John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Nebraska for his leadership on this issue. He has done a great job advocating on behalf of small businesses, farmers, ranchers, and all the people to be impacted by this onerous provision in the health care bill. I fear this is something we are going to be doing and repeating quite frequently in the years ahead as more Americans find out what is in the Democrats' health care bill. This is egregious because it requires various entities to send suppliers 1099 forms if they engage in business-to-business transactions totaling more than $600 in a single year. While I believe everyone ought to pay their fair share of taxes, I am concerned that the burden of compliance falls not on the tax delinquents but instead on the countless businesses, churches, local governments, and nonprofits that pay their taxes on time and in full or may not even have a tax liability. This means these entities will have less time to fulfill their core missions, whether that is building products, administering to the poor, helping students learn or building local infrastructure. Instead, they are going to be filling out form after form to become compliant with this measure. Because of the heavy compliance costs associated with this measure, its repeal is supported by a wide variety of business organizations and agricultural organizations across the country, including the Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Business, and the American Farm Bureau, to name a few. It is not just national organizations that I have heard from. In numerous constituent meetings across South Dakota, I have heard from the citizens of South Dakota, whether they be farmers, ranchers, small businesses, CPAs, and others, about the effect this measure would have on them, their businesses, and their employees. While this requirement is not set to take effect until next year, I believe it is important we act now to give these types of entities certainty that they will not have to take steps to comply with this measure. I add that our government now has a debt that is approaching $14 trillion, and we need to do everything we can to make sure that debt does not increase. It is a debt that we continue to pile on more and more and hand to the next generation of Americans. Because of that concern, I am pleased this amendment is fully offset by rescinding unspent Federal funds. The Senator from Nebraska came up with a way, through rescinding unspent Federal funds, to offset this amendment in a commonsense way. Of course, it excepts the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs, which will protect our national security interests and those who have served our country. I believe the rescissions he calls for in unspent Federal funds are a good way to make sure this doesn't add to our debt. This amendment perfectly captures that belief, and I think it is a belief that is shared by many of my colleagues in the Senate and by citizens across this country. We need to be focused on bringing down our debt, and we will start doing that by eliminating government spending, not putting new, burdensome requirements on businesses and charities. Unfortunately, there were numerous other provisions in the health care bill and other bills in the past 2 years which shifted the burden onto small businesses and employers. We will have to revisit each of those to ensure they don't slow economic growth and job creation, which is what the people want us to be focused on now. I hope we can take this first step and support the Senator from Nebraska on his amendment, which addresses this critical issue, this egregious provision that puts a costly burden on small businesses, and do it in a way that is fiscally responsible and doesn't add to the debt and burden future generations with more debt. I think the Senator from Nebraska came up with a great solution. I hope colleagues on both sides of the aisle--Republicans and Democrats-- who have heard, as I have, from their constituents will take this very commonsense amendment and pass it with a big margin. Let's get this particular provision in the health care bill repealed and the negative impact it would have on economic growth and job creation in this country. With that, I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Norbert Sebade as he celebrates his retirement after 43 years of extraordinary service in the banking community. Norbert is ending a career marked by outstanding community service and longstanding dedication to economic growth and development in the Black Hills through his numerous leadership roles in the banking field and beyond. Norbert began his banking career in Madison, SD, in the summer of 1967. He quickly distinguished himself as a leader in the industry. Norbert has served as the former President of First Western Bank Wall, former chairman of the board of First Western Bank Custer, vice chairman of the board First Western Bank Sturgis, former board member of South Dakota Bankers Association, SDBA, Insurance Services, former chairman of South Dakota Rural Enterprise, and an appointee to the West River Economic Development Coalition. Additionally, Norbert has focused his attention and energy on the well-being of his communities in other ways, serving as a trustee and former chairman of the Rapid City Regional Hospital, a trustee for the Black Hills State University Foundation in Spearfish, and a board member of the South Dakota Community Foundation. He retires today as the regional president of First Interstate Bank of the Southern Hills. I would like to thank Norbert for his commitment to South Dakota's communities and congratulate him on a well-deserved retirement.