Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to 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, 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 1640 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in 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 1640 provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 5297, the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010. The rule makes in order a motion by the chair of the Committee on Financial Services to concur in the Senate amendment. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the motion and provides that the Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The rule provides one hour of debate on the motion controlled by the Committees on Financial Services, Small Business, and Ways and Means.

The rule also allows the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules through the legislative day of October 1, 2010. Finally, the rule waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII which would allow for same day consideration through Friday, October 1, of any measure reported from the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, today the House considers a tremendously important piece of legislation that provides long-overdue assistance to the millions of small businesses in our country. The Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010 grants immediate tax relief to small business owners, increases access to much-needed capital, and enhances the ability of small businesses to export goods overseas.

Today, the House delivers on a promise it made to small businesses. With the passage of this bill, small businesses, the backbone of our economy, will be given the tools and relief they need to expand their companies, to create more jobs and to help this Nation recover from the worst economic recession in decades.

Mr. Speaker, this bill provides more than just assistance for short- term economic recovery, which it accomplishes by increasing the amount of money that banks can lend to small businesses, by eliminating certain Small Business Administration loan fees, and by giving States the increased flexibility to manage their own small business lending programs.

This bill is also a blueprint for new and long-term job creation. We have heard the pleas from entrepreneurs and small business owners in our districts, and we closed the legal loopholes which gave multinational corporations an advantage in securing government contracts over HUBZone, 8(a), service-disabled veterans, and women- owned businesses. Everyone is now on a level playing field when it comes to competing for Federal contracts.

Perhaps the most important provision in this bill is the increased access to credit. As a small business owner myself, I know how difficult it is to make ends meet. When I first started my business, long before the credit crunch hit, fortunately I was able to work with a small community bank that was in a position to give me access to capital that was critical to getting my company up and running.

Today, not all small businesses are so fortunate. No one was harmed more in the credit market collapse than small businesses. Throughout my home State of Maine, the stories I hear each week are the same:

``They say the economy is getting better, but I still can't get the capital I need to make payroll or rehire those employees I was forced to lay off, much less think about expanding.''

This bill changes that by providing real relief at the same time small businesses need it the most.

The benefits are not theoretical. This isn't wishful thinking. We know that increasing the 7(a) loan limits from $2 million to $5 million, that increasing the 504 loan limits from $1.5 million to $5.5 million and that increasing the 7(a) Express Loan limits from $300,000 to $1 million will produce growth and jobs in communities all over our country.

In July, the owner of Mount Desert Island Ice Cream, a small business in Bar Harbor, Maine, wrote to me to share her incredible success story. Despite the turbulent economy, she expanded her business and created 10 new jobs this summer because of a Recovery Act ARC loan.

She explained if it weren't for the access to new capital, she wouldn't have been able to expand from two stores to three. She was able to use the Federal loan to manage the debt burden on her existing store locations, which freed up her cash flow, letting her expand.

The results were a mini-economic boom in Portland. Mount Desert hired a staff of 10. It employed contractors and suppliers to retrofit the new store, and it buys more and more ingredients from local Maine producers, all because she had access to government-backed loans.

I will say it obviously didn't hurt, Mr. Speaker, that business is also booming because her store sells really, really good ice cream. I think President Obama even got to enjoy a scoop or two when he went to Maine this summer.

You know, I held a workshop in my district at the height of the recession in June of 2009, before the Recovery Act loans were available; and I invited small business owners from across Maine to attend. The response, frankly, was overwhelming. Hundreds of small, struggling businesses came because they had nowhere else to turn. They needed help to stay afloat and to meet their payrolls. They were adamant that loan limits were insufficient and that lending had dried up.

In Maine, fishermen who run small businesses need capital for boat repairs--to replace gears and engines. Some of our fishermen are having a particularly difficult time gaining access to funds because they are already heavily in debt for their boats and permits, making it difficult for lenders to assess their levels of risk and exposure. Worse, fishermen who want to purchase and increase processing capacity to boost prices for the catches they receive face enormous difficulties in purchasing the facilities they need to process multiple species at once.

