{ "id": "R42045", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "R", "number": "R42045", "active": true, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov, EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "title": "The Small Business Lending Fund", "retrieved": "2021-05-27T04:03:14.608259", "id": "R42045_91_2021-05-05", "formats": [ { "filename": "files/2021-05-05_R42045_654491eed1ab6e93128590f1911f06ea35917e55.pdf", "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42045/91", "sha1": "654491eed1ab6e93128590f1911f06ea35917e55" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2021-05-05_R42045_654491eed1ab6e93128590f1911f06ea35917e55.html" } ], "date": "2021-05-05", "summary": null, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "typeId": "R", "active": true, "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R42045", "type": "CRS Report" }, { "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "title": "The Small Business Lending Fund", "retrieved": "2021-05-27T04:03:14.607032", "id": "R42045_89_2020-11-05", "formats": [ { "filename": "files/2020-11-05_R42045_faef7213fc89b367a08c7caf8e83da7ea7c090ec.pdf", "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42045/89", "sha1": "faef7213fc89b367a08c7caf8e83da7ea7c090ec" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2020-11-05_R42045_faef7213fc89b367a08c7caf8e83da7ea7c090ec.html" } ], "date": "2020-11-05", "summary": null, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "typeId": "R", "active": true, "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R42045", "type": "CRS Report" }, { "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "title": "The Small Business Lending Fund", "retrieved": "2021-05-27T04:03:14.605795", "id": "R42045_87_2020-06-18", "formats": [ { "filename": "files/2020-06-18_R42045_a16fabbc0fc07985f17fa7e7d0e4b20314a8a5b7.pdf", "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42045/87", "sha1": "a16fabbc0fc07985f17fa7e7d0e4b20314a8a5b7" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2020-06-18_R42045_a16fabbc0fc07985f17fa7e7d0e4b20314a8a5b7.html" } ], "date": "2020-06-18", "summary": null, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "typeId": "R", "active": true, "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R42045", "type": "CRS Report" }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 606697, "date": "2019-10-25", "retrieved": "2019-10-25T22:11:56.830450", "title": "The Small Business Lending Fund", "summary": "Congressional interest in small business access to capital has increased in recent years because of concerns that small businesses might be prevented from accessing sufficient capital to enable them to start, continue, or expand operations and create jobs. Some have argued that the federal government should provide additional resources to assist small businesses. Others worry about the long-term adverse economic effects of spending programs that increase the federal deficit. They advocate business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint as the best means to assist small businesses and create jobs.\nSeveral laws were enacted during the 111th Congress to enhance small business access to capital. For example,\nP.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provided the Small Business Administration (SBA) an additional $730 million, including funding to temporarily subsidize SBA fees and increase the 7(a) loan guaranty program\u2019s maximum loan guaranty percentage to 90%. \nP.L. 111-240, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF), in which $4 billion was issued, to encourage community banks with less than $10 billion in assets to increase their lending to small businesses. It also authorized a $1.5 billion State Small Business Credit Initiative to provide funding to participating states with small business capital access programs, numerous changes to the SBA\u2019s loan guaranty and contracting programs, funding to continue the SBA\u2019s fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through December 31, 2010, and about $12 billion in tax relief for small businesses.\nP.L. 111-322, the Continuing Appropriations and Surface Transportation Extensions Act, 2011, authorized the SBA to continue its fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through March 4, 2011, or until available funding was exhausted, which occurred on January 3, 2011.\nThis report focuses on the SBLF. It opens with a discussion of the supply and demand for small business loans. The SBLF\u2019s advocates claimed the SBLF was needed to enhance the supply of small business loans. The report then examines other arguments presented both for and against the program. Advocates argued that the SBLF would increase lending to small businesses and, in turn, create jobs. Opponents contended that the SBLF could lose money, lacked sufficient oversight provisions, did not require lenders to increase their lending to small businesses, could serve as a vehicle for Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) recipients to effectively refinance their TARP loans on more favorable terms with little or no resulting benefit for small businesses, and could encourage a failing lender to make even riskier loans to avoid higher dividend payments. \nThe report concludes with an examination of the program\u2019s implementation and a discussion of bills introduced to amend the SBLF. For example, during the 112th Congress, S. 681, the Greater Accountability in the Lending Fund Act of 2011, would have limited the program\u2019s authority to 15 years from enactment and prohibited TARP recipients from participating in the program. H.R. 2807, the Small Business Leg-Up Act of 2011, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund \u201cto increase the availability of credit for small businesses.\u201d H.R. 3147, the Small Business Lending Extension Act, would have extended the Department of the Treasury\u2019s investment authority from one year to two years. During the 113th Congress, H.R. 2474, the Community Lending and Small Business Jobs Act of 2013, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42045", "sha1": "d7e5187132368d2f121b5b6c8885beb0020d17ee", "filename": "files/20191025_R42045_d7e5187132368d2f121b5b6c8885beb0020d17ee.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R42045_files&id=/0.png": "files/20191025_R42045_images_c1ff634038f59847ca65a4f13d0dafa00b78bf73.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R42045_files&id=/1.png": "files/20191025_R42045_images_b38de8463ca53b999030e2ed915e54ee4bd40261.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42045", "sha1": "934be2621bc71944d840fe94a624b485b0714882", "filename": "files/20191025_R42045_934be2621bc71944d840fe94a624b485b0714882.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4832, "name": "Small Business" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 603305, "date": "2019-07-31", "retrieved": "2019-08-12T22:12:35.896616", "title": "The Small Business Lending Fund", "summary": "Congressional interest in small business access to capital has increased in recent years because of concerns that small businesses might be prevented from accessing sufficient capital to enable them to start, continue, or expand operations and create jobs. Some have argued that the federal government should provide additional resources to assist small businesses. Others worry about the long-term adverse economic effects of spending programs that increase the federal deficit. They advocate business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint as the best means to assist small businesses and create jobs.\nSeveral laws were enacted during the 111th Congress to enhance small business access to capital. For example,\nP.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provided the Small Business Administration (SBA) an additional $730 million, including funding to temporarily subsidize SBA fees and increase the 7(a) loan guaranty program\u2019s maximum loan guaranty percentage to 90%. \nP.L. 111-240, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF), in which $4.0 billion was issued, to encourage community banks with less than $10 billion in assets to increase their lending to small businesses. It also authorized a $1.5 billion State Small Business Credit Initiative to provide funding to participating states with small business capital access programs, numerous changes to the SBA\u2019s loan guaranty and contracting programs, funding to continue the SBA\u2019s fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through December 31, 2010, and about $12 billion in tax relief for small businesses.\nP.L. 111-322, the Continuing Appropriations and Surface Transportation Extensions Act, 2011, authorized the SBA to continue its fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through March 4, 2011, or until available funding was exhausted, which occurred on January 3, 2011.