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Michael and Emily Beck of Keystone, SD, as my nominees for the 2010 Angels in Adoption Award. Since 1999, the Angels in Adoption program through the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute has honored more than 1,600 individuals, couples, and organizations nationwide for their work in providing children with loving, stable homes. Michael and Emily Beck were high school sweethearts, and decided early in their relationship that they would eventually start a family through adoption. The Becks have done exactly that through the adoption of four children. Tehya, 6, was adopted when she was just a baby, and this year the Beck family grew by three more. In July, Michael and Emily finalized the adoption of their foster children, John, 7, and his sisters, Emily, 5, and Shyanne, 4. Michael and Emily worked diligently to reunite John, Emily, and Shyanne who had been separated in the foster system. I admire the Beck's desire to promote foster care and advocate adoption as a way of life. A significant driving force behind their philosophy on adoption is their belief in the call God has placed upon His family to care for those who have no family to care for them. The Beck's goal is to provide permanency--a stable home and loving family-- for children who can often spend their entire childhood in the foster care system. The Becks also exemplify selfless service to our Nation. Michael and Emily both serve our country through the Army National Guard, and Michael has orders to deploy to the Middle East in 2011. As a father myself, I can speak to the sacrifices that parents willingly make for the well-being of their children. It is apparent through their stories that Michael and Emily make significant sacrifices to provide for their children and find joy in the small accomplishments of parenting. Michael and Emily are committed to providing a promising and loving future for their family. National Adoption Day this year is November 20, 2010, and I can think of no better family to serve as a role model for others who seek to adopt than Michael and Emily Beck, my nominees for the 2010 Angels in Adoption Award.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. I would say to the Senator from Washington through the Chair that I would be happy to take a look at this and run it by my colleagues. Obviously, this is not something I think everybody--there isn't anybody here right now--has had an opportunity to look at. We have tried repeatedly to get some cooperation on an extenders package that includes a number of important tax provisions that have expired already, as well as some that are set to expire, and to do that through offsets that reduce spending as opposed to raising taxes, particularly at a time when the economy is in recession. So as much as I would agree with the Senator from Washington that this is an important issue that needs to be addressed--and it is important to my State--I would have to object until we have an opportunity to look at the amendment that the Senator from Washington put forward.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object if the Senator from Washington would substitute the language which is at the desk which extends all the things she has talked about this evening, as well as provides a 2-year extension for the physician fee issue which is expiring on November 30, but does it with spending reductions as opposed to tax increases. That amendment is at the desk, and if the Senator from Washington would substitute that language for her amendment, I will not object.

Mr. THUNE. I object.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment No. 4676 and ask that it be made pending.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as you know, the budget-appropriations process has broken down. Neither the House nor the Senate passed a budget resolution which provides a basic roadmap for our spending decisions for the next fiscal year. As a result of not having a budget, not a single appropriations bill has been signed into law for the new fiscal year that starts tomorrow at midnight. The House has passed only 2 of its 12 appropriations bills. Unfortunately, this 17-percent batting average, 17-percent success rate surpasses the Senate which has failed to pass any of the 12 appropriations bills. Because of this, we find ourselves considering a measure to provide stopgap funding through December 3 to provide more time for completion of our annual appropriations bills. This delay and lack of floor debate on any of the annual appropriations bills has prevented us from having a much needed debate on the size of government and the amount of money we should be spending. Keep in mind, the overall growth in nondefense spending since 2008 has amounted to roughly 21 percent at a time when inflation has amounted to only 3.5 percent. This excludes any mention of the $814 billion stimulus bill. The continuing resolution before us today seeks to provide funding at the same rate as fiscal year 2010. I will say that I am somewhat pleased to see that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not attempted to add other funding measures to this measure. That is commendable that we at least are going to do a continuing resolution that is relatively speaking clean. It would be my preference to dial back the overall spending level to the fiscal year 2008 levels. I have introduced legislation that will do just that, as have some of my colleagues. Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma has a bill that will do that. Some of my House colleagues have come up with a similar proposal that will do that. I guess I would say to my colleague from Oklahoma who just got up and spoke and mentioned this amendment probably does not go far enough that I do not disagree. Frankly, I would like to see us go back to the 2008 levels. What I am trying to do today is seek the support of my colleagues to at least take a measured step in reducing discretionary spending. My amendment simply seeks to reduce by 5 percent accounts not related to defense, homeland security, or veterans. This would not affect funding for the START treaty or any of the other new provisions in this continuing resolution. On an annualized rate, it would, however, save us about $22 billion compared to the $1.25 trillion score that CBO has provided for the proposed continuing resolution before us today. While this is a modest number and it is not going to solve our debt problems overnight, it is a necessary first step to reduce spending. Since nondefense discretionary spending has grown over 21 percent in the last 2 years--again, at a time when inflation was only 3.5 percent--I think the least we can do is support this reasonable reduction until we return after the election to decide what the remaining funding level should be for the fiscal year 2011 spending bills. To put things into context as my colleague from Oklahoma, who just finished speaking, has done, we are looking at a $13.4 trillion debt. Our deficit for 2010 is estimated to be $1.3 trillion. About 40 cents out of every dollar that is spent in Washington, DC, by the Federal Government now is borrowed. If we look