[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 28, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6351-S6386]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SMALL BUSINESS LENDING FUND ACT OF 2010
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 5297, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 5297) to create the Small Business Lending
Fund Program to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to make
capital investments in eligible institutions in order to
increase the availability of credit for small businesses, to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax
incentives for small business job creation, and for other
purposes.
Pending:
Reid (for Baucus/Landrieu) amendment No. 4519, in the
nature of a substitute.
Reid amendment No. 4520 (to amendment No. 4519), to change
the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 4521 (to amendment No. 4520), of a
perfecting nature.
Reid amendment No. 4522 (to the language proposed to be
stricken by amendment No. 4519), to change the enactment
date.
Reid amendment No. 4523 (to amendment No. 4522), of a
perfecting nature.
Reid motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance
with instructions, Reid amendment No. 4524 (the instructions
on the motion to commit), to provide for a study.
Reid amendment No. 4525 (to the instructions (amendment No.
4524) of the motion to commit), of a perfecting nature.
Reid amendment No. 4526 (to amendment No. 4525), of a
perfecting nature.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent Senator Landrieu be recognized to
speak for up to 1 hour at 12:30 p.m. today and that the Republican
leader or his designee then be recognized following Senator Landrieu.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senate once again has before it the
small business jobs bill. We have created this bill to help move the
economy toward recovery. We have crafted this bill to create jobs. We
have crafted this bill to strengthen capital investment.
Over the course of the great recession, small business capital
investment has fallen dramatically. Since 2005, the percentage of small
businesses that made a capital outlay in the previous 6 months fell by
nearly 30 percent. Capital investments are an integral part of getting
the economy back on track. We need to make sure that businesses, and
especially small businesses, have the opportunity to make these
investments so they can improve and expand.
Our small business jobs bill includes two accelerated cost recovery
provisions. These incentives would lower the cost of capital and they
would help businesses to make capital investments. One accelerated cost
recovery provision in this bill would increase the amount of capital
investment that a business could expense under section 179 of the Tax
Code. Section 179 is one of the most widely used tax benefits available
to small businesses.
We all hear of this constantly from our small business constituents
in our home States. This year business owners may purchase and write
off up to $250,000 in equipment for use in their trade or business.
This tax benefit phases out for expenditures between $250,000 and
$800,000, but in 2011, under current law, the $250,000 threshold will
decrease sharply to $25,000, and the $800,000 ceiling on the benefit
will decrease to $200,000. The bill before us today would increase the
thresholds to $500,000 and $2 million in 2010 and 2011.
Expensing is an important tool for small businesses because it is the
most accelerated type of depreciation. With expensing, a business can
deduct the complete cost of an asset such as equipment or software in
the same year the business buys the asset. With expensing, businesses
do not have to wait for years to recover these costs as they do through
traditional forms of depreciation.
In this weak and uncertain economy, the ability to deduct the cost of
assets in the same year provides an immediate benefit for businesses.
These immediate benefits strengthen the investment practices of a
business, and that strengthens the economy as a whole. An increase in
the thresholds for section 179 expensing effectively decreases the cost
of newly purchased equipment, and that makes it more economical for a
business to invest. These investments can help a business grow with
relatively simple acquisitions.
For example, a business could boost productivity by updating office
technology. This provision will also increase cashflow for businesses,
and businesses that invest in new equipment put money back into the
larger economy with their purchases. Take, for example, Brown's
Automotive in Billings, MT. Brown's Automotive specializes in
transmission repairs. Those repairs require significant equipment
investments, such as lifts and scanners. Business has been down lately
as few people are able to afford expensive transmission repairs these
days. When business is slow, purchases of heavy equipment can put a
major strain on cashflow. But section 179 expensing and the 50 percent
bonus depreciation extension in this bill make a huge difference for
Brown's Automotive. Brown's can now write off a portion of the cost of
new equipment, and that helps them maintain their cashflow and
encourages them to make further capital investments.
Because of provisions like 179 expensing, Brown's has retained all 43
of its employees despite the recession.
This bill also allows taxpayers to expense up to $250,000 of certain
real property within the newly expanded thresholds in 2010 and 2011.
Currently, taxpayers can expense only tangible personal property.
Tangible personal property includes things such as machines or
equipment. Expanding section 179 expensing to include some real
property greatly increases the value of this provision to small
businesses. This provision means a business could expense the
improvements to the property itself.
For example, a small business owner with a retail clothing store may
expense improvements that were made inside the store, such as built-in
cabinets to better stock clothing or lights to brighten the fitting
rooms. Allowing a retail owner to expense these improvements
immediately lowers the owner's costs, and ultimately this will help the
retail store owner to run a better business. This expansion also
applies to qualified restaurant property and qualified leasehold
improvement property.
A second accelerated cost recovery provision in this bill is bonus
depreciation. Bonus depreciation also helps Brown's Automotive and many
other small businesses. This bill would extend bonus depreciation
through the end of this year. This important provision would quickly
spark investment, increase cashflow, and help to create jobs.
Bonus depreciation especially helps businesses that need to make
large capital expenditures but that may not be able to take advantage
of accelerated depreciation under section 179. Currently, businesses
are allowed to recover the cost of capital expenditures over time. As a
result of the great recession, Congress temporarily allowed businesses
to recover the cost of certain capital expenditures more quickly by
increasing the writeoff to 50 percent of the cost of property placed in
service in 2008 and 2009.
This bill would extend the additional depreciation to property placed
in service in 2010. This additional depreciation makes property more
affordable. The business can use the savings it receives to reinvest in
the business and to hire new employees. This provision benefits
immediate investments that can strengthen the economy now. We do not
have to wait to see the benefits of this important provision.
Bonus depreciation also helps the business that sells the equipment.
It helps manufacturers and suppliers retain and hire employees as their
businesses rebound. The more purchases that are made, the more other
businesses are helped. This double benefit makes bonus depreciation a
cost-effective way to strengthen business investment.
Section 179 expensing and bonus depreciation encourage investment and
creates jobs. There is no doubt about it, and very significantly, I
might add, with this bill, we can help put the American economy back on
track.
This bill would provide continued support to our small businesses on
the path to economic recovery. The bill increases access to much needed
capital, encourages entrepreneurship, and promotes equity. The small
business jobs bill includes incentives to strengthen capital
investment.
I urge my colleagues to support the small business jobs bill. I might
add that today we are working to reach an
[[Page S6352]]
agreement on consideration of amendments to this legislation. We hope
we will have more to announce later as we reach that agreement. I very
much hope that can be done very expeditiously so we get this bill
passed and get the needed assistance to our small businesses.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Afghanistan
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this morning to talk about the
United States strategy in Afghanistan. However troubling the recent
leak of classified documents, the topics discussed in those documents
confirm some of the difficulty we face as a country today in
Afghanistan.
Much of what was reported in the newspapers the last couple of days
is, frankly, not news, but a review of what we already knew, that
corruption continues to plague the Afghan Government, the performance
of the Afghan National Army and police is uneven and at times
problematic, and the Taliban have been emboldened in recent years.
As I said, this is all information we knew. It might have more
details about it, some more reliable than others. But the release of
these documents should, at the same time, help to sharpen our focus on
all of those issues and more, and ask the tough questions, as is our
responsibility in the Senate in a time of war.
This year, 2010, has already been the deadliest year on record in
Afghanistan. We have new military leadership on the ground, General
Petraeus, and assurances from the administration that civil-military
relations are strong. Two weeks ago, Ambassador Holbrook appeared
before the Foreign Relations Committee where he described the civilian
component of our engagement in Afghanistan.
Our regular reports from the administration are instructive and do
indeed show that we are making progress in some areas. But the overall
picture is not encouraging. Casualties are up. Fifty-three
servicemembers from Pennsylvania have lost their lives in Afghanistan.
And, by way of comparison, in Iraq over the course of that battle, that
war and the battles that were part of it, Pennsylvania has had 196
killed in action. So when we get above 50 Pennsylvanians killed in
action, that is getting very high.
Of course, casualties mean both those who have been killed and those
who have been wounded. So the 53 from Pennsylvania I mentioned are
killed in action. We have many more who have been wounded. Our troops
continue to be plagued by the threats posed by IEDs, improvised
explosive devices, something I have been continually raising with the
administration and others and will continue to do this until the threat
to our servicemembers ends or is sharply reduced.
Unfortunately, we have a problem which is not just the IED itself but
the ammonium nitrate, which is the most significant ingredient, which,
as everyone knows, is a fertilizer which is used across the region and
in other parts of the world as well. But that ammonium nitrate is both
the main and most potent ingredient, and its inflow from Pakistan is
still a huge problem. We are working to address this proliferation and
the transport of this deadly material in the region. We are also
working closely with the Government of Pakistan to address this threat.
But today I wish to review what I see as three main areas of our
involvement in Afghanistan. The three we have talked about over and
over here in the Senate are: security, governance, and development.
First, the most significant issue for many Americans is the basic
security or military question, and that part of the strategy. On last
Tuesday, the international community met in Kabul to assess the
progress as it relates to Afghanistan itself and the stability in
Afghanistan. This was the biggest international gathering in Kabul in
40 years, 70 dignitaries from around the world, including our own
Secretary of State, Secretary Clinton, and U.N. Secretary General Ban
Ki-moon. Kabul itself, the city, was under virtual lockdown for the
gathering, which passed without any major attacks, thank goodness. That
is a testimony to the Afghan security forces.
The conference attendees endorsed President Karzai's plan for Afghan
security forces to take over the responsibility for safeguarding the
country by 2014, setting a potential timeline for foreign troops'
departure.
President Karzai also said his government ``continued earnestly and
with the full dedication, the pursuit of the peace process,'' with the
Taliban, which has been endorsed by the international community. The
United States has laid down basic requirements or conditions for any
group seeking to negotiate, seeking some kind of reconciliation. There
are three, and we need all three.
First, any group that wants to engage in this process has to end its
ties to al-Qaida; second, they have to end violence itself; and, third,
accept the Afghanistan Constitution.
Secretary Clinton met with a group of women in Kabul and reiterated
her commitment to protecting women during this difficult transition
period in Afghanistan. This issue is critical and has a direct impact
on U.S. national security.
Women are the backbone of Afghan society, and they play a
determinative role in whether their sons resort to extremism. It is
that simple. With American fighting men and women giving, as Lincoln
said, their ``last full measure of devotion to their country,'' the
product of our troops' sacrifice cannot be an Afghanistan that does not
respect the rights of women. The Taliban cannot be allowed to impose
their Draconian version of justice as it relates to women or society in
general.
Senator Boxer and I cochaired a Foreign Relations Subcommittee
hearing on women in Afghanistan a number of months ago and will
continue to strongly advocate for the rights of women in Afghanistan.
We commend and applaud the work of Secretary Clinton and her Department
on this issue. It is not only the right thing to do, it is literally in
our national security interest to do this work.
The most unfortunate indicator in the security environment, however,
is the increase in American casualties, killed in action, and wounded.
June was the deadliest month on record. The death toll was 103. More
than half of them were American servicemembers, and from Pennsylvania
four servicemembers were among those 103 killed in action.
A new Afghan study also revealed that civilian casualties are on the
rise. More than 1,000 Afghan civilians were killed in the first 6
months of 2010, a slight increase compared to the same period in 2009.
However, the number of people killed in NATO air strikes in the same
period has decreased by 50 percent because of changes in the rules of
engagement. So it is good news that that number is going down.
Most of the civilian deaths documented by the report were caused by
insurgents, with the widespread use of roadside bombs, IEDs, as I
mentioned before, particularly deadly. They alone have killed 300
civilians, those kinds of explosions.
In addition to security, which is essential, of course, in any
strategy to make sure there is stability in Afghanistan, the second
element is once you have security or are making progress on security,
you hear this talk over and over again about clear, hold, and build.
You clear out the insurgents, clear out the enemy, and then you have
got to hold that region or that geography, and then build on it. The
building, of course, cannot take place unless there is good governance.
And to say we have a lot of questions in this area is a dramatic
understatement.
Corruption in the Afghan Government was a major issue at this week's
conference. President Karzai identified corruption as a major concern
in his inaugural address, going back a number of months. We support
steps he has taken to begin addressing this problem. These include
issuing a Presidential decree in March of 2010 that provided that the
USAID-supported High Office of Oversight have additional investigative
powers.
It also outlined a process we are supporting for establishing a
monitoring
[[Page S6353]]
and evaluation committee on corruption comprised of Afghan and
international experts. Last week, Afghanistan's Cabinet approved a bill
which will allow government ministers and senior officials accused of
corruption to be put on trial. For Americans, that doesn't seem like a
big development, but that alone is significant progress, to put corrupt
officials on trial and have a judgment rendered pursuant thereto. Once
passed by Parliament or Presidential decree, this bill will allow the
creation of a special tribunal to try officials accused of graft or
corruption. Under current Afghan law, ministers are immune from
prosecution in ordinary courts. It is hard to understand that, but that
is the situation as it stands now.
American officials estimate that $14 billion a year in assistance is
put through the government, but most of the current assistance package
now goes through Western organizations. As the Obama administration
makes an effort to increase direct assistance to the Afghan Government,
safeguards must be put in place to ensure Afghans bolster their
financial management systems and combat corruption. As emphasized in
the administration's January Afghan strategy document, there has been a
major U.S. and Afghan push to build up local governance. This approach
represents an attempt to build some of the tribal and other local
structures destroyed in the course of constant warfare over several
decades. We have a long way to go on governance, but it bears scrutiny
and attention and a lot of tough questions asked by Members of the
House and Senate and getting answers to those tough questions from the
administration and from President Karzai and his government.
Third is the issue of development. In his testimony last week,
Ambassador Holbrooke highlighted USAID's agriculture voucher program.
Launched in September of 2009, this program has distributed wheat seed
to more than 366,00 farmers--critically important to give farmers the
resources and help to develop their crops. This strategy also resulted
in the training of 80,000 Afghan farmers in best practices and employed
over 70,000 Afghans on short-term rural infrastructure projects. In
many places throughout Afghanistan's south, these programs are being
administered increasingly under the auspices of the Afghan Ministry of
Agriculture, whose extension agents receive training from forward-
deployed USDA and USAID agricultural advisers. Many Americans might
think the only people on the ground are soldiers and military
personnel. We have a lot of dedicated Americans who work for the
Department of Agriculture, for USAID, who work for a number of Federal
Government agencies helping the Afghan people to develop their economy
and to govern their country better.
Ambassador Holbrooke also discussed our new counternarcotics
strategy, which combines law enforcement, intelligence, interdiction,
demand reduction, regional coordination, and alternative livelihood
programs. He reports that:
We have seen significant increases in: the number of drug
labs destroyed; the number of drug traffickers arrested; the
amounts of opium, poppy, heroin, and morphine [based-drugs]
seized; the number of joint operations with Afghan forces.
A joint ISAF-Embassy Kabul effort has been restoring cellular
telephone service in areas where the Taliban has destroyed or
deactivated cell towers. Over 20 cell towers have been reactivated in
Helmand Province and Kandahar, with significant benefits for local
communities. One of the civilians embedded with the Marines in Helmand
Province reported that soon after a local cell tower resumed operation,
``three cell phone shops opened up in the district bizarre and SIM
cards were available in the whole of the district--without involvement
from the Marines or U.S. civilians.''
That is a bit of good news in the midst of a lot of difficult
challenges.
All of us commend the Obama administration's work to bolster civilian
efforts in Afghanistan. On a mission so important, where troops and
families are sacrificing so much every day, building civilian capacity
can never move fast enough. However, we have tripled the amount of
civilian advisers since the Obama administration assumed office in
2009. The administration has refocused development priorities on
agriculture and changed the rules of engagement to ensure fewer Afghan
civilians are negatively affected and turned into potential enemies. We
are making progress, but much more remains to be done on the three
critical measurements: security, governance, and development.
I will continue to ask tough questions and demand answers on all
three parts of our strategy. The American people have a right to these
answers.
The threat posed by IEDs in Afghanistan is the No. 1 killer. We know
this from many reports. The work done by the Joint Improvised Explosive
Devices Defeat Organization, known as JIEDDO, is working actively to
address the threat on the ground. The State Department, led by
Secretary Clinton, is engaged with governments across the region to
develop a comprehensive approach on countering IEDs and having a
strategy for stopping the flow of ammonium nitrate into Afghanistan
from Pakistan and other places in the region, which is the central
ingredient in the IEDs. I am glad this effort is taking place by our
government but much more work needs to be done. We need to do
everything we can to stop the attacks that result from the use of
ammonium nitrate and other ingredients in the IEDs. Nothing is more
important as part of our strategy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The Senator from Virginia is
recognized.
Reform of the Criminal Justice System
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I rise to point out to Members of this body
that yesterday in the House of Representatives, the National Criminal
Justice Commission Act of 2010 was passed in a noncontroversial manner
by a voice vote. This legislation is identical to legislation my staff
and I have worked on for more than 3 years, which has cleared the
Judiciary Committee, which now has 39 cosponsors, including the Senator
from Pennsylvania and the Presiding Officer. I urge leadership on both
sides of the aisle to bring this legislation to the floor. Let's get
the task of reforming our criminal justice system into motion. It has
been more than 40 years since we have had a strong look at all the
different components of our criminal justice system and how broken it
has become. This legislation would provide the right vehicle to do so.
I started working on this issue as soon as I came to the Senate. We
worked along with the Joint Economic Committee and many nonprofit
groups and 501(c) groups to hold extensive hearings on the issues of
mass incarceration, drug policy, how these different components of
criminal justice interrelate, and why we need to take a larger look at
the process. We designed this legislation with input from across the
philosophical spectrum in order to provide strong advice to the
Congress about how to fix all the components of the criminal justice
system, from how people are apprehended, what to do with them after
they are apprehended, when do we put people in prison, how long, what
happens to them when they are in prison, what does prison
administration look like, what do reentry programs look like, and how
do we deal with issues such as transnational gains. While it is very
difficult to deal with these issues one at a time, we have a vehicle
here that has been scrubbed through the entire philosophical spectrum
with great support. I will show some of the areas of support in a
minute.
The starting point is why, why do we need to move on this now.
I wrote an article for Parade magazine last March when I decided to
move our legislation forward. We got tremendous support across the
country once we started talking about it. The two components we all
ought to be concerned about are, first, incarceration in the United
States has skyrocketed, particularly since about 1980. In the United
States today, we have far more people in jail per capita than any other
country in the Western world and actually in other parts of the world
as well. We have 5 percent of the world's population and 25 percent of
the world's known prison population. At the same time, we have another
5 million people in different parts of the criminal justice process who
are not incarcerated. More than 7 million people are involved in the
criminal justice process today.
[[Page S6354]]
At the same time, if we ask people if they feel any safer, more than
70 percent will tell us they feel less safe in their communities than
they did 1 year ago. This is a trend that has actually increased over
the years since about 2001. We are putting more people in jail, we have
more people involved in the criminal justice system, and people feel
less safe. Clearly, this is a leadership issue. We need to get our arms
around it. We have a responsibility as leaders of the Nation to put the
right process into motion so we can make better sense out of the
criminal justice system.
Another statistic, before I talk about the process we went through,
when we look at the increase in incarceration, a huge part of it has
been through our inability to get our arms around enforcement of drug
policies. If we go from 1980 to 2007 and look at Federal, State, and
local prisons or jails, we will see that our incarceration of drug
offenders has skyrocketed by 1,200 percent. In 1980, we had 41,000
people in jail on drug offenses. By 2007, it was 500,000. A significant
percentage of these people are incarcerated for nonviolent offenses,
and a very high percentage have been minorities.
When we started talking about this issue, we heard a lot of unease,
particularly from law enforcement's side. We brought them in one at a
time. I am not on the Judiciary Committee. My staff brought them right
into the office. We sat down with more than 100 different organizations
from across the philosophical spectrum to listen, to get their input on
what this Commission ought to do, and to make sure we are reaching out
to all aspects of the issue of criminal justice. We have support now
from across the philosophical spectrum: Fraternal Order of Police,
National Association of Police Organizations, the International
Association of Chiefs of Police, nearly 20,000 members who called their
own press conference a couple months ago to endorse this legislation.
Among their leadership, they were saying this was the most important
issue they would be working on in their careers.
At the same time, we have received endorsements from people who were
more concerned about the individual rights area of criminal justice:
the NAACP, the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch, the
National Association of Social Workers. This is a buy-in from all the
elements in our country involved in this issue; that we need to find
the type of solution that is going to make our system more fair, more
efficient, and, in the end, is going to give us the potential, in terms
of the reentry process, to reduce recidivism and reduce crime in
communities.
The last point I would make--and I hope my colleagues will think
about this--with the passage of this legislation from the House last
night, we are ready. There is not any major piece of controversy over a
piece of legislation that we have sat down and listened to from the
Republican side. We have a seven and seven buy-in on the membership of
the commission in terms of appointments from different party leaders.
This is a copy of the cover of this week's Economist magazine I show
you in the Chamber. The Economist magazine, in my view, even though it
is a British magazine, is probably the finest news magazine in the
world. I have read it for more than 30 years. The cover is ``Why
America locks up too many people.'' They have an indepth article in
here asking the question, What is wrong with the American criminal
justice system, and what needs to be done to fix it?
So I would ask the leadership of both our parties, and particularly
those on the other side, let's step forward and create this commission.
It is a 1\1/2\-year sunsetted commission. It is not something that is
going to keep going. We are going to put experts on the commission to
come back to us and talk to us about how we can make this system fair,
take care of the problems of crime, the worries people have, and at the
same time be a lot more sensible in terms of whom we are incarcerating
and how we are assisting them in their reentry into our society.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, are we in morning business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering the small business
bill.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I will speak to the bill we are
considering.
I rise today because I know we need to throw a lifeline to small
businesses by increasing their access to credit. They have bills to
pay, payroll checks to issue, and accounts payable mounting as they try
to drive economic development. I supported the $30 billion lending
increase this past week--I think the Presiding Officer did as well--
because we know we have to do all we can to get small business cranked
up in our country. I supported it with the understanding that if we
were going to finance $30 billion from the banking sector, the very
least we could do as well would be to increase lending without costing
taxpayers a dime.
I wish to speak specifically to a piece of legislation I introduced,
and I introduced it in amendment format as well, with bipartisan
support. This amendment would get government out of the way so that
credit unions could increase their small business loan portfolios.
Right now, credit unions are making small business loans, but there is
an arbitrary cap on the size and how many loans they can actually
issue. In every single State--in Illinois, Colorado, California, and
North Carolina--there are credit unions that have money and are ready
to responsibly lend more money, but the Federal Government is standing
in the way. I, for one, am not ready to say to all businesses that they
have to close their doors because of a Federal cap on loans. In an
economy such as the one we now face, we have to change that situation.
We all know that when small businesses expand and grow, that will be
critical to pulling us out of this recession. In the last 15 years,
small businesses have generated two-thirds of all the new jobs created
in the United States, and they currently employ more than half of all
Americans in the workforce.
As I travel across Colorado--as I know the Senator from Illinois
travels across Illinois--and I visit with small businesspeople, they
continually ask me: Where is the lending? I thought the banks were
supposed to start lending again.
Despite remaining profitable, small businesses have been unable to
secure the loans they need to make investments in inventory, expand,
and ultimately hire new workers. That is, again, why I introduced this
bipartisan amendment to allow credit unions to ramp up small business
lending without costing taxpayers a dime. I wish to say that again. We
are not costing taxpayers a dime to put these changes into current law.
Let me speak to current law. Under current statute, credit unions are
required to limit their small business lending to 12.25 percent of
their credit union's total assets. But credit unions have run up
against that cap, and the only thing keeping them from jump-starting
our economy is an outmoded, antigrowth law which I have referenced.
After we introduced our bill last year, we heard from inside-the-
beltway banking representatives who said increasing credit union loans
to small businesses wasn't going to be safe or sound. Now, I suspect
they were more concerned about others making loans than they were about
safety and soundness. We all know in this Chamber that banks and credit
unions regularly snipe at each other. It is almost like the Hatfields
and the McCoys. But in the end, this isn't a bank or credit union
issue; this is a small business issue.
So in coming to this updated, bipartisan compromise, I have spoken to
the Senate Banking Committee, the Treasury Department, and even the
credit
[[Page S6355]]
unions' own regulator, the National Credit Union Administration. They
have all agreed to support our compromise that will safely and soundly
increase small business lending by the credit union sector without
costing Americans a dime. Best of all, most important of all, this
legislation could lead to large-scale job creation in my home State of
Colorado and around our country.
The amendment takes the most well capitalized, the most experienced,
and best run credit unions that have run up against this lending cap I
have mentioned and allows them to meet the rising demand for small
business loans. When they meet those conditions, their regulator will
then allow that small business lending cap to slowly increase from the
current 12.25 percent to a maximum of 27.5 percent of total assets. We
know these credit unions are the most prudent financial institutions
around, and nobody can argue that allowing them to throw a lifeline to
small business is irresponsible. So this amendment is a sound, surefire
way to grow our economy by increasing credit unions' ability to lend to
small businesses. Again, I wish to remind my colleagues that this is at
no cost to the taxpayers--no cost to our taxpayers.
The National Credit Union Association estimates that these sensible
reforms would increase credit union lending to small businesses by $10
billion within the first year of enactment, with an increase of nearly
$200 million in my home State of Colorado. This is just an example.
This new access to credit is estimated to create over 100,000 new jobs
nationwide. It sounds to me like a probusiness, projobs policy that we
all can agree we need. The National Small Business Association and even
the National Association of Realtors have gotten behind our efforts,
and they are urging us to pass this important provision.
Everybody here--I look around the Chamber, and I see my friend from
Oklahoma--knows what shape our economy is in today. Small businesses
continue to struggle to access credit as large banks have significantly
cut back on Main Street lending. We have all met business owners who
have experienced this credit squeeze. If we are going to finance $30
billion to increase lending, which I do support, we should at least
take this small step and help small businesses at no cost to taxpayers.
So as I close, I wish to urge my colleagues to avoid the infighting
that would have us believe this is about banks or credit unions because
it is truly about our small business sector. We can't turn away
entrepreneurs in this economic climate. We want to create jobs and
begin new businesses, especially because of our politics here in
Washington. I know there is not a single Senator who wants to look a
small business owner in the eye who hasn't been able to get a loan
because of an arbitrary government cap on small business lending. So
let's unlock credit markets in Colorado and throughout the country.
This amendment could be an important part of that effort. I wish to
work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to quickly pass this
amendment and allow our Nation's small businesses to again set our
country on a path toward job growth and prosperity in the future.
Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their attention, and I yield
the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after
addressing the Senate for 5 minutes, Senator Inhofe be next in line.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma,
and I thank Senator Udall from Colorado for his words.
Each day in towns and cities across my State of Ohio, small business
owners and manufacturers will walk into a bank and apply for a loan to
expand their business. They have workers, they have the capacity to
grow, and they have orders for sales. They want to hire more workers.
Too often, though, a creditworthy bakery shop owner, an auto supply
manufacturer, or a clean energy entrepreneur will be turned away,
snuffing out their dream and our economic recovery.
The strength of our economy depends on the strength of our small
businesses. We know that about half of all employees in my State of
Ohio and in most places across the country work in small businesses. We
know that about two-thirds of jobs created in this country come from
small business. Whether it is to create these jobs or supply services
to other businesses or export products to new markets, small
businesses, of course, rely on access to credit. Yet bank lending
dropped by $578 billion last year--the largest decline since the 1940s.
That means 60 percent of small businesses in America reported
they didn't have the credit they needed to meet their business needs.
