[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 16, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1715-S1747]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 SBIR/STTR REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2011

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 493, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 493) to reauthorize and improve the SBIR and 
     STTR programs, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Nelson (NE) amendment No. 182, of a perfecting nature.
       McConnell amendment No. 183, to prohibit the Administrator 
     of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any 
     regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking 
     into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to 
     address climate change.
       Vitter amendment No. 178, to require the Federal Government 
     to sell off unused Federal real property.
       Inhofe (for Johanns) amendment No. 161, to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the expansion of 
     information reporting requirements to payments made to 
     corporations, payments for property and other gross proceeds, 
     and rental property expense payments.
       Snowe amendment No. 193, to strike the Federal 
     authorization of the National Veterans Business Development 
     Corporation.


                           Amendment No. 182

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there is 
now 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 182, offered by the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Nelson.
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I rise to speak on my 
amendment proposing a sense-of-the-Senate agreement to cut the Senate's 
budget by at least 5 percent.
  When I go home every weekend, people come up to me at the grocery 
store, hardware store and elsewhere, and they tell me they are 
concerned about our national debt and deficit. They want Washington to 
cut spending and bring down the cloud of debt that hangs over our 
economic environment.
  As chairman of the Senate Appropriations Legislative Branch 
Subcommittee, I have been pursuing a 5-percent cut in this year's 
budget for Congress and agencies and offices on Capitol Hill. We cut 
this budget a year ago, we are cutting it this year, and we will be 
back for further cuts next year.
  My amendment says that as Congress pursues comprehensive debt 
reduction while conducting major military action on two fronts, all in 
the midst of a fragile economic recovery, Congress still should not be 
exempt from the pain. Fiscal restraint starts at home and with our own 
budget.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I rise to agree with my colleague from 
Nebraska, to support his amendment, and to congratulate him for his 
newfound enthusiasm for this idea.
  Actually, on January 10, the House of Representatives passed a rule 
to reduce its spending by 5 percent. This measure was passed on a 
rollcall vote of 410 to 13. Soon thereafter, I was the first Senator to 
call on my colleagues in the Senate to cut their office expenditures by 
5 percent. This small but symbolic step could save the taxpayers over 
$20 million.
  On February 4, some 6 weeks ago, I requested unanimous consent to 
take up a sense-of-the-Senate resolution I authored, urging all 
Senators to take such action. Unfortunately, at that time and since 
then, there has been an objection from the other side of the aisle to 
this unanimous consent request.
  My effort was bipartisan. I was joined by 14 of my colleagues, 
Republicans and Democrats, and I thank them.
  We now have an agreement to take up my sense-of-the-Senate resolution 
by unanimous consent later in the day so as to expedite and refine 
enactment of the provisions of the Nelson amendment. Based on that 
understanding----
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. WICKER. I commend the Senator from Nebraska for coming to this 
idea somewhat late. But I support his amendment nonetheless.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Is there any time remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is no time remaining.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second? There 
is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 41 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Sessions
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Rockefeller
       
  The amendment (No. 182) was agreed to.

[[Page S1716]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion to reconsider is 
considered made and laid on the table.


                           Amendment No. 193

  Under the previous order, there is now 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 193 offered by the 
Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe.
  The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, this bipartisan amendment is supported by 
me; Chair Landrieu; Senator Kerry, the former chair of the committee; 
Senator Coburn; and Senator Webb.
  This amendment is based on a report that was conducted by the Small 
Business Committee back in 2008, when Senator Kerry was chair of the 
committee, and we both requested an investigation into the National 
Veterans Business Development Corporation, also known as TVC, and found 
egregious mismanagement. TVC was engaged in mismanagement, misuse of 
taxpayer money, and did not abide by its statutory obligations.
  Our committee issued a very detailed report explaining how they 
misused hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars. In light of 
our investigation and subsequent efforts, they do not receive any 
federal appropriations now.
  But we want to remove them from statute so they do not have any 
Federal linkage, any Federal charter, or any ability to use the 
auspices of the Federal Government for any activities in the future.
  So I urge support of this amendment and note that both the Veterans 
of Foreign Wars and the American Legion supported discontinuing the 
funding for this organization, after our report was released.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I will speak for just a moment, if I 
could.
  I know people in Washington and people in America do not believe we 
can actually eliminate a program. We are getting ready to eliminate one 
now in a bipartisan fashion to cut funding and to cut a program that 
has not worked. I just want to underline that we most certainly can do 
that in a bipartisan way. That is what this vote is about.
  I do not believe there is any opposition, so I yield back the 
remaining time.
  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 42 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Rockefeller
       