One Maine fisherman explains it to me this way: ``The main problem is that, when most of us took out loans for our businesses, it was some time ago, and we could operate like a normal business. Now the struggle is getting even harder. Banks that I have dealt with do not seem to realize or care that things are different, and they still have fairly rigid rules that are based in the past about financing these operations. They pretty much laugh us out of the room now when they see the income from the last few years, mostly due to a lack of price for the fish we catch. We need some kind of low-interest loan program with very affordable payments if we are to keep the fleet in Maine until rebuilding occurs.''

The loan guarantees included in this bill will make it more attractive for local lenders with the experience and know-how to provide access to the financing to our Nation's small business owners, and the reduced fees will make it more affordable for small businesses to grow, expand, and create jobs. This is why those at SBA support this bill, because they are able to work closely with lending institutions to assist our small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, the recovery is under way, but we are certainly not out of the woods yet. Unemployment in my home State of Maine is about 8 percent. That means almost 56,000 Mainers are out of a job. Passing the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act will provide much needed help. If the number of Maine small businesses with fewer than five employees added just one employee, then we could cut unemployment in half in our State. If every small business in Maine hired one more person because of the benefits in this bill, then we would certainly be on the road to recovery.

This bill will also stimulate long-term job growth, once the economy is back on track, by implementing provisions that small businesses have long sought:

There are numerous tax benefits that will entice rather than discourage our budding entrepreneurs from starting their own businesses;

This bill will allow a taxpayer to deduct up to $10,000 in trade or business start-up expenses, an amount currently capped at $5,000. Allowing owners to keep more money and to reinvest it in their companies at the outset, as they work to grow and expand their businesses, is critical;

This bill also allows owners to write off up to $500,000 in capital expenditures in 2010 and 2011, subject to a phase-out when they exceed $2 million. It also eliminates all capital gains taxes on certain small business investments for the 2010 tax year. For owners who have held off on hiring or making significant investments in their businesses, these tax provisions will allow them to act this year or next instead of continuing to wait;

When it comes to competing for Federal Government contracts, we level the playing field for small businesses by closing loopholes that previously gave large companies a built-in advantage in seeking those contracts;

We require a regular review of size standards to make sure that small businesses that are fortunate enough to expand don't retain an advantage over their smaller competitors in competition for small- business-only contracts;

We treat those in the aquaculture industry on par with other small businesses, and we make those companies eligible to receive SBA economic injury disaster loans.

Could this bill be better? Of course it could, but small businesses demand our help now. They can't wait, and we have an obligation to act swiftly to pass this bill today to make good on our promise to reward innovation, to loosen outdated limits on lending, and to encourage entrepreneurs to go to the SBA for help in starting and building their own businesses.

I look forward to the passage of this critical bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments my colleague from the other side of the aisle made about the 1099 issue and the impact with the health care bill. I do want to remember that only recently we had that bill on the floor. The people on my side of the aisle actually voted to repeal that provision and the people on the other side of the aisle opposed that. So we have had an opportunity to fix that, and I'm not clear about why the other side of the aisle wasn't with us on that, and I'm a little confused that he is bringing it up this morning.

I yield 3 minutes to my colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

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

The Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010 gives immediate relief to struggling small businesses across the country. It combines more than $12 billion in tax relief with increased access to critical financing so that our Nation's small businesses can move forward on new or delayed expansion plans.

Small business growth means job creation. Our economy will only continue to improve as our businesses bring back laid off employees and hire new workers. One of my constituents, the owner of the popular Allagash Brewing Company in Portland, Maine, describes the increase in the expense allowance under section 179 as a ``great idea''--something that will enable him to invest in his brewery and expand his brewery, which means hiring more employees.

Allagash Brewery is the perfect example of who will benefit from this legislation, Mr. Speaker. Fifteen years ago it began with a few employees working together in a 4,000-square-foot building financed by SBA loans, which were used to purchase the tanks and the equipment necessary to brew some exceptional beer. They did most of their own welding and manufacturing, and they produced 120 barrels of beer that first year.