It is unacceptable that the same banks taxpayers helped save when the
economy faltered are refusing to lend to responsible small businesses
with good credit histories and good business plans. Many of these banks
are building massive reservoirs of cash rather than making simple loans
or extending lines of credit to small businesses. As a result, small
businesses are denied the capital they desperately need to expand
operations and hire more workers. That need is especially acute for
Ohio manufacturers that have higher operating expenses, large upfront
costs, and complex machinery to maintain. The issue of easing access to
credit for manufacturers has been simmering for more than a year.
For the past year, I have chaired several hearings in the Banking
Subcommittee on Economic Policy on how to restore credit to Main
Street. We examined how to fix the problems to small business borrowing
and lending programs, having heard directly from small manufacturers
and other small businesses and small and big banks.
Chairwoman Landrieu of the Small Business Committee has assembled a
powerful small business bill that strengthens our economic recovery by
partnering business and government. Senator Snowe has made significant
contributions to this bill. There are few stronger advocates for small
business and small manufacturers than she is.
This bill has several provisions that will help small business owners
access new credit, refinance existing debt, and open cash flow as the
economy continues to recover.
Last week, we took a big step toward helping small businesses in this
country by ending debate on the amendment to add a $30 billion lending
fund to the bill. I applaud Senator Voinovich, the senior Senator in my
State, and Senator LeMieux for their work and support.
A key feature in the bill is the State Small Business Credit
Initiative Program, a program I have worked on with Senators Levin and
Warner and Stabenow, along with the Secretary of the Treasury. This
program would help small business owners and manufacturers whose
collateral--it might be commercial real estate or it might be factory
equipment--depreciated during the recession.
It is the same collateral, but it is not worth as much because of
what has happened to the economy.
Too many small business owners have been forced to pay higher
interest rates on their loans, through no fault of their own, because
their underlying collateral lost value due to the weakened real estate
market and overall economy.
Almost daily, Governor Ted Strickland and I hear from small business
owners who would benefit from the program, along with other State-based
small business lending initiatives.
The bill also extends the Recovery Act's Small Business
Administration-backed loans, which have already helped create more than
650,000 jobs nationwide.
Because of these loans, small businesses can now create jobs and
generate tax revenue for communities across Ohio, at no cost to
taxpayers.
By extending these loans, startup small businesses could buy new
equipment, or existing small businesses can make long-term investments
to expand operations.
My office has held more than a dozen SBA workshops across Ohio--in
New Philadelphia, Chillicothe, Toledo, Akron, Youngstown, Cleveland,
and Columbus--to connect more than a thousand small businesses with SBA
resources. Clearly, there is a demand for these types of loans, which
is one of the reasons the bill is so important.
[[Page S6356]]
Let's not forget that 2 years ago, our economy was on the brink of
another Great Depression. When President Obama took office, we were
losing 700,000 jobs a month. Today, we are growing the economy--not
fast enough, and there is not enough job creation to hire everybody
back who lost their jobs. We know that. And there is not enough job
creation to hire high school and college graduates and young men and
women returning from service in the military. We are growing, but we
are not growing the economy at the speed we need. We need to continue
the growth.
From the Recovery Act, to the health care bill, to financial reform,
we are helping small business owners achieve the American dream of
entrepreneurship, while rebuilding the economy along the way.
Through the Small Business Jobs Act, more small business owners can
walk into a bank and receive the loans they need to expand operations,
hire new workers, and get our economy back on track.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Energy
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, let me state that I have a great
deal of respect for my friend from Ohio. I cannot agree, however, with
the things this administration has done to pull us out of the
recession. A lot of people believe the Federal Government can do that.
I look at the institutions, and I say to the Chair, I have people who
come into my office and it doesn't matter what industry they are in,
they are all scared to death. It is a mentality that the Federal
Government can take these things over and somehow make them better.
This administration is attacking every institution that made this
country great right now. I don't care if you are in banking, insurance,
health care, or the oil businesses--all of them are under attack. There
is a myth out there that if the Federal Government takes it over, it
will be run better than it would when run by the private sector. That
is a prelude for the thoughts I want to share concerning what happened
last night after 10 o'clock.
The majority leader, Senator Reid, came out with a type of energy
bill, I suppose you could say. He has been talking about an energy bill
for quite some time. What I have seen in the bill that is called an
energy bill--I can't speak too specifically about it, because it didn't
come out until late last night. But we know this: First, they start off
by taking off any liability cap on drilling, whether it is in the gulf
or elsewhere. That is my understanding.
The problem we have--and some of the people in this Chamber might
remember that I had occasion to come to the floor and object to the
Menendez request about four different times in the last month, because
what he was attempting to do is what this bill is suggesting--take all
liability caps off. If you do that, something happens that is bad. I
hope that is not the intent of the authors of the bill that came out
last night. But what you do by taking the cap off is you limit who is
going to be able--once the moratorium is lifted--to drill offshore to
the giants.
We have five big oil companies--the big of the bigs--and everybody is
talking about BP, the one responsible for the most devastating spill in
our history. If you take the cap off, that allows the BPs and the
nationally owned oil companies to drill. In other words, we have
independents all over America that have the capability and are
providing jobs in the gulf, to all the Gulf States. If you come along
and, all of a sudden, say you cannot do it now because you cannot
comply with this, there is a serious problem.
We have a solution to that, where oil companies would be putting into
a fund--some of you might remember, 20 years ago, the Exxon Valdez
oilspill. I remember going up there 20 years ago. That was a
devastating thing. We are still feeling the damage that came from that
spill. When I got there, something interesting was happening. The far-
left environmentalists, who wanted to shut down all kinds of drilling
all over America and elsewhere, were up there celebrating. I said: What
are you celebrating? They said: We are going to parlay this spill--20
years ago--into stopping drilling on the North Slope. I said: Why would
we do that?
That was a transportation accident. If you remember, that was a ship
that came in carrying oil from foreign countries. They had the
accident, and we had the devastating spill. But if you stop us from
developing our own domestic resources, we are going to have to
transport more oil from other countries. The incident of a potential
oilspill would be much greater if we are transporting that much. They
said: We are going to do it anyway.
I saw the same thing when the oilspill took place a few months ago in
the gulf. All the people down there were almost celebrating, saying: We
are going to parlay this into stopping all oil production offshore, and
maybe even beyond that. That is essentially what the far left wants to
do.
Here we have this bill that came out last night, which takes the caps
off so that the only ones left--I call this the big oil bill. If we
were to pass what came out of the majority leader's office last night,
it would only allow giant oil companies, and maybe nationalized ones,
to do the drilling. This is a huge thing.
The statement I am making--by the way, I have to quote someone I
don't often agree with, and that is Carol Browner, the head of the EPA
during the Clinton administration, and now the environmental czar in
this administration. She said:
So it will mean [talking about this subject] that you only
have large companies in this sector, but maybe this is a
sector where you really need large companies who can bring to
bear the expertise and who have the wherewithal to cover the
expense if something goes wrong.
She is saying that only big oil and China should be able to produce
in the gulf. The problem with this is, everybody understands--certainly
those Senators, Democrats and Republicans, from Texas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida all understand what the problem is
here in terms of jobs. If you stop the independents from producing out
in the gulf, it not only makes us more dependent upon foreign
countries, or our ability to run this machine called America, but it
does away with jobs.
The IHS Global Insight came out with a study that said if you do
this, the gulf region would lose over 300,000 jobs by 2020. That is the
IHS Global Insight. People don't argue with their credibility.
This is probably one of the biggest job loss bills we could have. I
don't think it will pass, but if it did, that would be the problem.
I am going to address one more thing in this bill, and that is the
technique of hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing is a system
whereby they go down--here is the aquifer here, 400 or 500 feet below
the surface, and about 2 miles down--they drill down through that and
use the hydraulic fracturing in order to get the close formation of oil
and gas so they can produce that. Without that, they say--and I think
nobody disagrees with this--we are not going to be able to produce
natural gas. Everybody is talking about natural gas and how we are
going to need more and more of it, how we would develop our potential
and the shale potential particularly, and we can do away with having to
be dependent upon countries such as Venezuela and countries in the
Middle East for our ability to run the machine called America. So we
have this methodology called hydraulic fracturing. The first hydraulic
fracturing was done in 1949 in my State of Oklahoma. That is 60 years
ago. There has never been one incident of contamination of water since
that happened.
I am going to show you this. This is not me saying this; this is the
EPA Administrator, Carol Browner:
There is no evidence that the hydraulic fracturing at issue
has resulted in any contamination or endangerment of
underground sources of drinking water.
Ever. Again, that is Carol Browner. This gives you an idea of where
all this shale is. If you look at this--and I remember talking about
hydraulic fracturing at some length some time ago, and Senator Dorgan,
from North Dakota, came in and said he agreed with everything that
Inhofe said. Obviously, this is Bakken shale up here. This chart shows
the extremely large potential all over the country. Last July, I
addressed the Senate for 30 minutes on this invaluable technique to
access natural gas and oil reserves throughout the country.
[[Page S6357]]
While the country is at nearly 10-percent unemployment, access to
these reserves means good news for jobs. I provided some examples of
the thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in royalties, State tax
revenues, and economic activity shale plays, such as the Barnett shale
in Texas, Woodford shale in Oklahoma and Arkansas, and Haynesville
shale in Louisiana and, as you can see, all over America on this map.
People are talking about big oil or oil in some negative context.
There are hundreds of thousands of royalty owners around the country
who would be shut down if we try to close down this methodology called
hydraulic fracturing. This 60-year-old technique has been responsible
for 7 billion barrels of oil and 600 trillion cubic feet of natural
gas. The National Petroleum Council reports that 60 to 80 percent of
all wells in the next 10 years will require hydraulic fracturing to
remain productive and profitable. In other words, it is almost all of
them that will require hydraulic fracturing to be competitive.
In Oklahoma, we should know. The first hydraulic fracturing was near
Duncan, OK, in 1949. Very simply, it is the temporary injection of
mostly water with sand, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and other additives
to fracture and prop open a ground formation to improve the flow of oil
and natural gas through rock pores and increase oil and gas production.
Ninety-five percent of the fluid is water, and 99 percent is water and
sand.
New reports over the last 2, 3 years reveal some of the highest
totals ever of natural gas in the United States. These reports
demonstrate that at 2 quadrillion cubic feet of current demand, we have
enough natural gas for us to keep America going for the next 100 years.
That is the significance of this. If you do this and do away with that
process--hydraulic fracturing--that will shut it down. So we are
talking about now we have the potential to supply enough natural gas to
run this country for the next hundred years. That is how significant
this is.
Due to new natural gas shale plays all over the country, new studies
demonstrate recoverable reserves of natural gas to meet the current
demand for at least the next hundred years.
By the way, a report that came out shows that the United States is
No. 1 in terms of recoverable reserves. We are talking about gas,
natural gas, oil, and coal.
Some Democrats may argue that this section 4301 is only a disclosure
provision of the chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process.
That is not true. State regulators have safely and effectively
regulated hydraulic fracturing for the past 60 years, as was stated by
Carol Browner. State rules, such as in my State of Oklahoma, require
disclosure of chemicals. What this provision is about is a new EPA
Federal control. Somehow this administration thinks that if the Federal
Government isn't running something--this is an obsession, where the
Federal Government has to run everything. When I was mayor of Tulsa, we
had a guy, a police commissioner, and he had a saying that ``if it
ain't broke, don't fix it.'' This hasn't been broken once in 60 years.
At a press conference, somebody talked about, well, didn't this happen
in Nevada once? Well, I have no record--neither does Carol Browner--
that there has been contamination as a result of hydraulic fracturing.
Proponents of this language argue that it is needed because fracking
contaminates groundwater. As the ranking member of the Environment and
Publics Works Committee, I have asked the USGS and the EPA's Assistant
Administrators for both the Enforcement Office and the Water Office in
testimony in front of the Environment and Public Works Committee
whether they are aware of any documented case of water contamination
due to hydraulic fracturing. They could not name one. That is because
there isn't any.
These officials are not alone in this opinion. President Obama's
energy czar agrees with me. In 1995, as EPA Administrator, Carol
Browner wrote in response to litigation that Federal regulation is not
necessary for hydraulic fracturing. She correctly made the point that
the practice was closely regulated by the States and that ``EPA is not
legally required to regulate hydraulic fracturing.'' Most importantly,
she further wrote that there was ``no evidence that hydraulic
fracturing resulted in any drinking water contamination'' in the
litigation involved. We are talking about something that is not broken.
It clearly is necessary for us to get all of this out to run this
machine called America. As we can see, this is not a partisan
Republican issue; Democrats alike understand the importance of
hydraulic fracturing.
When I spoke on the floor last July, as I mentioned, Senator Dorgan
from North Dakota followed my comments saying that he agreed with my
assessment that not only is fracking needed to access new reserves,
such as the ones in the Bakken shale in North Dakota, but that he is
not aware of any groundwater contamination from the practice. I
appreciate the fact that he is outspoken in this area.
It is also extremely important to point out that Congress has already
tasked EPA in law to study the effects of any hydraulic fracturing on
water quality and public health. The EPA has already begun using $4.3
million for this effort, which is being led by Dr. Robert Puls, who
works in EPA's Groundwater Research Laboratory based in Ada, OK. I
encourage this study. We know there has not been any problem. I want to
make sure we can put the final nail in this coffin, that people somehow
think hydraulic fracturing contaminates water. This is a way to do an
independent study. Let the government study it.
This bill was drafted last night at 10 o'clock in spite of the fact
that we do not have any results back from that study. Even if one
wanted to believe so badly and did believe this is a problem, let's at
least wait for the study before composing new legislation.
Natural gas development brings billions in private investment and
millions of jobs to America. This country cannot afford to limit the
production of its domestic energy resources due to unfounded rumors of
environmental damage and the usual hysterical claims from extremist
environmental organizations looking for the next crusade because cap
and trade is dead.
Let me repeat that. It was 13 months ago that I made a statement from
this podium that for the next 12 months, people are going to say: We
are going to pass some cap-and-trade legislation.
I said: We are not going to because it is dead. How many people,
particularly the newly elected Senators, want to go back to their
States and say: Aren't you proud of me? I voted for the largest tax
increase in the history of America. That would be cap and trade.
Cap and trade is dead. Yesterday, the White House made some kind of
statement that if we can get something thrown into conference and then
have a lameduck session after all these faces have changed, we are
going to try it again. It is not going to work. It is dead.
Let's look at what came out last night and study it. We have not had
time to do that. We have not seen the exact language yet. It was not
drafted until 10 o'clock last night. When they come to the point where
they say they are going to do something to change hydraulic fracturing,
that would be critical. That is one thing that would kill the
development and production of natural gas to run this machine called
America.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak
again, as I did yesterday, on the committee-passed children's nutrition
reauthorization legislation. Before I do, I ask unanimous consent that
my colleague, Senator Chambliss, be able to speak for 5 minutes
following my speech.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today again to speak
about our committee-passed bill, the child nutrition reauthorization,
and certainly the critical need for us to pass this legislation before
child nutrition programs expire on September 30. Most
[[Page S6358]]
people know we do not move at breakneck speeds in Washington, and we
have very limited time between now and September 30. In that time, our
children will be going back to school. They will be going to their
respective schools across this country, and we will have missed an
opportunity to improve their lives in that school and in that
community, to improve their health and well-being through greater
access to free and reduced lunches and--not summer feeding programs but
our breakfast programs, as well as the nutritional value of those
meals.
I hope all of my colleagues will join me in helping us move our child
nutrition bill forward. The bipartisan Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act
will make a tremendous step toward addressing the childhood hunger and
obesity crisis in our country and put us on a path to significantly
improving the health of the next generation of Americans.
Congress has the opportunity to make a historic investment in our
most precious gift and the future of this country--all of our children,
not just my children, not just the other Members' children, but
children all across this Nation. Other mothers and fathers, parents all
across this country, and grandparents who are raising their children,
who love and care for their children just as much as I love and care
for my children, will have an opportunity, when we pass this bill, to
realize a greater opportunity for their children.
Today, I am here to talk about what it will mean if we miss this
opportunity, what it will mean for our children, our hard-working
families across this Nation, and schools across the country if we fail
to pass this bill and pass it before we leave.
The obesity crisis America faces comes at a tremendous cost to our
health care system. Many of us do not think of it that way, but it
does. It costs us roughly $147 billion per year. We should not miss
this opportunity to proactively address the obesity crisis and begin to
relieve our health care system of those financial burdens that follow
obesity-related disease.
This bill includes the first congressionally mandated,
noninflationary increase in the reimbursement rate for school meals
prepared and served across this country since 1973. I do not want to
talk too much because in 1973, I believe I was in junior high, perhaps.
We have not increased the reimbursement rate for meals in our schools
since 1973. We know what 1973 dollars purchased and we know what
today's dollars purchase. We are strapping our school districts with
trying to do a better job at providing healthier meals since we now
know the difference it makes in our children's lives, both in their
ability to learn and in their ability to grow and be healthy.
This reimbursement rate is performance based in our bill. That means
schools only get it if they provide healthy meals that meet program
guidelines. This provision will invest roughly $3.2 billion in
additional money over the next 10 years. That is over $300 million per
year in additional revenue for our schools. That is meaningful to these
schools that are working diligently to try to provide the healthiest
meals possible for all of our children.
I toured a lot of our schools during some of the breaks we have had
this year and listened to some of those food service folks who work
hard day-in and day-out trying to come together and figure out how they
can meet guidelines and provide the healthiest foods possible to our
students and to our children and to do so on those 1973 dollars. One of
the things I found, which is amazing, is that many of them are still
using 40-, 50-year-old equipment, which means they are having an even
harder time not only because they do not have enough dollars to
purchase the kinds of foods they feel would be healthier, but they do
not even have the equipment to provide the preparation of those foods.
Steaming vegetables one pot at a time for 300 students is impractical.
We look at the opportunities that exist for us to do something.
However, if we fail to pass this bill, schools will miss out on over
$300 million each year, and the next generation will still continue to
pay the price for the health risks caused by obesity.
We can see on this chart what schools in each of our States stand to
lose if we fail to pass this bill. I have looked pretty heavily at the
State of Arkansas, and I notice that the children of Arkansas will miss
out on $3.5 million a year that we could be providing them for
improving the health and well-being of our children through healthier
meals and through greater access for low-income children.
We look at the economy and the economic crisis we have come through.
We know many working families are in dire straits. Having to go through
what they are going to have to go through to try to get their children
into a free or reduced lunch is unbelievable. Yet that is a great place
for those children to get a healthy meal when their families are
suffering in these economic times.
I look at what some of my neighbors might receive. I notice Texas.
Texas gets well over $32 million in these increases to help them
provide for their children through breakfast programs and lunch
programs in their schools and in their school districts.
Some of my other neighbors--Missouri. I look at Missouri and I see
almost $6.5 million. Think about what it would mean to those school
districts and those school service programs to have those additional
resources. Those are critical dollars that schools desperately need to
help reverse the dangerous trend of childhood obesity.
All it will take is just a few hours of floor time to pass this
bipartisan, fully paid for legislation.
Another provision in our bill expands the at-risk afterschool snack
program, also known as the Child and Adult Care Food Program. Our bill
expands this program so afterschool sites in every State can offer
children a full, healthy meal so they do not have to go hungry in the
afternoons as parents are working and, at the end of their work day,
having to pick up their children and then trying to get home to feed
them. If we do not pass this bill, 29 million nutritious afterschool
meals will not be served to hungry children.
Other provisions in our bill expand and improve the use of direct
certification for free school meals through the SNAP and Medicaid
Programs. There will be 120,000 eligible low-income children each year
who will not receive quality meals if we neglect our responsibilities
and fail to pass this legislation.
Again, as I mentioned yesterday, I think of the mountain of paperwork
that comes home from school in the backpacks of my children at the
beginning of the school year--paperwork that has to be filled out that
is detailed. We know that through a direct certification program--and
we know those families have already filled out that paperwork, whether
it is for Medicaid or whether it is for other programs they qualify
for, such as SNAP or other programs--it is critical that we use that
opportunity and those resources to feed hungry children instead of the
staff it takes or the time of the parent or the neglect, perhaps,
because there is not enough time to fill out that paperwork so that
child could have access in a dignified way to the free or reduced
school lunch they need so desperately.
I emphasize again that the critical investment this bill makes is
completely paid for and will not add one cent to the national debt. I
know people have great concern about the debt because I do too. I know
my constituents do, and I know my colleagues do. In the committee, we
worked hard, in a responsible way, to ensure that this bill would be a
good, common-ground area where we could come to find an increase for a
very critical need but to also pay for it in a responsible way. This
truly is an investment, Mr. President, in the next generation. It
ensures that our children will be healthy, and it does so without
saddling them with the financial burden they cannot afford.
Make no mistake, Mr. President, if we fail to pass this legislation
there will be real-world consequences. Those statistics I just cited
aren't just numbers, they are very real children. They are very real
children from the age of 5 to the age of 18. Mine happen to be right in
the middle right now, but they are growing boys. I know how desperately
important it is for them to get nutritious meals, and I work hard at
that. I know every other parent out there wants to do the same for
their children; real children who come from hard-working families are
struggling to make ends meet. These are real children who struggle with
obesity and will
[[Page S6359]]
deal with long-term health consequences throughout their lifetimes if
we don't take the steps to both increase their availability to choices
and, more importantly, increase their access to nutritious meals in the
schools where they spend the majority of their day to begin with.
Let's take the time to pass this legislation. If it is a priority, we
should do it, plain and simple. Just a few hours is all it will take. I
hope my other colleagues will look at this issue and realize that even
in the busy world we are in here, and all the things that we do, taking
just a few hours to focus on things where we have done our work in
committee, where we know it is essential, where we know it will expire,
and when it does we will lose resources, that we can take the time now
to get something done and move it forward.
So I thank you, Mr. President, for this time, and I say a special
thanks to my ranking member, Senator Chambliss, who does a tremendous
job on the Senate Agriculture Committee. I am grateful to him for his
hard work and dedication, and I am a great admirer of all the things he
does and will continue to enjoy working with him on any of the issues
he finds before us in the committee.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I came to the floor to speak on
something else, but I just want to say to my chairman that I commend
her for her hard work and dedication and her leadership on this issue
of child nutrition. We have worked extremely hard over the last couple
of years on this issue, and when she assumed the chairmanship of the
committee, she really put this as a top priority and I think it was the
first major piece of legislation we passed out of committee under her
leadership. Boy, did she ever work hard to make sure that happened.
It is a pleasure always to work with her. She is exactly right. We
have actually modified the bill a little, even though it came out of
the committee unanimously. It is totally paid for, and we are using
existing farm bill money, for the most part, to pay for it. So it is a
matter of adjusting priorities within good, solid, agricultural policy.
So I thank her for it, and I look forward to this bill ultimately
coming to the Senate floor and its passage.
2009 Little League Softball Champs
Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Warner Robins
American Little League Softball team on winning the 2009 Little League
Softball World Series.
They visited the White House yesterday, where President Obama offered
them congratulations, and I appreciate his hosting them in that very
generous way. I can't imagine this will be the last time the Warner
Robins Little League girls come to DC as the Softball World Series
champions because they have the knack for winning.
The girls went undefeated in the tournament. There was only one game
that was ever in doubt. In the final game they beat a team from
Crawford, TX, by a score of 14 to 2. Undoubtedly, there must be
something in the water down in Warner Robins because, boy, do these
girls know how to win. And they deserved to win. Throughout the
tournament they played with heart, played with courage, and played with
sportsmanship.
In 2007, the boys Little League Baseball team from the same town--
Warner Robins--won the world championship title, making Warner Robins,
GA, the first community in America to have a baseball team and a
softball team win their respective Little League World Series
championships.
I am proud of what the girls have accomplished, but my pride cannot
compare to that of Warner Robins, to the State of Georgia, or to the
entire Little League community. I am also proud of the commitment shown
by the parents, coaches, and managers, who offered so much love and
support for these girls so they could achieve their dream.
Softball is part of our American heritage, our history. It is a sport
that cultivates competitiveness, hard work, and speed. It is also a
sport that prepares children for the ups and downs of adult life
because it brings together people and builds communities.
I am grateful to these girls not only for the sense of community
their softball team helps bring to Georgia, but also for the economic
opportunities this win is helping to bring to Warner Robins. The Little
League International's southeastern regional headquarters and stadium
recently moved from Florida to Georgia, bringing hundreds of jobs to
this city of 60,000.
Mr. President, it is my privilege to be able to give voice to the
citizens of our State in congratulating Warner Robins on a job well
done and on thanking these girls for the recognition and opportunities
they have brought to middle Georgia.
Once again, I offer my congratulations to the Warner Robins Little
League Softball team on this very special occasion, and wish its
players the best of luck as they defend their title over the next year.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in just a few moments Senator Landrieu is
going to come to the floor to talk about the small business bill, and I
will just say a word or two about my support for her efforts.
She did something extraordinary last week. She is a determined
Senator, and the time came when she wanted to see a fund created to
lend money to small businesses. So she took to that desk and grabbed
her charts and stayed there all day until she got the job done. She got
60 votes, which is a daunting task sometimes in the Senate, and added
into this bill a fund to loan money to small businesses across America.
We need it. We need it across America, and we need it in Illinois.
There were over 258,000 small business employers in Illinois in 2006--
that is the last year for which we have data--led by professional
services and construction firms. They account for over 98 percent of
the employers in our State. These small businesses added 93,000 jobs in
2006, more than three times as many jobs added by Illinois companies
with more than 500 employees. We can see that small businesses are a
major part of our job economy. Another 850,000 people work for
themselves, meaning the number of people working for small businesses
was actually dramatically larger.
I fear that some of the firms likely to have failed during this
economic crisis would have continued to do battle and might have
prospered if they would have had access to credit. That is why this
small business bill is so important.
Yesterday, the Republican minority leader, Senator McConnell, came to
the Senate floor and questioned why we would even raise the so-called
DISCLOSE Act, about the Citizens United decision at the Supreme Court.
He said we should be on the small business bill. I couldn't agree
more. I hope that sense of commitment and urgency from the Republican
side will be shown again today.
If there are amendments, let's bring them to the floor, debate them
in an orderly fashion, and bring them to a vote so we can bring this
bill to passage. The House of Representatives is waiting for this bill.
They want to help us move forward to help create jobs and turn this
economy around. The best place to start is with the small businesses
across America. With 10.8 percent unemployment in Illinois, it is
crucial we help Illinois small businesses start hiring again.
I personally thank Senator Landrieu for her leadership. What she is
taking are TARP funds, funds that were originally designated to go to
the biggest banks in America but didn't. They were funds that were held
back. What Senator Landrieu is doing is claiming these funds that went
to these big banks and saying: Now let's send them to healthy banks,
banks that are not going to fail, with the understanding they will loan
them to small businesses. That, to me, is a good answer.
I am disappointed with what happened to TARP initially. To think that
we sent these moneys, taxpayers' dollars, to some of the largest
financial institutions in America that were guilty of misconduct and
bad judgment and they showed their gratitude by announcing bonuses for
their officers instead of paying back the Government right away, is
inexcusable.
The remaining funds, some $30 billion, will come into this small
business effort. I think I have heard Senator Landrieu say the
multiplier on this is a factor of 10, so there could be some $300
billion across the economy.
[[Page S6360]]
In Illinois, in Chicago, across my State small businesses say: If we
could just borrow money, we are doing well, we can expand, we can hire
more people. But even though we have a good story to tell, with banks
we have always worked with, we can't get the credit.
I thank Senator Landrieu for her leadership. We are going to get back
to this bill. As I said, as she was preparing to come to the floor, if
there are amendments, let's get these amendments in order, let's have a
reasonable time to debate them, and then let's move on. Let's get this
done and pass it over to the House so they can act on it before we
leave next week. That is critically important. The House, I know, is
hoping to wrap up this week.