  The amendment (No. 193) was agreed to.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion to reconsider is 
considered made and laid on the table.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with the distinguished Republican leader for 3 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                         Defense Appropriations

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I say to my friend and leader and to all 
my colleagues, it is of deep concern to the Secretary of Defense and to 
this Member, and I am sure many other Members, that we are defending 
this Nation on a 2-week-to-2-week basis, and it is harming our ability 
to defend this Nation's national security. I know we are probably now 
going to go into another 3-week continuing resolution.
  Is it the intention of the Republican leader, along with myself and 
others, that we will not do another continuing resolution unless we 
take up a Defense appropriations bill for the year? We can't do this to 
the men and women who are serving--deprive them of the equipment, the 
training, and wherewithal--when we are in two wars. It is vital, in my 
view, that we not allow another continuing resolution without 
addressing the Defense appropriations bill for, hopefully, what should 
be the remainder of the year.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to my friend from Arizona, he is entirely 
correct. I don't intend, myself, to support another continuing 
resolution. It does not contain the full-year Defense appropriations 
bill. I think everybody understands the urgency of that. My friend from 
Arizona, our leader on these issues, has been very clear and articulate 
about it. I can say with total confidence that the House and Senate are 
not going to be passing another continuing resolution without the 
funding for the Defense Department for the remainder of this fiscal 
year.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Republican leader, and I thank my colleague 
from Louisiana. I hope this message is transmitted to our friends and 
colleagues on the other side of the Capitol; that they should not send 
over another CR without funding the Defense Department for the rest of 
the year.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to my friend, I believe his position is 
shared by the leadership of our party in the House, and I think there 
is no chance we will not complete work on the Defense appropriations 
bill in the next few weeks.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, before I get into the business before 
us, which is SBIR and STTR reauthorization, a very important small 
business program, let me just add a few thoughts to the colloquy of the 
Senator from Arizona and the minority leader. I would most certainly 
support that view, and there may be others on the Democratic side who 
feel that way as well. As chair of the Homeland Security Appropriations 
Committee, let me be very clear that I don't think we should go to 
another short-term CR without a full-year appropriation of Homeland 
Security. Not only is the Defense Department appropriations bill 
absolutely essential to the well-being of this Nation, but so is the 
Homeland Security budget. They have complete jurisdiction over Customs 
and Immigration, over safety and security at our ports and our airports 
and train stations. We most certainly can't let our guard down as it 
pertains to our overseas operations, but we absolutely cannot let our 
guard down as it pertains to our safety here at home.
  I hope both Republican and Democratic leadership, as we find our way 
through this complicated and difficult appropriations process, will 
remember Defense and Homeland Security.
  I see Senator Cornyn on the floor. I know he is going to call up, 
with no objection from me, his amendment.


                           Amendment No. 216

  Before that, I ask unanimous consent to call up Casey amendment No. 
216 to be put in the pending column. Senator Casey will be here shortly 
to discuss his amendment, and then we will go in just a minute to 
Senator Cornyn.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu], for Mr. Casey, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 216.


[[Page S1717]]


  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require contractors to notify small business concerns that 
   have been included in offers relating to contracts let by Federal 
                               agencies)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. SUBCONTRACTOR NOTIFICATIONS.

