[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10698-10705]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5486, SMALL BUSINESS JOBS TAX 
RELIEF ACT OF 2010; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5297, SMALL 
                   BUSINESS LENDING FUND ACT OF 2010

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1436 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1436

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     5486) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
     tax incentives for small business job creation, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of 
     rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2. (a) At any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the 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, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 
     of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     amendments specified in this subsection and shall not exceed 
     one hour, with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Financial Services and 30 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Small Business. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now 
     printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution modified by the amendment 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules. 
     That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in part C of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules. Each amendment may be offered only in the order 
     printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question. All points of order 
     against such amendments are waived except those arising under 
     clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       (b) The Chair may entertain a motion that the Committee 
     rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee on 
     Financial Services or his designee. The Chair may not 
     entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the 
     bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).
       (c) In the engrossment of H.R. 5297, the Clerk is 
     authorized to make technical and conforming changes to 
     amendatory instructions.
       Sec. 3. (a) In the engrossment of H.R. 5297, the Clerk 
     shall--
       (1) add the text of H.R. 5486, as passed by the House, as 
     new matter at the end of H.R. 5297;
       (2) conform the title of H.R. 5297 to reflect the addition 
     to the engrossment of H.R. 5486;
       (3) assign appropriate designations to provisions within 
     the engrossment; and
       (4) conform provisions for short titles within the 
     engrossment.
       (b) Upon the addition of the text of H.R. 5486 to the 
     engrossment of H.R. 5297, H.R. 5486 shall be laid on the 
     table.
       Sec. 4.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     with respect to any resolution reported through the 
     legislative day of June 18, 2010, providing for consideration 
     or disposition of any Senate amendment to the House amendment 
     to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 4213) to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring 
     provisions, and for other purposes.
       Sec. 5.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     legislative day of June 18, 2010, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules. The 
     Speaker or her designee shall consult with the Minority 
     Leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for 
     consideration pursuant to this section.

                              {time}  1300

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Ms. Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Maine?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1436 provides for consideration of H.R. 
5297, the Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010, under a structured 
rule, with 1 hour of general debate with 30 minutes controlled by the 
Committee on Financial Services and 30 minutes controlled by the 
Committee on Small Business.
  The rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of H.R. 5297, as reported by the Committee on 
Financial Services, with the addition of Title 3, which would establish 
at the Small Business Administration a program to provide equity 
financing to support early-stage and high-growth small businesses. It 
also includes a manager's amendment which makes a number of important 
changes to the base text.
  The rule makes in order 17 amendments, which are printed in part C of 
the Rules Committee report accompanying the rule. The amendments are 
each debatable for 10 minutes. The rule provides one motion to recommit 
H.R. 5297, with or without instructions.
  The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 5486, the Small 
Business Jobs Tax Relief Act of 2010, under a closed rule. The rule 
provides 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  In addition to paying for the cost of the Small Business Lending Fund 
Act, it will provide a number of important tax breaks to our Nation's 
struggling small businesses.
  The rule also provides one motion to recommit H.R. 5486, with or 
without instructions. The rule then provides that these two bills will 
be combined upon adoption before being sent to the Senate.
  Additionally, the rule waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII, which would 
allow for

[[Page 10699]]