Let me clarify one point. Although at one point in time this $30
billion lending fund was to be created from unused TARP funds, I'm
reminded that this is no longer the case. This fund will be created
independent of the TARP or any other existing program. It will be a
standalone lending facility within the Treasury that will help small
businesses access loans through community banks. And according to the
Congressional Budget Office, this fund will not cost the taxpayers a
penny--in fact, it will raise money to help reduce the deficit.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, to help Americans get back
to work.
I thank Senator Landrieu for her leadership and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I understand, under a previous order, I have the next
hour to follow up on Senator Durbin's comments. I would like to claim
that hour now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois is absolutely
correct. One of the last remaining works that we have to do, as we try
to wrap up this portion of the session as we move to an August work
period in our home States and our home districts, is to get this small
business bill passed. It has been a focus of the Democrats. It has also
been the focus of some Republican support. That is what I wish to talk
about today. I wish to make sure we understand that the team that is
following this bill is a broad team of hundreds of organizations from
the Chamber of Commerce to the National Federation of Independent
Business, to the Small Business Alliance, to the Community Bankers of
America, to individual business owners around the country, as the
Presiding Officer knows because he himself has been a great leader in
this effort. The point I wish to make in the first few minutes of this
hour is the tremendous bipartisan support and input that has gone into
this bill to get us to this point.
There is some criticism that is not valid. There is a criticism out
there that Democrats are trying to ram this through and Republicans
have not been able to offer amendments. The facts are that this bill,
this small business job growth bill, has been built through two
committees, the Finance Committee and the Small Business Committee.
I have the pleasure and honor of chairing the Small Business
Committee. Senator Baucus chairs the Finance Committee. For the last,
literally, year, these two committees have been working to bring a bill
to the floor that is focused on Main Street, not Wall Street; that is
focused on job creation, not capital accumulation; focused on job
creation on Main Street through traditional, old-fashioned, smart
strategic lending to small businesses that have the potential to grow.
We know there is no disagreement that the new jobs created--the
Presiding Officer will know--will be created by small businesses that
do not hoard their cash. They cannot wait for a better day. They have
to act now. That is the nature of small business. Lucky for us it is,
because if we give them a little help, they can start creating that one
new job or two new jobs or three new jobs. But if it is done millions
of times across the country, which it can be, it can make a difference
in a significant way by creating literally the millions of jobs we
need.
If people want to know why this is a jobless recovery, I would like
to say--because it seems like it is--that is because we have been
giving a lot of money to the big guys: a lot of money to Wall Street, a
lot of money to big manufacturers, large manufacturers. But if we would
spend some time today--and we have over the course of drafting a bill
which we have done in a bipartisan way--to get money to Main Street, we
might see an end to this recession. That is the hope of all of us.
This is a description, Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010.
These are just the small business provisions--small business access to
credit. You will see here, this was done jointly by myself and my
ranking member, Senator Snowe. It passed our committee 17 to 1, and we
have almost an equal number of Republicans and Democrats on our
committee. It passed with overwhelming support. This will increase 7(a)
loans from $2 to $5 million, increase 504 loans from $1.5 million to
$5.5 million, and increase microloans from $35,000 to $50,000.
It also extends the 90-percent guarantee on loans up from 75 percent
and eliminates fees.
Let me read what one business in Louisiana says. I can probably read
you thousands of testimonies, but let me read from one. Sawyer
Industrial Plastics of West Monroe has been in existence for 32 years.
It has provided plastic repair parts for the paper industry. Mr.
Sawyer's line of credit was canceled by his bank so he needed to term
out his debt as well as arrange for expansion capital to move into
other areas that could design plastic parts.
Mr. Sawyer's existing business would service his debt, but without
capital to expand into new markets and industries, his long-term
business prospects would be tied to the weakening paper industry.
With this provision that was in the stimulus package but which has
expired, which is in this bill--which will reignite when this bill
passes but not a minute before--Mr. Sawyer was able to get a 90-percent
guarantee. It allowed the lender, North Louisiana BIDCO, to leverage
its capital and provide more funds to meet this $700,000 loan. The
waiver of the guaranty fee added over $20,000 to available working
capital.
In other words, instead of paying the $20,000 to the Federal
Treasury, under the provision we are passing, he paid it to himself,
which is the point of our legislation.
We have $12 billion in tax cuts for small businesses and that is not
including this fee waiver I am talking about now. This is a significant
amount of money to go into the pockets of small business owners. Mr.
Sawyer, from my State, took that $20,000 and, instead of paying a fee
to the Federal Government, we are waving those fees under this bill,
and he hired an additional worker.
That is the point. That is the point of this bill you have helped to
draft. We are reducing fees, we are reducing taxes, and we are
targeting much needed capital--access to capital to small businesses,
which will create the jobs that lead us out of this recession. So he
added a new employee and he added some new product lines.
Another story comes from First Bank and Trust. This is in Mandeville,
LA. It is about Woolf Harris, Inc., a 14-year-old company. The
acquisition of a building recently left the business short of cash.
Although the national economy turned down, residual effects of two
recent hurricanes continue to push demand for the product. It is a
plumbing supply business. Lacking adequate collateral for a
conventional loan, First Bank and Trust--again, a local trusted
community bank--was able to extend a $120,000 line of credit, with a
$125,000 3-year term loan for working capital to Woolf Harris. With the
90-percent guaranty, First Bank felt comfortable taking the soft
collateral available to secure the loan while being able to provide
Woolf Harris a most favorable interest rate of 2.25 over prime.
This might not sound like a lot, but to small businesses out there
struggling, getting a loan at 2.25 points over prime is much better and
much preferable to having to put it on their credit card and pay 16
percent or 20 percent or 24 percent or run down to the payday lender
because they are so desperate for cash and pay 36 percent or 50
percent.
If we can't help small business now, I don't know when we can. This
bill we
[[Page S6361]]
put together with bipartisan support is supported by the Independent
Community Bankers, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber, the National Small
Business Association, the National Federation of Independent Business,
the Small Business Majority, the National Association of the Self-
Employed, and, yes, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They told me this
morning they are proud that their membership is actually
representative--96 percent is made up of small business. So I am proud
to have the Chamber support for this legislation.
Now we need all these coalitions to support bringing this debate to
an end. We agree there are some amendments, two or three, that could be
added--on the Republican side, on the Democratic side. We could have an
open debate. But there is such a thing as amending a bill to death. I
do not think that is going on. I hope it is not going on. I believe
both leaders are working in good faith.
But to the small business team out there that has done such a good
job in building bipartisan support for this bill, I hope you will trust
me when I say that at some point the debate has to come to an end and
we have to vote on a bill. If we do not, we will leave here--I do not
want to be one who does leave here without doing one of the most
important things that I think we were sent here to do; that is, create
jobs. The people creating the jobs are not us, it is the small
businesspeople out there. To leave without this bill--fully paid for,
$12 billion in tax relief, reduced regulations, reduced fees, and
expansion of very popular and broadly supported programs--would, in
fact, be a shame.
I see the Senator from Virginia who has worked so diligently on this
bill. If I could, as I relinquish the floor to him, I would like to ask
him if he would comment, as a former Governor of the State of Virginia
and someone knowledgeable about the programs he initiated as Governor,
how this bill might be helpful to those programs and what other
Governors are saying about this bill today, if the Senator would not
mind answering that question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to join my
colleague and friend, the chair of the Small Business Committee, the
Senator from Louisiana, in support of this very important piece of
legislation. Let me first of all say: In her inimitable style, she has
been relentless on this issue. The Presiding Officer and I are both new
Members. I think we have seen, in our short time here, certain Members
who get that bit in their mouth and just will not let it go. On this
issue, Senator Landrieu has truly been a leader. It is an issue of
paramount importance.
I wish to answer the question of the Senator, but I wish to first of
all preface it by saying what I hear in Virginia--and I know what the
Senator hears in Louisiana, with all the other challenges Louisiana
has--is our constituents want us to focus on jobs. On any historic
basis coming out of recession, 65 to 70 percent of all the new jobs
created come from small businesses.
And while we can point to certain positive signs in our economy right
now--the Dow at 10,500 from a low of 6,500, 15, 16 months ago;
corporate balance sheets, large Fortune 500 companies with more money
on their balance sheets than at any point in recent history--good news.
But if they are not hiring--and I hear from corporate CEOs, as well,
their concern that the small businesses that are in their supply chain
are going out of business, not just the small businesses that would
normally go out with a traditional recession, but this recession has
been so deep and so hard that we have now cut through the fat and we
are into the muscle and bone. And if we continue to lose small
businesses at the rate we are, then the ability to create a robust
recovery will be dramatically stymied.
So what do we do? There is no single silver bullet. And what the
Senator from Louisiana has crafted is a menu of options for small
businesses, to get them that additional assistance, particularly in
terms of access to credit, that will allow them to get back and do what
they do best--continue to innovate, grow, and create jobs.
The Senator asked me what I am hearing from other Governors. Other
Governors, Democratic and Republican alike, are saying that we in
Congress have to focus on jobs. The issue of credit and access to
credit to small businesses is paramount to all of them, and they want
to see this legislation passed.
I was a former chair of the NGA. This is the kind of issue where
Governors of both parties come together because we don't see these
issues simply through Democratic or Republican partisan lenses. And
sometimes this is the kind of bill that, candidly, as I remember as
Governor, you kind of scratch your head and say: This is kind of a no-
brainer. This bill is paid for. Why would not the Congress do all it
can to support small business?
The Senator has outlined, and I know I was repeating some of the
items, but I want to reinforce again--I want to particularly focus on
one part of this legislation, but there are really four buckets here.
They are, how can we expand some of the initiatives within the Small
Business Administration that were put in place, particularly in the
trough of the downturn, to make sure that these SBA programs, which
have been vitally important to small business lending, are maintained--
the 90-percent matches, some of the other loan guarantee programs?
I should acknowledge right here that I think the Administrator of the
SBA, Karen Mills, has done a remarkable job in streamlining a lot of
the processes. I have heard from banks for years about their challenges
in dealing with SBA. Well, the current SBA team realizes this is a
moment of crisis, and they have done everything possible to streamline
their procedures. They need to have these tools put back in place so
that the SBA can continue to do the very important work and, candidly,
work that goes much broader in terms of a portfolio of small businesses
that they are now attracting to their programs than in the past.
I would also acknowledge the dramatic increase in the number of
particularly independent and community-based banks that are now
accessing and using SBA programs. If we don't pass this legislation,
these programs will be dramatically cut back, No. 1.
No. 2, the Senator has crafted, again, at her committee, in a
bipartisan way, a whole series of targeted small business tax cuts, a
kind of accelerated depreciation that will have the ability to write
off core investments, the ability to focus on these job creators. How
can we give them a little bit of a break right now, during these
challenging times, in our Tax Code?
The third bucket in this program is building on a proposal the
Senator and I and others had. We actually suggested this to the
administration last October, but they have now built in a $30 billion
lending program. The interesting thing about this lending program is it
actually, on CBO scoring, scores as a net positive. So this is money
not only that we will recover, but we will make--albeit a small one--a
profit on it, to shore up particularly independent and community-based
banks and give them a direct incentive in terms of increasing their
small business lending.
Then a fourth bucket, one that I have been working on--and I wish to
commend both my colleagues from Michigan, Senator Levin and Senator
Stabenow. They have been very active in this as well--which is saying:
Can we take what is already working in the marketplace at a State level
and build upon it? This is the so-called Capital Access Program.
Twenty-six States in America already have this program in place, and
those States that do not have it can, in effect, piggyback on other
State programs. So there is no need to create new bureaucracy. There is
no need to create tons of new paperwork.
I hear, I say to the Senator, from my banking community that this
particular initiative is one that they are perhaps even the most
supportive of because they know how to do it, they know how to access
it, and it can immediately generate a great deal of additional lending.
Let me take a moment, at the Senator's discretion and time--I know
this is her hour, but I wish to take one moment to explain it because I
think we have focused on the lending facility, we focused on SBA, we
focused on some of the tax cuts, but the Capital Access
[[Page S6362]]
Program has not received as much attention. Each State has slight
variations, but let me describe how this initiative works.
Basically, the independent bank, frankly, at this point is probably a
little leery of making a loan, even to a relatively healthy small
business because chances are, most small businesses coming out of this
recession, their cash flows are down, and if they have real estate as
collateral, it has perhaps declined in value. So while I have great
sympathy for the small businesses that cannot get their credit lines
renewed, I also understand the bankers' predicament in that small
business credit isn't quite as good as it was, perhaps, in 2007.
So how does this program work to benefit these small businesses? What
it basically does is it creates a separate loss reserve pool for small
businesses that fall into this category. What does that mean? If a
small business was coming to a bank, a local bank in Baton Rouge or a
local bank in Martinsville, VA, wanting to borrow $100,000, the bank
would charge that small business a couple of extra points--$2,000 or
$3,000 out of that loan that would go into a separate loss reserve
pool. We, with this Capital Access Program, would then match that
separate loss reserve pool for, again, a matching amount of points, 2
or 3 additional points. So on a $100,000 loan, you would have $6,000
that would be absorbed, first dollar loss, if this loan went into
default. Now, the bank still has to do its due diligence because if you
eat through that $6,000, the bank has to bear the burden. But it gives
you a little cushion there. It takes that marginal credit and makes it
creditworthy during these challenging times.
Think about this $100,000 with that $6,000 loss reserve pool taken
times a hundred or times a million. You could have a $100 million
basket of small business loans with a $6 million reserve, and suddenly
you have a very valuable tool that can be used by banks across the
country.
The roughly $1.4 billion, $1.5 billion that is in the legislation in
this program, it has been estimated it will be leveraged. And I know
``leverage'' is a bad word in this Hall at this point, and I
particularly have pointed out some of the concerns of overleveraging.
But because the person who is receiving the loan is putting up money
and we from the government side are putting up money, we actually
double every dollar we put out, and on an actual dollar basis, we are
going to be leveraging the Federal dollar commitment 20 to 30 times. So
that means this $1.4 billion, $1.5 billion can create $50 billion of
additional small business lending. Think about the power of this tool,
a tool that banks are familiar with, a tool that already exists in 26
States, a short-term shot in the arm for an awful lot of small
businesses that might not prefer to use the SBA program, might not want
to go through a bank, that might want to access the lending facility.
It just gives us one more tool.
So I hope my colleagues and folks who are watching and listening will
recognize that what the Senator from Louisiana has tried to create is a
menu of options because there is no one-size-fits-all in the case of
small businesses. Their needs are different. The banking community's
desires are different. I think she has crafted a great tool that will
dramatically help small business lending.
If we want to go back to our constituents in the month of August and
talk about a real, live deliverable, if we want to talk about what we
have done in a tangible way that will get credit back into the small
business lending pool, that could be delivered by Labor Day, we need to
make sure we move forward on this important piece of legislation.
I again commend the chair of the Small Business committee for her
relentless work on this issue. I hope our colleagues from the other
side of the aisle will hear all of the various business organizations
across the political spectrum that are supporting this legislation. My
hope is that we can deal with the amendments, get those amendments
dispensed with at some point during the day, and pass this bill today
because it is very important to making sure this recovery we are just
starting to creep into is actually not a jobless recovery but a
recovery that creates jobs. To do that, we have to have these small
businesses healthy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from
Virginia for that explanation and for his commitment to this bill and
this effort. He was an extremely successful Governor before he became a
Senator, and I say ``successful'' measured by the way those of us in
public life are measured: by results. He left his State with a surplus.
I know he did not do that singlehandedly, but it is a great feat these
days to leave office with a surplus, and he did, with very high
approval ratings and with a reputation as being very strong on fiscal
matters. I think that is what our Congress needs. I thank the Senator
so much for his help on this bill because that is exactly what people
are looking for--a smart, strategic way to move big pieces of
legislation forward but with our eyes on the bottom line and our eyes
focused on results, not bureaucracy, not regulation, not additional
rules, et cetera, but real results.
That is the way this bill was built. It was built with, as the
Senator said, menus and choices, not one-size-fits-all. We did not say:
There is one way to save small business in America, and this is what we
are going to do. We said: We have heard a lot of good ideas. Let's try
to put them together in a bill--some strategic tax cuts, some reduced
regulation, some reduction in fees, and some options for capital.
Options--none of this is mandatory. All of this is voluntary on the
part of the banks--all voluntary. If they want to use those programs to
lend to small businesses, they can. No one is forcing them. No one is
requiring them. And if they do, they can actually make a significant
profit. So it really is putting the incentives in the right place.
That is why this is not anything like TARP. We are not using TARP
funds to fund this. We are not designing it like TARP. TARP was a
completely different program in size, scope, and focus. TARP stands for
Troubled Asset Relief Program. It was for big banks that were failing.
This is for small community banks on Main Street that are healthy, so
that they can lend to the small businesses that can grow with the money
the banks lend.
Let me read a letter we just received from the Lake Charles area,
which is the southwestern area of Louisiana, from a business, Lake Area
Marine.
It says: Dear Senator Landrieu. Lake Area Marine strongly supports
your substitute bill, the Small Business Lending Fund Act, and the
other parts of the bill. Our company is based in Lake Charles. The
provisions outlined will restore much needed credit to small business
owners like me, by addressing one of the primary reasons for the extent
of the depression in the boating industry. By restoring the disruption
in the recreational boating industry's distribution chain caused by the
credit crunch, thousands of American jobs will be preserved or created.
It goes on to say: The Small Business Administration's dealer floor
plan financing--which is part of this bill--is a critical component,
helping, as I said, to raise the cap, from $2 million to $5 million.
We have hundreds of letters. This happens to be from a marine
business, but there is floor plan financing for other businesses where
large inventories are required. Although lots of people do buy products
in the house from the Internet, as you know, millions of consumers
still like to go to the showroom, they like to touch and feel and drive
and see before they buy a car, buy a boat, buy other products. Many of
these businesses in all of our States have seen their lines of credit
evaporate, just go away. This bill is a lifeline for them.
So I thank the business owners, such as Jerald Link, who sent me this
letter, and the thousands of business owners around the country who
have said, yes, let's pass this bill now.
I see my colleague from Michigan. He also helped to craft a section
of this bill. I would like him to explain the importance of that
particular section which has to do with supporting weakened collateral
in States such as Michigan, States such as Nevada, probably Florida,
where they have seen such a depression of real estate prices. Thank
goodness not so much in Louisiana, although the spill and the
moratorium are giving us fits at the moment. But
[[Page S6363]]
last year our prices held pretty well. In Michigan, in Ohio, Florida,
Nevada, California, these assessments collapsed. Small businesses were
trying to function and were asked to put up collateral, and did. Then
the banks came a long and said: Mr. Jones or Ms. Smith, you have
collateral, but it used to be worth $500,000. Now the assessors are out
there, and it is only worth $200,000. We are pulling your loan.
If we don't do something to fix that, they are going to lose their
business. It is that simple. This is not complicated. It is horrifying,
it is painful, but not complicated.
Senator Levin worked hard and came up with an innovative solution.
Hopefully, he will speak about how this provision will technically work
in Michigan and throughout many of the States.
I, again, wish to read into the Record some of the specifics about
this initiative and talk about job creation by small businesses. First,
to reiterate, there is great support for this bill, in large measure
because it is not like TARP. It is not funded with TARP moneys. It is
completely different--different focus, different scope--than TARP. What
it does do is create a small business lending fund to banks with less
than $10 billion in assets. TARP, although some of the money did go to
middle-size and small banks, most of it was taken by the big banks,
worth billions and billions of dollars. This is only for small banks,
$10 billion or less. There are about 8,000 small community banks in
America. The SBLF, Small Business Lending Fund, is performance based,
unlike TARP, which we sort of gave the money and said: Do what you need
to do with it. This says: If you take the money, you need to lend it to
small business. When you do, we will give you a discounted rate so your
bank can make more money, and the small business can make more money.
The most important part, equally important, the taxpayers can be
repaid. This program doesn't cost the Federal Government money or the
taxpayers money. It will make $1.1 billion, according to the CBO score.
This is what I call smart government. This is not big or little
government; it is smart government. It is leveraging the power and
assets of the Federal Government. There are many to be proud of. It is
using it to support Main Street so that jobs can be created, the
recession can end, people can get back to work, business can flourish,
and then we can work our way out of the terrible deficit situation we
inherited. This recession called for additional spending which was
necessary, although it is troubling. In this case we are going to make
money on this program for the taxpayer.
It also supports a new small business credit initiative, as Senator
Warner explained. It is going to save taxpayers $1 billion.
One of the most important components of this argument is the 81-
percent job loss in the last year. This is from the national employment
report. People need to know--and it is startling--that 81 percent of
the jobs lost in America were from small business. Only 19 percent were
from large business. The dramatic dropoff in employment has come from
small business. If we do our job right on this bill today and
tomorrow--not in September, not next week but today and tomorrow--if we
do our job in the Senate, it will give the House enough time to deal
with this before they go home, and we can give relief now. The pain is
so great. The times are so desperate. They are not getting better. This
is the bill that will jumpstart, jolt, be a catalyst.
We have tried other things this year. Some things have worked; some
haven't. But there is great confidence that this bill we are putting
forward now will do the job. It is not one size fits all. It is not
mandatory. It is a smart, strategic, voluntary, public/private
partnership which makes so much sense in this day and age.
I see others who may want to speak. Then, hopefully, we can get to a
vote in the next few hours.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Landrieu and thank
her. I am on the Small Business Committee. I serve with her on the
committee and others. I have watched her extraordinary talent flourish
as chair of the Small Business Committee.
The bill before us does something we all say we believe in; that is,
support small business. Every Member of this body has pointed out
something which the Senator from Louisiana knows and reflects in her
work; that is, the engine of jobs is small business. We all say that.
Most of us believe it. I hope all of us believe it, if we say it. It is
not a partisan comment. This is a jobs bill which should get bipartisan
support. Some of the jobs efforts have not. But this bill, because it
is focused on small business and because that focus has been supported
so regularly by Republicans and Democrats, will pick up some Republican
support, I hope. It deserves that support.
Senator Landrieu has reached out to try to obtain that support for
this bill. I hope she succeeds. In addition to thanking her for her
great work on this bill, I wish to note the work of the Presiding
Officer who worked very hard on a provision of this bill. As a matter
of fact, he has worked so hard on other provisions on other bills which
have recently passed this body and been signed into law. But Senator
Merkley is actually the key sponsor of a provision which I will not be
focusing on but which I believe has either already been discussed or
will be.
I commend Senator Merkley for his great work on this bill with that
particular provision.
I wish to begin my description of the part of the bill I have focused
on with a thank-you, a thank-you to Senators Sherrod Brown, Stabenow,
Warner, Baucus, Shaheen, Begich, McCaskill, and others who have worked
so hard with me on a very major provision of this bill which I will now
spend a few minutes describing in detail.
Senator Landrieu made reference to a significant fact in this
recession; that is, the value of real property has gone down. Almost
all of our houses are assessed at less now than they were a few years
ago. I don't know if that is 70 percent or 80 percent, but it is a high
percentage of homes that have lost value because of the recession. The
home is exactly the same home, it is either maintained well or not, the
way it was before the recession. This is true with businesses.
In all of our States, when we go home the thing we hear about more
than anything else is jobs--get credit flowing to small businesses
that, through no fault of their own, are unable to obtain credit; not
because they are not creditworthy, not because they don't have
customers, but because the collateral for their line of credit has gone
down in value because of the recession. It hasn't gone down in value
because it isn't maintained. It has gone down in value like most other
businesses and industries on the same block or in the same community
because the recession has reduced the value of these real assets.
The part of the legislation I have focused on is called a State small
business credit initiative. It provides crucial funding to State and
local programs that expand capital access for small businesses. We have
lots of companies in all of our States that have stayed open. They have
customers, they have business. Indeed, in many instances, they have
more customers than they are able to handle and want to expand. I will
give a few examples of how that has happened in my home State of
Michigan, and I believe it is true in other States. The customers are
there; the creditworthiness is there. We have many examples of
businesses that have never missed a payment on money they owed to the
bank down the street or in their community. They are creditworthy.
The problem is, because the banks require a certain ratio of
collateral to the amount of the loan, that ratio cannot be met because
of the collateral's loss of some value in the recession.
A couple success stories are a powerful argument for expanding these
programs which are in 30 of our States, and other States will be able
to follow these programs and pursue these programs as well when this
bill passes.
In Saline, MI, a company called Saline Electronics makes electric
circuit boards. They are good at it, and they are so good that in 2009
the company began to plan for an extension of their facility because it
was too small to handle increased production. However, it hit a
roadblock when the recession came.
[[Page S6364]]
Just as the company was exploring their expansion possibilities, the
recession battered down the value of their real estate. Their building
fell in value. So, again, they had good credit and great demand for
their product, so much so that they wanted to expand, but the value of
the collateral it could offer in applying for a loan had shrunk. That
logjam carried a real threat that good-paying jobs for American workers
would be going overseas instead.
We have a collateral support program in Michigan. It stepped in to
end that threat. The program is designed exactly for situations such as
this, where the value of equipment or the real estate has fallen
because of the recession and, therefore, the collateral amount is not
there as it was previous to the recession and would not support the
loan because of the ratio between collateral and the amount of the loan
required by local banks. But the State has this collateral support
program. With that support, Saline Electronics was able to add 32,000
feet of production space and hired 30 new workers. There are similar
examples across my State, across the country and, again, in the 30
other States that have a similar program.
Another example from Michigan: In Grand Rapids a company called
Display Pack, a packaging company, got more than $1 million in
financing through Michigan's capital access program which uses, again,
very small public investments to leverage larger commercial loans for
small businesses. That particular funding created 20 new jobs and saved
another 125 that may have been at risk.
Driesenga & Associates, a small statewide engineering firm, used the
same program to get loans for operating capital expansion. They added
11 new jobs, protecting 120 existing jobs.
This program in Michigan has used only $24 million in State
government commitments to generate over $600 million in private
financing. That is a hugely smart investment, and especially so when
small businesses are so starved for capital.
As Senator Landrieu pointed out, this is not big government. This is
not small government. This is plenty smart government. If you can
leverage $1 of Federal funds and get, in this case, $30 of private
funds as a result, that kind of leverage of public funding to private
funding is a particularly smart investment.
But as the State budgets have been stretched and more and more
businesses have sought access to these programs, there is an inability
to meet rising demand. So the need for Federal support is great.
The State Small Business Credit Initiative in the legislation before
us would provide support for States such as Michigan and the roughly 30
other States that now have them. Again, States that do not have these
programs would have access to that Federal support and could start
these programs. The House has approved a larger amount than is in our
bill. On the other hand, we have a significant amount in this bill, and
I thank Senator Baucus--that even though it was not to the amount the
House put in for their bill, it is a significant portion of that, and
we are appreciative of his support for this provision.
So there are a lot of other provisions in the bill that are worth
commenting on, and, obviously, we are supporting, including the Small
Business Job Creation and Access to Capital Act, which raises Small
Business Administration loan limits. It includes a proposal I offered
for an Intermediary Lending Pilot Program, which allows the SBA to make
loans to intermediary lenders, such as business incubators, which can
then loan that money to growing businesses.
The Small Business Lending Fund, which is included in this bill,
which is the provision I referred to, which Senator Merkley, Senator
Landrieu, our chairwoman, and Senator LeMieux and others have worked so
hard on, is very similar to the Bank on Our Communities Act, which I
previously had cosponsored.
So this bill is the right approach because it supports the engine of
job growth. It is a small business bill.
It deserves the support of Senators of both parties. I hope, given
the job situation we find ourselves in and the support that has been
proclaimed for small business across the aisle and on this side of the
aisle, we can find some good, bipartisan support for this tremendous
initiative.