\nThis report focuses on the SBLF. It opens with a discussion of the supply and demand for small business loans. The SBLF\u2019s advocates claimed the SBLF was needed to enhance the supply of small business loans. The report then examines other arguments presented both for and against the program. Advocates argued that the SBLF would increase lending to small businesses and, in turn, create jobs. Opponents contended that the SBLF could lose money, lacked sufficient oversight provisions, did not require lenders to increase their lending to small businesses, could serve as a vehicle for Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) recipients to effectively refinance their TARP loans on more favorable terms with little or no resulting benefit for small businesses, and could encourage a failing lender to make even riskier loans to avoid higher dividend payments. \nThe report concludes with an examination of the program\u2019s implementation and a discussion of bills introduced to amend the SBLF. For example, during the 112th Congress, S. 681, the Greater Accountability in the Lending Fund Act of 2011, would have limited the program\u2019s authority to 15 years from enactment and prohibited TARP recipients from participating in the program. H.R. 2807, the Small Business Leg-Up Act of 2011, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund \u201cto increase the availability of credit for small businesses.\u201d H.R. 3147, the Small Business Lending Extension Act, would have extended the Department of the Treasury\u2019s investment authority from one year to two years. During the 113th Congress, H.R. 2474, the Community Lending and Small Business Jobs Act of 2013, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42045", "sha1": "01a7202e5cf50441df015def20e828a6257023c6", "filename": "files/20190731_R42045_01a7202e5cf50441df015def20e828a6257023c6.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R42045_files&id=/0.png": "files/20190731_R42045_images_3be1f7d5f007d4e21a2c07819c6133f8af3d846f.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R42045_files&id=/1.png": "files/20190731_R42045_images_f19c053cd0e4e8c2b6e19a62a7cc32845795f705.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42045", "sha1": "2018000d94f5c5568e4cbcc609d9b0d2fd392ef5", "filename": "files/20190731_R42045_2018000d94f5c5568e4cbcc609d9b0d2fd392ef5.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4832, "name": "Small Business" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 596262, "date": "2019-04-12", "retrieved": "2019-04-17T13:41:16.691343", "title": "The Small Business Lending Fund", "summary": "Congressional interest in small business access to capital has increased in recent years because of concerns that small businesses might be prevented from accessing sufficient capital to enable them to start, continue, or expand operations and create jobs. Some have argued that the federal government should provide additional resources to assist small businesses. Others worry about the long-term adverse economic effects of spending programs that increase the federal deficit. They advocate business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint as the best means to assist small businesses and create jobs.\nSeveral laws were enacted during the 111th Congress to enhance small business access to capital. For example,\nP.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provided the Small Business Administration (SBA) an additional $730 million, including funding to temporarily subsidize SBA fees and increase the 7(a) loan guaranty program\u2019s maximum loan guaranty percentage to 90%. \nP.L. 111-240, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF), in which $4.0 billion was issued, to encourage community banks with less than $10 billion in assets to increase their lending to small businesses. It also authorized a $1.5 billion State Small Business Credit Initiative to provide funding to participating states with small business capital access programs, numerous changes to the SBA\u2019s loan guaranty and contracting programs, funding to continue the SBA\u2019s fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through December 31, 2010, and about $12 billion in tax relief for small businesses.\nP.L. 111-322, the Continuing Appropriations and Surface Transportation Extensions Act, 2011, authorized the SBA to continue its fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through March 4, 2011, or until available funding was exhausted, which occurred on January 3, 2011.\nThis report focuses on the SBLF. It opens with a discussion of the supply and demand for small business loans. The SBLF\u2019s advocates claimed the SBLF was needed to enhance the supply of small business loans. The report then examines other arguments presented both for and against the program. Advocates argued that the SBLF would increase lending to small businesses and, in turn, create jobs. Opponents contended that the SBLF could lose money, lacked sufficient oversight provisions, did not require lenders to increase their lending to small businesses, could serve as a vehicle for Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) recipients to effectively refinance their TARP loans on more favorable terms with little or no resulting benefit for small businesses, and could encourage a failing lender to make even riskier loans to avoid higher dividend payments. \nThe report concludes with an examination of the program\u2019s implementation and a discussion of bills introduced to amend the SBLF. For example, during the 112th Congress, S. 681, the Greater Accountability in the Lending Fund Act of 2011, would have limited the program\u2019s authority to 15 years from enactment and prohibited TARP recipients from participating in the program. H.R. 2807, the Small Business Leg-Up Act of 2011, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund \u201cto increase the availability of credit for small businesses.\u201d H.R. 3147, the Small Business Lending Extension Act, would have extended the Department of the Treasury\u2019s investment authority from one year to two years. During the 113th Congress, H.R. 2474, the Community Lending and Small Business Jobs Act of 2013, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42045", "sha1": "a16781fcf44a341ba2aaf70e619866fa72c0ed77", "filename": "files/20190412_R42045_a16781fcf44a341ba2aaf70e619866fa72c0ed77.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R42045_files&id=/0.png": "files/20190412_R42045_images_5aca88e7494b72be41c33673c74deed3ef215adf.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R42045_files&id=/1.png": "files/20190412_R42045_images_f19c053cd0e4e8c2b6e19a62a7cc32845795f705.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42045", "sha1": "b436841284b1bfa23b8fba714eae63244cc85f3e", "filename": "files/20190412_R42045_b436841284b1bfa23b8fba714eae63244cc85f3e.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4832, "name": "Small Business" } ] }, { "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "title": "The Small Business Lending Fund", "retrieved": "2021-05-27T04:03:14.601736", "id": "R42045_80_2019-02-07", "formats": [ { "filename": "files/2019-02-07_R42045_8d84660069c7051a9b7771406fee250585aadc6a.pdf", "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42045/80", "sha1": "8d84660069c7051a9b7771406fee250585aadc6a" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2019-02-07_R42045_8d84660069c7051a9b7771406fee250585aadc6a.html" } ], "date": "2019-02-07", "summary": null, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "typeId": "R", "active": true, "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R42045", "type": "CRS Report" }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 587210, "date": "2018-10-30", "retrieved": "2018-11-02T13:13:47.562228", "title": "The Small Business Lending Fund", "summary": "Congressional interest in small business access to capital has increased in recent years because of concerns that small businesses might be prevented from accessing sufficient capital to enable them to start, continue, or expand operations and create jobs. Some have argued that the federal government should provide additional resources to assist small businesses. Others worry about the long-term adverse economic effects of spending programs that increase the federal deficit. They advocate business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint as the best means to assist small businesses and create jobs.\nSeveral laws were enacted during the 111th Congress to enhance small business access to capital. For example,\nP.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provided the Small Business Administration (SBA) an additional $730 million, including funding to temporarily subsidize SBA fees and increase the 7(a) loan guaranty program\u2019s maximum loan guaranty percentage to 90%. \nP.L. 111-240, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF), in which $4.0 billion was issued, to encourage community banks with less than $10 billion in assets to increase their lending to small businesses. It also authorized a $1.5 billion State Small Business Credit Initiative to provide funding to participating states with small business capital access programs, numerous changes to the SBA\u2019s loan guaranty and contracting programs, funding to continue the SBA\u2019s fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through December 31, 2010, and about $12 billion in tax relief for small businesses.