same-day consideration through Friday, June 18, of a rule providing for 
consideration of any Senate amendment to H.R. 4213, the Americans Jobs 
and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010.
  Finally, the rule also allows the Speaker to entertain motions to 
suspend the rules through June 18.
  Mr. Speaker, today, the House will take up two very important pieces 
of legislation that will directly help small businesses around the 
country. These bills will provide much needed support for the small 
businesses that make up our communities and are the backbone of our 
economy and our economic recovery. These bills will help small 
entrepreneurs grow and create jobs. As President Obama said last fall, 
supporting small businesses needs to be our highest priority because 
``when small businesses are succeeding, America succeeds.''
  In order for small businesses to succeed, we must give them the tools 
they need to grow. One of these tools is the ability to access capital.
  When I go back to Maine each week, I hear often the same story from 
business owners across the State. When the credit market dried up, they 
were hit hard. Now as the economy has started to make a recovery, they 
are still unable to access the credit they need to expand, rehire, and 
grow. About a year ago, I hosted an event focusing on helping connect 
small businesses with capital. The response was overwhelming. Hundreds 
of small business owners showed up, in fact, so many that we need an 
overflow room to accommodate the demand. There were businesses of all 
types and sizes, and many of these small business owners had driven 
hours to come to the workshop. They came to this meeting because they 
felt they had nowhere else to turn.
  As a small business owner myself, I know what a challenge it can be 
to make ends meet. When I started my last business before the credit 
crunch, I was fortunate that I had a small community bank to work with 
that gave me access to capital I needed to start my business. But for 
many who have tried to get the money necessary to start, operate, and 
expand a business over the past few years, it hasn't been so easy. 
Today, we have an opportunity to make credit available to millions of 
small businesses across the country.
  Today, we can assist the small lenders who know firsthand the 
difference those businesses make to a community. Today, we can make it 
easier for companies to get access to the financing that will help them 
grow, expand, and create jobs. The Congressional Research Service 
estimates that the investments made by this bill will stimulate $300 
billion of lending to small businesses.
  Small business owners and bankers alike have told me they think this 
bill is a good idea. As the economy recovers, it will help increase 
lending by our local financial institutions in Maine. As the owner of 
Rumery's boatyard, a small boatyard in Saco, Maine, told me, it is 
imperative that we support our small businesses and ensure that they 
are ``ready to go once the economy fully recovers.'' The folks at 
Rumery's make a good point.
  Although we are now seeing signs of economic recovery, economists 
tell us that we could still face a double-dip recession if we aren't 
careful. Without access to capital, I'm afraid the recovery will be 
limited to Wall Street and not Main Street. By investing in small 
businesses, we can keep the momentum going and make sure the economic 
recovery turns into jobs for people in my State and across the country.
  Mr. Speaker, let me tell you a little bit more about what I've heard 
from the people who live in my State. One person in my district who 
helps small business owners told me recently that he is ``convinced 
that the inability of small businesses to access capital is the number 
one impediment to economic growth for our Nation.'' He also said that 
he works with ``successful entrepreneurs who survived the recession but 
are having a difficult time reestablishing their credit lines or 
accessing money for growth even when they have real, profitable 
opportunities. The banks are not necessarily lending unless you have 
hard collateral, and they are shutting down credit lines to customers 
who pay their bills on time.''
  For example, over the past 17 years, one small manufacturing company 
in Cornish, Maine, has grown from a sole proprietorship to employing 17 
people. They have borrowed money to invest heavily in the machinery and 
technology necessary to produce a high-quality product. But as the 
economy stalled out, they were facing a shortfall in receipts and 
needed to refinance, but have been struggling to find the capital they 
need. They are continuing to provide jobs and ship product all over the 
world and pay for their operating costs of doing their business. If 
they had access to capital, they could also continue to make innovative 
new designs. Demand for their product is increasing daily, and without 
financing, they are unable to grow their company and provide new jobs.
  Small businesses are desperate for credit to expand and to grow. And 
that's why this bill is so important. As the economy picks up, small 
businesses in Maine and elsewhere in this country need to have the 
capital to expand and grow their businesses. Without access to capital, 
these businesses will not be able to grow. I look forward to supporting 
this important legislation later today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Maine for yielding 
time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will urge my colleagues on this side of the aisle to vote ``no'' on 
the rule and ``no'' on this bill, and I believe that my colleagues and 
I will be able to explain why.
  In case there are some folks still listening to what my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle were talking about in the last of the 1-
minutes that were spoken a while ago, I need to say that they have very 
selective memories. They talked about what the economy was like when 
President Obama took office, and they blame everything on our former 
President Bush. But they failed to mention ever, ever, ever that they 
were in charge of the Congress the last 2 years of President Bush's 
administration, and they were the ones in charge of what was happening 
in terms of spending money and why our economy was in such an 
unfortunate situation. It's very easy to blame President Bush because 
he was President, but they were in charge of the Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate that I, again, find myself before this 
body amazed by the stunning arrogance of the liberal Democrats 
responsible for bringing this rule before us today which provides for 
consideration of H.R. 5297, the Small Business Lending Act, and 
accompanying legislation, H.R. 5486, a bill intended to offset the 
immense cost of H.R. 5297. Consideration of this legislation, which 
will cost taxpayers another $32 billion, comes at a time when the 
Democrats have demonstrated a complete paralysis in presenting the 
annual budget resolution necessary for guiding congressional spending 
decisions.
  We all know that many small businesses have not been able to get 
available credit. However, the Democrat response is, unfortunately, too 
predictable: Borrow more money from foreign lenders in future 
generations and spend it on yet another in a long string of bailouts; 
create a lot of Federal Government jobs; and do nothing to really help 
small businesses.
  The way we can help all businesses in this country is to lower taxes 
across the board and not continue to create unnecessary, inefficient 
government programs which don't deliver what they need to deliver.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield 5 minutes to my 
distinguished colleague from California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the supporters of this bill tell us it's going to 
increase lending to small businesses. To do so, they're creating a $30 
billion slush fund to make loans to smaller banks, therefore 
encouraging smaller banks to

[[Page 10700]]

make loans to small businesses, or so they say. I believe it is a 
splendid example of what I like to call McClintock's Second Law of 
Political Physics: The more we invest in our mistakes, the less willing 
we are to correct them. It has apparently escaped the supporters' 
attention that we are already doing precisely what the proposed new 
Small Business Lending Fund would do through the existing TARP Capital 
Purchase Program.
  Now that's not just my conclusion. That's the conclusion of the 
Special Inspector General of TARP, Neil Barofsky. He wrote to the 
Financial Services Committee on May 17, and observed, ``In terms of its 
basic design, its participants, its application process, and perhaps 
its funding source, from an oversight perspective, the Small Business 
Lending Fund would essentially be an extension of TARP's Capital 
Purchase Program.''
  So if this scheme actually worked, we wouldn't need this bill, would 
we? Banks would already be lending like crazy.
  The only problem is, it doesn't work. But some Members can't bear to 
face the American people and admit that they have squandered billions 
of dollars of working families' hard-earned money. So, instead, they 
bring us more of the same.
  Now this places an additional $30 billion of taxpayer money at risk. 
We're told, Don't worry; we'll get that money back.
  When have we heard this song before? Oh, yes. When they bailed out 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And according to the Congressional Budget 
Office, taxpayers have now lost $145 billion, heading to $400 billion.
  Don't worry; it'll be paid back.
  What is likely to happen to the $30 billion put at risk by this bill? 
Those banks with sound finances won't touch this money. They don't need 
it, and they don't need the Federal entanglements that come with it. 
Only those banks whose finances are unsound will accept these moneys, 
with little chance that they will actually be paid back. In fact, by 
removing the Special Inspector General from oversight of these funds, 
that risk is further aggravated.