at the last 34 years, there have only been four times--4 years--where all the appropriations bills have been passed on schedule. If we actually did go to a freeze at 2008 spending levels and index it for inflation, it would save $450 billion over 10 years. That makes a lot of sense. As I said, that is legislation I introduced earlier. At a minimum, what we ought to be able to do is say to the American people, at a time when many of their family budgets are shrinking, at a time when they are trying to make ends meet, that we get it. In Washington, DC, we understand: You want our Federal Government to do with a little bit less. What I am proposing is a 5-percent haircut; that is all, 5 percent. That is the least we can do for the American people at a time when, as I said, we are running these $1.3 trillion deficits and have future generations of Americans faced with a massive amount of debt that will be on their backs for generations to come. I hope today we can find the political will in the Senate to take what I think is a very modest, a very measured approach to reduce spending in this continuing resolution by 5 percent. When we come back in December, we can have a full-blown debate about what the size of government should be, which we should be having now and should have been having throughout the course of these last few months when these appropriations bills should have been debated and should have passed a budget. That being said, we do not have a budget. We have not passed appropriations bills. We are where we are. The least we can do, in fairness to the American people, the taxpayers of this country, is send a clear message to them that we are going to do a modest amount, at least a 5-percent reduction over last year's level in this continuing resolution and try in a very small way to get some of the overspending that is occurring in Washington, DC, under control. Mr. President, 21 percent over the past 2 years at a time when the inflation rate was 3.5 percent, meaning that we are spending at the Federal level five to six times the rate of inflation, what the rate of price increases are across this country for most Americans. That is not fair to the American taxpayers. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. The Senator from Massachusetts is here. I believe he wants to speak as well to this issue and to this amendment. I yield as much time to him as he may consume.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if I might just say to the Senator from Massachusetts, again, I appreciate his willingness to come down here and express his support for this amendment. The Senator from South Carolina is here. I expect he will speak too. He has an amendment he would like to offer as well. Most Americans believe government spends too much, especially at a time when their budgets, as I said, have been shrinking. This is the kind of amendment that ought to attract broad bipartisan support. We are going to fund the government with this continuing resolution until December 3 because, again, we have not passed any appropriations bills or a budget--which, by the way is a discussion, perhaps, for another day but one that I think needs to be joined, a debate that needs to be joined, and that is, what are we going to do to fix this broken-down budget process that year after year puts us in a position where, at the very end of the fiscal year, we have to pass a continuing resolution because we have not gotten our work done? That is an incredibly strange way to run a $3.5 trillion enterprise like the Federal Government. I think the American people deserve better. They need a budget process that has some teeth in it, that is binding, that makes sense, where there is an appropriate role for oversight, as the Senator from Oklahoma pointed out--all the agencies where there is duplication and redundancy where we can find savings. We don't do a lot of that around here because we have a budget process that has broken down. I have a bill to reform the budget process which, again, I hope is something we can undertake. It is not going to happen now because we are going to wrap things up here this week, it seems. I would be happy to stay around and talk about budget reform, but I think a lot of my colleagues have other things and other places they want to go. In the meantime, let's at least do something here that will rein in Federal spending and send a very important message and signal to the American people, who have been hurting: The Federal Government here in Washington doesn't live in a bubble, we actually get it, we are listening to the voices of the American people, and we can find a mere 5 percent in our Federal budget, this massive Federal budget, and demonstrate we are willing to tighten our belt a little bit, consistent with what is happening to the American people and the experience they are having in this economic downturn. I reserve the remainder of my time. I do not know how much time I have left, but I reserve the remainder of my time on this amendment.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, before the Senator from Massachusetts yields the floor, will he yield for a question?

Mr. THUNE. I ask the Senator from Massachusetts if he is hearing from his constituents back in his State the same message I hear from my constituents in South Dakota; that is, we are experiencing economic difficulties. In this economic downturn, many people lost jobs, many had a loss of income, many family budgets are being squeezed. Does not the Senator from Massachusetts hear the same thing from his constituents I hear from South Dakotans; that is, we want the Federal Government to lead by example, and rather than growing at four, five, six times the rate of inflation, actually take some steps to get its spending under control in the same fashion, the same way we are having to do it? That is what I hear from people in South Dakota. They are tired. They think the Federal Government is growing too fast, has gotten too big. They think it is a runaway train, especially when it is running $1.3 trillion annual deficits. I think 5 percent on this particular continuing resolution, this funding bill is a modest amount that at least most of my constituents would think is reasonable. I ask the Senator from Massachusetts if he thinks his constituents believe this Federal Government could live with 5 percent less at a time when they are living with a lot less in many circumstances?

