Providing for consideration of 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 providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5297) to create the Small Business Lending Fund Program to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to make capital investments in eligible institutions in order to increase the availability of credit for small businesses, and for other purposes.

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

I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5297. My opposition is not a question of whether or not I support small businesses, it's a question of whether or not this bill will actually help small businesses. Unfortunately, my conclusion is that this bill will not help them, but will cost the taxpayers another $33 billion--by the way, $33 billion that we don't have.

As a former small business owner, as well as a former lender, I understand firsthand the need for small business to have access to credit. Access to credit has tightened, but demand for credit from worthy borrowers has also declined.

What small businesses really need more than anything in the current economic environment is more certainty so they can invest and can plan for the future. What they have gotten from Congress is more and more uncertainty.

Small businesses will face a costly tax penalty if they can't comply with the added cost of the new health care law. One business owner in my district told me he had plans to expand and to create jobs, but he has put those on hold now because his business would not grow over 51 employees and then be subject to the new law.

Small businesses are worried about how much their energy costs will go up under the proposals of cap-and-tax

bills. Finally, they have no idea how much their taxes will be next year. Not only are they worried about new taxes to pay for more government spending, but they know that taxes will also go up automatically if Congress does not do anything to address the expiring tax provisions.

No wonder small businesses are in a holding pattern and are not creating new jobs, and this bill does nothing to provide any certainty for small businesses. Rather than doing something that creates more certainty for small businesses to grow and to add jobs in this economy, the majority is repeating the same failed initiatives that have helped our national debt grow to $13 trillion in the past 2 years. This bill follows the model of the TARP program, minus the stronger oversight, and it puts another $30 billion into banks in the hopes that lending to small businesses will increase.

In the words of Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General who oversees the TARP, ``In terms of its basic design,'' he says, ``its participants, its application process, from an oversight perspective, the Small Business Lending Fund would essentially be an extension of the TARP's Capital Purchase Program.''

From the Congressional Oversight Panel for TARP, chaired by Elizabeth Warren, she says, ``The SBLF's prospects are far from certain. The SBLF also raises questions about whether, in light of the Capital Purchase Program's poor performance in improving credit access, any capital infusion program can successfully jump-start small business lending.''

This bill allows for another $33 million in spending that will be added to the government's credit card. The CBO tells us that the bank lending portion will ultimately cost taxpayers $3.4 billion when market risk is taken into account.

We have had record bank failures, including the failures of four banks that were TARP recipients. When those TARP recipient banks failed, the taxpayers' investments of $2.6 billion were essentially wiped out. More than 100 banks that have received TARP funds so far have missed their dividend payments. These missed dividend payments have cost the taxpayers almost $200 million. It turns out that many of these banks that received TARP funds were far from healthy.

Do we really think there will be no more bank failures or missed dividend payments among banks that receive funds out of this new TARP program? We know there will be, and the CBO says there will be, which will lead to more losses for the taxpayers.

This fund is just like the TARP's Capital Purchase Program, except for the stronger oversight. I am extremely disappointed that the Rules Committee blocked a sensible amendment that would have improved the oversight of this new lending fund by bringing it under the oversight of the Special Inspector General for TARP. SIGTARP has developed significant experience in looking out for the taxpayers when it comes to the TARP program. SIGTARP's expertise should be used for this fund to protect the taxpayers.

H.R. 5297 will lead to more losses for taxpayers and to no more improvement in credit for small businesses. A lack of credit is not even the largest problem facing these small businesses. According to the National Federation of Independent Business, the top problem facing small businesses is the lack of sales and demand. If businesses are not confident they will have customers, they are not going to borrow; they are not going to expand, and they are not going to add jobs.

This $33 billion bill is not going to help increase demand from small business customers. Instead, we need the government to step back and to stop prolonging the uncertainty that is crowding out economic growth in our country. The sad thing is that there are things that Congress could actually be doing to help small businesses. Instead, the majority has chosen to bring up bills that will cost the taxpayers billions and that will do nothing to help the small businesses. They have denied our side the ability to offer substantial amendments.

I think it was appalling, quite honestly, Mr. Chairman, that the majority awarded themselves 66 amendments to this bill and that they awarded the Republicans one. Now, if that is the bipartisanship that this leadership is talking about, I don't think the American people are buying that that is bipartisan, because many of the amendments that we offered, Mr. Chairman, were to add additional protections for the taxpayers. Obviously, the majority is not interested in protecting the taxpayers' investments with this $33 billion. By the way, this is $33 billion that we don't have.

