Keeping Families in their Home Act of 2012

Mr. President, since his State of the Union Address, President Obama and Vice President

Biden have been talking about their efforts to help students afford to go to college, which is something we are all in favor of.

The President's proposals include what he calls a higher education race to the top. It has a familiar sounding formula. Though, in this case, it will impose new rules and mandates and price controls on colleges and universities in States. Unfortunately, this race to the top is headed in the wrong direction.

The President should turn around his higher education race to the top and head it in the direction of Washington, DC, to help the federal government compete for ways to stop adding mandates and costs on States that are soaking up dollars and driving college tuition through the roof.

Let me be specific and offer three examples of how a race to the top headed toward Washington, DC, could actually help students by saving them money on their tuition.

First, Washington could stop overcharging students on their student loans. They are doing that now by borrowing money at 2.8 percent, loaning it to students at 6.8 percent, and using the profit to help pay for the new health care law and other government programs.

Second, Washington could help students with lower tuition by repealing the new Medicaid mandates on States that take effect in 2014. These new Medicaid mandates will further reduce State funding for higher education and raise tuition at public colleges and universities, which is where approximately 75 percent of students go to college.

Third, Washington could stop prohibiting States from reducing spending on Medicaid at a time when State revenues and expenditures are going down. That forces States to spend money on health care that otherwise would be available for higher education.

Let me talk about each of those three ideas.

First, this business of overcharging on student loans. I think it would come as a big surprise to most students to know that Washington is borrowing money at 2.8 percent and loaning it to them at 6.8 percent, and using the profit to pay for the health care law and for other government programs. We have roughly 25 million students attending 6,000 colleges and universities in America today, and approximately 16 million of those have Federal loans that allow them to spend that money at the school of their choice. Approximately 70 percent of the Federal funding made available for our higher education last year--about $116 billion--went for those student loans. Under the new health care law, the Department of Education is going to be borrowing money from the Treasury at 2.8 percent and then loaning it to the students at 6.8 percent. So, the government is actually overcharging 16 million students and taking that profit and spending it on new government programs, including the new health care law.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, over the next 10 years, here is where the profit goes, approximately: $8.7 billion goes to pay for the new health care law; $10.3 billion goes to pay down the Federal debt; and $36 billion goes to support other Pell grants. So if we really want to help students pay for tuition, why would we not use this profit to reduce the interest rate on student loans? CBO says we could have reduced the rate from 6.8 percent to 5.3 percent and let the students have the savings instead of letting the government have the savings. By reducing the interest on student loans that much, students would save an average of $2,200 over 10 years. That is a lot of money for the average student borrower who has approximately $25,000 in debt.

I have proposed the idea of legislation that puts a ``truth in lending'' label on every one of the 16 million student loans, saying this: Beware: Your government is overcharging you on your student loan to help pay for the health care law and other government programs.

Here is a second way Washington could help lower tuition rates. Washington could repeal the Medicaid mandates imposed on States that take effect in 2014 and will inevitably drive up tuition rates. This is how that works. The new health care law requires States to expand and help pay for Medicaid coverage. This in turn requires Governors who are making up budgets to take money that, otherwise, would likely go for higher education and spend it instead on Medicaid.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, this new expansion of Medicaid will cost States an additional $20 billion over 10 years and add 16 million more people to Medicaid programs. The CMS Chief Actuary says it may add 25 million to the Medicaid Program, costing States even more. We know this is going to happen because it has already happened. For years Medicaid mandates have been imposing huge costs on States, which in turn soaks up money for colleges, and in turn causes tuition to go up to replace that money.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, average State funding this year for Medicaid increased by 28.7 percent compared to the prior year. Where did the money come from? In Tennessee, which had a 15.8-percent increase in State spending on Medicaid last year, at the same time there was a 15-percent decrease in State spending for higher education. That is a real cut, not a Washington cut; that is 15 percent less money. That did what? There was a 7.3-percent increase in tuition at public universities and an 8.2-percent increase in tuition at community colleges to make up for the cuts.

In California, where the state enrolls 8.3 million Medicaid beneficiaries, they are expected to gain 2 million more when the new health care law is implemented in 2014. Just over the last year, there has been a 13.5-percent decrease in State support for higher education in California, along with a 21-percent increase in tuition and fees at State universities and a 37 percent increase in tuition at community colleges. Most of those students probably do not know that the principal reason their tuition is going up is because of the Federal health care mandates on the State.