       Section 8(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(13) Notification Requirement.--
       ``(A) In general.--An offeror with respect to a contract 
     let by a Federal agency that is to be awarded pursuant to the 
     negotiated method of procurement that intends to identify a 
     small business concern as a potential subcontractor in the 
     offer relating to the contract shall--
       ``(i) notify the small business concern that the offeror 
     intends to identify the small business concern as a potential 
     subcontractor in the offer; and
       ``(14) Reporting by Subcontractors.--The Administrator 
     shall establish a reporting mechanism that allows a 
     subcontractor to report fraudulent activity by a contractor 
     with respect to a subcontracting plan submitted to a 
     procurement authority under paragraph (4)(B).''.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Our intention is for Senator Casey to have an 
opportunity when he comes to the floor.
  Before Senator Cornyn speaks, for just one moment I wish to add a few 
comments about what happened this morning. We did get two amendment 
votes on the bill. Those were the first two amendments, the Nelson of 
Nebraska amendment, and then Senator Snowe and I offered an amendment. 
We have approximately six other amendments pending not yet scheduled 
for a vote. Most of them were discussed at some length yesterday on the 
floor, the most notable Senator McConnell's amendment, which Senator 
Boxer and others strongly opposed.
  I wish to say one thing, as respectfully as I can, in response to a 
comment Senator Wicker made regarding the Nelson amendment. He said 
something along the lines that Senator Nelson had found some new--how 
did he say it--new-found enthusiasm for cutting the budget. In defense 
of Senator Nelson, I wish to say his enthusiasm is most certainly not 
new found. He has been a leader on our side in cutting the agencies and 
departments respectfully and appropriately under his jurisdiction. He 
has been the lead sponsor of legislation for a long time that has cut 
legislative spending. I might say it is very difficult with his bill 
because he also has had to absorb $22 million in additional expenses 
related to the operation of the Visitor Center which all of our 
constituents enjoy and support. So he has absorbed that into his 
operating budget and still managed to cut.
  I know Senator Wicker is relatively new to the Senate, but I do wish 
to remind him and others that Senator Nelson has been a leader in that 
field.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.


                           Amendment No. 186

   (Purpose: To establish a bipartisan commission for the purpose of 
   improving oversight and eliminating wasteful government spending)

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 186 and ask for its immediate consideration, and I ask 
unanimous consent that any pending amendments be set aside.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 186.

  Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of Tuesday, March 15, 2010, 
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this is a very important amendment, 
which addresses the three critical issues that face our country today: 
too many people out of work, the Federal Government engaged in runaway 
spending, and our unsustainable national debt. This actually comes from 
a portion of President Barack Obama's fiscal commission report, which 
pointed out a Texas program that had been in place since 1977 and its 
impact on providing oversight and review of wasteful or no longer 
needed programs for spending.
  That is what this amendment does. It establishes a bipartisan U.S. 
Authorization and Sunset Commission.
  Actually, it would be composed of eight Members of Congress, who 
would go through programs that have spending associated with them but 
have not been authorized by the Congress, and who review redundancies 
and duplicative programs such as those pointed out most significantly 
by the General Accounting Office within the last week to 10 days.
  As I said, this is modeled after the sunset process that my State 
instituted in 1977, which has been enormously successful. It has 
eliminated more than 50 different State agencies and saved taxpayers in 
the hundreds of millions of dollars.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senators Vitter, Enzi, DeMint, Rubio, 
Paul, Ensign, Ayotte, and Risch be added as cosponsors to my amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. This is what the President's own fiscal commission has 
said about such a concept. I know Members of the Senate and the 
political parties are divided about many things, but this is something 
that should be noncontroversial and should be bipartisan. I hope my 
colleagues will listen briefly and consider cosponsoring and joining us 
in passing this important amendment establishing this sunset 
commission. Again, this is what the President's own fiscal commission 
said about this concept:

       Such a committee has been recommended many times, and has 
     found bipartisan support. The original and arguably most 
     effective committee exists at the State level in Texas. The 
     legislature created a sunset commission in 1977 to eliminate 
     waste and inefficiency in government agencies. Estimates from 
     reviews conducted between 1982 and 2009 showed 27-year 
     savings of over $780 million, compared with expenditures of 
     $28.6 million. Based on the estimated savings achieved, for 
     every dollar spent on the sunset process, the State received 
     $27 in return.

