costs and 
benefits of the program and its effect on our increasing budget 
deficit.
  Finally, I note that this past Tuesday, the Washington Post ran an 
article demonstrating that, while larger banks are generally associated 
with TARP, ``. . . it's a collection of smaller banks that continued to 
plague the Treasury Department's bank bailout program.'' In fact, the 
article cited that ``the latest report from the agency shows that more 
than 120 institutions--nearly all of them small banks--have missed 
their scheduled quarterly dividend payments.'' So I do not understand 
why the majority wants to create a new program for small banks that has 
the same characteristics of TARP, when many of those banks are already 
participating in TARP and have been delinquent on their payments.
  So I am truly disappointed that we have arrived at this point. This 
bill could have been better. We could have considered amendments from 
the outset, and we could have moved on this bill months ago. I know 
that I have been calling for sensible legislation to help small 
businesses since January. Yet, regrettably, for the reasons I have 
discussed, I cannot support it.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The cloture motion having been 
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the 
motion.
  The assistant executive clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 5297, the 
     Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010.
         Mary L. Landrieu, Max Baucus, Dianne Feinstein, Patty 
           Murray, Charles E. Schumer, Christopher J. Dodd, Al 
           Franken, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Maria Cantwell, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Byron L. Dorgan, Benjamin L. Cardin, Ron 
           Wyden, Kent Conrad, Roland W. Burris, Jeff Merkley, 
           Debbie Stabenow.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call is waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate on 
H.R. 5297, the Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010, shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 61, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 236 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Goodwin
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     LeMieux
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--38

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Vitter
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 61, the nays are 
38. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Postcloture time is yielded back.
  The clerk will read the bill for the third time.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I wanted to announce what the schedule 
will be in the next few days. I have been working with the Republican 
leader to try to make this as convenient for everyone and still cover 
as much as we can in the short period of time we have. The next vote, 
which will happen in a minute or two, will be the last vote this week.
  On Monday, September 20, as has been previously announced, there will 
be no votes. The next rollcall vote will be at 2:15 on Tuesday, 
September 21, which will be cloture on the motion to proceed to the DOD 
authorization bill.

[[Page 15894]]

I will have a conversation about that when this vote is completed as to 
how I propose to proceed to that matter.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the 
bill pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 237 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Goodwin
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     LeMieux
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--38

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Vitter
       
  The bill (H.R. 5297), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________