[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3479-3482]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  JUMPSTART OUR BUSINESS STARTUPS ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3606, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3606) to increase American job creation and 
     economic growth by improving access to the public capital 
     markets for emerging growth companies.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1833

  Mr. REID. On behalf of Senator Reed of Rhode Island, Senators 
Landrieu, Levin, Brown of Ohio, and others, I have a substitute 
amendment which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] for Mr. Reed, for 
     himself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Levin, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. 
     Merkley, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Franken, and Mr. 
     Harkin, proposes an amendment numbered 1833.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text 
of Amendments.'')
  Mr. REID. On that amendment, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 1834 to amendment No. 1833

  Mr. REID. I have a first-degree perfecting amendment which is at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1834 to amendment No. 1833.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end, add the following new section:

     SEC. __.

       This Act shall become effective 7 days after enactment.

  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 1835 to amendment No. 1834

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1835 to amendment No. 1834.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In the amendment, strike ``7 days'' and insert ``6 days''.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a cloture motion on the substitute 
amendment which has already been submitted at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative 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 the substitute 
     amendment No. 1833 to H.R. 3606, an Act to increase American 
     job creation and economic growth by improving access to the 
     public capital markets for emerging growth companies.
         Harry Reid, Mary L. Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Carl Levin, Jon 
           Tester, Mark Begich, Patty Murray, Mark R. Warner, 
           Christopher A. Coons, Robert Menendez, Thomas R. 
           Carper, Joseph I. Lieberman, Debbie Stabenow, Robert P. 
           Casey, Jr., Jeanne Shaheen, Tom Udall, Jim Webb, 
           Barbara Boxer.


                Amendment No. 1836 to amendment No. 1833

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Cantwell, for herself 
and Senator Johnson of South Dakota, Senator Graham, Senator Shelby, 
and others, I have an amendment at the desk to the language proposed to 
be stricken.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Ms. Cantwell, for 
     herself and Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Mr. Graham, Mr. 
     Shelby, Mr. Warner, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mrs. 
     Hagan, Mr. Coons, Mr. Akaka, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. 
     Kerry and Mr. Kirk, proposes an amendment (No. 1836)

[[Page 3480]]

     to the language proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 
     1833.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text 
of Amendments.'')
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 1837 to amendment No. 1836

  Mr. REID. I have a second-degree amendment that is also at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1837 to amendment No. 1836.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end, add the following new section:

     SEC. __.

       This title shall become effective 5 days after enactment.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a cloture motion with respect to the 
Reid for Cantwell, Johnson of South Dakota, Graham, Shelby amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the cloture motion which 
the clerk will state.
  The assistant legislative 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 amendment No. 1836 
     to H.R. 3606, an Act to increase American job creation and 
     economic growth by improving access to the public capital 
     markets for emerging growth companies.
         Harry Reid, Ben Nelson, Mary L. Landrieu, Carl Levin, Jon 
           Tester, Mark Begich, Patty Murray, Mark R. Warner, 
           Christopher A. Coons, Robert Menendez, Thomas R. 
           Carper, Joseph I. Lieberman, Debbie Stabenow, Robert P. 
           Casey, Jr., Jeanne Shaheen, Tom Udall, Jim Webb, 
           Barbara Boxer.


                Motion to Commit With amendment No. 1838

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit the bill with 
instructions which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to commit the bill 
     (H.R. 3606) to the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban 
     Affairs with instructions to report back forthwith with an 
     amendment (No. 1838).

  The amendment is as follows:

     SEC. __.

       This Act shall become effective 3 days after enactment.

  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on that motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1839

  Mr. REID. I have an amendment to my instructions at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1839 to the instructions (amendment No. 1838) to the 
     Motion to Commit H.R. 3606.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In the amendment, strike ``3 days'' and insert ``2 days''.

  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 1840 to amendment No. 1839

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1840 to amendment No. 1839.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In the amendment, strike ``2 days'' and insert ``1 day''.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a cloture motion on the bill, which 
is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the cloture motion which 
the clerk will state.
  The assistant legislative 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. 3606, an Act 
     to increase American job creation and economic growth by 
     improving access to the public capital markets for emerging 
     growth companies.
         Harry Reid, Ben Nelson, Jon Tester, Charles E. Schumer, 
           Joe Manchin III, Patty Murray, Mark R. Warner, 
           Christopher A. Coons, Robert Menendez, Thomas R. 
           Carper, Joseph I. Lieberman, Debbie Stabenow, Robert P. 
           Casey, Jr., Tom Udall, Jim Webb, Barbara Boxer.