I am hoping that the majority is going to tell us this morning where the proposal of the $33 billion is going to come from. Well, I can tell you where it is going to come from. We are going to charge it to our children and to our grandchildren. You know what? I think we've just about reached the limit on the amount of money we should charge to our children and to our grandchildren.

So, Mr. Chairman, I am going to urge my colleagues to insist that we do better for small businesses. We must do something for small businesses, but this is not the answer, and I am going to encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, one of the things that is interesting is that this program is designed to put more capital into the banking system.

According to the Federal Reserve's April survey of senior loan officers, three factors that exerted the greatest influence on banks' business lending practices over the past 3 months were competitive pressures, the economic outlook, and the tolerance for risk in the business loan market. Lack of capital was not mentioned as one of the driving forces for lending decisions that are being made.

So, basically, Mr. Chairman, what this bill tries to do is to solve a problem that, according to the Federal Reserve, doesn't exist. There is plenty of capital, but there is this competitive pressure, this economic outlook, and this tolerance for risk.

Going back to my earlier point, when I traveled around the 19th Congressional District, I talked to a number of lenders. At the same time, I visited businesses in their communities. What I learned during that process is that many of the small businesses just said, Congressman, things are just too uncertain right now. We don't know what Congress is going to do with taxes. We don't know what they're going to do with this energy bill. We don't know exactly. We are trying to figure out how this new health care bill is going to impact our businesses, how it is going to impact our bottom lines.

Then I went over and talked to the lenders. Many of the lenders are sitting on record amounts of cash and capital in their banks. They are looking as hard as they can for good lending opportunities. What they said is, Unfortunately, some of our customers are not creditworthy. The economy has hurt their sales, and so it wouldn't be

prudent to loan those businesses more money. Others said, Our good customers, customers who are creditworthy, are not coming to us and borrowing any money because, again, of this uncertainty.

So, again, our opposition to this bill is that it is not really addressing the real issue in our economy, which is needing to bring some certainty and to leave the capital in the companies, to leave the capital in the economy, instead of the Federal Government's continuing to create uncertainty and taking money out of the economy.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I appreciate the majority leader coming and telling us that this won't cost the taxpayers any money. We have asked the majority for an updated CBO score on this bill with the revisions, and we have not seen that yet. So we don't actually know that for certain. But what we do know is that from the TARP program, there were losses incurred in the TARP program. And this program has been identified by people who are very familiar with the TARP program as another TARP program, except some people want to call this TARP II, TARP Jr. But by and large, this is another TARP program.

You know, there is no question today that all of us realize that small businesses are the number one job creator in our country. Mr. Chairman, in fact, I am a small businessman. I came to Congress not from being a lifelong politician, but from creating jobs in this country, of making payrolls. I have made a payroll. I have borrowed money. I have actually been a lender. And if you really want to get the economy going back in America, as the majority has tried throwing money at the problem--and I would have thought that they would have learned by now that all this money, the trillions of dollars that they have thrown at the economy hasn't created any jobs. We still have almost 10 percent of the American people who are unemployed in this country today. The numbers show that 17 percent of the American people are either unemployed or underemployed, so throwing money at the problem isn't the answer.

If you want to create jobs in America, I will tell you how you create jobs in America. Number one, you bring some certainty in America. Right now the American people are questioning what the future of their country is. They are seeing record deficits by this administration. This year alone, if we had a budget--we don't know what the deficit is going to be this year because, one, we haven't passed any appropriation bills in this Congress.

And, secondly, the leadership of the majority hasn't brought a budget to the floor, and maybe they are not going to because they don't want their Members to have to take a vote on a budget that's going to say: for every dollar we're going to spend, we are going to have to borrow 42 cents. I am sure they would be embarrassed. And it would be more embarrassing if you voted for a budget like that.

But the way you bring certainty to the country is, one, we are going to have to start cutting back our spending and reducing these deficits. Leaving money in the economy. As a small businessman, when I had the capital in my business, and the government wasn't taxing away my capital, I was able to take that capital and leverage it, and go to my lender, be a responsible borrower, and it would be prudent to lend to me, and we could expand our business that way.

The other thing is, yesterday this body had an opportunity to do something for small business, and that was to repeal the mandate for health care

that was in the Democrats' health care bill. Unfortunately, there was not enough votes, but some of our Democratic colleagues understand the same thing we do: if you want to bring certainty, create jobs in America, you take that off the backs of small businesses.

