[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 113 (Thursday, July 29, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6460-S6498]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SMALL BUSINESS LENDING FUND ACT OF 2010
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 5297, which the clerk will
report.
The bill 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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will be 1 hour for debate prior to the cloture vote on amendment No.
4519, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two
leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak for up to
10 minutes each, with the final 10 minutes reserved for the two leaders
or their designees, with the majority controlling the final 5 minutes.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I wish to begin by thanking Leader
Reid for his very kind comments regarding the work that is going into
this bill. It has been my pleasure and honor to help lead a team,
actually, which the Presiding Officer has been a part of, as well as
Ms. Cantwell, the Senator from Washington; Senator Murray;
[[Page S6461]]
Senator LeMieux from Florida; and many others. Senator Cardin, who I
know is on the floor, is an outstanding member of the Small Business
Committee and a long-time advocate of small business, serving many
years in the House of Representatives, and now brings his expertise to
the floor of the Senate. I like having bulldogs on my committee and he
is one of them and I greatly appreciate his support.
Let me be very clear that in 1 hour, we will come to the end of a
very long, important public and open debate on the best way we can help
Main Street.
This bill is not about Wall Street. We have had enough of those. This
bill is not about big corporations; they take up 80 percent of the
agenda in this place on any given day. This bill is about the 27
million small businesses that need the Members of the Senate to stand
up for them today. If we can stand up for small businesses today, they
will stand up for us and lift this country out of the worst recession
since the Great Depression. I want to repeat that. It will not be the
big banks that do this. It will not be the big international firms that
do this. As it always has been since the beginning of America, since
the first small business, the first enterprise, it will be small
businesses that create jobs.
For 1\1/2\ years, this debate has been going on--not 1\1/2\ weeks,
not last month, but for 1\1/2\ years we have been debating, as we
should as Senators, about the best way to do that. There have been
differences of opinion. There have been two primary committees focused
on building this package, including the Finance Committee, which has
put forward in a completely bipartisan fashion a $12 billion tax cut
package for small business. The leader just spoke about some of those
provisions this morning. The chairman of that committee, Max Baucus,
has been to the floor on several occasions to explain the
extraordinarily significant tax cuts I will mention. I will mention
only one.
For a decade, Members on both sides of the aisle have been trying to
get the self-employed in America to have parity with other businesses
when it comes to health care. Madam President, the Chair knows that her
State of New York is full of self-employed people. Do they get the same
tax break as General Electric? No. Do they get the same tax break as
General Motors? No. These individuals who are self-employed pay more
for their health care than big corporations. Is that right? No. We
tried to help them in the health care bill, and we could not. We didn't
give up the fight. They are in this bill--a $2 billion tax cut for the
self-employed. That is just one of the good tax provisions.
Senator Reid read off the list, and I will share it with you because
I know there are going to be critics coming to the floor, and
unfortunately some people will vote against cloture. I hope most people
are smart enough not to. If some of them do, I want them to know we
have widely distributed this red line document to every news outlet in
the country. We have distributed it to many, many organizations. There
are over 70 organizations supporting this. This is what we call our red
line document. So there is no confusion, the most wonderful thing about
this document is that it is just four pages. It is very easy to read.
There are not 40 pages. It is not 4,000 pages. There are no special
deals. It is all here, and it is all bipartisan.
I am going to read some of the names associated with the bill: Kerry-
Snowe-Menendez; Snowe; Merkley-Alexander; Snowe; Bingaman-Hatch-
Landrieu; Grassley; Baucus-Grassley-Brownback-Inhofe-Johanns-Menendez;
Baucus-Grassley-Crapo; Kerry-Ensign and 72 bipartisan cosponsors
equally divided between Democrats and Republicans; Snowe; Grassley;
Grassley.
If somebody comes to the floor and says this bill doesn't have
bipartisan support, they might want to answer why their names are here:
Landrieu-Snowe; Snowe; Snowe-Landrieu; Snowe-Merkley; Landrieu-Snowe;
Landrieu-Crapo-Risch; Snowe; Landrieu-Nelson; Snowe-Pryor; Snowe.
I don't know how many more items a Senator can have in a bill.
Senator Snowe wrote lots of pieces of this bill. LeMieux-Landrieu;
LeMieux; LeMieux-Landrieu; Klobuchar-LeMieux; LeMieux-Landrieu;
Cantwell-Boxer-Murray. That lists just a few.
So we bring a bipartisan bill to the floor, and then we have a 12-
hour debate on one amendment, the first amendment, which is a
Republican amendment by Senator LeMieux and myself--it is LeMieux-
Landrieu-Nelson. Both Senators from Florida have been extraordinary in
their advocacy for this. We had a public, open vote, and we got 60
votes. So now the small business lending provision is in this bill,
which makes it even better, even greater, and equally bipartisan. If
some people aren't happy with that--I don't write the rules of the
Senate. I showed up, and that is what the rules were. If you got 60
votes, you got your amendment on the bill.
There are other Members who are coming to speak. I want to just say
this has been a very vital debate. This is the time for us to say yes
to Main Street. There are literally millions of business owners who not
only want this package to pass, they need it to pass. If it passes now,
they might be able to hold on. They might be able to create the jobs
that are necessary. It is now our chance to deliver a bipartisan bill
that will help 27 million small businesses on Main Street.
In conclusion, we have spent a lot of time helping big auto
manufacturers from Detroit. Today, we can help that repair shop in our
neighborhood. This is about corner stores. This is about small banks.
Are we going to vote for them or are we going to leave them high and
dry?
I see the chairman from the Finance Committee, who I think is
scheduled to speak. I also see the Senator from Maryland. I will soon
yield to the Senator from Maryland, a member of the Small Business
Committee, to say a word, and then we have the time under our control.
I am sorry, the Senator from Washington is here. I didn't see the
Senator. I was blocked. I apologize. I see the Senator from Washington
and the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Maryland.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah is
recognized.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I believe I was next.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thought we had the first half hour and the Senator's
side had the second, but I understand now that it is back and forth.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah is
recognized.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise to express my frustration and
disappointment with the decision of the majority leader yesterday that
seems to have effectively precluded Republicans from offering
amendments to the small business lending bill that is before us today.
Let's understand one thing. Since the health care bill, we have not
marked up one bill in the Finance Committee. That is just not right.
These bills have been brought to the floor through a rule XIV
parliamentary procedure without the impetus and agreement of all of us
who are on the Finance Committee. I am not going to blame anybody for
that other than to say I don't think that is the proper way to do
things. Then we get here on the Senate floor and the majority leader
fills up the amendment tree so that neither Republicans nor Democrats
have a chance to amend this bill.
Having said that, let me say that the majority leader has put forward
this small business lending bill in an ostensible effort to help the
economy create more jobs. Of course, this is what every Senator on both
sides of the aisle wants to see happen. This is what every American
wants to see happen. Yet once again we are faced with an ``it is my way
or the highway'' attitude in dealing with this legislation.
Let me be clear. The small business lending bill before us includes
many positive provisions. I commend those who have put them in there.
It has a number of tax provisions that I fully support and that
Republicans and Democrats alike believe would be helpful to small
business growth.
Yet, I do not believe that any Member in this Chamber truly believes
that this bill would do enough to solve our job creation problem. This
is because it ignores the main problems that are afflicting the economy
and preventing the kind of job creation that we need right now.
This is exactly why Republicans want to improve this bill. Many parts
[[Page S6462]]
of the bill are fine as far as they go. But, again, they do not go
nearly far enough.
One of the amendments the Republican leader was trying to get
permission to offer to this bill is a motion I would like to make to
commit this bill to the Finance Committee with instructions to report
it back to the Senate with an amendment to address the biggest problem
facing small businesses at this time. And that problem is the threat of
the largest tax increase in history that is due to hit this country
like a monster tsunami in just 155 days.
In just over 5 months from now, on January 1, a good share of
America's most prolific potential job creators--small businesses that
generally employ between 20 and 500 workers--are going to face large
tax increases unless Congress acts to stop them. The problem is that
President Obama and many of his allies in Congress have already made it
clear that they have no intention of stopping these increases.
The President called on the Senate yesterday to pass this legislation
to help small businesses so they can create jobs. But, ironically, he
and his supporters just cannot seem to see that their support for
allowing these massive tax increases to hit these fastest growing small
businesses will do far more harm than the good that could come from
this bill as it now stands.
The bill before us, while well intentioned, misses the boat.
The real problem that this bill does not address is that the threat
of these tax increases, combined with the other business unfriendly
changes this Congress has recently passed, have created such an
atmosphere of uncertainty in this country, that no one wants to take
the jump and risk their capital on new business ventures or expansions.
These other changes include the recently enacted financial regulation
bill, the tragically misguided health care bill from earlier this year,
and the menace of a monstrous climate bill that still hangs over our
heads.
Let us briefly review what it takes to create a private sector job in
our economy. First, we need an entrepreneur--a risk taker. Second, we
need an idea. Third, we need some capital. Finally, we need some
certainty so that the risk the entrepreneur is facing is manageable.
We have plenty of entrepreneurs in our economy. America has always
had these, and they are a big part of what has made this country great.
We also have lots of good ideas for new businesses. This is another
area in which our Nation has never lacked.
We also have lots of capital in our economy. Studies indicate that
banks are flush with money and corporations have more cash on their
balance sheets that at any time in the past 50 years. Investors have
money too and are just waiting for the last ingredient.
And that last ingredient is what is missing. A degree of certainty
that the business climate will begin to improve, or at least not get
any worse. This means stable tax rates, a manageable level of
regulation, and customers who are not worried about the future.
But if we have a situation, as we have now, where the investors and
entrepreneurs cannot see any real stability, risk taking freezes up.
Everyone decides to stand on the sidelines and wait it out and see how
things look in a few months, or next year.
The result of this inaction is that the new expansion to the
manufacturing plant is put on hold, the bank loan is not extended, and
the new equipment is not ordered. The result, of course, is that the
new job is not created, and everyone stands and waits.
Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle and in the
administration seem to be puzzled as to why the economy has not yet
started to create the jobs we so desperately need. After all, the huge
stimulus bill that they pushed through last year was supposed to solve
these problems.
A very big part of the reason for this lack of jobs is this terrible
uncertainty, which has a corrosive effect on the economy. We need to
add the lubricating oil of lower taxes, fewer regulations, and
certainty to the engine of economic growth.
Instead, we have been adding the acid of uncertainty to the engine--
uncertainty about higher taxes, uncertainty about a worse regulatory
climate, and uncertainty of what might come next. It is small wonder
that the engine is not working as it should.
What little certainty that might have existed in the recent past has
surely been evaporating because of the President's broken pledge to not
raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 per year and the
Democratic leadership's obvious willingness to allow these huge tax
increases to go into effect for millions of Americans.
This attitude is often excused by the misguided belief that the
``rich'' are not paying their fair share of taxes and need to
contribute much more to the Treasury.
Many of our colleagues forget that a high percentage of new and small
businesses, where most of the new jobs are created in a recession, pay
their taxes as individuals. This means that attempts to make the so-
called rich pay more will backfire and harm the very people our liberal
colleagues are trying to help--those who desperately need employment.
This is not so much a question of fairness as it is of economic
reality. If we raise the top rates on individuals, we raise tax rates
on small and growing businesses and stifle them from fulfilling their
job-creation potential.
According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, tax increases on those
making more than the limits the President has pledged to protect will
attack one-half of all small business income. Owners of these small
businesses, as well as those who want to invest and start new
enterprises, are frozen on the sidelines. They are not going to take
the risk as long as these tax increases are hovering on the horizon. As
long as they do not act, they will not create those jobs.
Let us look at the calendar. We simply do not have the time to pass
small Band-Aid bills when the patient--our underperforming economy--
needs a blood transfusion. We need to address the real problems facing
our economy, not play around at the edges. Our first job should be to
reduce the uncertainty that is throwing sand into the cylinders of the
job creation engine of small businesses, and the first step of this is
to remove the threat of these huge tax hikes.
Let us assure investors, entrepreneurs, lenders, and other players in
the job creation machine that we will not raise taxes in 5 months. Let
us dispel these clouds of uncertainty and let the private sector do
what it does best--innovate and create and put America to work.
Having said all that, it is important for me to add to this
discussion a few other points.
Dr. Christina Romer, Chair of the President's Council of Economic
Advisers, in last month's issue of the ``American Economic Review''
said this:
. . . tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained,
and highly negative impact on output.
. . . [T]he more intuitive way to express this result is
that tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output
effects.
Senator Kent Conrad, our great Budget Committee chairman--and he is
also on the Finance Committee--had this to say:
As a general rule, you don't want to be cutting spending or
raising taxes in the midst of a downturn.
That was in the Wall Street Journal on the 23rd of this month.
He also said:
In a perfect world, I would not be cutting spending or
raising taxes for the next 18 months to 2 years. This
downturn is still very much with us, unfortunately.
He said that on CNN on the 26th of this month.
Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska ``supports extending the expiring
tax cuts at least until the economy is clearly recovering and supports
addressing them before the fall elections.''
Senator Evan Bayh had this to say:
And so raising taxes right now--
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has consumed 10
minutes.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 1
more minute.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. BAUCUS. I object unless--it is off his time. Fine. I do not
object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Senator Evan Bayh said:
[[Page S6463]]
And so raising taxes right now would be the wrong thing to
do because it would dampen consumer demand and lessen
business investment.
`` `We're not creating jobs, and raising taxes now would not be a
great idea,' Rep. Michael McMahon, a New York Democrat, said this
week.''
This is a quote from the Wall Street Journal on July 21:
Martin Vaughan and John McKinnon: ``Bush Tax Cuts Split
Democrats.''
``Rep. Bobby Bright, a Democrat facing a tough reelection race in
Alabama, said tax increases, even if limited to the wealthiest
families, could imperil the recovery.''
This is a quote from The Hill newspaper on July 22:
Alexander Bolton: ``Democrats may stop Bush-era tax cuts
for wealthy from expiring.''
`` `I think the recovery is sufficiently fragile that we ought to
leave tax rates where they are,' said Rep. Gerry Connolly, a freshman
Democrat from Virginia. Connolly said Democrats should not allow the
2001 Bush tax cuts to expire for anybody.''
Again, a quote from The Hill newspaper on July 22:
Alexander Bolton: ``Democrats may stop Bush-era tax cuts
for wealthy from expiring.''
The leader of the Federal Reserve, Dr. Ben Bernanke, said: ``In the
short term I would believe that we ought to maintain a reasonable
degree of fiscal support, stimulus for the economy . . . There are many
ways to do that. This is one way.''
I do not blame the distinguished chairman of the committee because we
have not marked up these bills. I blame the leadership here for not
realizing that is why we have a Finance Committee, to mark up these
bills and let both sides have a chance to make them better if they can.
We all have an interest in spurring small businesses and getting the
economy going. Bringing these important bills right to the floor and
bypassing the Finance Committee, and then doing what has been done on
every bill since the health care bill and even before--locking up the
parliamentary tree so we cannot have a reasonable shot at even putting
up some amendments--is not the way to do business. It is not what
creates the bipartisanship we need right now in our Senate.
I wanted to make that point and hope we can change our ways so the
Senate will be what it ought to be--the greatest deliberative body in
the world.
I thank my colleague from Montana for granting me additional time. I
appreciate him as leader of the Finance Committee. I enjoy working with
him, and I enjoy working with my colleagues on the other side. But my
gosh, let's stop this business of locking up the tree on everything and
not debating the way we should, not giving people half a reasonable
shot of bringing up their amendments, and, above all, let's start
marking up these very important bills in the Finance Committee.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I know other Senators have risen before
me, so I will be very brief. I will take a minute. The Senator from
Washington is next. I thank her for her indulgence in letting me take 1
minute.
This is very clear: The American people want us in Congress to do
their work. They want us to do something that is reasonable and makes
sense. Most Americans are not way off on the left side, and they are
not way off on the right side. They are basically in the middle and do
a good job.
Most Americans would want us to help small businesses in a good way,
in a solid way--maybe not in the exact way each American would want but
in a good, solid way. This bill clearly does that. It does what the
American people want.
Small businesses generate jobs. They are the small engine of growth.
We need to help small businesses. This bill does that. It cuts taxes
for small businesses. It gives lending authority for small businesses.
There are many other provisions I do not have time to explain that help
small businesses.
This is not some small Band-Aid bill. This is a bill that makes sense
for small businesses. It provides certainty to small businesses. It
helps them. We cannot solve all the world's problems in one bill, but
we can certainly help small businesses in this bill.
I can say--and I am pleading, frankly, with a few Republican Senators
who have not quite decided how they are going to vote on this cloture
vote--this is a good bill, a solid bill, a start in the right
direction. Let's pass it. Let's not get hung up on who said what to
whom, caught up on debating points, and come across like kids in a
sandbox. Let's pass this bill. It is a good bill. It is good for
America.
We can deal with other issues, such as the expiring tax cuts, another
time in the future. But right now this is small business. It is solid.
It is getting done. It is going to help people. That is what people
want us to do. They want us to do the right job. I urge us to pass this
bill.
I yield 5 minutes to my good friend from Washington.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, on Tuesday, I came to the floor to
voice my support for this bill by telling the stories of small business
owners in every corner of my State who have struggled so hard to get
credit since this recession began.
I talked about people who were driven by their passions, who want to
grow their businesses, who want to hire, but who have been stymied by
the lack of credit flowing from our banks.
I talked about the drivers of our economy and job creation. But if
small businesses are the driver of our economic recovery, then our
community banks are the engine. Right now we all know that engine is in
neutral. That is because for far too long, our community banks have
been ignored in our economic recovery.
Since this recession began, we have seen banks fail one after
another, lending dry up to our small businesses, and job growth suffer.
While Wall Street institutions, such as AIG and Goldman Sachs, were
deemed ``too big to fail,'' the collapse of our community banks has
apparently been ``too small to notice.''
Last year, I introduced the Main Street Lending Restoration Act which
would have directed $30 billion to help jump-start small business
lending. That is why I have spoken with Secretary Geithner and
President Obama about this directly and why I have been pushing so hard
to make small business lending a priority.
I have felt very strongly that we have to focus more on our community
banks if we want to make progress and bring true recovery to our Main
Street businesses. It is why I am so proud to stand here today and
support this bill. I thank Senator Landrieu and others for working with
us in creating the Small Business Lending Fund and the State Small
Business Credit Initiative.
This Small Business Lending Fund takes the most powerful idea from my
Main Street Lending Restoration Act and sets aside $30 billion to help
our local community banks--those that are under $10 billion in assets--
to help them get the capital they need to begin lending to our small
businesses again. It is going to reward the banks that are helping our
small businesses grow by reducing the interest rates on capital that
they get under this program, and it will help our small support
business initiatives run by our States across the country that are
struggling because of local budget cutbacks. And, as Senator Landrieu
has told us, it will save taxpayers an estimated $1 billion.
It is a bill that should have broad support and, in fact, it does
from small business groups of all stripes, community bankers, and so
many others across this country who have found common cause with this
bill.
Once again we are finding ourselves faced with opposition from the
other side. Once again a commonsense bill that will save taxpayers
money is being held hostage by political calculation. I think an
editorial in yesterday's Seattle Times on this bill summed up some of
the frustration in living rooms and communities across the country very
well on the obstruction we see every day.
The editorial first noted the importance of this bill we are
considering by saying:
Economic recovery is all about jobs. And American
consumers, who help power the economy, are spending less in
the shadow of a shaky employment market. Small banks lending
to small businesses puts people to
[[Page S6464]]
work. Access to credit is key. Helping Main Street rekindles
hiring, boosts consumer confidence in overall economic
conditions, and fuels the recovery.
That is how the editorial started. It went on to say this is ``part
of a larger package of legislation for small business and Main Street
America that has attracted scant Republican interest or support.''
Then the editorial briefly, but very accurately, summarized what I
think so many in our country are thinking when they return home from
pounding the pavement, looking for work only to turn on their TV to see
that a bill such as this is blocked from consideration. It said:
Nothing should be more nonpartisan than putting people back
to work.
It is a line that speaks volumes in this Chamber because it is a line
that truly represents how so many of our constituents feel. This is a
nonpartisan bill. This is a bill that puts credit back into the hands
of our small business owners. It puts people back to work. And nothing
should be more nonpartisan than putting people back to work.
I urge all of our colleagues to listen to the voices of their
constituents and small business owners. Support this cloture motion.
Let's get this sent to the President.
Quickly, I do want to say that I worked very hard to include funding
in this bill to help save over 130,000 teacher jobs. Again that effort
has been blocked by Republican obstruction.
I remind all of us, every day we see more reports about the
continuing wave of layoffs affecting our school districts. This is not
just about school districts. It is about losing teachers, and it may be
the only teacher who touches a child in their classroom. It is about
kids in every one of our States. We need to be sure we do not lose
focus of this issue.
I am going to continue to fight to ensure that our teachers return to
the classrooms and our kids have the best instructors in September.
Again I thank Senator Landrieu for her tremendous work on this bill.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, how much time is remaining on our
side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 8 minutes 36 seconds
remaining.
Ms. LANDRIEU. The Senator from Maryland has been on the floor for
almost an hour. May he have the next 3 minutes? I see the Senator from
Maine who could then speak after him.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I thank Senator Landrieu for her
incredible leadership and work in regard to the Small Business Jobs and
Credit Act of 2010. This is the work of the Small Business and
Entrepreneurship Committee and the Finance Committee.
As Senator Landrieu pointed out, it has been the work of Democrats
and Republicans working together on many important provisions to help
the small business community. It truly is a bipartisan bill. It is a
critically important bill. I, quite frankly, do not understand why
there are those who want to oppose us getting this done.
It contains many provisions that have been brought to us by the small
business community that we need to get done. We all profess and
understand that the growth engine of America is in small business. That
is where new jobs are created. Sixty-four percent of the net nonfarm
new jobs are created by small businesses.
Innovation is the way for America to stay on the cutting edge. More
patents and more copyrights are created through small businesses per
employee than a larger company.
This bill is about creating jobs for Americans who desperately need
them. This legislation combines many bills reported out of the Small
Business Committee. I say congratulations to Senator Landrieu and
Senator Snowe. These are bills that both of them worked on together
that are important for us to get done.
Let me just summarize some of the important bills that came out of
our committee that are included.
We helped small businesses with international trade, leveraging $1
billion of export capital. This alone will affect 40,000 to 50,000
jobs. We deal with government contracting. We have had hearings--I had
a hearing in the State of Maryland on behalf of the Small Business
Committee--where small business companies pointed out how difficult it
is for them to access the government procurement system. So our
committee went to work.
Thank you, Senator Landrieu; thank you, Senator Snowe. We went to
work and reported out a bill that is incorporated that deals with the
abuses of bundling. Bundling is when the agency puts together a lot of
small contracts into a large contract where a small company can't
compete for it. We have taken action to correct that in this bill so
that small companies can access government procurement in an easier
way.
We started to attack what is known as prime contract abuse, where
prime contractors don't pay their small contractors on time or abuse
their small contractors, which are more likely to be small businesses.
That is dealt with in this legislation.
We deal with gender equity by investing in the Women's Business
Center. As Senator Landrieu has pointed out, working with the Finance
Committee, we deal with tax equity. Business owners can deduct the cost
of health care for their families in calculating the self-employment
tax. This is a matter of fairness for small business owners to be
treated equally with larger companies; to be able to increase the
amount of startup costs that can be deducted from $5,000 to $10,000.
These are all important issues. If you are a small business owner
struggling to make payroll or to keep your doors open, this help could
be the difference between hiring another employee or not.
Lastly, Madam President, it deals with credit. It extends credit to
small businesses. We all talk about that.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has consumed 3 minutes.
Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. CARDIN. The credit provisions are critically important. We make
permanent the SBA guarantee programs--90 percent guarantees, the cost
reductions, the 7(a) limits from $2 million to $5 million, the 504
limits from $1.5 million to $5.5 million, the microloans. We boost
lending, by that alone, in the first year by $5 billion. Then, as our
chairman has talked about, the State programs are funded as well as the
community bank programs.
I want to mention one additional point, if I might. I am disappointed
the surety bond extension is not in this bill. I will work with the
chairman of the Small Business Committee and the Finance Committee to
make sure we find a way to include that in the American Recovery Act.
We increase that from $2 million to $5 million. It deals with small
construction companies.
It is very important because for State and Federal contract projects
over $100,000, you need to have a surety bond. If you are a small
business owner, what you need to pledge in order to get that surety
bond can deny you credit in the market. We have to extend that to the
$5 million that was included in the Recovery Act, and I feel confident,
after talking to the chairman, that we will find a way to get that
done.
The bottom line is this is a critically important, well-balanced bill
that will help small businesses. This is our opportunity to vote for
it. In half an hour, we will have a chance to decide whose side we are
on. Are we on the side of small business owners, to help this economy
recover, or are we just going to continue this partisan division in the
Senate? I hope my colleagues will vote on the side of small businesses.
With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, all I can think of, in listening to the
Senator from Maryland, is if we could have limited this legislation
before the Senate to the provisions we agreed to on a bipartisan
basis--in fact, many of which passed unanimously in the Senate Small
Business Committee--clearly, we would be in a far better position than
we are today. That is the regrettable dimension to the situation we are
facing procedurally in the Senate.