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 3rd Recon Association. The 3rd Recon Association is a nonprofit veteran's organization made up of marines and Navy corpsmen who served in the 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion, in dedication to their involvement in the Republic of Vietnam from 1961 through 1971. The 3rd Recon Association was formed to honor the brotherhood they forged in Vietnam and to remember those who gave the ultimate sacrifice. Today I not only honor the dedication and sacrifice of these noble Americans, but also commemorate their association's 2010 Reunion, to be held October 13-17, in Lead/Deadwood, SD. ``Swift, Silent, and Deadwood'' is an event properly named after the reconnaissance motto ``Celer-Silens-Mortalis'': ``Swift-Silent-Deadly.'' This 4 day event will feature memorial services and social events, along with company and auxiliary meetings. I voice my most heartfelt and sincere thanks to the members of the 3rd Recon Association for their sacrifice and service to our country. I would like to welcome them to the great State of South Dakota, and wish them the best for their 2010 reunion and in all future endeavors.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the South Dakota Air National Guard's 114th Fighter Wing. This elite group has been awarded the National Guard Bureau's Maj. Gen. Winston P. Wilson trophy, honoring them as the best Air National Guard fighter unit in the Nation. I am proud that the 114th ``Fightin' Lobos'' have brought this great honor back to South Dakota, having also won it in 1981, 1983, and 2007. The National Bureau's Maj. Gen. Winston P. Wilson trophy is given to the most outstanding unit equipped with jet fighter or reconnaissance aircraft. The award is named for a former chief of the National Guard Bureau credited with ensuring readiness of Guard units to join regular forces on overseas missions. The squadron was formed in 1946, when Joseph J. ``Joe'' Foss, a Medal of Honor winner and Marine Ace, was appointed to form a South Dakota Air National Guard squadron to help recruit and train flight crews. Since then, the unit has served as part of the Air Expeditionary Force, and actively supported Operation Noble Eagle, Operations Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, and the global war on terrorism. In times of local crisis, the squadron has lent its men and women to respond to blizzards, floods, fires, and tornados, remaining ``Proud, Prepared, and Professional'' in its committed service to state and country. Today I give great thanks to the men and women of the 114th ``Fightin' Lobos'' for being named the top fighter unit in the nation and for their outstanding service to the great State of South Dakota and the United States of America.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Rusty Toupal, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Rusty is a graduate of Wolsey High School in Wolsey, SD. Currently he is attending South Dakota State University where he is majoring in consumer Affairs. He has also been a member of the Army National Guard for 7 years and has completed a deployment to Iraq. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Rusty for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. I would say to the Senator, through the Chair, one of the things I think is hurting business and economic development in this country is a lack of certainty.

Mr. THUNE. I would be happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I also want to add my support for the FAA reauthorization bill which the Senator from North Dakota talked about. It is important that we get this done. We have been operating without an authorization since 2007. We had a bill pass through the Senate by a vote of 93 to 0 back in March, and this is something that needs to be done. So I hope we can get floor time scheduled for this and that we can get on that bill, get a conference report, and get it through and enacted because there are a number of important improvements that need to occur, and that legislation provides for that to happen. It has been kicking around here for way too long, so I hope we can get to that bill and quit having to do these month-to-month or--in this case, as it ends up being--the end-of-the-year extensions, which keeps us from doing what we need to do, and that is get a long-term reauthorization in place that provides some certainty and predictability for the users of aviation in this country.

Mr. THUNE. I didn't know the precise number, Mr. President. I will say to my colleague from Montana if it is not, in fact, 130--and I will take his word for that--I know it is a lot. There are lots of provisions in law that need to be extended and lots of communities in this country that depend on that.