  We all know the challenges we face in Washington when it comes to 
proper oversight. Once programs are created--even so-called temporary 
programs--they tend to take on a life of their own. Indeed, I think 
that must be what Ronald Reagan was talking about in one of my favorite 
quotations, when he said that ``the closest thing to eternal life here 
on earth is a temporary government program.''
  We all know what happens once a program is created. A constituency is 
created, and they come in and ask for a cost of living or other 
increase, and they grow and grow, and there is no one--I am not 
criticizing the standing committees, but there is not adequate time or 
opportunity given to looking at these programs to see whether they are 
still needed or whether their budgets are justified. So you see these 
programs growing and Federal spending growing and no real time and 
effort given to cutting out wasteful spending and eliminating programs 
that have not been authorized or which are duplicative or redundant, as 
pointed out by the GAO.
  My hope is that when we soon have a chance to vote on this amendment, 
we can all answer this important call. I think in the process we can 
ask the single most important question Congress can ask when it comes 
to spending and programs, which is: Is this program still needed?
  A sunset commission would help us do our job of oversight and 
accountability. It would help rein in runaway Federal spending and, 
hopefully, along with growth in the private sector and investments by 
the job creators and entrepreneurs, help us get past where we are now, 
where we have not only runaway spending but unsustainable debt, and a 
private sector sitting on the sidelines not creating new jobs the way 
we need them to do it.
  I yield the floor and thank the manager.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for a question on his amendment?
  Mr. CORNYN. Yes.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Most of the programs I am familiar with at the Federal 
level have built-in sunsets, because they have limited authorization.

[[Page S1718]]

How does the Senator's amendment either override that or undercut that? 
Why is his amendment necessary?
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I am glad to respond to the question. As 
the Senator knows, many programs that are currently up and running are 
operating on the basis of an appropriation without an authorization by 
the committee of jurisdiction, and that is part of what the sunset 
commission would look at because, frankly, it hasn't been authorized, 
the kind of oversight that is needed in order to scrub the numbers and 
make sure the program is still necessary and the spending is 
appropriate doesn't happen.
  This also is designed specifically to deal with what the GAO pointed 
out in the last 7 to 10 days, where we have dozens of programs designed 
to do exactly the same thing. In other words, rather than making sure 
that existing programs work, we tend to layer those on over time, 
forgetting that those existing programs are even there. So this would 
be designed primarily to do two things: one, to deal with programs 
where there is spending because there has been an appropriation made 
but no authorization; and it would also deal with that duplication.
  If, in fact, Congress comes back and authorizes the program, that is 
one way they could respond to the report of the commission.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator. I will comment, and I know the 
Senator wants to genuinely root out the waste and duplication. I only 
say that for programs that are operating under appropriations only. The 
Senator will know that that authorization is only intact for 1 year 
under the general rules. When you appropriate money, it is only for 1 
year at a time. It can only be extended by an act of this body every 
year. On the authorizing programs, to my knowledge--and I will get the 
committee to check on that--Homeland Security has jurisdiction over 
government operations. It is my understanding that every authorized 
program has a length of time and that each committee here is 
responsible for their own oversight.
  If the Senator is suggesting that committees either can't, or don't, 
do their work and we need an extra commission, we will consider that. I 
understand what the Senator is trying to do. I will have the Homeland 
Security team look at it on our side and we will respond.
  Mr. CORNYN. I don't think anybody believes the way things are 
operating now is appropriate. What this does is it seeks to bring a new 
set of eyes, particularly regarding the spending levels in programs--
whether they are necessary. As the President's own fiscal commission 
pointed out, this is not a partisan issue. We know with that kind of 
increased scrutiny, we can begin to cut out duplicative and unnecessary 
spending and prioritize those that are important, such as homeland 
security.
  Part of the problem we have is that the spending levels we have now 
make it almost impossible for us to decide what our priorities are and 
fund those because everything seems to be a priority. Well, everything 
can't be a priority, everything cannot be essential. This is a 
commonsense approach, based on an effective State model, that would 
allow Congress to do its job better and deal with the most important 
issues that face the country today, which is runaway spending and 
unsustainable debt, and too high unemployment.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Texas.
  Hopefully, as we go through the day, we will have a discussion on 
that amendment and others. I will try to give a recap. My ranking 
member is on the floor, and we wish to proceed today as we did 
yesterday, fairly orderly. We have made progress. We got two amendments 
voted on already. There are now several amendments pending. I want to 
ask this for clarification. We have Johanns 161, Vitter 178, McConnell 
183, Casey 216, and Cornyn 186. Those are all pending, but no time has 
been established for a vote. Can I ask the Chair to confirm that?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Can I also ask the Chair this: We have filed and 
discussed Hutchison 197, Paul 199, and Sanders 207, which are not 
pending but have been discussed on the floor. Does that list exist at 
the desk?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Those amendments have been filed 
and will need to be offered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Let me say again how pleased I am that only a handful 
of amendments out of the 68 that are pending actually pertain directly 
to the programs we are getting ready, hopefully, to authorize. 
Actually, out of the 68 amendments pending, only 14 are related to this 
particular program, and 3 others to the Small Business Administration 
itself. I want to believe that is because Senator Snowe and I have 
tried hard to take all Members' views into consideration as we have 
moved the bill through the process. As I said, yesterday, we worked on 
reauthorization of this important program--the largest Federal research 
program for small business in the country, the largest program--we have 
worked on this reauthorization for 6 years. So in the last three 
Congresses this bill has been debated, both in committee and on the 
floor, in the House and in the Senate. It has been modified many 
different times to accommodate different views.
  The great news is that the bill is still strong, very focused. It 
provides an additional percentage of funding for small business so they 
can actually have access to the research and development dollars like 
big businesses, which often have better access. It gives an open door 
and an opportunity for small businesses--for some of our best patents, 
our best inventors, our strongest risk takers, which are often very 
small startups. We want to encourage that, because the country is 
fighting its way--and I mean that--out of this recession. It is not 
easy, and it will not happen automatically. It will happen by what 
actions the Federal Government takes, State governments, and local 
governments, creating atmospheres so the private sector can grow. This 
bill helps to improve that atmosphere. That is why we are talking about 
this.
  Many people have come to the floor and said: Why aren't we talking 
about closing the deficit? We are talking about reducing the deficit 
and debt, because one of the ways we do that is by creating private-
sector jobs. This bill is one of the bills filed in this Congress--I am 
not saying it is the top or the absolute best, but I can promise you 
that it is one of the best bills that is filed that will have a direct 
and immediate impact on job creation in America. That is why Senator 
Snowe and I are spending our time talking about it because it is a jobs 
bill. It is also a deficit closing bill. It is also a debt reduction 
bill. It is also a great bill that is going to help level the playing 
field between large and small companies and say to some of those risk 
takers out there who look at Washington and shake their head and say, 
What is going on, doesn't anyone pay attention to us, yes, we are 
paying attention, we know you are out there. We know if we can provide 
open-door access to Federal Government research and development 
dollars, we can have literally hundreds of companies grow and expand.