I know from the majority side there is not an inclination to
accommodate
[[Page S6465]]
the rights of the minority, but that is the tradition in the Senate.
The majority rules, but you accommodate the rights of the minority.
That is the essence of what the institution of the Senate is all about.
I regret we are where we are today in the Senate on this issue that I
have been championing since January of this year. It seems to me we are
all worried about the legislative train running out of the station. If
we are all concerned about the limited time we have available to
address the issues of small business and job creation, which are the
foremost issues in the United States of America, I would have
suggested--and I did and I asked and I pleaded--that we should have
addressed this issue in January, at the outset of the legislative
session, not, at the end of July, when we are about to recess for
August.
So everybody is worried about the recess. We only have 1 week left.
Well, that is right. What do we know today that we didn't know earlier?
Jobs and the economy are the foremost issues facing the country, facing
Americans. If it took several months to address those issues, then we
should have taken several months to address those issues. But now we
are faced with a procedural impasse because we are being denied the
opportunity to offer some amendments to this legislation.
Now, you would think we ran out of time. We didn't run out of time.
We didn't run out of time. We had 81 days this year--81 days--in which
we did not have rollcall votes; 81 days excluding weekends and Federal
holidays, all through yesterday, when we didn't have any recorded
votes. We could have addressed this issue long before now, given it the
attention it deserved, rather than treating it as a mere afterthought
in the legislative process that we have to ram through here and deny
the minority the opportunity to offer a few amendments. That is all we
are asking.
Now, you think we just dropped this bill on the floor of the Senate
yesterday? This bill was on the floor more than 3 weeks ago. How many
amendments have we been able to offer on this bill on our side? Zero. I
will give them the lending facility that was offered by Senator
LeMieux. But, obviously, that was an amendment the majority wanted. I
recognize the Chair here, and that was one of her major issues, an area
in which I disagreed in creating a $30 billion lending facility. But we
have not been able to offer any amendments.
We have had this bill on the Senate floor for 3 weeks. We have had
three substitutes--three substitutes. No amendments. No amendments.
Then yesterday, no votes on anything. We could have been finished with
this bill by now, if you had given the minority the right to offer a
few amendments. We are shutting down this process, Madam President,
denying the opportunity to debate the foremost issue facing America--
creating jobs. We have a 9.5-percent unemployment rate. We need to
create jobs in America.
As illustrated last month, only 83,000 jobs were created in the
private sector, and we are saying we don't have time to address this
issue? It is not only frustration, Madam President, it does a
disservice to the American people. They know better. We have had plenty
of time to address this issue. This bill has been on the floor of the
Senate for 3 weeks and we have had three substitutes and 81 days that
we have had no rollcall votes. We had no rollcall votes yesterday.
Then, suddenly, what appeared last night was that we have a substitute
and we have side-by-sides, or alternatives, to Republican amendments.
No opportunity to review them, no opportunity to have a discussion or
to reach a true unanimous consent.
The majority has said we have a unanimous consent agreement, but
actually it is an ultimatum to the minority--take it or leave it. So we
had no opportunity to review these alternatives because they were just
filed. Actually, the amendments were not even filed. The majority
leader posed them in his unanimous consent agreement that we either had
to accept or reject. There was no opportunity to have a discussion
yesterday. How could we reach an agreement, maybe on several amendments
that would be important to this legislation, Madam President?
So we had four amendments that were filed on the majority side, and
now we are faced with a cloture vote today at 10:40. Why are we rushing
to a cloture vote? Why don't we spend more time talking to each other
to get the policy right? Is it something that we are not familiar with
anymore--how to sit down and talk to one another, to discuss the
issues?
What are the alternatives the majority provided in the unanimous
consent agreement that wasn't a consent agreement because nobody talked
to anybody about it? Well, it is adding issues that were in the
supplemental. It is basically taking the supplemental, the tax
extenders bill, fiscal assistance to the States, education funding, and
agricultural appropriations disaster funding that is actually in the
new substitute that was filed. Those are the alternatives that have
been offered to this bill.
So this has become a mega bill. It is a mega supplemental, it is a
mega tax extender bill, it is now an agricultural disaster bill on the
small business bill. So if we were to take the issues that we agreed to
on a unanimous and bipartisan basis in the Senate Small Business
Committee, we could have had 75 to 80 votes. But that wasn't sufficient
for the majority. It wasn't sufficient.
So here we are today with a cloture motion--take it or leave it--
because we only have 1 week left. Well, why do we have 1 week left? Why
don't we take as long as it requires to do what is right, to try to get
the best policy to create jobs in America instead of facing this
figurative legislative brick wall that is artificially contrived? It is
all political theater. It is not about legislating anymore. It is all
political theater. It is scoring political points. It is all for the
next election, which is coming very shortly. It is not about getting
the right policy for America--for small businesses that are suffering,
for the 8 million who have lost their jobs, the nearly 15 million who
are a part of that, with the underemployed who are desperate and who
need certainty.
The House is adjourning tomorrow. So where is this legislation going?
This was supposed to be a jobs agenda legislative session. That is what
we were told by the majority. That is what we were told by the
President of the United States. I said back in January--I sent letters
to the President, to the Small Business Administrator, to the
majority--saying let's do it now. I had a major initiative that I filed
in early March, and I was asked by the majority leader to defer because
he said we were going to be addressing this on the floor of the Senate
before the April recess.
Well, according to my calendar, we are at the end of July, and here
we are. We are not even going to get done before the August recess
because the House is adjourning tomorrow. So we have to get this done.
So we are going to ram it and jam it and take it or leave it, but we
are not going to be able to offer any amendments on this side. We are
not going to be allowed to offer any amendments because the majority is
going to dictate the will of the minority on a few amendments.
Madam President, this is unacceptable. I regret this. I deeply regret
this, as one who has worked across the political aisle. I wish more
would do it on both sides--look at the policy and see what is right and
what works. Now we are talking about these side-by-sides offered by the
majority last night--the night before a cloture vote. We filed a
cloture vote on the third substitute that has disallowed any amendments
to be offered by the majority; the third substitute in the third or
fourth week this bill has been pending. The third substitute was filed
on Tuesday and we are having a cloture vote at 10:40 this morning,
Madam President, with no amendments because the majority is going to
tell us what amendments we can offer. But they are going to offer
plenty of amendments that aren't even related to the small business
bill.
Enough is enough. This has been anything but a jobs agenda. The
American people are suffering. I suspect we will all go home and talk
to our constituents. What do you think is happening on Main Street? Yet
here we are, all for jobs. Oh, but by the way, we are going to offer
the supplemental that we dropped last week.
Last week, before we voted on the lending facility amendment, I
deferred my remarks on the lending facility out
[[Page S6466]]
of deference to one of our colleagues on the other side. I never made
my final arguments because we went to the supplemental. They stripped
everything and sent it to the House. Now they are taking all the rest
of it and putting it in this package on top of tax extenders, the
fiscal assistance and education funding? They are talking billions and
billions. $40 billion here, $20 million there, all that added to the
small business bill.
For what purpose? Is that the way we legislate? Well, the American
people know. They know it. They can see through this masquerade. They
see it all the time. They know it. That is why they have lost
confidence. That is why we are at a historic low, Madam President, in
terms of public approval. It is a disgrace for this institution. It is
a disgrace and a shame, and I am speaking as one who has worked
mightily across the political aisle for more than 30 years, in both the
House and the Senate. My career and my legislative record is replete
with examples of bipartisanship. I think this is nothing but a disgrace
and a shame and I regret that--more than anything else, for the people
who are suffering in America in every one of our communities. We all
know better.
We had no votes yesterday. It was possible to sit down and talk and
see what unanimous consent request could be agreed to between the
minority leader and the majority leader. But, no, we decided we are
going to forgo all that. We are going to play a political game. Isn't
this nice, offer these side-by-sides so the American people should know
there are so-called alternatives to whatever the majority would allow
us to offer. It is a sad commentary because two-thirds of the American
people disagree with the direction we are going.
But more than anything else, they need jobs to support their
families. I supported the unemployment benefit extension, much to the
consternation of the minority leader and others on this side, because
they wanted to pay for it and I would have preferred to also, but I
knew that would not be acceptable on that side. But I was willing to do
it because I didn't want to put people in the terrible position of
making a choice in their lives about how they are going to put food on
their table. I have talked to people in Maine. I talk to my
constituents and I listen, so that is why I supported it, because I
thought it was important to do it for the American people, and I hope
there could be some reciprocity here, to do what is right for America.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has
expired. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, what the American people want from us is
for us to work together. They don't want partisan political attacks.
Here is what is so strange about this particular partisan attack we
have just heard. The Senator from Maine said she wants a chance for her
side to have ``just a few amendments.''
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the offer made
by the majority leader to allow that. Any of the amendments they
wanted, the other side wanted, matched by amendments we wanted. I ask
unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Leader: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
pending motion to commit be withdrawn, and all pending
amendments be withdrawn except #4519, and that the following
amendments be the only amendments in order to amendment
#4519, with no motions to commit or motions to suspend the
rules 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 upon the table; that if it does not
achieve that threshold, then it be withdrawn; that any
majority side-by-side amendment be voted first in any
sequence of votes; further that debate on any amendment
included in this agreement be limited to 60 minutes each;
with all time equally divided and controlled in the usual
form:
Baucus amendment re: information reporting provisions
health care as a side-by-side to the Johanns 1099 reporting
amendment; Johanns amendment 1099 reporting; Murray/Harkin
amendment re: education funding; Republican side-by-side
amendment re: education funding; Hatch amendment re: R&D;
Reid amendment re: FMAP/Cobell funding Grassley amendment re:
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 and bill be withdrawn.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I also work across the political aisle.
I worked with Senator Snowe on the Passenger Bill of Rights. I worked
with the former Senator Smith on guns in the cockpit. I worked with
Senator Ensign on afterschool, I worked with Senator Inhofe on highway
bills, on WRDA bills. We all work across the aisle and I too compliment
the Senator from Maine for standing with us on some very tough votes.
But I have to say--she is asking for a bipartisan bill?
Let me read the sections of this bill and I ask unanimous consent to
have this printed in the Record. S
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page S6467]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS29JL10.001
[[Page S6468]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS29JL10.002
[[Page S6469]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS29JL10.003
[[Page S6470]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS29JL10.004
[[Page S6471]]
Mrs. BOXER. The first amendment written by Landrieu-Snowe; the
second, Snowe-Landrieu; the third one, Snowe-Merkley; the fourth one,
Snowe-Landrieu; the next one, Landrieu-Nelson; the next one, Snowe-
Pryor--and on and on.
The next section: Merkley-Alexander. We all know Senator Hatch worked
with Senator Bingaman on many of these. Senator Grassley is involved in
this, Senator Brownback is involved.
I have to say, of all the bills we have taken up, this is the most
bipartisan. I think that to make a process argument now is a shame.
Let me read some of the groups that support this bill, even though
the Senator from Maine doesn't like it. Let me tell you where you are.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Pass this bill; National Federation of
Independent Businesses: Pass this bill; the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce: Pass this bill; the Black Chamber of Commerce: Pass this
bill; the National Association for the Self-Employed; the Small
Business Majority--and on and on.
I ask unanimous consent to have the entire list printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Supporters of the Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF)
American Apparel and Footwear Association; American Bankers
Association; American International Automobile Dealers
Association; Arkansas Community Bankers; Associated Builders
& Contractors; California Independent Bankers; Community
Bankers Association of Alabama; Community Bankers Association
of Georgia; Community Bankers Association of Illinois;
Community Bankers Association of Kansas; Community Bankers
Association of Ohio; Community Bankers of Iowa; Community
Bankers of Washington; Community Bankers of West Virginia;
Community Bankers of Wisconsin; Conference of State Bank
Supervisors; Fashion Accessories Shippers Association;
Financial Services Roundtable; Florida Bankers Association;
Governors of Michigan, Ohio, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, Oregon, Washington, West Virginia.
Heating, Air conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors
International; Independent Bankers Association of Texas;
Independent Bankers of Colorado; Independent Community
Bankers Association of New Mexico; Independent Community
Bankers of America; Independent Community Bankers of
Minnesota; Independent Community Bankers of South Dakota;
Indiana Bankers Association; International Franchise
Association; Louisiana Bankers Association; Maine Association
of Community Banks; Marine Retailers Association of America;
Maryland Bankers Association; Massachusetts Bankers
Association; Michigan Association of Community Bankers;
Missouri Independent Bankers Association; National
Association for the Self-Employed; National Association of
Government Guaranteed Lenders; National Association of
Manufacturers; National Automobile Dealers Association.
National Bankers Association; National Council of Textile
Organizations; National Marine Manufacturers Association;
National Restaurant Association; National RV Retailers
Association; National Small Business Association; Nebraska
Independent Community Bankers; Pennsylvania Association of
Community Bankers; Printing Industries of America; Small
Business California; Small Business Majority; Tennessee
Bankers Association; Travel Goods Association; Virginia
Association of Community Banks; Women Impacting Public
Policy.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, the Senator from Maine is right when she
says we have to move to help this economy, and this bill is one of the
answers. That is why it has such broad support. Republicans and
Democrats across the country support this, Independent voters support
this, small businesses support this. The only group that is
filibustering this bill happens to be the Republicans in the Senate. I
am telling you, if they say no again, they are hurting this economy.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has
expired.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I understand the leadership has 5 minutes each, equally
divided.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time remaining currently
belongs to the Republican leader. There is 5 minutes, followed by the
majority leader.
Ms. LANDRIEU. That is fine. Thank you. I would like the minority
leader to go ahead. It is his 5 minutes, and I will reserve the last 5.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I had the opportunity to hear the
distinguished Senator from Maine, a few moments ago, speak on the
measure before us and how it has seemed to become completely enmeshed
in the political agenda of the other side. I commend her for her
efforts to get this bill right. Senator LeMieux was on the floor
earlier, another one of our colleagues on the Republican side who
worked long and hard to get this bill across the finish line.
But I must say, it takes a lot of effort to make a partisan issue out
of a bill that should have broad bipartisan support. You have to go out
of your way, as Senator Snowe pointed out, to make a small business
bill controversial, but our friends on the other side have managed to
pull it off.
They have outdone themselves. We got this bill in late June. This is
July 29. Since then, the Democrats have set it aside six separate times
to move on to something else. So, from the beginning, this bill clearly
was not a priority to them until they realized they didn't have
anything to talk about when they go home in August. I think one
Democratic Senator put it best when he suggested this week that a
midterm campaign that revolves around his party's agenda and that of
the White House is a losing proposition for the majority.
He was summing up their strategy on this bill. They knew they could
not run on a record of job-killing taxes, burdensome new regulations,
massive government intrusions and record deficits and debt. So what do
they do? What do they do? They create an issue where there is none.
That is what this debate is all about.
It was clear from the beginning there was a path for this bill to
pass with a very broad bipartisan majority. Instead, we are standing
here this morning looking at a third version of a bill and we have yet
to engage in any substantive amendment process. They have been adding
either controversial or completely unrelated matters to the bill--all
to avoid any real debate and to avoid voting on Republican amendments.
This bill now has over $1 billion in agricultural spending in it. It
has $1 billion in agricultural spending in a small business bill, in
the core bill--the most recent version of the core bill. As I said, we
have been on this since June 29.
Republicans have asked for a total of eight amendments. That is about
two votes a week if we had been on this bill. That is not too much to
ask.
It is obvious what is going on. They wanted to make this an issue so
they have something to talk about other than their failed economic
policies. The President made that clear 2 weeks ago when he accused
Republicans of blocking this bill, a statement every single fact
checker in town has shown to be false. So they can try to deflect
attention all they want, they can manufacture a legislative impasse--
and that is what has happened here, a manufactured legislative
impasse--but the American people know what is going on. Nearly every
major piece of legislation this Congress has considered has had painful
consequences for small business. Nearly every major piece of
legislation this Congress has considered has had painful consequences
for small business. Attempting to create a controversy is not going to
hide that from anyone.
Hopefully, if cloture is not invoked, we can return to the original
intent of this bill, strip it of its controversial add-ons and pass a
small business bill that attracts broad bipartisan support and helps
American small business owners. Given the legislative record of this
Congress, they could certainly use the help.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. We have 5 minutes left; is that right?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
Mr. REID. I yield 4 minutes to my friend from Louisiana.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I would like to respond directly to
the minority leader because I wish to make clear that there are no
extraneous provisions in this bill other than disaster relief for
farmers. The last time I checked, they were small business owners, many
of them. They are running a
[[Page S6472]]
different kind of business. It is not a hardware store, it is not a
restaurant--they go out and actually get their food out of the ground.
The last time I checked or thought about it, they were small
businesses.
If the minority leader is suggesting there is not bipartisan support
for agricultural disaster relief, I urge him, at his next available
opportunity, to file an amendment to repeal it because I think his side
would have strong objection to that. That was put in at the request of
Senator Lincoln and Senator Chambliss from Georgia, and he very well
knows that--through the Chair to the minority leader.
There were only two arguments made this morning against this bill
because it was just a political advertisement that the minority leader
outlined, so I will not even respond to him, to the Senator from
Kentucky, but I will respond, in closing, to Senator Snowe and Senator
Hatch.
Mr. Hatch came to the floor, the Senator from Utah, and said we
couldn't possibly pass a $12 billion tax cut for small business today
unless we could, as a Senate, in the next few hours, make final
decisions on whether to extend the entire tax package passed by George
Bush when he was President 8 years ago. I think that is a big lift for
the Small Business Committee. We want to give $12 billion of tax cuts
today. I hope people will vote for them.
Second and finally, Senator Snowe does deserve the last reference on
this because she is an outstanding Senator, one of the finest I have
ever worked with, but this issue is a public debate between those of us
who support the Small Business Lending Fund and those who do not. She
does not support it. She has made excellent arguments. Her arguments
are given merit. We voted on it, but we got 60 votes.
Senator Reid, I know, has the last minute and he has been outstanding
in this, but, please, there are only two legitimate arguments. We
cannot solve extension of all the tax cuts in the next 2 hours. Our
small businesses have picked up enough weight. They cannot handle that
weight. If we don't give them some help now, today, many of them are
not going to be here, I want the Senator from Kentucky to know, when we
show up in September.
I yield the last minute to the leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the clerk will
call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam 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. REID. Madam President, let me bring all of the Senators up to
date as to where we are.
A member of the minority indicated that that Senator would vote for
cloture if we took out a provision we put in, the agricultural disaster
relief. So after having conferred with a number of Senators on both
sides of the aisle, I have agreed we will take that out. With that
provision not in the bill it got 60 votes on Thursday night, that same
provision. But even to show good faith, which I am not sure it is
necessary, but to show we are going to go the extra mile, I will not
only agree to take out that extra provision but also have the same
amendments we asked for yesterday; that is, the three amendments the
Republicans wanted, which are the Johanns, Hatch, and Grassley
amendments. I will be more specific on the legislative language in a
minute. So we would take the agricultural disaster relief out and have
the same amendments we had yesterday and offer the same amendment we
had.
I don't know how we could be more fair. In fact, a number of my
Members think we should go ahead with this, but we are willing to do
that.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Title 4, part 3, under
substitute B, be stricken; and that the pending motion to commit be
withdrawn, and all pending amendments be withdrawn except No. 4519, as
amended, 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 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 upon the table;
that if it does not achieve that threshold, then it be withdrawn; that
any majority side-by-side amendment be voted first in any sequence of
votes; further, that debate on any amendment included in this agreement
be limited to 60 minutes each, with all time equally divided and
controlled in the usual form:
Baucus amendment regarding information reporting provisions health
care as a side-by-side to the Johanns 1099 reporting amendment; Johanns
amendment 1099 reporting; Murray/Harkin amendment regarding education
funding; Republican side-by-side amendment regarding education funding;
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 and bill be withdrawn.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, let me
first compliment my friend the majority leader. I think we are
beginning to make some real progress here toward making a bill that was
initially bipartisan bipartisan again. This doesn't quite get back to
where I had hoped we could get, but I think we are making progress.
Therefore, I would encourage my Members to oppose cloture on the
vote, but we are going to continue the discussion. This is only 11:30
on Thursday. I think we are getting closer to getting where we may be
able to do some business and get this bill out of here, but there will
have to be some amendments on our side. Actually, I think our friends
on the other side knew it would have to be more than three. I
appreciate the movement in the direction with the three, but that would
not be enough, at least for this juncture right now, to be
satisfactory. Therefore, I object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. My frustration is pretty high. I cannot possibly understand
how my friends on the other side of the aisle could vote against
cloture. We have agreed to take out the provision dealing with
agricultural disaster--take it out. We have agreed to have the
amendments they have indicated they have wanted for days. We have
agreed to do that. It is unreasonable.
Some people said, Well, why don't you talk to Senator McConnell. I
have talked to Senator McConnell. It is obvious that no one on the
other side of the aisle wants this bill to pass. I am so disappointed.
We are going to have this cloture vote in a minute. I hope Senators
on the other side of the aisle understand the good faith we have
engaged in. This is not a victory for Democrats or a defeat for
Republicans; it is an effort to help small business. It is an effort to
help small business. I went over line by line what this does for small
business. It is miraculous. Hundreds of thousands of jobs--not tens of
thousands--will be created with this legislation.
I appreciate the chairman of the Small Business Committee leading
this effort. I understand that I said Lincoln-LeMieux; of course I
meant Landrieu-LeMieux when I spoke earlier. I am not going to mention
Republicans by name, but there are some Republicans who have stepped
forward, and I appreciate it very much. Again, it is not for my
appreciation, it is for the appreciation of the American people. Look
what this message will send. We have at least 80 groups, entities,
which support this legislation. Major small business conglomerates
support this legislation. This is all they have. We shouldn't leave
here and not complete this legislation. It would be too bad. This
should not be partisan.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, we turned to this bill initially on
June 24. We have left it six times over the
[[Page S6473]]
last month. There is widespread agreement on a bipartisan basis that we
should pass a small business bill. We are finally making some progress.
It has become less a political instrument and more the initial bill, as
Senator Snowe has been asking us to do for quite some time. I think we
should continue to discuss it after the vote.
It is only 11:30 on Thursday. I think there is a chance we may be
able to make some significant progress very soon. In the meantime, we
should go ahead and have the vote. The majority leader and I can
continue to try to unsnarl this problem and see if we can move forward.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. There is nothing to unsnarl. We have agreed to take out the
offending provision that Senators on the other side of the aisle said
they wanted out. I took it out. They wanted to offer amendments. I have
agreed to let them offer amendments. There is nothing snarled. There is
only an effort to stop passage of this bill.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the majority leader is graciously
giving us three amendments. What I am saying is three amendments is not
enough, and he knows that. So we are not expecting to have an unlimited
number of amendments, but three amendments will not suffice.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, could I ask the minority leader a
question, please. Will he yield?
Would the minority leader be willing to say how many amendments might
be enough? The Senator from Maine, the ranking member, said a few. The
Senator from Florida--if I could finish--the Senator from Florida, Mr.
LeMieux, said he thought it would be fair if there were four or five.
We have offered three. Is there any sort of possibility--because that
would help us get even further.
Mr. McCONNELL. Is that a question?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.
Mr. McCONNELL. I will tell my friend from Louisiana that is the sort
of thing the majority leader and I work on every day, is to try to
determine the number of amendments, and we ought to continue to try to
do that.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, let me press for a minute on this
question, because with all due respect to the minority leader, until we
can finally agree on that number, it is going to be hard to figure out
a path forward. So my question to the minority leader is, so we can do
this in a more public way----
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate has a cloture vote at
this time.
Mr. McCONNELL. Regular order.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion to invoke
cloture.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Reid-Baucus
substitute amendment No. 4519 to H.R. 5297, the Small
Business Lending Fund Act of 2010:
Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Edward E. Kaufman, Amy Klobuchar,
Mark R. Warner, Jeff Merkley, Jack Reed, Jon Tester,
John D. Rockefeller IV, Dianne Feinstein, Daniel K.
Akaka, Sherrod Brown, Barbara A. Mikulski, Patty
Murray, Jeff Bingaman, Debbie Stabenow, Bill Nelson,
Carl Levin.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory
quorum call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
amendment No. 4519, offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, to
H.R. 5297, the Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010, shall be
brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 58, nays 42, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 221 Leg.]
YEAS--58
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Goodwin
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--42
Alexander
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
LeMieux
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Wicker
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 58, the nays are
42. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by
which cloture was not invoked.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture
motion on H.R. 5297 be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, we have had a very enlightening debate
this morning on the floor that started at 9:30. It has been continuing
until now. The good news about this debate is that although we did not
win on this vote--cloture was not invoked--Main Street is still winning
and we are alive. We are still standing. Earlier this morning, the two
leaders came to the floor and said--basically agreed--that if we can
have a few more amendments, what I heard the minority leader say, the
Senator from Kentucky--the minority leader said a few more amendments,
we could then bring some help to Main Street.
Main Street has been waiting for a year and a half. We have had bill
after bill, amendment after amendment. What I heard this morning from
the minority leader was very positive. He said: All we need is just a
few more amendments. I asked what ``a few'' was. Was that two or three
or four or five? That answer never came. I am assuming that ``a few''
is a few, and if we work hard over the next few hours and come up with
a few, Main Street could win because this bill is about Main Street and
businesses on Main Street. It is not about Wall Street. It is not about
big banks. It is about small community banks and the small businesses
in our country that are desperate for help.