\nP.L. 111-322, the Continuing Appropriations and Surface Transportation Extensions Act, 2011, authorized the SBA to continue its fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through March 4, 2011, or until available funding was exhausted, which occurred on January 3, 2011.\nThis report focuses on the SBLF. It opens with a discussion of the supply and demand for small business loans. The SBLF\u2019s advocates claimed the SBLF was needed to enhance the supply of small business loans. The report then examines other arguments presented both for and against the program. Advocates argued that the SBLF would increase lending to small businesses and, in turn, create jobs. Opponents contended that the SBLF could lose money, lacked sufficient oversight provisions, did not require lenders to increase their lending to small businesses, could serve as a vehicle for Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) recipients to effectively refinance their TARP loans on more favorable terms with little or no resulting benefit for small businesses, and could encourage a failing lender to make even riskier loans to avoid higher dividend payments. \nThe report concludes with an examination of the program\u2019s implementation and a discussion of bills introduced during recent Congresses to amend the SBLF. For example, during the 112th Congress, S. 681, the Greater Accountability in the Lending Fund Act of 2011, would have limited the program\u2019s authority to 15 years from enactment and prohibited TARP recipients from participating in the program. H.R. 2807, the Small Business Leg-Up Act of 2011, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund \u201cto increase the availability of credit for small businesses.\u201d H.R. 3147, the Small Business Lending Extension Act, would have extended the Department of the Treasury\u2019s investment authority from one year to two years. During the 113th Congress, H.R. 2474, the Community Lending and Small Business Jobs Act of 2013, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42045", "sha1": "4c3aedf2b3b7ca515c53e2dc832b1f12208b7ae0", "filename": "files/20181030_R42045_4c3aedf2b3b7ca515c53e2dc832b1f12208b7ae0.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R42045_files&id=/0.png": "files/20181030_R42045_images_33d9d14e7f10335bbc3a58c9e167c9b4095cc386.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R42045_files&id=/1.png": "files/20181030_R42045_images_b3025f03e368c1167dbd79a651c182a2fe82d01d.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42045", "sha1": "36d0aec6b4d16a486dbc89de48bc1124b3aed6a8", "filename": "files/20181030_R42045_36d0aec6b4d16a486dbc89de48bc1124b3aed6a8.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4832, "name": "Small Business" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 581215, "date": "2018-05-18", "retrieved": "2018-05-22T13:09:15.635564", "title": "The Small Business Lending Fund", "summary": "Congressional interest in small business access to capital has increased in recent years because of concerns that small businesses might be prevented from accessing sufficient capital to enable them to start, continue, or expand operations and create jobs. Some have argued that the federal government should provide additional resources to assist small businesses. Others worry about the long-term adverse economic effects of spending programs that increase the federal deficit. They advocate business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint as the best means to assist small businesses and create jobs.\nSeveral laws were enacted during the 111th Congress to enhance small business access to capital. For example,\nP.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provided the Small Business Administration (SBA) an additional $730 million, including funding to temporarily subsidize SBA fees and increase the 7(a) loan guaranty program\u2019s maximum loan guaranty percentage to 90%. \nP.L. 111-240, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF), in which $4.0 billion was issued, to encourage community banks with less than $10 billion in assets to increase their lending to small businesses. It also authorized a $1.5 billion State Small Business Credit Initiative to provide funding to participating states with small business capital access programs, numerous changes to the SBA\u2019s loan guaranty and contracting programs, funding to continue the SBA\u2019s fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through December 31, 2010, and about $12 billion in tax relief for small businesses.\nP.L. 111-322, the Continuing Appropriations and Surface Transportation Extensions Act, 2011, authorized the SBA to continue its fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through March 4, 2011, or until available funding was exhausted, which occurred on January 3, 2011.\nThis report focuses on the SBLF. It opens with a discussion of the supply and demand for small business loans. The SBLF\u2019s advocates claimed the SBLF was needed to enhance the supply of small business loans. The report then examines other arguments presented both for and against the program. Advocates argued that the SBLF would increase lending to small businesses and, in turn, create jobs. Opponents contended that the SBLF could lose money, lacked sufficient oversight provisions, did not require lenders to increase their lending to small businesses, could serve as a vehicle for Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) recipients to effectively refinance their TARP loans on more favorable terms with little or no resulting benefit for small businesses, and could encourage a failing lender to make even riskier loans to avoid higher dividend payments. \nThe report concludes with an examination of the program\u2019s implementation and a discussion of bills introduced during recent Congresses to amend the SBLF. For example, during the 112th Congress, S. 681, the Greater Accountability in the Lending Fund Act of 2011, would have limited the program\u2019s authority to 15 years from enactment and prohibited TARP recipients from participating in the program. H.R. 2807, the Small Business Leg-Up Act of 2011, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund \u201cto increase the availability of credit for small businesses.\u201d H.R. 3147, the Small Business Lending Extension Act, would have extended the Department of the Treasury\u2019s investment authority from one year to two years. During the 113th Congress, H.R. 2474, the Community Lending and Small Business Jobs Act of 2013, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42045", "sha1": "6d1a571467f85b62eb0ebfda93079186e52306fe", "filename": "files/20180518_R42045_6d1a571467f85b62eb0ebfda93079186e52306fe.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R42045_files&id=/0.png": "files/20180518_R42045_images_7ad83e1fad1a40afd5e0129cce082c9b35ff09ea.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R42045_files&id=/1.png": "files/20180518_R42045_images_db1f29e2bdb50f75769aca7c2b541f35bfcc4233.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42045", "sha1": "70ba29736f849f7ee43064334e2d9914aec56572", "filename": "files/20180518_R42045_70ba29736f849f7ee43064334e2d9914aec56572.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4832, "name": "Small Business" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 577967, "date": "2018-01-29", "retrieved": "2018-02-01T17:08:30.657914", "title": "The Small Business Lending Fund", "summary": "Congressional interest in small business access to capital has increased in recent years because of concerns that small businesses might be prevented from accessing sufficient capital to enable them to start, continue, or expand operations and create jobs. Some have argued that the federal government should provide additional resources to assist small businesses. Others worry about the long-term adverse economic effects of spending programs that increase the federal deficit. They advocate business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint as the best means to assist small businesses and create jobs.\nSeveral laws were enacted during the 111th Congress to enhance small business access to capital. For example,\nP.