Mr. THUNE. If I might continue, Mr. President, let me just say with regard to the observations of the Senator from Montana that I couldn't agree more that we need to get these things done, and we need to provide some long-term certainty for those in this country who rely upon decisions that come out of the Congress. I know the Senator from Montana has offered an extenders bill that would provide at least some near-term relief for many of these provisions of law that expire and that impact so many across this country. I would say through the Chair to my colleague from Montana that I agree with his premise. I think it comes down to how we go about doing that. The Senator from Montana has offered up a proposal that would extend many of these expiring tax provisions, but he does it in a way that raises taxes. I have a proposal I offered earlier in response to the majority leader's unanimous consent request to move a tax extenders bill that would substitute my bill for that one because my bill does all the same things the Senator from Montana wants to accomplish. But it does it with spending reductions--reducing spending--as opposed to raising taxes. There are a number of things my bill would do, one of which is to extend the $215 million tax break for teachers to purchase books, supplies, computer equipment, and other materials for the classroom. It also includes the biodiesel tax credit, which supports our Nation's budding biodiesel industry. It provides $854 million in tax relief for these biodiesel manufacturers to invest in our clean energy future. The bill reinstates the State and local sales tax deduction, which provides $1.8 billion in tax relief to residents of States such as South Dakota who pay State and local sales taxes but are not allowed to deduct these taxes from their Federal income taxes. It also allows for the deduction of State and local property taxes, which saves taxpayers $1.5 billion as well. My bill reinstates the research and development tax credit, which the President has supported for 2010. This important tax credit incentivizes important research and development across the country. It also provides a number of needed tax credits for businesses to invest and create jobs, including refundable AMT credits for corporations, and it provides a generous doc fix. One of the things we talk about around here is the doc fix. On the doc fix, we continue to go month to month or quarter to quarter. Now we are good to the end of November. But at the end of November we are going to be dealing with this issue again. If we do not, physicians across the country are going to experience a significant and dramatic pay reduction, which will impair their ability to serve patients across this country who depend upon Medicare. My doc fix provides a 2-percent increase for 2011 and another 2- percent increase for 2012. The current doc fix, as I said, is set to expire later this year, on November 30. The way I do this is I fully offset this by spending cuts, including medical malpractice reform, a freeze on Federal salaries, reductions in wasteful, duplicative, and excessive government spending, rescinding unspent Federal funds including the stimulus, an expansion of the affordability exception to the individual mandate that was included in the recently passed health care reform bill and by disposing of unused and unneeded Federal property. I also add in my proposal a new deficit reduction trust fund, where rescinded balances and money saved through this amendment will be deposited for the purposes of paying down the Federal debt. It does not include job-killing tax hikes on carried interest income, which would discourage investment and hurt our Nation's productivity, and does not include a 70-cent-per-barrel increase, a tax hike on oil, nor does it double count the revenues from that tax by saying it both offsets the cost to the bill and also adds money to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. I concur entirely with the premise the Senator from Montana was addressing, that we need to get these things extended. We need to provide some permanence. But there is a difference in the approach on how we deal with that. The Senator from Montana proposed one way, I proposed another. I obviously would love to get a vote on this proposal because I think what we ought to be focused on right now, rather than raising taxes at a time when we have a very fragile economy in an economic downturn and making it more difficult for businesses to create jobs, that we ought to be looking at what we can do to reduce spending in our Federal budget and offset the cost of these extenders and pay for this 2-year extension of the doc fix, which also provides for a modest increase, not the significant reduction they are going to experience otherwise. We do this through spending reductions in the Federal budget. I hope we get an opportunity to vote on this. I yield my time.

Mr. THUNE. I would say, through the Chair, to my colleague, I think it is important that this Senate act in a way that provides some certainty and predictability for people in this country who depend upon public policy coming out of here that has some permanence to it. Right now, we continue to act on short-term extensions in so many different areas. So I don't dispute at all the statement of the Senator from Montana.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I say in response to that, that is absolutely true. Around here I think, traditionally, tax extenders have been something both sides have worked on. Generally, it tends to be kind of noncontroversial. I think our side is very open to discussions and would welcome an opportunity to sit down with the majority and the Senator from Montana and others, whoever they feel necessary, to work something out. We stand ready and willing to have that discussion and hopefully to get this thing put behind us.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I object.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, will the Senator from Washington modify her request to substitute a Thune amendment regarding extenders, the text of which is at the desk?