                              {time}  1315

  And just to be clear, there's no guarantee that a dime of this money 
will actually be lent to small businesses in the first place. In fact, 
any commercial or industrial loan will count toward the requirements of 
this bill, not necessarily just loans to small businesses.
  Now, after a failed $700 billion TARP, $30 billion might not sound 
like a lot of money. But let's put it in perspective. The combined 
cleanup and economic costs of the gulf oil spill are currently 
estimated around $17 billion. So in terms of economic damage, this bill 
could actually cost more than cleaning up the entire mess in the gulf. 
It's true that small businesses are having great difficulty getting 
loans. So are home buyers. Why is that? I suspect one of the principal 
reasons is that unprecedented public sector borrowing has crowded out 
the capital pool that would otherwise have been available to make 
private sector loans to small businesses and home buyers and consumers.
  Under this administration and this Congress, the government is 
running a $1.5 trillion annual deficit. That's roughly $20,000 for 
every family of four in America. Well, where does that money come from? 
Well, we borrow it. From whom do we borrow it? We borrow it from the 
same capital pool that would otherwise have been available to loan to 
small businesses and other employers seeking to add jobs or loan to 
home buyers seeking to reenter the housing market or loan to consumers 
seeking to afford consumer purchases. And remember, two-thirds of 
economic growth directly depends upon those consumer purchases. But 
that money now is not available to loan to employers and to home buyers 
and to consumers to expand the economy because government has now 
borrowed it in order to expand government. That is the core of the 
problem.
  Now, I've offered an amendment to forbid the use of this TARP III 
money in the presence of a deficit for a very simple reason: if the 
government borrows that money to loan to one business, that same money 
won't be available to loan to another business. Government cannot 
inject a single dollar into the economy until it has first taken that 
same dollar out of that same economy. But of course this amendment was 
forbidden under the rule we are now considering. Therefore, I oppose 
the rule, and I oppose the underlying bill.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation 
that provides relief to small businesses by expanding lending 
opportunities and offering tax incentives to help them grow. Small 
businesses are absolutely the backbone of the American economy, and 
they are especially important in my home State of Rhode Island, where 
they make up 97 percent of our employers.
  Now more than ever, we are pursuing every possible avenue to create a 
job that gets this economy back on track. None of us can be satisfied 
that our economy is performing where it should be, especially in my 
home State where we now have the fourth highest unemployment rate in 
the Nation of 12.5 percent. None of us can accept that status quo right 
now, and Congress absolutely must support the growth of these small 
businesses and help stimulate the real engine of our Nation's economy.
  American prosperity absolutely depends upon the success of small 
businesses and the innovative spirit of the American people, but they 
need the right support. I'm committed to bringing relief to the small 
businesses that are struggling in our States.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and let's give our small 
businesses what they need to create the jobs that will get America back 
on track.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, you know, this bill is being promoted as 
necessary to increase the availability for small businesses. But as my 
colleague from California so eloquently pointed out, it's really a 
bailout for banks that are in shaky positions. And what nobody has 
pointed out yet is, incredibly, this money doesn't have to be available 
for 2 years and probably will not be available for 2 years. So what is 
that going to do, again, to help small businesses that need help right 
now?
  Again, as my colleague pointed out, it creates a $30 billion lending 
fund for banks with less than $10 billion in assets. It also is going 
to appropriate $2 billion to States to shore up their small business 
lending and guarantee programs. But we shouldn't be doing that either. 
We have no business going in and shoring up programs that the States 
have when they haven't been responsible with the use of their money. 
But what this bill is going to do is deepen our debt problems, 
duplicate the goal of the original $700 billion TARP program, as Mr. 
McClintock pointed out.
  We have nearly 10 percent unemployment, and the so-called economic 
leadership of the ruling liberal Democrats has proven to be a failure. 
This is TARP III, and its $32 billion price tag is not going to be any 
different from the previous mechanisms that they've used to try to 
stimulate the economy. Rather than proposing sound economic policies, 
like lowering taxes and reducing regulatory burdens, the Democrats 
continue to advocate misguided policies that expand the government's 
control and increase the Nation's debt. The simple truth is that 
taxpayers can't afford another bank bailout.
  The original bailout bill, TARP I, was $700 billion. In 2009, our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle rammed through a so-called 
stimulus bill costing $1.138 trillion--part of that is the cost of the 
interest--a $410 billion omnibus appropriations bill for FY09, a $3.6 
trillion fiscal year 2010 budget. They increased the debt ceiling by 
$1.9 trillion. The national debt now stands above $13 trillion. The 
taxpayers lost $145 billion by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, and the 
CBO expects that to approach $400 billion overall.
  Recently, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund