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provided the Small Business Administration (SBA) an additional $730 million, including funding to temporarily subsidize SBA fees and increase the 7(a) loan guaranty program\u2019s maximum loan guaranty percentage to 90%. \nP.L. 111-240, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF), in which $4.0 billion was issued, to encourage community banks with less than $10 billion in assets to increase their lending to small businesses. It also authorized a $1.5 billion State Small Business Credit Initiative to provide funding to participating states with small business capital access programs, numerous changes to the SBA\u2019s loan guaranty and contracting programs, funding to continue the SBA\u2019s fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through December 31, 2010, and about $12 billion in tax relief for small businesses.\nP.L. 111-322, the Continuing Appropriations and Surface Transportation Extensions Act, 2011, authorized the SBA to continue its fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through March 4, 2011, or until available funding was exhausted, which occurred on January 3, 2011.\nThis report focuses on the SBLF. It opens with a discussion of the supply and demand for small business loans. The SBLF\u2019s advocates claimed the SBLF was needed to enhance the supply of small business loans. The report then examines other arguments presented both for and against the program. Advocates argued that the SBLF would increase lending to small businesses and, in turn, create jobs. Opponents contended that the SBLF could lose money, lacked sufficient oversight provisions, did not require lenders to increase their lending to small businesses, could serve as a vehicle for Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) recipients to effectively refinance their TARP loans on more favorable terms with little or no resulting benefit for small businesses, and could encourage a failing lender to make even riskier loans to avoid higher dividend payments. \nThe report concludes with an examination of the program\u2019s implementation and a discussion of bills introduced during recent Congresses to amend the SBLF. For example, during the 112th Congress, S. 681, the Greater Accountability in the Lending Fund Act of 2011, would have limited the program\u2019s authority to 15 years from enactment and prohibited TARP recipients from participating in the program. H.R. 2807, the Small Business Leg-Up Act of 2011, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund \u201cto increase the availability of credit for small businesses.\u201d H.R. 3147, the Small Business Lending Extension Act, would have extended the Department of the Treasury\u2019s investment authority from one year to two years. During the 113th Congress, H.R. 2474, the Community Lending and Small Business Jobs Act of 2013, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42045", "sha1": "3d5b1268e406eb081bb1da7f06d515248ee13345", "filename": "files/20180129_R42045_3d5b1268e406eb081bb1da7f06d515248ee13345.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R42045_files&id=/0.png": "files/20180129_R42045_images_860f3c9a7a74e70b965ed3f03e70d7f6708a4d02.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R42045_files&id=/2.png": "files/20180129_R42045_images_94e5d96a6542c1f637b2439d6614a6e05de11466.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R42045_files&id=/3.png": "files/20180129_R42045_images_393ab09927624236cfdc4cfd1a461a4e12deedd3.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R42045_files&id=/1.png": "files/20180129_R42045_images_db1f29e2bdb50f75769aca7c2b541f35bfcc4233.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42045", "sha1": "7a7207e767cf511fb063f1a0cb4d889853940f2e", "filename": "files/20180129_R42045_7a7207e767cf511fb063f1a0cb4d889853940f2e.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4832, "name": "Small Business" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 574926, "date": "2017-10-27", "retrieved": "2017-10-31T13:18:29.975296", "title": "The Small Business Lending Fund", "summary": "Congressional interest in small business access to capital has increased in recent years because of concerns that small businesses might be prevented from accessing sufficient capital to enable them to start, continue, or expand operations and create jobs. Some have argued that the federal government should provide additional resources to assist small businesses. Others worry about the long-term adverse economic effects of spending programs that increase the federal deficit. They advocate business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint as the best means to assist small businesses and create jobs.\nSeveral laws were enacted during the 111th Congress to enhance small business access to capital. For example,\nP.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provided the Small Business Administration (SBA) an additional $730 million, including funding to temporarily subsidize SBA fees and increase the 7(a) loan guaranty program\u2019s maximum loan guaranty percentage to 90%. \nP.L. 111-240, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF), in which $4.0 billion was issued, to encourage community banks with less than $10 billion in assets to increase their lending to small businesses. It also authorized a $1.5 billion State Small Business Credit Initiative to provide funding to participating states with small business capital access programs, numerous changes to the SBA\u2019s loan guaranty and contracting programs, funding to continue the SBA\u2019s fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through December 31, 2010, and about $12 billion in tax relief for small businesses.\nP.L. 111-322, the Continuing Appropriations and Surface Transportation Extensions Act, 2011, authorized the SBA to continue its fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through March 4, 2011, or until available funding was exhausted, which occurred on January 3, 2011.\nThis report focuses on the SBLF. It opens with a discussion of the supply and demand for small business loans. The SBLF\u2019s advocates claimed the SBLF was needed to enhance the supply of small business loans. The report then examines other arguments presented both for and against the program. Advocates argued that the SBLF would increase lending to small businesses and, in turn, create jobs. Opponents contended that the SBLF could lose money, lacked sufficient oversight provisions, did not require lenders to increase their lending to small businesses, could serve as a vehicle for Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) recipients to effectively refinance their TARP loans on more favorable terms with little or no resulting benefit for small businesses, and could encourage a failing lender to make even riskier loans to avoid higher dividend payments. \nThe report concludes with an examination of the program\u2019s implementation and a discussion of bills introduced during recent Congresses to amend the SBLF. For example, during the 112th Congress, S. 681, the Greater Accountability in the Lending Fund Act of 2011, would have limited the program\u2019s authority to 15 years from enactment and prohibited TARP recipients from participating in the program. H.R. 2807, the Small Business Leg-Up Act of 2011, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund \u201cto increase the availability of credit for small businesses.\u201d H.R. 3147, the Small Business Lending Extension Act, would have extended the Department of the Treasury\u2019s investment authority from one year to two years. During the 113th Congress, H.R. 2474, the Community Lending and Small Business Jobs Act of 2013, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42045", "sha1": "65bb3def70156468ee8d1fe4067d2e619294f3f2", "filename": "files/20171027_R42045_65bb3def70156468ee8d1fe4067d2e619294f3f2.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R42045_files&id=/0.png": "files/20171027_R42045_images_0aba998ee8fc8547b047855d53f3e27c5885f5ab.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R42045_files&id=/2.png": "files/20171027_R42045_images_94e5d96a6542c1f637b2439d6614a6e05de11466.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R42045_files&id=/1.png": "files/20171027_R42045_images_db1f29e2bdb50f75769aca7c2b541f35bfcc4233.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R42045_files&id=/3.png": "files/20171027_R42045_images_393ab09927624236cfdc4cfd1a461a4e12deedd3.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42045", "sha1": "c10d39d91241124171f595bb04db4643d0792720", "filename": "files/20171027_R42045_c10d39d91241124171f595bb04db4643d0792720.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4832, "name": "Small Business" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 462570, "date": "2017-07-13", "retrieved": "2017-07-17T16:31:51.285459", "title": "The Small Business Lending Fund", "summary": "Congressional interest in small business access to capital has increased in recent years because of concerns that small businesses might be prevented from accessing sufficient capital to enable them to start, continue, or expand operations and create jobs. Some have argued that the federal government should provide additional resources to assist small businesses. Others worry about the long-term adverse economic effects of spending programs that increase the federal deficit. They advocate business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint as the best means to assist small businesses and create jobs.