From 2000 to 2006, spending by State governments on Medicaid increased by 62.6 percent. This has been going on long before President Obama came into office. I balanced it as Governor in the 1980s. Every year I tried to keep education funding at 50 percent of the State budgets. In those days the States paid for 70 percent of the cost of operating the University of Tennessee or the community college and tuition paid for 30 percent of the cost. We had an implicit deal with the students that if we raise tuition, we will raise State funding by about the same amount. Those days are long gone.

Medicaid costs on States are the most insoluble part of the budget dilemma we have here in Washington. I believe Medicaid either should be run 100 percent by the Federal Government or 100 percent by the States. I came to Washington and suggested that to President Reagan in the 1980s. He agreed, but many did not. So it is not new. We should not blame President Obama for the fact that this has gone on for 30 years, but we ought to hold him responsible for making it worse.

Here is how he has made it worse in a third way--by a so-called maintenance of effort requirement on States as a condition of continuing to receive Federal payments under Medicaid. The 2009 stimulus bill prohibited States from imposing new eligibility standards, methodologies, or procedures as a condition of receiving Federal Medicaid payments. The new health care law extends the maintenance of effort requirements through 2014. So for 5 years, throughout this recession, while State revenues are going down, the Federal Government in its wisdom has been imposing billions of new dollars in Medicaid mandates on States requiring them to spend more on Medicaid. And what happens? They must spend less on something else.

In 2010, New York Lieutenant Governor Richard Ravitch, a Democrat, eloquently talked about that problem. He said Medicaid is ``the largest single driver of New York's growing expenditures,'' making up more than one-third of the State total budget. New York spends twice as much on Medicaid as California. He said this spending is expected to grow at an annual rate of 18 percent over the next 4 years but that the Federal stimulus and health care expansions have made it harder for States such as New York and California to cut expenditures because of the strings attached. He said:

These strings prevent States from substituting Federal

money for State funds, require States to spend minimum

amounts of

their own funds, and prevent States from tightening

eligibility standards for benefits.

So while the Federal Government is burdening the States with hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid liabilities, the President has made it worse by forbidding States from tightening their eligibility requirements as their economies shrink.

The administration and Congress have left Governors with little choice but to cut in other areas, and that usually turns out to be public higher education, where 75 percent of students go to school. So why is tuition going up? The biggest reason is us--Congress, Washington DC. Instead of pointing the finger at States and colleges, we ought to look in the mirror.

There is another problem with the President's proposals. His proposals are not likely to affect many students, and if they do they are more likely to hurt them than help them. Here is why that is true. Ninety-eight percent of all Federal money made available to college students goes directly to the students to spend at one of the 6,000 institutions of their choice.

The President's proposals would only affect three programs of campus- based aid that eventually affects about 2 percent of all students and impacts about 2 percent of all the federal money available for higher education. What the President would propose doing includes putting price controls on colleges offering those programs and saying that students could not go to the institution if tuition goes up too much. So if a low-income student wants to go to the University of Tennessee or North Carolina or Michigan and tuition goes up more than the Federal Government says it should, mostly because of Federal policies, what happens? The student cannot go to the University of Michigan or the University of Tennessee or the University of North Carolina. Those schools have plenty of applicants. They are going to get their students anyway. So the effect will be to make it harder for a low-income student to go to the college of his or her choice.

What should we be doing? I think it is pretty obvious. The taxpayers already are generous with support for students going to college. The average tuition at a 4-year public institution is $8,200. At a 2-year community college, it is $3,000. At private institutions, it may be closer to $28,000 or $30,000 a year. To make it easier, there are 16 million student loans--$116 billion in new student loans last year. There are 9 million Pell grants, supported by $41 billion in taxpayers' dollars. So half our 25 million college students have a Federal grant or loan to help pay for college, and they spend it at one of 6,000 institutions of their choice.

Still, the rising cost of tuition is a real problem for American families. Tuition and fees have soared over the past 10 years above the rate of inflation by 5.6 percent a year at public 4-year institutions. This adds up to about a 113 percent increase in tuition over the decade.