This year they employ 28 people in a brand new facility and are on track to produce more than 22,000 barrels of beer each year, and they are still growing. With the increase in the section 179 expensing allowance, Allagash can invest in new equipment, expand operations to meet its tremendous demand, and hire several new employees. If not for this bill, expansion plans may have

been put on hold and no new jobs would have been created.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very good bill that should be supported by every Member of this House. It ensures that small businesses, not big corporations, have the tools they need to expand and grow, and it ensures that regular Americans on Main Street take part in the economic recovery.

The Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010 spurs short-term economic recovery while paving the way for long-term business growth once the economy is back on track.

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

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1640 Offered by Mr. Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution add the following new section:

Sec. 4. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution

the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII,

declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole

House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill

(H.R. 5348) to amend title 5, United States Code, to reduce

the number of civil service positions within the executive

branch, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill

shall be dispensed with. All points of order against

consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be

confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally

divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the

Minority Leader or their respective designees. After general

debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the

five-minute rule. During consideration of the bill for

amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may

accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the

Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in

the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that

purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed

shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of

consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall

rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as

may have been adopted. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to

final passage without intervening motion except one motion to

recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of

the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution

on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House

shall, immediately after the third daily order of business

under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the

Whole for further consideration of the bill. Clause 1(c) of

rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 5348.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

I rise in opposition to H.R. 5297.

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot today about the centerpiece of this bill--the highly controversial $30 billion small business lending fund, a provision sometimes referred to as TARP III. That provision is certainly of major concern to me, and it is reason enough to vote against this bill, though I want to focus my remarks on aspects of the bill that are within the Ways and Means Committee's jurisdiction.

This legislation includes approximately $12 billion in small business tax provisions, including a number of items that Republicans have long supported. For example, there is widespread, bipartisan support for expanded business expensing and for the extension of bonus depreciation as ways to encourage additional capital investments.

In addition, this bill includes a provision originally authored by our colleague from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) that would eliminate the outdated requirement that employees keep extensive records documenting their personal use of their employer-provided cell phones so they can include the value of that benefit in their incomes.

It also includes a provision that I have been working on with Chairman Lewis of the Oversight Subcommittee that would reduce penalties on small businesses that unintentionally violate certain disclosure rules under section 6707(a) of the Tax Code. Republicans don't object to these provisions. In fact, we think they should have been enacted months ago.

The tax portion of this bill also contains a highly troubling provision that would essentially double down on a particularly flawed element of the majority's new health care law. It is the requirement that small businesses file form 1099 with the IRS for every business and individual to which they make total payments of more than $600 each a year. We already know that this highly confusing and burdensome information-reporting regime, which could cause the number of required tax forms to quintuple, will drive up the cost for small businesses across the country. It is clear that this added expense will mean that employers will have less money to hire new workers and to retain existing ones.

Instead of working with Republicans to repeal these onerous new 1099 reporting requirements, the majority is now actually seeking in today's bill to substantially increase the penalties for failure to comply with them. Although proposals to increase the penalties for failure to file correct information returns have not always been particularly controversial, these penalties now apply to a much larger universe of transactions because of the majority's new health law. Because those new requirements are so confusing and burdensome, especially for small businesses that are already struggling to meet payroll, increasing the penalties for what could be inadvertent mistakes seems especially unfair.

To add insult to injury, the legislation before us would also expand the types of transactions subject to 1099 reporting requirements even further. The bill would generally require that a recipient of rental real estate income file an information return on his rental property's expense payment as well. For example, an individual who rents out even a single condo unit would generally be required to file a 1099 for his purchase from Home Depot or other corporate establishments if he buys more than $600 in supplies from them over the course of the year.

This new requirement, which would raise more than $2.5 billion over 10 years, could prove to be every bit as burdensome for owners of small rental real estate holdings as the health law's 1099 requirements are for small businesses, especially considering the increases in penalties I mentioned a moment ago.

But let me close by making a broader point. The majority boasts about how much this bill's tax provisions like increased expensing and extending bonus

depreciation will help small businesses--and let me be clear. Those are proposals that Republicans continue to support. But any tax benefits provided by this bill at the margins will pale in comparison to the enormous tax increase the majority has in store for every taxpaying small business at the end of this year.