So, really, I wish that this bill would do something for small businesses in this country because small businesses are the lifeblood and the engine for our country. Unfortunately, this bill will not do anything for small businesses; but it will put the taxpayers, again, at risk to underwrite and to invest in banks.

You know, I figured this: it's simple back there in Lubbock, Texas, that, you know, if somebody wants to invest their dollars in a bank, let them invest their dollars in a bank. Don't take the money away from the taxpayers and invest it because the government thinks that they know what is a better program. So, again, I urge my colleagues to vote for small business, but not this bill. This bill doesn't help small business.

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

The bill currently includes language regarding women and minority-owned business, and adding the veteran-owned businesses makes sense. And so with that, we support this amendment and we thank the gentleman for bringing it forward.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment because it removes some of the safeguards to ensure the banks use the money in the way that they are supposed to and not simply just building up their capital buffers. Allowing recipients to self-certify that they have increased small business lending guts all of the other protections in this bill.

If we are going to allow recipients to pay dividends as low as 1 percent, we need to make sure that the money is used the way the legislation is intended. We already have less oversight of this money than we did in the TARP program, and even though it is the same program, cutting back even further is the wrong approach.

Already under this bill, banks are getting a good deal on the cost of capital, thanks to the taxpayers. Community banks that issue preferred equity paid dividends of 9 percent or more in the private market, here we have the government giving them the capital for 5 percent, or as low as 1 percent.

This amendment changes the incentives in the wrong way, and we need more safeguards for the taxpayers, not fewer.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to repeat that when we are going to give a dividend, a lesser dividend rate for the more performance that these banks have, letting themselves certify is not a good check and balance. Certainly we want them to increase their lending, but we need third-party validation to make sure that if they are going to get as low as a 1 percent capital dividend rate, that some third-party validation validates that because obviously that has impact on this program.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I appreciate the gentleman's point here of trying to create a new source of capital in commercial real estate at a time when there is a significant amount of stress on our community banks. Financing for commercial real estate, particularly the smaller loan market that serves small businesses, has been limited. The commercial mortgage-backed securities market, the CMBS market, which accounted for nearly 50 percent of the commercial real estate lending in 2007, remains dormant.

So while I continue to believe the $30 billion lending fund will not improve lending for small businesses, I do not oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I am opposed to the amendment.

Certainly I am sympathetic to the many community banks coping with real estate assets on their books that have lost their value; however, I am not sure this amendment is the best solution.

This amendment would essentially allow certain banks to hide losses for up to 10 years. The practice of legislative forbearance is a dangerous one and could result in problems that only get worse because they are not properly addressed. Accounting rules function to provide a clear record of the health of the institution. This amendment does just the opposite by hiding the losses.

The amortization provided by this amendment does not take effect for 2 years, when the increase in small business lending is measured; thus, it doesn't really address the current credit problems that this bill attempts to solve. This amendment creates the wrong incentive of allowing banks to hide losses for longer periods of time based on making even more loans. Instead of continuing to distort the market, the government should instead create an expansionary environment where we are lowering taxes and providing regulatory certainty and not hiding accounting losses.

I urge opposition to this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition, although I don't think I'm going to oppose the amendment.

I just wanted to clarify something that the gentleman said.

I understand that the bank will disclose to the borrower that they are loaning them funds because they are participating under this program, and then the gentleman went on to say that the Treasury would then post a report on their Web site. Now, would that list the names of the borrowers? Will the Treasury report list on their Web site the names of each borrower that borrowed money under this program?

I yield.

I thank the gentleman because I was concerned about the privacy of those business owners, you know, letting the world know how much money they're borrowing. So I'm not opposed to the gentleman's amendment. I think disclosure is a good thing.

I just want to make a point that there have been several discussions up here today that this is not going to cost the taxpayers any money, and only in Washington, D.C., can you go spend $33 billion and say it's not going to cost anything. The problem is, if this program is participated up to $33 billion, we don't have $33 billion, and so we're going to go have to borrow $33 billion from the Chinese to loan banks to loan to small businesses in this country.

And a lot of folks I think understand that kind of how we got here was that the whole world, small businesses, individuals, and governments, have been on this borrowing and spending binge, borrow and spend, borrow and spend, and quite honestly, that's how we wove this web where we've got our financial markets in somewhat of a wrinkle right now.

So, while I applaud the gentleman's amendment, I still go back to the fundamental point here that, one, this bill will not help small businesses have any additional capital, but more importantly, we are going to go spend $33 billion that we don't have, and I don't think that's the right prescription for our country.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman.