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required 
under rule XXII be waived for the cloture motions just filed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, let me take a moment to review what has 
transpired this morning.
  Last week the House passed the pending small business capital 
formation bill by a vote of 390 to 23. President Obama has endorsed the 
bill very publicly; thus, this is a measure the Senate should consider 
expeditiously and pass in short order.
  The Republican leader and I have had preliminary conversations about 
how to process this bill. Initial indications are that the Senate would 
not be able to agree to a time agreement providing for a limited number 
of amendments; so I proceeded today to ensure consideration of at least 
two amendments. So, on Tuesday, the Senate will vote first on the 
motion to invoke cloture on the Reed of Rhode Island amendment. That 
amendment is sponsored also by Landrieu, Levin, and Brown of Ohio, 
which is a substitute, as I have indicated.
  After disposition of that amendment, the Senate will next vote on a 
motion to invoke cloture on the bipartisan Cantwell, Johnson, Graham, 
Shelby Export-Import amendment. This Ex-IM Bank amendment is very 
important. The legislation just last year created 300,000 jobs and 
affected 2,000 communities in America. These jobs I am talking about 
are all American jobs.
  After disposition of that amendment, the Senate would then vote on a 
motion to invoke cloture on the underlying bill. In the meantime, I am 
always open to unanimous consent agreements to aid in disposition of 
the bill. So I look forward--if there are things I can help with, I 
will be happy to do this.
  I will say this. I spoke before my presentation here today to my 
friend from Colorado Senator Udall. I have worked with him not for 
days, not weeks, not months but years on an issue that is extremely 
important to our country; that is, an issue to help credit unions, 
which have been so important to our country over the years.
  During this economic meltdown we have had around the country, in 
Nevada credit unions have been a lifeblood for small businesses and 
individuals. We have tried and worked to get this matter on the floor. 
There is always some reason for not doing it. I understand the 
anxiousness of my friend from Colorado to have it on this bill. I will 
be happy to see if there is a way of doing this by consent, but there 
is no other way of doing it except by consent because it is not germane 
to the bill before us.
  As I told him, I am starting today, on my own, to begin the 
procedural efforts to have this brought before the Senate. I think we 
have waited long enough. There is never a good time. There is always 
some reason of somebody that we have to do this now. This is a bill 
that presents problems for people because a number of the banks don't 
want this to happen. But I do, and I am going to do everything I can to 
have this brought before the Senate.
  I will be happy to yield to my friend from Colorado. If he has any 
questions of me, I will be happy to respond to those or, if he has 
anything I can respond to in the way of any consent

[[Page 3481]]