By failing to extend the critical tax relief that is scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, the majority will impose a $3.8 trillion tax hike on American taxpayers--including every small business in America that pays income taxes--over the next 10 years. Especially with unemployment continuing to hover near 10 percent and economic growth very sluggish, that is a terrible idea for small businesses. It's a terrible idea for the economy, and it's a terrible idea for job creation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I mentioned earlier the small business provisions that we do agree upon, but we think that these are going to be outweighed by the onerous 1099 provision that is in the health law, and the impact on businesses is going to be terrible.

I want to just mention something here. The IRS's own National Taxpayer Advocate highlighted several problems with this particular 1099 reporting requirement. ``The new reporting burden, particularly as it falls on small businesses, may turn out to be as disproportionate as compared with any resulting improvements in tax compliance. Small businesses may have to pay for additional accounting services, incurring additional costs. In our view, it's highly likely that the IRS will improperly assess penalties that it must abate later after great expenditure of the taxpayer and IRS time and effort. Small businesses that lack the capacity to track customer purchases may lose customers, leaving the economy with more large national vendors and less local competition.'' Those are the words of the National Taxpayer Advocate at the IRS.

This 1099 reporting burden on small businesses is particularly onerous and outweighs many of the advantages of some of these tax provisions that we all agree upon. It's a shame that we couldn't have gotten together to put together a better small business package that would actually promote small business growth, promote jobs, and promote our economy.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I mentioned that we are for some of this tax relief in this bill. But if you talk to small business owners across this great country of ours, you talk to workers, you talk to families, what they're concerned about is the uncertainty, the uncertainty of what's happened over the last 2 years under this administration. This atmosphere of uncertainty is what's killing small business growth, and it's killing jobs.

Now, we highlighted the 1099 provision in the health care bill. That's just one provision in a massive bill that has led to this tremendous uncertainty, this atmosphere that is just like cold water on all business activity.

Yes, I admit the credit problems are real. Small businesses are struggling with it. But why is that? It's because there is uncertainty in the economic climate.

Now, it's nice. We have a bill that offers some good tax provisions in there. But where one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away with onerous provisions that are going to add costs to our businesses that are trying to hire and trying to make a living and trying to prosper, trying to create wealth and prosperity for American families.

The bottom line is we need good, solid policies that are going to basically eliminate this uncertainty. That's why I have to say I lament the fact that we couldn't get together and work on something that would really promote job growth, promote economic growth and prosperity for families. But, no, we have to play these political games, and we have to put provisions in there for certain reasons that actually are going to work counter to what we're trying to do.

The 1099 provision is just one of many, many elements that have led to this intense uncertainty across the board. I challenge my friends. I say go across the country, visit your districts, talk to small business owners and ask them what is the problem. They'll tell you it's credit. But they'll tell you, We don't know what's coming with this health care and what it's going to cost us.

There are a number of provisions the way this is going to be implemented, the 1099 provision being one. New taxes, the tax uncertainty--my God, that is a huge issue. Why can't we get together and extend the tax relief from 2001 and 2003 and keep the capital gains and dividend taxes where they are today? That will create an atmosphere of certainty for our businesses that want to hire, they want to produce goods, they want to export.

Why can't we articulate a coherent trade policy that's really going to promote exports? We've got three trade agreements on the table ready to go that immediately promote exports that will create high, good- paying jobs. One-out-of-five jobs in this country are related to trade. But, no, we won't take up those trade agreements. Ask why. Special interest. It's not what's best for America; it's for special interest.

We have a moratorium on drilling down in my district, in my State. It's killing small business growth. Killing it. These are small businesses that provide services and equipment and manufacturing to support American energy. And guess what. We have an arbitrarily imposed moratorium that defies any basis in fact or science at this stage, and we can't even get answers from this administration to bipartisan letters inquiring why that's the case.

So let's talk about how you get rid of uncertainty in this economic climate. We've got a climate of fear right now. People are fearing what's coming out of Washington.

What we need is certainty, and we need good, solid politics that are going to help American workers and American families.