This bill has $12 billion in tax cuts for small business, not big
business. This bill has a $30 billion lending program that is
voluntary, with no restrictions for small banks, not big banks. This
bill is supported by over 70 organizations. I would like my colleagues
on the other side to know that the chamber of commerce and the National
Federation of Independent Business are supporting this bill. Chambers
and community bankers all over America are supporting this bill. And we
are two votes from passage.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, will the Senator yield for one question?
Ms. LANDRIEU. I very much would like to yield to the Senator from
California for a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I am just asking a question through the Chair. This is
the time of the Senator from Louisiana.
I have watched the Senator from Louisiana make a case for this
bipartisan bill day after day, and I have heard her lay out why we
should come together, Republicans and Democrats, to do something right
for small businesses that create 62 percent of all jobs. It is
astounding to me that we could not get even one Republican to join with
us today. But I do have hope. As we speak, we see the majority leader
and the minority leader discussing amendments.
[[Page S6474]]
I want to ask my friend two questions. The Senator from Maine gave a
very impassioned speech saying that the Democrats were the ones who
were stopping this legislation. She said all we needed to do was offer
``a few'' amendments to the Republicans.
My first question: Is it not true, I say to my friend who is managing
this bill, that, in fact, the majority leader, Harry Reid, did offer
the other side a few amendments--clearly did before this cloture vote?
And the second question is whether my friend would be willing to share
with our colleagues and the people who are engaged in this debate how
this bill is perhaps the most bipartisan bill ever to come out of any
committee. I know my friend gave me that information--title after title
after title containing the names of Republicans and Democratic
Senators.
So if she would answer those two questions, No. 1, when the Senator
from Maine says that our leader did not offer a few amendments to the
other side; isn't she incorrect? And, No. 2, isn't this one of the most
bipartisan efforts to come out of any committee?
Ms. LANDRIEU. I would like to answer the Senator from California by
saying the record will speak for itself because that vote we just took,
there were 59 Senators, all on this side of the aisle, who pushed a
green light, and there were 41 on the other side who pushed a red
light. So it is very clear who is trying to move forward and who is
trying to stop this bill. It is very clear.
I don't think there is anyone, even in the press, confused about that
because this debate, amazingly, has been so open. So much of it has
gone on on the Senate floor that they can actually follow it. These
deals are not being done in back rooms; they are being done right here
on the Senate floor, and they are following it. They know there are 70
organizations, and they know this bill is bipartisan.
I am just going to read the names, not the provisions, that the
Senator was asking about: Landrieu-Snowe, Snowe-Landrieu, Snowe-
Merkley-Landrieu-Crapo-Risch, Snowe-Landrieu, Landrieu-Nelson, Snowe-
Pryor.
And let's continue: Kerry-Snowe-Menendez, Merkley-Alexander, Snowe,
Bingaman-Hatch-Landrieu-Grassley, Baucus-Grassley-Brownback-Inhofe-
Johanns-Menendez, Baucus-Grassley-Crapo, Kerry-Ensign--there are 72
cosponsors that Senators Kerry and Ensign put on this bill--Snowe,
Grassley.
For the ranking member to come and suggest that there are not enough
bipartisan amendments, let me continue. There are more: There is
LeMieux-Landrieu, Nelson is on this one, LeMieux-Landrieu-Nelson-
Klobuchar.
This bill came out of the Finance Committee and the Small Business
Committee with bipartisan support. One of the things we couldn't agree
on was the Small Business Lending Fund. I understand the rules; I have
been around here 14 years. So we had a vote on it. You know what. It
got 60 votes. The Small Business Lending Program got 60 votes on the
floor of the Senate after it passed the House of Representatives.
When I was in school, I learned that once a bill was passed, it comes
to the Senate, they pass it, and it goes to the President for
signature. Maybe there are some people who don't want that provision to
go to the President for signature. I understand that. But we got 60
votes on the bill, as the Senator from California knows.
So here we are. The other side is very good about hiding behind
pages. They bring out these big pages of bills and they say: We don't
know what is in it, and we can't tell. So I sent the four pages in my
hand to all the press organizations today. It is just four pages.
Anyone can read this. They are on my Web site and lots of other Web
sites. There are just four pages. That is all that is in the bill--all
small business items.
There was an agricultural provision that was in the bill that I
actually support. Senator Lincoln put it in the bill, along with
Senator Chambliss. But you heard the minority leader say this morning
that he didn't think farmers were small businesspeople. I will let him
explain that to the farmers in Kentucky. But he said he did not think
the provision for the farmers had anything to do with small business.
Maybe he hasn't been in a seed store lately, or maybe he hasn't been
where people purchase hay and supplies. Maybe he hasn't been to a John
Deere dealership, but they sure are all over Louisiana and Arkansas.
Mrs. BOXER. Would the Senator yield?
Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield for a question.
Mrs. BOXER. Of course. I just have one more question for my friend.
We hear every Senator--Democratic, Republican, Independent--say the
biggest issue before us, the biggest one is jobs--jobs, jobs, jobs.
When my friend goes home, I know she has to deal with the oil disaster
and still rebuilding after Katrina. In California, we have our series
of deep problems in tough, tough times. But she knows that whatever we
do here we have to push forward with policies that create jobs, and we
have to keep our eye on the deficit.
So my friend has brought forth a bill, along with Senator Baucus and
many Republicans--because she just went through the many bipartisan
provisions--that will leverage $30 billion into $300 billion from the
private sector. If we turn that into jobs, we are talking thousands and
thousands of jobs created by the innovators, the small businesspeople
who have gotten no help. That is why my friend has the sign ``Main
Street.'' We have to help Main Street.
So I want to ask in the form of question, and then I will leave the
floor at that point: Isn't this a bill that is desperately needed by
our small businesses? Aren't our small businesses the creators of jobs?
Is this bill not paid for? And won't this bill deliver the kind of
policy that will allow for job growth through growth of small
businesses that are solid, with community banks that are solid? Isn't
this bill just what we need to do before we leave to go home and be
with our constituents in August?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Absolutely, the Senator is correct. I am glad I have
this chart to answer her question because she has been representing the
State of California beautifully for so many years. She knows this
without me showing it, but 81 percent of the jobs lost in America are
from small business.
So when the other side complains and complains and just flaps and
flaps and flaps all day long about it is a jobless recovery, we have a
bill on the floor to create jobs from small business and they say no.
That vote today was a ``no'' vote to give help to small business. They
can color it, paint it any way they want. That is what it was.
We know this recovery is having a hard time with jobs. I am going to
yield in a minute because there are eight other Senators on the floor
who want to speak on different subjects, so I will conclude with this.
This isn't Mary Landrieu information. This comes from the monthly
national employment reports from 2008 to 2010--the job losses with
small business.
That crew over there on the other side of that aisle can't run fast
enough to help big business, to help Wall Street. But when it comes to
voting to help small businesses that are bleeding jobs, they want to
run and hide off the floor.
The minority leader said a few amendments. I would like to know how
many is a few? Is it three, is it four, is it five, is it six? Let's
get a deal done today. I would just as soon do it here, out in the
open, but I guess that is not the way things are done here.
So I will yield the floor and let other Senators speak about judges
and other things that have to be done because there are other problems
in the world. This isn't the only one. This is a big one, but it is not
the only one.
I will end with this sign because this is what this debate is about.
It is about Main Street. You are either for it or you are against it.
It is about as simple as that.
When I became chair of this committee, I said: We are going to fight
hard for small business, and I asked the chamber the other day: How
many of your members are small businesses? They said: Senator, you
would be surprised. It is 96 percent of the members of the chamber.
I asked: Are you all standing up for this bill? They said: Yes, we
are. So I thank the chamber and I thank the NFIB. I feel like I am
Alice in Wonderland. Most of the time they are on that
[[Page S6475]]
side, but this time they are on our side, and we can't get the
Republicans to vote.
Finally, the Senator from Utah came to give a feeble argument this
morning. He said he could not vote for it because we haven't debated
the entire extent of the Bush tax cuts. That is a big debate that we
need to have, but we don't have to have it on this bill. These people
can't take any more waiting. They have had enough. We can handle that
debate on another day, on another bill, but not on this one. So I would
suggest to the Senator from Utah that he has quite a few amendments on
this bill, and of the few amendments we might have, he may have two.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I will yield.
Mr. DURBIN. I see the Senator from Florida is here, but I wanted to
ask a question through the Chair.
Is it my understanding that we have been debating this small business
bill, which has come out of the committee the Senator from Louisiana
chairs, for quite some time now? Isn't this the second week, or maybe
even longer? Is it true the other side objected to a provision in the
bill because it related to agricultural disaster assistance in a few
States?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.
Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Louisiana argued that farmers are small
businesspeople too. So it is not unreasonable to include it. But we
decided, in an effort to get a bipartisan agreement on the bill, that
we would remove the section they objected to. Then they came in with a
list of three amendments and said they wanted to offer these three
amendments, which have maybe a loose connection with small business but
not much more of a connection, and we said: Fine, you can offer those
three amendments, and we will offer three amendments, and let's go and
get this done. Then they came back and objected again.
So isn't it correct that right now we are trying to get to a point
where we are providing credit to small businesses all across the United
States through good sound banks, and that credit will help these small
businesses survive and hire more employees, and we are being stopped by
the Republicans in our effort to help small business? Is that what is
happening?
Ms. LANDRIEU. That is exactly what it looks like. The Senator from
Illinois has described it accurately. If anybody believes he has not
described it accurately, let them come to the floor because he has
described the truth. He has said the truth.
So I am going to yield right now because others wish to talk, but I
thank the Senator from Illinois. This battle is going on, and we intend
to win it for Main Street. I hope the other side will get their short
list of a few amendments together pretty quickly.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, before the Senator from
Louisiana leaves the floor, I just want to say that this issue is very
simply characterized as Main Street versus Wall Street. It is a
question of whether we are serious about reviving this economy and
getting money into the hands of small business through community banks.
Anybody voting no on a motion to invoke cloture to go to a bill that is
ready to be embraced is inexcusable.
This legislation is critical to getting small businesses back on
their feet. That is certainly the case in my State of Florida. It gets
the credit flowing again on Main Street through the community banks.
The statistics about small business and jobs is all too familiar.
Small businesses create most of the jobs in this country. In the last
15 years, they have created 12 million jobs or two-thirds of the
American jobs that have been created. When the economy falters, guess
who takes it on the chin the hardest? Small business does. Over the
past couple of years, small firms have accounted for between 64 and 80
percent of net job losses. So it is time for us to step up and help
them.
For example, in Florida, small businesses play an even bigger role in
the local economy. According to the Small Business Administration,
small business employers account for 99 percent of the State's
employers and provides for nearly half of the State's private sector
jobs. Just when it looked as though things could not get worse for
small businesses--and especially so in our State--along came the tragic
explosion of the Deepwater Horizon platform, and our seasonally
adjusted unemployment was 12 percent, representing in our State 1.1
million people out of work in a labor force of 9 million.
We have not yet gauged the full impact of that oil spill on Florida's
economy, but there is ample evidence that it is the small businesses
that are the ones that have been hurt the worst and the ones who have
had to lay off the jobs as a result of that oil spill.
There was a study done by Dun & Bradstreet that found that the impact
of the spill on Florida tourism, boating, and fishing industries--these
businesses located along the gulf coast--is going to affect 46,000
businesses, with almost 300,000 employees and $14 billion in sales
volume. One of the key features of this legislation and another main
reason why we need to pass it is that Small Business Lending Fund. It
sets up the voluntary capital investment program, under which the
Treasury Department can purchase up to $30 billion in equity from small
banks, those whose total assets fall under $10 billion. Although the
fund is set at $30 billion, conservative estimates indicate it will
lead to $300 billion in new small business lending. This is the
economic shot in the arm that so many States need, including ours. I
cosponsored the amendment that was added to this overall small business
bill that put the lending facility back in the bill.
It is an overlooked feature of the legislation that it actually
provides $56 billion in tax relief for small businesses over the next
couple years. Upfront tax relief comes in the form of early tax
writeoffs for investments in new equipment, new machinery, and new
construction. That is all a part of this small business bill. Together
with the tax breaks, the targeted tax incentives, and the lending fund,
we have a package that is exactly the type of relief small businesses
need today. We need to jump-start them and that is what this bill
accomplishes.
Obviously, as the Senator from Louisiana has already said, this bill
has very wide support. I underscore the Independent Community Bankers
of America, and 29 State community banking associations have urged
approval of this plan. So does the American Bankers Association, the
National Small Business Association, the National Association for the
Self-Employed, the Small Business Majority, the National Bankers
Association, and the Conference of State Bank Supervisors.
I have heard from many constituents--including small business owners,
bankers, chambers, entrepreneurs--who believe this legislation is
needed. I am proud to cosponsor it.
I ask unanimous consent to join as a cosponsor of the Baucus-Landrieu
substitute amendment because I think it is the right thing to do and
the right thing for our State.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. It is my hope we can pass this substitute
amendment without further opposition as we are continuing to see.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. LeMIEUX. Madam President, it has been my privilege to work on the
measure that is before the Senate, the small business bill that has
been championed by my friend from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, that Ms.
Cantwell, the Senator from Washington, has been so instrumental working
on, as well as my friend, Senator Klobuchar, with whom I worked on the
export portion of this bill.
To the American people at home watching this, this must be a rather
confusing process. Why is it that there is a piece of legislation, a
Small Business Promotion Act, that has bipartisan support--why is it
not being voted on today? Frankly, there are a lot of things around
here we cannot agree on--the majority of things, it seems. But this is
something we can agree on. It is going to be good for America. I was
pleased to sponsor the amendment along with my friend from Louisiana,
the LeMieux-Landrieu amendment, which is the lending facility. It is a
provision that will bring
[[Page S6476]]
money to local community banks to loan money to the people on Main
Street--not Wall Street bankers but the bankers you see at Rotary or
Kiwanis or at church or synagogue who loan to the auto mechanic, to the
dentist, to the hair stylist, to the people working in your local
communities.
In my home State of Florida, that is the vast majority of our
businesses--nearly 2 million small businesses in Florida, small
businesses that are struggling in the worst economy anyone can
remember, the worst economy in Florida since the Great Depression.
Today I saw a report out of Florida Trend, one of our leading
business magazines, saying that for the first half of the year, Florida
now leads the country in home foreclosures. We are No. 1 behind on
payments on our mortgages. Our unemployment rate is 11.4 percent, but
that does not truly capture how bad the situation is because that
unemployment rate is a moving average over time, and after a certain
period of time when you have been out of work, you are no longer
counted as unemployed because those who make these statistics believe
you are not actively in the job market anymore. The truth of it is, if
you walk down the street in my home State of Florida, you have a 1-in-5
chance, if you see an able-bodied adult, that they are unemployed or
underemployed. Twenty percent is the real number of people who don't
have a job or don't have enough of a job.
The people in my State are hurting. This is a bipartisan bill and it
should pass. I am hopeful our leaders, Leader Reid and Leader
McConnell, who are meeting right now, are going to come to an agreement
on amendments.
Let me break this down for the American people so they can understand
what is going on. Our friends on the other side of the aisle, the
Democrats, are in the majority. They have 59 votes. They can control
the agenda. We, here on the Republican side, want to offer amendments
to bills, but we can only offer amendments by agreement. The majority
that is in charge only lets us offer amendments if they agree to it, so
we have little bargaining power. But we believe we should have the
opportunity to make bills better.
So we are going to have some amendments to this bill, and we should
have some amendments to this bill. You know what. If they are good
ideas, the power of our ideas will prevail and the other side will
agree to them and if they are not, they will not. If the American
people, later on, think we have better ideas, maybe they will send more
of us here and if they don't, maybe they will send more of them. But we
should have the opportunity to offer our amendments.
On the other side, they are going to have some amendments, too, and
that is fine, but they should be relevant to this bill. They should not
be leftover appropriations on issues that have nothing to do with small
business just because this is the train leaving the station and some
Members of this body want to see their stuff put on it. I understand
why they want to get things done, but this small business bill should
pass, it should pass with relevant amendments from both sides, and we
should do it today. We should do it today and pass it and send it over
to the House so the House can pass it and send it to the President and
he could sign it.
I say that as a Republican because, before I am a Republican, I am a
Floridian and I am an American, and this bill is good for our country
and it is especially good for my State.
I was pleased that the leader, Leader Reid, came down and made some
changes in his proposal. I am heartened he is meeting with Leader
McConnell right now. I hope they can work this out, because if they
cannot work this out, shame on us. Shame on us if we cannot get this
done when there is bipartisan support for this bill, a bill that will
cut taxes for small businesses providing much needed credit and lending
for local community banks to lend to small businesses without
increasing taxes and without increasing the debt or deficit. When do we
get to do that around here? Not too often--we do not.
I have tried to work in good faith with my friends on the other side
to facilitate the negotiations today to get us to a place where we can
have reasonable amendments, where the rights of the minority will be
protected and in the same vein we can still get this bill passed and I
hope we can do so because we have good people on the other side of the
aisle who I know want to get this done.
I remain hopeful. I thank Senator Landrieu and Senator Cantwell. I
see my friend from Rhode Island, whom I also thank for his good work on
this bill, and I hope today we will get this done with a reasonable
accommodation so we can help the American people.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. LeMIEUX. I am pleased to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Through the Chair, if I can inquire of the junior
Senator from Florida, is it not true that if one Member of his caucus,
just one, had voted with us just a few moments ago on this vote, we
would actually be on this bill and we could begin to move to amendments
and consider the bill; is that not correct?
Mr. LeMIEUX. That reminds me, my friend, if I may, reminds me of the
saying that half the truth is no truth at all. Yes, that part is true.
But the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey would say, is if this bill
were not loaded with all these appropriations bills that have nothing
to do with small business, we would be on this bill right now and it
would be passed.
The keys to the kingdom lie with the majority. This deal could be
done right now and we could get to this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Judicial Nominations
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I rise on an important matter
that affects all of us, Senators and citizens of our States alike, and
that is the shortfall in the process of confirming nominations to the
Federal bench. In particular, I wish to talk about one outstanding
nominee from my home State of Colorado, William Martinez. Bill has an
inspirational story. I will tell you more about it in a minute, but
first I wish to explain why there is such an urgency to confirm this
fine nominee.
The situation in the Colorado District Court is dire--and I do not
use that word easily or casually. There are currently five judges on
our court and two vacancies, both of which are rated as judicial
emergencies by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. These five
judges have been handling the work of seven judges for nearly 2 years,
and it has been over 3 years since our court had a full roster of
judges.
But there is more to the story. In 2008, based on the significant
caseload in Colorado, the Judicial Conference of the United States
recommended that an eighth judgeship be created. So you could argue we
are actually three judges down from what we should have.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from
Chief Judge Wiley Daniel to Leaders Reid and McConnell, explaining the
profound impact this vacancy is having on the courts of the District of
Colorado.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
United States District Court,
District of Colorado,
Denver, CO, May 6, 2010.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Reid and McConnell, I write this letter in my
capacity as Chief Judge for the District of Colorado. As more
fully detailed in this letter, our court has suffered
multiple judicial vacancies for years. Presently, we are down
two district court judges. It is important that you
understand that these vacancies have caused a profound impact
on the court's ability to discharge its important obligations
to the citizens within the State and District of Colorado in
a timely and efficient manner.
As you are aware, President Obama nominated William
Martinez to be a judge on the court several months ago.
Within the past several weeks, he was voted out of the Senate
Judiciary Committee and is presently on the Senate floor
awaiting a vote. I urgently ask the two of you, in your
capacities as Senate Majority and Senate Minority Leaders, to
reach a ``Time Agreement'' so that a Senate vote on Mr.
Martinez's nomination can occur. As I am sure you understand,
this is a critical resource issue for me as it is my
responsibility to ensure the adequacy of judicial resources
to handle the business of the court.
The court is presently authorized seven judgeships. At this
time, the court has five
[[Page S6477]]
active judges and the assistance of five senior judges with
each senior judge having various levels of a partial
workload.
A history of vacant judgeships continues to impede the
public service of the court to the citizens of Colorado and
to those outside of the state who depend on the court for
timely judicial rulings. For more than three years, the court
has not had a full complement of authorized judges.
In March, 2007, Judge Phillip S. Figa underwent medical
treatment necessitating extended periods of absence from the
court. Following nine months of intermittent service, Judge
Figa, unfortunately, passed away on January 5, 2008. During
the time of Judge Figa's illness, the majority of his
caseload responsibilities were covered by other judges.
Following his untimely death, his cases were permanently
reassigned to other judges resulting in an average ten
percent increase in per judge workload, and the number of
active judges went from seven full-time active judges down
to six full-time active judges.
Shortly thereafter on March 31, 2008, Judge Walker D.
Miller elected to take senior status, and on April 4, 2008,
Judge Lewis T. Babcock took senior status. As senior judges,
each exercised their discretion to assume reduced caseloads.
With the unfortunate death of Judge Figa, and the taking of
senior status by two active judges, the number of full-time
active judges was reduced to four full-time active judges, a
judge vacancy rate of 42.8%.
In July, 2008, the Judicial Conference of the United States
conducted a scheduled biennial judgeship need survey. The
survey reviews the caseloads of all district courts
throughout the nation applying a workload formula to
determine the need for additional judges. The survey
indicated, and the Judicial Conference subsequently approved,
the need for an eighth authorized Article III judge for the
District of Colorado. At the time of the survey, the court
was attempting to address a workload requiring eight judges
with only four full-time active judges.
In October, 2008, two of the three vacant judgeships were
filled with the appointments of Judge Philip A. Brimmer and
Judge Christine M. Arguello. As a result, the court's
judgeship vacancy numbers were reduced from three to one. The
court was now staffed with six full-time active judges;
however, the overall workload numbers continued to justify a
need for eight judges.
On October 29, 2008, Judge Edward W. Nottingham elected to
resign from the court. The court was again down by two
judges, with five full-time active judges and two vacancies.
Over 200 civil and criminal cases formerly assigned to Judge
Nottingham were reassigned drastically increasing per judge
caseload assignments. From that date to the present, the
vacancies have contributed to a growing case backlog within
the court.
Before leaving his senatorial office, Secretary of Interior
Ken Salazar worked with a local committee of legal experts to
identify possible nominees for the vacant two judgeships. In
a January 16, 2009 press release it was reported that then
Senator Salazar was asking Senator Mark Udall and Senator-
Designee Michael Bennet to continue to urge the early
appointment of qualified judicial candidates to fill the two
vacant positions. In a reported letter to Senator Udall and
Mr. Bennet, Senator Salazar wrote ``Over the last thirty
years, the U. S. District Court has often been plagued with
vacancies that have prevented the court from functioning at
its full capacity.''
Though the court has the continued assistance of well
qualified senior judges, and has also been relying on
visiting judges from other courts to assist with heavy
workloads, having a fully staffed cadre of authorized judges
is the most effective method by which the court can address
the needs of those depending on its vital services.
In that the U. S. District Court for the District of
Colorado has been subject to lengthy periods of judicial
vacancy, I believe it is in the best interest of the court,
and the public it 2 serves, that the judicial nomination and
appointment process proceed at a responsible pace designed to
yield qualified judges within a reasonable period of time.
Reasonableness to me means that the two of you agree, without
further delay, to set a date certain for a vote on Mr.
Martinez's pending nomination.
As the work of the court continues to grow, the court needs
judicial officer resources sufficient to conduct the business
of the court in a timely and efficient manner. The overall
integrity of the federal judicial process can best be
maintained by having a sufficient number of judges to address
the disputes of our citizenry without unnecessary delay or
expense.
In closing, I appreciate your consideration of my viewpoint
as to the judgeships urgently needed by the court. Until the
two judicial vacancies are filled, it is impossible for the
court to possess the judicial resources that are necessary to
effectively discharge the business of the court. Scheduling a
vote on Mr. Martinez's nomination is the next critical step
in this important process. I await your response to this
letter including your indication of the date on which the
Senate will vote on Mr. Martinez.
Sincerely,
Wiley Y. Daniel,
Chief Judge.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Judicial understaffing in Colorado and in the
home State of the Presiding Officer and all the Senators has a real
effect on residents and businesses. As the caseload increases for each
judge, more and more time must be devoted to criminal cases. That is
because the Constitution guarantees a speedy trial. But as time and
energy shifts to the criminal docket, the civil docket in turn suffers.
It continues to become increasingly difficult to schedule a trial as
these backups grow longer and longer.
This increased caseload I am referencing also has a huge impact on
our rural and tribal communities around the State as well. Our Federal
District judges are all located in Denver, but they often have to
travel to other parts of the State for hearings or trials. The
geography in Colorado makes travel a little more complicated than in
some other States. We have a big State with the Rocky Mountains running
right through the middle of our State, and I can tell you from my own
experience getting around the mountainous areas of Colorado during the
snowy winter months is not easy. As a result, all over the State,
residents on the Western Slope and down in the valleys, my tribal
constituents, they have a more difficult time accessing the Federal
judicial system--as plaintiffs, defendants, even as witnesses.
As pressing as this situation is in Colorado, I know it is not
unique. Of the nearly 100 current judicial vacancies, 42 are considered
judicial emergencies--almost half. I understand our Senate has
confirmed only 24 nominees so far this year and 36 total since
President Obama was elected. That is a historic low.