\nSeveral laws were enacted during the 111th Congress to enhance small business access to capital. For example,\nP.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provided the Small Business Administration (SBA) an additional $730 million, including funding to temporarily subsidize SBA fees and increase the 7(a) loan guaranty program\u2019s maximum loan guaranty percentage to 90%. \nP.L. 111-240, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF), in which $4.0 billion was issued, to encourage community banks with less than $10 billion in assets to increase their lending to small businesses. It also authorized a $1.5 billion State Small Business Credit Initiative to provide funding to participating states with small business capital access programs, numerous changes to the SBA\u2019s loan guaranty and contracting programs, funding to continue the SBA\u2019s fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through December 31, 2010, and about $12 billion in tax relief for small businesses.\nP.L. 111-322, the Continuing Appropriations and Surface Transportation Extensions Act, 2011, authorized the SBA to continue its fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through March 4, 2011, or until available funding was exhausted, which occurred on January 3, 2011.\nThis report focuses on the SBLF. It opens with a discussion of the supply and demand for small business loans. The SBLF\u2019s advocates claimed the SBLF was needed to enhance the supply of small business loans. The report then examines other arguments presented both for and against the program. Advocates argued that the SBLF would increase lending to small businesses and, in turn, create jobs. Opponents contended that the SBLF could lose money, lacked sufficient oversight provisions, did not require lenders to increase their lending to small businesses, could serve as a vehicle for Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) recipients to effectively refinance their TARP loans on more favorable terms with little or no resulting benefit for small businesses, and could encourage a failing lender to make even riskier loans to avoid higher dividend payments. \nThe report concludes with an examination of the program\u2019s implementation and a discussion of bills introduced during recent Congresses to amend the SBLF. For example, during the 112th Congress, S. 681, the Greater Accountability in the Lending Fund Act of 2011, would have limited the program\u2019s authority to 15 years from enactment and prohibited TARP recipients from participating in the program. H.R. 2807, the Small Business Leg-Up Act of 2011, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund \u201cto increase the availability of credit for small businesses.\u201d H.R. 3147, the Small Business Lending Extension Act, would have extended the Treasury Department\u2019s investment authority from one year to two years. During the 113th Congress, H.R. 2474, the Community Lending and Small Business Jobs Act of 2013, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42045", "sha1": "53552dff9f937452db4b9b465488d635e22771fc", "filename": "files/20170713_R42045_53552dff9f937452db4b9b465488d635e22771fc.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42045", "sha1": "56a9e6c32701b63a60538f8bf289e0c8729f08a2", "filename": "files/20170713_R42045_56a9e6c32701b63a60538f8bf289e0c8729f08a2.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4832, "name": "Small Business" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 461203, "date": "2017-05-10", "retrieved": "2017-05-16T14:32:29.625396", "title": "The Small Business Lending Fund", "summary": "Congressional interest in small business access to capital has increased in recent years because of concerns that small businesses might be prevented from accessing sufficient capital to enable them to start, continue, or expand operations and create jobs. Some have argued that the federal government should provide additional resources to assist small businesses. Others worry about the long-term adverse economic effects of spending programs that increase the federal deficit. They advocate business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint as the best means to assist small businesses and create jobs.\nSeveral laws were enacted during the 111th Congress to enhance small business access to capital. For example,\nP.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provided the Small Business Administration (SBA) an additional $730 million, including funding to temporarily subsidize SBA fees and increase the 7(a) loan guaranty program\u2019s maximum loan guaranty percentage to 90%. \nP.L. 111-240, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF), in which $4.0 billion was issued, to encourage community banks with less than $10 billion in assets to increase their lending to small businesses. It also authorized a $1.5 billion State Small Business Credit Initiative to provide funding to participating states with small business capital access programs, numerous changes to the SBA\u2019s loan guaranty and contracting programs, funding to continue the SBA\u2019s fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through December 31, 2010, and about $12 billion in tax relief for small businesses.\nP.L. 111-322, the Continuing Appropriations and Surface Transportation Extensions Act, 2011, authorized the SBA to continue its fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through March 4, 2011, or until available funding was exhausted, which occurred on January 3, 2011.\nThis report focuses on the SBLF. It opens with a discussion of the supply and demand for small business loans. The SBLF\u2019s advocates claimed the SBLF was needed to enhance the supply of small business loans. The report then examines other arguments presented both for and against the program. Advocates argued that the SBLF would increase lending to small businesses and, in turn, create jobs. Opponents contended that the SBLF could lose money, lacked sufficient oversight provisions, did not require lenders to increase their lending to small businesses, could serve as a vehicle for Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) recipients to effectively refinance their TARP loans on more favorable terms with little or no resulting benefit for small businesses, and could encourage a failing lender to make even riskier loans to avoid higher dividend payments. \nThe report concludes with an examination of the program\u2019s implementation and a discussion of bills introduced during recent Congresses to amend the SBLF. For example, during the 112th Congress, S. 681, the Greater Accountability in the Lending Fund Act of 2011, would have limited the program\u2019s authority to 15 years from enactment and prohibited TARP recipients from participating in the program. H.R. 2807, the Small Business Leg-Up Act of 2011, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund \u201cto increase the availability of credit for small businesses.\u201d H.R. 3147, the Small Business Lending Extension Act, would have extended the Treasury Department\u2019s investment authority from one year to two years. During the 113th Congress, H.R. 2474, the Community Lending and Small Business Jobs Act of 2013, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42045", "sha1": "e6dba4b4ad19f00707ba2f14d3dc205ec25d5be3", "filename": "files/20170510_R42045_e6dba4b4ad19f00707ba2f14d3dc205ec25d5be3.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42045", "sha1": "e68b31c99232b522a8bd7e3cf0051b8ad60935ab", "filename": "files/20170510_R42045_e68b31c99232b522a8bd7e3cf0051b8ad60935ab.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4832, "name": "Small Business" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 460621, "date": "2017-04-21", "retrieved": "2017-04-25T17:12:20.989239", "title": "The Small Business Lending Fund", "summary": "Congressional interest in small business access to capital has increased in recent years because of concerns that small businesses might be prevented from accessing sufficient capital to enable them to start, continue, or expand operations and create jobs. Some have argued that the federal government should provide additional resources to assist small businesses. Others worry about the long-term adverse economic effects of spending programs that increase the federal deficit. They advocate business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint as the best means to assist small businesses and create jobs.\nSeveral laws were enacted during the 111th Congress to enhance small business access to capital. For example,\nP.