[[Page 10701]]

pledged $145 billion to bail out the bankrupt nation of Greece. 
American taxpayers are on the hook for $6.8 billion in loan guarantees 
for the IMF. The European Union and the IMF have also announced a $1 
trillion bailout plan that could put American taxpayers on the hook for 
$50 billion in additional loan guarantees to bail out other financially 
irresponsible members of the European Union. And the news today is that 
Spain is almost ready to go bankrupt and expects our support. Yet the 
ruling liberal Democrats continue to spend our Nation into a financial 
abyss.
  I've just gone over a lot of numbers, and I want to go over them one 
more time to make sure the American people fully understand what these 
people in charge of the agenda of this Congress are doing. They have 
been in charge, by the way, Mr. Speaker, since January 2007, which is 
when most of our problems began happening. So let me go over it again: 
a $700 billion bailout for the megabanks, a $1.138 trillion spending 
bill, a $410 billion omnibus spending bill, a $3.6 trillion fiscal year 
2010 budget, a $1.9 trillion debt ceiling increase, $6.8 billion to the 
International Monetary Fund loan guarantee program for countries in 
Europe--not even helping people in the United States--and an additional 
$50 billion in loan guarantees for bailing out other financially 
irresponsible members of the European Union.
  Again, this bill is going to create unnecessary programs. Already 
under TARP I, the megabank bailout, Treasury created these programs, as 
Mr. McClintock pointed out. So it's a clear indication that TARP I was 
a failure if the Democrats have to bring this back and create $32 
billion more to do what the $700 billion TARP wasn't able to do. So 
what we're seeing is our friends on the other side of the aisle 
creating more taxpayer-funded jobs at the Federal level, not jobs for 
average Americans, and not money for small businesses. And yet our 
unemployment rate continues to stay almost at 10 percent when they have 
promised with the first stimulus bill that it would never go above 8 
percent.
  Albert Einstein is credited with defining insanity as doing the same 
thing over and over again and expecting different results. The American 
people have a right to question why our friends on the other side of 
the aisle are doing the same things over and over again and expecting 
different results from what they've gotten in the past.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from North Carolina 
has talked a little bit about the content of this bill, and I know it 
will be debated at great length after we have finished the debate on 
this rule. But I just want to mention a couple of points from my 
perspective, why I am here supporting this bill today, and why I 
somewhat disagree on her notion that we're just doing the same thing 
over and over again. I am not actually doing the same thing over and 
over again. I am a freshman Member of Congress. Unlike my colleague, I 
wasn't here last year.
  When the President from the former administration, President Bush, 
proposed the TARP to Congress, many of my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle actually voted in favor of that bailout of Wall Street. 
Many believed it was critical to reviving our economy, just as I 
believed it was critical to support the Recovery Act to make sure that 
we did, yes, in fact, send a considerable amount of money back into our 
home districts, whether it was for infrastructure construction or to 
shore up the jobs of our teachers and firefighters, to make sure that 
we were continuing to build projects in our own districts, continuing 
to make sure that we supported our education system.
  I am pleased to see that the economy is making some improvement. Now, 
I would be the first to say it's not improving fast enough, the jobs 
aren't growing fast enough in my home district. We have lost too much 
in our manufacturing segment. We have given too many jobs away in 
offshoring, and we have done so many things over the last two decades, 
I believe, in this country that has hurt our fundamental economy.
  But I will say that what I think is different about what we are doing 
today and what made me very pleased when I first heard the President 
announce this is we are finally looking after some of our small 
businesses. For my year and a half in Congress, as I mentioned before, 
I have been meeting with small businesses, meeting with the bankers 
that loaned them money, holding a workshop, as I did around access to 
capital. I was floored with the number of people who came to that 
workshop, with people who drove from all over my State, even outside of 
my district, because they were so desperate to make sure they got more 
information about how to access that difficult capital, whether it was 
someone who was ready to start a small business, even in a tough 
economy; or it was someone who said to me, You know, I want to do a 
little expansion. I want to build my own infrastructure here while I 
have the opportunity, or I am just trying to survive long enough until 
the economy improves so my business can still be there when, I hope, 
things get better.
  Well, I desperately hope things get better. In my home State of 
Maine, frankly, we hope for a very sunny summer. We hope that the 
tourists will be busy in our State, that the lobster fishermen will 
harvest a lot of lobster, that all of you will come and stay in our 
hotels, eat our wonderful seafood, and spend a little bit of time, 
maybe even purchase some real estate and build a new home. For us, that 
is critical. For many of our small businesses, who I hear from 
regularly, they still can't find the capital that they need.
  We have a huge boat-building industry in our State, and we have met 
with the boat builders who say, The floor plan lending proposal and 
what we are able to access through the Small Business Administration 
isn't enough. Our banks aren't able to access enough capital. We sit 
down and meet with those very bankers that you mentioned. We meet with 
those bankers, many of whom are on solid footing, who give good loans 
to people with good credit, but they say to me, You know, we wish the 
SBA had a little bit more.
  When you talk about the sort of government programs that don't do us 
any good, I just want to remind us, we are talking about the Small 
Business Administration. My guess is that there are a lot of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are very happy to go to 
the ribbon-cutting when a new business is opening, backed by a loan 
guarantee from the Small Business Administration. I am very confident 
that many of you meet with your bankers, and you hear your bankers say, 
I wish we could just access a little bit more of that support from the 
SBA. My guess is that many of you, while you are proclaiming that this 
is some kind of Democratic left-wing liberal agenda, are happy to go 
back to your districts and say, We want a little more SBA lending. We 
want to make it a little bit easier for businesses to thrive and 
flourish.