I don't wish to turn my comments on these nominations to a partisan
affair, but the Senate has not kept up with the pace of past
Presidents' judicial nominees.
In fact, last year the Senate confirmed the fewest judges in 50
years--50 years.
Bill Martinez, the man whom I spoke of when I began my remarks, was
nominated in February of this year, had a hearing in March, and was
referred favorably by the Judiciary Committee in April. Today, his
nomination has been sitting on the Senate Executive Calendar--on that
calendar--for 105 days. Here is the question: Can we set aside our
partisanship and support the people who need our system of justice and
those who work in our system of justice? The people of Colorado want us
to vote on Bill Martinez and help us reduce the workload on the Federal
District Court of Colorado.
Senator Bennet has joined me, and I know he is going to speak in a
few minutes.
Last year, we convened a bipartisan advisory committee so that we
could have the best candidates put forward. It was ably chaired by
Denver lawyer Hal Haddon, a well-known figure, and former Colorado
Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Kourlis. The committee interviewed
numerous candidates, and based on his life experience, his record of
legal service, and his impressive abilities, we both recommended, on
the advice of the committee, Bill Martinez for a Federal judgeship.
I know I was very impressed with Bill. In addition to being an
accomplished attorney and a true role model in his community, Bill has
a personal story which captures what is great about America and
highlights what can be accomplished when you have focus, discipline,
and you work hard.
Bill was born in Mexico City and lawfully immigrated to the United
States as a child. He worked his way through school and college and
toward a career in the law. He received undergraduate degrees in
environmental engineering and political science from the University of
Illinois and earned a law degree from the University of Chicago. As a
lawyer, he is an expert in employment and civil rights law. He
currently practices in those areas. He previously served as the
regional attorney for the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission in Denver.
I believe--as we all do, I think--in strong, well-balanced courts
that serve the needs of our citizens. Bill Martinez brings that sense
of balance because of his broad legal background, professionalism, and
outstanding intellect. I am pleased to have been able to recommend
Bill, and I am certain that once he is confirmed, he will make an
outstanding judge.
I was going to ask for unanimous consent that we move to consider Mr.
[[Page S6478]]
Martinez's nomination. I am going to hold back on that request for the
time being, but I want those who watch the Chamber to know that a group
of us who are going to speak to this backlog are going to ask, at the
appropriate time, for that to be considered.
Whatever happens today in these unanimous consent requests--and I
would hope they would be granted--I am not going to give up. I am going
to continue to work with people on both sides of the aisle, as well as
any Senator who might have reason to block Bill Martinez's nomination,
to find a reasonable solution so we can fully stock our courts and we
can deliver justice and services to our citizens, who deserve courts
that are up and running fully.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BENNET. Madam President, I also rise today in support of Bill
Martinez's nomination to serve on the Federal district court in
Colorado.
Before I talk about that, I wish to take a moment to address this
small business bill that is before the Senate because people are
watching this in my State, and they are saying to themselves: We have
spent 18 months with credit frozen--longer than that for small
businesses--and Washington cannot seem to do anything for us.
Today is the day Washington could do something for small businesses
in my State and across the country. And it is not a case of Democrat
against Republican; this feels to me like a case of Washington politics
against the rest of the country. So I lend my voice to the Senator from
Florida and say that I hope the leadership can get it together.
I wish to add my push today for the unanimous consent request of the
senior Senator from Colorado to consider this nomination of Bill
Martinez. We need him confirmed so he can begin serving our State.
Bill appeared before the Judiciary Committee in March, where I had
the privilege of introducing him. His nomination passed the committee
with votes to spare in April. The Martinez nomination, like so many
others, has gotten stuck because of the obstructionist tactics of a
few.
So this man with a breadth of public and private sector legal
experience that makes him more than qualified to serve on the Federal
bench is being held up month after month.
Like my senior Senator, I am frustrated with the secret delays in
this body. The purposeless shelving of nominations such as this one and
even of important legislation affects real lives and poisons the
atmosphere in the Senate.
There are 99 vacancies in the Federal court right now. To date, the
President has nominated 39 individuals to fill these vacancies. For the
sake of judicial efficiency and ensuring fair access for all of our
people to our courts, I think it is time to move ahead on outstanding
nominees who have cleared the Judiciary Committee easily. For the
nominees, careers and families are being put on hold. If a nominee is
unqualified or unfit for office, then let's have those concerns
registered for public consumption.
Like far too many Coloradans, I am so frustrated with our broken
politics. Instead of making sure qualified candidates are confirmed to
key government posts, the Senate has secret holds and stall tactics. It
is painful to watch, and it is painful to the American people to live
through.
Bill Martinez, for one, has earned better treatment through a
lifetime of professional achievement. He has a stellar reputation and
credentials in Denver and possesses rare intangibles too. His career
spans the legal profession and represents a true immigrant success
story on which this country is founded. Bill was the first in his
family to attend college. His experience is an inspiration to all
Coloradans.
Is there any reason this attorney with an expertise in employment law
and civil rights, coupled with years of courtroom experience, should
not receive an up-or-down vote? I, for one, would like to know, as
would the people of Colorado. I ask my colleagues to end the delay of
consideration of Bill Martinez. Let's have an up-or-down vote on Bill
Martinez and then move forward and go through other remaining nominees
being needlessly upheld.
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act
With the indulgence of my colleague from Minnesota, I wanted to
mention one last thing. While I am here, I would also like to call
attention to another priority that languishes as the Senate wastes time
wrangling over nominees and partisan politics: the Healthy, Hunger-Free
Kids Act, a fully paid for, bipartisan bill that unanimously passed out
of committee last March. This bill will make a tangible difference in
the lives of millions of children.
It is high time the Senate begin doing the people's business again.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise today to address the need to
move quickly and to confirm several qualified judicial nominees--I
would say many qualified judicial nominees. You are going to hear about
a number of them today. I am going to talk specifically about the
highly qualified nominee for the District of Minnesota who was
unanimously voted out of our Judiciary Committee more than a month ago.
Our failure to confirm Susan Richard Nelson quickly has consequences
for my State. The judge she has been nominated to replace took senior
status as of last October and is stepping down from the Federal bench
altogether in a couple of weeks. That means a smaller number of judges
will be doing the same heavy workload until she is confirmed, which is
not fair to my State or many of the States you will hear from today.
This nomination is important to our district. Our district's caseload
has increased significantly in recent years. In fact, as of June 2008,
our district had the second highest number of case filings per
judgeship in the entire country--the second highest in 2008 in the
entire country. Yet, if she is not confirmed after coming through our
committee unanimously, we will be down a judge even though we have this
high caseload. Even as of December 2009, we were still in the top 10
most overloaded districts in the country. From 2008 to 2009, the
district saw a 54-percent jump in the number of civil cases filed. That
is over 5,000 civil cases currently pending and only 6 judges on a
full-time status to deal with these cases, not to mention the docket of
criminal cases on top of that. The district needs Judge Nelson to be
confirmed quickly. Delay is not an option.
It is worth noting that by this time in President Bush's
administration, we had confirmed 61 judicial nominees. By contrast, we
have only confirmed 36 of President Obama's.
When a vacancy arose on the Federal district court in Minnesota, I
convened a judicial selection committee to consider mainly highly
qualified candidates. From this fine pool of applicants, I recommended
Susan Richard Nelson to the President. President Obama formally
nominated her for this position, and I appreciate the work of Senator
Leahy and Senator Sessions, who is also here, in making sure she had a
speedy nomination hearing. However--this is a familiar story for
several nominees--after Susan Richard Nelson received a unanimous vote
in the committee, her nomination stalled on the Senate floor.
There is no reason to hold up this nomination. Susan Richard Nelson
is exactly the kind of person you would like to see sitting in a
judge's seat. She has been a magistrate judge for the District of
Minnesota for the last 8 years, where she has earned the respect of
litigants, lawyers, and judicial colleagues alike. She has the judicial
temperament, personal integrity, and keen legal mind that are absolute
prerequisites for this job. Throughout her tenure, she has gained a
reputation as a fair but stern magistrate judge, one who is thorough
and prepared. She has been described as a judge ``who favors neither
plaintiff nor defendant, who listens carefully to both sides of every
matter she hears, and who can be relied upon to give articulate, well-
reasoned explanations for her decisions.'' The ABA Standing Committee
on the Federal Judiciary unanimously gave Judge Nelson their highest
rating.
I believe she will make a fine Federal judge, and that is why I rise
to speak today. But this is not just a Minnesota issue; this is a
national issue. As a
[[Page S6479]]
former prosecutor, I know what happens when you have an overloaded
judiciary, when you do not have the players in place, either the
prosecutor, the public defender, or the judges. When you do not have
judges available to hear cases, judges whose time is spread too thin,
cases do not get heard, victims do not get justice, and litigants do
not get their problems solved. In other words, it slows down the wheels
of justice when you do not have the people in place to actually hear
the cases.
It is my hope again that we can end this waiting game and confirm
these nominees. I truly appreciate the bipartisanship work on our
committee to get these judges through to the floor. But now is the time
to get the work done.
I know we will be asking for unanimous consent for a group of the
judges whom we are addressing. I know Susan Richard Nelson's name will
be included at that time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise to today in support of Louis
Butler's nomination to be District Court Judge for the Western District
of Wisconsin. Justice Butler is an accomplished lawyer whose career has
been distinguished across the board as an advocate, trial court judge,
Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, and professor. He is supported
throughout Wisconsin and I am confident that he will be an excellent
Federal judge.
For 30 years, Justice Butler has dedicated himself to public service.
He began his career fighting for the rights of indigent defendants as a
public defender. He was the first public defender in Wisconsin history
to argue a case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
As a trial court judge, he earned a reputation for being a tough but
fair jurist and was recognized as a top Milwaukee judge. For more than
10 years, Justice Butler has shared his expertise and knowledge by
training judges as a faculty member of the National Judicial College.
Justice Butler served with distinction on the Wisconsin Supreme Court
for 4 years. There, he participated in hundreds of cases, many of,
which were decided by a unanimous or near-unanimous court. During his 4
years on the bench, he proved himself to be a hard-working, thoughtful
and consensus building jurist.
Throughout his career, Justice Butler has been a judge who upholds
the rule of law in an impartial and deeply respectful manner. He
possesses all the best qualities that we look for in a judge:
intelligence, diligence, humility, and integrity. In addition to
Justice Butler's impressive legal background and solid record as a
judge, he is a fine man. He is deeply committed to his family, to his
community, and to public service.
Justice Butler's nomination proves once again that the process we use
in Wisconsin to choose federal judges and U.S. attorneys ensures
excellence. The Wisconsin Federal Nominating Commission has been used
to select Federal judges and U.S. attorneys in Wisconsin for 30 years,
through Republican and Democratic administrations and the tenure of
Senators from both parties. Through a great deal of cooperation and
careful consideration, and by keeping politics to a minimum, we always
find highly qualified candidates like Justice Butler.
I along with Senator Feingold are confident that the people of
Wisconsin will be enormously proud of him and that he will serve them
well.
So, it is clear that this upstanding and well-qualified nominee
should be promptly considered by the Senate. Justice Butler has been
pending for far too long and a vote on his confirmation is overdue.
Someone like this deserves an up or down vote. I understand that some
of my colleagues may oppose his nomination, and I accept that, but let
us take an up or down vote as soon as possible.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I am pleased to support the efforts of
my colleagues to call attention to the refusal of Republicans in the
Senate to allow confirmation votes on judicial nominees. We have all
heard the numbers only 9 circuit and 27 district judges confirmed so
far in this Congress, 7 circuit and 14 district judges now awaiting
floor action, with 15 of those nominees having been reported by the
Judiciary Committee before the end of May. This is an inexcusable
blockade of justice in America for wholly political reasons, and it
needs to stop.
I am pleased also to join the senior Senator from my State, Mr. Kohl,
in specifically seeking consent to debate and vote on Justice Louis
Butler's nomination to be a U.S. District Judge for the Western
District of Wisconsin. Justice Butler, who was the first African
American to serve on Wisconsin's Supreme Court, was first reported by
the Judiciary Committee on December 3, 2009. He has essentially been
waiting for the full Senate to take up his nomination for more than 7
months.
Justice Butler is the product of a system for picking Federal judges
and U.S. attorneys in our State that has been used since the late
1970s. A nominating commission interviews and considers applicants and
presents a slate of candidates to the Senators. We then send our
recommendations to the President drawn solely from the commission-
approved slate. This process has yielded highly qualified nominees
under both Republican and Democratic presidents, and the nominees have
had the support of both Republican and Democratic Senators.
Justice Butler clearly has the experience and the qualifications
needed to serve with distinction as a U.S. District Court judge. First,
he has experience as a judge on both the trial court and appellate
court levels in Wisconsin. He understands the difference between
following precedent and making precedent. Handling criminal trials is
probably the biggest job of a Federal trial judge, and Justice Butler
has a great deal of criminal experience both as a judge and as a public
defender in his early days as a practicing lawyer. He is well versed in
Wisconsin law, which as we know is often applied in diversity
jurisdiction cases in the Federal courts.
Justice Butler is widely admired for his intellect and his judicial
temperament. In 1997, Milwaukee Magazine named him the top municipal
judge in the city. He has been a law professor. In short, he has a
depth of experience that is unusual for a nominee to the district
court.
Justice Butler has been a trailblazer in our State. As I mentioned,
he was the first African American to serve on the Wisconsin Supreme
Court, and he would be the first African American to be a judge on the
Western District. He is a man of great distinction and achievement.
Justice Butler is a thoughtful and conscientious judge. I know I will
not agree with every decision he makes, just as I do not necessarily
agree with everything he has said or done thus far. But I know he will
be conscious of the judicial role, and that he will make his decisions
based on the facts and the law and do his very best to carry out his
responsibilities with dignity and care, as he has done throughout his
career.
Now I understand that Justice Butler's nomination is opposed by some
Members of the Senate and a number of outside organizations. The
Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted against the nomination.
They have every right to do so, and I respect their positions. I
believe the arguments against him are misguided and unfair. But I am
prepared to have that debate on the Senate floor and live with the
result, if only the Republicans will allow the debate to take place.
It is time for the delay of Justice Butler's nomination and the other
nominations that have been pending for months to end. Let's have a
debate and a vote. I thank Mr. Kohl and my other colleagues for shining
a spotlight on this issue, and I hope we can look forward to debating
and voting on the pending judicial nominations soon. Such delay,
particularly for a district court nominee, is unprecedented. I urge my
colleagues to consider Justice Butler's nomination forthwith.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise to join Rhode Island's senior
Senator Jack Reed and other colleagues to call attention to the
recurring Republican roadblock of qualified nominees to circuit and
district courts. On the circuit courts, I spoke some time ago about
Albert Diaz and James Wynn to sit on the fourth circuit in North
Carolina. I know the Presiding Officer has a
[[Page S6480]]
keen interest in those two. These two were reported out of the
Judiciary Committee on January 28, 2010, 6 months ago yesterday. Albert
Diaz was voted out 19 to 0. James Wynn was voted out 18 to 1. That
means a combined score of 37 to 1 for these two candidates whom the two
Senators from North Carolina had agreed on, a Republican Senator and a
Democratic Senator. I came to the floor 3 months ago, given that
background, on April 20 to ask unanimous consent for their
confirmation. Senator Kyl, who voted for both of these nominees in
committee, objected on behalf of his colleagues. That is the
environment we are in.
Unfortunately, that environment has filtered down to district judges.
Consider the four district court nominees currently on the Executive
Calendar, voted out of committee by a party-line vote, who are ahead of
our Rhode Island nominee and who have to be cleared before we get to
our Rhode Island judge. Lewis Butler is a former Wisconsin Supreme
Court justice. Ed Chen and Benita Pearson are long-serving and well-
respected Federal magistrate judges in San Francisco and Akron, OH.
Bill Martinez is a well-known and well-respected attorney in Colorado.
Each nominee had the full support of both of their home State Senators.
Each nominee would bring proper expertise, judicial temperament, and
great diversity to the bench. Each nominee would be confirmed, if we
could simply get them voted on by the Senate. The way these nominees
have been treated stands in stark contrast to the way district court
nominees were treated in the Bush administration. In 8 years, only one
district court nominee during the Bush administration was reported by
the Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote. That nominee got a vote
and was confirmed on this floor 51 to 46.
Why is it that nominees of President Obama are being held to a
different, new standard than applied to the nominees of President Bush?
Why have we departed from the longstanding tradition of respect to the
views of home State Senators who know the nominees best and who best
understand their home districts? Is disregard for the views of home
State Senators the standard Republicans want to live by during the next
Republican Presidency? Is that the new precedent we wish to set here in
the Senate? I ask this because we have a highly qualified nominee in
Rhode Island, Jack McConnell, who was reported by the Judiciary
Committee on June 17. It was a bipartisan vote, 13 to 6, with the
support of Senator Lindsey Graham. Jack McConnell is a pillar of the
legal community in Rhode Island. He is a pillar of the community
generally in Rhode Island, serving with great generosity and
distinction on numerous boards that help communities in Rhode Island.
The Providence Chamber of Commerce has praised Jack McConnell as a
well-respected member of the local community. Political figures from
across our political spectrum have called for his confirmation, one of
them being my predecessor as Rhode Island attorney general, Republican
Jeffrey Pine. The Providence Journal, our hometown paper, has endorsed
his nomination by saying that Jack McConnell, in his legal work and
community leadership, has shown that he has the legal intelligence,
character, compassion, and independence to be a distinguished jurist.
Notwithstanding the support of Senator Reed and myself, the two
Senators from Rhode Island, notwithstanding that this is a district
court nomination, notwithstanding the powerful support across Rhode
Island from those who know Jack McConnell best, special interests from
outside the State have interfered in his nomination. The U.S. Chamber
of Commerce, not the Rhode Island chapter, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
has attacked Jack for having the temerity to stand up to big business,
to the asbestos industry, to the lead paint industry, to the tobacco
industry, and to have devoted his career to representing the rights of
the powerless. In doing so, the U.S. Chamber has created a cartoon
image of Jack McConnell that bears no relation to the man Senator Reed
and I know as a great lawyer, as a great Rhode Islander, and somebody
who will be a great judge.
I ask my colleagues--I see the distinguished ranking member of the
Judiciary Committee here on the floor with us today, the distinguished
Senator from Alabama--do we want to let powerful out-of-State interests
trump the better informed views of home State Senators about district
court nominees? That is not the tradition of this body. I again ask my
colleagues: Is this the tradition they want to set? If they open the
door to out-of-State special interests trumping the considered judgment
of home State Senators on district court nominees, will they ever get
that door closed again? I submit it is a mistake for this body to go
that road. I urge colleagues on the other side to reconsider what I
think is a terrible mistake, which is to allow out-of-State special
interests to prevail over the considered judgment of home State
Senators when they agree on the best qualified nominee for district
court in their home State.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Rhode Island who,
with eloquence and passion, has clearly highlighted a disturbing
phenomenon taking place in this Chamber. Well-qualified individuals who
have received the support of the Judiciary Committee--in many cases,
unanimous support--are being denied a final confirmation vote by the
full Chamber. This is a break from our history. At the end of the first
Congress, during President Reagan's first term, 88 Circuit and District
Court nominees were confirmed. At the end of the first Congress during
President George H.W. Bush's term, 72 Circuit and District Court
nominees were confirmed. At the end of the first Congress under
President Clinton, 126 Circuit and District Court nominees were
confirmed. At the end of the first Congress during President George W.
Bush's first term, 100 Circuit and District Court nominees were
confirmed. As of now, if nothing else is done, President Obama, at the
end of this Congress, will have only 36 Circuit and District Court
nominees confirmed by the Senate, in contrast to 88 for President
Reagan, 72 for President George H.W. Bush, 126 for President Clinton,
and 100 for George W. Bush.
Something is going on here. What is going on is a deliberate attempt
by the minority to frustrate the traditions and precedents of the
Senate where, as Senator Whitehouse suggested, there is a long-held
view that Senators have more insight into the skills, ability, and
integrity of nominees from the Senators' home State than national
special interest groups, whose major goal seems to be the generation of
controversy for the purposes of contributions.
We in Rhode Island have an extraordinarily competent and capable
individual. As Senator Whitehouse indicated, Jack McConnell is an
accomplished attorney. He is a plaintiff's lawyer. He takes cases of
individual Americans, who have been harmed, and he fights the good
fight for them. He has been very successful doing it. He has received
the bipartisan support of members of the bar, judges of both political
parties, and the Providence Journal, our major Statewide newspaper,
which has a reputation of being very sensitive to the legitimate
concerns and needs of our business community. He is supported because
he is an outstanding attorney and because he is an outstanding
individual. He is someone who knows the law and knows the court. I am
always kind of interested when someone who has spent a long time as a
corporate counsel for a big corporation is suddenly--and in most
cases--very quickly confirmed as a District Court Judge, even though
that individual may or may not have had a lot of experience in a trial
court. Here, we have an individual who actually has spent his life in
trial court, both Federal and State courts.
Jack McConnell is a fair and good man, and he understands that a
judge must hear the facts, apply the law, and indicate clearly to all
plaintiffs and defendants who come before the court that there is no
bias and that the case will be decided fairly on the merits within the
bounds of the law. That is something all of my colleagues in Rhode
Island, Republicans and Democrats alike, recognize that Jack McConnell
will do.
[[Page S6481]]
There is something else about this individual. He is an
extraordinarily decent person. That counts for something too. There is
no one in our State who is more generous, not only with his money, but
with his time. There is no one in our State who is more committed to
helping people, not to gain notoriety, but because it is the right
thing to do. Those qualities are important. Ultimately, I believe one
of the major criteria that should be met by a Judge is that when
someone goes before the court, whether it is a big corporation or a
person who has been harmed, they know they will be treated fairly.
Frankly, Jack McConnell passed that test with flying colors. As Senator
Whitehouse pointed out, he passed the Judiciary Committee on a
bipartisan vote. I thank Senator Lindsey Graham, who has used his
experience as a lawyer fighting for individuals as well as
corporations. He was able to recognize these talents, these skills, and
these qualities in Jack McConnell and support him. I appreciate that.
But we are here now in a situation where not only Jack McConnell, but
21 other nominees are pending. We have to do more. We have to get them
to a vote here in the Senate, and I will insist upon that vote as best
I can.
Again, the numbers don't lie. They suggest there is something going
on here, something that was not at work during the Reagan
administration, the George H.W. Bush administration, the Clinton
administration, and the George W. Bush administration, regardless of
which party was in the majority or the minority. Particularly, when it
came to District Court Judges, if they had cleared the Judiciary
Committee, if they had the support of the two Senators from the home
State, there would be at least an opportunity, an obligation, to bring
their nomination to a vote and let the Senate, as a whole, decide.
I urge that we return to what has been a dependable practice, one the
Senate has embraced for good reasons, that we let these gentlemen and
ladies come to the floor for a vote, and that we vote.
That is all we ask. I think if that is agreed to, it will provide for
not only the disposition of these nominations, but it will continue a
tradition of thoughtful, appropriate practice by this Senate.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues who are expressing
our frustration on the inability of the Senate to take up for
confirmation judges who have been approved by the Judiciary Committee.
You have heard our colleagues from Colorado, Minnesota and Rhode Island
and there are many others who have come down and given similar
circumstances about their judges being held up from a final vote.
I know next week we will be considering the nomination of Elena Kagan
to the Supreme Court of the United States and that will get a lot of
attention and rightly so. It should get a lot of attention.
Let me point out the facts. The Supreme Court will issue less than
100 opinions in a given year; whereas, our circuit courts of appeals
will issue many more opinions that will have a direct impact on the
lives of the people of this Nation. Most Americans who have contact
with a court are going to have contact with the district court and the
circuit court, where the cases are heard, where the juries are convened
in trials. So there is a great interest in making sure we have
confirmed judges for our intermediate appellate courts and our district
courts.
Here is the problem. The vacancies in these judgeships today are
about 11 percent of the court. More than 1 out of every 10 judicial
spots is vacant currently in the United States. My colleagues have told
you about the backlog. So let me try to put it in, I hope, terms that
those listening to this debate will understand as to why we are so
frustrated by the obstructionist tactics being taken by our Republican
colleagues.
Most nominees for judicial vacancies, once they have cleared the
Judiciary Committee, are brought forward under unanimous consent; that
is, if they have the support of their home State Senators, if there has
not been controversy in their nomination, if the Judiciary Committee
has approved them by a bipartisan vote, they will come to the floor of
the Senate by unanimous consent and will be handled that way.
Well, we are not able to do that because Republican Senators are
objecting to that process. So we go to the next level. We say: OK, if
we need to have debate on the floor, how much debate time do you need--
1 hour, 2 hours, 4 hours? Well, we cannot get consent to the number of
hours in order to debate the nominee and then vote on the nominee in an
up-or-down vote. The majority leader said we could have that time, but
they will not allow us to bring the nomination to the floor.
So then the only course the majority leader has will be to file a
cloture motion. A cloture motion takes several days, and we have 100
vacancies on our district and appellate courts. Obviously, we do not
have enough time.
So let me give you an example on the Fourth Circuit: Judge Barbara
Keenan. I chaired her confirmation hearing. I chaired that confirmation
hearing on October 3 of last year. The Judiciary Committee reported her
out by a voice vote on October 29. That was October 29 of last year. It
took us until March of this year to be able to get her nomination to
the floor, and then it was not by unanimous consent. It was not by a
consent as to the amount of time necessary to consider this nominee on
the floor and then a vote afterwards. It came to the floor through a
cloture motion the majority leader had to file--a cloture motion--
because we could not get consent to bring up her nomination almost 5
months after the committee acted on her nomination.