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the legislation before us is the small business bill, which includes a number of provisions. I have stated before in comments on the floor that there are a number of concerns I have about the $30 billion lending fund that is included in what is now the Baucus-Landrieu substitute amendment to the small business bill. I simply say, in reaction to the comments of the Senator from Illinois, because a suggestion was made that somehow Republicans were trying to block this bill, I think everybody should know this is being debated under a procedure that is very unique. The Democratic leader filled the tree, which blocks Republicans from offering amendments. So it should come as no surprise that the minority party would react negatively to not being able to have any of their amendments considered or voted on in a debate about legislation such as a small business bill, which we happen to think is very important. The suggestion was made by the Senator from Illinois that, again, somehow Republicans are being resistant to or blocking this, I think, misses the broader point, which is that there are a number of us who have amendments we would like to offer to try to improve the bill and make it better. But the majority party has filled the tree, and that means, in layman's terms, that they are not going to allow any amendments. This is being considered under a procedure that doesn't allow us to offer amendments, and I have a couple that are filed at the desk. If I were permitted to do so, I would offer them. I think they address what are some of the fundamental shortcomings in this underlying legislation. I don't think we ought to be using taxpayer dollars to establish this new fund--this $30 billion lending fund or what I like to refer to as ``TARP III''--and there is a section 103 of the substitute amendment that creates this small business lending fund. Part of that section allows a bank that received TARP funds to refinance into the newly created small business lending fund. Obviously, there are advantages to this refinancing because this new lending fund was created specifically to avoid the negative association with TARP. While I have serious concerns with allowing these banks to refinance into this new program, at least the legislation prevents those banks that are behind in dividend payments from refinancing into this new fund. I would give the underlying legislation credit in that regard. What the legislation fails to do, however, is provide a similar prohibition on those banks that are behind in their TARP payments from applying to receive even more capital from the Treasury to this new fund. They can't refinance, but they can get more funds from the Treasury, even though they are delinquent in their payments already to the TARP fund. According to the most recent report, on July 21, 2010, there were 105 TARP recipients who took funds through the Capital Purchase Program that missed their scheduled dividend payment. That is $157.7 million in outstanding obligations to the Treasury through TARP. Keep in mind, there were over 70 banks under $10 billion in assets that have received TARP funds through the Capital Purchase Program. Of the six largest banks over $10 billion, all but one have paid back their obligation. Of the 701 banks under $10 billion in assets, there are 625 banks with outstanding investments. If you are a bank that took money from TARP and are behind in what you owe the taxpayers, you should not be allowed to take more money from the Treasury. This is a major loophole in this legislation. My amendment, No. 4614, would make sure those banks that are nonpaying TARP recipients would not have access to more capital through this fund. A bank would not extend a second loan to a customer who is behind in their first loan. Why wouldn't we, as the American taxpayers, provide the same restrictions when it comes to a loan through the Treasury? It seems to me that is a fairly straightforward understanding that we ought to have. If you are delinquent on your first loan, you should not be able to get a second one. As I said before, that is a shortcoming in this legislation. My amendment would correct that. I think this is an important safeguard that ought to be included. Having said that, that is not enough to make this legislation stronger and better. At the end of the day, I still believe the small business lending fund will be a reincarnation of TARP. This is not something I can support. While I am opposed to the inclusion of this fund in this small business bill, I am particularly concerned that we are not adequately measuring the cost of this provision. When I say that, I point out that the CBO, Congressional Budget Office, scored the small business lending fund, and when they did that, the analysts produced two estimates, which is a rare departure from their standard procedure. One cost estimate was based on a cash-basis method of cost accounting. The other was based on fair market value. The former estimated that the small business lending fund would save taxpayers $1.1 billion over 10 years. That is using the cash-basis accounting method that I mentioned earlier. The fair market value estimate suggested this fund would result in a $6.2 billion net loss in taxpayer money over that same period. You have a $7.3 billion difference on a $30 billion fund, and I think that is due to the inadequacies in the cash-basis method of accounting, which does not include adjustments for market risk. That is why I think the CBO submitted two different cost estimates, which, as I said, is a sort of departure from their common practice. To quote the Congressional Budget Office--and this is important: . . . cost estimates made under the Federal Credit Reform Act [which is what we use in terms of making estimates of what things will cost] do not provide a comprehensive measure of the cost to taxpayers primarily because the Federal Credit Reform Act methodology does not include costs that stem from certain risks in lending--risks that private investors would require compensation to bear. CBO goes on to say: In particular . . . it does not recognize a cost for the risk that losses from defaults will be higher during periods of market stress when resources are scarce and most valuable. That is from the Congressional Budget Office pointing out the flaws in the traditional way in which the cost of a program such as this would be accounted for. Phrased differently, with this fund taxpayers are assuming an uncompensated level of risk as lenders of last resort, and this risk is not accounted for in the cash-basis cost estimate. While I believe the movement of