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provided the Small Business Administration (SBA) an additional $730 million, including funding to temporarily subsidize SBA fees and increase the 7(a) loan guaranty program\u2019s maximum loan guaranty percentage to 90%. \nP.L. 111-240, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF), in which $4.0 billion was issued, to encourage community banks with less than $10 billion in assets to increase their lending to small businesses. It also authorized a $1.5 billion State Small Business Credit Initiative to provide funding to participating states with small business capital access programs, numerous changes to the SBA\u2019s loan guaranty and contracting programs, funding to continue the SBA\u2019s fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through December 31, 2010, and about $12 billion in tax relief for small businesses.\nP.L. 111-322, the Continuing Appropriations and Surface Transportation Extensions Act, 2011, authorized the SBA to continue its fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through March 4, 2011, or until available funding was exhausted, which occurred on January 3, 2011.\nThis report focuses on the SBLF. It opens with a discussion of the supply and demand for small business loans. The SBLF\u2019s advocates claimed the SBLF was needed to enhance the supply of small business loans. The report then examines other arguments presented both for and against the program. Advocates argued that the SBLF would increase lending to small businesses and, in turn, create jobs. Opponents contended that the SBLF could lose money, lacked sufficient oversight provisions, did not require lenders to increase their lending to small businesses, could serve as a vehicle for Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) recipients to effectively refinance their TARP loans on more favorable terms with little or no resulting benefit for small businesses, and could encourage a failing lender to make even riskier loans to avoid higher dividend payments. \nThe report concludes with an examination of the program\u2019s implementation and a discussion of bills introduced during recent Congresses to amend the SBLF. For example, during the 112th Congress, S. 681, the Greater Accountability in the Lending Fund Act of 2011, would have limited the program\u2019s authority to 15 years from enactment and prohibited TARP recipients from participating in the program. H.R. 2807, the Small Business Leg-Up Act of 2011, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund \u201cto increase the availability of credit for small businesses.\u201d H.R. 3147, the Small Business Lending Extension Act, would have extended the Treasury Department\u2019s investment authority from one year to two years. During the 113th Congress, H.R. 2474, the Community Lending and Small Business Jobs Act of 2013, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42045", "sha1": "b3f173b9ba3900cf3c51c73bbee986013e2027d5", "filename": "files/20170421_R42045_b3f173b9ba3900cf3c51c73bbee986013e2027d5.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42045", "sha1": "df2efe06944f4a3093d9fd635eaa6b1fc70d0b7a", "filename": "files/20170421_R42045_df2efe06944f4a3093d9fd635eaa6b1fc70d0b7a.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4832, "name": "Small Business" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 458412, "date": "2017-01-19", "retrieved": "2017-02-03T19:14:39.346732", "title": "The Small Business Lending Fund", "summary": "Congressional interest in small business access to capital has increased in recent years because of concerns that small businesses might be prevented from accessing sufficient capital to enable them to start, continue, or expand operations and create jobs. Some have argued that the federal government should provide additional resources to assist small businesses. Others worry about the long-term adverse economic effects of spending programs that increase the federal deficit. They advocate business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint as the best means to assist small businesses and create jobs.\nSeveral laws were enacted during the 111th Congress to enhance small business access to capital. For example,\nP.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provided the Small Business Administration (SBA) an additional $730 million, including funding to temporarily subsidize SBA fees and increase the 7(a) loan guaranty program\u2019s maximum loan guaranty percentage to 90%. \nP.L. 111-240, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF), in which $4.0 billion was issued, to encourage community banks with less than $10 billion in assets to increase their lending to small businesses. It also authorized a $1.5 billion State Small Business Credit Initiative to provide funding to participating states with small business capital access programs, numerous changes to the SBA\u2019s loan guaranty and contracting programs, funding to continue the SBA\u2019s fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through December 31, 2010, and about $12 billion in tax relief for small businesses.\nP.L. 111-322, the Continuing Appropriations and Surface Transportation Extensions Act, 2011, authorized the SBA to continue its fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through March 4, 2011, or until available funding was exhausted, which occurred on January 3, 2011.\nThis report focuses on the SBLF. It opens with a discussion of the supply and demand for small business loans. The SBLF\u2019s advocates claimed the SBLF was needed to enhance the supply of small business loans. The report then examines other arguments presented both for and against the program. Advocates argued that the SBLF would increase lending to small businesses and, in turn, create jobs. Opponents contended that the SBLF could lose money, lacked sufficient oversight provisions, did not require lenders to increase their lending to small businesses, could serve as a vehicle for Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) recipients to effectively refinance their TARP loans on more favorable terms with little or no resulting benefit for small businesses, and could encourage a failing lender to make even riskier loans to avoid higher dividend payments. \nThe report concludes with an examination of the program\u2019s implementation and a discussion of bills introduced during recent Congresses to amend the SBLF. For example, during the 112th Congress, S. 681, the Greater Accountability in the Lending Fund Act of 2011, would have limited the program\u2019s authority to 15 years from enactment and prohibited TARP recipients from participating in the program. H.R. 2807, the Small Business Leg-Up Act of 2011, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund \u201cto increase the availability of credit for small businesses.\u201d H.R. 3147, the Small Business Lending Extension Act, would have extended the Treasury Department\u2019s investment authority from one year to two years. During the 113th Congress, H.R. 2474, the Community Lending and Small Business Jobs Act of 2013, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42045", "sha1": "6df50f803b3bc16c58d43f6ed7cb739bc536914d", "filename": "files/20170119_R42045_6df50f803b3bc16c58d43f6ed7cb739bc536914d.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42045", "sha1": "88a4e255dd1ec09d1bd654a0b474a93ea3832872", "filename": "files/20170119_R42045_88a4e255dd1ec09d1bd654a0b474a93ea3832872.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4832, "name": "Small Business" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 456595, "date": "2016-10-18", "retrieved": "2016-11-28T21:21:19.193242", "title": "The Small Business Lending Fund", "summary": "Congressional interest in small business access to capital has increased in recent years because of concerns that small businesses might be prevented from accessing sufficient capital to enable them to start, continue, or expand operations and create jobs. Some, including President Obama, have argued that the federal government should provide additional resources to assist small businesses. Others worry about the long-term adverse economic effects of spending programs that increase the federal deficit. They advocate business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint as the best means to assist small businesses and create jobs.\nSeveral laws were enacted during the 111th Congress to enhance small business access to capital. For example,\nP.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provided the Small Business Administration (SBA) an additional $730 million, including funding to temporarily subsidize SBA fees and increase the 7(a) loan guaranty program\u2019s maximum loan guaranty percentage to 90%. \nP.L. 111-240, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF), in which $4.0 billion was issued, to encourage community banks with less than $10 billion in assets to increase their lending to small businesses. It also authorized a $1.5 billion State Small Business Credit Initiative to provide funding to participating states with small business capital access programs, numerous changes to the SBA\u2019s loan guaranty and contracting programs, funding to continue the SBA\u2019s fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through December 31, 2010, and about $12 billion in tax relief for small businesses.