(Ms. LANDRIEU assumed the chair.)
Mr. LEVIN. Again, I commend our chairwoman, Senator Landrieu, who I
now see is the Presiding Officer, and all those who have worked with
her to bring us to this point.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I also rise to discuss provisions of
this bill and would like to begin by saying, when one gets into the
details, you see there is a spectacular array of provisions that have
been put together by the Small Business Committee to assist small
businesses in helping them get themselves back on track, and, in the
course of doing so, get our Nation back on track.
Particularly, I thank the chair of the Small Business Committee, the
Presiding Officer, Senator Landrieu, for working in such a bipartisan
manner to bring together the best ideas that can be brought to bear in
that effort to assist our small businesses.
I will mention just a few of them. A 100-percent exclusion of small
business capital gains will be big factor for helping our small
businesses, a carryback provision so small businesses can take and
balance out losses against former profits, making the general business
credit not subject to the alternative minimum tax, increasing the Small
Business Administration loan limits, eliminating the Small Business
Administration loan fees, and so on and so forth.
These are terrific provisions to assist small businesses. But I wish
to particularly speak to two additional parts of this bill. One is the
Small Business Jump Start Act. This is intended to help businesses get
started in their first year. Under this provision, it allows the
deduction not of $5,000 in startup expenses but of $10,000. So it is a
doubling of kind of a jump-start or a boost to getting businesses off
the ground. It is for those entrepreneurs who say: Here is an
opportunity, and I am going to take a big risk, and I am going to take
my savings or borrow against my house or utilize my credit card in
order to jump in and seize this opportunity.
It is giving those folks additional help in that first year, and who
knows when those first-year efforts--when so much is at risk--are going
to turn into the successes that employ person after person after person
on Main Street in communities throughout this Nation.
The second piece I wish to address is the Small Business Lending
Fund. I think every legislator who has been spending time back home in
townhalls has heard from owners of small businesses, has heard the
stories of how a long-term banking relationship--a relationship in
which they knew they could always turn to their community bank for
help--has not been able to yield the credit they need at this moment
and not through the fault of the community bank. The community bank
wants to lend but because the community bank's capital has diminished,
they are at the limit of their ability to make loans. Unless they bring
in additional capitalization, they are not able to make additional
loans, no matter how good that opportunity might be.
We have heard about small businesses that, in fact, are having to
rely upon their credit cards. The percent of small businesses in
America that are currently turning to their credit cards has increased
14 percent in a single year--14 percent more small businesses having to
rely on a credit card because they cannot get access to traditional
lending from their community bank.
Well, this chokepoint in our system is essential to address because
if the small business entrepreneur cannot access credit to seize an
opportunity or to expand on a successful formula, then we will not be
putting businesses back to work, we will not be putting citizens back
to work for those businesses. So that is what the Small Business
Lending Fund does.
There are a number of questions that have been raised about it. I
wish to address each of those. But I wish to note the potential of
taking $30 billion in recapitalization, which actually makes a profit
for the taxpayer--CBO estimates a profit of $1.1 billion--and in
addition will bring in additional revenue through the taxes on the
additional
[[Page S6365]]
folks who are employed and the larger small business profits. So the
$1.1 billion, that is just the base. That is not including the
additional revenue that will flow from the success of small businesses
and the restoration to employment of workers across this Nation.
So one of the questions has been: Will these funds recapitalize or
bail out failing banks? The answer is absolutely not. This is a program
for small business, making capital available to small businesses
through healthy community banks. That is a very important distinction,
and there are ratings in which the regulators evaluate the health of
banks. They range from 1 through 5. They are called CAMELS ratings, and
only those banks with ratings of 1, 2, or 3--that is, healthy banks--
will be eligible for this program.
A second question has been: Well, if we help recapitalize community
banks, is there a possibility they will sit on the funds, prepare for a
rainy day or a rainier day? The answer is no. The program is structured
so that if funds are lent out, then the dividend rate falls to
1 percent. But if they are not lent out, the dividend rate rises to as
high as 7 percent. Well, that 7-to-1 distinction means you are not
going to borrow money if you do not have an intention of using it to
leverage funds to lend out because you will be losing money, and you
want to take advantage of that incentive to only pay a 1-percent
dividend. So there is a lot of carrot in this in a structure that makes
it illogical for a bank to seek these funds in order to sit on them.
A third question is: Why utilize community banks to help get lending
to small businesses? Why not just do it in some other direct government
fashion?
Well, the answer can be discerned by anyone exercising a small
portion of common sense. Main Street banks are in the business of
evaluating opportunities, entrepreneurial opportunities, and funding
those opportunities to make a profit. That is what community banks do.
That is their expertise. This approach builds on the expertise of Main
Street banks to produce successful Main Street small businesses across
our country.
Another question that was raised was: Will recapitalization cause
banks to have to rush to make speedy loans and not take the time to
evaluate that business opportunity thoroughly? The answer is it will
not, because this program was designed so there is a 2-year span of
time in which a bank has the opportunity to make that transition from
capitalization to lending before the dividend rate is locked in. So
there is no incentive for a rush to judgment.
I ask all my colleagues: Is not this the type of bipartisan problem-
solving America wants us to undertake, bringing forth, through the
committee process, through an open discussion--with television cameras
running--the consideration of this idea and that idea being merged
together to bring to the floor a coherent piece of thoughtful
legislation to help address one of the major challenges in America,
which is getting our small businesses back on track? Is not this what
we are being brought here to do?
So I applaud the Small Business Committee. I applaud the work of the
chair and all the members of the committee who produced this type of
concrete aid to put Main Street back on track, to create employment for
citizens across this Nation, and, by so doing, put our Nation back on
track.
Thank you, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Oregon, who
has been one of the creators and designers of this bill and who has
been a leading advocate and tireless in his efforts. He has conducted
probably dozens of meetings in his office with Treasury officials, with
Members from both sides of the aisle.
I have put this poster up in the Chamber because I want everybody to
know this is what we are talking about today: small business. We spend
a lot of time in this Chamber talking about lots of other issues--
foreign aid, other countries, big corporations, Wall Street--but today,
in these few hours--today and tomorrow--we are going to be talking
about small businesses on Main Street. Small businesses on Main Street,
I think they deserve this time, and they deserve our focus.
I know there are many other issues Members of this body, both
Democrats and Republicans, want to solve or try to solve before we
break in a few days. But I have to say, we cannot solve every problem
in the world in this bill for Main Street and for small business. Some
have criticized and said: Oh, well, the Democratic leadership is not
allowing amendments. Nothing could be further from the truth.
This bill was built on amendments in committee--amendments by
Democrats, amendments by Republicans, negotiations. The Presiding
Officer most certainly knows this. I see my colleague from Texas, and I
know he will have time in a moment. But the Presiding Officer knows,
because she is a member of the Small Business Committee, this bill was
built on a foundation of bipartisan support for small business because
we all agree we want to end this recession, and the best way to end it
is by smartly investing in strategic alliances with community banks and
other lenders to get money to small businesses on Main Street. That is
what this bill does.
As I conclude, I am asking Members on both sides of the aisle: Let's
work with our leaders. Let's not burden this bill to help Main Street
with amendments that have nothing to do with small business, that have
to do with other political objectives, et cetera. Let's try to come
together for the benefit of all of the 27 million small businesses in
America that are watching us, hoping we can take the right steps to
help them end this recession and get the country moving again.
I see my colleague from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Energy
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I wish to speak for a few minutes on the
subject of energy. Particularly I wish to contrast the approach that
has been taken by the administration with regard to the blanket
moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico for at least 6 months--but
who knows how much longer that will slip--and a better approach that I
think will provide a way of promoting safety but also not kill jobs in
the Gulf of Mexico, particularly in the Gulf States, including
Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, and Florida.
There is no secret about the fact that the blanket moratorium, which
has been struck down by a Federal judge as unjustified by the rationale
given by the administration, is now being appealed, so drilling
activity has essentially halted--new drilling activity in the Gulf of
Mexico. I think there is a better way to approach this. These ideas are
actually included in the alternative we will be considering I hope as
early as tomorrow. I think there is a better way to approach this.
A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to fly from Sugarland, TX, 200
miles offshore into the Gulf of Mexico to a drilling rig called the
Noble Danny Adkins. This drilling rig was sitting in 9,000 feet of
water, and of course it was idle as a result of the drilling
moratorium. When fully operational, it employs up to 200 people, but of
course they weren't working because there isn't any drilling going on.
This particular rig was scheduled to drill in more than 12,000 feet of
water to a depth of 37,000 feet. It is one of dozens of rigs not doing
any work today because of the uncertainty caused by the moratorium. I
had a chance to talk with a number of the professionals who work on
that rig, and I have to tell my colleagues my impression of being on an
offshore rig was like my first experience going to NASA. It is that
technically advanced and that impressive.
The offshore drilling industry is a highly technologically advanced
operation in which many very skilled professionals are working. These
are typically high-paying jobs, as my colleague from Louisiana knows.
My fear is that the blanket moratorium imposed by Secretary Salazar of
the administration, unless it is modified in a more rational way, will
destroy 50,000 jobs and up. We already know that the moratorium has
caused two drilling rigs, offshore rigs--which cost an incredible
amount of money to lease, and, of course, you can't afford to have them
sit idle and not do what they are designed to do. What happens is with
the moratorium attached, two of these rigs we know of moved to Egypt
and one to the Republic of the Congo. Of course, with the departure of
the rigs, the
[[Page S6366]]
workers go too, and it is a big question as to whether those rigs and
the jobs associated with them will ever return.
But it is not just the people who work on the rigs such as the Noble
Danny Adkins and the other rigs that are idle now as a result of the
moratorium; it is the associated businesses that support the oil and
gas industry in the Gulf of Mexico, such as Sunbelt Machine Works
Corporation. This is a small family-owned business I visited which
manufactures many of the tools that are actually used in deepwater rigs
such as the one I visited in the gulf. We need to think of not just the
impact on the people who work on these rigs but also everybody who
supports those efforts, including the people who supply food, people
who supply the machinery, people who fly, the people who work on those
rigs. Everyone is impacted negatively by a blanket moratorium.
My colleagues don't have to take my word for it. The Energy
Information Administration recently projected that in addition to
killing jobs, it will actually cost a lot more than that in terms of
the domestic production of oil and gas that we will have to make up for
by importing it from abroad. The dependency we have in this country,
which is a true national security problem, would be exacerbated by this
moratorium, because as long as America is going to continue to consume
oil and gas, until we are able to develop new forms of energy in the
future, as I hope we will, we are going to continue to consume oil and
gas in this country. Right now, about 30 percent of the oil consumed in
America comes from the Gulf of Mexico--30 percent.
The Energy Information Administration recently projected that
domestic production will decline as a result of the moratorium by an
average of 31,000 barrels a day in the fourth quarter of 2010 and then
by an average of 82,000 barrels a day in 2011. By December 2011,
monthly oil production in the Gulf of Mexico will decrease by an
average of 100,000 barrels a day. Assuming the economy picks up, as I
hope it will, we know there is going to be demand for that oil which
will need to be replaced and, of course, where does that come from but
places which I know most of us would rather not have to do business
with: Venezuela, to mention one.
The Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association estimated last
May that the impacts of the moratorium were estimated to be 80,000
barrels of production loss per day . That is what they estimated for
2011. They estimate up to 37,000 jobs will be lost, and $7.6 billion in
future government revenue will be put at risk. That is the effect of
this blanket moratorium.
I wish to talk about a better solution, I believe, that was offered
in the energy legislation Senator McConnell introduced last Thursday
which incorporates this approach.
I also wish to talk for a minute about the attempts to basically make
it impossible for independent oil and gas companies from working in the
Gulf of Mexico. How do you do that? Well, it would be by raising the
liability cap, or by removing it entirely, thereby making it impossible
for independent oil and gas companies to work in the Gulf of Mexico
because they, frankly, can't afford the insurance for unlimited
liability. Under the current regime, there is a limit of individual
liability up to $75 million and, above that, 8 cents on every gallon of
oil imported into the United States or produced in America goes into an
oilspill trust fund which is then used to pay for anything not covered
by the $75 million liability for the company.
Well, if, as some of my colleagues have proposed, we eliminate that
cap, it makes it impossible for smaller companies--these independent
oil and gas companies--to operate in the Gulf of Mexico or anywhere
else. They simply will go out of business or take their operations
elsewhere if they can.
Let me give my colleagues an idea of what the job impact on that
would be. In 2009, independents accounted for more than 200,000 jobs
and $10 billion in State and Federal taxes and royalty payments. As my
colleague from Louisiana knows, because she was one of the principal
negotiators, we were able to get royalties which actually go to the
Gulf Coast States for the incidental impact of oil and gas operations
in the Gulf of Mexico. Of course, all of that income will be lost,
together with the royalty that would be paid to the U.S. Treasury, as a
result of the moratorium and certainly by chasing off these
independents. The study forecasted that by 2020 this would eliminate
300,000 jobs and cost $147 billion in Federal, State, and local taxes
from the gulf region.
The study also concluded that if independent oil and gas companies
are excluded from deepwater oil and gas operations, the job loss would
be 265,000 by 2020 and $106 billion in lost tax revenues over the 10-
year period. Of course, we know other countries are delighted with this
moratorium because it means these rigs and these operators are moving
to these other countries, creating jobs there and producing oil and gas
from there.
For example, a recent Washington Post article reported that Brazil,
Canada, Nigeria, Angola, and Libya are among the countries that are
moving forward with drilling, lured by oil reservoirs they are
discovering that are two to six times as big as the average Gulf of
Mexico reservoir. As I mentioned, once these rigs leave the United
States, leave the Gulf of Mexico, they go to places with far less
stringent regulatory controls than we have here in the United States,
so actually the risk of an environmental disaster is greater in these
countries that have far more lenient regulatory regimes. In fact, the
moratorium has the perverse effect on safety as the newest and most
expensive and most technologically advanced rigs move overseas to work
while the less-in-demand older rigs stay behind.
I mentioned there is a better alternative than a blanket moratorium
such as the administration has proposed, and unlimited liability
exposure which will basically chase off most of the independent oil and
gas companies as proposed by the legislation that we will be
considering tomorrow. My trip to this rig and my visits with these
workers and these experts in producing this domestic energy source have
made me even more convinced that it is an absolute mistake and really,
frankly, not very smart, to essentially cut off our domestic oil and
gas production from the gulf. Senators Vitter, Wicker, and I have
introduced legislation which would lift the Obama administration's
blanket moratorium and instead would require companies to go through
new safety inspection requirements and then to be certified by third
parties, after which the Department of the Interior would have to issue
a permit for continued exploration and development of our domestic oil
and gas reserves in the Gulf of Mexico.
Our legislation would essentially limit the moratorium and make it
easier for good-faith and conscientious operators who are in compliance
to get their permits approved quickly and keep the rigs and jobs here
at home. Our approach would ensure that operators who are in compliance
with safety guidelines have some deadline on when their permits would
be considered and keep gulf coast residents, and particularly those who
work in the oil and gas industry, at work, and continue to produce
American energy and not make it necessary for us to continue to buy
that additional amount, in addition to what we already are purchasing,
from abroad.
Instead of reconsidering this devastating moratorium, though, I know
the majority leader has introduced a bill that would have the Secretary
of Energy publish a monthly study evaluating the effect of the
moratorium. Well, I have to say we don't need a study to know what the
effect of the moratorium is in Louisiana and in Texas, in Alabama and
along the gulf coast, because we already know its devastating impact. I
wish to invite my colleagues, any of them who wish, to come and talk to
some of the folks who work in this industry and to look at the
sophistication and the technological expertise that they employ in
producing oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico. I would be glad to help
host them.
One example, though. A seismic company in Texas is spending $250,000
a day under a contract with the leaseholder to explore a potential area
for oil and gas, but the seismic company can't even get a permit to do
the work. I don't know how long they can hold on, how long they can
continue to keep people on their payroll if they don't have any work to
do. Something has to
[[Page S6367]]
give. These hard-working folks who live along the gulf coast don't want
to wind up as another statistic on a monthly report on the impact of
the moratorium, nor do they want to add to the 9.5 percent unemployment
in this country, higher even in some parts of the country; as high as
14.2 percent in Nevada. They want to work. They don't want to collect
unemployment benefits. They want to work, and they want to provide for
their families. I think they deserve better from their elected
officials than this blanket moratorium or job-killing policies which
are going to basically move their jobs overseas.
The fact is we need to maintain our position in the gulf. Eighty
percent of oil produced in the Gulf of Mexico comes from deepwater
reserves now off limits due to the moratorium.
Without this activity, production will fall as much as 100,000
barrels a day by December 2011. To put this into perspective, the
United States uses almost 20 million barrels of oil a day and produces
nearly 5 million barrels a day, obtaining the rest from imports. The
moratorium will not only destroy tens of thousands of jobs; it will
leave us more dependent on foreign oil and gas, raising the cost of any
products shipped and transported, not to mention travel.
I think Jay Leno basically had it right when he said:
President Obama said today he is going to use the Gulf
disaster to immediately push a new energy bill through
Congress. I've got an idea. How about first using the Gulf
disaster to fix the Gulf disaster?
That ought to be our focus--preventing recurrences such as we have
seen in the gulf--and I think we can do that by the safety inspection
mechanism and third-party certification and let's get on with the
production of oil and gas from American sources, rather than having to
bring it in from abroad.
We need to focus on the problems and look at solving these problems
and not use these disasters as a reason to exploit them and to grow
government and kill jobs in the meantime.
America's energy security will continue to depend on oil and gas for
the foreseeable future. As much as I like the idea that we are
developing new energy resources--Texas, for example, produces the most
electricity from wind sources of any State in the country--we know that
developing these alternative sources of energy is still going to be a
long time coming. We need to bridge into that new energy future, and
that bridge will continue to consist of American-produced oil and gas.
The question is, Will it be to the benefit of the American people in
the form of good-paying jobs and associated revenue or will the
misguided policy, included in the bill introduced by the majority
leader, ensure that we merely increase our imports that we need and
send the good jobs and rigs overseas by this misguided policy?
I hope my colleagues will reconsider this misguided approach that
would drive independent oil and gas producers out of the Gulf of Mexico
by making it financially impossible for them to purchase the insurance
they need in order to comply with an uncapped liability. We know the
resources will remain there in the case of another disaster, which we
hope and pray will never occur because of the oilspill liability trust
fund--again, funded by 8 cents on every barrel produced in America, as
well as every barrel imported from abroad. So this isn't eliminating a
fund that will actually pay in the event of another catastrophe.
Certainly, we don't ground all airplanes in America or around the
world when there happens to be a terrible airplane crash. We look at
the problem and try to make sure we understand the reason why it
happened, and then we move on and continue flying.
I think the oil and gas industry basically operates the same way. We
need to make sure we understand what happened in this spill, do
everything humanly possible to make sure it never happens again and
make sure BP is held accountable and pays for all the cleanup that
needs to be done as a result of this unfortunate incident. But the
conclusion we should reach should not be let's shoot ourselves in the
other foot by denying ourselves access to American energy and
increasing our dependency on imports from abroad and, at the same time,
kill jobs along the gulf coast in the oil and gas industry and all
those companies and businesses that support the oil and gas industry
during a time when unemployment is already at 9.5 percent.
We can do a lot better than what the majority leader's bill proposes
and continuing job-killing policies. We can actually do it smarter and
better and come up with a real solution rather than creating more
problems.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Congratulating Warner Robins' Girls Softball Team
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I am very pleased to come before the
Senate today and commend the Warner Robins, GA, girls softball team
that yesterday attended the White House and was honored by President
Obama.
The 11- and 12-year-old girls who went all the way last year and this
year are in the finals to hopefully do the same thing again. This team
of young women is coached by a great group of coaches: Emily Whaley and
her assistants, Patti Carriker and Roger Stella.
I commend each one of these young ladies individually: Kaylee
Albritton, Sydney Barker, Carson Carriker, Melissa Cox, Sabrina
Doucette, Ashley Killebrew, Avery Lamb, Hannah Livingston, Caitlyn
Parker, Sierra Stella, Kelly Warner, and Chelsea Whaley.
This is a fine group of young Georgians who went all the way in the
Little League level and are about to do it again. In fact, yesterday,
as she was leaving the White House, President Obama asked her if there
was anything she had to say. Ashley Killebrew said: Mr. President, we
are doing really well this year, and we are going to be back next year
because we are going to win it again. That is the type of positive
attitude in sports that separates the winners from the second-place
finishers.
I commend the Warner Robins Little League softball team, young women
from Warner Robins, GA. I thank the President for honoring them
yesterday at the White House.
Biennial Appropriations
Mr. President, we have been going through difficult economic times as
a country, not only in our expenditures but in the revenues of our
citizens of our States who face higher unemployment, lower
productivity, and very difficult economic times.
As I have watched us on the floor time and again deal with paying for
new amendments that have been proposed, we are all of a sudden
scrambling to find a savings here to borrow from Peter to pay Paul to
patch together an appropriations bill that hopefully keeps us out of
debt but unfortunately continues to keep us in a downward spiral of
borrowing.
I wish to talk today about legislation I have introduced and have
been joined by other Members of the Senate, a bill that has a simple
proposition to it, and that is that maybe as a government we should
start doing what the people of our country have to do--determining how
much we take in, prioritizing what we spend--and get back into
balancing our budget, while providing oversight on what we spend to see
where savings can come from.
There is a great American who has a syndicated radio show called Dave
Ramsey. I don't know how many of my colleagues have ever heard him. He
started Financial Peace University. He started it after he went
bankrupt in the real estate business. He did a great job in real estate
on the way up but leveraged himself all the way, so when times got
tough and the leverage was too difficult, Dave Ramsey went bankrupt.
After a couple years of struggling, he got himself back together and
built himself a large company on the basis of a philosophy of staying
out of debt and spending within your means. I commend everybody to look
at his proposals, read his book, or attend Financial Peace. It is
really an interesting concept because it works.
Dave Ramsey suggested that what you really ought to do when you get
[[Page S6368]]
into economically difficult times and you owe more than you take in is
sit down and say: All right, what do I make? And you write that down.
You write down what you have to spend--utilities, food, whatever it
might be--and then see what is left over. If nothing is left over, then
you have to take the things you are spending on and don't have the
money for and have been borrowing and begin to cut it piece after
piece, so that each month and year you live on a budget that is not
predicated on going into debt and living beyond your means.
We as a country must do the same. There may be an exception,
obviously, for war. There may be an exception, obviously, if there is a
significant terrorist attack or a tremendous international incident or
a natural incident that takes place that might demand some short-term
appropriations. But in the general expenditures of government, we have
to get back to the business of spending within our means.
How do we do that? We have 12 individual appropriations bills or an
omnibus bill that rolls in at the end of the year talking about
spending $3.6 trillion. We cannot do it that way. We have to have a
process where we are able to examine on what we are spending money,
quantify how much money we are going to take in, and balance the two
numbers so we do not go into debt.
My suggestion and what I want to talk about is a biennial budget or
appropriations, a change in the way we do business and how we do it,
which I believe will result in less debt, more reasonable spending, and
a more rational expenditure by the U.S. Government. First of all, it is
predicated on appropriating for 2 years rather than 1 year. The
appropriations years should be the odd-numbered years, and the even-
numbered years should be dedicated to oversight.
I know the distinguished Presiding Officer, as I do, sits on a number
of committees. Every now and then, we will have an oversight meeting,
but more often than not, oversight gets left out because the focus is
on what we are going to spend next or what project is going to be added
to what we spend our money on. That process itself builds more debt,
builds a bigger appropriations act, and never allows us to do those
things we should be doing; that is, focusing on prioritizing the
expenditure of our money.
We all know, because from time to time we have found them, there are
savings in the appropriations. We know that from time to time in
oversight, we find dollars we did not realize we had. We need to make
it a part of our culture in the Congress of the United States that when
the even-numbered years come, two things ought to be happening: One,
Congress ought to be doing oversight of its expenditures, and second is
running for office. I would love to see a time when running for office
is in a year when we are doing oversight so we are focusing more on
what we are saving the American taxpayers than what we are going to
spend to try to impress them to get their vote one more time.
We have a serious, difficult problem in our country. We have a debt
of $13 trillion. I am going to be the first--not the first who ever
said this. I am not going to let this speech end without saying it. I
voted against appropriations bills under President Bush, and I voted
against them under President Obama. I am not taking a target at
anybody. We all have a responsibility, and it is time we focused on a
way to start saving rather than continuing to spend.
I would like nothing better than that focus on savings to take place
in the same election year where everybody is running to be reelected to
come back and do the job. We would change the dynamics and paradigm of
Congress toward a focus on savings rather than a focus on expenditures.
Will it be difficult? Yes, but it is going to be a whole lot more
difficult very soon. Our country owes $13 trillion today and is moving
toward a number that could be as high as $19 trillion before the end of
the next decade.
To put in perspective how much that is, I will tell a short story. I
was in Albany, GA, making a speech at the end of last year, and I
referred two or three times to $1 trillion.
At the end of the speech, this farmer raised his hand and said:
Excuse me, Senator, can I ask a question?
I said: Sure.
He said: How much is 1 trillion?
I don't know if you ever thought about it, Mr. President, but when
somebody asks you a question like that, you try to come up with a
comparison to explain, and it is hard to do, and I had a difficult
time. In fact, I fumbled around, and I am not sure I ever did a good
job of quantifying how much 1 trillion really is.
I got home and talked with my wife. I said: I got stumped today,
sweetheart.
She said: What happened?
I said: I was on the stump in Albany and was asked by a farmer to
explain what 1 trillion was, and I couldn't quantify it. I didn't know
a good comparison.
In her own inimitable way, she said: Why don't you figure out how
many years have to go by for 1 trillion seconds to pass?
I thought, that is a great idea. I got a calculator out and
multiplied 60 seconds times 60 minutes to get the number of seconds in
an hour. I multiplied that times 24 to get the seconds in a day. I
multiplied that by 365 to get the number of seconds in a year. And then
I divided that product into 1 trillion.
Mr. President, do you know how many years have to go by for 1
trillion seconds to pass? It is 31,709 years. We owe $13 trillion. We
are at a point where we are going to go one way or another.
Fortunately, we are recognizing that we are at that point.
I submit one of the keys to stopping the growth of debt and improving
the plight of our country in the future for our children and
grandchildren is to begin spending within our means. And it takes a
process such as a biennial budget or biennial appropriations where we
combine the responsibility of spending with the absolute responsibility
of oversight.
Everybody in America today during these difficult times is looking at
where they spend their money, and they are trying to find savings. They
are trying to find those places they can better allocate their money so
they are not going into debt, not borrowing, and not raising the
prospects of debt in the future. The American Government ought to be
doing the same thing.
I voted for the supplemental for our troops in Afghanistan last week,
and we will do it again. That is a special appropriation for our men
and women, who deserve that backing at a time we commit them to war. We
are not always at war. War is a special and difficult time, and we
ought to give our troops the support they need. But in every other
case, it ought to be an expenditure that is based on the priorities of
what are the most important things we should be doing. When we find
those things that do not meet that test through oversight, that is
where we begin the cutting process. Over time, the process is motivated
toward savings, motivated against borrowing, and motivated for a
balanced budget. I submit that we can talk about it all day long, but
until we put it in a framework that brings about that type of process,
we will never really do it.
The biennial budget with appropriations in odd-numbered years and
oversight in even-numbered years ensures we begin in an election year
being accountable to the electorate on what we are spending. And in
those off years when we are appropriating, we are doing it based on the
previous year's oversight, so we know the effectiveness of the
department we are appropriating the money for and whether it was
prioritized appropriately the way it should have been.