I still go back to the point, and I think that's where we get kind of in a, we're living in Wally World here in Washington, D.C., where you still have to have $33 billion. If you're going to go invest in the preferred shares of these banks, you've still got to find the $33 billion. And the truth of the matter is for every dollar we're going to appropriate or allocate in this country this year, we're going to have to borrow 42 cents of it.

So I guess the question is, should we go out and hock another $33 billion for a program that many people think that there's adequate capital and liquidity already in the banking industry? Some people have been quoted as saying, well, 42 percent of the small businesses have been turned down for loans in this country. Well, you know, I was in the loan business, and everybody that came in to my borrow money from me when I was a loan officer wasn't credit-worthy or it wasn't in their best interest to leverage their business further.

So I'm afraid that we're out here trying to encourage behavior that the marketplace may be already taking care of.

My good friend from Georgia did make a point that the regulatory folks are sending mixed messages. I think that's a bad policy. I think the regulators need to be more consistent with their policy, again bringing that certainty because what we've heard time and time again, whether it's from the business community or from the lending community, all of this uncertainty about what Congress is doing and the regulatory reforms that are going on, all of this is creating a huge amount of uncertainty. And so what happens when we have uncertainty in the marketplace, people just sit on the sidelines.

If you want to get businesses going again, if you want to get the economy going again, we've got to get the government out of the banking business. We've got to get the government out of all these huge regulations. We've got to bring economic certainty by not imposing more restrictions on companies on their health care; cap-and-trade affecting what they're potentially going to pay for energy in the future; uncertainty with our tax code, where we don't know what provisions are going to expire, what provisions aren't.

And you know, wouldn't it be nice for the American people to get to see a budget of how Congress is planning to spend their money, instead of going through a daily, monthly, weekly exercise of spending money without a budget? The American people don't do their business that way. They're a little bit concerned that the United States Congress just keeps on spending money but without a budget.

So, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition to the bill.

This new capital injection program is designed to operate exactly like the TARP program but without any of the taxpayer protection or oversight bodies. Now, this amendment is intended to substitute for putting the experience of the Inspector General for this type of program in charge of this new fund.

Republicans had an amendment that put the Special Inspector General for TARP, or SIGTARP, in charge of the oversight of this new fund, but the Rules Committee blocked it. Really, this creates a new regulator where we had an existing regulator in place for TARP-like programs, which this is, and we think that that was a better alternative. And now we want to put someone that doesn't have as much experience with this type of program in charge of oversight, and we just don't think that's in the best interest of the taxpayers.

Republicans, as I want to remind the chairman, offered a number of amendments that would have given the taxpayers much more protection even than this amendment would. Unfortunately, again--and I don't want to be redundant here, but the Rules Committee, which is controlled by the majority, only allowed one Republican amendment to be heard while we've

had 16 amendments from the majority. Again, we wondered why Republican amendments to provide better protection and better oversight were blocked by the majority when I think the American people think that any kind of amendment that would have provided them more opportunity, more protection, and more oversight would have been in their best interest.

We don't think that this amendment does the job that it needs to do, and therefore we're opposed to it.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

I concede to the gentleman that none of this money is coming from the TARP program; it probably should have because it's a TARP program. I want to just remind the gentleman that Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General who oversees TARP, said, In terms of its basic design, its participants, its application process, from an oversight perspective the Small Business Lending Fund would essentially be an extension of TARP's capital purchase program.

From Elizabeth Warren, the SBLF's prospects are far from certain. The SBLF also raises the question whether, in light of the capital purchase program's poor performance in improving credit access, any capital infusion for the program can essentially jump-start small business lending. So everybody but the Democrats understands that this is a TARP program.

Now, why did we want SIGTARP to have oversight? Because this is a TARP-like program. And just today it was released that SIGTARP helped bring a new lawsuit today for $1.9 billion in fraud collection with the failure of Colonial Bank. Colonial Bank received $553 million in TARP funds. To say that you're going to go out and put $33 billion into the marketplace and not suffer any losses at a time when we have over 100 banks that have already missed one dividend payment--we've had one bank that has missed six dividend payments--and that several billion dollars have already been lost from some of these banks that were defaulted and were closed after the taxpayers had put money in there.

And I go back to you saying, well, it doesn't cost the taxpayers any money. I keep asking the majority, where is the $33 billion for this program coming from?

I yield to the gentleman.

No. I would like the gentleman to answer the question----

I will reclaim my time if the gentleman is not going to answer my question. The question to the gentleman was, Where is the $33 billion coming from? If the gentleman wants to answer that question, I would love to yield him time. If he's not prepared to tell me where the $33 billion is coming from, then I would not yield the gentleman time.