                              {time}  1330

  And somehow you get down here and this turns into a left-wing 
Democratic agenda because you are not interested in voting for it 
today. I have to say, sometimes I am completely confounded about 
exactly which party I am in. I feel pretty much like I am in the party 
of common sense. Like we are listening to our constituents, our small 
businesses, who everybody proudly proclaims is the backbone of the 
American economy. In my State, it is the backbone of our economy. We 
listen to them, and they say, We are still having a little trouble 
accessing the capital.
  The President comes before us and he says, let us make sure that $30 
billion goes to small business, not just Wall Street and big business, 
let's not just bail out the big banks, as was done under the Bush 
administration, let's direct this very money to our small businesses 
who have been asking for this for a year and a half.
  I, frankly, am confounded about why anyone would vote against this, 
why anyone would say ``no'' to small businesses, why anybody would 
believe that this economic recession is over,

[[Page 10702]]

that it is okay to just walk away and use all kinds of excuses about 
why you don't feel like voting for something anymore, why you don't 
want to continue helping our struggling businesses, why you don't want 
to continue to build jobs in this country. That is what people are 
desperately asking us to do, and it is my belief if we stop too soon, 
if we don't help our small businesses, frankly if we don't help our 
States that are struggling, that have loan guarantee programs 
themselves who have done an excellent job supporting businesses and 
economic growth, if we are not there to say to those entrepreneurs who 
have a good idea today, or who are already in business and want to 
expand with a creative new idea, we shouldn't be surprised that so many 
other economies are starting to move ahead of us in this difficult 
time.
  Frankly, I cannot understand why anybody would not support this rule 
or the underlying bill. I hope that Members change their minds, think 
about the Small Business Administration and the small businesses we can 
help today, and the great good we can do to help support jobs in this 
country.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I realize that my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle sometimes can't understand why Republicans vote against 
their ill-conceived legislation, but it is really because we have a 
very different philosophy about what makes this country successful. We 
believe that we should adhere to the capitalistic society that has 
always made us successful. It isn't the government that makes us 
successful. It isn't taking money from hardworking taxpayers, sending 
it through government bureaucracies, and then giving a small portion of 
that money back to the taxpayers that has made this country successful. 
And this bill is very misnamed. It isn't a small business bill, it is a 
bailout of banks, smaller banks than the megabanks that were bailed out 
by the Democrats primarily, with the help of President Bush. This is 
not a small business bill but a bank bailout bill.
  I would now like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Paulsen).
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I also rise today in opposition to the 
rule, and here is why. I offered three amendments before the Rules 
Committee and cosponsored a fourth. Sadly, none of them were made in 
order for today's bill.
  My top concern and the concern of my constituents continues to be 
jobs. I believe everything Congress does should be looked at through 
the prism of is it helping or hurting job growth, and is it going to 
put Americans back to work. Unfortunately, Washington has not pursued a 
pro-jobs agenda over the last few years. In fact, since the stimulus 
was signed, we have lost about 3 million jobs, and we continue to spend 
and grow our Nation's debt to a larger and larger percentage of our 
GDP.
  Mr. Speaker, small businesses have created about two of every three 
net new jobs in the United States since the early 1970s. Small 
businesses are also responsible for roughly half of the privately 
generated GDP in the United States. This is where our jobs are going to 
come from in the future. This is where our recovery is going to come 
from in the future. But what has Congress done in terms of focusing on 
small business? Unfortunately, not much.
  That is why I offered a specific amendment in the nature of a 
substitute which would have allowed subchapter-S and LLCs to defer 
their income tax on any money that is reinvested in their company or 
their business. Instead, they would have to pay the tax only once on 
the money that is withdrawn from the company. If small businesses 
receive tax relief and they could reinvest that money in their company 
to hire workers, that would be a true economic stimulus to put people 
back to work.
  More than two-thirds of all small business income is taxed at the top 
two individual tax rates, and now the majority party is going to let 
those rates rise at the end of this year, forcing small businesses to 
shoulder an even higher tax burden. So this amendment would have 
provided real incentives for small businesses to grow without creating 
another bailout-style fund of borrowing and spending even more 
government money.
  I also offered an amendment that would have stricken the section of 
the legislation that would treat S-corporations differently. Why should 
a small business or a small business corporation be targeted for higher 
interest rates? A study that was sponsored by the SBA demonstrated that 
they already shoulder the highest effective tax burden of any business 
structure. If anything, they should be offered lower rates.
  Finally, I cosponsored an amendment with the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), and it was also not made in order, and that 
amendment would have prevented any provisions of this legislation, the 
underlying bill, from taking effect until certain tax provisions that 
benefit small businesses are extended until 2012.
  Mr. Speaker, the number one issue I really hear about is jobs, it is 
small business help, and how can we help them, and the uncertainty 
small businesses face right now coming from Congress. The Biggert 
amendment is a much better approach because it would have addressed 
that level of uncertainty, focusing time and attention on the needs and 
concerns of small businesses, and making sure that they know with 
certainty what they can do in terms of providing, where they are going 
to deploy their capital.
  Mr. Speaker, these are the amendments that I think would have 
provided more direction to Congress to focus on true small business 
growth. It would be a targeted approach. It would have been smart. It 
would have been strategic. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule because 
these amendments were not included as an option.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, there are other reasons why this rule and this 
bill deserve ``no'' votes. The bill lacks proper oversight for the TARP 
III program because it would not be subject to the effective oversight 
of the Special Inspector General for TARP, otherwise known as SIGTARP. 
I believe my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), 
pointed out some of these concerns in his remarks.
  On February 19 of this year, SIGTARP's watchdog, Neil Barofsky, sent 
a letter to Treasury's Assistant Secretary For Financial Stability, 
Herb Allison. In the letter, Barofsky expressed concern regarding 
Treasury's decision to remove TARP III from SIGTARP's oversight and 
warned that such a move would be terribly wasteful and could lead to a 
significant exposure to waste, fraud and abuse.
  If all of this weren't enough, Americans should know that TARP III 
creates more uncertainty. Like the original TARP megabank bailout, the 
Federal Government will once again, at its discretion, be able to reach 
into the board rooms and pocketbooks of private sectors firms and 
employees. The use of the original TARP by some banks begets the use of 
the Obama administration's pay czar and auto task force, which closed 
thousands of dealerships. Also, the use of the original TARP inspired 
the Democrats to pursue a ``responsibility fee,'' another tax on 
financial firms. Through TARP III, many small and mid-sized banks may 
soon find the Federal Government as their new senior partner.
  This approach is particularly disturbing given availability of 
sensible, cost-free alternatives, some of them offered by our 
Democratic colleagues such as Mr. Kanjorski's bill, H.R. 3380, the 
Promoting Lending to America's Small Business Act which hosts a 
bipartisan list of 123 cosponsors, including myself.
  Fortunately, the American people have a choice between the same old, 
tired liberal agenda or new, innovative solutions being offered by 
members of the GOP.
  Some of the no-cost proposals offered by House Republican leadership 
to President Obama last December include: halting any proposed mandate 
or regulation expected to have an economic cost, result in job loss, or 
have a

