To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for small business job creation, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1436 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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.

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 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from California (Mr. McClintock).

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 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.

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. 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 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.

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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, this bill contains many positive features but also some negative ones, and thus, I reluctantly plan to oppose it.

Like my friend on the other side of the aisle, I'm pleased to see that it does include some tax relief, albeit limited, for small businesses, including provisions championed by both Republicans and Democrats. I'm also pleased, unlike earlier versions of this legislation, the most objectionable revenue raiser, a provision that could provoke retaliation by other countries and that even the Obama administration officials warned would violate our international treaty obligations, has been dropped from this bill. But despite those positive features, I will be voting against this bill for several important reasons.

First, while the tax relief in here is welcome, it's not enough and won't actually help small businesses create the jobs we need to reduce our stubbornly high unemployment rate. While I would certainly support further lowering taxes on small businesses, the last thing they need is higher taxes, which is exactly what they are facing from this Congress.

Just last month, the majority pushed through an $11.2 billion tax hike on certain small businesses that would subject their profits to employment taxes, and at the end of 2010, all individual income tax rates, as well as taxes on dividends and capital gains, are scheduled to rise dramatically. Because so many small businesses pay taxes at the individual level, the fear of these increases is chilling expansion and hiring and, therefore, job creation. So the majority's record on tax policy affecting small businesses is spotty at best.

Second, this bill, like others before it, provides a stark reminder of the majority's view of the Ways and Means Committee as an ATM machine to fund other spending. Here, the majority is seeking to generate $7.1 billion in additional tax revenue but would only provide $3.6 billion in tax relief over the next decade. The rest of the money raised will be used to offset the cost of another bill, H.R. 4297, which was reported by the Financial Services Committee, that creates another TARP-like program. Some might call it TARP III.

While I'm glad the majority found offsets that are less economically damaging than some that have previously passed the House, the practice of using permanent changes in tax receipts to fund temporary spending is disappointing and portends further and larger tax hikes in the future, perhaps as soon as the end of this month when the majority hopes to complete action on a financial system reform bill.

Mr. Speaker, especially with the unemployment rate continuing to hover near 10 percent, our small businesses, the engine of economic growth and job creation, need help, but this bill isn't enough, and it takes us further down the dangerous road of higher spending our Nation cannot afford.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just want to respond to my friend from Michigan, the chairman, and say it's really about the reality of this legislation, not just the rhetoric. And while excluding capital gains on the sale of small business stock is a great provision, the problem is this is drafted so narrowly that the small businesses have to be C corporations. And as we know, only a fraction of small businesses will be considered qualified small businesses to take advantage of this provision. This is the largest piece of this so-called ``small business relief'' bill. And while it's great to talk about, the reality of it is going to be very limited.

As I said in my statement, there are some positive things in this bill. Obviously, closing the Black Liquor 3 loophole is something I support, but on balance, because the bill isn't really going to do anything to create jobs, A, and, B, because there are, again, going to be temporary provisions that are paid for with permanent tax increases, and, third, the revenue raiser on the estate tax area on the Grantor Retained Annuity Trust is really one that ought to be reserved for when we have to deal with estate tax reform. As you know, the law has expired. There are bills moving through the Congress to reinstate the estate tax. This really is appropriate to that area.

I think it is absolutely unconscionable that we've gone all this time with no estate tax, with everyone understanding that the majority is going to create a retroactive death tax bill that's going to try to come back through the beginning of the year. This is where that provision should be.

So, again, I reluctantly oppose this bill. I think there are some good things

in it; unfortunately, they don't go far enough.

I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This bill is going to spend taxpayers' money. I believe we have an obligation, if we're going to spend taxpayers' money, that we do it effectively. On Friday night, the Treasury released a report that in 2015 our debt will exceed the gross domestic product of this country. We've had expert testimony before the Debt Commission that said when your debt gets to 90 percent of GDP, you lose 1 percent off economic growth, which translates into 1 million jobs.

This bill, because of how narrowly focused it is, how narrowly drafted it is, virtually no small businesses will take advantage of the exclusion of capital gains because they have to be C corporations. And if there is one trend we've seen, it's that businesses are being organized as passed-through entities now. That's how America, particularly small business America, is being organized. So while this is great rhetoric, this bill isn't going to be effective in doing anything.