What happened with the cloture motion? It was approved 99 to 0 on the
floor of the Senate, and she was ultimately approved as an appellate
court judge by a 99-to-0 vote.
My point is simple: These were dilatory actions in order to slow down
the process of the confirmation of judges which my friends on the
Republican side have used. That is why we had these huge numbers. As my
colleague from Rhode Island pointed out, the numbers tell the facts.
There were twice as many judges confirmed by this time when a
Republican controlled the White House than there are today. In other
words, we are working at less than one-half the pace than when the
tables were turned. That is wrong.
My friend from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse, talked about two
vacancies we want to fill in the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit
includes the State of Maryland. The two vacancies we want to fill are
the North Carolinian spots, in which the two Senators--one a Democrat,
one a Republican--have recommended their confirmation: James Wynn and
Albert Diaz.
Well, we held that confirmation hearing--and I chaired that also--in
December of last year. The committee reported them out in January of
2010. In Mr. Wynn's case, the vote was 18 to 1; and in Mr. Diaz's case,
it was 19 to 0. Both of these judicial candidates were considered
``well qualified''--the highest rating by the American Bar
Association--and they would add greatly to the diversity on the Fourth
Circuit, a circuit that is not known for its diversity. James Wynn
would be the third African American to serve on the Fourth Circuit and
Albert Diaz would be the first Latino.
It is time--well past time--for these nominees to be confirmed by the
Senate. I do not think anyone doubts, once this issue is taken up, both
these individuals will be confirmed. Look at the votes in committee.
For noncontroversial judicial nominations, it has taken, on average,
2 months, after the Judiciary Committee has acted, for a district court
nominee to be considered by the full Senate; and over 4 months for a
circuit court of appeals nominee. That is not doing the work the Senate
should do. There have been dilatory actions in order to slow down the
process, and that is not what we should be doing as Members of the
Senate.
So I urge my colleagues, as my friends who have taken the floor today
have done, let's get on with the process of confirming these
noncontroversial judicial nominees. Let's give the people what they
deserve; that is, a full complement of their judges. We should do
better than we have done in the past. I urge us to put aside our
partisan differences. This is not a tactic that should be used. It is
time we move forward on the confirmation process.
[[Page S6482]]
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado, Mr.
Udall, and his staff for arranging this opportunity for us to speak on
what is a far more important issue than I would have imagined, oh, 20
years ago.
Before I came to the Senate, in 2001, I was privileged to serve as
Governor of my State for 8 years. I ran for that position in 1992, and
my opponent was a very good man named B. Gary Scott. During the course
of our campaign for the Governorship of Delaware, we had something like
30 or more joint appearances. All kinds of questions were raised by the
audience members at those joint appearances, and we would respond to
the questions that were raised.
I do not recall one question in any of those joint appearances
related to what kind of criteria we would use to consider nominees for
the judgeships in the State of Delaware. As it turns out, some of the
judgeships in Delaware, some of the courts in Delaware, have national
importance, national prominence--the Court of Chancery, the Delaware
State Supreme Court. That was an issue that never came up.
When I was fortunate enough to win, in 1993, I ended up, for the next
8 years, actually spending a lot of time thinking about the qualities
we should look for in the candidates for judgeships I would nominate to
all our courts and ask the Delaware State senate to confirm. I am
grateful to the State they confirmed them all.
I came to the Senate in 2001. I ran against a wonderful man, Bill
Roth, who had been our Senator for a long time. During our campaign, no
one ever raised with us, to my recollection: What kind of qualities
would you look for if you were in a position, as senior Senator, to
recommend judges to the President of the United States for our courts,
either for our district court or for the Third Circuit Court in which
we are a part?
But I had thought for years about the qualities I would look for, and
the qualities look something like this: I concluded that my job in
nominating people as Governor and in recommending people to this
President or other Presidents is that we ought to look for somebody who
is bright, smart, who knows the law, somebody who also embraces what I
call the Golden Rule, treats other people the way he or she wants to be
treated; that when they come before the court, the judge will treat all
sides the same; that they will not go into a hearing or a proceeding
having made up their mind; that they will show no favoritism to either
side.
I think it is important to nominate folks who have a strong work
ethic and who will work hard to find the right decision, that they will
have the ability to make a decision. Sometimes folks have a hard time
making decisions. They should not be judges. We need judges who can
make a decision and often the right decision.
That is sort of the criteria I used in my last job, and it is the
criteria I have used in my current position as I have suggested
people--now twice--to this President to consider for filling vacancies
on the U.S. district court in my State.
We have four district court judges in our State at most times; we
have that many judgeships. For several years, we have been down to
three. As of tomorrow, we will be down to two, with the retirement of
Judge Joe Farnan, who will step down for his well-earned retirement.
But last year, I was pleased to provide to our President the names of
three highly qualified Delawareans for him to consider for nomination
to the U.S. District Court in Delaware. I said at the time--and I say
here today--the talent pool from which I selected those three names was
the strongest pool I have seen in my 8 years as Governor and during the
time I have been here as a Senator. At least a half dozen of the people
who applied for that judgeship to be a Federal judge would make us all
proud. I could only select three and I selected three terrific
candidates and submitted those to the administration last year.
After careful deliberation, in March of this year, the President
selected one name, and he sent to the Senate the nomination of U.S.
magistrate Len Stark for a seat on the Delaware District Court.
Following his nomination in March, I was honored to introduce Len at
his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in
April. Ironically, the hearing was chaired by committee member Ted
Kaufman from Delaware. Judge Stark was well received by the committee
at that hearing and was unanimously approved by the committee in May of
this year.
So far so good. But since that time, for the last almost 3 months
now, that nomination has basically been held up. We have not had an
opportunity to debate it. We have not had an opportunity to vote on it,
through no fault of Judge Stark.
I think the lack of a U.S. district court judge in almost any State,
large or small, is a problem. When you happen to have a court with four
judgeships, and you are down to three, the workload does not go away.
The workload is the same. The judges have to work harder. That is fine
for a while. We go out and we literally borrow district court judges
from other States to come in and sit with our court in Delaware to try
to deal with the workload. That works for a while, but it is sort of
robbing Peter to pay Paul. They have work to do in their own States in
their own courts.
When you go from three to two, and you have two judges trying to do
the work of four, it does not work. It is not fair, and it means we
delay, in too many cases, the justice that is needed. I do not recall
who it was who said--I want to say it was William Gladstone, a former
British Prime Minister, who once said: Justice delayed is justice
denied. My fear is, if we find ourselves, next week, with two judges--
with two judges--in our district court, justice will be delayed and
justice will be denied.
Not everybody in this Chamber has a real understanding of who Len
Stark is and what kind of person he is. I wish to take a few minutes to
sort of introduce him to those who do not know him. Len Stark is a
fellow University of Delaware graduate. Unlike most people who
graduate--they maybe get an undergraduate degree with one major--when
he graduated, in 1991, he earned an undergraduate degree in economics
and an undergraduate degree in political science and he earned a
master's degree in history, all at the same time. He was an
extraordinary student at the University of Delaware. As a student there
he received a full scholarship as the Eugene du Pont Memorial
Distinguished Scholarship. Following graduation, he was twice honored
by his fellow students and alumni by serving as their commencement
speaker.
Immediately upon graduating from the University of Delaware, Len
Stark was elected a Rhodes Scholar. He studied at Oxford University. He
has authored numerous academic and scholarly publications, including a
book on British politics which he wrote--listen to this--in his spare
time during his studies at Oxford. After Oxford, Len then went on to
earn his law degree at Yale Law School where he served as senior editor
of the Yale Law Journal.
Len launched his legal career as a clerk for one of the most
distinguished judges to come out of Delaware in the last century--
Walter Stapleton--on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and after that
he practiced as a corporate litigator for the law firm of Skadden Arps.
Len began his public service as an assistant U.S. attorney for
Delaware, where from 2002 until 2007 he handled a wide variety of
Federal, criminal, and civil matters. Currently, Len Stark serves the
U.S. District Court of Delaware as a magistrate judge. In this position
he has already done much of the same work as a district court judge.
His docket consists of civil cases that are referred to him by the
three active district court judges--at least three active as of today,
not after tomorrow. On these referral cases, a great many of which are
patent infringement actions, Judge Stark handles all types of pretrial
matters, and in certain cases even presides at trial, just as he would
if he were confirmed as our new district court judge.
If I were half as accomplished as Len Stark is and half as smart as
he is, my colleagues wouldn't want to be in the same room with me. But
Len Stark is as humble a person as I know. He is a dedicated public
servant. He has a
[[Page S6483]]
great family. He is a dedicated husband, father, and person of great
integrity and character. In every facet of his life he has performed
with distinction, earning the highest praise from his colleagues and
many of the most prestigious awards given to legal scholars and public
servants.
I can sum this up by simply saying that Len Stark has the heart of a
servant. He has a big heart. A little State, Delaware, but we have a
guy with a heart as big as Texas. Judge Stark's position as magistrate
on the U.S. district court clearly provides him with the skills to be
not just an adequate district court judge, he will be an outstanding
district court judge.
Len's legal acumen, his tireless work ethic, and his experience as a
Federal magistrate judge, as assistant U.S. attorney and litigator,
have prepared him well for this seat on the U.S. district court in
Delaware.
I will be honest with you. It is hard to think of anybody who would
be a better candidate, a better choice to serve in this position. With
that having been said, we all know there are a bunch of good candidates
like Len Stark--Maybe not just like Len Stark, but people who are
equally qualified who should be serving in vacancies around the
country, and they ought to be confirmed.
I will close with this, before yielding to Senator Kaufman. I wish to
close with this: I have just come from a Bible study group. We meet
every Thursday for about a half an hour off the Senate floor with our
Senate Chaplain. It is sort of like an adult Sunday school class.
Democrats, Republicans there, people of different faiths.
One of the things Chaplain Barry Black is always reminding us to do
is to treat other people the way we want to be treated. He urges us to
live our faith. I don't care what faith we subscribe to, almost every
faith, that idea of treating other people the way we want to be treated
is a fundamental, basic tenet. It should be a fundamental, basic tenet
with the way we behave in the Senate, whether the Democrats are in the
majority or the Republicans are in the majority; whether the President
is a Democrat or the President is a Republican.
When we have somebody as good as this man is, Len Stark, and we have
such a dire need for a district court judge in the district court in
Delaware, I would just ask my Republican colleagues to put themselves
in our shoes to see if they can't find it in their hearts to give us
the opportunity to vote up or down on this nomination.
Thank you very much. I am pleased to yield the floor for my colleague
and friend from Delaware.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I 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. KAUFMAN. 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. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I rise to echo the comments of my
colleagues and object to the tactics being used by the minority in the
Congress to block and delay confirmation votes for President Obama's
judicial nominees.
I support this body's--I really do--I support this body's
longstanding tradition of respecting the rights of the minority. I
think it is one of the most important characteristics of the Senate. I
am not one of those who wants to change the filibuster rule. I think it
is important that we have a filibuster rule and that political
minorities in the Senate are respected and that their rights are
respected.
However, I think this practice of indiscriminately blocking
nominations serves no legitimate purpose. I don't see the time created
by the delay being used to meet with the nominee, to check the
nominee's credentials, or to review the nominee's scholarship,
speeches, or written opinion. This is delay for delay's sake.
Of the 27 district court nominees confirmed during this Congress,
only 1 has received a ``no'' vote so far, and even she was confirmed by
a vote of 96 to 1. Not a single member of the minority objected to 26
out of the 27 of these nominees. Yet someone forced them to wait for
weeks or months for an up-or-down vote.
The minority may say this is simply the way things are done in the
Senate, but that demonstrably is not the case. As this chart shows,
during the first Congress of the Bush administration, President Bush's
district court nominees waited for an average of 25 days to be
confirmed after being favorably reported out of the Judiciary
Committee. This pace was set when Democrats were in the majority party
for most of the 107th Congress and reflects a willingness to cooperate
with President Bush in a bipartisan manner.
In contrast, President Obama's district court nominees have been
pending for 74 days, on average, after being favorably reported out of
committee. This wait only seems to be getting longer. Sharon Coleman of
the Northern District of Illinois, the only judicial nominee to be
confirmed so far this month, waited almost 3 months to be confirmed 86
to 0.
This is unacceptable. These nominees are good men and women who have
agreed to put their lives on hold and submit to the scrutiny of the
Senate in order to serve our Nation. This body owes more to these
nominees for their sacrifices than to use them as instruments of delay
and obstruction. As long as the minority continues to stall these
nominees, then the American people will be deprived of the fair and
efficient administration of justice. We now have nearly 100 judicial
vacancies and more than 40 of them have been declared judicial
emergencies. One of these emergencies is located in the district of
Delaware.
After tomorrow, the district will be operating at half capacity with
only two out of four district judges confirmed to the bench. With this
concern in mind, I join with my senior Senator, Tom Carper, and urge my
colleagues to agree to consider the nomination of Leonard P. Stark to
the district court of the district of Delaware without delay.
Judge Stark was nominated on March 17 of this year. He received a
nominations hearing on April 22, and the Judiciary Committee reported
him out by a unanimous vote on May 14. Ranking Member Sessions has
called him ``a fine nominee'' whom he would support. As of today, no
Senator has raised any public objection to his nomination. So I am
confident that Judge Stark will be confirmed by an overwhelming margin,
perhaps unanimously, when he receives a final vote. However, he has
remained on the Senate Executive Calendar for 2\1/2\ months now without
justification or explanation.
Judge Stark has all the qualities required to be a successful
district judge. Since 2007, he has dutifully served the district of
Delaware as a magistrate judge and previously spent 5 years serving in
the district as an assistant U.S. attorney. In his career, he has
established himself as a talented, dedicated, and humble public servant
who possesses a strong work ethic and the highest integrity and
intellect.
He also has stellar academic credentials. He is a summa cum laude
graduate of the University of Delaware, a Rhodes Scholar, and a
graduate of Yale Law School, where he was editor of the Law Journal.
Following law school, he clerked for Judge Walter K. Stapleton of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Through his experiences in
private practice, as an assistant U.S. Attorney, and as a magistrate
judge, Leonard Stark has developed the knowledge, skills, and
temperament to be an outstanding district court judge.
Therefore, I support the unanimous consent request about to be made
by my colleague from Colorado to move to the consideration of several
well-qualified judges whose nominations have been delayed. I know Judge
Stark will be on that list.
I yield for the Senator from Colorado.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I believe over the last hour
and a half the Senate has heard from almost one-tenth of the body. Nine
Senators have come to the floor to talk about a litany of great
nominees for district court positions all over our country. The viewers
have heard and our colleagues have heard the importance of passing
these nominees through the process so we can deliver justice to our
[[Page S6484]]
citizens in all the ways that our courts operate. In that spirit,
therefore, I have a series of unanimous consent requests that I wish to
make at this time.
Unanimous-Consent Requests--Executive Calendar
Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that
at a time to be determined by the majority leader, following
consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to
executive session to consider the following nomination on the Executive
Calendar: Calendar No. 813, William Martinez, to be a U.S. district
court judge for the district of Colorado; that the nomination be
debated for up to 3 hours with time equally divided and controlled
between Senators Leahy and Sessions or their designees; that upon the
use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the
confirmation of the nomination; that upon confirmation, the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the President be
immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume
legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving the right to object, and I will object, I
wish to express a few thoughts before my colleagues who are here and
who wish to speak on another subject. I wish to be heard on the
nomination process and maybe I can be recognized after I make that
objection. Hoping to be so recognized, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, it is disappointing that we
can't get unanimous consent for an up-or-down vote on the Martinez
vote. I wish to make clear to all the Coloradans who watched the
proceedings today that I attempted to bring up this nomination for a
vote, along with my colleague, Senator Bennet, but the minority party,
as you have heard, has objected. It is a shame. I will not give up. I
will continue to work in every way possible with colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to confirm this important and impressive list of
nominees.
I shared Bill Martinez's story earlier with the full Senate. It is a
quintessential American story, and Bill Martinez deserves to serve on
our district court in Colorado.
Mr. President, let me move to this unanimous consent request: I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to
consider en bloc the following nominations on the Executive Calendar:
No. 656, Albert Diaz, U.S. circuit judge for the Fourth Circuit, and
No. 657, James Wynn, to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Fourth Circuit;
that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, and the motions to
reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that upon confirmation, the
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the
Senate then resume legislation.
Before the Chair rules, let me indicate that the Diaz nomination was
reported on a 19-to-0 vote. The Wynn nomination was reported with a
vote of 18 to 1.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SESSIONS. I do object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the Senate proceed to executive session to consider en bloc the
following nominations on the Executive Calendar:
No. 696, Louis Butler, to be a U.S. District Judge for the Western
District of Wisconsin; No. 697, Edward Chen, to be a U.S. District
Judge for the Northern District of California; No. 703, Benita Pearson,
to be a U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio; No. 948,
John J. McConnell, to be a U.S. District Judge for the District of
Rhode Island; that the nominations be debated concurrently for a total
of 4 hours, with the time equally divided and controlled between
Senators Leahy and Sessions or their designees; that upon the use or
yielding back of time, the Senate then proceed to vote on confirmation
of the nominations in the order listed; that upon confirmation, the
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the
Senate then resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SESSION. Objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I will continue to ask my
friend from Alabama to consider joining with me in approving these
unanimous consent requests.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session
and consider en bloc the following nominations on the Executive
Calendar:
No. 883, Michelle Childs, to be a U.S. District Judge, South
Carolina; No. 884, Richard Gergel, to be a U.S. District Judge, South
Carolina; No. 885, Catherine Eagles, to be a U.S. District Judge,
Middle District of North Carolina; No. 886, Kimberly Mueller, Eastern
District of California; No. 893, Leonard Stark, to be a U.S. District
Judge, District of Delaware; No. 917, John Gibney, to be a U.S.
District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia; No. 935, James
Bredar, to be a U.S. District Judge, District of Maryland; No. 936,
Ellen Hollander, to be a U.S. District Judge, District of Maryland; No.
937, Susan Nelson, to be a U.S. District Judge, District of Minnesota;
that the nominations be confirmed en bloc and the motions to reconsider
be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc; that the President
be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then
resume legislative session.
Before the Chair entertains the request, let me indicate that all of
the above nominees were reported unanimously or on a voice vote in the
Judiciary Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SESSIONS. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Colorado
raising these issues. The Senate does have a responsibility to treat
nominees fairly. I have worked to do that as ranking member of the
Judiciary Committee, and they are entitled to be considered on the
floor.
But things don't always go as smoothly as you would like. I will make
a couple of points that are very important.
President Obama's nominees are moving considerably faster--to both
circuit and district courts--than President Bush's nominees, many of
whom were subjected to incredibly unjustified actions to obstruct their
nominations. My good friend, the Senator from Delaware, says we should
use the Golden Rule. I would say that is always a good policy. I am
pleased that nominees are moving faster than President Bush's nominees
were moved. But if we ask for parity, consistency, and if we ask for
fairness, based on what was done to President Bush's nominees, they
would be held considerably longer, and a lot of nominees would never
even get a hearing, and they would wait for years.
I want to mention a few facts about these matters. President Obama's
circuit court nominees have waited for a hearing only 59 days, on
average. President Bush's nominees waited, on average, 176 days to even
have a hearing in the committee. Actually that was in his first
Congress, and the Republicans had a majority at that time. But they had
to wait 247 days to get a hearing for his entire Presidency. Whereas,
we are now having hearings in the Judiciary Committee in 59 days. We
had one yesterday, 14 days after the nomination of a district court
nominee. That doesn't sound like a railroad to me. President Obama's
district court nominees have waited for hearings only 45 days, on
average, while President Bush's district court nominees waited 120 days
for hearings in the committee. So they come out of committee at an
unprecedented rate. That is all right; we will deal with that. But
sometimes we have to ask ourselves, how fast should you move a nominee
to the floor? Should you have some time that the nominee lays over?
Let us talk about the time from nomination to confirmation. I guess
that is the ultimate test. How long do you wait between the time a
person is nominated until the time they are confirmed? President Bush's
circuit court
[[Page S6485]]
nominees, on average, waited 350 days from nomination to confirmation.
By contrast, President Obama's circuit court nominees, on average, are
being confirmed almost twice as fast, in 208 days.
Similarly, President Bush's district court nominees, on average--
people have said somehow this is unusual, the way President Obama's
nominees are being treated--waited 178 days from nomination to
confirmation. By contrast, President Obama's district court nominees,
on average, are being processed almost 2 months faster, about 130 days.
I think it is important to look at other processes that cause
disturbances in the Senate. It should not go unnoted that President
Obama bypassed the Senate and recess-appointed Donald Berwick as
Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services less
than 3 months after his nomination, and without even a Senate Finance
Committee hearing taking place. He was very controversial.
The reasoning offered was that the Republicans are blocking this
appointment and that he has to go forward. Without even having a
hearing? That is particularly odd, since that position was vacant for
16 months before we even had a nomination and hasn't had a confirmed
Administrator since 2006, and now they want to move it through with a
recess appointment, bypassing the confirmation process entirely,
without even having a hearing in the Finance Committee.
I have to note that the President has been slow to nominate. There
are now 100 vacancies in our courts--20 in the circuit courts and 80 in
the district courts--but only 48 nominations are before the Senate. So
the President has been a bit slow, perhaps, in making his nominations.
But he should take care; they don't have to be rushed. The Republic
won't collapse if there is a vacancy for a reasonable period of time.
But one reason the confirmations are as they are is because nominations
are not being submitted in a rapid way.
Look at the fourth circuit. A lot of complaints have been made about
the fourth circuit. This is stunning to me. You know the old story
about the man who killed his parents and then complained that he was an
orphan. One Bush nominee--a highly qualified nominee--for the fourth
circuit waited 585 days and never got a hearing. He was rated by the
American Bar Association as ``unanimously well qualified.'' He was a
presiding judge in the district court on which he served. He had served
in the Department of Justice. He had been point guard on the Clemson
basketball team in the ACC. I always thought that clearly meant he knew
how to make decisions if he could be a point guard at Clemson and dish
out the ball. He was also asked--out of the entire United States of
America--by Janet Reno to investigate President Clinton. She had so
much confidence in him, she picked him. He didn't indict the President.
You would think they would be appreciative of that. No, they blocked
him. He never got a hearing.
When President Bush left office, there were five vacancies on the
fourth circuit. What an outrage. They were systematically blocked by
the Senate and the Democrats, who are now complaining so piously, and
since that time, two have been filled. Now they are complaining that
some other vacancies haven't been filled. Give me a break.
Look, the nominations are moving rapidly out of the Judiciary
Committee. They are coming on the floor. When they get here, they get
caught up in all kinds of messes. The leaders on both sides have to
talk and they have to work out floor time. Some of these nominees are
going to have some debate about them. You have heard a number of names
mentioned. I point out to my friend from Colorado that Mr. Martinez had
a lot of ``no'' votes. He was a top lawyer with the ACLU in Colorado.
He doesn't seem to me to be the most mainstream nominee.
The American people are very tired of judges who get on the bench,
with lifetime appointments, and start advancing all kinds of agendas
and legislate from the bench. They expect this Congress to make sure
that whoever gets nominated will show restraint and will follow the
law, and follow their oath to serve under the Constitution and not
above it. So he is a controversial nomination.
Mr. Butler from Wisconsin--I know he is controversial. Mr. Butler has
twice run for the Supreme Court of Wisconsin and twice lost. He ran in
2000 and lost by a 2 to 1 margin. He was appointed to a vacancy on that
court in 2004, and then ran for election when term of the vacancy
ended. Those kinds of elections are normally won easily. He lost that,
because his reputation was that of one of the most pro-plaintiff judges
in the United States.
This is a serious concern when we appoint somebody on the bench with
a lifetime appointment and he can't be voted out of office. Others have
problems. Some of them are due to come up and be voted on for sure. It
just takes time. I am not able to make the decisions that the leaders
of our two parties make. They try to work out matters here. Some judges
come forward and some don't. I have kind of quit worrying about who
gets picked and who doesn't. That is above my pay grade.
I will say that, at least with regard to any fair analysis of the
numbers, the Obama administration judges are moving faster than the
Bush administration judges moved. There is a growing concern about the
philosophy that President Obama has about judges. He said that when he
looks for a judge, he wants to know if they have empathy. Empathy for
who? Which party does he have empathy for? He wants a judge who will be
willing to help advance ``a broader vision for what America should
be.'' I am not aware that judges need to be promoting visions. Whose
vision? My vision, or the judge's vision, or President Obama's vision?
Whose vision is the judge going to promote? Who is he going to have
empathy for? This party or that party?
The oath a judge takes is that they will do equal justice to the poor
and the rich, and they will serve impartially. I believe Chief Justice
Roberts' metaphor that a judge should be a neutral umpire is a simple
and beautiful way to say what a judge should be. That doesn't mean he
takes sides in a lawsuit because he has more empathy for one party than
the other.
We have a serious problem. This is the definition of activism. It
politicizes the court. These kinds of empathies and other matters are
not law; they are politics. We do not need politics in the court.