[[Page 10703]]

disparate impact on small business; eliminating job killing Federal tax 
increases; freezing domestic discretionary spending at last year's 
levels; removing unnecessary barriers to domestic energy production; 
providing an incentive for companies to repatriate earnings back to the 
United States; and increasing exports through trade agreements 
beneficial to domestic job creation. To that list I would add a few 
more items such as rescinding unspent stimulus funds, reforming the 
tort system to lower cost and uncertainties facing small businesses, 
suspending the job killing Davis-Bacon Act, and shrinking the cost of 
the Federal minimum wage, particularly for young and inexperienced 
workers seeking entry-level jobs.
  Basically, Mr. Speaker, there are alternatives to the bad legislation 
being proposed by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Again, 
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the 
underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I have to say, my colleague 
continues to act as though we don't have a problem out there with our 
economy. That somehow, as happened in the last administration, we can 
just take this laissez-faire attitude; we can just say it will get 
better on its own, we don't need to do anything or somehow this 
recovery has already been good enough. Well, I don't hear anybody 
saying it is good enough, that there is enough jobs and enough support.
  I want to quote from a couple of things I recently read that 
reinforce this issue that there isn't enough credit and lending going 
on, particularly to help our small businesses who are, as I have said 
before, are one of the important engines to drive this economy.
  A report by the U.S. Congressional Joint Economic Committee that was 
released in May found that small businesses have been severely hurt by 
the tighter lending standards that resulted from the 2008 financial 
crisis. I want to quote a couple of sentences from that report: The 
tightened credit conditions experienced by small businesses have 
curtailed their ability to meet payroll or produce the products and 
services that are in demand. In 2009, small business hiring was 20 
percent below its 2001-2007 average.
  As further evidence of the impact that tight credit markets are 
having on small businesses, hiring in mid sized and larger 
establishments has been increasing since the middle of 2009 while small 
business hiring continues to decline. I don't know how much more 
evidence we need than what we hear every weekend, but it is clear small 
businesses in our districts are still struggling.
  There was some question about whether or not the bankers even wanted 
this to happen, whether banks already had plenty of money to lend, 
people were just not showing up to take it. I want to read a letter 
from the Independent Community Bankers of America. They say: This act 
would offer capital to interested community banks to use to increase 
small business credit. It goes on to say: Notably, leveraging the $30 
billion in funds with community banks would potentially support many 
times that in loan volume to small businesses, as much as $300 billion 
in additional lending.
  Well, I don't know anyone who analyzes our businesses out there who 
says it wouldn't be good to have more credit, more availability, more 
lending, more growth in our businesses. We haven't been going on that 
path, we haven't been growing fast enough, and we haven't done a 
sufficient amount to support availability of credit and growth in our 
small businesses.