Colleges and universities need to do their part to cut costs. I have suggested that well-prepared students ought to be offered 3-year degrees instead of 4. The president of George Washington University has suggested ways that colleges could be more efficient. He said he could run two complete colleges with two complete faculties in the facilities now used half the year for one. That is without cutting the length of student vacations, increasing class size, or requiring faculty to teach more. Requiring one mandatory summer session for every student every 4 years, as Dartmouth College does, would improve institutions' bottom line. The GW president said his institution's bottom line would improve by $10 to $15 million a year. Those are just two good ideas.

There is nothing wrong with President Obama's proposal to encourage ideas like that, even to give grants and put the spotlight on colleges that are trying those things. The Malcolm Baldrige Award for Quality Control years ago did a lot to improve quality in business and government without spending very much. But mandates and price controls on 6,000 autonomous colleges and universities is not the right prescription. They are more likely to hurt students than help. They are more likely to drive up tuition than lower it. And they are more likely to diminish the quality of the best system of higher education in the world.

The reason we have the best system is, for one reason, because generally the Federal Government keeps its hands off those autonomous colleges, and the second reason is that students can choose among those 6,000 institutions with the money we make available to them in grants and loans.

Rather than creating new price controls, new mandates, and new regulations of the kind that have already pushed tuition higher, I suggest the President turn his race to the top around. Instead of heading it towards the States and colleges, head it towards Washington, DC. Stop overcharging students for their student loans, stop requiring States to spend more State dollars on health care at the expense of public colleges and universities, repeal the new Medicaid mandates that in 2014 will take already-high tuition and drive it even higher, and let the Federal agencies compete to see how they can stop adding costs that are the main reason college tuition is rising. That would be the real race to the top. That is the real way to help students afford college.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about a bill I am introducing today, the United States Job Creation and International Tax Reform Act of 2012. The name says it all. This is a bill that would incentivize American companies to create jobs in the United States while at the same time leveling the playing field for U.S. companies in the global marketplace. This bill would reform and modernize the rules for taxing the global operations of American companies and would help America become a more attractive location to base a business that serves customers all over the world.

Unfortunately, our current tax rules do just the opposite. In fact, many businesses could be better off if they were headquartered outside the United States. That is not right, and Congress should fix it. This bill would do that.

I wish to thank Senator Hatch and members of his staff who have been helpful in working through the complexities of this international tax.

I also wish to mention Eric Oman, a member of my staff and a CPA, who worked with me in developing this legislation. He has lived overseas and worked with the U.S. tax laws overseas. That is the kind of expertise we need to reform international tax law.

I wish to thank all who testified before the Finance Committee, especially Scott Naatjes, who is the vice president and general tax counsel of Cargill. This man has dealt with the complex accounting of foreign earnings and the money to be repatriated to the United States, an actual practitioner whom we relied on. He gave us insight into years of records that have to be reviewed for a single item in the complex web of the current international tax system in order to bring the money back to the United States.

Finally, I wish to thank Dave Camp, the chairman of the House, Ways, and Means Committee, who kick-started the discussion on tax reform when he released his discussion draft last October.

Enacted in the 1960s, our current international tax rules have passed their expiration date. Many of the U.S. major trading partners, including Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom, and most of Europe have moved to what are called territorial tax systems. That is actually a word for a global tax system. These types of tax systems tax the income generated within their borders and exempt foreign earnings from tax.

The United States, on the other hand, taxes the worldwide income of U.S. companies and provides deferral of the U.S. tax until the foreign earnings are brought home. Deferral of the tax until the earnings are brought home encourages them not to bring the money home. It actually incentivizes them to leave their money abroad and to expand over there. Because the United States has nearly the highest corporate tax rate in the world, companies don't bring those earnings back and, as I said, reinvest outside the United States. That certainly is not a recipe for U.S. growth and U.S. job creation.

The dominance of U.S.-headquartered companies in the global marketplace is waning. Thirty-six percent of the Fortune Global 500 companies were headquartered in the United States in 2000. In 2009, that number dropped to 28 percent. That is from 36 percent to 28 percent among the Fortune Global 500 companies headquartered in the United States. Clearly, America is losing ground and our current international tax rules are a big part of the problem.

The bill I am introducing would help to right the ship by pulling our international tax rules into the 21st century so U.S. companies are not at a competitive disadvantage with foreign companies because of American tax rules that are outdated by changes most other countries have already made. The bill would give U.S. companies incentives to create jobs in the United States and undertake activities in the United States in order to win globally.