\nP.L. 111-322, the Continuing Appropriations and Surface Transportation Extensions Act, 2011, authorized the SBA to continue its fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through March 4, 2011, or until available funding was exhausted, which occurred on January 3, 2011.\nThis report focuses on the SBLF. It opens with a discussion of the supply and demand for small business loans. The SBLF\u2019s advocates claimed the SBLF was needed to enhance the supply of small business loans. The report then examines other arguments presented both for and against the program. Advocates argued that the SBLF would increase lending to small businesses and, in turn, create jobs. Opponents contended that the SBLF could lose money, lacked sufficient oversight provisions, did not require lenders to increase their lending to small businesses, could serve as a vehicle for Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) recipients to effectively refinance their TARP loans on more favorable terms with little or no resulting benefit for small businesses, and could encourage a failing lender to make even riskier loans to avoid higher dividend payments. \nThe report concludes with an examination of the program\u2019s implementation and a discussion of bills introduced during recent Congresses to amend the SBLF. For example, during the 112th Congress, S. 681, the Greater Accountability in the Lending Fund Act of 2011, would have limited the program\u2019s authority to 15 years from enactment and prohibited TARP recipients from participating in the program. H.R. 2807, the Small Business Leg-Up Act of 2011, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund \u201cto increase the availability of credit for small businesses.\u201d H.R. 3147, the Small Business Lending Extension Act, would have extended the Treasury Department\u2019s investment authority from one year to two years. During the 113th Congress, H.R. 2474, the Community Lending and Small Business Jobs Act of 2013, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42045", "sha1": "2a697265397c68458c47464f31b6e682a0386587", "filename": "files/20161018_R42045_2a697265397c68458c47464f31b6e682a0386587.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42045", "sha1": "900ecbf9d696800b4d3f3f380de36ef8dfc0baa1", "filename": "files/20161018_R42045_900ecbf9d696800b4d3f3f380de36ef8dfc0baa1.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4832, "name": "Small Business" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 455251, "date": "2016-08-18", "retrieved": "2016-09-09T18:39:46.004863", "title": "The Small Business Lending Fund", "summary": "Congressional interest in small business access to capital has increased in recent years because of concerns that small businesses might be prevented from accessing sufficient capital to enable them to start, continue, or expand operations and create jobs. Some, including President Obama, have argued that the federal government should provide additional resources to assist small businesses. Others worry about the long-term adverse economic effects of spending programs that increase the federal deficit. They advocate business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint as the best means to assist small businesses and create jobs.\nSeveral laws were enacted during the 111th Congress to enhance small business access to capital. For example,\nP.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provided the Small Business Administration (SBA) an additional $730 million, including funding to temporarily subsidize SBA fees and increase the 7(a) loan guaranty program\u2019s maximum loan guaranty percentage to 90%. \nP.L. 111-240, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF), in which $4.0 billion was issued, to encourage community banks with less than $10 billion in assets to increase their lending to small businesses. It also authorized a $1.5 billion State Small Business Credit Initiative to provide funding to participating states with small business capital access programs, numerous changes to the SBA\u2019s loan guaranty and contracting programs, funding to continue the SBA\u2019s fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through December 31, 2010, and about $12 billion in tax relief for small businesses.\nP.L. 111-322, the Continuing Appropriations and Surface Transportation Extensions Act, 2011, authorized the SBA to continue its fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through March 4, 2011, or until available funding was exhausted, which occurred on January 3, 2011.\nThis report focuses on the SBLF. It opens with a discussion of the supply and demand for small business loans. The SBLF\u2019s advocates claimed the SBLF was needed to enhance the supply of small business loans. The report then examines other arguments presented both for and against the program. Advocates argued that the SBLF would increase lending to small businesses and, in turn, create jobs. Opponents contended that the SBLF could lose money, lacked sufficient oversight provisions, did not require lenders to increase their lending to small businesses, could serve as a vehicle for Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) recipients to effectively refinance their TARP loans on more favorable terms with little or no resulting benefit for small businesses, and could encourage a failing lender to make even riskier loans to avoid higher dividend payments. \nThe report concludes with an examination of the program\u2019s implementation and a discussion of bills introduced during recent Congresses to amend the SBLF. For example, during the 112th Congress, S. 681, the Greater Accountability in the Lending Fund Act of 2011, would have limited the program\u2019s authority to 15 years from enactment and prohibited TARP recipients from participating in the program. H.R. 2807, the Small Business Leg-Up Act of 2011, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund \u201cto increase the availability of credit for small businesses.\u201d H.R. 3147, the Small Business Lending Extension Act, would have extended the Treasury Department\u2019s investment authority from one year to two years. During the 113th Congress, H.R. 2474, the Community Lending and Small Business Jobs Act of 2013, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42045", "sha1": "b77ab20184cc9c915127a970f2512b2afbe7ab47", "filename": "files/20160818_R42045_b77ab20184cc9c915127a970f2512b2afbe7ab47.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42045", "sha1": "911470e9533d9973949c8a861e4efeb052bccaca", "filename": "files/20160818_R42045_911470e9533d9973949c8a861e4efeb052bccaca.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 2636, "name": "Small Business Policy" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3199, "name": "Community and Regional Economic Development" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 452349, "date": "2016-05-05", "retrieved": "2016-05-24T19:11:05.261941", "title": "The Small Business Lending Fund", "summary": "Congressional interest in small business access to capital has increased in recent years because of concerns that small businesses might be prevented from accessing sufficient capital to enable them to start, continue, or expand operations and create jobs. Some, including President Obama, have argued that the federal government should provide additional resources to assist small businesses. Others worry about the long-term adverse economic effects of spending programs that increase the federal deficit. They advocate business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint as the best means to assist small businesses and create jobs.\nSeveral laws were enacted during the 111th Congress to enhance small business access to capital. For example,\nP.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provided the Small Business Administration (SBA) an additional $730 million, including funding to temporarily subsidize SBA fees and increase the 7(a) loan guaranty program\u2019s maximum loan guaranty percentage to 90%. \nP.L. 111-240, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF), in which $4.0 billion was issued, to encourage community banks with less than $10 billion in assets to increase their lending to small businesses. It also authorized a $1.5 billion State Small Business Credit Initiative to provide funding to participating states with small business capital access programs, numerous changes to the SBA\u2019s loan guaranty and contracting programs, funding to continue the SBA\u2019s fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through December 31, 2010, and about $12 billion in tax relief for small businesses.\nP.L. 111-322, the Continuing Appropriations and Surface Transportation Extensions Act, 2011, authorized the SBA to continue its fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through March 4, 2011, or until available funding was exhausted, which occurred on January 3, 2011.