Some of these nominations are controversial and are going to take
some time to move forward. We are not a rubberstamp over here. We do
not intend to stand by and have this court packed with nominees who are
not absolutely committed to following the law as written whether or not
they like it.
The Constitution says in its Preamble: ``We . . . do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America,'' not
some constitution a judge who got appointed last week thinks it ought
to be but the one that actually was passed. Otherwise, we do not have
law in this country.
We have a great heritage of law. We have a responsibility to move
nominations. I made a commitment to the President, to Chairman Leahy,
to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that to the extent I am
able to do so, we are going to treat nominees fairly. We are not going
to misrepresent their records. Certain nominees are going to be moved
forward. I expect I will vote for over 90 percent of the nominees,
giving deference to President Obama. Some of them I may be worried
about, but I am not certain they are not going to be faithful to the
law. I am going to give the President deference, and I am going to vote
for them. If I do have objections, I am going to raise those
objections. I believe the American people expect this Senate to
scrutinize a nominee to make sure they will be faithful to the law and
follow it whether or not they like it.
My colleagues know a lot of these nominees. They care about them. It
does seem like a long time. Perhaps we ought to get together, I say to
Senator Udall, in a ``do unto others'' situation and see whether we can
figure a way to be more effective in moving nominations as a whole and
not have it change if Republicans were to elect a President next time.
How we really got into the controversy--and I will conclude with
this--was President Clinton had almost 95, 98 percent of his nominees
confirmed. When President Bush got elected, Democratic Senators--
Senator
[[Page S6486]]
Udall was not here then--met in a retreat. This is according to a New
York Times article. Appearing at the retreat were Marcia Greenberger,
Laurence Tribe, and Cass Sunstein--three very aggressive, liberal
lawyers who believe that judges should be activists to promote the law,
advance the law in a certain way. The report was that agreement had
been reached to change the ground rules of confirmations.
That is exactly what happened. President Bush nominated eight judges.
He nominated Roger Gregory, an African American who had been nominated
by President Clinton but was not confirmed before President Clinton
left office, as a gesture of good faith. He nominated another Democrat,
I think out of his 8 or 10, within a few months. Those were promptly
confirmed. The rest of them waited months and years. Some never got
confirmed. A filibuster took place that we had never seen before. We
even had Justice Sam Alito filibustered by the Senate, one of the most
fabulous nominees we have seen and who is doing a great job on the
Supreme Court. All of this never happened before. It was quite a
change. We are having more difficulties now than we probably should
have.
I say to Senator Udall, I appreciate his commitment to the nominees
he knows and respects and would like to see confirmed. I am sorry they
have not been brought up as quickly as he would like. When they get out
of committee, it basically becomes a leadership matter. They have a lot
of issues on the agenda, and frequently good nominees can get tied up
in them.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I listened intently to my
friend from Alabama. I have had the opportunity when I have presided to
listen to him share his point of view with the Senate. As always, he is
articulate and passionate.
Before I make two unanimous consent requests, I wish to make some
brief remarks. I see a number of colleagues on the Senate floor.
I heard the comments about the time in which the Judiciary Committee
is considering these nominees. And there are numbers and there are
numbers, but the number that stands out to me, as I mentioned earlier,
is we have 100 judicial vacancies, which the Senator from Alabama
acknowledged. Forty-two of those are considered judicial emergencies by
the bodies that oversee and monitor the judiciary. The Senate has
confirmed 24 nominees so far this year and 36 total since President
Obama was elected. Those are historic lows. That is the fewest number
of judges confirmed in 50 years. We may have accelerated the process by
which nominees are considered, but we have not accelerated the process
by which they are confirmed so they can serve on a circuit court or a
district court.
The Senator talked about a nominee who was in limbo for 8 years, and
I heard the passion with which he thinks that was a wrong. But two
wrongs do not make a right. We need to get our courts fully staffed
with jurists who want to serve.
I heard piety mentioned. The eight of my colleagues who came to talk
about filling the district and circuit courts--I did not hear a lot of
piety; I heard a need and a desire to fill the courts so citizens'
rights can be maintained and justice can be delivered, whether it is in
criminal or civil settings.
Finally, with all due respect to my friend from Alabama, I will wait
until we hopefully have a debate on the floor about Bill Martinez to
tell all the 99 Senators what a marvelous candidate he is and what a
strong member of the bench he would be. We will set that debate aside
until I hope, I say to Senator Sessions, we actually can discuss the
Bill Martinez confirmation on the floor.
Unanimous Consent Requests--Executive Calendar
In that spirit, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to
executive session to consider en bloc the following nominations on the
Executive Calendar: No. 891, Goodwin Liu, to be a U.S. circuit judge
for the Ninth Circuit; and No. 933, Robert Chatigny, to be a U.S.
circuit judge for the Second Circuit. I ask unanimous consent that
those nominations be debated concurrently for a total of 4 hours, with
the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Leahy and
Sessions or their designees; that upon use or yielding back of time,
the Senate then proceed to vote on the confirmation of the nominations
in the order listed; that upon confirmation, the motions to reconsider
be considered made and laid upon the table, the President be
immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume
legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving the right to object, I do say to my
colleague, perhaps we should, in the spirit of harmony, work together
and see if we can get a commitment that will be binding, not just for
this Congress but perhaps one in the future, that would do a little
better job than we have done in moving nominations. I do think there is
room for criticism and we could do better. And I feel a responsibility,
I say to Senator Udall, to work with good people on the other side to
try to do that.
With regard to these two nominees, Mr. Chatigny is a controversial
nominee. He stayed the execution of a serial murderer, and, among other
things he did, he found that sexual sadism was a mitigating factor that
would mitigate against him receiving the death penalty after he had
been duly convicted and sentenced by a Connecticut jury.
Mr. Liu is probably the most controversial activist nominee before
the Senate. He has written that people have a constitutional right to
welfare. He would be very controversial.
I say with regard to those two, when they are brought up, Majority
Leader Reid will have to be sure there is considerable time available
so the debate can be effective.
For those reasons, Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. The concerns of the Senator from Alabama are
his, and they are most likely shared by others. The point I am trying
to make is, let's bring nominees to the floor, have that debate, fully
consider their records, and then have an up-or-down vote.
Mr. President, moving to my last unanimous consent request, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to
consider en bloc the following nominations on the Executive Calendar:
No. 892, Raymond Lohier, to be U.S. circuit judge for the Second
Circuit of New York; and No. 934, Scott Matheson, to be U.S. circuit
judge for the Tenth Circuit; that the nominations be debated
concurrently for a total of 4 hours, with the time equally divided and
controlled between Senators Leahy and Sessions or their designees; that
upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate then proceed to vote
on confirmation of the nominations in the order listed; that upon
confirmation, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid
upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's
action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SESSIONS. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I look forward to working with
the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Vermont to move all of
these worthy nominations to the floor. I appreciate the conversation we
have had.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The small business bill is pending, H.R. 5297.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed
as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Tribute to Ben Weingrod
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to make note of the fact that a young
man who has worked with me for 3 years in this body and who is present
on the floor today will be leaving to go to graduate school.
I thank Ben Weingrod for his tremendous service to the Senate. Maybe
this will be his last opportunity to be a
[[Page S6487]]
staff member in a floor proceeding. I express my gratitude to him for
his service to our country and as a member of our staff over the past 3
years. I thank him very much.
Free-Trade Agreements
I rise today to talk about the importance of our relationship with
Latin America and the role that free trade plays in those
relationships. In particular, I wish to emphasize the need for action,
in my view, by the Congress to implement free-trade agreements signed
with the nations of Colombia and Panama. President Obama described the
importance of these agreements in his State of the Union Address
earlier this year. I know the President and the U.S. Trade
Representative are currently working on the remaining details, and it
is my hope that the President will soon submit legislation to the
Congress to implement these agreements.
While the recession has been a challenge to economies across the
globe, it also has given us the opportunity to soberly reevaluate our
global relationships and look to build stronger partnerships in places
we may have overlooked in the past. The most logical place, in my view,
to start that review is Latin America.
For too long, American policy has treated Latin America as our
backyard, and our policies toward the region have run the spectrum from
shortsighted and unsophisticated to arrogant and paternalistic. The
narrative of our relationship has been based on the negative, often
ignoring and glossing over the important economic, political, and
social advances that have been made in the region. The truth is that
Latin America is not our backyard at all but part of our common
neighborhood. We share far more than a hemisphere with our neighbors in
this region. We share a common history, common goals, common
opportunities, and a common future.
From my time as a Peace Corps volunteer in the Dominican Republic to
my current chairmanship of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee in the
Senate, I have had the opportunity to watch this region change
dramatically over almost the last half century. Thinking back over the
past three decades of my service in the Senate, the progress in many
ways has been astounding, and it is time our regional policies
reflected these changes.
Embracing these free-trade agreements is an important first step to
achieve these goals. They will help to cement our regional partnerships
and make important strides in shifting the story of the United States
and Latin America from conflict to engagement, from division to
empowerment.
I had the opportunity to visit almost every one of these countries in
the region over the last 6 or 7 months and have seen these changes
firsthand. In my conversations with numerous leaders and citizens, I
have come to see not just problems and conflicts but, rather,
remarkable, positive changes and opportunities.
Panama, for example, has been a critically important strategic and
commercial partner of the United States. The United States, in fact,
helped Panama gain its independence, and in 1914, the construction of
the Panama Canal, as my colleagues will certainly recall, was
completed.
Since that time, Panama has developed into an advanced economy based
on professional-level services and is currently a destination of $4.4
billion worth of American goods. Despite its small size--3.4 million
people, smaller than the population of my State of Connecticut--Panama
rates in the top 50 of our trading partners globally.
Panama has also made important strides in building democratic
institutions. Over the last 20 years, five civilian governments have
been elected. With each new election, its commitment to human rights
and respect for the rule of law has grown stronger. Challenges,
obviously, still remain, particularly in the areas of human
trafficking, violence against women, and increasing transparency in the
banking and financial sectors. But Panama has made progress--great
progress--and I am confident that the Martinelli government is
committed to continuing this trend and to implementing solutions.
Mr. President, Panama is focused on becoming a financial and economic
hub in Latin America. Passing the Panama Free Trade Act would give
American businesses access to Panamanian markets. Today, tariffs and
barriers remain on all goods and services sold in that country. By
eliminating those barriers and tariffs on the overwhelming majority of
goods and services, we could increase tremendously the job
opportunities not only in my State but others around the country, and
it would allow us to take advantage of the economic dynamism occurring
in that country.
It is estimated upon implementation of a free-trade agreement with
Panama, nearly 88 percent of U.S. commercial and industrial exports to
Panama would become duty free, and Panama would be required to phase
out tariffs on over 60 percent of all U.S. agricultural exports. This
would lead to more U.S. exports to Panama and more jobs at home in the
United States. This is good news for American workers, for farmers, and
for small businesses and consumers alike.
Yet strengthening our partnership with Panama is not the only
opportunity for increasing our engagement in Latin America. Our pending
agreement with Colombia presents, as well, a chance to move forward in
our renewed commitment to engagement and empowerment in Latin America.
I believe this will have significant positive benefits over time.
Colombia has weathered a civil war that has lasted longer than most
Colombians have been alive. Fueled by narcotrafficking, this war has
claimed the lives of thousands of innocent Colombians, from farmers and
shopkeepers to judges, elected officials, candidates, and community
leaders, and has left countless more homeless in that country.
In fact, there are nearly 3 million internally displaced persons
living within the country of Colombia today. Colombia still must
improve its human rights protections and strengthen its commitment to
the rule of law, but great changes have occurred on the positive side.
I understand why, of course, some may question moving forward with
this agreement. I firmly agree we must not ignore these very real
challenges in Colombia. But I also recognize that tremendous progress
has been made in Colombia. I recently spent time there, as I did in the
neighboring Andean countries, and the common belief is that great steps
have been made in moving in the right direction. Mechanisms are in
place today that will strengthen the rule of law, protect human rights,
and Colombia recently held, as we all know, its most free and open
election in decades.
In just 1 weeks' time, Colombia will mark a historic, dramatic
transition to power from President Uribe to President-elect Santos.
This peaceful democratic transition is an important marker in
Colombia's history, and the President-elect has committed himself to
strengthening Colombia's judicial system and working to reduce violence
against labor leaders and others.
The Colombian people have pursued a fresh start, and we must
recognize this and be willing to do the same. By passing the Colombia
Free Trade Agreement, we have a historic opportunity to do just that.
This agreement, with its strong commitment to labor standards,
environmental protections, and human rights will help shape Colombia's
course to encourage its move toward a more open and democratic system
and to build a relationship based on common values and not common
enemies. This is an important opportunity that continues on the heels
of the nearly 10 years of U.S. support for Colombia, including billions
of dollars in aid through Plan Colombia.
Allowing this agreement to continue to languish now poses a
significant roadblock, in my view, to continued reform in Colombia
because it calls into question our Nation's commitment to a sincere and
ever more important partnership. We need to act now, in my view, to
affirm our commitment to the Colombian people, to show them that we
recognize the hard work they have done and to signal that the United
States will be a strong partner in their continued improvement.
Over the course of my career in the Senate, we have considered a
number of trade agreements. I have evaluated each one, as I know my
colleagues have, on its merits. Some I have supported strongly, and
many others I
[[Page S6488]]
have opposed just as strongly, including ones for Latin America. A poor
free-trade agreement can undermine very important protections for
workers, human rights, and the environment. So I opposed the Central
American Free Trade Agreement much to my pain and disappointment. But
that was a weak agreement which did not deserve the support of this
body.
These two agreements are different because since May 10 we have
strengthened those labor protections, environmental protections, and
human rights protections. I believe this agreement is deserving of our
support. In the case of these two agreements, they are a commitment to
our allies, and a signal to our friends that we value our partnerships
and will continue to work with them to promote our shared values of
democracy, the rule of law, and economic opportunity. As such, what
they represent is much more significant than simply the exchange of
goods and services between nations.
Trade agreements such as the ones before us represent opportunities
to build long-lasting partnerships as well. I believe that is the case
with the Panamanian and Colombian agreements before us. With the
inclusion of the provisions of the bipartisan May 10 agreement on
labor, environmental, and human rights standards, I believe we have
addressed some of the most significant concerns about these two trade
agreements. I also believe that because these trade deals and
agreements have languished for so long, they have turned some
opportunities into roadblocks to the success of our bilateral and
regional relationships. It simply makes no sense to continue the delay.
It is time to pass these two trade agreements in order to help move our
economy forward as well.
Passage of these agreements is not just a good foreign policy
decision; they also make strong economic sense as well. Currently,
goods from Colombia and Panama flow north largely unhindered. Yet
American businesses and American workers and the jobs, products, and
services we provide are subject to significant duties and tariffs when
we export goods to the nations of Panama and Colombia.
For example, while the vast majority of goods from Colombia enter the
United States duty free, American goods exported to Colombia face
average duties of 12 percent and, in some cases, as high as 20 percent.
This is costing America jobs and American business. If we implement
this agreement, we would eliminate many--as I mentioned earlier, almost
90 percent--of these duties and tariffs on these services and products
nationwide, and U.S. exports to Colombia would increase, we are told,
by a projected $1 billion annually.
In 2009, more than $14 billion worth of goods were exported by
Connecticut firms to markets all over the world. According to the
latest available data from my State--the Department of Economic and
Community Development--Connecticut firms exported about $91 million
worth of goods to Colombia and roughly $15 million of goods to Panama.
Connecticut businesses export a variety of products to these nations,
particularly chemical products, manufactured machinery, transportation
equipment, computers, electronic products, and paper goods.
Under the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, 80 percent of all consumer
and industrial goods, which include the categories I just listed,
become duty free immediately. In addition, 88 percent would become
immediately duty free once the Panama agreement is ratified as well.
What can this mean for the future? Well, certainly jobs. The
International Trade Administration calculates that nearly one-third of
all manufacturing workers in my State depend on exports for their jobs,
and more than 4,000 companies engage in exporting some kind of products
to these nations. Of those firms, 89 percent were small or medium-sized
businesses--precisely the firms that President Obama's Export
Initiative targets--that will be well positioned to take advantage of
these agreements once they are ratified. This means expanded economic
opportunities for workers in our own country and businesses in our
various States across the Nation.
The Panama and Colombia Free Trade Agreements were established over 2
years ago. They have been the subject of intense scrutiny and public
debate. They have benefitted by the input of the Congress, through the
historic May 10 agreement, which I described earlier, that saw the
inclusion of binding, enforceable, and meaningful labor, public health,
and environmental standards. These discussions have allowed the
Congress and the American people to critically examine the importance
of these trade agreements and our partnerships with these key allies.
I urge support of these trade agreements before us not in spite of
our current economic situation but because of it. This recession
demands bold moves and innovation. It requires us to strengthen our key
economic partnerships and to expand into new markets where we can. Now
is not the time to close our borders to nations with whom we already
have strong ties. History shows that erecting barriers to trade has the
potential for deepening the global recession. Conversely, these
agreements mean more economic opportunities for American workers and
our families.
It is time for us to change the way we relate to the world,
particularly in Latin America. For too long we have used our
differences in this region with our allies as an excuse not to act, as
a reason to disengage. These agreements offer us a chance to refresh
that paradigm, to make the United States a proactive partner in
fostering economic opportunity by bringing us closer together and
promoting our shared values.
It is time, in my view, for the United States of America to lead a
global economic recovery. A small but important step down that road is
the passage of the Panamanian and Colombian Free Trade Agreements, and
I urge my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, to support these
agreements. I hope we can do so before we adjourn this session of
Congress.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Education Reform
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the President of the United States made
an important speech this morning. He spoke to the National Urban League
Centennial Conference on Education.
Every speech a President makes is important, but this speech is
especially important, and I commend the President for his courage, for
his vision, and for his willingness to undertake the hard work of
helping children across this country learn what they need to know and
be able to do, and the competence with which he is doing that.
Let me be specific about why I say that. No. 1, the President began
with teachers. He extolled teachers. He said he wanted to lift them up
as high as he could, he wanted them to be on the front pages of
magazines, and for us to dignify them in every way we could. But he
didn't back away from tackling the most important and the most
difficult challenge that any of us who have dealt with education reform
have found; that is, how do we reward outstanding teachers. Especially,
how do we tie that reward to student achievement? In other words, what
can we do to help reward and encourage those outstanding men and women
who help our children learn, particularly our children who are having
the hardest time learning?
All of us know a great teacher makes a great difference. The
President said that himself. Each of us in the Senate knows that. But
any of us who have, over the last several years, spent time trying to
find ways to reward outstanding teaching knows how hard it is.
I worked on it in 1983 when Tennessee became the first State to
reward outstanding teaching. Not one State at that time paid one
teacher one penny more for being a good teacher. They could make more
money for being around a long time. They could make more money for
getting a degree. But they didn't make more money at all if the
children were succeeding.
For a while that worked because we were able to capture women. They
had very few options and they became saints in the classroom and they
were our teachers. But in the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s, women
had many options, and they took them. In the companies where they went
to work, they were paid more for excellence. They made good salaries.
As a result, it
[[Page S6489]]
became more difficult to attract and keep outstanding men and women in
our classrooms.
Governor Graham, who was later a Senator, tried the same thing in
Florida. Governor Clinton--later a President--was trying many of the
same ideas in Arkansas. Those were the 1980s. Every education meeting I
go to comes down to the same point: After you get past the role of the
parent, the teacher is the center of it. Whether a child is a gifted
child or whether a child comes from a home where he or she does not
have breakfast, or whether a child comes from a home where he or she
has never been read a book until they are 7, whether a child needs to
be in school 12 hours a day or 8, on Saturdays or not, the teacher at
the center of the education of that school is the indispensable product
and the best and most important part of a child's ability to achieve
and to learn.
What the President has done--through the Teacher Incentive Fund that
he has continued to encourage, and through his leadership on the
subject--deserves credit and support from all Americans. I for one am
here to offer him that.
Second, he talked about charter schools. He is not the first to do
that either. I remember as Education Secretary on my last week in
office, in 1993, I wrote a letter to all the superintendents in America
to encourage them to try charter schools. At the time they were the
invention of a few Democratic liberal reformers in Minnesota. There
were maybe a dozen charter schools at that moment. But charter schools
were simply ``start over'' schools. It was simply saying to a faculty:
Let's start over. What if we took off the rules and regulations and
gave you the freedom to do with the children who are presented to you
what they need, so if you need to start at 7 in the morning and finish
at 7 in the night, do it. If you need 2-hour classes, do it. If you
need 200 days a year instead of 180 days at school, do that as well. If
you need to learn during Easter holidays, do that.
Who are the beneficiaries of the charter schools? When they work, the
beneficiaries are most often the children who come from the most
difficult circumstances.
I can point to a charter school in Memphis I visited 3 years ago
where it was an Easter holiday. The children there were ninth or tenth
graders. Instead of being on Easter holiday, they were studying for
their advanced placement course in biology at the freshman or sophomore
level. There was not any other school in Tennessee where children that
age were studying advanced placement biology, especially during the
Easter week break.
President Obama has done what President Bush did, what President
Clinton did, what Vice President Gore did, what I have done, what many
others have done, which is to say: Let's have independent public
charter schools and give teachers the freedom to do what they know how
to do. The first thing is rewarding outstanding teaching. As the late
Albert Shanker, the head of the American Federation of Teachers, used
to say: If we can have master plumbers, we can have master teachers,
and we can pay them accordingly, pay them very well, and let's have
charter schools and give teachers the freedom to do what they in their
own good judgment know to do.
The third thing the President talked about was high standards. That
is also not a new idea but he has advanced it down the road very well.
Higher standards are an indispensable part of a good education in
kindergarten through the 12th grade.
The way I used to help Tennesseans learn about that was to say look
at all these big new auto plants that are coming into our State. To get
a job there, you have to know a lot more today than you did when your
parents might have worked there, or your grandparents. You have to know
algebra and statistics. You have to know English well to be able to
communicate. In other words, the standards are high if we are going to
compete in the world and keep our high standard of living.
While a lot of work has been done by the Governors of the country
through ACHIEVE, the President has advanced the idea of common
standards very well in the last 18 months, and he has done it in the
right way. He has not said: Okay, I am the President; we will write it
from Washington. That would have killed it--or at least I hope it would
have killed it. He didn't say that. He said let's create an environment
in which States can make a difference and make their own choices, and
States, in surprisingly large numbers, are beginning to do that, in
terms of reading and math.
The fourth area the President spoke about, and this is his own
initiative, is the Race to The Top. This is infusing one of the hardest
things that is possible to infuse in public education and that is
excellence. We have a democratic society. We are usually interested in
leveling things. If we have five things, one goes to each person.
What is hard for us to do in government, and that means public
education as well, is to say let's reward excellence. Let's say to
those school districts or to those States or those teachers or those
others who are making the A-pluses and the A's and doing the best job,
we want to incentivize you to do that. He has found a way to do that.
It is a fair way. He has kept politics out of it. He has put money into
it and he deserves credit for it.
Finally, he has picked a very good Secretary of Education. I said
when Arne Duncan was appointed that he might be the President's best
appointment. I still think that. That is not because I agree with
everything Arne Duncan has recommended. In fact, I think he was
completely wrong about the student loan takeover. I think his proposal
on gainful employment, which is an obscure higher education thing and a
different subject, is, with all respect, a little wacky. But what I
think is he is an excellent leader for education, and he has a big
heart and he has worked in a bipartisan way, and he has gotten results
that are as good as anybody could possibly have gotten on some of the
toughest subjects facing our country.
The President and Arne Duncan deserve our applause and support for
their efforts. We will have differences of opinion about how much we
can spend and when we can spend it, but if the goal is to reward
outstanding teaching, to create more charter schools, to help States
raise standards in an environment where they are not told to do so by
Washington, but create an environment to do it themselves; if the goal
is to infuse excellence into public higher education by challenging
States to do better, then we should be for that and we should do it
together.
I think President Obama has the opportunity in public education to do
what President Nixon did in China. It may be easier for a Democratic
President to make these changes or to lead the country in these changes
than it would be for a Republican President, just as it was easier for
a Republican President in the early 1970s to cause us to have an
opening to China. That is a large claim to make but I think it is an
equally important goal.
About the only thing I disagreed with today in the President's speech
was this. He said teachers were the most important part of a child's
education. I think a parent is and I think he does, too. I think he
would agree. I think parents and teachers are 90 percent of it and it
starts with the parent. The reason I think he would agree with that is
because he had good parents and he is a good parent and a very good
example to the rest of the country.
Anyone who has read his biography, ``The Audacity of Hope,'' knows
the story of his mother getting him up at 4 o'clock in the morning in
Indonesia and teaching him math and to read and telling him: Buster,
it's not any fun for me so get busy and learn, and he learned very
well. His example as a good parent and good student is exactly the kind
of example we need for students and parents across our country.
This is a time when we have differences of opinion on many issues. I
will have some differences of opinion with the President on education,
as I mentioned. But I have no lack of enthusiasm for the importance of
his leadership on K-12 education, on rewarding outstanding teaching, on
giving teachers the freedom to create schools in which they can use
their common sense, on creating high standards, on the Race to The Top,
on setting a good example as a good parent, and I thought it was
important--perhaps especially for a Republican Senator who spent a
number of years
[[Page S6490]]
working on these issues as Education Secretary and president of a
university and Governor--to come to the floor and say: Good work, Mr.