At a time when we are focusing on spending money, focusing on an
appropriations act which will come up this November after the
elections, I think we can look this year at going to a biennial budget
process in future years so that instead of rolling everything into an
omnibus bill after the elections, we have a process that ensures it is
done systematically, as it should be, in odd-numbered years for
appropriations and in even-numbered years we are doing oversight, so
our election is based on accountability of spending money, not how much
we can borrow and how much we can spend.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
[[Page S6369]]
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 15 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
A Second Opinion
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor again today
as someone who has practiced medicine in Casper, WY, taking care of
families there since 1983. I come also as the medical director of the
Wyoming Health Fair and someone who has brought low-cost blood
screening to people, looking for ways to help with early detection of
medical problems, whether it is high blood pressure or diabetes or
cancer because so often early detection means early treatment and, as a
result, longer survivability and better care.
So I come to the floor of the Senate today with a doctor's second
opinion about the health care law that was signed by the President a
little over 100 days ago. The goal, of course, of health care reform
was to lower the cost of care, to increase the quality of care, and to
increase the access to care around the country. Since this bill was
signed into law, we have heard week after week of new unintended
consequences. We hear the personal stories of people whose lives have
been affected because of the law, whose lives have been impacted by the
unintended consequences of the law.
During the entire debate, I was concerned if the legislation passed
and became law that it would be bad for patients relying on our health
care system, bad for providers--the nurses and the doctors in this
country who take care of patients--and bad for payers because I
believed the law would drive up the cost of care, making insurance more
expensive, and also have an impact on the taxes people would pay. So I
have come each week, as I do today, with this doctor's second opinion
of things that have happened during the past week; new things that we
have learned about the health care law and what is happening with
trying to provide health care to so many Americans but also people
worldwide.
As part of the discussion of this health care law, there was a
discussion about the Canadian health care system and the British health
care system. We now have in charge of Medicare and Medicaid in this
country someone who has said he is in love with the National Health
Service, which is the British health care system. So, Mr. President, I
come to the Senate floor today having come across an article in a
British paper--the Sunday Telegraph--about their National Health
System--a system who some in this country have held up as a model. It
is a system I look to as one that results in people having care delayed
and care denied.
When I look at the survivability of patients after, say, cancer in
the United States, we know patients with cancer survive longer in the
United States than in Britain or in Canada, and not because our doctors
are better but just because people receive more timely care.
Mr. President, I am going to quote from this article, but I ask
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the entire article.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, this article, as I said, is from the
Sunday Telegraph, and the headline is ``Axe falls on NHS services.''
This is dated July 24, and it talks about some of the most common
operations performed in England, including hip replacements and
cataract surgery. I am an orthopedic surgeon, so I have done many hip
operations, but this is what the article says:
Many of the most common operations--hip replacements and
cataract surgery--will be rationed as part of attempts to
save billions of pounds, despite government promises that
front-line services would be protected. Patients' groups have
described the measures as ``astonishingly brutal.'' An
investigation by The Sunday Telegraph has uncovered
widespread cuts planned across the National Health Service,
many of which have already been agreed by senior health
service officials. They include: Restrictions on some of the
most basic and common operations, including hip and knee
replacements, cataract surgery, and orthodontic procedures.
Plans to cut hundreds of thousands of pounds from budgets for
the terminally ill, . . . the closure of nursing homes for
the elderly . . . a reduction in acute hospital beds,
including those for the mentally ill.
The article goes on:
Thousands of job losses at NHS hospitals, including 500
staff to go at a trust where cancer patients recently
suffered delays in diagnosis and treatment because of staff
shortages.
They are cutting 500 more staff positions there. The article
continues:
The Sunday Telegraph found the details of hundreds of cuts
buried in obscure appendices to lengthy policy and strategy
documents published by the trusts. In most cases, local
communities appear to be unaware of the plans.
When we read on in this article, it is very disturbing. If I were
living in Britain, I would be very disturbed. As someone living in the
United States, with a new person now in charge of Medicare and Medicaid
who has said he loves what is happening in the British health care
system, I have great concerns.
The article also says:
As well as sending more patients home to die, the paper
said the savings would be made by admitting fewer terminally
ill cancer patients to hospital because they were struggling
to cope with symptoms such as pain. Instead, more patients
would be given advice on ``self management'' of their
condition.
In other words, essentially telling them to go it alone. These are
very disturbing words and a very disturbing situation now occurring in
Britain.
Next, there is an article that appeared in Tuesday's New York Times--
yesterday's New York Times--entitled ``Settling Down to a New Job, but
Hampered by Old Words.'' This is an article about the new Director of
Medicare and Medicaid. This article by Robert Pear talks about the fact
that the new administrator has never had a confirmation hearing, never
had a confirmation hearing and never had to respond to the American
people through Congress to the questions that the American people have
about the person who is newly in charge of Medicare or Medicaid,
especially when we see the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of
billions of dollars spent every year by Medicare and Medicaid.
The article says he never had a confirmation hearing and has not
responded publicly to critics. It goes on to say:
The White House has declined to make him available for an
interview.
Amazingly, the budget--we hear so much about the Pentagon and the
military budget--but, amazingly, the budget of Medicare and Medicaid is
larger than the budget for the Pentagon. Here we have someone newly
appointed, in a recess appointment, someone in charge of Medicare and
Medicaid at a time when this Congress, through its action and the laws
signed by the President, cuts $500 billion from our seniors on Medicare
and does it without having someone come and explain to Congress how he
plans to keep the quality of care up or try to keep the quality of care
up at a time with such cuts--not to save Medicare but to start a whole
new government program.
Dr. Berwick, it goes on to say, ``has received an honorary knighthood
from Queen Elizabeth II in 2005,'' because of his love of the British
health care system. In fact, they quote him here in this article
saying, ``I am romantic about the National Health Service.'' He says,
``I love it.''
The other thing so interesting, at this time in the history of the
United States, is we now have someone in charge of Medicare and
Medicaid who says that ``any health care funding plan that is just,
equitable, civilized and humane must--'' and he repeats the word
``must''--``must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the
poorer. . . .''
It is no surprise that this week in a report out Monday, 58 percent
of Americans, in a Rasmussen poll, favor repeal of the health care law.
Fifty-eight percent of Americans favor repeal of a law that was forced
down their throats, with people around the country saying no, don't do
this to us, we do not want to go in that direction. But this Congress,
this body, felt it knew more than the American people.
I talked a little bit about the British health care system. People
also look to
[[Page S6370]]
Canada where, as the President said to us when we had our roundtable
discussion in January, the summit at the White House, he said:
Everybody in Canada gets coverage.
There is a big difference between coverage and care. It is
interesting where things are turning in Canada. It is in Regina, which
is the birthplace of Canada's socialized health care system. That is
where, in 1962, the bill was passed and the law was signed for a
government-run health care system. Now the health care plan there is
contracting out CT scans to the private sector. They are contemplating
private reforms because the government system is failing.
Some people say: But in Canada everybody has a doctor. According to
the Canadian Medical Association, this report shows 4 million to 5
million people still do not have a family physician.
By the government's own standards in Canada--and that is a government
and those are standards where they are used to waiting in line, where
they expect long delays--even according to their own standards they are
saying the Canadians are now waiting too long for care. This is even
after massive increases in spending.
They go on to talk about how much better the care is in the United
States, in terms of surviving cancer, surviving heart attacks,
surviving transplants--because in America there is greater access to
preventive screening tests and higher treatment rates for chronic
illnesses. So Canada is rethinking their system. Britain has announced
they are rethinking their system under the new Prime Minister there,
and the new government. They are cutting significantly more.
That brings us back to Dr. Berwick, who said ``the decision is not
whether or not we will ration care, the decision is whether we will
ration with our eyes open.''
It is no surprise that many people across this country view this
nominee the same way that a former nominee who received a recess
appointment was viewed. I will quote at the time Senator Obama when he
was talking about a recess appointment made by then President Bush. He
talked about the appointee, saying, ``He's damaged goods. He'll have
less credibility.''
That gets back to the New York Times headline, ``Settling Down to a
New Job But Hampered By Old Words.''
Does the public deserve a hearing for this Medicare appointee? Does
the public deserve a hearing? Do they have a right to hear what this
man has to say? According to the Washington Post, in a headline of
their July 23 editorial, ``The public deserves a hearing for a Medicare
appointee.''
This goes on and says, in explaining his move to sidestep the Senate:
President Obama said in explaining his move to sidestep the
Senate and use a recess appointment to install Donald Berwick
to run Medicare and Medicaid--they had some reasons.
But they go on to say:
Mr. Obama's hurry would have been more understandable had
he not waited for more than a year to select an
administrator. . . .
Now the President has resubmitted Dr. Berwick's nomination, as is the
general practice here, and those Members of this body and specifically
those on the Senate Finance Committee, want and have made a reasonable
request for a confirmation hearing. Still, none has been planned.
It is interesting because the American people still want to know more
about this nominee, what his beliefs are, and what we have to go by are
the quotes. I have gone through a number of them now.
The question comes also to what questions does Dr. Berwick not want
to answer. When one looks into the past, you say: He is a doctor, he is
going to be involved with health care, he is going to likely have to
live under the system with Medicare and Medicaid. I am sure he is not
going to establish something that is going to impact his health
personally. But that gets back to the source, where Dr. Berwick has
come from. It turns out Dr. Berwick does not need to worry about those
things. He does not have to deal with the anxieties the rest of America
deals with, created by limited access to care and the extent of
coverage. I am reading now from an article from Washington, from the
Examiner:
As it turns out, Berwick himself does not have to deal with
the anxieties created by limited access to care and the
extent of coverage.
It goes on to talk about a ``special benefit conferred on him by the
board of directors of the Institute for Health Care Improvement,''
where he came from, ``a nonprofit health care charitable organization
that he created and which he served as chief executive officer.''
He and his wife will have health coverage ``from retirement until
death.'' He has now retired to come work for the government, to be the
head of Medicare and Medicaid. According to page 17 of his employment
contract, under postretirement health benefits, ``health care coverage
from retirement until death.''
How many others can look for that sort of benefit who are working for
nonprofit charitable organizations? Maybe he does not want to answer
those questions. The Senate has a right and the American people have a
right to ask the questions.
I also found it interesting that for somebody at a nonprofit
charitable organization, that that benefit of health care from
retirement until death went along with the salary he earned. His
compensation in 2008--$2.3 million, in a nonprofit charitable
organization. I think it is reasonable for people to want to ask the
questions, where does the $12 million in contributions come from? Where
are the grants? How did it come in? What impact are those people going
to have and try to have on you as you work on rules and regulations in
Medicare and Medicaid? Those are reasonable questions that the American
people would want to have answered, yet we do not have the answers.
As a doctor, I go home every week, visit the people in Wyoming, and
visit with doctors and nurses and patients. One of the things that
strikes me is the last report--they talk about side effects.
``Obamacare,'' it says, ``Could Punish Docs for Better Quality Care.''
That is what I hear about the most at home from doctors who are
taking care of their patients, saying: I do a good job, I do everything
I can. Yet the rules and regulations are going to punish me for doing
what I know is right for my patients.
Part of that is rules and regulations that are coming out of Medicare
and Medicaid and the Secretary of Health and Human Services who is
developing these with financial incentives dealing with patient
outcomes. One of the things they want to do is punish people, punish
physicians and hospitals by penalizing them if a patient returns to the
hospital after they have been discharged within a certain number of
days.
One of the finest hospitals in this country is the Cleveland Clinic,
specifically relating to heart conditions. People from around the
world--kings, sultans, queens--come to the Cleveland Clinic. Some fly
in in their private jets. Why? Because of the quality of care at the
Cleveland Clinic--very understandable.
It is interesting, when the Cleveland Clinic took a look at their
numbers, seeing how they are likely to do under the scenario that the
Secretary of Health and Human Services says is the way to improve care
in this country, the clinic found--it has to do with people with heart
failure, people who are being readmitted to the hospital, patients with
heart failure. It is considered to be a sign of poor quality care when
a heart patient must be readmitted for further treatment.
What the clinic did is they studied their readmission rates and they
found that their readmission rate, in a 30-day period, was actually
much higher than the national average. So they must not be a very good
hospital, according to the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
because that is how they are being judged.
But when you look at the Cleveland Clinic in terms of how the
patients do, how many live for much longer, what we find out is that
the survivability of the patients at the Cleveland Clinic is also much
longer. More people survive. The results are better. So if you are a
patient with heart failure, you want to go to the Cleveland Clinic. If,
on the other hand, you are somebody who works at Health and Human
Services and are just keeping the records, they are going to say: You
don't want to go there because some people come back into the hospital.
Once again, we have a situation where government is saying one thing
[[Page S6371]]
and people--doctors, nurses, patients, families--know that the
government is wrong and we should trust the doctors to make the right
decision.
That is why I return to the floor today to say it is time to repeal
and to replace this health care law. We need a patient-centered health
care bill. We need to replace anything that is either insurance company
centered or government centered, and be patient centered. We can do
that by allowing patients to buy insurance across State lines, to give
people who buy their own health insurance the same tax breaks that the
big companies get; by providing individual incentives for people who
stay healthy, take preventive measures, lose weight, get their diabetes
under control, get their blood pressure down, quit smoking--provide
those incentives because that will lower the cost of care.
We need to deal with lawsuit abuse and the expenses of unnecessary
tests provided by doctors practicing defensive medicine. We also need
to allow small businesses to join together to buy health insurance much
more effectively.
Those are the things that will work to get down the cost of care,
increase the quality and increase the access. That is why today I offer
my second opinion: It is time to repeal and replace this health care
law.
Exhibit 1
Axe Falls on NHS Services
(By Laura Donnelly, July 24, 2010)
NHS bosses have drawn up secret plans for sweeping cuts to
services, with restrictions on the most basic treatments for
the sick and injured.
Some of the most common operations--including hip
replacements and cataract surgery--will be rationed as part
of attempts to save billions of pounds, despite government
promises that front-line services would be protected.
Patients' groups have described the measures as
``astonishingly brutal''.
An investigation by The Sunday Telegraph has uncovered
widespread cuts planned across the NHS, many of which have
already been agreed by senior health service officials. They
include:
Restrictions on some of the most basic and common
operations, including hip and knee 7 replacements, cataract
surgery and orthodontic procedures.
Plans to cut hundreds of thousands of pounds from budgets
for the terminally ill, with dying cancer patients to be told
to manage their own symptoms if their condition worsens at
evenings or weekends.
The closure of nursing homes for the elderly.
A reduction in acute hospital beds, including those for the
mentally ill, with targets to discourage GPs from sending
patients to hospitals and reduce the number of people using
accident and emergency departments.
Tighter rationing of NHS funding for IVF treatment, and for
surgery for obesity.
Thousands of job losses at NHS hospitals, including 500
staff to go at a trust where cancer patients recently
suffered delays in diagnosis and treatment because of staff
shortages.
Cost-cutting programmes in paediatric and maternity
services, care of the elderly and services that provide
respite breaks to long-term carers.
The Sunday Telegraph found the details of hundreds of cuts
buried in obscure appendices to lengthy policy and strategy
documents published by trusts. In most cases, local
communities appear to be unaware of the plans.
Dr. Peter Carter, the head of the Royal College of Nursing,
said he was ``incredibly worried'' about the disclosures.
He urged Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, to ``get a
grip'' on the reality of what was going on in the NHS.
The Government has promised to protect the overall budget
of the NHS, which will continue to receive above-inflation
increases, but said the service must make ``efficiency
savings'' of up to K20 billion by 2014, which would be
diverted back to the front line.
Mr. Lansley said last month: ``This protection for the NHS
is protection for patients--to ensure that the sick do not
pay for the debt crisis.''
Dr. Carter said: ``Andrew Lansley keeps saying that the
Government will protect the front line from cuts--but the
reality appears to be quite the opposite. We are seeing
trusts making job cuts even when they have already admitted
to being short staffed.
``The statements he makes may be well intentioned--but we
would implore him to get a grip on the reality, because these
kinds of cuts are incredibly worrying.''
Katherine Murphy, of the Patients Association, said the
cuts were ``astonishingly brutal'' and expressed particular
concern at moves to ration operations such as hip and knee
operations.
``These are not unusual procedures, this is a really
blatant attempt to save money by leaving people in pain,''
she said.
``Looking at these kinds of cuts, which trusts have drawn
up in such secrecy, it particularly worries me how far they
disadvantage the elderly and the vulnerable.
``We cannot return to the days of people waiting in pain
for years for a hip operation or having to pay for operations
privately.''
She added that it was ``incredibly cruel'' to draw up
savings plans based on denying care to the dying.
On Thursday, the board of Sutton and Merton primary care
trust (PCT) in London agreed more than K50 million of savings
in two years. The plan included more than K400,000 to be
saved by ``reducing length of stay'' in hospital for the
terminally ill.
As well as sending more patients home to die, the paper
said the savings would be made by admitting fewer terminally
ill cancer patients to hospital because they were struggling
to cope with symptoms such as pain. Instead, more patients
would be given advice on ``self management'' of their
condition.
Bill Gillespie, the trust's chief executive, said patients
would stay at home, or be discharged from hospital only if
that was their choice, and would be given support in their
homes.
This week, Hertfordshire PCT plans to discuss attempts to
reduce spending by rationing more than 50 common procedures,
including hip and knee replacements, cataract surgery and
orthodontic treatment.
Doctors across the county have already been told that their
patients can have the operations only if they are given
``prior approval'' by the PCT, with each authorisation made
on a ``case by case'' basis.
Elsewhere, new restrictions have been introduced to limit
funding of IVF.
While many infertile couples living in Yorkshire had
previously been allowed two cycles of treatment--still short
of national guidance to fund three cycles--all the primary
care trusts in the county are now restricting treatment to
one cycle per couple.
A ``turnaround'' plan drawn up by Peterborough PCT intends
to make almost K100 million of savings by 2013.
Its cuts include closing nursing and residential homes and
services for the mentally ill, sending 500 fewer patients to
hospital each month, and cutting K17 million from acute and
accident and emergency services.
Two weeks ago, Mid Yorkshire Hospitals trust agreed plans
to save K55 million in two years, with K20 million coming
from about 500 job losses.
Yet, a month before the decision was taken, senior managers
at a board meeting described how staff shortages were already
causing delays for patients being diagnosed and treated for
breast cancer.
Mr Lansley said any trusts that interpreted the
Government's demands for efficiency savings as budget or
service cuts were wrong to do so, and were ``living in the
past''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Health Care
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I was going to talk about small business
lending and some ideas about how to get our economy moving again. I
feel compelled to say something. I had the privilege of visiting,
almost a year ago, the Cleveland Clinic. The Cleveland Clinic is one of
a number of well-known, highly respected health delivery systems in
this country--the Cleveland Clinic, the Mayo Clinic, Geisinger, which
is in Pennsylvania, Intermountain up in Utah, Kaiser Permanante out in
northern California, and several others. They have demonstrated the
ability to provide better care for less money. Think about that. Better
care, better outcomes, for less money.
Their reputation is well known in this country, along with Mayo and
some of the others I have mentioned. So I had an opportunity to go
visit, go along with a member of my staff, Racquel Russell. We went and
spent a day and actually stayed into the evening. It was so
fascinating.
What we learned was that if we look at the health care delivery
systems, including the Cleveland Clinic I just mentioned, try to look
and drill down on why they are able to provide better health care,
better outcomes for less money, they have a lot of things in common
with one another. I want to mention some of them.
They focus on primary care, access to primary care. They like to
catch problems when they are small, easy to repair, easy to cure. They
focus big time on preventive care, making sure when people are the
right age, they get colonoscopies or they have mammograms, and just a
variety of other tests. They use preventive medicine to catch things
when they are early.
If prescription medicines, pharmaceuticals can be helpful in
controlling particular cases, they make sure people have access to that
medicine. They actually coordinate care across not just doctors that
happen to maybe be in oncology but doctors and nurses who are in
different parts of medicine. It may be oncology, maybe it deals with
pulmonary disease, dementia.
[[Page S6372]]
They do a better job working across medical lines than we work across
party lines some days. But they do a very good job of coordinating care
with different aspects of their health care delivery system. They have
gotten away from what we call fee for service. Here we have something
called fee for service. If the Presiding Officer, instead of being a
Senator were a doctor, and I were a patient, I would come to see him.
Every time I would come to see him, he would get paid. He would get
paid for each visit. If he actually owns the lab he refers me to, every
time he refers me to the lab for tests he gets some remuneration for
that. If he has an interest in an imaging center, and I go for x rays
or for MRIs or that kind of thing, then that is called fee for service.
What happens in a number of places in our country, not all, is
sometimes the doctors will, in an effort partly to make sure they do
not get sued, and partly to make sure they are doing the best job they
can to cure people, and in other cases there is some financial
incentive, just refer people to maybe more visits, more tests than they
really need. That is called fee for service. That helps drive the cost
of our health care system. They do not have that problem at the
Cleveland Clinic.
I remember listening to an interview on television with a
cardiologist at Cleveland Clinic, on CNN last year, before I went for
the visit. He said: I am a cardiologist. He said: I am here at the
Cleveland Clinic. I used to have my own practice. It used to be in my
old practice I got paid--largely my salary came out of operating on
hearts. He said: People came in and they were overweight or bad diet,
bad fitness, and that kind of thing and just were not taking care of
themselves, were not taking the right kind of medicines. I would urge
them to do the right thing. But, he said, at the end of the day, if
they did not do it, I would operate on their hearts, and that is how I
made the bulk of my income.
He said: Here at the Cleveland Clinic, when somebody comes to me with
a heart problem, at the end of the day, I may operate on their heart.
But we work very hard to make sure they are fit, that they are eating
the right food. We work hard to make sure they are involved in some
kind of appropriate exercise regimen. He said: We work hard to make
sure they are not only prescribed the right medicines, they actually
take the right medicines and do all of those things.
He said: I get paid pretty much the same amount of money whether I am
treating a patient that way or if I am operating on their hearts. I
probably operate on fewer hearts today, but I think we get a better
outcome for less money.
One of the things I learned at the Cleveland Clinic that day is all
of the amazing things they do to harness information technology for the
delivery of health care. I was in a Walgreens drugstore in Seaford, DE,
about a week or two ago and had an opportunity to see how at the other
end--in this case we will use pharmaceuticals--but this is a way to use
information technology to drive down health care costs.
Anybody who was ever had a prescription given to them, written by a
doctor, sometimes you look at it, you read it and say: What is this? Is
this a prescription or does this say Alpo? What does this actually say?
It is hard to read. My handwriting is not the best, but I read some
others that are even harder than mine to read.
At the Cleveland Clinic, they do not handwrite prescriptions; they do
electronic prescriptions so there is no mistake. They are smart enough
with their IT system that all of their patients have electronic health
records. So they have the full health care picture of their patient.
Not only that, if they were going to prescribe something, a
medicine--let's say a patient is already taking 10 medicines. Whatever
new ones they are prescribing, their IT system looks at the other 10
medicines. They look to see whether the new prescription is compatible
with medicines they are already taking. They do not want to prescribe
medicine that creates more problems than actually helps people.
Also, they have the ability--a bunch of our leading health care
delivery systems--to know when a prescription has been ordered or that
it has actually been picked up; that it has been filled and someone is
taking it. They have the ability to know whether someone, if they are
supposed to get refills in so many days, if someone actually refills
the prescriptions and continues to take the medicines they are supposed
to be taking. If they do not, they get a call from their health care
delivery system, clinic, hospital, or doctor's office.
We are getting smart enough now, after mapping the human genome, to
actually know what medicines--let's say the Presiding Officer and I
have the same health condition, but we have a different genetic makeup.
He can take this medicine, and it will make him well. I can take this
medicine all day, all week, all month, all year, and it will never help
me at all. We have the same problem, but because of our genetic makeup
it will help him but it will not help me.
We are smart enough now to start figuring this stuff out. We are
making sure that not only people are taking the medicines they need to
take, but they do not interact badly with other medicines; that they
continue to take the medicines they are supposed to be taking. But we
stop spending money on medicines that are not going to help people and
spend that money in ways that will help them and continue to provide
the money for medicines that will help someone who has the right
genetic makeup.
My colleague who spoke before me said we need to sell insurance
across State lines. Well, one of the things we do in terms of things
that work, we have a big purchasing pool that all Federal employees are
part of, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. We buy our health
insurance from an 8 million-person purchasing pool, 8 million people.
We do not have 8 million Federal employees, but if we add up all
Federal employees, all Federal retirees, all of our dependents, it adds
up to 8 million people. That is a large purchasing pool. We buy private
health insurance from all kinds of private health insurance companies.
They compete with each other, and it drives down prices. We have a
large purchasing pool, economies of scale. The administrative cost for
our purchasing pool is 3 percent; 3 percent for every premium dollar
goes for administrative cost.
If you go out on your own and try to buy health care in the DC area
or back home in Delaware or Illinois or wherever you are from,
administrative cost for an individual, for a family, for a small
business, is more like maybe 23 percent of premiums or 33 percent. But
they are not 3 percent.
What we call for in our legislation, this new law, we want to create
these large purchasing pools all across the country. Every State is
going to be required to establish, by 2014, a large purchasing pool
that individuals can join, families can join, small businesses can join
to buy their health care. If it is a little State like Delaware, we are
too small to have a big purchasing pool. But under our legislation, we
can enter into an interstate compact with our neighbor, Maryland, or
maybe with Pennsylvania, or maybe with New Jersey, or maybe with all of
them and create a large regional purchasing pool, be able to drive down
administrative costs, increase competition.
Listen to this, to my colleague's point: sell insurance, health
insurance, across State lines. We have a four-State exchange or
purchasing pool. The insurance sold in Delaware could be sold in
Maryland; it could be sold in Pennsylvania; it could be sold in New
Jersey, and vice-versa, to drive down costs.
My colleague mentioned we ought to incentivize people who take better
care of themselves. Well, Senator Ensign of Nevada and I offered, and
it was adopted and is part of the law today, something that says
employers can offer premium discounts to employees who are overweight
and lose weight, keep it off; employees who smoke, stop smoking,
continue to stop smoking; employees who have high blood pressure, high
cholesterol, if they bring it down, keep it down, they can receive
premium discounts through their employer by as much as 30 percent for
those employees to incentivize them to take better care of themselves
and be less of a health risk.
A lot of the problems we have with health care today in this country
flow from the fact that we are overweight. One-third of us are
overweight or on
[[Page S6373]]
our way to being obese. Almost one-third of us are obese, kids too.
We actually have done in the legislation what my colleague was
calling for, incentivize people to take personal responsibility. If
they do that, they are better off. He also mentioned medical
malpractice reform. We actually included in the legislation medical
malpractice reform based on earlier proposals by Senator Mike Enzi,
also from Wyoming, and Senator Max Baucus. They are in the bill. I
think they are going to give us a lot of good ideas of what is working
to do three things across the country: One, reduce medical malpractice
lawsuits; two, reduce the incidence of defensive medicine; and, three,
provide better outcomes. We will be seeing results of some very
exciting things done in Delaware and other States to be able to emulate
Michigan among those other States.
I did not come to the floor to talk about that. But when I hear stuff
like this, I say: Someone needs to set the record straight. As a guy
who is on the Finance Committee, I worked a lot on the legislation and
focused on, day after day, month after month, trying to figure out how
to provide better health care for less money, looking at other the
Cleveland Clinic or Mayo Clinic or other entities, or looking at other
countries, such as Japan. They spend half as much for health care as we
do. Eight percent of gross domestic product is what they spend. We
spend 16 percent. They get better results: lower rates of infant
mortality, higher rates of longevity. They get better results. They
cover everybody. We have about 30 to 40 million who are not covered.