I thank the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin, for yielding. Mr. Levin has been one of our hardest workers and leaders in the effort to make sure that American business can succeed and expand and create good-paying jobs for our economy.

I just heard the last of his remarks, but my presumption is he was saying, as we all know is the case, there is not a place that any of us travel in the United States of America, when we talk to small businesses all over this country, that they don't say: Congressman, one of the real problems I have is I can't get capital. I want to put an additional room on my restaurant so I can have some additional tables, and I'll have to hire some additional--maybe a cook and a waiter and waitresses and a receptionist, but I can't get capital. I know I can get the customers, but I can't expand.

That's what this bill is about. This bill is about empowering small businesses to do what they do so well.

In our work to recover from the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes as a result of the economic policies we put in place in the last administration, we're suffering under the worst economic crisis in 75 years. Only the Great Depression is analogous.

Businesses will play an extraordinarily important role in bringing us back; they are our economy's job-creating engine. Over the past year, 64 percent of new jobs came from small businesses. Keeping small businesses growing and creating jobs is essential to our economic recovery, and supporting small businesses is an essential part of rebuilding American industry, which is why this important small business lending bill is part of the Democrats' ``Make It in America'' agenda.

You're going to be hearing a lot about that agenda: ``Make It in America.''

There are an awful lot of people in our country right now who, understandably, are not sure they're going to make it in America. They're not sure their kids are going to be able to make it in America. They're not sure they're going to have a retirement on which they counted. ``Make It in America.''

Now, that has another meet meaning as well: make it in America; manufacture it in America; create good-paying jobs through manufacturing things in America that Americans will buy, and yes, the rest of the world will buy.

This is a plan to strengthen American manufacturing and its ability to create well-paying middle class jobs. Six Make It in America bills have already been signed into law. In addition,

Democrats have voted for investments in job-creating infrastructure projects, lower taxes for 98 percent of America, expanded Small Business Administration lending, a tax credit for small businesses that hire unemployed workers, and long-term tax credits to help small businesses afford employer health care. And we've done it in the face of a year and a half of near unanimous Republican opposition.

The challenges faced by small businesses are still, of course, significant ones. Last year, for instance, 45 percent of small businesses seeking loans to expand or even stay in business were turned down for a loan, which had an obvious impact on employment.

To expand the job-creating flow of credit, I urge each of my colleagues, not Republicans or Democrats but all of my colleagues, who all want to see small businesses grow, who all want to see jobs created, and, therefore, I urge all of my colleagues on either side of the aisle of whatever ideology, support this bill.

I talked to my small bankers last week. They say if they get this capital, they're going to lend to small businesses. I talked to my small businesses, and they say if this bill passes, they believe that they'll be able to get a loan to expand their business or to keep in business.

First, this bill creates a small business lending fund that makes it easier for small businesses to access the capital they need. It also establishes $12 billion in tax cuts for small business.

I've heard a lot of talk throughout my 30 years here in the Congress of the United States from the other side of the aisle about cutting taxes on small businesses. Well, this cuts $12 billion in taxes on small businesses. I would hope that you would feel that was consistent with what you said ought to be done. We agree. And we've done it. And we're trying to do it again.

These tax credits encourage small business investments by eliminating small business capital gains taxes in many cases; they encourage innovation by helping entrepreneurs deduct more startup expenses; they make it more affordable for business owners to invest in the equipment they need to expand; and, as I said, they make health care more affordable for the self-employed--all designed to grow and expand small businesses and to create jobs for the millions of Americans who have been hardworking Americans, lost their job, and they want to work and they're looking for work, and they can't find it. This is an opportunity for us to expand that job pool by an estimated 500,000.

In addition, this bill strengthens State and SBA programs that lend to small businesses. We have such a program in the State of Maryland. We think this will help. And it strengthens overseas competitiveness by funding export-promoting programs and by fighting for market access and a level playing field for American companies that compete abroad.

In all, this bill's provisions are projected, as I said, to save or create as many as a half million jobs.

Passing this bill is a test of every Member's commitment to the businesses that are the backbone of our districts. It is a measure of our support for their ability to innovate, grow, and employ more workers.