                              {time}  1345

  Now we have done, according to this report, a fair amount for some of 
our bigger or midsized businesses, but yet we are always the ones who 
say, and now I am going to quote from Professor Campbell Harvey of Duke 
University, his quote, ``Small and medium-sized firms are the drivers 
of employment growth in the economy, and they are being squeezed.'' He 
went on to say, ``Results show an extraordinary 44 percent of small 
businesses restricted their capital spending below desired levels 
because of borrowing difficulties. These capital projects create jobs 
both today and over the longer term.'' He concludes by saying, 
``Analysis suggests we need to refocus our efforts on the root of the 
problem. Businesses are not spending on capital projects because of 
borrowing difficulties. Fixing the credit problem goes a long way 
toward creating the conditions for robust employment growth.''
  We can talk around this all we want, but it's a relatively simple 
problem that we have all known about ever since this economy started 
going bad. Banks tightened up on their lending. There hasn't been 
enough credit availability. Businesses have been struggling. Many of 
them just want to hang on. Some of them actually want to grow.
  And here is Professor Harvey telling us, ``Results show an 
extraordinary 44 percent of small businesses restricted their capital 
spending below desired levels because of borrowing difficulties.'' 
Borrowing difficulties, that's almost half of small business reporting 
this, borrowing difficulties mean they can't get enough money to 
borrow. They want to borrow money. These are legitimate businesses, 
many with good credit ratings, who just can't get enough out there.
  And here are the bankers saying to us, yeah, this would put 
potentially $300 billion in additional lending into our economy at a 
time when we are just starting to chug forward, where people are just 
starting to feel a little bit hopeful, where consumer credit is going 
up just a little bit, but we are not doing enough.
  It's easy to stand back and say, oh, no, no, this isn't the 
government's job. But remember what happened before we started 
assisting in this terrible recession. We were going nowhere. We were 
losing a tremendous amount of jobs.
  I don't like spending this money any more than anybody else, no 
matter what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may say. 
Nobody likes to increase the deficit or feel we are spending more 
money. But are we really going to turn our backs on our small 
businesses and on our community banks when they are saying to us, 
Almost half of us are having trouble accessing the credit we need? 
Couldn't you just give us a helping hand?
  We helped out Wall Street. We helped out the big financial 
institutions. Now, we finally have a bill before us to help the 
backbone of our businesses and we are going to say ``no.''
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, what we need, again, are across-the-board tax 
cuts. We don't need more government control. It's interesting to me 
that our colleagues have two different tacks. One is blame everything 
on the previous administration. But the next to the last Democrat who 
spoke during 1-minutes made a speech telling us about how everything 
was great and how much better everything is going. So it's a little 
hard, I am sure, for the American people to wonder what is the policy 
of this group that's in charge of the Congress.
  I now would like to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague 
from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina 
for yielding me this time. I don't think I will take that much time.
  Each workday every Member of Congress receives a publication called 
Congress Daily. A few months ago, the Congress Daily had a cartoon 
which showed the President and his Secretary of the Treasury hollering 
out, ``Loan, loan, loan.'' And then it showed the banks with huge bags 
full of money, and then local examiners pulling back saying, ``No, no, 
no.'' And that is the crux of the problem. The banks have plenty of 
money to loan, but they have got the examiners at the local level 
saying, ``No, no, no.''
  And this is something that both administrations have agreed on, 
because President Bush and his Secretary of the Treasury started this 
back before President Obama even came into office, urging the banks to 
make more loans to small businesses. But they can't do it because the 
examiners have turned

[[Page 10704]]