So for us to say, well, we will just go willy-nilly on for the rest
of this decade or this century and pretty much do what we have been
doing, that is foolish. Ironically, some of things that my colleague
was recommending, we are actually doing in the legislation and will be
rolling out and doing more in the years to come.
The last thing I want to say before I move to small businesses and
job creation is Dr. Donald Berwick has been nominated to be the head of
CMS, which is the entity that oversees Medicare and Medicaid. One of
the people I most respect in trying to learn about health care and
health care delivery, finding out how we provide better outcomes for
less money, is a guy named Mark McClellan. Mark McClellan, when I first
met him, was a health adviser to former President George W. Bush. He
ended up being the head of the Food and Drug Administration. I think
for a while he was the head of CMS, the position to which Dr. Berwick
has been nominated.
Among the people who have recommended Dr. Berwick highly for this
position is Mark McClellan, who is an economist, who is a physician,
who has actually run a couple of big Federal agencies. I think it would
be smart to listen to a fellow who actually worked in a Republican
administration, had the President's ear, and served us very well in
some high-level positions, including the same agency, CMS.
It would be smart to listen to Mark McClellan. I think I might have
misheard, but I thought there was an assertion that Dr. Berwick and his
wife had worked for a nonprofit and he had health care insurance for
the rest of his life, up to death.
I would just think, for the folks who serve here today, who served in
wars--we have people who have earned the Congressional Medal of Honor
for their service in World War II, folks who were prisoners of war in
Vietnam and served, gosh, 20, 30 years and more in some cases in the
military. They have lifetime insurance as well--not from being in the
Senate but from the work for nonprofit; whether it was a State
government or Federal Government or local government. I do not think
there is anything that is so unusual about that. Should they be
disqualified from being a Senator because they have lifetime health
care because of their service or because they were Governor of a State
or attorney general of a State? I do not know if that makes a whole lot
of sense.
So I did not come here to talk about any of this, but I just felt
compelled to mention these things.
Let me pivot, if I can, and just take 5 minutes to talk about small
business. Mark Zandi is an economist, a smart one too. He started
something called moodyseconomy.com. He comes and speaks to not just our
caucuses, Democrats in the Senate, but he was, during the Presidential
campaign in 2008, an economic adviser to John McCain, very well
respected. He just calls them like he sees them, calls them like he
sees them.
We asked him earlier this year: Well, why are we not seeing--even
though job loss is way down, where 18 months ago we lost 700,000 jobs a
month, last month we actually gained 50,000 or 60,000 jobs or so. I
think that is about what we are averaging for the first part of this
year. We want to do better than that. It is not like losing 700,000
jobs a month. So we have made improvements.
But we asked him: Dr. Zandi, why aren't big businesses hiring?
He said: Uncertainty. Businesses like certainty. There is too much
uncertainty. He said this earlier this year. There is uncertainty about
what, if anything, you all are going to do about health care; drive
down costs, better outcomes, drive them down. What are you going to do
about financial regulatory reform, Wall Street? What are you going to
do about deficit reduction? What are you going to do about climate
change, global warming, energy policy?
What are you going to do about transportation policy? What are you
going to do about a variety of things but those major things I have
just mentioned.
Dr. Zandi's counsel is: You want big companies to start hiring? They
are making money. You want them to start hiring people? Address the
uncertainties.
So we have addressed the uncertainty with health care, not to
everyone's satisfaction, but it does a lot more good than bad. We have
addressed the uncertainties with respect to financial regulatory
reform. I think it does more good than bad. Not everyone shares that
view, but I think it does. We are trying to address with our
legislation today and this week, this month, next month, something
called tax extenders; a lot of tax cuts, tax credits that expired at
the beginning of this year, such as the R&D tax credit and biodiesel
tax credit. A bunch of them are expired and have been expired for 7
months. We need to provide some certainty so that businesses and
families know what to plan for and do.
We need to provide some certainty so businesses and families know
what to plan for and do. Mark Zandi said those are the concerns for big
businesses that want to start hiring, to address the uncertainty, and
to provide predictability and certainty.
We said: How about small businesses?
He said: Unlike big businesses--a lot of big businesses are reporting
pretty big earnings levels--a lot of small businesses are not doing so
well. One of the things that small businesses need is better access to
capital. They need to be able to borrow money and raise money, whether
they want to buy or rent a building, buy new equipment for their
building, whether they want to buy transportation equipment, trucks or
whatever, forklifts, whether they just need money for working capital.
Small businesses need access to capital.
There is not a perfect solution for that problem, but that is a big
problem for small businesses, and access to capital is not the solution
for every small business, but it is for a number.
The legislation before us seeks to address that need for small
businesses. I will take a moment and read through a couple items in the
legislation that commend it to the Senate and to our acting on it soon.
This bill has about $12 billion in tax incentives to help boost
investment in small businesses and promote entrepreneurship. The bill
eliminates the capital gains tax on small business stocks for people
who purchase these stocks this year and hold them for 5 years. This
legislation will encourage more people to invest in small businesses
and will help give these businesses the capital they need to grow and
create new jobs. The legislation also allows more small businesses an
immediate tax write-off. We call this expensing for upgrades in their
buildings and equipment. If they buy a building, a business, they
usually have to depreciate it over a period of years. This legislation
allows small businesses that make a capital expenditure, whether it is
a
[[Page S6374]]
building or equipment, to write it off in the first year. That is a
great incentive to making major investments. This kind of tax break
will encourage businesses to purchase everything from new software and
computers to buildings, new roofs, windows, and vehicles. At the same
time, it will encourage hiring in industries that sell those products.
The bill before us fosters the next generation of entrepreneurs by
temporarily doubling the tax incentive, an existing tax incentive from
$5,000 to $10,000 to incentivize entrepreneurs to start a new business.
We call this the startup deduction. This increase will help offset the
high cost of launching a new company.
These ideas, along with many other bipartisan tax breaks in the bill,
will encourage smaller employers to create jobs. It will strengthen
capital investment and ultimately move the economy forward on the road
to recovery.
(Mr. MERKLEY assumed the chair.)
The bill also includes what we call a Small Business Lending Fund to
help our Nation's struggling small businesses succeed. Almost every
week I visit businesses, small and large, in Delaware. I hear over and
over again, especially from small businesses, the same concern--access
to capital. The $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund in this bill
addresses this concern by providing our community banks with the funds
they need to increase lending to small businesses. We incentivize banks
to increase their lending by lowering the dividend rate they must pay
back to the Treasury as they demonstrate an increase in small business
lending.
We did something similar to this earlier. We created a fund, and we
essentially didn't give the money to the banks. We didn't loan the
money to banks. We bought the bank's preferred stock. They had to pay
us a dividend on the stock. Five percent was the dividend rate on the
preferred stock we bought. If they didn't buy back the preferred stock
within several years, they had to pay us a 9-percent dividend rate on
the preferred stock. We infused capital into the banks, largely banks
with over $10 billion in assets. For the most part, they have returned
to profitability. They have repaid, bought back their preferred stock.
They have paid dividends on all of it for the most part. Actually, we
have exercised, on behalf of taxpayers, something called warrants
which, as the stock values recover, enables taxpayers to participate in
the debt and the return of profitability.
We wish to do a similar thing with banks of less than $10 billion. In
this case, we buy the preferred stock. The amount of dividend they have
to pay back to the Treasury depends on whether they lend the money to
small businesses. If they lend the money and they use essentially this
capital infusion as it is intended, they end up with almost a zero
dividend rate. If they don't lend any of it, they have to pay a 9-
percent dividend rate. So there is an incentive there.
Finally, we are building upon successful Small Business
Administration initiatives that were part of the Recovery Act. By
increasing both loan sizes and the guarantees for the Small Business
Administration loans, we can help meet the credit needs of small
businesses. According to a recent report by the National Small Business
Association, these Recovery Act programs are working, and they are
still greatly needed. Last week, the National Small Business
Association announced that when the small business provisions of the
stimulus package, adopted about a year and a half ago, expired at the
end of May, Small Business Administration lending plummeted. In June of
this year, the Small Business Administration approved only $647 million
of loans to small businesses. The previous month, before this expired,
it was $1.9 billion in loans. It is clear--to me at least--that the
enhancements to current Small Business Administration programs in the
bill are critically important and will help lenders provide loans and
help small businesses create jobs in communities.
One of the things we need to do to relieve uncertainty and get us
going on the right track is to eliminate uncertainty. One of the great
sources of uncertainty is what we do on health care. We have done
something on health care--more good than bad. The CBO tells us the
actual effect on the deficit is to reduce the deficit, forecasted
deficits by $120 billion over the next 10 years and by roughly another
$1.2 trillion in the years after that. So not only do we have the
potential of providing better health care to people who don't have it
but also to do something positive on the deficit side, beginning to
address the uncertainty. In terms of uncertainty, it is important for
large business and for small business. The real problem for small
business is to make it possible for them to access capital, to get
loans, whether for plant and equipment or for working capital. The
legislation we are debating this week actually does that in a variety
of ways.
The Presiding Officer is somebody who has actually worked on this
stuff pretty hard. I commend Senator Merkley and a variety of others,
Senator Landrieu and others, for the good work they have done on this
legislation, on both sides of the aisle. We ought to let this bill go.
We ought to give this bill an up-or-down vote. In doing so, we will do
the right thing not only for the Senate and those of us who are
privileged to serve here but for the country, particularly our small
businesses.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I am impressed by the distinguished
Senator from Delaware. Not only has he outlined the information in the
small business legislation which we are in the process of debating, but
he so eloquently expounded on what we have done in health care to
respond to the second opinion of our distinguished colleague from
Wyoming. The Senator from Delaware did a tremendous job of covering the
health care issue and what is actually in the bill. It has to be on the
record. I thank the Senator for being eloquent in that regard.
I am here to speak about the small business legislation. I must also
commend the Senator from Delaware, as he covered some key points. Being
a former banker myself, an individual who actually financed companies--
when I was in the banking business, I financed small businesses, even
startup businesses--I have a great knowledge of what it takes to make
sure those businesses have the necessary capital and resources in order
to survive and provide jobs across the respective communities they
serve. The legislation before us is crucial to the recovery of our
respective communities with this recession.
As a public servant, I have been a strong advocate for American small
businesses, especially disadvantaged and minority-owned businesses,
because they are the engine of the economy. Before I was a public
official, I was a banker. I worked hard every day to spur investments
on Main Street. I worked to make capital available for small businesses
so entrepreneurs and innovators could create jobs and bring prosperity
to local communities. Today, as a result of the harsh economic reality
in which we are existing, many of these businesses are finding it
tougher than ever to survive. Credit is largely dried up. Capital
investment is difficult to come by. Even as our economy begins to move
forward toward recovery, small and disadvantaged businesses continue to
lag behind. I believe we need to place small businesses at the heart of
our response to this crisis. More needs to be done. Passing the Small
Business Lending Act would be a step in the right direction. This
incentive will create jobs for struggling Americans by providing
increased lending to small businesses so they can support and expand
their operations.
Small businesses are in a position to create well-paying jobs and
produce growth at the local level. It is time to make them a priority
again. If we fail to act today, if we fail to pass the Small Business
Lending Act and fall short of our commitment to America's innovators
and entrepreneurs, I fear our Nation will fall into a jobless recovery,
and small businesses across the country will continue to suffer the
detrimental effects of this recession.
I recognize government cannot directly create jobs in the same way
the private sector can but few can deny that government has an integral
role in getting America back on track. Our job as public officials is
to support and
[[Page S6375]]
promote responsible practices, implement sensible regulations, and help
direct investments to the areas that need it most. Under current law,
the Small Business Administration provides key support to small
businesses through its 8(a) program. This program offers technical
assistance, training, and contract opportunities to small businesses
that meet specific criteria. I am a strong advocate of this initiative
which has helped to keep small and disadvantaged businesses viable and
make sure everyone has a chance to share in the economic prosperity.
Mr. President, 8(a) has made a difference in numerous communities. It
has eased some of the worst effects of the crisis for those entities
that are most vulnerable. Yet despite its success, this program's
impact and reach has been restricted because only a small number of
businesses are eligible for this kind of support. That is why I
introduced an amendment during the debate that would expand the 8(a)
program.
My measure would have increased the continued eligibility amount from
$750,000 to $2.5 million, so more small businesses could benefit from
this assistance. But, unfortunately, my amendment was not included in
the final package.
While it did not make the cut this time, I hope my colleagues will
join me in giving further consideration and attention to the 8(a)
program in the near future. What this will do is allow those
individuals who may have reached a net worth of $1.1 million or $1.2
million or $1.5 million or even $2 million to say they are still small.
In this economy, if you have $2 million, people say you are rich. Well,
that is not the case if you are a small businessperson. That is the
reason why I am saying in order to still be able to qualify for the
8(a) program, we should increase the eligibility amount to $2.5
million, and thereby they can continue to compete and continue to have
a chance to be in the small and disadvantaged minority category.
Expansion of this program would afford our small businesses the
assistance they need and create jobs for Americans amid this rough
economic climate.
With the Small Business Lending Act before us today, we have an
opportunity to renew our investment in America's small businesses. I
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation so we can
foster economic growth on the local level and generate much needed
jobs.
I wish to reiterate what the distinguished Senator from Delaware said
in terms of how we can expand these businesses by giving tax incentives
to these companies, by eliminating the capital gains tax that would
come about for any transaction they would make, by allowing them to
write off the depreciation for their capital purchases.
We have this legislation before us now, which we must pass before we
adjourn for our summer recess, and get this legislation over to the
House so the House can pass it before they adjourn, a week before we
adjourn. We need to make sure we get this legislation passed.
We saw the Senator from Louisiana fight gallantly to pass the
amendment to allow the banks to have $30 billion which they could put
out for small businesses. That amendment had been stricken, and the
Senator did not yield to that deduction from that piece of this
package. She fought to get that amendment into this legislation. Now
what we must do is get the 60 votes needed to pass the Small Business
Lending Act so we can get about the business of saying, yes, we are
concerned about Main Street as much as we are about Wall Street. When
we do that, we can go back to our constituents and say we have done
something that is beneficial to our communities which will help us to
get this economy moving again to help those people who need it the
most.
Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire on
the floor. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague,
Senator Burris, from Illinois, and the other Senators who have been on
the floor this afternoon to speak to the Small Business Jobs Act that
is pending before us today.
For weeks now, the Senate has been considering the Small Business
Jobs Act. Today, I hope we will finally be able to pass this
commonsense legislation that will help small employers and
entrepreneurs to grow their businesses and to hire new workers.
While we have seen some signs that our economy is beginning to
recover in New Hampshire, too many workers still cannot find the jobs
they need to put food on the table and pay the mortgage. The best way
to create those jobs is to invest in our small businesses.
Over the past 15 years, small businesses have created almost two-
thirds of the new jobs in America. Small businesses are the cornerstone
of New Hampshire's economy. Over 96 percent of businesses in the
Granite State are small businesses with fewer than 50 employees.
But small businesses, as we all have heard, continue to feel the
effects of a recession they had no hand in creating. That is why we
need to pass the Small Business Jobs Act today.
This bipartisan legislation will dramatically increase lending to
small businesses. It will enhance the ability of small companies to
export. It will provide tax relief to so many small firms.
I am proud, as a member of the Small Business Committee, I worked
with my chair, Mary Landrieu, who has done a terrific job on this bill,
and ranking member Olympia Snowe, on provisions to enhance critical SBA
programs. I am pleased to report this was a bipartisan effort.
I have come to the floor several times over the past few weeks to
talk about the many important provisions in this bill--provisions that
will get capital moving to small businesses again, and to provide them
with some tax relief. But today I want to come to the floor to discuss
another critical component of this bill, one that every Senator in this
Chamber should support; that is, helping our small businesses sell
their products overseas.
Exports are a great opportunity for small businesses that are looking
to grow. Growing a small business is often about finding new markets
for your products. Selling into foreign markets is especially important
for businesses in my home State of New Hampshire.
Even in the difficult economic climate last year, one of the real
bright spots in New Hampshire's economy has been exports. In 2009, New
Hampshire had its second highest export year ever. But there is still a
huge potential to continue to increase exporting by America's small
businesses.
This chart I have in the Chamber shows the opportunity that exists
for our small businesses. Only 5 percent of the world's customers live
in the United States. We can see on the chart that is that very small
blue portion of this pie chart. So that means 95 percent of the world's
markets are outside of the United States.
But, of course, there are still significant barriers to small
businesses as they try to access that remaining 95 percent of the
world's population. For a small business, starting to export can be
challenging. Unlike big firms, they do not have the technical capacity
to identify new markets. They do not have the resources to go on trade
missions, and they do not have the marketing expertise to promote their
products to foreign buyers.
We can see the challenge small businesses face versus the challenge
large businesses face on this pie chart. For large businesses, 42
percent of them export. For small businesses, only 1 percent of them in
the country export. So 99 percent of small businesses still have the
opportunity to access those international markets.
A vote for this bill is a vote to help small businesses in New
Hampshire and across the country--businesses that are looking to export
but do not have the resources or the expertise to do so. It is a vote
to help small businesses create the jobs that will help us emerge from
this recession.
I want to talk a little bit about one New Hampshire business that has
been able to benefit from the kind of export assistance this bill will
offer. The company is called Dartware. It is a high-tech company in
West Lebanon, NH, over in the western part of our State, right across
the river from Vermont. It is a pretty sophisticated business. It
builds software to help improve professional networks. But even though
they
[[Page S6376]]
are sophisticated, they still had a tough time navigating the
international terrain. So Dartware went to New Hampshire's
International Trade Resource Center where they found a U.S. Foreign
Commercial Service specialist who could help them, along with the folks
at the Trade Resource Center. The center provided Dartware with a
customized international market assessment and connected the business
to international buyers for their services.
As a result, Dartware now has developed partner relationships in
countries such as Brazil, China, South Africa, Egypt, and Argentina--
countries that are emerging markets that offer opportunities for New
Hampshire and America's small businesses.
The bill that is pending before us would give more small businesses
such as Dartware the opportunity to succeed in exporting.
The Small Business Jobs Act includes two bipartisan bills I
cosponsored that will help more companies access critical export
resources. For the past few years, Federal and State resources have
dwindled, while companies such as Dartware have clamored for more of
these services to help them know how to export.
The Foreign Commercial Service has not been able to replace many of
their retiring officials and, as a result, the service has been
severely understaffed. This legislation, the small business jobs bill,
restores staffing at the Commerce Department to 2004 levels and creates
a competitive grant program so that strapped State export assistance
centers will have that ability to provide grants to companies. This
bill passed out of the Senate Commerce Committee with broad bipartisan
support.
The Small Business Jobs Act also includes bipartisan legislation
which will strengthen SBA export assistance programs. These programs
help small businesses get the loans they need to finance their export
growth and will provide export expertise. This part of the bill passed
out of the Small Business Committee by a vote of 18 to 0.
So two more provisions in the legislation pending before us that have
broad bipartisan support. These commonsense measures that had strong
bipartisan support in committee deserve support on the floor when we
vote on this legislation. There is no reason we should not have a
strong bipartisan vote today when the full Senate takes up this
legislation.
I hope all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me
in voting for this bill because it is going to make a difference to our
small businesses, and it is going to mean they can grow, they can add
jobs, and we can put people back to work in this country. I urge my
colleagues to join us in voting for this legislation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Aviation Safety
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk about a
piece of legislation that perhaps is not on the front pages of the
newspapers today but is very important in this Congress and to the
American people. It is very important that we pass this legislation. We
have been waiting and waiting, and we continue to wait. It is called
the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration bill. We
have been working on this for a long time.
This is not just reauthorization for some bureaucracy; this is about
safety for the American public who is flying today. Let me put up a
chart that shows where the airplanes are in the skies today. I think I
have a chart on that which describes the number of flights in this
country. The air is literally packed with airplanes flying all across
this country. The question is, How are they controlled? Ground-based
radar systems are keeping track of all of these flights. This is a map
that shows the airplanes that are flying in the country at a given
time--very crowded skies. This FAA reauthorization bill has a lot to do
with safety. The reason it is so important--I am going to talk about
the safety piece first, and then I will talk about why it has been
blocked and how we finally get some action on this and why I finally
have had a bellyful of trying to persuade people that we ought to pass
legislation that I think is critically important to save lives in this
country.
Let me remind all of my colleagues about February 12 last year.
February 12 of last year was the tragic crash of Colgan Air flight
3407. That crash should not have happened. That crash took the lives of
45 passengers, 2 flight attendants, 2 pilots, and 1 person on the
ground. It should never, ever have happened.
The families of the victims of Colgan Air flight 3407 have
consistently been to every hearing I have held on safety dealing with
aviation. They have been, at every moment possible, here in the Capitol
Building, office to office, door to door, saying: Pass this legislation
to reauthorize the FAA, including the dramatic safety changes we
propose.
They provided a chart board that shows photographs of their loved
ones, those who climbed on that airplane that evening to fly from
Newark to Buffalo, NY. It was a night flight on a Bombardier-8. During
that flight, icing occurred on the wings.
I have read the transcript from that cockpit between the pilot and
the copilot. Let me describe a couple of things we learned.
The young pilot lived in Seattle, WA, and commuted to work to Newark.
She deadheaded all night long on a FedEx plane stopping in Memphis,
landed in Newark--no evidence that she slept--and then she boarded an
airplane to haul passengers to Buffalo, NY. That was the copilot. The
copilot, I understand, earned somewhere around $20,000, $22,000 a year
and had a second job in a coffee job to make ends meet. My
understanding was she lived with her parents. That was the copilot. The
pilot commuted from Florida. There is no evidence that the pilot slept
the night before. He spent time in the crew lounge, where there is no
bed. That pilot boarded the same plane. That raises all kinds of issues
about fatigue and commuting--commuting all night to board an airplane
to haul passengers.
When you read the transcript of what occurred in that cockpit, you
also understand there were very serious issues about training--the
stick pusher and the stick shaker and flying into ice and not following
procedures, all of these issues.
Forty-five passengers died that night. The question is, Is there one
level of safety in this country when you get on an airplane and you
look in that cockpit? Is there one level of safety if you are on a
large plane or carrier versus a small regional carrier? Do you have the
same experience in the cockpit, the same level of training? Where have
the crews come from? Did they fly all night all across the country just
to get to their work station?
Well, the Colgan crash told us a lot. Here is what happened that
evening. There was ice on the wings. This was the crash site near
Buffalo, NY, on February 12, 2009.
Here is another photograph of the crash site. This crash should never
have happened. Those victims should not have died. They should have
been safely on the ground with their loved ones.
What has gone wrong here? Let me at least describe a few things that
I think. One was fatigue. Clearly, that played a role. Here is a quote
that NBC News ran from a pilot on a 737 jet flying to Denver, CO:
I had been doing everything in my power to stay awake:
coffee, gum, candy. But as we entered one of the most
critical phases of flight, I had been up for 20 straight
hours.
Fatigue. Is this someone in a working condition who is sharp, on
edge, landing a plane with perhaps 150 people on board?
Here is another quote from an 18-year veteran pilot, describing the
routine of commuter flights with short layovers in the middle of the
night:
Take a shower, brush your teeth, and pretend you slept.
He said that is the way it works.
Here is another quote from a pilot:
I was bathed in sweat and scared to death.
[[Page S6377]]
That is an 18-year pilot describing the approach to the runway after
numerous early morning commuter flights over 3 days.
Here is a photograph of a pilot crash pad. He watches a movie on his
computer at a crash house in Sterling Park, VA, which is not far from
here. These houses, which can have 20 to 24 occupants at a time, are
designed to give flight crews from regional airlines a quiet place to
sleep near their base airports. Many can't afford hotels, so they use
crash houses where they pay $200 a month for a bed.
I described the young lady who was the copilot on the Colgan Air
flight that crashed. She commuted from Seattle, WA to Newark to get to
her duty station. There was no evidence that she had slept in a bed. It
raises a lot of questions.
At hearings I held, I held up this chart to show where the Colgan
pilots were commuting from flying on that particular regional airline.
They were flying out of Newark. You could see where they are commuting
from, such as home stations in Los Angeles, in Seattle, in Texas, and
they commuted to work all the way across the country.
I describe these charts only to talk about one phase of the
investigation of the Colgan crash, and that is fatigue and rest--crew
rest. We have a piece of legislation that addresses a number of these
issues: What is the experience of the pilot in the cockpit? How many
hours must that pilot have of relevant experience and training to sit
in that cockpit and haul passengers on a commercial airplane?
We addressed that and so many other critical areas of safety. That is
in the FAA reauthorization bill--a piece of legislation we passed in
the Senate Commerce Committee long ago. Now it is awaiting action on
the floor of the Senate. Yet, we have not been able to get it done.
I want to talk a little about the importance of this legislation. No.
1, it creates jobs. It is investment in infrastructure, airport
improvement funds--investing in the infrastructure of this country.
Let me describe the central elements of this bill. Airport
Improvement Program. That is tens of thousands of jobs around this
country.
Aviation safety. I have touched on that.
Air traffic control modernization.
A passenger bill of rights.
Small community air service.
Let me talk for a moment about the air traffic control modernization.
I showed a chart with all of those airplanes in the air. Every single
passenger on every one of those planes could be flying in safer
conditions now if we were moving, as we should, with this bill, in
modernizing the air traffic control system. Our kids carry cell phones
around that have GPS capability. Those of the commercial airliners in
this country are flying to ground-based radar, not GPS. They don't
utilize what our kids have in their cell phones in commercial
airplanes, which would allow them to fly safer routes, fly more direct
routes. Modernization of the air traffic control system is long
overdue, and it has a lot to do with aviation safety. It is in this
bill.
This bill must get done. To not move forward on this--Europeans are,
and others--and to have us fall further behind is unthinkable to me.
The passenger bill of rights--we include that in this bill, and it says
some very important things. The passenger bill of rights says that they
are not going to be able to keep you on an airplane for 6 or 8 hours
when they have trouble on the runway and you sit on the tarmac for 6 or
8 hours. Three hours. We set the conditions under the passenger bill of
rights, airplanes--that is, the aircraft companies, airline companies,
must comply with the rules that we have established.
This legislation provides consumer benefits for 700 million plane
trips per year taken by the American people. We have heard horror
stories from around this country: passengers stuck on the tarmac for 6
hours, 8 hours, bathrooms not working, out of water. The fact is, this
bill will improve that and the disclosure of flight information to
passengers, impose certain burdens on the airlines, and that is the
right approach. All of these things are in this FAA reauthorization
bill.
What is holding up the bill? Well, first and foremost, in the Senate,
we passed the bill with the understanding that there is a controversy
called slots and perimeter rules at Washington National Airport. When
we passed it through the Senate, 93 to 0, we understood that we didn't
resolve the slots and perimeter rule issue. The House has additional
slots at DC National, but we didn't do anything on it. We didn't do
zero. We understood that we passed the bill and would negotiate it
later, and negotiations have ensued. Now we have several
representations saying: I represent my area, my region, or my airport,
and therefore I object.
Do you know what. It is fine to represent your interests in your
region, but it is not fine to block the bill. It is not fine to block
this bill. In fact, the latest discussions that have been held, with
respect to slots at DC airport, are 16 additional slots--not new
flights in or out of DC National Airport, but flights that would have
flown within the perimeter that would now fly outside of the perimeter.
I know that is lost on most people because this perimeter rule limits
the number of miles you can fly from DC National Airport. This would
convert flights inside the perimeter to flights outside of it--16
flights. So it is no new traffic to DC National. Those who proposed it
said: We would agree that we would have the same size airplanes flying
the flights.
Yet, we have massive amounts of controversy around here with people
saying: Well, I am going to block this and that.