First, if the foreign earnings have already been subject to a tax in a foreign country, this bill would provide a 95-percent exemption from the U.S. tax on those foreign earnings. This would allow for American- managed capital to be put to the most productive use and help stabilize our economy.

Second, this bill would allow foreign earnings that are currently sitting overseas to be brought back to America at a reduced rate--not a zero tax rate but a greatly reduced rate--and with the ability to pay that, the taxes that are owed in installments. That gets the cash back now and still gets some taxation for us instead of leaving it all overseas. This provision would serve as a transition to the new territorial system by allowing U.S. companies to unlock a significant amount of capital currently being held offshore and quickly move into the new territorial system, and that means more jobs and a better economy. It also emphasizes one of the things I talk about with any of the tax changes--as one of the few accountants--we have to transition into these things if we want the companies stable enough that they can exist through the change in the Tax Code, and that provides for a transition as well.

Third, this bill would reduce the U.S. tax burden on income generated by American companies from ideas and innovations. This bill would encourage companies to develop and keep rights to ideas and inventions in the United States. When families tune in to ``60 Minutes'' on Sunday evenings, they would hear fewer stories about how U.S. companies are moving their profits to tax haven countries and avoiding U.S. tax on those earnings. Families would hear fewer stories about how the U.S. multinational companies set up post office boxes in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland without a single employee or officer of the company anywhere on site and attribute a significant portion of their foreign earnings to those jurisdictions.

Instead, families would hear more stories about how U.S. companies are generating the ideas and inventions of tomorrow right here in America.

This bill can be a first step in tax reform. We have a lot of work to do in many other areas of tax law in order to make it simpler, fairer, and more transparent. We need to be looking at the individual tax system, the corporate tax system, and particularly how we tax the passthrough entities such as partnerships and S corporations that have to pay the tax on the money when it is still invested in the business.

I also recognize, as we move forward in these other areas, it may be appropriate to make changes to this bill. This is exactly how the legislative process should work, and I look forward to getting back to conducting the Senate's business in regular order, where we work through the issues in the committee first and offer amendments to improve the bills that ultimately come to the Senate floor, where there is a shot for everybody else to make amendments.

But today with the introduction of this bill, we move from discussion to action with respect to a single piece of the tax reform. The Simpson-Bowles deficit commission recommended a move to a territorial system, and I am glad to be moving the conversation forward on this recommendation with the introduction of this bill. I hope this bill will begin a discussion, a discussion of fairness that needs to begin yesterday.

I hope Members and their staff will review the bill and the detailed explanation we have prepared. I also ask that all interested stakeholders review the bill and reach out to my staff and the staff of the Finance Committee to discuss what they like, what they don't like, and their suggestions for improvements. That is the way bills are supposed to work.

The international tax rules are not easy or simple and reforming them will be a heavy lift. But those things are worth doing, and when they are worth doing, they are rarely easy or simple.

I look forward to joining with my colleagues to pass international tax reforms that our American companies and our country desperately need.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, when our Nation's economy was thriving, Nevada was at the heart of the construction boom. Buildings and homes were going up across the State. Neighborhoods were growing, schools were being built at record rates, and the construction industry was flourishing. All of this activity drove investments into other areas of the economy, and for many life was good in Nevada. But when the crisis hit, the highs that my State experienced were matched by the lows that followed.

Nevada now leads the Nation in unemployment with more than 160,000 Nevadans looking for a job. Many can no longer afford their homes. Nevadans are being forced into bankruptcy and facing foreclosure. While Nevada is home to some of the most resilient, hard-working people in the country, almost one-quarter of Nevadans are so frustrated that they have simply given up hope for better employment.

Much of the difficulty Nevadans are experiencing can be traced back to the crisis in my State. The ill effects of the depressed housing market are widespread. High rates of foreclosures are devastating to families, neighborhoods, and entire communities. Families who have been foreclosed upon are already having a hard time paying their bills. Add to those difficulties the time spent finding a new place and the costs of moving and their problems are compounded. Time spent fighting the bank to avoid foreclosure and relocating would likely be better used to find a job or better paying employment.

One of the biggest problems distressed home owners are facing is the programs that have been put into place to help keep people in their homes that have not lived up to expectations. My office spends a great deal of time with Nevadans on the cusp of losing their homes, looking for help, and trying to keep families in their homes. It is truly heart wrenching to hear some of these stories. These homeowners do not want to foreclose, and obviously they do not want to lose their homes.