And let me just say, I heard the former chairman say that Republicans just say no. On the health care bill, we had a viable alternative. In fact, I will say the vote on the health care bill was bipartisan opposition, only majority partisanship support for that legislation. Whether it's been stimulus or health care or energy, we have had viable alternatives on the floor that we have brought forward. On this particular bill, I think that better work could have been done, more effective work could have been done. And, frankly, in this era of the highest debt ever this country has seen, I think we have an obligation that if we're going to spend taxpayers' dollars, it's done in an effective way and a way that gets results, and this bill falls short.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I yield the customary 1 minute to the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume, Mr. Speaker.

I agree with much of what some of the speakers have said today about the importance of small business and the job creation that small business has been responsible for. You can see statistics where 80 percent of the job creation in recent years has been because of small business. Certainly, if we're going to recover as an economy, small business will lead the way, and needs to recover. And we've seen over the past few years the way small business has been organized. Increasingly,

they're pass-through entities. The vast majority of small businesses are pass-through entities.

So what does the majority do? They pass a small business bill that doesn't apply to the majority of small businesses. This provision here, which is the bulk of the bill that excludes capital gains on the sale of certain small business stocks, only applies to qualified small businesses. Well, what is a qualified small business? A C corporation. That's how most large businesses are organized. So this bill won't do anything.

Again, while we have record debt, the largest in the history of this country, well over $13 trillion and an estimate from the Treasury Department that, in 2015, the debt will exceed the size of the entire economy of the United States for the first time in history--before we spend taxpayer dollars, we ought to do it in a way that's effective.

There are things that we could do for small business. I will say the majority has made this bill better than it was the first time by dropping some of the controversial provisions that would have potentially caused our trading partners to retaliate against us. Obviously, closing the black liquor provision is something that I think every Republican supports as well. That's a good thing. But the fact that this legislation is not where it should be doesn't mean that we should just look the other way and pass it, because it doesn't meet the standard that this Congress should be meeting in this difficult economic time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

I thank the gentleman for those comments. He makes a very important point.

In closing, I just want to say that we look at the costs that the individual mandate particularly is going to hit hard on small businesses and how difficult that's going to make it for them to continue to be able to expand and hire workers. And we know that the small business health care tax credit is virtually a fraud; that 90 percent of small businesses won't be able to qualify for that because, again, that's so narrowly drafted that there's the rhetoric of being able to say, Aren't we doing all these great things? But the reality is there's nothing there.

Let me just say that at the end of 2010, when all the individual income tax rates increase, as well as on dividends and capital gains, that's going to hit small business particularly hard because most small businesses file as individuals. And that's going to make it much more difficult for them to expand. It's going to make it much more difficult for them to hire and much more difficult for job creation to occur.

Also, I would say that another difficult problem is that this bill, while it generates $7 billion in tax revenue, it only provides about $3.5 billion in tax relief. So, again, taxes are being raised permanently for temporary spending in other parts of our economy, and it's my understanding that most of that extra revenue will be used to help pay for another TARP-like program--TARP III as some call it-- that's going to be coming our way.

So, again, with our unemployment rate continuing to be at a lingering 10 percent, the difficulty our small business, the engines of economic growth and job creation are facing, the help they need, this bill is not enough. Again, it takes us down a road of higher spending that our Nation cannot afford at this time.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1448 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1448.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1448 is a structured rule, providing for further consideration of H.R. 5297, the Small Business Lending Fund Act. It provides for the consideration of two amendments which were initially cleared as PAYGO-compliant but which were subsequently deemed to violate PAYGO after the first rule was adopted. These amendments have been revised to comply with PAYGO rules, and this rule treats them as part of yesterday's rule.

Mr. Speaker, in 2008, after years of lax regulation and Wall Street roulette, our Nation's economy fell off a cliff. Within a matter of months, many Wall Street giants fell, and they took the livelihoods of thousands of small businesses with them. Since that time, we have taken bold action to stabilize the economy, to invest in economic growth, and we are in the process of putting in place new rules to protect against the casino-like atmosphere that existed on Wall Street.