Let me say this: If you care much about safety in the skies and at
long last you want to pass an FAA bill to improve safety, if you care
about the airport improvement program and infrastructure and airports
and runways and building the infrastructure and creating tens of
thousands of jobs, and if you care about small community air services,
a passenger bill of rights and having America keep up with air traffic
control modernization, you can't possibly be blocking this bill.
I am not going to describe who it is, with names and so on. This is
not about Democrats or Republicans, or conservatives or liberals; this
is about, are we going to fail again? I have watched so many failures
because people have decided they are going to block this or that. What
we have had in this entire Congress is one side of the aisle blocking
most everything for a long period of time. This bill happens to be
bipartisan. There is no excuse, no reason to block this legislation.
It appears to me that a couple things are likely to happen. If
interests that have been involved in these discussions continue to
block this, this bill will fail, and the American people will be flying
in skies that are less safe than they could be. We will not have made
the improvements we should make. We will not make the investments and
create the jobs we should create. I suppose those who block it will
think they have done something meritorious for the country, but they
will have injured this country's interests.
My hope is that in the coming couple of days, those who have said
they are going to block this legislation will think again and
understand that this place only works through compromise; it only works
if we are willing to understand that everybody has different views on
these things, and let's find a way to effectively compromise and pass
legislation that strengthens this country.
If I sound a little irritated, I am, because I have had a belly full
of the intransigence that exists in this Chamber. Nobody fights harder
for their interests than I do. But I also understand, having served
here long enough, that there is a need to make this place work by being
willing to compromise your interests in a fair way. We have gone at
this now for some weeks. It has been a long while since the Senate
passed this bill. It is very close to a point where, I believe, we will
not have the time to continue working on this, and what we will see is
that this bill will, once again, fail, and we will extend, once again,
the FAA reauthorization bill for a short time, and then until the next
Congress. God bless everybody who dug their heels in and decided they
could only live with what they could live with and would not
compromise, but they have done no favor to this country. They can all
chew on that for a while.
I hope that in the coming days, yes, families of the victims of
Colgan will
[[Page S6378]]
perhaps have some ability to influence those who want to block this
legislation. Perhaps those who are out of work and would get work with
the airport improvement funds will influence them. Maybe those who care
about continued air service to small communities would have some
ability to influence them. Maybe those who care about the passengers
bill of rights--at long last, maybe they will be persuasive.
One way or another, I hope that finally we will see if maybe there is
a public spiritedness in this Chamber and also an interest in doing the
right thing and pass the FAA reauthorization bill.
I understand my colleague from Kansas is here ready to speak. I will
defer until later.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
Renewable Energy Standard
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding the
floor. I invite him to stay. I want to talk about a renewable energy
standard we need to have in an energy piece of legislation. I know it
is something he is interested in, and has been, and it is something I
am interested in. I think it is one of these commonsense approaches
that you can get bipartisan support built for if you do it in a
sensible fashion that doesn't raise utility rates; and that is a key
issue to watch here--not to raise utility rights.
I think if we have a robust enough--but not greedy--renewable energy
standard that is prudent, workable, over a period of time, where
companies can work into this, we can start moving forward on renewable
energy in a sound economic fashion, and we can balance our energy needs
with our environmental needs and our economic demands and not raise
utility rates.
That is why I was hoping that the leader, when he introduced his
energy bill, would put forward a renewable energy standard. He didn't
call for that. I do. If we get an energy bill on the floor--which I
hope we do--I will certainly be supporting a renewable energy standard
the likes of which we passed on a bipartisan basis through the Energy
Committee.
I am looking forward to supporting what we put forward in the
American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009, which was reported out of
the committee on a strong bipartisan basis. There was a provision in it
that called for a 15-percent renewable energy standard by 2021, and
within that 15 percent was even allowed 11 percent by renewables and up
to 4 percent by conservation, so there were some ways for groups and
individuals to be able to work forward, building in some conservation
but also renewable energy into the portfolio, such as renewable energy
of wind, solar, biomass, or other means.
I have been advocating this, as has my colleague from North Dakota.
It is something we have voted on recently in this body, as recently as
2005, when we looked at a 10-percent renewable energy standard. The
differences in the conference prevented that from moving forward.
The amendment I would support on this bill that I hope the leader
will reconsider and put forward in his base bill that he puts up on the
floor is 15 percent, as I stated, by 2021. That is something that could
have and would gain bipartisan support.
If we are serious about moving forward on reducing our dependency on
foreign oil, from foreign sources, if we are serious about moving
forward on environmental needs, this is a very sensible, pragmatic,
prudent approach. It is one we can do. It is one we can accomplish. It
is one that has passed this body before. We already know the votes are
here to pass something like a modest renewable energy standard. That is
why I am calling for this to be put forward in the leader's base bill.
If not, I am supporting an amendment that would be put in this Energy
bill should it come to the floor. I hope it does come to the floor. We
need to address the energy needs of this country. We have a huge
problem that has been going on for some time in the Gulf of Mexico. We
have enormous energy needs in this country. We need to balance our
energy needs with the environment and our economic abilities. We are in
difficult economic shape now. We cannot put a load on the economy. We
should not put any load on the economy. If we are wise and prudent
about this, we can do these renewable energy standards and not put any
load on the economy. I ask the leader to do that. I hope we can in
moving this process forward. It is my hope that this will be included
in any energy legislation that ultimately passes this body.
Mr. President, I ask my colleague from North Dakota for any comments
he might have on a renewable energy portfolio in energy legislation.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I may, I know the Senator from Kansas
spoke about this issue that we worked on in the Energy Committee over a
year ago. We worked together to get what is called a renewable
electricity standard, some people also call it a renewable portfolio
standard--through the committee process. A renewable electricity
standard is a requirement that a certain percentage of electricity
delivered be from renewable sources--wind, solar, and so on. I believe
that it is very important to do that. I appreciate the Senator from
Kansas and his position.
There is an old saying: If you don't care where you are going, you
are never going to be lost. If our country does not describe the route
we want to take, if we don't say here is where we want to go as a
country, then wherever we find ourselves 5 and 10 years from now, that
is where we are, I guess.
I believe however, that it ought to be a circumstance where we decide
what our energy future looks like. I believe that we should incentivize
the development of renewable energy. How do we maximize the development
of wind and solar energy? By creating a renewable electricity standard
that drives the development and by building the transmission that
allows us to produce it in one area and move it to a load center in
another area. We did that in the bill that passed the Energy Committee
just over a year ago.
I fully support the notion of the Senator from Kansas that the 15-
percent renewable electricity standard we created in committee ought to
advanced in any energy bill. In fact, I don't know whether we will part
company on this point, but I have always indicated that I support a 20-
percent renewable electricity standard. I believe our country ought to
push very hard to move in the direction of maximizing the capability to
produce renewable energy where the wind blows and the Sun shines, and
put it on the wires and move it to the load centers. That is exactly
what we ought to be doing. The Senator and I sure agree on the
philosophy of this issue and the need for this provision in an energy
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wanted to engage my colleague from
North Dakota because there is a strong base of bipartisan support to do
this, and I also believe there is a strong majority community across
America that supports this. Don't get it out there so wild that it
starts driving up utility rates. Nobody wants to do that, and everybody
is opposed to pushing up utility rates. We don't want them to go up.
They cannot go up. We cannot afford for them to go up in bad economic
times, and I do not want it to happen in good economic times. But if we
do this in a balanced approach where we say we are going to have a
modest renewable electricity standard, a modest RES that people can
work with--and in the bill in committee, we actually had an 11-percent
energy standard--we could do 4 of the 15 by conservation, which is
prudent as well. This is something we can support.
I know this is something which we could see a strong majority of the
American public support. This is balanced and it makes sense and it
moves us forward. That is why I hope that if we get into this Energy
bill this week--it may not happen this week or it may not happen until
September--that this is a piece that is in the bill, and it is
something we can get done, and the vast majority of the public, if we
do it wisely and prudently, will support this.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes.
Mr. DORGAN. The fact is, I happen to support limiting or capping
carbon. I will support a price on carbon. I do not support cap and
trade as a mechanism, as a way of doing that, or giving Wall Street the
ability to trade carbon
[[Page S6379]]
securities. But that is another side to this.
Because we have not been able to do climate change legislation and
develop a consensus on broader climate change legislation in this
country, I have always felt we should bring the Energy bill to the
floor which was, in fact, bipartisan and which would, in fact, do the
very things we would want done to limit carbon. Take energy from the
wind--that limits carbon. You develop energy without putting carbon
into the air, just as an example.
I know Senator Reid is trying very hard to do a couple of things. No.
1, he is trying to get this session moving on issues that matter. He
has a lot of things on his plate. The Senator from Kansas knows--I am
not being partisan when I say this--that a lot of things have been
blocked, even motions to proceed. So the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid,
has a difficult job getting legislation to the floor and getting them
moving. He has indicated he wants to bring to the floor an energy bill
that includes a lot of items with which the Senator from Kansas and I
would agree. We need to do something about oilspill regulation and
safety and try to address those issues in the right way, and we do need
to address a number of the other issues the Senator from Nevada
suggested. I happen to think that using natural gas for long-haul
vehicles on the interstate roadways makes a lot of sense. He has
proposed a number of items, including electric vehicles. The bill I
introduced, along with my colleagues, Senator Alexander and Senator
Merkley, that we passed through the Energy Committee last week, begins
incentivizing and moving toward an electric vehicle fleet. All of those
things are good. I support that, and I commend the Senator from Nevada
for doing that. To the extent we can, if we can find ways to add other
things that have a broad bipartisan consensus, that makes a lot of
sense to me. I think that is what the Senator from Kansas is saying.
In order for a renewable electricity standard to be added, it would
take 60 votes because things just take 60 votes around here. I went to
a small school, and I thought a majority was just a majority, but it is
not these days. But if we have the 60 votes--and I think there is some
evidence that may exist--then adding a renewable electricity standard
will substantially improve, I believe, the potential to pass an energy
bill that would matter to America.
I want to say quickly that I understand Senator Reid is trying very
hard to get something done, to get it up, get it passed, and get it
done. I commend him for that. I do not want to be critical at all. But
I commend the Senator from Kansas as well because he and I agree: If we
can add a renewable electricity standard to this legislation, we will
advance our country's energy interests in a very significant way.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DORGAN. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Kagan Nomination
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to share a few thoughts on the
nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. I will share some other
thoughts as we go along, and I will be producing for my colleagues a
summary of some of the concerns I have about the nomination that would
explain why I and a number of other Senators voted against this
nomination in committee and why I think that calls for our colleagues
to vote against the nomination on the floor of the Senate.
This nominee has the least experience of any nominee in the last 50
years, perhaps longer than that, having practiced law only about 2
years, right out of law school, with a large law firm, never having
tried a case or argued a case before a jury of any kind, and spent 5
years in the Clinton White House, spent time teaching and being active
politically. Those are issues that I think go to the basic qualities
that you look for in a nomination. She had 14 months as the Solicitor
General of the United States, and that is a legitimate legal job, but
as I will point out, she didn't perform very well in that job and made
some serious errors that I think reflect a weakness in her judicial
philosophy.
So while there is no sustained legal practice that gives us a direct
view of her judicial philosophy, other things do indicate it. There is
plenty of evidence that I think will show this nominee is not committed
to faithfully following the law. The Constitution's words say we ``do
ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States,'' not
some other constitution--not a European constitution, not a
constitution as viewed by somebody in Argentina or France or wherever
but our Constitution, passed by real Americans through the process that
calls upon American input to pass that Constitution. Judges take an
oath to be faithful to our Constitution. They take an oath to serve
under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
So I think the evidence will show that this nominee believes judges
have powers that go beyond what a judge has. This is what we have taken
to calling an activist judge--a judge who believes they can advance the
law, further the law, bend the law; that the Constitution is not plain
words or a contract with the American people but a living document,
which means they can make it grow into what they would like it to be;
that they can set policy from the bench. That is not law, that is
politics. Judges are required to adhere to the law. This is the great
American principle that we are taught from elementary school on.
This nominee, pretty clearly, is a legal progressive and acknowledges
that in her own testimony. When I asked her if she was, she didn't
acknowledge it to me. But later, when she was asked again about it, she
acknowledged to Senator Lindsey Graham that she was. That is what
liberals have taken to calling themselves today--progressives--
apparently thinking that is more popular than calling themselves
liberals. I don't know why they have taken to doing that, but
progressivism has a history in this country, and I think the people who
call themselves legal progressives today are indeed in the tradition of
progressivism that was rejected in the early part of the 20th Century
by the American people.
President Obama is a legal progressive, I am convinced. He is a
lawyer, a good friend, and somebody we all liked when he was in the
Senate. But he has a view of the law that I think is a progressive
view. He seeks, he says, to advance a ``broader vision of what America
should be,'' and that is what judges should do. I am not in agreement
with that. I don't think judges have that responsibility. They have
never been given that responsibility. Their responsibility is to
objectively decide discrete cases before them.
Some have complained that Justice Roberts somehow was an automaton by
declaring that a judge should be a neutral umpire--just call the balls
and strikes; that he can't take sides in the game. I think that is a
very wonderful metaphor for what a judge should be--a neutral umpire.
Judges cannot take sides in the game. That is not what they are paid
to do. That is not what they are empowered to do, not in the American
legal system. Maybe somewhere else but not in our system. The American
people understand that clearly. They are not happy with judges who
legislate from the bench, who think they know better, who consult some
European somewhere, with very little accompanying scientific data, to
say the world has advanced and evolved and the Constitution has grown
and is alive and read new words into it that were not in there before,
and we can find those words and we can have a broader vision for what
America should be.
I do not think that is law. It is not law, and I do not think the
American people want that kind of judge.
I do not believe in this nominee's slight differences of gradations
in judicial philosophy. I do not think it is just a little bit more
activist and it is a little bit more advanced law philosophy, and
somebody else does not and there is not much difference. I think there
is a very serious difference, and it is a question of where the
American people allow power to reside--power over themselves.
[[Page S6380]]
They can vote us out of office. I suspect people will be voted out of
office this November. People are not happy with us, I can tell you
that. Polling numbers show Congress is at the bottom of popularity more
than it has ever been--11 percent or something. The question is, Who is
that 11 percent who is happy with this crowd? Where are they? I have
not met any.
I would say the American people are not enamored with the idea that
somehow, when a person puts on that robe they have been anointed with
greater wisdom than if they had to run for office and answer to them.
If you want to be a politician, run as a politician. Don't go for it on
the bench.
I think the President has an incorrect view of that, frankly, a very
seriously defective view of that. In a speech in the Senate just a few
years ago when he was a young new Senator, he opposed now Chief Justice
John Roberts, one of the finest nominees ever to come before this
Senate. What a fabulous person he was. How magnificently did he testify
and what a good background he had. He was recognized as a premier
appellate lawyer in America and argued 50 cases, I believe, before the
Supreme Court--more than almost anybody, certainly more than anybody
his age--and demonstrated the kind of skill you look for in someone who
would sit on our Nation's Highest Court.
President Obama voted against him. He said he thought that in truly
difficult cases Judge John Roberts would rely on precedent and try to
follow the law. He said that you can't rely on precedent or ``rules of
statutory or constitutional construction.'' Instead, he argued that
judges must base their rulings on ``one's deepest values, one's core
concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works and the
depth and breadth of one's empathy.'' That is what President Obama said
a judge should do.
I would assert that is contrary to the American heritage of law. That
is not law. If you make decisions based on your deepest values--you
mean the judge's deepest values? His core concerns? One's broader
perspectives on how the world works and the depth and breadth of one's
empathy? That is what a judge should do? Not in the U.S. order of
jurisprudence, not the way I understand it, and I do not think it is
the way the American people understand it either.
In a speech to Planned Parenthood, President Obama said he hoped
judges would reach decisions on ``their broader vision of what America
should be.''
His nomination of Ms. Kagan indicates that he believes she fits that
bill. If we look at her record and speeches and background, I think it
is fair to conclude she does. In a Law Review article she once declared
that the Court primarily exists to look out for ``the despised and the
disadvantaged.''
I think the Court is required to do justice. The oath a judge takes
says a judge should do equal justice to the poor and the rich.
In another Law Review article, Ms. Kagan said, dealing with
confirmation--actually the title of it was ``Confirmation Messes, Old
and New.'' She quoted Stephen Carter's book, ``The Confirmation Mess''
with approval, writing:
In every exercise of interpretive judgment there comes a
crucial moment when the judge's own experience and values
become the most important data.
Well, I don't think so. What do you mean the judge's own values
become the most important data? You mean we are ceding to the judge
their personal values instead of faithfully following the law and the
facts as written?
In her Oxford thesis she wrote:
Judges will often try to mold and steer the law in order to
promote certain ethical values and achieve certain social
ends. Such activity is not necessarily wrong or invalid. The
law, after all, is a human instrument, an instrument designed
to meet men's needs.
The law is a set of commands from the government that have to be
consistent with our Constitution. If they are, they should be followed,
if they have been duly enacted by Congress. The American people can
elect a new Congress and change those laws if they desire, but until
they do so they remain the law and I do not think judges are supposed
to be steering the law to promote certain ethical values.
Let me ask you, whose values are they? Whose ethical values are they?
The judge's? Is that what we put them on the bench for, to be able to
steer the law to promote their ethical values?
Some people wrongly say the Constitution is defined by the nine
Justices on the Supreme Court. Not so, really. If we want to be cynical
about it, if they are not faithful to the law, five Justices can
redefine the Constitution.
Recently, four Justices voted to basically eviscerate the second
amendment, saying the constitutional right to keep and bear arms was
not a personal right and that the Constitution did not apply to the
States and counties and cities; and in effect a city, Chicago, could
have basically eliminated all guns in their city, and it would not have
violated the constitutional guarantee of the right to keep and bear
arms.
They just wrote it out of the Constitution, I guess--and they cited
foreign law about it.
We know other cultures are not as accepting of people having guns as
in the American culture. It is just different. What does foreign
culture have to do with ours? This is the kind of thing we are talking
about. It played out in real cases and creates a real abuse.
She goes on to say that judges will often try to mold and achieve
``certain social ends.'' Such activity, she says, ``is not necessarily
wrong or invalid.''
I think it is wrong or invalid.
Am I being unfair to the nominee, Ms. Kagan? I don't think so. When
asked about Ms. Kagan's record, a person in a very good position to
know, Gregg Craig, former counsel to President Obama in the first year
or two of the administration, who knows Ms. Kagan and who reviewed her
when she was considered, apparently, for the first Sotomayor
appointment, said:
She is largely a progressive in the mold of Obama himself.
I have come to believe that is exactly right. I mean, I just believe
that is right. I think the President looked around the country to pick
somebody young, who would serve a long time. She is 50 years old. If
she serves as long as Justice Stevens whom she is replacing, she will
serve 38 years. It is a lifetime appointment. It could be longer. So
Mr. Gregg Craig said ``she is largely a progressive in the mold of
Obama himself.''
The President was a community activist and a lawyer. He has taught
some constitutional law--I am sure he is a good teacher. But if he is
teaching this kind of philosophy I think it is not good, sound,
judicial philosophy, and his approach I don't think is good.
I believe he looked for somebody who shared his views. As 59
Democratic Senators, he expects them to, lemming-like, go down the line
and vote for whomever he puts up there, so he has put up somebody he
thinks follows his views.
A second person who has been in a good position to know Ms. Kagan is
Vice President Biden's chief of staff, Ron Klain, who worked in the
Clinton White House closely with Ms. Kagan when she spent 5 years in
the White House doing mostly policy work, as she said. This is what Mr.
Klain, an experienced lawyer who has been around Washington a long
time, said about her:
Elena is clearly a legal progressive. I think Elena is
someone who comes from the progressive side of the spectrum.
She clerked for Judge Mikva, clerked for Justice Marshall,
worked in the Clinton administration, worked in the Obama
administration. I don't think there is any mystery to the
fact that she is, as I said, more of the progressive mold
than not.
Let's just take a note there, when she graduated from law school she
clerked for Judge Mikva. She is a very smart individual, a very liberal
individual. I believe she clearly would be considered a judge of the
activist variety. Then she clerked for Justice Marshall, a great,
famous Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court but probably considered the
most activist member ever to sit on the Supreme Court of the United
States. That is whom she worked for.
She took a leave, I think it was a leave from her teaching position,
to come to the Senate to work on the Judiciary Committee to help
confirm to the Supreme Court of the United States the chief counsel for
the American Civil Liberties Union, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That is the
kind of judge she has admired and worked for.
She made a speech in which she called Justice Barak of Israel, who
has
[[Page S6381]]
been called the most activist judge in the world, her judicial hero.
I think the American people know the role of a judge. They know a
judge is not empowered to legislate. They know a judge is not empowered
to set policy. They know a judge is not empowered to redefine the
meaning of words in the Constitution or some statute to make it say
what they would like it to say in a given case that is before them.
They know that is an abuse of power.
It is a violation of oath, and the American people care about it.
When I talk to people, when I am in townhall meetings, people
invariably ask about activist judges who are legislating from the
bench. They know it is against the American view of law because these
judges are unaccountable to the public. They have a lifetime
appointment. They cannot be removed if you disagree with their
approach. So for them to advance an ideological, philosophical social
agenda from the bench frustrates democracy in a very real way, and the
American people understand it.
I do not think the American people are going to hold harmless those
who vote to impose a legal progressive activist legislator from the
bench upon them. So I am asking my colleagues to look at this
nomination carefully. Do not be a rubberstamp for the President. I am
talking primarily to my Democratic colleagues now. It is your vote. It
is your responsibility to make sure your constituents do not wake next
year, next year, next year, and find some judge redefining the
Constitution to make it say something it was never intended to say.
So do not be a lemming. Review this nomination. Be careful about it
because I am afraid we have a dangerous, progressive, political-type
nominee who is going to be before us. So I would call on my Democratic
leadership in the Senate, let's be sure we have a good time for debate,
let's not curtail it. I call on all my colleagues to come to the floor
and express their views, but, most important, to ask themselves, is
this nominee the kind of nominee you who will serve on the Federal
bench for the next 30, 40 years who will subordinate herself and serve
``under the Constitution and laws of the United States'' as that oath
says or will she feel she is just a little bit above it, and has a
right to advance a social agenda or some other broader vision for what
America should be that somehow Congress did not see fit to enact, the
people's branch did not see fit to enact, so she should just do it
anyway because Congress did not act. We should act. That is not a
justification for judicial activism.
When Congress does not act, it does not act. That is a decision not
to act. Courts are not empowered to set about to fix all that if they
are not happy with it.
We are heading into an important period for the Congress, for the
Senate. We will be looking at this nomination. The nominee was a
skillful and articulate one and had a good sense of humor and handled
herself in many ways well. But I think, as you hear from a number of
people who studied her testimony, that it had a bit too much spin and
not enough law, not enough clarity, not enough intellectual honesty to
meet the high standards we should look for in a Supreme Court nominee.
We ought to be looking for the best of the best, a lawyer's lawyer,
not a political lawyer, a lawyer's lawyer or a proven judge. The fact
that she is not a judge is not disqualifying. But I would expect, if
you are not a judge, you ought to be proven as a lawyer in the real
world of law practice. This nominee simply is not. She is a political
lawyer, and I do not believe she should be elevated to the Supreme
Court of the United States.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the
amendment offered by my good friend from Colorado, Senator Mark Udall.
Credit unions across the country are currently restricted in the amount
of lending they can provide to their members for business purposes. The
Udall amendment, which I proudly cosponsor, will raise that limit.
Congress should be focused like a laser on bringing unemployment down
and getting the economy humming on all cylinders again. The bill before
us today is part of that ongoing effort. It is a much needed, targeted
bill that will help small business expand and hire.
There are many worthy ideas and important programs in the bill, from
bonus depreciation to increasing the loan limits on SBA's flagship
programs to providing grants to help States expand innovative small
business initiatives. But a core mission of this bill was always to
jump-start lending.
When I travel around New York and talk to business owners about
creating jobs, the No. 1 thing they bring up is their inability to get
access to credit. I believe the small business lending fund, which I
vociferously supported and which the Senate approved last week, will
prove to be a shot in the arm for small business, greatly increasing
access to credit. I thank my colleague from Louisiana, Senator
Landrieu, and my colleague from Florida, Senator LeMieux, my colleague
from Washington State, Senator Cantwell, and others, Senator Shaheen,
for their efforts to reinstate this important fund. But we can't stop
there.
Credit unions are an important source of credit for small businesses
from coast to coast. They should not be neglected as we seek to improve
the economy. When this idea was originally proposed, some concerns were
raised about the safety and soundness of credit unions, their members,
and the credit unions' insurance deposit fund.
My office worked with Senator Udall and the Treasury Department to
come up with a plan that would address those concerns. First, the cap
is only raised for credit unions that meet strict eligibility
criteria. To qualify, credit unions must be well capitalized,
demonstrate sound underwriting and servicing based on historical
performance, have strong management and policies to manage increased
lending, and be approved by their regulator for the higher cap.
They must also be at or above 80 percent of their current cap, with 5
or more years of experience lending to member businesses. This means
only credit unions with significant experience lending to small
businesses will have their cap raised, and it is targeted at those
credit unions most likely to expand their lending because they are at
or near the existing cap.
I commend Mr. Udall, the Senator from Colorado, for taking the lead
on this novel approach. His amendment is a sensible compromise that
successfully addresses the concerns that were raised.
Based on conservative estimates, this amendment will lead directly to
over $10 billion in new lending and will create over 120,000 jobs. In
my home State of New York, it will create over $750 million in new
lending and create over 8,000 jobs. It does it all with no cost to the
taxpayer. I repeat, the amendment does not add a dime to the deficit
and will have a positive impact on GDP.
Certainly, this amendment is not a cure-all for our economy. But with
small businesses starved for credit, it seems obvious to me we should
be trying everything we can to increase lending to small businesses.
Simply put, this amendment is a no-brainer. I urge my colleagues to
support the amendment offered by my friend from Colorado.
Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schumer). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today in support of
the small business jobs bill, which is moving through the Senate.
I first would like to say how much I appreciate Senator Landrieu of
Louisiana and her leadership on this bill, as well as the members of
the Small Business Committee, who have worked
[[Page S6382]]
incredibly hard to bring this bill to the point it is ready to get
voted on.
When we first began discussing how we could help our small businesses
deal with the issues they face in this difficult economy, I spent a lot
of time going around my State and actually talking to those who run
small businesses, who work in small businesses, to get some ideas of
what would really work. That is when I heard time and time again about
how they desperately need capital.
In fact, according to the National Federation of Independent
Business, 45 percent of small businesses in America say adequate access
to capital is their No. 1 problem. I think this is summed up well in a
letter I got from a constituent of mine. He founded his first real
estate company over 20 years ago, and when the market went south, he
did not just tighten the hatches, he actually invested his savings in a
new home staging business to help people get their homes ready to be
put on the market.
Wile his new business is profitable, he still cannot get credit. In
the letter to me he said:
I have approached over 10 banks and guaranteed a loan using
my building with a free and clear title, and have been turned
down by every bank. The answer to growing the economy and
creating jobs is getting the banks to lend to low risk
entrepreneurs like me.
The great thing is, our community banks agree.
Last week on the Senate floor, I read a letter I received from Harry
Wahlquist of Star Bank in Bertha, MN. As you can imagine, Bertha is not
exactly a majority metropolis. Bertha, MN, is not New York City. I just
want to read it again because I think it drives home the point that
there is broad consensus that this bill is what we need. In this
letter, the banker from Bertha said this:
I am a banker and need capital to continue serving my nine
Minnesota towns. Please pass the small business lending bill
now. You gave money to Wall Street. How about Main Street in
Minnesota?