I recently received this e-mail from a constituent in Reno who is fighting to keep their home. I would like to share that with you.

We hoped for a win-win situation but in the end all we got

was a nightmare in which everyone loses: my sister and I

obviously lose, our neighborhood loses as another house sits

vacant with a rusting metal sign in the front, our State

loses as the housing plight increases again, the bank loses

because they lose a customer who just needed another chance

and, most importantly, democracy loses as the plutocrats roll

over another family.

When families move, their children often have to change schools. So now not only are children forced to move from their homes, they are also leaving behind their schools and their neighborhoods. This kind of destabilization is harmful for families who are already struggling.

Consider the effects of foreclosures on neighborhoods and communities. The widespread availability of housing is flooding the real estate inventory in Nevada. This is forcing down home values and making it difficult for other people to sell their homes as well. In February 2006 the average home in Nevada was valued at $309,000. Today the home values have dropped to $120,000.

Homes left vacant and uncared for can quickly become an eyesore, pushing low home values even lower. This means others in the neighborhood can have a difficult time selling their homes if they want to move. If they find a better job elsewhere, for example, they may not be able to take it because they cannot sell their homes for a reasonable price, if they are able to sell them at all.

Today I am introducing legislation to help reverse these destabilizing forces. The bill I am introducing today, the Keeping Families in their Home Act, will help address large unsold housing inventories and give families a chance to stay in their homes. This bill would allow banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to enter into long- term leases, including an option to purchase properties acquired through foreclosure with the prior homeowner or any individual.

By providing an opportunity for the homeowner to stay in their home, the bank is giving families a chance to regain sound financial footing. This commonsense solution helps provide some much needed stability is available for all families.

While I believe this bill is a good step in the right direction, let me be clear: much more needs to be done to help the housing problems facing Nevada. The programs already in place simply have not done enough and have not lived up to expectations.

I was pleased to see reports of growth in our economy, but people in my State continue to suffer. Back home Nevadans still believe there are no jobs. Small businesses are trying to survive while gridlock in Washington is making it harder for employers to know what is expected in the coming year. Crushing regulations are bringing Nevada's growth industries to a halt. In order for Nevada to experience real long-term recovery, Washington needs to fundamentally change the way it works. Congress needs to stop overspending. Republicans and Democrats should come together to close unfair loopholes and make the Tax Code easier for businesses to understand and to follow. This bill is just one solution to help turn around this housing crisis. It is also an idea that both Republicans and Democrats can support.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill and others into law so that we can help families dealing with foreclosures across the country. As I have said before, moving forward I welcome any and all ideas on how to fix the housing crisis in this country. Nevadans cannot afford to wait any longer.

In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to seriously consider supporting this bill. This legislation can go a long way toward helping families, stabilizing neighborhoods, and stem

any further reduction in home prices. I hope Senators will join me in this endeavor so the President can sign this bill into law and help families who badly need it.

Mr. President, when our Nation's economy was thriving, Nevada was at the heart of the construction boom. Buildings and homes were going up across the State. Neighborhoods were growing, schools were being built at record rates, and the construction industry was flourishing. All of this activity drove investments into other areas of the economy, and for many life was good in Nevada. But when the crisis hit, the highs that my State experienced were matched by the lows that followed.

Nevada now leads the Nation in unemployment with more than 160,000 Nevadans looking for a job. Many can no longer afford their homes. Nevadans are being forced into bankruptcy and facing foreclosure. While Nevada is home to some of the most resilient, hard-working people in the country, almost one-quarter of Nevadans are so frustrated that they have simply given up hope for better employment.

Much of the difficulty Nevadans are experiencing can be traced back to the crisis in my State. The ill effects of the depressed housing market are widespread. High rates of foreclosures are devastating to families, neighborhoods, and entire communities. Families who have been foreclosed upon are already having a hard time paying their bills. Add to those difficulties the time spent finding a new place and the costs of moving and their problems are compounded. Time spent fighting the bank to avoid foreclosure and relocating would likely be better used to find a job or better paying employment.