Yet for small businesses, they are still feeling the pinch. Accessing capital to build, to grow, to diversify, and to hire new employees remains a pressing challenge. In September of 2008, there was an earthquake on Wall Street, and the aftershocks are still being felt on Main Street. The purpose of this bill is to help those small businesses deal with the aftershocks of that credit crunch from a year and a half ago.

The underlying bill, the Small Business Lending Fund Act, establishes a process for community banks to lend responsibly to small businesses. Because of a mistake, two of my colleagues, Representative Schrader and

Representative Miller, were precluded from offering their amendments as reported in yesterday's rule. This rule merely allows for the consideration of their modified amendments so we can perfect this legislation and get our Nation's small businesses back to work.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the whip, but I think what we've got to do is to just talk about reality here.

The reality is, when George Bush left office in January of 2009, this country was losing 780,000 jobs per month. Last month, we gained 400,000 jobs. That's a swing of over 1.1 million jobs per month. Yet, on top of that, not only did the Bush administration leave this country in a terrible lurch with jobs; it left this country with a terrible lurch and with a terrible deficit of $1.3 trillion.

The Republicans would have America have mass amnesia, to forget where we were. In 2007, we spent $141 billion in Iraq. Today, they're telling us, Hey, let's sell off part of the country to pay our debts. We were spending $141 billion in Iraq and not paying for it. This year, we're going to draw that down to $65 billion. Republicans would have us forget.

Let's talk real money. I agree: we should never be wasting money in this country. Every dollar should be worthwhile and real, but we're going to spend $77 billion less in Iraq than under George Bush and at the end of the Republican rule of Congress.

So here we've improved employment by some 1.1 million jobs per month. We were left with a terrible deficit by President Bush of $1.3 trillion. We are drawing down Iraq and are saving real money. Then they come up with an advertising program of YouCut to sell assets of this country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would remind the Speaker and others that we're here on the small business lending bill, not on Mr. Chaffetz's proposal or any proposal like that. It may have merit at another time when that bill, itself, is brought forward, but we're here to talk about the small business lending bill, which provides community banks, smaller banks with funds to make credit available to the small businesses on Main Street that were hurt by the crash on Wall Street. So I would just remind the Speaker as to what this bill, the underlying bill, is.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would just quote from a letter we received from the Independent Community Bankers of America: On behalf of the 5,000 members of the Independent Community Bankers of America, we strongly support passage of the proposed Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010.

We're here on the rule to allow for that bill to go forward, and I would

like to remind the Speaker and others that that's the purpose of the hearing today.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman.

I remind my friend from Kansas that when you cut taxes for the wealthiest people in America, you prosecute two wars without paying for them, and you fail to police Wall Street so that it becomes a big casino and results in a crash leaving this country in terrible debt, and you turn a budget upside down, those are the policies that bring a country and bring small businesses to their knees. The country, because of various steps taken, has come out of the terrible dip of the last months of the Bush administration to where we're adding jobs.

We have a long way to go. We lost millions of jobs, and many small businesses were hurt in the process. The purpose of the bill that is to be voted on today is about providing funding to smaller banks so that small business will have credit, and people will get back to work. Providing a platform for small business to really get back on its feet and put the people back to work, so many of whom lost their jobs in this recession that was caused by the tax cuts, the two wars without payment, and failing to police Wall Street.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, how much time does each side have?

I would ask my friend from North Carolina how many more speakers she may have.

I just would say, again, reading from the letter from the Independent Community Bankers of America. The Act, which is the Small Business Lending Fund Act, the Act would offer capital to interested community banks to increase small business credit. We urge the House to pass this legislation. The Nation's 8,000-strong community banks are well positioned to leverage this fund and have established relationships with small businesses in their communities to get credit flowing. On down it says, Notably, leveraging the $30 billion funds with community banks would potentially support many times that amount in loan volume to small businesses, as much as $300 billion in additional lending.