President. An excellent address. And on those broad issues and themes,
you have my full support.
The President's remarks can be found at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/
the-pre
ss-office/remarks-president-education-reform-national-urban-league-
centen
nial-conference.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I come for a few minutes on the floor. I
am down here with Senator Wyden from Oregon, and I want to talk a
little bit and probably in an informal way about a piece of
legislation, a bipartisan piece of legislation on tax fairness and
simplification.
There is one thing I hear a lot about when I go back home and when I
was running for office, when I was mayor, and serving in our city
government--how do you simplify the process of taxes, making them
fairer for the middle class.
For all my time prior to serving in the Senate, I have thought about
these ideas and ways we can move forward. When I was mayor, we
simplified the business taxes for our small businesses, making it
easier and simpler, lowering their tax burden, for our residents doing
the same thing.
Here I am in the Senate and I look at lots of legislation every day,
as I know you do, Mr. President, and I know the Senator from Oregon
does. We see all sorts of ideas created and put on the table, and one
which intrigued me was the Wyden-Gregg bill, which is focused on
simplifying the tax paperwork mill, I call it, that we are subjected to
every single year as individuals; the mound of paper we have to fill
out not only as an individual but as a small businessperson trying to
go through the rules and regulations and what is a reasonable amount of
taxation that we should pay; also, the complicated system in what is
owed or hopefully refunded back to us because we overpaid the IRS.
As I looked at a lot of different ideas, I have to tell you this
idea--as we debate here on the floor a small business plan, small
business ideas--sooner or later we will debate the Bush tax cuts and
what we will do with those. To me, there is a simpler solution when it
comes to issues of taxation, what we are going to do lowering the tax
burden on small business, lowering the tax burden on the middle class,
and simplifying it. Today there are so many different things we have to
worry about and focus on: multiple retirement accounts we are trying to
balance, trying to figure out who is a dependent, who is not, doing our
returns--how to simplify this so our life is less burdened by the IRS.
I want to first commend Senator Wyden and Senator Gregg for their
work in multiple years pushing this issue forward, trying to figure out
how we can help the middle class and the small business people of this
country lower their tax burden; getting the IRS, as we would say back
home in Alaska, out of our pockets. They have done a good job.
If there is no objection from the Presiding Officer, if it is OK, I
will ask Senator Wyden to join me here with couple of questions.
Sometimes you look at these bills and you wonder are they too good to
be true. Here we have, if I am not mistaken, not only the Heritage
Foundation and some of the more conservative groups as well as the more
liberal groups, the Brookings Institution and others, commenting
positively about this legislation. In my year and a half here I have
not seen that on anything.
We have Republicans and Democrats who are looking at it positively.
We have business groups that look at it positively because it lessens
their burden and allows them to reinvest in their businesses, to grow
this economy. It reduces the deficit, which I know Senator Wyden,
myself, and others--like yourself, Mr. President--are concerned about--
the growing deficit and the burden it may lay onto future generations.
But it also has true tax reduction, tax relief for the middle class
and businesses. When you see something such as that--and, by the way,
you can also do this in one page, a one-page return. When you hear
those kinds of things, those claims, you are wondering, What is the
catch? What does the small print say? What are you going to get hooked
into and pay a pretty good price for later? We have been going through
it, I have been going through it. Actually when you first introduced it
before I was a Senator, I looked at this legislation when I campaigned.
Here I am now in the Senate with a chance to participate, to see what
we can do to accelerate this.
We are going to talk a lot about the tax extender bill and other tax
issues in the future. But my view is it is time to reform the system.
The system is broken. The middle class is paying higher than they
should. Small businesses are burdened with incredible paperwork and
increased costs. It is time that we reform the system and do something
that is dramatic and makes a difference.
Today it is an honor to be down here. Senator Wyden, I hope doesn't
mind; I have extracted off of every piece of his Web site every
document related to this, the research to understand it, to make sure I
do not see that small print that later I might regret. So far what I
have seen is small print, big print, that I do not regret and that is
why a few weeks ago I cosponsored the legislation to be one of those
who joined the team, to move us forward to real reform.
I know when I joined, Senator Bob Bennett from Utah also joined on--
again, focused on the same issues we are, again keeping it a
bipartisan, fair, simplification of taxes.
No one likes to talk about taxes. No one loves to be around April 15.
But the fact is, it does occur. So how do we make the burden less on
middle-class America?
How do we make the burden less on small businesses? This bill does
it. So, again, I say to the Senator from Oregon, I wish to make sure I
am saying the right stuff. So maybe the Senator could comment back to
me. But it does have a positive impact. Correct me if I am wrong, but I
think the numbers, for example, on average for a small business, they
are pretty much going to be guaranteed they are going to save at least
$5,000 in taxes and more, depending on the size of their business.
For middle-class America, they are clearly going to save. Their rates
will be lower, which means their cash out of their pocket will be less
to the IRS, meaning the IRS is not reaching in there, not only in your
front pocket but your back pocket. They will have less capacity to do
that.
Tell me, I hope I am right on this and I do not want to mislead--the
public is watching--but also make sure I am correct.
Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague. I especially appreciate his kind
words about a piece of legislation Senator Gregg and I sat for the
better part of 2 years working on. I think everyone appreciates
colleagues supporting their legislation. I appreciate the Senator's
kind words.
I think he is right with respect to the relief, and colleagues will
see that, whether it is the Heritage organization or the Brookings
Institution or the various analyses that have been done by other
groups. But I think it is especially important, even apart from our
piece of legislation, that we get at the central question the Senator's
talking about, which is, the current tax system is broken. It is
broken, and we are not going to get the country where we need to go by
just kind of tinkering here and tinkering there.
I wish to give a couple examples because I think the central question
is, Are we going to make a break with a broken system and look forward
or are we going to do what has been done year after year after year,
which is to just to tinker with a broken system and cause more
problems?
Here is the heart of it. What we are seeing today is that every few
years there are thousands of changes in tax law. So that means all the
small businesses--and you were a small business leader before you came
to the Senate--all those small businesses, trying to compete in the
tough global market, incredibly competitive markets, do not even have
any certainty and predictability of what is ahead. They are not in a
position to be able to know what the Federal Government and
particularly the IRS is going do in terms of taxes, and that drains
additional chances for them to make changes in
[[Page S6491]]
their production, in their workplace, productivity areas. It defies
common sense. So the fact that there are these thousands of changes
every few years, in my view, is very antibusiness, and particularly
antismall business.
Then, the second point that the Senator touched on deals with
individuals. The reality is, today, the current tax system is so
complicated that most Americans do not even know when a tax break has
been extended to them.
The Senator and I have talked about it. It seems to me Senator Begich
made the central point here. In the stimulus legislation, in the
Recovery Act, there were $300 billion worth of tax cuts put into that
legislation--$300 billion worth of tax cuts. If we left today and
walked the streets in Anchorage or Portland or Gresham or wherever and
asked people about the stimulus legislation, people would know
virtually nothing about any tax incentives.
Mr. BEGICH. If I may interject.
Mr. WYDEN. Please.
Mr. BEGICH. That is actually right. One thing I thought, wow, $300
billion tax relief, predominately for middle-class America. I thought
my phone would be ringing off the hook with people saying: Wow, what a
great relief. If we got 1 e-mail on this out of the 1,000 or so e-mails
and phone calls we get every single week, I would be surprised.
Because, as the Senator said, it is a complicated system we have, and
when we do relief, no one will even notice it. That is why I was so
attracted to Senator Wyden and Senator Gregg's proposal, because it is
reform. It is changing the system for the better. It is ensuring that
middle-class America, making sure small businesses benefit.
That is when I was shocked, actually. I know if I was back in the
mayor's office when we did the small business relief, making sure 90-
plus percent of our small businesses did not have to fill out the
paperwork anymore and got relief, I heard from them because they were
very appreciative because they could reinvest it. But we made it real
because we reformed it, not just tinkered with it as you talk about how
the past Congresses have done.
Mr. WYDEN. The other aspect of the Recovery Act, I think, that
reaffirms this point with respect to the complexity is the Internal
Revenue Service puts out what they call their annual ``oops'' list.
This is the list of the 10 most common mistakes made by taxpayers when
filing. The ``oops'' list released this past March included, for
example, one of the principal credits in the Recovery Act because
people simply were unable to figure out how to make it work on their
1040EZ forms. So the fact is, the Tax Code today is anything but an
easy system. It is quite the opposite.
To further support the point with respect to the complexity, this
year individuals and businesses are going to spend 10.6 billion hours
to comply with the code. If the tax compliance sector were an industry,
it would be one of the Nation's largest, requiring a full-time effort
of 3.8 million people to get done that 7.6 billion hours.
The cost of compliance is jaw-dropping, $200 billion a year, 15
percent of all tax revenue the IRS collects each year. So the point of
this is, we are at a fork in the road. We can either look to the kind
of approach that a Republican President, Ronald Reagan, and a number of
Democrats talked about one-quarter century ago and move in and drain
the swamp, Democrats and Republicans together, taking on these special
interest groups that have hijacked the Tax Code or the Congress can
continue, as Senator Begich has said, to keep fiddling with one
provision or another, making the Tax Code even more complicated,
running what amounts to a full employment program for tax preparers or
we can take steps that will make the code fairer and more progrowth.
I also think it is worth noting that in the last round of tinkering,
2001 and 2003, for much of that period we had stagnant economic growth.
So we were not doing what the country needed in terms of fairness for
the middle class, nor was the country doing what was essential in terms
of promoting more high-skill, high-wage jobs.
You and I know, for example, if you take away the tax breaks for
shipping jobs overseas, you can use that money to lower the cost to
manufacture in this country. I see Senator Casey. He comes from the
State of Pennsylvania. He has done terrific work because I have heard
him on the floor talking about the importance of manufacturing.
This is one of the issues relating to the question of tax reform.
Right now there are tax breaks in the code that reward companies for
closing U.S. operations and moving them overseas. Why would not
Democrats and Republicans want to go to a more simple system, as
Senator Begich is talking about? That would be in the interest of
fairness for all but also one that is likely to create more good-paying
manufacturing jobs in Pennsylvania and other parts of the country, by
taking away the tax break for shipping the jobs overseas and use those
dollars to hold down costs for manufacturing red, white, and blue here
in the United States. So I am very much appreciate Senator Begich
taking this time. He has been awfully kind with us. I appreciate the
kind words about the bill and having him on it. But I especially
appreciate him outlining what this problem is all about in terms of
starting--with getting beyond the tinkering and the complexity to real
reform that works for all Americans.
I thank my friend.
Mr. BEGICH. To the Senator from Oregon, I will close and say thank
you very much. It is kind of like the Senator said, a fork in the road.
It is a moment. We can continue to do business as usual, tinker with it
a little bit here, a little bit there, have special interests kind of
run the show or we can turn it back to the American people by helping
them keep more money in their pockets, helping small business keep more
money in their pockets. Let them invest in the economy, as the data
that I have seen around this can show, that over a 10-year spread, you
will add over $2 trillion to the GDP, based on small business
reinvesting those dollars instead of the IRS grabbing them from them.
This is a positive step. I do think, I hope as our colleagues--a
couple of them are on the floor and we will stop in a second so they
can get their time to do their presentations. But I know and I hope
other colleagues are watching and listening because this is a moment
maybe in this body that we can actually do some significant reform in a
bipartisan way.
I do not sit on Banking. I do not sit on Finance. Some people have
asked me: Well, if you are not on those committees, why are you
interested in this? Well, simply because it has a simplification of the
tax return system. It lowers middle-class taxes and those on small
business. That is what drives this economy. That is what we should be
focused on.
So I credit these Senators for stepping up, kind of plowing the field
in a way. I am a latecomer to this. But I am going to be one of those
who is taking that plow and putting a high-speed engine on it so we can
keep plowing more and getting more folks, hopefully, on board. So, at
the end of the day, the American people can look at this Congress,
Republicans and Democrats, and say: They did something that reformed
the system, made it simpler in our lives, saved the middle-class
taxpayer money and improved and lowered the taxes for small business.
Now the business economy is humming along and investing those dollars
to grow this economy and keeping those jobs right here in the country.
So thank you for allowing us a few minutes to, hopefully, start to
engage the Congress as we move into tinkering with the Tax Code, so we
do something different and we reform the Tax Code for the betterment of
this country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Kansas is
recognized.
Aviation Subsidization
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I appreciate the discussion I was
hearing. I would also like to draw attention to an issue that I think
is about the most important to our Nation. We recently won a major
trade case against the European Union and their subsidization of
Airbus.
This is an effort by the European Union, over a period of 30 years,
to buy their way into the large commercial aviation marketplace. They
did so. They did so successfully. They drove out two major U.S.
competitors, McDonnell-Douglas, Lockheed-Martin, drove them out
completely. They do not even make those big jet airliners
[[Page S6492]]
anymore, and they had Boeing on the ropes.
Airbus took more than half the market share globally in the large
airliner business. The U.S. Trade Representative's office, over a
couple different administrations, pursued Airbus's subsidization. We
just won this case, a multibillion dollar trade subsidy case that we
won against the Europeans and their subsidization of Airbus, taking
market share in the large commercial airliner business in an illegal
fashion, illegally subsidized.
Now we will go into the damage and remedy phase. But we won the case,
and it is a massive case. The reason I am raising this to my
colleagues, my colleagues all know about, is a similar setting is
starting in the small aircraft market, general aviation market. It is
starting in the business jets, the small airplane business.
This is a U.S. homegrown business, it is centered in my State in
Kansas. It is a great business. It provides connection throughout this
country and increasingly throughout the world. There are 5,000 airports
in the United States; only 500 of them have commercial service.
So the other 4,500, I guess you ride a bike to if you do not have a
business jet or an airplane to get people there. Eighty-six percent of
the passengers on those business jets or airplanes are mid-level sales,
engineers. They make connections in between their various properties as
the company operates. They make them much more efficient within that
business.
But what is taking place today is this homegrown general aviation
business in the United States that is a major exporter, recently cited
by a major study by Brookings that this is a major export cluster, 40
percent export that we do in general aviation, the small business jet-
airplane market is now under targeted attack by other countries to take
this business away from the United States, the same way Airbus,
subsidized by the European Union, took that market share away from the
United States.
Instead of going after the big airliners, they are going after the
small jets, the small airplanes. Several countries are lining up to do
this. This is one of the major challenges facing general aviation
domestically--foreign countries targeting this industry, which has
high-wage, high-scale manufacturing sets of jobs. Various governments
around the world are lining up and preparing programs with various
means of support for their domestic aircraft industries, in research
and development, sales and export financing, as well as certification
of new aircraft, very similar to what took place in Airbus taking over
that market share that they did.
In that situation, you had large companies fighting against a
government operation, and they had, in some cases, deep enough
pocketbooks to last, such as Boeing did. Lockheed-Martin, McDonnell-
Douglas did not and were driven out of the field. My great fear in this
targeting of general aviation, of the smaller business aircraft market,
is that they are going to have countries behind them, companies in
those countries are going to push forward and they are going to take
the market share away and they are going to be aggressive and it is
going to happen rapidly if we do not get out in front of it and stop
these other countries from doing this subsidization.
It is absolutely critical to engage this competition now, that we
stop it now, that we start the investigation of foreign governments'
illegal subsidization in the general aviation market now, and that we
get on top of this now, before it goes on 10, 20 years, as it did with
Airbus, and we drive U.S. businesses out of the field.
One country in particular I wish to draw attention to, and one
company. The country in particular is Brazil. It has made a strong
commitment to expanding its presence in this market, the general
aviation market, through Embraer, one of Brazil's largest exporters and
employers. Embraer has made it a strategic focus and publicly stated
its goal in 2005 to become ``a major player in the business aviation
market by 2015.'' That was their statement in 2005, so they are 5 years
away.
How have they done? After entering the business aviation market in
2002, Embraer has been involved in a massive program to develop
aircraft for this market segment. They have experienced unbelievable
growth and have rolled out a full product line of new jets, including
the Phenom 100 and 300, the Legacy 600 and 650, and the Lineage 1000.
Beyond the staggering numbers of models Embraer has introduced since
2002--in 8 years that number of product introduction--it is now
responsible for around 14 percent of all global sales of business
aircraft.
Again, this is a U.S. homegrown business. This business didn't exist
outside of the United States before we started it many years ago. It is
headquartered in my State in Wichita, the air capital of the world.
What they have done since 2002 is get 14 percent of the market share
from a start position, a cold start position. This is quite an
unbelievable feat for a company that has only been manufacturing
business aviation for a little over 7 years. That is phenomenal. It
also, I suspect, was done illegally and subsidized by the government.
At the same time, Embraer continues full speed ahead toward its goal of
being a major player in the business aviation market.
U.S. manufacturers during this same period have had to delay or
cancel new program starts due to challenging market conditions. I don't
need to remind Members what has happened since 2008. It has been a
horrific market condition. In my State, we have had huge job losses and
sales in the business aviation field since 2008. We had a nice period
going into 2007. We were up to 40 percent international sales.
International sales helped us a lot because previously we sold 90, 95
percent of the market domestically, so that's a nice expansion in the
international marketplace.
Since that period, 2007 moving forward, this has been a downward
market. In that period, Embraer has moved up to 14 percent and
introduced a whole new cross-section of planes. As someone who has seen
similar signs in the past that were later proven to be the result of
illegal subsidization of aircraft by the EU, this activity by Embraer
and the Brazilian Government and growing market control does not seem
possible without heavy and creative government support across the
board. It does not seem possible to have done that in this market
condition, in this atmosphere, in that short a period of time by a new
startup company that hasn't been making these aircraft for more than 7
years. That was the similar sort of trajectory Airbus went on when it
had heavy and creative government subsidization to go into a
marketplace they had not been anywhere close to in the past. That's
seven years, now 14 percent of the market share by Embraer, starting
from a dead start. There is heavy illegal subsidization.
I urge the President to look into this matter through the U.S. Trade
Representative's Office, the International Trade Commission, to start
an investigation into what I believe is illegal subsidization. Let's
get the factual setting established.
We now see what they have accomplished in this period, I believe,
through illegal subsidization. We need to get the International Trade
Commission and the U.S. Trade Representative's Office focused on what
needs to take place; otherwise, what will happen is Embraer will
continue to grow in its market presence, taking over more and more of
the global and U.S. domestic market. It will drive weaker incumbents
out of the field in the United States, as happened in the large
aviation market. We will lose export share. It will encourage other
entrants such as the Chinese to come into this marketplace, possibly
the Japanese as well in subsidized ways, illegal government
subsidization into this marketplace that has high-wage, high-skill
manufacturing jobs that we should be doing in the United States and not
allow to be stolen by foreign treasuries to other places around the
world.
We have to do this and get in it before they do what Airbus and the
EU did to the large market which is to drive Lockheed Martin and
McDonnell Douglas out of the business. While we were sitting here
saying: We think maybe there is a problem, there might be a problem,
there was a huge problem, a huge illegal subsidization by the
Europeans. But we didn't get on top of it until two major U.S.
companies were completely driven out of the business. Let's not let
this be repeated.
[[Page S6493]]
As my colleague from Kentucky loves to say: There is no education in
the second kick of a mule. We have seen this play before. We have seen
countries go after key market segments in the United States. If we are
not aggressive in confronting it, it goes on until we do. I hope my
colleagues will look at this. There are two actions we can take near
term with the International Trade Commission, starting the
investigation in this particular case with the U.S. Trade
Representative's Office, starting to raise this issue, particularly
with the Brazilians but also other countries. Now is the time to do it,
not 5 years later after U.S. companies have been driven out of the
business.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Clean Energy Jobs
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a very important
provision in the new Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Company Accountability
Act just introduced by the majority leader which would require public
disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemicals used in natural gas
drilling. The bill itself will have a number of important benefits
which I will highlight before getting into the issue I rose to speak
about.
This legislation will create at least 150,000 jobs and save millions
of consumers up to $500 annually. Second, it will hold BP accountable.
A lot of Americans are waiting for that accountability. Third, it will
reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create up to 550,000 jobs.
Next, it will protect the environment by providing full funding for the
Land and Water Conservation Fund over the next 5 years. Finally, the
bill will protect taxpayers from any future oilspills. That is the
overall bill itself.
I wish to speak about a provision included in the bill as it stands
now. I thank the majority leader for his leadership on energy issues
for many years but especially, as our leader, for his work on efforts
to combat global warming, pollution, and certainly for his leadership
in putting together this new piece of legislation. I thank him for
including important language in the bill as it relates to natural gas
drilling in places such as Pennsylvania.
The language in the bill amends the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act, which was designed to help local communities protect
health, safety, and the environment from chemical hazards. It would
require well operators to disclose to the State and the public a list
of the chemicals used in each hydraulic fracturing process, including
chemical constituents but not the proprietary chemical formulas the
companies are so concerned about.
This bill also includes the chemical abstract service registry
numbers and material safety data sheets. If a State does not have a
disclosure program in effect, the disclosure would be made to the
public itself. This provision would also require disclosure of a
proprietary formula or chemical constituents to a treating physician or
nurse in an emergency situation. That is a narrow exception to the
general disclosure rule.
This is about something that is critically important to the people of
Pennsylvania and people across the country. In order to extract the gas
from the Marcellus shale which lies beneath large portions of
Pennsylvania and several other States--of course, there is shale
formations--the gas industry uses a process called hydraulic fracturing
or, by the shorthand, fracking, as it is known colloquially, whereby
about \1/2\ million or more gallons of water, sand, and chemicals, in
combination, are injected at very high pressures into underground rock
formations to blast them open and increase the efficiency of the wells.
Each well must be fracked multiple times, really hit with that
combination of sand, water and chemicals in order to release the
natural gas from the shale. Then, of course, the gas is captured and
can be used as an energy source.
The explosive growth of natural gas wells in Pennsylvania in many
incidents involving some of these wells highlights the urgent need--I
think that is an understatement--for disclosure of the chemicals used
in hydraulic fracturing. Pennsylvanians and people across the Nation
have a right to know what is being injected into the ground at
thousands of sites throughout the country.
Fracking fluids are believed to contain toxic chemicals. These
compounds are kept secret from the public as proprietary information.
However, even low concentrations of toxic chemicals can have adverse
health and environmental consequences.
We all know the history of our Nation as it relates to the extraction
of a natural resource. Pennsylvania has a history as well. We have
developed our natural resources to power the region and, indeed, the
Nation from the first commercial oil well, the Drake well near
Titusville, PA, in the 1850s, to western Pennsylvania's production of
natural gas and, of course, most notably, Pennsylvania coal. We have
used that coal and other sources of energy but especially coal to
provide electricity throughout the State and throughout many States in
the Nation. We have been a producer of a resource which has helped to
light and heat the country.
Pennsylvanians are proud of that contribution. We are also proud of
the way we have been able to balance the need for that resource and the
benefit with what happens to our environment and our quality of life.
However, before our State did the right thing in striking that balance,
we did create a number of environmental legacies that we should not be
proud of. Most were created in previous generations when Federal
regulations that promoted responsible development did not exist. We
know that history. We know it all too well. We cannot make those
mistakes again in Pennsylvania or anywhere around the country when it
comes to the benefit and the burden of having a resource under the
ground.
Natural gas has played and will continue to play an important role in
our energy portfolio as we transition to a new energy future, and we
are fortunate to have domestic sources to help us meet our growing
needs.
Pennsylvania will develop the natural gas in the Marcellus shale, and
we should. But we should also make sure we develop the Marcellus shale
using the best practices to protect our communities and our people. We
have to get this right. The good news is that we have a lot of
knowledge and information and research and technology and good-old
American ingenuity and can-do spirit to get it right. Those old, false
choices we used to debate all the time years ago--about choosing jobs
over the environment, about choosing economic prosperity or great
economic opportunity over quality of life and health and safety--are
largely part of our history. But we have to make sure we get this
right.
It is not just underground sources of drinking water. That has been
my main concern when it comes to this issue. What happens to
groundwater or drinking water with all of this hydraulic fracturing
going on? And the EPA, of course, is in the midst of a study. But it is
not just a concern I have about underground sources of water. There
have been cases where this fracking fluid--again, a combination of
chemicals and sand and water and millions of gallons of it in one small
area, in one geographic area--that those fracking fluids have, in fact,
spilled on the ground.
The language in this legislation will require that the natural gas
industry provide complete disclosure of the chemical composition of
hydraulic fracturing materials to ensure that if drinking water
supplies, surface waters, or human health is compromised, the public
and first responders will know exactly--exactly--what they are dealing
with.
The intent is not to stop hydraulic fracturing, and this disclosure
language is not going to stop it, despite what we have heard in the
last couple of days here in Washington and around the country. I would
categorize some of that language, some of that hysteria from the
industry as a lot of hot air and not a lot of truth. The provision that
is in this bill that relates to the fracturing process simply requires
well operators to disclose what chemicals they are releasing
underground in our environment. What is so problematic or troubling
about that? Let me read that again: requiring well operators to
disclose what chemicals they are releasing underground into our
environment. That is what we are talking about.