One of the biggest problems distressed home owners are facing is the programs that have been put into place to help keep people in their homes that have not lived up to expectations. My office spends a great deal of time with Nevadans on the cusp of losing their homes, looking for help, and trying to keep families in their homes. It is truly heart wrenching to hear some of these stories. These homeowners do not want to foreclose, and obviously they do not want to lose their homes.

I recently received this e-mail from a constituent in Reno who is fighting to keep their home. I would like to share that with you.

We hoped for a win-win situation but in the end all we got

was a nightmare in which everyone loses: my sister and I

obviously lose, our neighborhood loses as another house sits

vacant with a rusting metal sign in the front, our State

loses as the housing plight increases again, the bank loses

because they lose a customer who just needed another chance

and, most importantly, democracy loses as the plutocrats roll

over another family.

When families move, their children often have to change schools. So now not only are children forced to move from their homes, they are also leaving behind their schools and their neighborhoods. This kind of destabilization is harmful for families who are already struggling.

Consider the effects of foreclosures on neighborhoods and communities. The widespread availability of housing is flooding the real estate inventory in Nevada. This is forcing down home values and making it difficult for other people to sell their homes as well. In February 2006 the average home in Nevada was valued at $309,000. Today the home values have dropped to $120,000.

Homes left vacant and uncared for can quickly become an eyesore, pushing low home values even lower. This means others in the neighborhood can have a difficult time selling their homes if they want to move. If they find a better job elsewhere, for example, they may not be able to take it because they cannot sell their homes for a reasonable price, if they are able to sell them at all.

Today I am introducing legislation to help reverse these destabilizing forces. The bill I am introducing today, the Keeping Families in their Home Act, will help address large unsold housing inventories and give families a chance to stay in their homes. This bill would allow banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to enter into long- term leases, including an option to purchase properties acquired through foreclosure with the prior homeowner or any individual.

By providing an opportunity for the homeowner to stay in their home, the bank is giving families a chance to regain sound financial footing. This commonsense solution helps provide some much needed stability is available for all families.

While I believe this bill is a good step in the right direction, let me be clear: much more needs to be done to help the housing problems facing Nevada. The programs already in place simply have not done enough and have not lived up to expectations.

I was pleased to see reports of growth in our economy, but people in my State continue to suffer. Back home Nevadans still believe there are no jobs. Small businesses are trying to survive while gridlock in Washington is making it harder for employers to know what is expected in the coming year. Crushing regulations are bringing Nevada's growth industries to a halt. In order for Nevada to experience real long-term recovery, Washington needs to fundamentally change the way it works. Congress needs to stop overspending. Republicans and Democrats should come together to close unfair loopholes and make the Tax Code easier for businesses to understand and to follow. This bill is just one solution to help turn around this housing crisis. It is also an idea that both Republicans and Democrats can support.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill and others into law so that we can help families dealing with foreclosures across the country. As I have said before, moving forward I welcome any and all ideas on how to fix the housing crisis in this country. Nevadans cannot afford to wait any longer.

In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to seriously consider supporting this bill. This legislation can go a long way toward helping families, stabilizing neighborhoods, and stem

any further reduction in home prices. I hope Senators will join me in this endeavor so the President can sign this bill into law and help families who badly need it.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Small Business Start-up Support Act of 2012, legislation that will promote small business growth in my home state of West Virginia, and around the country.

Since the recession, I have met with countless business owners, as well as those who dream of starting a small business. One of the common themes of these conversations is the difficulty these individuals have raising capital, particularly when a business is in its infancy.

This legislation helps those individuals out, by expanding a successful provision of the tax code that allows business owners to deduct up to $5,000 of start-up costs. These start-up costs are things like legal and marketing costs that are necessary to get a business up and running, but put a strain on an already tight budget. My bill would expand this deduction so that individuals can deduct up to $10,000 of start-up costs.

For a business to survive, and thrive, its owner has to do their homework during its infancy. They have to study things like supply chains and distribution models. They have to develop marketing plans. Each of these things has a cost that is incurred before a business makes dollar one. That is when a business owner is most in need of assistance and that is why this credit was first enacted.

A temporary expansion of the start-up deduction was enacted in 2008, and it was one of many actions this Congress took to help business owners weather the recession and keep their doors open. President Obama included a permanent extension of this provision in his ``Startup America'' legislative agenda and I am committed to seeing it become law.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation and thank the chair for allowing me to speak on this issue.