  One example I gave yesterday--and I will give many more today--is 
Qualcomm, unknown 35 years ago. It started in Dr. Jacobs' den. It 
received early funding through this program, SBIR. They received 
multiple grants. You can get multiple grants as your technology 
improves and it shows promise. Of course, it showed promise. At a 
point, they were recognized by the venture capital community and 
investors came in. History has shown now that company employs 17,500 
people and last year their local San Diego-based company paid taxes to 
local governments in California and around the country of $1 billion. 
That covers half the cost of this entire program--one company.
  That is why Senator Snowe and I have spent so much time on this 
reauthorization and why she has been fighting for this program for 
actually almost 20 years, since she was a Member of Congress. This 
program is one that works. We have tweaked it. We have improved it. We 
are extending our authorizations from 4 years to 8 years to give 
certainty.
  Those are some of the comments I wanted to make about the bill. We 
have, as I said, 68 amendments that have been filed. I ask Members, if 
they are interested in getting their amendments pending, to come to the 
floor to see what we can do to work that out. I

[[Page S1719]]

am not sure we will get to final passage of the bill this week, but we 
want to do as much work on the bill as we can so when we get back, it 
will hopefully be the first order of business. We will see. Maybe there 
will be a breakthrough in the next 2 or 3 days and we can get it done 
before we leave. That would send a positive signal. We are working with 
the leadership to see if that can be done. If not, we will continue to 
work this week to get as many amendments offered and pending and some 
votes today and tomorrow.
  I see the ranking member on the floor. I wish to turn the time over 
to her now.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I certainly concur in the comments that 
have been made by the Chair of the Small Business Committee, Senator 
Landrieu, who has exhibited tremendous leadership in bringing these 
initiatives to the floor for reauthorization. It has been a long 
journey for these programs, reaching the point of reauthorizing them 
for the first time since 2008. In the intervening years, the programs 
have had to rely on multiple extensions to continue to operate.
  These programs are of indisputable value to the growth in America 
when it comes to innovation and invention on the part of small 
businesses. They undeniably have been critically effective. When they 
have had access to venture capital and research and development dollars 
that are available in more than 11 agencies across the government, 
including the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, 
the Department of Energy, to name a few, they have provided invaluable 
support to the entrepreneurial spirit that is so critical to this 
country.
  As the Chair indicated, it is the small businesses in America, the 
one segment of the economy that undeniably creates the kinds of jobs 
that are so important to this country. In fact, they create two-thirds 
of all the net new jobs. We have to do everything we can to make sure 
that they are getting access to the kind of capital and support and the 
research and development dollars that are available at the national 
level.
  These two programs, were created back in 1982. As the Chair 
indicated, I was an original cosponsor of that legislation when I was 
serving in the House of Representatives because we knew it could 
ultimately be a great catalyst for innovative and technological ideas 
in America. It has provided it, without question.
  The National Academy of Sciences study of the SBIR Program--which is 
a landmark study--called the program sound in concept and effective in 
practice. Just over 20 percent of companies they surveyed were founded 
partly or entirely because of the SBIR program. Over two-thirds of the 
respondents said that the SBIR projects would not have taken place 
without the funding. Each year, over one-third of firms awarded SBIR 
funds participate in the program for the first time.
  Again, it is encouraging innovation across a broad spectrum of 
businesses and creating additional competition among suppliers for the 
Federal Government's procurement agencies. We see that it produces over 
and over again the benefits, the jobs, the creativity.
  The Chair spoke about Qualcomm. That is true. We saw the Sonicare 
toothbrush. In May, we had a company called Tex Tech that developed 
armor for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we can give the 
infusion of these dollars--dollars already being expended by Federal 