No. The pay-for was to cover any potential losses, supposedly. But where is the $33 billion that you're going to invest in these banks coming from?

I will reclaim my time because the gentleman obviously doesn't know where the $33 billion is coming from, which is part of the problem up here. People just think this money appears when you start saying I'm going to put $33 billion here or $100 billion here, $250 billion here; and nobody knows where the money is coming from. But the bottom line is we know where the money is coming from. We're going out and borrowing that money because the Treasury doesn't have $33 billion.

Madam Chair, we do not object to this amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the bill.

I thank my friend from Texas.

I think this is a commonsense amendment. I think if you're going to do this program--certainly, I don't support the underlying program, but if we are going to do it, we are going to put this capital into some of these banks for lending, it certainly ought to be in areas where they have the highest unemployment. That makes sense.

I still think we can do better for small businesses by providing an environment where there's less uncertainty; more certainty on what the tax situation is going to be, and less uncertainty about what the regulatory environment is going to be. But I think the gentleman's amendment makes the underlying bill better. So we would not object to it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim opposition to the amendment, but I am not opposed to it.

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. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, our Nation's economic rebirth relies upon the ability of our community businesses to innovate, develop, and market solutions that deliver measurable value to their customers. Their success drives the majority of new jobs in our Nation. They are the engine of innovation, and their resiliency to reinvent their business models and adapt to emerging growth markets is critical. It's their creativity that drives 13 times more patents per employee than larger firms. They are the cornerstones of our economy and our communities. Beyond the goods and services and the jobs they provide, they invest in the bricks and mortar/real estate in our communities. They have supply chains that depend on their business. They do charitable giving, and they mentor young people in their communities.

Congress has done much to address the challenges small businesses face. Among the $288 billion in tax breaks in the Recovery Act were crucial small business tax provisions, such as accelerated bonus depreciation and an expansion of the net operating loss carryback that has already rebated $2.8 billion to businesses across our Nation.

U.S. manufacturing is growing, we're adding new jobs every month in 2010, and GPD is now trending positively, moving from a negative 6 to positive 6 in the year following the Recovery Act and it's now holding at 3 percent. But as I talk with small businesses in my district and across the Nation, the issue that has continued to be an obstacle to business expansion and diversification is access to credit.

The financial crisis of 2008 severely tightened small business access to credit and affordable terms. When businesses can't access financing, they're prevented from entering into new contracts, buying new equipment, hiring new employees, and other expansions. In the worst cases, business owners must cut payrolls, go into bankruptcy, or close their doors for good. Congress has taken steps to alleviate that problem. The Recovery Act included valuable changes to the SBA loan programs, reducing fees for lenders and borrowers on the 7(a) and 504 loan programs and increasing government guarantees to attract more capital. As a result, weekly SBA loan approval volumes have increased by over 90 percent.

The improvements to SBA loan programs and other measures we've taken have helped, but much more needs to be done. Earlier this year, commercial and industrial loans declined for the seventh straight quarter, down more than 17 percent from 2009, and banks are receiving mixed messages. On the one hand, Congress and the administration are urging them to lend more; on the other, bank regulators are telling them to hold back on lending. In fact, our colleague, Mr. Price, has an amendment expressing a sense of Congress on that point.

In addition, banks have greater risk aversion due to their exposure on their balance sheets--stemming especially from the instability of the commercial real estate sector. That brings us to this important bill on the floor today. The Financial Services Committee has held several hearings on the restriction of credit for small business. The bill before us today builds on those hearings and was considered in the open process the committee is known for.

During markup of the bill, the committee adopted 15 amendments, including seven Republican amendments, and today we will consider 17 additional amendments, the vast majority of which are to the Financial Services portion of the bill.

The Small Business Lending Fund Act is a significant step to boost small business lending through our community banks. This legislation builds on the effective financial stabilization measures Congress has previously taken by establishing a new $30 billion small business loan fund to provide additional capital to community banks that increase lending to small businesses. This $30 billion investment on which the government will be collecting dividends and earning a profit per the CBO estimates can be leveraged by banks into over $300 billion in new small business loans. This is an important investment by the Federal Government in our small business that brings tremendous returns.

The terms of the capital provided to banks are performance based; the more a bank increases its small business lending, the lower the dividend rate is for the SBLF capital. If a bank decreases its small business lending, it will be penalized with higher dividend rates.