But as important as this bill is, it is not the end of our work to create small business jobs.

For instance, the House will soon debate Congressman Miller's bill to support lending for home construction--another example of Democratic efforts to support small businesses and create jobs.

I hope that every one of my colleagues sees fit to support this bill, not because it perfectly represents every view that you have--none of us vote for bills that reflect our views perfectly--but because the consensus of the business community is this will move us forward.

Vote for this bill. It's good for America. It's good for our people. It's good for jobs.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I substitute for the gentlewoman from Illinois on managing our 10 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I further ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say that this is a bill that passed the House in May; it was over in the Senate; it was subject to a filibuster; that filibuster was broken; and the Senate has sent us back the bill. It is not everything we wanted, but it is a significant improvement and will, I think, be helpful.

No one has alleged any possible negative consequences. Some have said it might not be as helpful as we believe, but we think it will enhance the lending capacity of small banks for small businesses.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to one of the leading advocates and architects of this bill, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

Yes, the gentlewoman is exactly correct. It is intended that this be treated as tier 1 capital in a way that is consistent with other capital securities issued to Treasury.

The gentlewoman is correct.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Madam Speaker, let me inform my colleague that I intend to close with my remaining 4 minutes, and I'm my last speaker. I will close; so I reserve the last 4 minutes to close.

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

First, this bill deals with the particular needs of minority women and veteran-owned small businesses. I want to point out that we have had hearings documenting the barriers and the discrimination that face small businesses that are owned by minority women or service-disabled veterans. There were hearings on this. There is evidence that they have a harder time and get less value for their loans. I want to make clear that we have looked at that, and our inclusion of provisions for that is based on our evidence.

Secondly, I have to say that my colleague from Texas is to be congratulated on his selectivity. He manages to do more partial quoting of people's positions than I get on my cell phone in a bad reception area.

For example, he talked about the Independent Community Bankers. You might have had a hard time, listening to the gentleman from Texas, figuring out that they wrote us a letter dated September 22. Maybe they changed their mind overnight and talked to the gentleman from Texas, but I am skeptical. In the letter they say this bill: ``. . . is a bold, fresh proposal that would provide another option for community banks to leverage capital and expand small business credit.''

The Independent Community Bankers, whom he sought to quote denigrating this bill, are very much in favor of this bill.

The National Association of Home Builders likes the concept, although they were upset with one of the things that the Senate left out.

The Financial Services Roundtable--and here is the problem when taking a partisan stance: You have to over-argue your case. If you listen to the gentleman from Texas, there are no small businesses anywhere that would like to get a loan but can't find it from their bank. Now no one, including the gentleman from Texas, believes that is true.

I have to say that my advice to my colleagues is, even in the heat of a political debate, try to refrain from saying something that no one will believe because it is not helpful to your argument.

Yes, there are cases where there are banks that have enough capital. There are cases where there are companies that are afraid to lend. But what the gentleman has said goes far beyond that: There are no significant number of small businesses in America that are encountering problems because there are banks that don't have enough capital. No one believes that.

Now here is the problem. We have people who do not want to see anything get better. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), I will credit him because he didn't talk much about this bill. He complained about a lot of other bills. I understand that. He, I think, quite honestly realized there was not a lot of bad things to say about this bill. The worst they can say about this bill is it might not be used as much as we think. I disagree. In this vast economy, $30 billion is not a huge amount of money from the standpoint of the small business borrowers.

Now, this bill is not what I would like it to be. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the chair of the Small Business Committee, improved this bill significantly in the House. And this is not as good a bill as it came back from the Senate as it was before. I am going to be working with her. I intend to vote for this bill to give the Senate another chance. I don't like to give up on people or institutions. I believe in redemption, and we will give the Senate a chance to get it right.

But let's be clear. The Independent Community Bankers are for this. Other small businesses are for this. The argument that no small business anywhere in America has capital that they need and can put to use and can't find a bank, that simply isn't valid.