the Federal Government to ownership of private companies in and of itself is a disturbing trend and is one that needs to be stopped and rolled back rather than promoted in advance, it is critically important that these programs include a proper accounting of their costs--something that is lacking in this small business bill. What my amendment No. 4610 would do is require the Congressional Budget Office to score Federal Government purchases of equity purchases or capital investments on a fair-value basis that considers market risk. In other words, it would use the convention that was used in the original TARP bill that was passed back in 2008. This change would be consistent with what private companies are doing in terms of moving toward a fair-value method of accounting because of its superiority to a cash-basis method of accounting. This is not the first time this more accurate method of scoring would have been used by the Congressional Budget Office. As I said, when the original TARP program first moved through Congress, it included an important provision that the cost of the bill be calculated using a discount rate adjusted for market risk. Yet, despite all the similarities between this bill we are debating today and TARP, this bill does not have any such provision. Because of this, many Senators and Members of Congress believe this bill will save money for the taxpayers, when, in fact, the opposite is true. If you use the fair- value method of accounting, as I said earlier, according to the Congressional Budget Office, this provision--this $30 billion mini-TARP program--has a net cost of $6.2 billion as opposed to a savings of $1.1 billion if you use the cash method of accounting. The most comprehensive estimate we have from the CBO is that the $6.2 billion will be more reflective of the actual cost, but because the cash-basis method of accounting is used, this cost is not going to be added to the pay-go scorecard. One of the most important duties we have as Senators and Members of Congress is to be vigilant in watching the taxpayers' money and how it gets spent. This duty has taken on increased importance as the Federal Government and Federal spending has exploded and our national debt has now surpassed $13 trillion. A quick point on that point. Before I got up to speak, the Senator from Illinois was talking about the Federal debt. Of course, as is typically the case around here, when one of my Democratic colleagues gets up, they think that all that happened is all Bush's fault. Anything bad in America today, it is Bush's fault. What he did not mention, of course, is the fact that on January 2007, the Democrats took control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Since that time, they have been writing the budgets. We all know that under the Constitution, the President cannot appropriate a single dime. It is Congress that appropriates money. Since January of 2007, it has been the Democrats who have been writing the budgets around here. Even if you give them the benefit of the doubt and say when the President came to office in January 2009 and you measure it from that point forward to where we are today, we have added almost $3 trillion to the Federal debt--almost $3 trillion since January of 2009 when this President took office. If you were breaking that down into terms people can understand, if you are a child under the age of 18 in America today, when the President took office in January of 2009, the debt for a young person under the age of 18 was $85,000. Today, it is $114,000. Since this President has taken office, the share of the Federal debt for an average American under the age of 18 has increased by $29,000. By the year 2016, that number will be $196,000. Mr. President, do you want to know why? Because the debt is projected to explode over this next decade. In fact, it took 232 years and 43 Presidents to rack up the first $5.8 trillion in debt. In the next 5 years, we are going to double that and triple it under the President's budget. I will be the first to admit that Republicans are not perfect, and when we were in charge of the Congress, there were certainly things we should have done better in terms of getting our fiscal house in order in Washington. But to say for a moment, as the Senator from Illinois tried to imply when he was on the floor, that somehow this was a function or a problem that was created by the Republicans or somehow by Bush is just absolutely inconsistent with the facts. As I said, Democrats took control of this Chamber in January 2007. The President became President of the United States in January 2009. Since January 2009, the Federal debt has grown $3 trillion. There is a whole lot of spending going on around here that is being routinely ignored by Members on the other side when they get up to speak, such as a $1 trillion stimulus bill that was designed to keep unemployment under 8 percent. We all know unemployment today is well north of 9 percent. In fact, with no end in sight, the amount of spending and borrowing that continues today, in my view, puts in jeopardy the opportunity for this economy to recover and begin to create jobs, which is what all of us want to see happen. But when you spend $1 trillion and borrow it and you hand the bill to your children and grandchildren, when you create a massive new expansion of health care which, when fully implemented, will cost the taxpayers $3.2 trillion and at every turn continue to spend more and more, at some point you have to say, when you are in a hole, you ought to quit digging. That is precisely where we are. We are in a deep, deep hole. The first rule should be: do no harm. When it comes to spending and the debt, the administration and the current leadership of this Congress have taken that to a whole new level. That is a comment about this debt and one of the reasons this legislation is so important and why it is important that we get it right in terms of accounting for the true costs of the underlying bill. It is my belief that the fair-value method of accounting provides a much more accurate, much more transparent, and much more comprehensive way of accounting for the costs and benefits of these programs. To ignore the risks these programs pose to the hard-earned money of American taxpayers is simply to stick our heads in the sand and hope. This is not a responsible strategy for governing, and I hope my colleagues will work with me to update this outdated method of scoring with regard to this $30 billion mini-TARP that is included in the small business bill. While I have many concerns with this bill, some of which I just outlined, we are debating what I think was a well-intended