\nThis report focuses on the SBLF. It opens with a discussion of the supply and demand for small business loans. The SBLF\u2019s advocates claimed the SBLF was needed to enhance the supply of small business loans. The report then examines other arguments presented both for and against the program. Advocates argued that the SBLF would increase lending to small businesses and, in turn, create jobs. Opponents contended that the SBLF could lose money, lacked sufficient oversight provisions, did not require lenders to increase their lending to small businesses, could serve as a vehicle for Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) recipients to effectively refinance their TARP loans on more favorable terms with little or no resulting benefit for small businesses, and could encourage a failing lender to make even riskier loans to avoid higher dividend payments. \nThe report concludes with an examination of the program\u2019s implementation and a discussion of bills introduced during recent Congresses to amend the SBLF. For example, during the 112th Congress, S. 681, the Greater Accountability in the Lending Fund Act of 2011, would have limited the program\u2019s authority to 15 years from enactment and prohibited TARP recipients from participating in the program. H.R. 2807, the Small Business Leg-Up Act of 2011, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund \u201cto increase the availability of credit for small businesses.\u201d H.R. 3147, the Small Business Lending Extension Act, would have extended the Treasury Department\u2019s investment authority from one year to two years. During the 113th Congress, H.R. 2474, the Community Lending and Small Business Jobs Act of 2013, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42045", "sha1": "503deb3d2c6c174e7f629c372d28f10eaa384cd2", "filename": "files/20160505_R42045_503deb3d2c6c174e7f629c372d28f10eaa384cd2.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42045", "sha1": "81e04973cddfd65a82412246b2f4d0ef19d42c3d", "filename": "files/20160505_R42045_81e04973cddfd65a82412246b2f4d0ef19d42c3d.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 2636, "name": "Small Business Policy" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3199, "name": "Community and Regional Economic Development" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 450672, "date": "2016-03-10", "retrieved": "2016-03-24T16:56:34.418492", "title": "The Small Business Lending Fund", "summary": "Congressional interest in small business access to capital has increased in recent years because of concerns that small businesses might be prevented from accessing sufficient capital to enable them to assist in the economic recovery. Some, including President Obama, have argued that the federal government should provide additional resources to assist small businesses in acquiring capital necessary to start, continue, or expand operations and create jobs. Others worry about the long-term adverse economic effects of spending programs that increase the federal deficit. They advocate business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint as the best means to assist small businesses and create jobs.\nSeveral laws were enacted during the 111th Congress to enhance small business access to capital. For example,\nP.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provided the Small Business Administration (SBA) an additional $730 million, including funding to temporarily subsidize SBA fees and increase the 7(a) loan guaranty program\u2019s maximum loan guaranty percentage to 90%. \nP.L. 111-240, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF), in which $4.0 billion was issued, to encourage community banks with less than $10 billion in assets to increase their lending to small businesses. It also authorized a $1.5 billion State Small Business Credit Initiative to provide funding to participating states with small business capital access programs, numerous changes to the SBA\u2019s loan guaranty and contracting programs, funding to continue the SBA\u2019s fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through December 31, 2010, and about $12 billion in tax relief for small businesses.\nP.L. 111-322, the Continuing Appropriations and Surface Transportation Extensions Act, 2011, authorized the SBA to continue its fee subsidies and the 7(a) program\u2019s 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through March 4, 2011, or until available funding was exhausted, which occurred on January 3, 2011.\nThis report focuses on the SBLF. It opens with a discussion of the supply and demand for small business loans. The SBLF\u2019s advocates claimed the SBLF was needed to enhance the supply of small business loans. The report then examines other arguments presented both for and against the program. Advocates argued that the SBLF would increase lending to small businesses and, in turn, create jobs. Opponents contended that the SBLF could lose money, lacked sufficient oversight provisions, did not require lenders to increase their lending to small businesses, could serve as a vehicle for Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) recipients to effectively refinance their TARP loans on more favorable terms with little or no resulting benefit for small businesses, and could encourage a failing lender to make even riskier loans to avoid higher dividend payments. \nThe report concludes with an examination of the program\u2019s implementation and a discussion of bills introduced during the 112th and 113th Congresses to amend the SBLF. For example, during the 112th Congress, S. 681, the Greater Accountability in the Lending Fund Act of 2011, would have limited the program\u2019s authority to 15 years from enactment and prohibited TARP recipients from participating in the program. H.R. 2807, the Small Business Leg-Up Act of 2011, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund \u201cto increase the availability of credit for small businesses.\u201d H.R. 3147, the Small Business Lending Extension Act, would have extended the Treasury Department\u2019s investment authority from one year to two years. During the 113th Congress, H.R. 2474, the Community Lending and Small Business Jobs Act of 2013, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42045", "sha1": "0f43bc5aa4b98921dea39be652eae21736c83778", "filename": "files/20160310_R42045_0f43bc5aa4b98921dea39be652eae21736c83778.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42045", "sha1": "c86c7f37be090de1116223dfc046348598daa348", "filename": "files/20160310_R42045_c86c7f37be090de1116223dfc046348598daa348.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 2636, "name": "Small Business Policy" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3199, "name": "Community and Regional Economic Development" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc818115/", "id": "R42045_2015Apr30", "date": "2015-04-30", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "The Small Business Lending Fund", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150430_R42045_8371ee3b4eb62820ec8df1f3bd62dd2a9f940b26.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150430_R42045_8371ee3b4eb62820ec8df1f3bd62dd2a9f940b26.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc805785/", "id": "R42045_2014Dec03", "date": "2014-12-03", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "The Small Business Lending Fund", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20141203_R42045_23cb7b3646e81c37a0b1aa656b6af51403bd6939.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20141203_R42045_23cb7b3646e81c37a0b1aa656b6af51403bd6939.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc817048/", "id": "R42045_2013Dec19", "date": "2013-12-19", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "The Small Business Lending Fund", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20131219_R42045_7d5bab9de27908ec028d576fbda3c2a222a70026.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20131219_R42045_7d5bab9de27908ec028d576fbda3c2a222a70026.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc809260/", "id": "R42045_2012Jan27", "date": "2012-01-27", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "The Small Business Lending Fund", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20120127_R42045_b8615b51379273e6a7d100d4e460efe1c2ea09f6.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20120127_R42045_b8615b51379273e6a7d100d4e460efe1c2ea09f6.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc820095/", "id": "R42045_2011Nov14", "date": "2011-11-14", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "The Small Business Lending Fund", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20111114_R42045_f0d5cf1afc2dba517134f902e53ffd2278e33ed8.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20111114_R42045_f0d5cf1afc2dba517134f902e53ffd2278e33ed8.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "American Law", "Economic Policy" ] }