By reducing the dividend costs on the capital investment as lending increases, this program helps to ensure more community banks have both the incentive and greater capacity to increase total loans to small businesses. That's the purpose of this rule, to pass the underlying bill, which is to increase credit to small businesses and get them back on their feet and help continue to add jobs, as we have over the course of the last 14 or 15 months. When we were at the very depth of the recession, in January 2009, the last month of the Bush administration, losing 780,000 jobs; in April, where we gained 290,000 jobs; in May, 400,000 jobs. That's what this is about, putting people back to work, getting this country back on a strong financial footing.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I, again, remind everyone that the rule and the bill are about small business lending. Again, I would refer to the letter from the independent community bankers. ICBA believes the proposed Small Business Lending Fund Act supports their recommendations, and this fresh program approach will attract a broader spectrum of community banks to boost small business lending and job growth. We applaud the new program focused on getting funds to Main Street's small businesses using Main Street community banks.

We're here to try to get money to small businesses throughout the country using the smaller community banks, regional banks. The purpose is to get them back on their feet, get them growing. We're not here to talk

about selling off assets of America. We're here to talk about getting small businesses back on their feet.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would remind my friend, at the height of the Iraq war we spend $141 billion, as we draw troops down to $65 billion, a savings of $76 billion a year. That is money. These things we can find other places to save where there is wasteful spending, $76 billion in Iraq. That is what this Congress is finding. That is what this President has found. Instead of going into war and not paying for it, $76 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

I want to make sure that the record is clear that the amendments that are presented in today's rule are in full compliance with the PAYGO rule, and that is why we are proceeding with this second rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, small businesses cannot grow if credit is not available to them. Over the course of the last year and a half, credit has tightened substantially. This bill provides for a loan fund to small community banks and regional banks so that they can work with their small businesses throughout the country. This is not focused on Wall Street, but is focused on Main Street so we can get small businesses really back strong and prosperous and hiring people back so that this country is on a full and vibrant financial footing.

I would just remind the Speaker, we have strong support from a whole variety of organizations with respect to the bill: the National Small Business Association, the Small Business Majority, the National Association of Realtors, the Independent Community Bankers of America, the American Bankers Association, and a number of other organizations.

Our Nation's small businesses have waited long enough for much-needed capital, so we won't make them wait any longer. This credit crunch has taken its toll, but now it is time to focus on Main Street.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 1436, I call up 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material in the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This bill, H.R. 5486, the Small Business Jobs Tax Relief Act of 2010, is, in a few words, a continuation of our work to spur job creation and to really improve the quality of life in all of our communities. Since the beginning of this year, our economy has created 982,000 jobs. That is a reversal of 22 straight months of job losses, a very long stretch indeed. But we all know that far too many people today are out of work and the unemployment rate remains at a very unacceptably high 9.7 percent. So something considerable has been done, but we have to do more.

According to the SBA--and I think we all know this--small firms created 64 percent of the net new jobs between 1993 and the third quarter of 2008. So small businesses help lead job creation in a recovery, but today, small firms are having difficulty accessing capital.

So what does this bill do? It provides a total of $3.588 billion in tax cuts to help American small businesses. It is part of the partnership between the public and the private sector, relying on the private sector to do the job creation. And I want to emphasize, this bill does not add a dime to our deficit. It doesn't even add a penny to our deficit.

So let me explain the provisions in H.R. 5486. First of all, relating to business stock, small business stock, and capital gains, presently there's an exclusion of 75 percent because of the Recovery Act, and I emphasize that. This would increase the exclusion to 100 percent. It provides relief for small businesses from tax penalties when that is indeed appropriate. It also increases the deduction for startup costs for expenses not related to capital or equipment. It increases it from $5,000 to $20,000. So these are important stimuli for small business to help them create more jobs.

As I said earlier, this is offset. It will not add a dime or, indeed, a penny to the Federal deficit. It includes two provisions that have already passed this House. One relates to what is sometimes called a grandchild of black liquor. It relates to essentially a byproduct. What this does, building on the work that we did in earlier bills, is to prevent people from receiving a windfall from unintended application of renewable fuel credits.

The second part relates to what are called grantor retained annuity trusts, and I want to just say a quick word about this. This is clearly a loophole. This is clearly an abuse. Here's what happens, to try to put it in the simplest terms: A short-term trust usually is created by someone for a child. Then the person who created the trust takes back the value, let's say, in a few annual payments. So there's no gift tax for the grantor. The way it works today, all of the increase in the value of the stock is also outside of the gift tax.