That is what this bill will do. It will help Main Street. It does it
with more than a number of provisions to expand access to credit. It
provides for a 100-percent exclusion on capital gains taxes on small
business investments made in 2009 and 2010. It increases the maximum
deduction for business startup expenses to help entrepreneurs get their
businesses off the ground. It allows businesses of all sizes to write
off more of their investments in property and equipment to help them
grow.
Provisions like these are why this bill has such broad support.
Whether it is the Chamber of Commerce or the Independent Community
Bankers of America, they want us to work together to pass this bill.
We have gotten this economy off the cliff. We worked with our banks
and our financial institutions 2 years ago. We also worked with the
stimulus bill, with the Recovery Act. But we know the answer cannot
just be government jobs. We know that. What we are looking at is how do
we work with small businesses that create 65 percent of the jobs in
this country? How do we work with the private sector to create jobs?
Another reason we need this bill is that it helps small businesses
increase demand for their products and services. At a time of sluggish
consumer spending, we need to be sure all American businesses--both big
and small--have a chance to reach new customers abroad because when our
companies are able to unlock new markets, they are also able to create
new jobs.
Currently, the United States derives the smallest percentage of our
GDP from exports compared to other major economies--the smallest
percentage when we look at other economies across the world. As people
in China, in India, and other countries gain more purchasing power,
there is great potential for exports in this country because the people
in these countries, in China and India, as they are gaining purchasing
power, will become our potential customers.
More exports will mean more business, more jobs, and more growth for
the American economy. So you can finally go in the store, look at the
best good for the best price, and you can turn it over and it says
``Made in the USA.'' You can see that good on the shelves in China, and
you can see it in India.
First and most obviously, exports allow a company to increase its
sales and grow its business. Second, a diversified base of customers
helps a business weather the economic ups and downs.
Currently, less than 1 percent of all American businesses export
overseas. Of those that do, nearly 60 percent sell their products to
only one foreign country, typically Canada or Mexico.
With 95 percent of potential customers outside our borders, and with
the purchasing power they have increasing, it is clear the
opportunities that lay in exporting for our businesses, large and
small, are there.
But for many businesses, especially the small and medium-sized ones,
the world looks like one of those ancient maps that contains only the
outlines of the continent and a few coastline features, but the rest of
it is a blank space of vast, unknown, and unexplored territory.
But do you know what. Thirty percent of our small and medium-sized
businesses say they would like to export if they knew how, if they had
the connections. In many situations, our small and medium-sized
businesses have the products. They have the services. They simply
cannot deal with the complexity of the international markets.
The overwhelming majority of businesses, even those that want to
export, do not know about the export promotion services offered by our
Federal agencies, and they do not know where to begin in order to make
use of these services.
To help blunt the learning curve for these businesses, Senator
LeMieux and I introduced legislation, which is included in this small
business bill, to make sure companies have the capital and tools not
only to continue exporting but to expand their reach to those 95
percent of customers who are located outside the borders of the United
States.
If we really want to get out of this economic slump, we have to look
outside our borders. We have to look at the customers across the world.
First of all, this bill increases the activities and staffing of the
Department of Commerce U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service Officers in
carrying out their mission.
Secondly, it expands the Rural Export Initiative, which helps rural
businesses develop international opportunities. Every $1 invested
creates $213 in rural exports. That is a return on investment. It does
so by helping businesses, to prepare them for profitable growth in
global markets. It focuses on locating and targeting new markets, the
mechanics of exporting, including shipping, documentation, and
financing.
My State is now seventh in the country for Fortune 500 companies. But
these companies did not start big. Medtronic started in a garage. 3M
started as a sandpaper company in Two Harbors, MN. Target started as a
dry goods store in the Nicollet Mall in Minneapolis, and they grew and
they grew and they grew and a lot of how they grew was exporting their
products, building new stores across the world, sending medical devices
to places such as China and India.
Well, do you know what. It is a lot easier for big companies to do it
because they have the staff to do it. It is a lot harder for small and
medium-sized companies.
I saw success in our State, a little company in southern Minnesota,
near Austin, MN, Akkerman Inc., named after Darryl Akkerman, who is
there now--the son of the owner. He has been named ``the trenchless
digger of the year'' in the United States. He has a product, and it is
a big one. He puts big steel piping underground and pushes the piping
through to do trenchless digging. Guess what. Countries such as China
and India that have a lot of people on the surface of their land, they
do not want to dig up big trenches. They want to do trenchless digging.
In the middle of a cornfield he has grown from a few dozen employees to
77 employees, all because of exports.
Mattracks, the moose capital of Minnesota, Karlstad, MN, has grown
from 5 employees to 50 employees simply by driving to Fargo, ND, and
meeting with a woman named Heather who is with the Foreign Commercial
Service Department, and finding out what potential customers they had
from Turkey to Kazakhstan.
[[Page S6383]]
That is what we are talking about, exports. I am so proud the small
business bill includes some major provisions, the bill Senator LeMieux
and I introduced in Commerce. We got it through the committee, and it
is now on the small business bill. It is going to make a world of
difference so small businesses can access a world of opportunity.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor to strongly support
the legislation before the Senate on behalf of small businesses in this
country. They are the greatest generators of jobs in the country. We
hear that so often from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
This is something on which we agree. They are the greatest generators
of jobs in the country. So when we are trying to get people back to
work, let's help them help us collectively in putting more Americans
back to work. That is what this legislation is all about.
We have talked a lot about protecting Main Street, and now this bill
gives us the opportunity to do exactly that. It gives communities the
guarantees they need to get lending started again, to put money into
our engines of job growth, and all without any pay-go implications.
That is a good bill.
I wish to thank our distinguished colleague from Louisiana, Senator
Landrieu, the chair of the Small Business Committee, for her hard work
in putting this important legislation together, as well as the ranking
member of the committee, Senator Snowe, for her work on the bill and
particularly her past work with me on community development financial
institutions or what we commonly call CDFIs. I am very grateful to
Senator Landrieu, the chair, for including an important CDFI component
in the bill before us.
Let me take a moment to talk about how this is an opportunity to have
direct and immediate opportunities to help jump-start job growth.
It invests directly in small businesses and local communities by
supporting community development financial institutions, or CDFIs, and
based on what we know from historic performance--not because we are
guessing but from historic performance--the provision I authored will
create approximately 40,000 new jobs by authorizing the government to
guarantee bonds issued by qualified CDFIs for community and economic
development loans. Best of all, again, there are no pay-to
implications.
As their name implies, the primary mission of community development
financial institutions is to foster economic and community development
in underserved areas. They have a proven track record of job creation
and are arguably the most effective way to infuse capital in
underserved areas for community and economic development.
CDFIs leverage public and private dollars to support economic
development projects, such as job training clinics and startup loans
for small businesses in areas full of potential but desperate for
development.
CDFIs have been hit hard by the recession because they have had to
rely on big banks for capital. We know and have seen that capital is
neither affordable nor accessible and, to be honest with you, not
forthcoming.
I am proud to have had bipartisan support on this provision that is
included in the bill. Again, I thank Senator Landrieu for including it.
I thank Senator Snowe for cosponsoring it, along with Senators Johnson,
Leahy, and Schumer.
The idea is simple: If big banks don't care about lending to small
businesses and communities in need of capital, then we should empower
the very organizations that do care, that make it their mission every
day to rebuild Main Street across this country, and that have a proven
record of achievement. As I said earlier, all the calculations are
based upon their historic performance, and this provision alone, within
this bill, could create 40,000 new jobs.
I don't understand how our colleagues on the other side of the aisle
can go back home to their States, looking at high unemployment, and
rail about the realities that unemployment continues to be high and
then be here in Washington stopping the very essence of what could
create the jobs to reduce those unemployment levels, put people back to
work, and give them the dignity of having a job that can help sustain
their families and realize their hopes and dreams and aspirations. I
don't get it. But that is where we seem to be. We seem to be where
everything has a political equation, which is to ultimately have this
President and this Congress fail, and somehow that is the road to
electoral victory.
If you were just a political tactician, maybe that would make sense.
The problem is, it is not about this President or this Congress
failing; it is about failing the country at one of its most critical
junctures in history. I hope we can see some support for this
legislation.
Finally, I have often heard my colleagues talk about the home
building industry. Well, I have an amendment that is out there, and I
believe we should be supporting small businesses regardless of what
industry they are in. The home building industry has been especially
hit hard by this recession, resulting in the loss of hundreds of
thousands of the middle-class, blue-collar jobs this country was built
on and that communities were built on. Encouraging community banks to
fund the construction of housing would not only put many of our
unemployed construction workers back on the payroll, it will help
revitalize the housing market, which is one of the root causes of this
recession in the first place. But it would be nice to have some
Republican support, to have that provision included, and to ultimately
help us pass the bill, so we can get people back to work.
I hope the Republicans will join in this effort to ensure that all
small businesses share in the benefits of this valuable program and
this legislation. If we do that, this will be a good downpayment on
getting more people back to work.
I don't know, again, how our colleagues seem to be able to go back
home and rail about where are the jobs and then be here as the job
killers. That is what they seem to be doing all the time--voting no,
opposing process, so the creation of jobs is not achieved, so that, in
fact, we can find ourselves in a situation in which the American people
who are looking to this Senate to help create the circumstances in this
country and the economic underpinnings to drive the private sector and
create the jobs that they can work in, which will give them gainful
employment and help them realize their hopes, dreams and aspirations
and, therefore, have money in the economy to spend for the challenges
they have and then further enhance the ripple effect of that, which
will create more jobs. That is what this is about. It is about the
private sector having the opportunities, but the private sector that
creates the greatest rates of growth for job opportunities is small
business.
I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle can find their
way to finally come together with us on this specific piece of
legislation to create jobs for our families and put America back to
work.
With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I know we are awaiting the arrival of
the majority leader on the floor, but I wish to say a few words as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Health Care
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, almost every family in America has
experienced the pain of a loved one who has been diagnosed with cancer.
Today, I want to tell the story of the Grimes family from West
Greenwich, RI.
[[Page S6384]]
According to the Rhode Island Department of Health, nearly 4 in every
10 Rhode Islanders will develop cancer sometime during their life. In a
State as small as ours, this means almost everyone has a friend or a
family member who is affected by this disease. For those of us who have
been touched by cancer, directly or indirectly, those are memorable
emotions. In my family, both my mother and father died of cancer.
Survival rates have greatly increased for many forms of cancer,
thanks to new technology. But one form of cancer has not seen the same
progress, and that is pancreatic cancer. Janet Grimes recently wrote to
me about her mother Muriel who was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer
this past April. Currently pancreatic cancer patients have about a 6-
percent chance of living more than 5 years and about 75 percent die
within the first year. These are dismal numbers.
Janet has watched this cancer deeply affect her mother's quality of
life. Janet wrote me that her 82-year-old mother was active, sharp,
vivacious, and living in her own home in North Carolina until this
disease struck. Since then, Janet has had to move her mother to Rhode
Island to care for her, taking a leave of absence from her work. In the
past few months, her mother has lost 25 pounds, is frequently
nauseated, and needs constant care. Janet is seeing all too clearly how
devastating this disease can be. As I speak, it appears our thoughts
and prayers need very much to be with the Grimes family.
Janet has authorized me to speak about what is happening in her
family because she is concerned about pancreatic cancer research, that
it suffers from a lack both of funding and of institutional focus,
constituting less than 2 percent of the National Cancer Institute's
research funding. According to the American Cancer Society, pancreatic
cancer remains the fourth leading cause of cancer death overall. In
fact, they estimate that in 2010, more than 43,000 people in the United
States will be diagnosed with this disease, and nearly 37,000 will die.
We may not yet be able to cure this terrible disease, but there are
important steps we in Congress can take. I have introduced the
Pancreatic Cancer Research and Education Act to help address this
funding and research gap. It is a bipartisan bill cosponsored by 20
colleagues, including 4 Republicans. It makes vital investments in
research into new treatments and represents a strong Federal commitment
to fight back against pancreatic cancer.
Specifically, this bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to design and implement an initiative to coordinate and
promote pancreatic cancer research and increase physician and public
awareness of the disease. It creates an interdisciplinary committee to
guide pancreatic research activities, develop an annual strategic plan,
and make recommendations regarding the prioritization and award of NIH
grants for pancreatic cancer research. Finally, it authorizes an NIH
grant program for research institutions to develop innovative compounds
or technologies for prevention, early detection, or treatment with
cancers with 5-year survival rates of less than 50 percent. And, of
course, pancreatic cancer is well less than 50 percent.
It authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to designate
two centers of research excellence focusing on pancreatic cancer
research.
As I said, our thoughts and prayers this evening need to be with the
Grimes family. Their story, however, is just one of many that my office
has received calling for this much needed investment.
For these families and for others who will face the same dread
diagnosis, we need to keep working toward advancing pancreatic research
and awareness. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this
legislation.
Mr. President, I rise to speak about an important provision included
in the Small Business Jobs Act that will significantly reduce fraud,
abuse and waste of taxpayer dollars in Medicare. I commend the Senator
from Florida, Mr. LeMieux, who introduced the idea earlier this year. I
am a cosponsor of that legislation, and he and I have worked on it
together with Senator Baucus. I am gratified that my colleagues have
voted to include it in this bill.
Neither the public nor private sectors have done enough to detect and
prevent health care fraud. The National Health Care Anti-Fraud
Association estimates that private insurers and government health care
programs lose at least $60 billion annually to fraud. In 2008, HHS
estimated a 3.6 percent improper payment rate in Medicare fee for
service, totaling $10.4 billion, and 10.6 percent rate in Medicare
Advantage, or $6.8 billion. These funds should be used to provide
health benefits for seniors but are squandered on criminals instead.
The Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services have taken
important steps to attack the problem, creating a joint task force on
health care fraud and a specialized unit--the Health Care Fraud
Prevention and Enforcement Action Team--to prosecute fraud and abuse.
But in a program as large and complex as Medicare, these efforts are
too often hindered by technical blind spots. We can only pursue those
offenders we can detect, and the volume and speed of Medicare
reimbursement data too often overwhelms our ability to catch
wrongdoers.
The fraud prevention provisions in this bill represent a paradigm
shift in fraud detection and prevention, moving away from the ``pay and
chase'' model to an environment in which fraudulent claims can be
flagged and investigated before taxpayer funds are spent. The bill
requires Medicare to deploy the most advanced technology at our
disposal predictive modeling systems currently used in the credit card
and banking industries to sift the chaff from the wheat, so to speak.
These systems can analyze significant volumes of data and identify
patterns of behavior by certain providers as presenting a high risk of
fraud. These claims can then be flagged for further investigation and
denied if fraudulent.
In the program's first year, the system will be rolled out in 10
States that have the highest levels of waste, fraud and abuse. Ten more
States will be added in the second year. The Department's inspector
general will report on the effectiveness of the program at the end of
each of these years. If such reports demonstrate to the Secretary's
satisfaction that it saves taxpayer funds and operates correctly, the
system will be expanded to Medicare claims nationwide.
We must marshal our best technical know-how to defeat the cheats and
crooks that swindle the taxpayers and Medicare beneficiaries. This bill
starts us down that road, and I applaud my colleagues for including it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, on Thursday night, we had a successful vote
on the small business jobs bill. It was an amendment that had been
worked on for more than a week by Senator Landrieu and many others,
including Members on the other side of the aisle. We were able to get
the votes to pass the amendment--60 votes on it. Now we are back on the
bill.
I was told by the Republicans who voted with us on that amendment
that it was appropriate before we moved to cloture that there be
amendments by the Republicans on the legislation. I conferred with
Senator Landrieu and, because Senator Baucus of the Finance Committee
had to provide some of the money for some of the things we did, I
conferred with him.
We were told that there were three amendments they wanted to have: a
Hatch amendment, one by Senator Grassley, and one by the Senator from
Nebraska, Mr. Johanns. We agreed with those amendments.
As happens around here and has for many years, when someone offers an
amendment, it is very traditional to have an amendment opposite that, a
so-called side-by-side amendment. I do not know what could be more
fair. We have agreed to their amendments, that we would have votes on
them. Our amendments are within the same subject matter of their
amendments. I cannot understand why we cannot move forward in good
faith on this legislation.
Both parties claim they are friends of small business. This bill
gives Members of both parties an opportunity to prove that.
This bill expands access to credit for small businesses across our
entire
[[Page S6385]]
country, cuts taxes for small businesses across our entire country, and
expands both domestic and foreign markets for small businesses.
We spent the last several weeks working with Members of both parties
to pull this bill together and bring us to the point we are today--on
the verge of final passage. My friends on the other side of the aisle
said the only thing standing between us and their support for final
passage is giving them an opportunity to vote on some of their
amendments.
Last week, they requested we give them votes on three amendments. I
repeat, a Grassley amendment on a biodiesel tax credit; a Hatch
amendment on a research and development tax credit; and a Johanns
amendment on repeal of the corporate reporting requirement in the
health care bill. I do not know what could be more fair than saying
yes.
I am going to propound a unanimous consent request that would give
the Republicans votes on all three of their amendments, with a vote on
a Democratic alternative on each one of them.
In addition, I will ask for a vote on a Democratic education jobs
amendment and, of course, Republicans would have an opportunity to
offer an alternative to that amendment. If they truly are friends of
small business, if they meant what they said last week, the Republicans
should accept this request because we are, in effect, saying yes, and
we would then be on a path toward completing this bill.
The only alternative we would have then, which would be disappointing
for I think most everyone, is we would have, by virtue of the rules, a
cloture vote sometime in the morning. I hope that is not necessary.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending motion to
commit be withdrawn; that all pending amendments be withdrawn, except
amendment No. 4519; and that the following amendments be the only
amendments in order to amendment No. 4519, with no motions to commit or
motions to suspend the rules are in order during the pendency of H.R.
5297; that all amendments included in this agreement be subject to an
affirmative 60-vote threshold; and that if the amendment achieves that
threshold, then it be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid on
the table; that if it does not achieve that threshold, then it be
withdrawn; that any majority side-by-side amendment be voted on first
in any sequence of votes; further, that debate on any amendment
included in the agreement be limited to 60 minutes each, with all time
divided and controlled in the usual form:
Baucus amendment regarding information reporting provisions health
care as a side-by-side to Johanns amendment No. 1099 reporting
amendment; Johanns amendment No. 1099 which is on reporting; Murray-
Harkin amendment regarding education funding; a Republican side-by-side
to the Murray-Harkin amendment regarding education funding; Baucus
amendment regarding expiring provisions, as a side-by-side to the Hatch
R&D amendment; the Hatch amendment regarding R&D; Reid amendment
regarding FMAP/Cobell funding; Grassley amendment regarding
biodiesel; that upon disposition of the listed amendments, no further
amendments be in order; that the substitute amendment, as amended, if
amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, and
without further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to
vote on passage of the bill; finally, that once this agreement is
entered, the cloture motions on the substitute bill be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. This is a bill which, at its core, initially had
pretty broad bipartisan support. But, as sometimes happens in the
Senate, it got all snarled up with a variety of other matters.
I would like to propound an alternative consent with the following
explanation. When you review the record on this bill, you will find
that we have had exactly two votes. One was a motion to proceed, and
the other was on an amendment offered by the majority. The majority
leader has filled the tree on three separate occasions on three
different substitutes. In effect, we have been completely shut out on
the floor in terms of amendments we wanted to offer. We basically had
to ask permission to offer amendments. I don't like that kind of
process, but to get things moving, we actually gave the other side
copies of our first few amendments almost 2 weeks ago--2 weeks ago. We
were told the other side would want alternatives to our amendments, and
it took until about an hour ago--an hour ago--before they produced
their amendments.
So to be clear, the majority leader moved to proceed to this bill on
June 24, and since the time the bill was actually pending, the small
business bill was set aside to consider six other legislative matters
during that period. And although I supported a number of those other
issues, the fact is, we have not had any opportunity to offer
amendments.
Having said that, I believe a better way forward is as follows:
I ask unanimous consent that the cloture motions with respect to the
small business substitute and bill be vitiated.
I further ask that the following amendments be in order to the Reid
substitute: the Johanns 1099 repeal, the Hatch R&D, the Hatch tax hike
prevention, the Grassley biodiesel, the Sessions amendment on spending
caps, a Hutchison amendment on nuclear loan guarantees, a McCain
amendment on border security, and a Kyl amendment on death tax.
I further ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the majority
to offer a relevant side-by-side to any of the above-mentioned
amendments.
Before the Chair rules, I would tell the majority leader that I will
work with each of our sponsors to lock in reasonable time agreements on
these amendments.
Therefore, Mr. President, I propound that alternative consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. I am terribly disappointed, Mr. President. We have tried
our utmost to be fair and reasonable, but it is obvious there is no
effort here to solve the problem with small business across this
country.
The spending caps in the Sessions amendment we voted on five times,
at least. Anyway, we have voted on it quite a few times.
Nuclear loan guarantees. This is an amendment that is suggesting
there are not enough loan guarantees for constructing nuclear
powerplants. And that is probably true, but that has nothing to do with
this bill. That is not small business. We are talking about tens of
billions of dollars--tens of billions of dollars for one plant, and we
are talking about five or six plants. So we are talking about maybe $50
billion. That has nothing to do with small business.
The McCain amendment on border security. We know that is the place
they always go--``they'' meaning my friends on the other side of the
aisle--is to border security. It is interesting to note that on the
supplemental appropriations bill, that was one of the amendments that
was on the bill we got from the House, and we agreed to do that. We
said: Let's do that. The money is there. Let's do it. There was an
objection from the Republicans.
So I feel so disappointed for a lot of reasons, not the least of
which is small businesses in America need this help. The Small Business
Administration needs what we are doing here, and community banks need
what we are doing here.
I also feel badly for another reason. Senator Landrieu, the chairman
of the Small Business Committee, has worked on this matter tirelessly
for a couple of weeks. The Landrieu provision was taken out of the bill
in an effort to get enough votes to pass this. She was given the
assignment of getting some Republican support, and she did that. That
is how we got the votes last Thursday evening, because she worked with
them and we picked up two Republican votes. So I feel bad that she is
not going to see the fruit of her labors unless something changes. She
has done remarkably good work.
This legislation is supported by chambers of commerce and all kinds
of
[[Page S6386]]
organizations. This is not a Democratic bill; this is one that is
bipartisan. If there ever were anything that is bipartisan, it is this
bill.
The estate tax? Let's be serious. We all know, Mr. President, that
this is an effort to stall and not do this bill. There is no suggestion
that we don't need to do something with the estate tax before we end
this congressional session, but it has nothing to do with this
legislation before us. We were told there were three amendments they
wanted, and we agreed to take those.
So regretfully, unless someone can come up with a proposal that is
something that has reasonableness in it--I can't imagine what is wrong
with what we have suggested. We take their three amendments, we have
side-by-sides to those and go to cloture in the morning.
I notice the consent agreement they have given us here has no time
limit. I know my friend said he would work on time agreements. And even
when we finish this, there is nothing that says we would even go to the
bill then. This is the proverbial stall we have had all year--an effort
to say no to everything we do. So I regretfully have to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Is there objection to the majority leader's request?
Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object--and I will object--I
would just say to my friend that this bill initially did enjoy
bipartisan support. But where we stand today, the Democrats want to
offer amendments about health care, about educational funding, about
FMAP, and about Cobell funding, so we have both sides sort of piling on
here.
I guess I would say to my friend from Louisiana that this is a
discussion worth continuing with her counterpart, the Senator from
Maine, who is our leader on the Small Business Committee, because
somewhere in all of this there is a bipartisan bill, if we can
structure the right kind of process that eliminates the feeling--beyond
feeling, the reality of the minority getting shut out.
Therefore, Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, if the minority leader will yield for a
question, I appreciate how the leaders have tried to work together,
although we don't seem to be getting to an agreement at this moment,
but I wanted to ask the minority leader to clarify something. When he
said things got snarled up, I don't know what has been snarled. The
only amendment that has been offered on this bill, which was passed
with 60 votes, was an amendment offered by Senator LeMieux from
Florida, who is a Republican. It wasn't mine. I was a cosponsor, but he
was the lead sponsor. It was a Republican amendment that was offered on
the floor and received 60 votes. Is that what he was referring to that
got snarled or was it something else?
Mr. McCONNELL. I would just say there is now substantial opposition
to the bill. I sense a significant lack of enthusiasm on the part of
our ranking member. She can speak for herself, but my advice to my
friend from Louisiana is that this is worth continuing to discuss to
see if there isn't some way to get this bill passed in a form that is
acceptable to most of the Senate.
Ms. LANDRIEU. May I ask another question? I appreciate what the
Senator has said, but the ranking member has made it clear for many
months now that she doesn't support--and I have great respect for her--
the Small Business Lending Fund. So we actually did what we were
supposed to do. We had a debate for 12 hours on the floor, and
everybody got to speak. She spoke, I spoke, everyone spoke. And do you
know what happened? The minority leader may remember. We got 60 votes,
so we won.
Mr. McCONNELL. If the Senator will yield for a suggestion.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Hold on. I just want to say, if that is not the
process, I don't know what is. We didn't cut that deal in the back
room. We told everybody what we were going to do. I stood out here for
12 hours. We voted in public. Everyone knew about it. So if that is the
definition of snarled, we have a real problem.
But go ahead. Yes, I will yield for a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. I was going to say that those points are ones better
addressed to the Senator from Maine, and she is not on the floor at the
moment. I am sure, if you can discuss it--you know a great deal about
it as you have worked on it together. I think you ought to continue to
discuss it.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Well, I appreciate that because I do have the greatest
respect for the Senator from Maine. But she has not been excited about
this program. She voted no, but we got 60 votes for the program. So I
think perhaps we might find a way forward.
I am going to yield in just a minute, but the minority leader said he
wanted eight amendments; our side wants three. Maybe we can figure out
some way to agree on five on each side and get the small businesses in
America the help they need.
I don't know if the Senator from Illinois has an idea, but the
Republicans want eight; we want three; let's get five.
Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator from Louisiana will yield for a question,
the majority leader just said we are going to continue to work on this,
but I remember yesterday, during the debate on the DISCLOSE Act, the
Republican leader came to the floor and was critical of the fact that
we had left the small business bill. He said: Why don't we stay on the
small business bill? It is very important.
Today, we couldn't work out an agreement when we accepted the three
amendments which the Republicans said they wanted to offer. We said:
Fine, you may offer those three, we will offer three, and let the
Senate decide.
Now the Senate minority leader, the Republican leader, comes to the
floor and objects again. He can't have it both ways. He can't complain
that we are killing time here on the floor instead of taking up small
business and then, when we return to it, object to finishing the bill.
Right now, if I am not mistaken, we are facing a cloture vote. That
will happen automatically in the morning, if I am not mistaken, on this
bill, and I am hoping we can either get a unanimous consent agreement
by then or some agreement by some Republicans to stand up for small
business.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes. And I thank the Senator.
Mr. DURBIN. Is that not true? I am supposed to form a question.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I think the Senator has assessed it correctly. But we
have worked in a bipartisan fashion through both the Finance
Committee--and I see the Senator from Montana, the leader of that
committee, is here--and through the Small Business Committee. There
were a few issues that couldn't be worked out in those committees, so
the idea is to bring them to the floor and get a vote. We brought the
lending provision to the floor, we had a vote, and we got 60 votes.
So let's just continue to move on. If someone wants to offer an
amendment to strike it and take it out--I don't think they will get
that but, fine, and let's move on. It is a very strong bill.
I just want to say that the only amendment that has been adopted to
this bill has been a Republican amendment--with my cosponsorship--by
Senator LeMieux from Florida because he says he has a State full of
small businesses that desperately need this help. So we are not that
far apart. They want eight amendments; we want three. Maybe we can
figure out five amendments that could be offered because I think the
small businesses of America deserve our best efforts.
I thank the Senator from Illinois.
____________________