On uncertainty, I understand the problem of uncertainty in taxation. You know what the uncertainty is? What's going to happen to the Bush tax cuts. And whose fault is that uncertainty? President Bush and his Republican allies, who passed a manipulative, book-cooking tax cut that they said would last 10 years. I didn't say that it should last for 10 years and then expire. I didn't say that the estate tax should be a dipsy-doodle that went up and down and up and around. That is what the Republicans did because they were trying to hide from the American people the full budgetary impact of their taxes.

Let's pass this bill, do what we can for small businesses, and go on to other work.

Independent Community

Bankers of America',

Washington, DC, September 22, 2010.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

I would like to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, the majority, Mr. Speaker, brings forth another closed rule, denying the minority the right to offer amendments to what many colleagues contend is a flawed product from the Senate.

At the Rules Committee meeting yesterday, I was struck by a quote, a statement, made by the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee:

This is $30 billion. It's not $300 billion. It's not $3 trillion.

That is precisely the problem with the majority party. They have already spent all the money available. Once you pass an almost $1 trillion stimulus package that does not stimulate economic growth, the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee is correct that $30 billion doesn't seem like such a big deal, but it is for the overburdened people of the United States of America.

The underlying legislation establishes a $30 billion fund managed by the Treasury Department in an effort to increase lending from small banks to small businesses. The majority claims that this fund will move quickly to inject capital into the marketplace.

What we have today before us is junior TARP, Mr. Speaker. It's kind of a rehash of the 700-or-so-billion-dollar fund that was also supposed to make credit available for businesses. I was proud to oppose TARP then, and I am proud to oppose junior TARP today.

We on the minority side, the Republicans, believe that lowering taxes on small businesses would do far more to help create jobs and lead us out of this recession. One hundred days from today, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts will expire and every American taxpayer will see tax increases at exactly the wrong time. Instead of taking clear, concrete action to reduce the tax burden on small businesses, the majority brings us junior TARP today.

There is a hidden provision, by the way, in this bill, Mr. Speaker, that makes even worse the antibusiness provisions in the health care legislation that this Congress passed previously. Pursuant to the health care law, small businesses are required to file a form 1099 with the IRS for every business and every individual to which they make payments of at least $600. That is a significant burden on all businesses, especially on small businesses. It's important to note that even the administration has recently backed changes to that provision in their health care law. So Americans might expect legislation to come before us to assist small businesses to get out from under that onerous provision, but the underlying legislation goes completely in the wrong direction, in the other direction.

This Congress can do better. But the Rules Committee will not allow any Member to offer any amendments under this closed rule to improve this legislation. We should defeat this rule and allow the House to proceed through regular order and allow Members to bring forth any and all ideas to provide meaningful help for our struggling small businesses.

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

Mr. Speaker, again I thank my friend from Maine for her courtesy and her management of this rule.

I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend the rule and allow a vote on the legislation introduced by Congresswoman Lummis.

In this debate, when the underlying legislation is adding another $30 billion to our Nation's debt, I think it's fitting that the minority is bringing forward another YouCut proposal.

The American people are sounding the alarm that we have to change course. We have to focus on reducing the size of government, not create new programs that dig our fiscal hole deeper and deeper. That is going to require bipartisanship, which I hope to see soon, but we're not seeing it yet. And really, that's worrisome.

Over the last week, participants in the minority whip's YouCut initiative voted on programs for us to bring to this floor for cutting. To date, participants in that program have voted to cut over $120 billion in spending. This week, the participants in that program voted to cut Federal staffing levels to 2008. The legislation that we would be able to vote on if the previous question is defeated would exempt agencies that are critical to national security. It's no coincidence that while the administration and this Congress increase Federal spending by trillions of dollars, we see Washington, D.C. thrive, but the people in the congressional district that I've been honored to represent for 18 years continue to hurt as Americans throughout the Nation are hurting. We believe that we have to return the function of job creation to the private sector.

So I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have a vote on Congresswoman Lummis's bill on cutting Federal staffing. And again, I remind Members that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not preclude consideration of the underlying legislation before us today.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the author of the legislation that we would be able to consider if the previous question is defeated, the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the great leader from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Maine and all who have participated in this debate. I again seek a ``no'' vote, and I seek a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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