down almost every kind of loan that they wanted to make except to 
people who didn't need loans.
  Just the weekend before last I had a banker in east Tennessee tell me 
that they had turned down a $5.5 million loan. They have plenty of 
money to loan, but they knew the examiners would turn this down. A few 
months ago, the chairman of the BB&T banking chain, one of the most 
respected banks in this country, told a group of us that it was 
breaking his heart because they had plenty of money to loan, but they 
were having to destroy people's businesses, turning down loans that at 
any other time they would have made.
  So we will never really correct this problem until we get the top 
banking regulators to get on their examiners on the local level to 
start giving some businesses some flexibility and start making some 
loans. Not only do the banks tell me this, they are in a catch-22 
position. They can't complain publicly because then the examiners would 
come down even harder on them. But they are telling me this, and then 
all the small business people from all types of businesses are telling 
me they can't get the loans because the examiners are saying, ``No, no, 
no.''
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has pointed out, there are 
lots of different perspectives from our folks on the other side of the 
aisle. They change the line of talking to depend on what it is they 
want to point out.
  I want to say again that we have major problems with our economy. We 
have a problem with spending. Not a problem with revenue, but a problem 
with spending. And I want to point out some comments and contrast 
positions from when our colleagues were in the minority to now.
  In May of 2006, then-Minority Leader Pelosi declared, quote, ``Our 
national debt is a national security issue. Countries that own our debt 
will not only be making our toys, our clothes, and our computers, 
pretty soon they will be making our foreign policy. They have far too 
much leverage over us.'' Keep in mind that, at the time she said this, 
the total public debt outstanding was $8.351 trillion. Now, when they 
have created a debt of over $13 trillion, suddenly it's not a problem.
  Or in December 2005 when she declared, quote, ``Democrats support 
pay-as-you-go. No deficit spending. If something is important to you, 
figure out how to pay for it, but do not make my grandchildren and 
children have to pay for it, or anybody's children and grandchildren 
have to pay for it.'' Again, keep in mind that, at the time she said 
this, the debt was $8.107 trillion. Now, when they've created a debt of 
over $13 trillion, they seem not to be concerned about their children 
and grandchildren.
  The ruling liberal Democrats' pride in their fiscal irresponsibility 
is also a far cry from March 2005, when Minority Whip Hoyer expressed 
outrage, declaring that, quote, ``On the Republican Party's watch, the 
Federal Government recorded the worst budget deficit in American 
history, $412 billion in fiscal year 2004. $412 billion of deficit 
spending . . . We ought to be ashamed of that. We ought to be ashamed 
to tell our children that that's what we have done to them. We ought to 
be ashamed to tell our grandchildren, of which I have three, that that 
is what we have done to them and their generation. That is the height 
of fiscal irresponsibility, and I suggest it is also a fiscally immoral 
act and is the abuse of our children and grandchildren and generations 
yet to come, who in their time will face a challenge perhaps like Iraq, 
perhaps like AIDS, perhaps a tsunami or other natural disaster, and 
they will look around for resources to respond to their crisis in their 
time and say, oh, my goodness, the resources were spent by this 
Congress and by the previous Congress. What a shame.''
  So, apparently under Republican rule, a $412 billion deficit was 
considered a threat to our descendants, but a $1.42 trillion deficit 
under Democrats is somehow excused for some reason. What a shame 
indeed.
  Mr. Speaker, when the liberal Democrats seized control of Congress in 
January of 2007, the number of unemployed persons stood at 7 million 
and the unemployment rate was 4.6 percent. Oh, how times have changed. 
Today, the numbers are more than double. Fifteen million Americans 
unemployed, resulting in a staggering 9.7 percent unemployment rate.
  Strange how these immutable numbers from the same nonpartisan 
official government source tell a different story than the liberal 
Democrats in desperate search of a scapegoat would have you to believe.
  Mr. Speaker, we do not need to continue to borrow money and put our 
children and grandchildren into greater debt. The evidence is in. The 
liberal Democrat agenda has failed. They need to go back to the drawing 
board and come back to the American people with real solutions to their 
real problems.
  And do we hear from small business people? Do we hear from people who 
are out of work? Absolutely. Every weekend. This isn't the time to 
dither and blame the Republican minority for the disappointing collapse 
of governance we've seen since the liberal majority seized control in 
2007.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few things in 
conclusion.
  We have debated a little bit today about whether or not this bill is 
important, and I just want to say this is a critical need that we are 
fulfilling today. This bill will support small businesses when they 
need it most--access to the financing they need to survive, to grow, to 
expand and create the jobs that will drive our economic recovery.
  I don't really know how anyone could oppose this. I know this is 
essential because I hear it from businesses throughout the 125 towns in 
my district, and I know this is essential because I have owned a 
business myself for much of my adult life. For many years, I owned a 
knitting company that sold our products around the country.
  I grew the business, and eventually employed 10 people in a town of 
just 350 year-round residents. And like many women who start their own 
businesses, I know what it is to argue with a banker to get more access 
to credit, to start your business or expand your business on a credit 
card, or to have to go to your husband to cosign on a loan.
  Now I own an inn and a restaurant that uses vegetables grown on our 
island and locally caught seafood, and I still know what it is to meet 
a payroll and argue with the bank about borrowing the money to expand.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been lucky to own a business that's been an 
important part of my own community, but it never would have been able 
to survive without cooperative bankers in my community or access to the 
investment that the business needed to grow.
  When businesses are coming to us and saying this is their problem, 
how could we possibly tell them no? And when facing a tough economic 
crisis like this one, it is vital that we do everything in our power to 
support the small businesses that create 64 percent of new jobs in this 
country, that comprise more than 99 percent of all employer companies, 
and that are the backbone of the communities that most of us live in.
  This bill is an important step in supporting those small businesses, 
ensuring that they have the necessary capital to stay in business and 
to expand as the economy recovers. This bill is more than just simply 
an investment in small business. Frankly, it is an investment in 
American job growth. And what could be more important at this moment in 
time?
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Doyle). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.

[[Page 10705]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________