agreement that he wants or whatever, I am here at his disposal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Colorado is 
recognized.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge the 
majority leader and the great work he has put forth on this important 
opportunity we have. I know the majority leader has some additional 
comments he would like to make. But I intend to stay after the majority 
leader concludes and make my case, once again, for why this is so 
important.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, through the Chair to my friend from 
Colorado, he has talked about the work I have done. I haven't done 
much. He has been the leader, and I have been with him all the way. 
This is truly his issue. He is right. I have supported him from the 
very beginning, and I admire his resilience. Each time he brings this 
up, he is pushed back for some other reason. Personally, as I told him 
today, it is to the point now where we are going to have a vote on 
this.
  There will be people coming to me, Why are you doing this? We are 
going to have a vote on this. Democrats and Republicans are going to 
have to make a decision where they stand for American credit unions.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, if I might, I am going to 
expound on what the majority leader just shared with the body.
  The whole point of what we are going to do on the JOBS Act is to 
expand access to capital for businesses across our great country. But 
the legislation I have introduced on a bipartisan basis that also has a 
bipartisan twin in the House of Representatives is aimed at truly small 
businesses. I would like to explain a little bit more about what I 
mean.
  What we would do is, in effect, lift a regulation. We have talked 
about deregulation in Washington, unleashing the creativity in our 
business sector. What this legislation would do is deregulate an 
industry that is raring to go to help small businesses.
  Before I get into the specifics, I would like to thank my Republican 
cosponsors, who include Senators Olympia Snowe, Rand Paul, and Susan 
Collins. The legislation in the House has been introduced by Republican 
Ed Royce, with whom I served when I was a Member of the House, and he 
has over 40 Republican cosponsors in the effort on the other side of 
the Capitol.
  In sum, this is a bipartisan, commonsense way to create jobs and help 
our small businesses without costing taxpayers a dime. When we add the 
elements in what we are trying to do, there are positives across the 
board.
  The reason this is so important is that there continues to be a 
phenomenon in our country where small businesses are starving for 
credit, but the Federal Government is standing in the way of them 
procuring that credit. As I said to start my remarks, I am talking 
about the smallest of small businesses. These are the men and women who 
need $50,000, $100,000, maybe even $200,000 to move from their garage 
to a retail storefront, to renovate their sales floor or to upgrade or 
purchase equipment and, in the process, they will expand. Too often, 
frankly, they are too small to be worth the time of banks or they don't 
fit the lending guidelines of the bank's corporate headquarters. But 
credit unions are standing ready to lend money to these Americans to 
support their businesses and create jobs.
  The leader just moved to the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act; the 
acronym is the JOBS Act. That is appropriate. The House passed it last 
week. This bill is aimed at increasing the availability of startup 
companies by expanding and easing the process of undergoing an IPO. 
That is an acronym for initial public offering. That is a noble goal, 
especially as our economy still struggles to create jobs. But the 
problem is we are still leaving small businesses behind. Why is that? 
The JOBS Act is aimed at companies with revenue under $1 billion. Let 
me repeat that: $1 billion, with a B. These companies may well need 
help with an IPO, but I am talking about offering relief to Main 
Street.
  In light of this, I am still committed--and I appreciate the majority 
leader's comments. I have been very persistent. I am still committed to 
allowing credit unions to increase the amount of money they can lend to 
small businesses and our bipartisan Small Business Lending Enhancement 
Act was the first amendment filed to this bill and I still hold hope 
that we will find a way to include it in the bill. We ought to pass it 
immediately. We would see immediate results if we did so.
  Let me share a couple examples of why I think this is so important, 
and they are Colorado centric. I know the Presiding Officer makes a 
point to talk about his home State on an ongoing basis and to highlight 
Ohioans who make a difference. So let me talk about two small business 
owners in Colorado who made a difference with the help of credit 
unions.
  Stacy Hamon owns the 1st Street Salon in Thornton, and Lisa Herman of 
Broomfield owns Happy Cakes Bakeshop in Denver's Highland Square. They 
were turned away from their banks. In the breach, credit unions arrived 
and they lent to these two small businesswomen and they were able to 
grow their businesses and hire their fellow Coloradans to help them in 
those business enterprises. They didn't need a billion-dollar IPO. They 
needed a small bridge loan. We could be making a huge difference in 
many communities with mere pennies on the dollar of what the JOBS Act 
is focused on. If my amendment were to be considered in this JOBS Act, 
it would actually help small businesses directly create jobs.
  Credit unions, simply put, specialize in these small business loans 
to small business. In fact, the Federal Reserve has told us that many 
banks have quit considering loans such as those under $200,000 because 
they aren't worth the bank's time. Credit unions know these small 
business owners, and they have money to lend to them. Unfortunately, 
Federal law still limits the amount of small business loans a credit 
union can extend to these businesses to 12 percent of their assets. 
Over 500 credit unions nationally have had to stop or slow down their 
business lending because of this--I can't think of any other word but 
``strange''--strange Federal limit on helping small businesses. It is 
hard to believe. Government is telling these financial institutions 
they can't help create jobs in their local communities, and that is why 
my bipartisan amendment would double the amount of money credit unions 
can offer to small businesses.
  We have heard from the banks over the years they think it is unfair 
they have to compete with credit unions. But the fact is, it is not 
about banks or credit unions; it is about small businesses. I have to 
say these two different kinds of financial institutions serve very 
different small business populations. Credit unions serve the smallest 
of small businesses that often must resort to their credit cards, 
literally, to invest in their businesses and keep their cash flow 
going, but in the process they create jobs. These are business owners 
who have been, by and large, turned away by the banks. I am not talking 
about taking business away from anyone. I am suggesting, at the very 
least, we let the credit unions loan to these small business owners 
whom the banks don't want to do business with because they are too 
small.
  Credit unions have been in existence for over 100 years, and today 
they only represent about 5 percent to 6 percent of all small business 
loans. Even if they were to increase their lending, if credit union 
lending were to increase and their market share were to double as a 
result, they would still only have 7 to 9 percent of market share, and 
banks would have nearly 90 percent of the markets for themselves.
  Let me rebut another concern that has been expressed. The banks say 
this proposal is unproven or somehow an unsound way of increasing small 
business loans, but as I have said, the credit unions have been making 
small business loans since the early 1900s. There were not any limits 
on how much credit unions could lend until 1998. The credit union 
sector has a regulator, the National Credit Union Administration,

[[Page 3482]]

and it has endorsed lifting or even eliminating the small business 
lending cap. It just makes sense to do this, and I cannot believe we 
are going to let these squabbles between the banks and credit unions 
keep job creators from going to work in the small small business 
sector.
  There is a rush to pass the JOBS Act, which would help billion-dollar 
companies with their IPOs. But how about we take a little bit of time 
to help small business owners, such as Stacy and Lisa, by passing our 
bipartisan amendment? After all, if we are going to tell the American 
people this bill is about increasing access to capital, let's start by 
helping the small business owners on Main Street that fuel our job 
engine. This is what we would do in Colorado. It is how we would apply 
our commonsense approach to business.
  I plead with my colleagues to consider the important effect this 
would have. So, in summary, our bipartisan amendment is projobs, it is 
deregulatory, and it would not cost the taxpayers a dime. It would 
release $10 billion in capital across our country and, conservatively, 
100,000 new jobs would be a result.
  Let's take this up. Let's fuel the economic engine with the capital 
of our small business sector.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak until 
noon in a colloquy with the distinguished majority whip. Senator Ayotte 
and a number of other Senators will join us during the next 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.

                          ____________________