bill with a lot of good provisions and many I support. There are a number of provisions in this bill which, left to themselves, I think will be good. I am a member of the Small Business Committee. We made adjustments in the small business lending program, increasing loan sizes and guarantees for SBA 7(a) and 504 loans and temporarily reducing the fees for some of those loans. It updates SBA's very outdated size standards and provides much needed tax relief through bonus depreciation, section 179 expensing, and allowing business credits against the alternative minimum tax. There are provisions in this bill that I think do get at providing assistance to small businesses, but I cannot support a new program that puts more taxpayer dollars at risk. The American taxpayer is expected today--this is with the most recent estimate--to lose $66 billion thanks to the original Troubled Asset Relief Program, the TARP, and this current legislation reincarnates that TARP through a $30 billion Treasury fund that will be used to inject capital into banks that are then directed to lend to small businesses. Treasury and the administration have tried various programs through TARP to increase small business lending without any success, mostly because of a lack of interest on the part of the banks. Again, this lack of interest is likely attributed to the fact that many banks recognize the negative stigma that accompanies accepting TARP money, and that is why I think the Democrats and the administration are trying to create a new fund and call it something other than TARP. The actual language in this amendment provides assurance to banks that by accepting this money, they would not be TARP recipients. That is actually specified in here because they want to get rid of the original stigma that comes with the original TARP. In their talking points, even the White House admits the ``program would be separate and distinct from TARP to encourage participation.'' Essentially, what they are saying is, We are not going to call it TARP. We are going to call it something different. If we call it TARP, banks will not participate, and we want to encourage banks to participate. The administration goes on to say that ``the administration's proposal would encourage broader participation by banks, as they would not face TARP restrictions.'' These ``restrictions'' the White House is referring to include limits on executive compensation and warrant requirements--many of the restrictions included in the original TARP program. I wish to point out for the benefit of my colleagues that Elizabeth Warren, who serves as the chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel, has criticized the manner in which TARP funds have been provided to smaller banks--15 percent of which cannot even make payments to the Treasury regarding TARP funding they received. The new fund relies on the same problematic lending structure that has been deemed a failure under TARP. I wish to quote what this Congressional Oversight Panel said about the Small Business Lending Fund. The small business lending fund prospects are far from certain. The small business lending fund also raises questions about whether, in light of the Capital Purchase Program's-- That was the program under the main TARP-- poor performance in improving credit access, any capital infusion program can successfully jump-start small business lending. It goes on to say: Banks are subject to a stigma for accepting government money no matter the name of the program. The small business lending fund looks uncomfortably similar to the TARP. Like the Capital Purchase Program-- In the original TARP--I continue to quote from the Congressional Oversight Panel's report-- the small business lending fund injects capital into banks, assuming that an improved capital position will increase lending--despite the lack of evidence that the Capital Purchase Program-- Again, the original TARP-- did so. This lending fund does not affect the capital issues affecting banks ``nor any of the issues affecting small business credit demand.'' It goes on to say that such a fund ``runs the risk of creating moral hazard by encouraging banks to make loans to borrowers who are not creditworthy.'' That is all from the Congressional Oversight Panel's report about the very Small Business Lending Fund--the concept we are debating as part of the small business bill. I am ready to close, but the point I am trying to underscore with this amendment is that the same flawed structure for repayment that is not working for small banks under the current TARP is included in the legislation before the Senate. Knowing this, we are purposefully removing some of the safeguards created through the original TARP, allowing TARP recipients who are behind in their payments--people who are delinquent in their payments--to participate in the new program and get even more funding under this new mini-TARP program. I believe there are more responsible methods to support our small businesses than through a $30 billion Treasury line of credit for banks. Let's focus on the programs we know work. As I said, some of them are included in this bill, such as the SBA 7(a) and 504 loan programs. Let's not create a new Treasury fund and hope somehow in the end it is going to pay off. History has proven otherwise. We all know small businesses are the economic growth engine in our economy. They are what keeps this economy growing. Two-thirds or three- quarters of the jobs in our economy are created by small businesses. Despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a stimulus bill, the Nation's unemployment rate is still at 9.5 percent. How many more billions are we going to have to spend before we realize that might not be the correct solution to this problem? Let's pass a good bill that helps small businesses grow and prosper, not another version of a failed TARP program. I think we, as Members, ought to be able, in the context of this legislation, to offer amendments. These two amendments I have spoken to this morning are examples of amendments that would make this bill stronger and that we are being blocked from offering because of the procedure under which the leader has determined this bill ought to be considered. That is unfortunate. It goes against the very nature of the Senate, which is a place that tends to be free-flowing and open to debate and where all Members have an opportunity to speak to legislation and to get their amendments voted on. That has not been the case here. And I regret that, but we are where we are. We are going to have a vote later, and I hope my colleagues will vote to defeat this bill. I thank the Presiding Officer.