[[Page S6494]]
We know companies, such as big soft drink companies, over many
years--Coke and Pepsi--have put their ingredients on their soda cans
without revealing their so-called secret formula. This is a lot more
serious. This is lot more serious business. So for the life of me, I
cannot understand--I really cannot, try as I might--why would oil and
gas companies oppose this? What are they afraid of? If the chemical
composition--the chemicals that are used in the process are not harmful
or cannot compromise health and safety or contaminate drinking water or
compromise groundwater or put the public at risk--if that is all OK,
then why can't we shine the light of disclosure on it? What are they
opposing here or the better question is, I guess, why? Why would they
oppose this kind of disclosure?
This is very simple--not complicated, very simple. We do this in
America. When we are getting it right, we disclose information to give
the public the information they should have a right to expect about
what is happening underneath the ground, underneath their own homes or
in their communities. This is not a well every couple of miles. There
are thousands of these--thousands--across Pennsylvania and a lot more
across the country. In the next year, there will be thousands more just
in Pennsylvania.
So I think it is a simple matter of citizens having the right to
know. You have heard that expression before, that line, that commitment
we have made, that value of having information--the right to know about
any risks in their communities.
We have had some good news lately. One major company has already
announced it will voluntarily disclose hydraulic fracturing chemicals
used in each of its wells on a well-by-well basis. The chairman of the
company, when they made the decision, said:
It's the right thing to do morally and ethically. . . .
Those are not my words; those are the words of the leader of Range
Resources. So if companies like that are willing to provide some
disclosure--now, we have to check and double-check that disclosure is
equivalent to the disclosure we are talking about here, and we will do
that analysis--but if he is speaking in that way and using that
language, I do not know what the others are all worried about. There is
a lot of worry here by the industry.
If the development of the Marcellus shale and other shale formations
is carried out in a manner that fully protects the environment and
human health, then I believe the economic benefits for Pennsylvania and
a lot of other States can be achieved without environmental costs.
So I hope we can kind of lower the rhetoric and speak forthrightly on
this issue. But I will tell you, what I have heard over the last
couple, 2 days or so or over the last couple of hours is really
hysteria, and I think we have to make sure we do everything possible to
get this right--have the economic benefits from this, the job creation
potential, but make sure that when we are creating jobs and enlarging a
new industry, we do not compromise the environment and we do not
threaten health and safety.
Mr. President, with that, 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.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I am going to speak for some time and
try and reengage this debate. We had an excellent debate this morning
between 9:30 and 12:30 trying to find a way forward on a very important
bill, the small business bill. This is the Main Street bill we have
been working on. As you know, Madam President--you are a member of the
Small Business Committee--we have been working in good faith up until
the last few hours. It has been a good effort on both sides. I am
hoping in potentially the next few hours we can work through this
because we are extremely close on a very important bill for small
businesses in America and for Main Street.
I wanted to come to the floor to clarify a few things. Many people
are following this debate. They heard the minority leader say that he
was upset and some of the Republican Members were upset that they had
not quite gotten amendments on this bill. That is a charge that needs
an answer.
I want to go over, again, this bill and point out how many amendments
are already included in the underlying bill that were offered by the
other side, by Republican Senators.
I had in the last few hours several of my Members on the Democratic
side say to me: Gee, Mary, I didn't realize there was so much in the
bill and how good the bill was, but I didn't understand how many
Republican provisions are in this bill.
I want to take a minute, because the minority leader has made a
charge that Democrats have been heavyhanded--it does not sit well with
many of us who have a fairly light glove here. I don't think anybody
watching this debate over the last couple of weeks, or even as it has
gone through the iterations of the past year, can say we are trying to
have a heavy hand. We are trying to get a bill that is important to the
27 million small businesses closed, finished, and delivered to them.
The fact is, the longer we stay here without coming to some terms,
the harder and harder that gets. As the 70 organizations that support
this bill most certainly understand, there is a risk because not every
bill that every Member can think of is going to pass in this Congress,
but they are going to think this is a bill that has a lot of support,
which it does, and they are going to think: This bill is going to get
passed, so I am going to add my amendment, I am going to add my
amendment, I am going to add my amendment.
If we do not hurry up and get this done--you can kill a bill in a lot
of ways. One way you can kill it is put too many amendments on it and
it is too heavy to carry itself. The small businesses do not deserve
that. I said 100 times on this floor, they are already carrying a heavy
load. They are carrying more regulations. They are carrying a weakened
economy. They are having to lay off employees, and in a small business,
it is like laying off family because these businesses are having to say
goodbye and hand pink slips to people they literally know well and
love. It is hard to fire anyone but particularly upfront, close, and
personal, like this is happening.
I want to put up one chart--the lost business chart--to make this
point. I know that Members are clear, but this is according to the
National Employment Reports. This is jobs lost by firm size. Small
businesses, which are defined by businesses 500 or less--that is the
official definition: 81 percent of the job loss has been absorbed by
small businesses. They have laid off people.
When people ask the question, How do we get this recovery engaged,
how do we make this recovery successful, how do we get jobs attached to
the recovery as opposed to just money--we know the big businesses have
money. They are sitting on it. It has been widely reported. We know
Wall Street has money because they just paid $1.8 billion in bonuses to
top executives, the money we gave them. We know they have it. The
people who do not have the money are the small businesses.
That is what this bill is for, to help them in many different ways,
voluntarily lay out some things they can choose. This is not government
telling them what to do. They can choose. They can choose to take part
of the $12 billion tax cuts we are providing them. They can file for
those tax cuts. If they want to, they can get the tax cuts. They can
apply for the lending program.
Eighty-one percent of the jobs are lost by small businesses. If we
want jobs, I suggest we focus on small business. That is what this bill
is. For a year and a half, we have been pulling this bill together.
I want to go over how many Republican provisions are in this bill. I
do not want my Democratic colleagues to get upset. I am taking some
risk because they could come to me and say there are more Republican
proposals in this bill than Democratic proposals. But we tried to be
very fair.
Again, the 7(a) loans, an increase to $5 million, was a Landrieu-
Snowe provision; small business trade export was
[[Page S6495]]
a Snowe-Landrieu provision; small business contracting was Snowe and
Merkley, Crapo and Risch; small business management counseling, Senator
Snowe took the lead on that amendment; Senators Snowe and Pryor took
the lead on small business regulation relief; Senators Kerry, Snowe,
and Menendez, the 100-percent exclusion. You pay no capital gains.
People on that side are talking about reducing capital gains from 20
percent or 15 percent. They are arguing it should not go up to 20
percent. This is 100 percent, zero capital gains. If you invest in a
small business in America, you will pay zero capital gains. Zero. This
is a bipartisan amendment.
Merkley and Lamar Alexander, a leader on the Republican side, the
increased deduction for small business expenditures; another Republican
amendment, the Snowe amendment, extension of section 179; another
bipartisan amendment, Senator Hatch, Senator Grassley, Senator Inhofe,
Senator Johanns, Senator Brownback. These are Republican Senators.
For the minority leader to say this bill has not had Republican
input, this is the red line. I put down all of the sponsors of the
amendment so that the press and the groups that are following this
debate can see.
This is probably the most bipartisan bill we have taken up on this
floor in the last Congress and maybe in a long time, maybe a decade.
The leader would come to the floor and say: That is in the underlying
bill, Senator. What we are talking about is amendments on the floor. I
will go through a few Republican amendments that were put in on the
floor.
The first bill the majority leader laid down was a bill that included
the lending fund. Senator Snowe and others objected. A Republican
objection was laid against that bill, so the lending fund was taken
out. That was a Republican amendment. They were against the lending
fund. It was taken out. We had to fight to put it back in.
Then Senators Snowe, Grassley, Enzi, Isakson, and Collins filed
amendment No. 4483 which adds the SBA Recovery Act extenders to the
bill. That was not in the bill. I think these are Republican Senators--
Republicans Snowe, Grassley, Enzi, and Isakson. The last time I
checked, they were Republicans. This is another amendment they got in
the bill.
Then Senators Thune, Johanns, Coburn, Inhofe, and filed amendment
No. 4453 to strip out the Small Business Lending Fund. That was agreed
to. We have been fighting over this Small Business Lending Fund. They
want to strip it out. We are putting it back in with support from two
Republicans, maybe more as this debate goes on. We have two now. We won
that.
Then comes the substitute, the second one, with the SBA extenders in
it and the lending fund is out. That is at least two or three
amendments, in addition to the underlying amendments, that Republicans
put in this bill, both in the Finance Committee and the Small Business
Committee.
I hope no one tries to tell a reporter, either in Washington or back
home--because reporters are smart. They need to be listening, and I
think they are. I hope no reporter takes the line: Oh, well, the
Democrats were heavyhanded. They offered us no amendments, so we could
not possibly vote for the small business bill.
We are clear that there are many Republican amendments in the
underlying bill. We have made clear in the Record that to get us to
this point, there have been any number of Republican amendments either
accepted or voted in or voted out. I have not mentioned one Democratic
amendment yet.
I am thinking we are doing fine. We are not being heavyhanded. We are
going right along. We have an open vote, 12-hour debate on the Small
Business Lending Fund, and we win with 60 votes. It is back in the bill
because it is the right thing to do.
I know some people are opposed to it, but we have 70 organizations,
including the Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of
Independent Business, Small Business Majority, manufacturers, heating
and air conditioning--all sorts of organizations. I submitted for the
Record several times this long and impressive list.
In addition, we have the Community Bankers Association of Alabama,
the community bankers of Georgia, the community bankers of Illinois,
the community bankers of Kansas, the community bankers of Ohio, the
community bankers of Iowa--I could go on and on; the Independent
Bankers of America, the International Automobile Dealers. I don't know
how many other groups we can have to step up and say: This is the right
thing to do. The Travel Goods Association, the Tennessee Bankers
Association, the Virginia Association of Community Banks, National RV
Retailers Association, Nebraska Independent Community Bankers. They are
for this lending program. They have been sitting on the sidelines
watching us give money to big banks, bailing out Wall Street, bailing
out big car manufacturers in Michigan. These small banks are sitting
out there saying to us: Don't you know we are out here, 8,000 of us? We
are ready to do our job, roll up our sleeves, be a partner with you,
and go to work getting capital to small businesses so we can have a
job-filled recovery instead of a jobless recovery. We want a job-filled
recovery.
This is not about this recovery making a few fat cats richer. This is
about making the middle class stronger. It is about creating jobs and
hope and opportunity for the broad middle class. I do not want to be
part of a recovery that does not include that. It is not worth it.
So we created a fund that works with our community bankers and we
still can't get the Republican side to step to the plate and say it is
time to close this debate.
We have had a year and a half to talk and to think, and that is what
the vote was this morning. Every Democrat, I am extremely proud to say,
voted to say yes to Main Street. They gave a green light to go forward.
Every single Republican in this Chamber voted no against Main Street
this morning, which is why I am here, to try to pull up the shades here
a little bit and shed some light, under the guise that they weren't
given enough amendments.
If I give them any more amendments, I am going to get in trouble with
the Democrats because I am the Democratic chair of the committee. I
have given more amendments to the Republicans than I have given to my
own side. After a while, it is hard to convince our side, and my
Democratic colleagues have been so good. I have 10 Democrats who are
dying to offer amendments on this bill--and some of them are relevant
to the underlying bill--but they know the more time that passes the
less likely it is we will get this bill passed, and they know how
important it is.
I wish to say another thing about this, and hopefully the last about
this amendment situation, unless the minority leader says something
else--and he might this afternoon about amendments. I have in front of
me, and every reporter also has this, the unanimous consent agreement
from last night. Senator Reid offered four amendments--Baucus, Murray,
another Baucus, and then another Reid amendment. Four. Senator
McConnell reserved his right to object and he did object and then he
offered eight. So that is where we are. We offered four, they offered
eight.
You would think, in the next few hours, that somebody could figure
out around here how to split this baby and do six and get it done. I am
hoping that is what we can do. We are running out of options. If six is
too many, maybe we could agree to have no amendments, because we
already have so many, and pass this good bill that is already right
here on the floor. I mean, we do have a good bill already that has
Republican and Democratic amendments in it.
So the Democrats have offered four, the Republicans have offered
eight. Some of them are directly germane and some are indirect. It gets
a little confusing sometimes about what is direct and indirect. I am
not confused about farmers, but the Senator from Kentucky said today he
doesn't think farmers are small businesses. I think there are a lot of
Senators who disagree with that. They do think farmers work hard, and
many of them are small business owners and operate small operations. I
think most people understand that those disaster payments that go to
farmers don't stay in their pockets that long. They go to pay out all
sorts of vendors--seed companies, to pay down their tractor or their
equipment bill. I think people understand,
[[Page S6496]]
even though it has the title ``disaster aid,'' it actually is a small
business issue.
I heard the majority leader say that if the Republican leader
objected so much to that, even though Senator Lincoln worked so hard to
put it in, we would take that out of this bill and find another way to
do that. But that didn't seem to be enough either. So I am going to say
again that I am so proud of the Senators who have worked hard on this
bill--Senator Merkley, Senator Cantwell, Senator Murray, Senator Boxer,
Senator Schumer--and Senator Durbin has been down to the floor--both
Senators from Florida. I am hoping Senator LeMieux will do his very
best and I know he is continuing to work through the afternoon to talk
with his leadership, to say: Look, there are dozens of amendments
already in the bill. The only amendments that have been offered on the
bill to date have been Republican amendments, either Republican
amendments by Senator Snowe to take things out or put things in or an
amendment by Senator LeMieux to put the lending fund in, the only
amendments.
The amendment Senator Lincoln put in the bill, without a vote, we
offered to take that out to try to move this forward. So I hope
reporters here and around the country will not allow a Republican
Senator to say they just couldn't get to the small business bill
because Democrats would not let them have amendments. The question is,
Do they want to get to a small business bill or do they want to just
continue to support big business, big corporations, and Wall Street?
That is the question. Do they want to get to Main Street? Do they
want to help Main Street? They have to show that by their votes--not
just by their words but by their votes. In this business it is not
words, it is actions that matter, and the only action we have is them
voting no. No. I am trying to help them say yes. I know they want to
say no. That is what they think they should say to America: No on this,
no on that. I don't think Americans want to hear no when it comes to
help for small business. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. I
think they want to hear yes.
So let's find a way. I am asking my colleagues on the other side to
look at their list of amendments again and see if there is some way
between the numbers of two and four and eight we can find a way to move
forward to help Main Street businesses.
Just so people understand, again, this bill that is pending before
the Senate--and I see the Senator from Michigan is here. I am hoping he
wants to speak a minute about the provision he has. I am thinking in a
minute we may have some word--I know the leadership is talking, and
perhaps sometime in the next hour or so we may have something that has
come together. But I hope the Members are focusing on the importance of
this bill for creating jobs in America today, and that is what people
want. That is what we should have been focused on.
We have tried, in many different ways, through many different bills,
but this bill has $10 billion in tax cuts to small businesses--not to
the big businesses, not to Wall Street but to small businesses. It has
so many helpful provisions, through the Small Business Administration,
to give small businesses the support they need.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, would my colleague yield for a
question?
Ms. LANDRIEU. I would be delighted to yield for a question.
Mr. SCHUMER. I would like to ask the chair of the Small Business
Committee, who has done such an outstanding job here, is it not true
that we have heard many different numbers and types of amendments that
should be offered?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes, it is true.
Mr. SCHUMER. Is it not true that many of the amendments the other
side wanted to offer had nothing to do with small business whatsoever?
Ms. LANDRIEU. That is true.
Mr. SCHUMER. They were not an attempt to improve, modify or help
small business but were to simply get us off the subject?
Ms. LANDRIEU. That is true.
Mr. SCHUMER. Isn't it true that yesterday or a day or so ago, when we
did the Citizens United bill, the minority leader was complaining that
the leadership was getting off the subject of small business to go to
some other subject? It would seem now, at least, that the other side is
doing exactly that. Is that an unfair characterization?
Ms. LANDRIEU. That is a fair characterization.
Mr. SCHUMER. Is it not true as well that as chair of the committee,
you have offered them every opportunity and all kinds of amendments and
all kinds of compromises in the committee before we got to the floor
and now on the floor?
Ms. LANDRIEU. That is absolutely true.
I say to the Senator, in some ways I have some trepidation of
continuing to read this because I have had any number of Democrats come
to me and say: But there are more Republican provisions in this bill
than there are Democratic provisions in the underlying bill. That is a
credit to Senator Snowe, I have to say, who worked so hard and does
such a good job. But to come to the floor, I say to the Senator from
New York, that there are no Republican provisions in this bill, it is
laughable.
Mr. SCHUMER. So it wouldn't seem, to me at least--and I am wondering
about your opinion--to be an unfair conclusion that what is going on is
not a dispute about which amendments or how many amendments, even the
subjects of the amendments, but that they don't want to pass a small
business bill that will help create jobs, for whatever reason.
Ms. LANDRIEU. For whatever reason, I don't know why. I think maybe
they think that is good politics. But I don't believe it is, and I
don't think most Americans, even Republicans, would think that is good
politics.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I see the Senator from Michigan, and I yield to him.
Mr. LEVIN. I wonder, through the Chair, if I could inquire of the
chairman of the Small Business Committee--unless the majority leader is
seeking the floor.
I am trying to figure out exactly why it is that the Republicans, who
over and over say they understand that small business is the generator
of at least two-thirds of jobs and maybe more--in fact, I use a figure
that all the new jobs in this country were created by small
businesses--but at least two-thirds. The Republicans, I think, believe
that small businesses are the creators and generators of these jobs. As
I understand it, organizations that represent small business have
endorsed this bill. The Senator from Louisiana has done such a great
job of putting those together.
But I am trying to figure out exactly how it is that in the situation
where the small business organizations--or those purporting to
represent small business--have supported this bill and where
Republicans say, and I think believe, that small businesses are the
great generators of jobs, that we are now in a position where, despite
those things being true, the Republicans are not letting us proceed to
a bill supported by those organizations. Is that where we are?
Ms. LANDRIEU. That seems to be where we are. That is why I said I
feel like I am ``Alice in Wonderland,'' because it is topsy-turvy.
Mr. LEVIN. I would hope the organizations which purport to support
small business--and, by the way, the greatest complaint I get when I go
home, just about, other than the general one of where are the jobs, is
that credit is not available to small businesses that are creditworthy
and have proven it over and over--never missed a payment, have
contracts that provide services or goods--yet can't get credit.
Ms. LANDRIEU. You are absolutely correct.
Mr. LEVIN. This bill has provisions for credit to flow. The community
bankers, as I understand it, are supportive of this bill.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Absolutely.
Mr. LEVIN. I would just hope that between now and the time the
majority leader moves to reconsider that vote that we would hear loudly
and clearly from those organizations representing community bankers,
representing small businesses. Maybe they just have to say more loudly
and clearly that this filibuster is wrong--wrong for Main Street, wrong
for the organizations they represent, whether it is community banks or
small businesses.
[[Page S6497]]
If the NFIB has spoken on this already, and if community bankers have
spoken on this, I would hope they would speak a lot more loudly and a
lot more clearly and a lot more forcefully.
This is the big job creator where I come from. I would just hope we
would hear more clearly and forcefully from those organizations between
now and the time the majority leader offers a motion to reconsider.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Well, through the Chair, I thank the Senator from
Michigan because he is absolutely right. This is the wrong bill to
filibuster. I mean, you may get political points by filibustering other
issues, but to filibuster a small business bill, to filibuster a Main
Street bill is not the way forward.
Again, I cannot stand here and allow any Member of the other side to
say there haven't been Republican amendments that have been accepted,
offered. We have done everything to the point where there are almost
more Republican provisions than there are Democratic provisions in the
bill, which is completely paid for and provides a $12 billion tax cut
today.
I see the majority leader, and I will yield the floor in just 30
seconds, but I wish to repeat one thing that is worth repeating. The
Senator from Michigan was a cosponsor of this. For 10 years,
independent entrepreneurs, sole entrepreneurs--and there are 20 million
of them in America--have begged and pleaded to be on the same parity
with big corporations so they could get a little bit of a break on
their health insurance. This is a big issue for 20 million Americans.
You know where it is? In this bill. Two billion dollars will leave the
Federal Treasury and go into the pockets of every independent
entrepreneur in America, and that side is standing in the way of that.
I hope the reporters are following this carefully because the details
are important.
I thank the Senator from Michigan, and I see the majority leader on
the floor. I think he may have a word or two to say.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll and the following
Senators entered the Chamber and answered to their names.
[Quorum No. 4 Leg.]
Akaka
Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet (CO)
Bennett (UT)
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Bunning
Burr
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Goodwin
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
LeMieux
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed (RI)
Reid (NV)
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is not present.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to
request the presence of absent Senators, and I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray)
is necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr.
Gregg), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and the Senator from
Kansas (Mr. Brownback).
The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 23, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 222 Leg.]
YEAS--70
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Conrad
Corker
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Goodwin
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--23
Alexander
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Chambliss
Collins
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Graham
Johanns
Kyl
LeMieux
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Thune
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--7
Brownback
Coburn
Enzi
Gregg
Hutchison
Inhofe
Murray
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is present.
The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. We have before us the small business bill we have worked on
so hard. As I went through the bill today, virtually every provision in
this is bipartisan, except some are strictly Republicans with no
Democrats involved. It expands access to credit for small business all
across America, cuts taxes for small business, and expands domestic and
foreign markets for small business. This has the potential of creating
hundreds of thousands of jobs. The reason for that is that most jobs in
America are small business jobs. Two-thirds of the jobs lost in America
have been from small business.
As I indicated today, I was disappointed that my friends on the other
side of the aisle have not been willing to work with us. It seems to me
the goalposts were moved often, but I have been here a while and I
understand how things work.
Last week, they requested; that is, the Republicans, that we give
them votes on three amendments.
We all know what they are now. Grassley has an amendment dealing with
biodiesel. Hatch has an amendment dealing with research and
development. Johanns has an amendment to repeal the corporate reporting
requirement.
Earlier today, I propounded a unanimous consent request where we took
out of the bill the issue relating to agricultural disaster and that we
would have the three votes I mentioned and we would have Democratic
amendments that would be opposite those, three in number. There was an
objection. I cannot understand why they, my friends on the Republican
side, cannot take yes for an answer. It tells me and I think the
American public that it is more about something than getting votes. It
seems they think it is more important to say no to votes on Democratic
amendments than say yes to helping small business. But I understand
where we are, and I am working very hard.
I have had a number of conversations with my friends on the other
side of the aisle about a couple of amendments we have that we want to
be voted on in opposition to the amendments offered by my friends on
the other side of the aisle. A number of Republicans do not want to
vote on those amendments as it relates to small business. I think that
is unreasonable, but that is me. I accept their view that it is not
unreasonable.
As I have talked with the Republican leader and a number of other
people, I am going to try my utmost--and I think I figured a way to do
that--to get the two amendments my friends did not want to vote on as
relates to small business off this bill. I am going to do everything I
can to do that in the near, foreseeable future.
But I say to everyone here: Let's take a little time over the next
couple of days to kind of cool down. This is important. I know we have
argued and scrapped, as my friend the Republican leader said, a lot of
the time during this year. But let's do this legislation. This is not a
victory, if we can get this done, for the Democrats. This is not a
defeat for the Republicans. It is a victory for Democrats and
Republicans
[[Page S6498]]
and Independents and the people who supply most of the jobs in America
today--small businesses. That is why, if one can imagine, the chamber
of commerce supports this bill. They are in favor of the Johanns
amendment, and I accept that. When I was here this morning, 80
organizations supported this bill. We are now well over 100. This has
gotten traction.
This is something we should do. This is good legislation. It would
set a very good tone before we leave for the August recess to do this
bill because by the time we come back in September, there would
actually be some jobs created as a result.
I renew my request that I made this morning. I am not going to read
this again. My request this morning was that we will take out the
disaster relief, and they, the Republicans, can have their three
amendments. We will have our three amendments. That is my request. I
renew that request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I
think we are making some real headway. I appreciate the majority leader
taking out basically the appropriations measures. One was in the
underlying bill and the others were going to be offered as amendments.
I had not originally intended to offer a counter UC, but in order to
reassure everyone--I know there is support on our side of the aisle if
we can get it right--I offer a counter UC which I suppose will be
objected to, as I will object to the majority leader's, for the
afternoon.
But I want to underscore what he said, which is I do think we are
getting closer to getting back to the original bill which started off
on a pretty strong bipartisan basis and then seemed to deteriorate over
the course of the last month. In fact, we turned to the bill on June 24
and left it six times between then and now.
Having said all that, I think we are heading back in the right
direction.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture motions
with respect to the small business substitute and the bill be vitiated.
I further ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be the
only amendments in order to the Reid substitute, and there are four:
Johanns amendment No. 1099, repeal; Hatch, R&D; Grassley, biodiesel;
Sessions, spending caps. I further ask unanimous consent that it be in
order for the majority to offer relevant side-by-sides limited to the
subject matter of the above-listed amendments. And, as I said last
night, we are prepared to enter into reasonable time agreements on each
of these amendments.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object to my friend's proposal, I
have to smile, even though I have not smiled a lot today. On the
Sessions amendment, how many times do we have to vote on it? How many
times? One of my friends on the other side of the aisle said: How many
times do we have to vote on what you propose to vote on? Not nearly as
many times as this Sessions amendment. There has been a general
agreement between the Republican leader and myself that we are going to
wind up there basically anyway. I understand he has people he has to
satisfy on his side of the aisle. I do my best to satisfy people over
here. But I have to respectfully object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has declined to accept the
Republican leader's modification of his request.
Is there objection to the majority leader's request?
Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
____________________