So, essentially, what is happening here is a paper transaction that leads to escape of taxation, and this provides in our bill that there has to be a 10-year term for the trust to be sure that the trust has actual substance. This change raises $5.297 billion over 10 years. So what this means, breaking it down in simple terms, is that about $500 million per year from taxpayers is lost today through paper transactions, and we close the loophole. So, again, because of this, there is not any added cost.

We also, if I might say so and will be discussing this I guess tomorrow, it provides money for the small business lending package, H.R. 5297. So that is also budget neutral, and that provides some additional important small business loan help so badly needed. It's

hard to understand why people would vote against this. Plus, a provision that is $2 billion worth, and it goes to States and local governments, and they have written us, urging that we provide some assistance so that they can increase the flow of loans to small businesses in their States.

So, in a word, we have a bill that is essentially a two-fer. It provides needed assistance for job creation by small business, and it's paid for. So I urge very much that somehow the other side can cross the bridge and join together instead of creating obstacles and vote for this bill and then its partner bill tomorrow.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Before I yield, I just want to say to Mr. Camp, I listened intently, and I can't understand your opposition. You like the provisions. You don't like what we once passed. If you don't like what we passed before--and I disagree with you--it's even more of a reason to vote for this bill.

You complain about permanent changes. We're closing a loophole permanently. You want us to close it temporarily? And we're preventing a provision coming into effect that should never come into effect.

So I just urge people to listen to the quality of this discussion, and I think, so far, it all points to everybody on both sides of the aisle voting for this bill. It helps small business. That's been acknowledged, and you don't challenge the tax cuts in terms of their merits. You talk about another tax cut in another bill you didn't like. I think you find it hard to find anything you like.

I now yield 2 minutes to another member of our committee, our distinguished colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

You say do better; you won't vote for anything.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) to explain why this is more than de minimus, a bill that needs to be voted on on a bipartisan basis.

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of our committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I yield an additional 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Allyson Schwartz.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished Member from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I think anybody who has listened to this debate, if they're at all objective, will be completely puzzled by the arguments of the minority. They say this bill won't do anything. But then they say there are tax increases to pay for it that are permanent. That's worse than a lame argument. It's completely without merit and is vacuous. The bill is scored for small business in terms of the exclusion from capital gains tax over 10 years at almost $2 billion. That's nothing. It provides relief from penalties. Over $175 million to small business. That's nothing. It provides an increased deduction for startup expenditures that provides over half a billion dollars, as scored. That's nothing.

Now what's nothing are your arguments. And so you come here, I think, afraid to vote ``yes'' because it will blur your political message. You say you agree with these provisions, but then you're going to vote ``no.'' You just don't apparently want to be caught being bipartisan. It's going to blur a political message.

I don't understand your argument that the tax provisions are permanent. You don't argue these aren't loopholes. They're loopholes. And you criticize us for closing a loophole permanently, and then you say it's for spending, but you don't really challenge the validity of the spending. We do pay for some moneys for the second bill that's coming up because it provides loans to small businesses, and it also provides States that have written us supporting this bill, including your State, Mr. Camp, saying that they will use this money well to help collateral support for small businesses.

So it's worse than puzzling. I think it's a pathetic effort to find an excuse to vote ``no.'' So then you come up with the argument you have a motion to recommit.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I'll be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker.

So then there's a motion to recommit to repeal an individual mandate. All I can say is that the individual mandate was the basis of the Republican health care proposal in 1993 and 1994. And now you come up and say you want to eliminate it. This is another entangled position of yours. You're tying yourselves into knots trying to oppose a bill that will provide help for small business. Maybe it's useless to appeal for bipartisanship to the other side.

I close asking for support.

Mr. Speaker, in conjunction with today's consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives of H.R. 5486, the ``Small Business Jobs Tax Relief Act of 2010,'' I have asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to the public a technical explanation of the provisions included H.R. 5486. This technical explanation reflects the Ways and Means Committee's understanding and legislative intent behind those provisions. It is available on the Joint Committee on Taxation website at www.jct.gov and is listed under document number JCX-31-10.

I yield back the balance of my time.