This legislation includes strong safeguards to ensure that banks adequately utilize available funds to increase lending to small businesses, not for other lending or to improve their balance sheet. There will be oversight consistently throughout the program, plus it requires that the capital be invested only in strong financial institutions at little risk of default and the best positioned to increase small business lending.

It's important for Americans to understand that although this fund has a maximum value of $30 billion, it is estimated to make a profit for taxpayers in the long run. And the money will ultimately go not to banks, but to the small businesses and their communities that they lend to. As our financial system stabilizes and our community banks recapitalize, these funds will be repaid to Treasury with full repayment required over the next 10 years.

Also included in the Financial Services portion of this bill is the State Small Business Credit Initiative championed by our colleague, Mr. Peters. The underlying bill provides $2 billion in funding for new or existing State lending programs.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

This program provides funding for States to expand or create lending programs that use small amounts of public resources to generate private bank financing and are designed to address critical reasons why banks are having trouble making increased investments now--lack of adequate capital reserves on the part of lenders and collateral shortfalls on the part of borrowers.

The State Small Business Credit Initiative is required to leverage $10 of private funding for every $1 of government funding. Many of the existing capital access programs leverage 30 private dollars for every 1 government dollar. By supporting existing programs and using an easy- to-replicate model, this program will be quickly ramped up to increase small business lending which will retain and create jobs.

Small businesses are the job creators of our Nation. Supporting their ability to grow and innovate is key to a robust and stable economic recovery. I commend the leadership of Chairman Frank and Chairwoman Velazquez in bringing this package to the floor, which will provide critical support to the half of all American workers who either own or work for a small business.

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

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

I thank the congressman for his concerns, and I have similar concerns.

In my home State of Illinois, we also have institutions that would like to participate but would be unable to because of the asset cap. I know Chairman Frank agrees on this point.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 additional seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).

I yield 1 minute to the majority leader.

I yield myself the balance of time.

Well, first I would like to address some of the points our colleague from Missouri suggested, that all we need to do for business is less Federal action and less regulation. And on that point, I would have to agree, the minority has delivered--less action and less regulation, a culture of deregulation that led to the financial crisis and the recent oil spill in the gulf. But this bill isn't about regulation. It's about credit.

And I would then like to move to the point of my colleague from Texas who suggested that this bill adds $33 billion to the national debt. That's disingenuous, as the gentleman knows. This is not a $30 billion cost, according to the nonpartisan CBO. The legislation, in fact, will reduce the deficit. Now, these funds are an investment, and there are clear safeguards that ensure that taxpayers are repaid with interest. Also, his concern for small businesses fearing higher taxes is unwarranted, as taxes are, in fact, at historic lows; and in the Recovery Act, of the $288 billion in tax cuts, many of those went to our community businesses.

He also cited the NFIB to claim that access to credit is not a serious problem, yet the NFIB's own data shows that only 40 percent of small business owners attempting to borrow last year had all of their credit needs met, and nearly one-quarter of would-be borrowers, 25 percent, had none of their credit needs met. Now, he did suggest that some businesses--or he suggested all businesses--are just in a holding pattern, when the reality is, some of them are, and that's not who this legislation is directed to. There are many others who have started to see their pipeline build and their forecasts develop and are seeking to expand their operations and hire people, and they need that access to capital.

This Small Business Lending Fund Act is for those who are going to grow us out of this recession. I urge my colleagues to support this important investment in those community businesses that are the cornerstone of our economy.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim time in opposition, even though I'm not opposed.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to acknowledge Congressman Price's amendment and its recognition of the challenges facing not only community businesses seeking loans but the community bankers that are trying to provide them. His amendment recognizes mixed messages between legislators urging more lending while regulators and examiners are often urging less, particularly in the area of commercial real estate. That's why I have a bill that addresses both priorities by expanding the SBA 504 program to allow banks to lend to small businesses for owner-occupied properties, while easing the exposure on their bank's balance sheet with investments from the CDCs.

I also want to acknowledge that this amendment recognizes the credit crisis that's challenging our country and our small businesses particularly, which is the point of this underlying bill. And I hope my colleague will support the underlying bill as it addresses those credit challenges.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I just want to applaud Congressmen Driehaus, Connolly, and Moore's efforts to improve the oversight of the SBLF program. This amendment importantly expands oversight to ensure taxpayer dollars are protected. I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.

I would further rebut our colleague from Texas' inaccurate assertion that the program is not paid for. The gentleman knows full well that it is fully paid for and that, according to the CBO, the government will earn a profit.

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.