agencies but redirected to small businesses and making sure that they 
are getting a fair share of the Federal pie--then they can put that 
money to good use in creating the kinds of jobs and the inventions that 
are so important to moving this country forward in the 21st century.
  I am very pleased we are at this point. Hopefully, we will be able to 
get this legislation through and signed into law because it is critical 
to venture capital investments. It is a prominent source of investment 
in biotechnology research and development. As we know, it takes 10 to 
15 years of work and hundreds of millions of dollars to bring a drug to 
market and to complete the testing of the drug process along the way 
costs millions of dollars. The biotechnology companies are able to 
commercialize their technologies with this kind of backing from these 
programs and money that is being expended at the Federal level in these 
key agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health. Such 
investments in biotechnology and medical device industries totaled more 
than $1 billion in 2007.
  Again, it is a demonstration of the kind of value and results we 
achieve through this program without providing additional Federal 
appropriations. It is not as if we are spending more money on a new 
program. We are not. What we are saying is that with the research and 
development dollars that are already being appropriated within the 
Federal agencies, we are asking that they set aside more than $2.5 
billion in Federal research and development to fund our Nation's 
smallest firms because they are the ones that are most likely to create 
the jobs and to commercialize their products. They have demonstrated 
time and again, year after year, at an all-time high, that the 
innovations coming out of small businesses are directly through these 
two programs. Their inventions reach the marketplace. They 
commercialize them.
  Qualcomm, 25 years ago started with a $1.5 million grant from the 
SBIR Program. They had less than a dozen employees. Currently, they 
have more than 17,000 employees in their company, and are a 
multibillion dollar Fortune 500 company. Again, it is an example how 
this program can work.
  The Information Technology Innovation Foundation indicated in its 
report recently that 25 percent of the top 100 innovations came from 
small businesses funded through the SBIR Program, and stated further 
that it is a powerful indication that this program has become a key 
force in the innovation economy of the United States.
  If there were ever a time that we should be supporting these programs 
and promptly and expeditiously, it is here and now. We saw last month 
where we created 200,000 jobs. But the month prior was 36,000 jobs. In 
order to reach prerecession levels of unemployment, it would take eight 
consecutive years of creating jobs at a rate of 200,000 a month in 
order to achieve the prerecession levels of unemployment of 5 percent.
  That is an indication of how far we need to go to create jobs in this 
economy, and it is creating the anxiety, the apprehension, the fear all 
across this country because people are struggling to find jobs or to 
keep the ones they have. This would go a long way to benefitting the 
sector of the economy that does create the jobs, and that is, of 
course, small businesses.
  Again, I hope that we can move quickly to get this legislation 
enacted and signed into law and create the kinds of jobs people in this 
country undeniably deserve.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, at this time, Senator Casey, whose 
amendment is pending, wishes to speak a few minutes. I know at 12 
o'clock, under a unanimous consent agreement, we will have a speech 
from the Senator from Connecticut.
  I ask unanimous consent that at 2:30 p.m., Senator Portman be 
recognized for up to 20 minutes as in morning business for the purpose 
of giving his maiden speech.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, first, I thank Senator Landrieu for her 
leadership on these many issues and especially on this critically 
important legislation to small businesses and for allowing me for a few 
minutes to talk about the amendment I have submitted. It is amendment 
No. 216. It addresses a crucial issue that affects subcontractors, 
particularly subcontractors who are minority owned or women-owned firms 
in the United States of America.
  When I was the auditor general of Pennsylvania, we audited a similar 
program at the State level and found all kinds of problems, all kinds 
of abuses when prime contractors do not do what they are supposed to 
do. In many instances, prime contractors will routinely list a 
minority-owned firm or women-owned firm to make their application in a 
competitive process

[[Page S1720]]

without informing the named subcontractor. It puts that subcontractor 
at a disadvantage. Once the contract is awarded, the business is not 
given to the named subcontractor.
  The purpose of this amendment is very simple. It will ensure that all 
subcontractors are aware of their inclusion in Federal procurement bids 
by prime contractors and establish a system in which those 
subcontractors can report any fraudulent activity. It is a simple but 
critically important remedy to part of this problem. We have more work 
to do on this issue, but it will give subcontractors the ability to 
more fairly and more fully participate in contracting. That is the 
least we should be doing at a time when so many small businesses are 
struggling to survive and to thrive.
  I am grateful Senator Landrieu gave me this opportunity. I yield the 
floor.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. I do intend to 
support his amendment. It is an excellent one. Hopefully, we can get a 
vote on it sometime today or tomorrow.
  At this time, pursuant to a unanimous consent agreement, we will hear 
a speech from the Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Connecticut.


                  Fighting for Connecticut's Interests

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the people of Connecticut sent me here 
to fight for their interests and today I rise to amplify their voices 
and share their concerns in my first remarks from the floor of the 
United States Senate.
  I know these voices firsthand from listening day after day, year 
after year, traveling the State to be with people and to see people 
where they live and work, and recently on a 2-week listening tour as 
one of my first actions as a Member of the Senate.
  What I am hearing is people are still hurting, still struggling, 
trying to stay in their homes, make ends meet, find jobs, and keep 
their families together. They feel rightly that Washington is not 
listening, Washington is not heeding their voices or responding with 
the right action or results.
  The people of Connecticut are clear about their priorities. They want 
to be back at work with good jobs and a growing economy and 
responsible, smart cuts in government spending to reduce our debt and 
deficit. They want to know that Washington is listening to them and 
that their leaders are fighting for them, standing up and speaking out 
against powerful special interests and predatory wrongdoing. And that 
is the kind of listener and leader they sent me here to be.

  In the northeast corner of my State, known as the ``Quiet Corner,'' 
the president of Nutmeg Container Corporation, Charlie Pious, tells me 
he is hoping to hire more workers, but he has difficulty finding people 
with the skills he needs.
  Not far away, in Putnam, at a meeting at the Putnam Bank with 
chairman Thomas Borner, one after another small business leaders tell 
me they could create more jobs with more certainty and consistency in 
government action.
  In Hartford, our State's capital, we celebrate a Jobs Corps 
graduating class--kids who dropped out and came back through training 
and determination.
  In Bridgeport, unemployed, older workers are crowding the WorkPlace, 
a highly successful job training center. There and all around the 
state, people simply want work.
  At the Fuel Cell Energy Corporation in Torrington, R. Daniel Brdar, 
the president of this cutting-edge green energy manufacturer, plans to 
expand his workforce, but he needs to know that he can continue to 
count on the renewable energy tax credit and workers with the right 
skills.
  In Waterbury, at a meeting hosted by Joe Vrabley, president of 
Atlantic Steel, small business manufacturers described again and again 
how they are facing unfair competition from companies in countries 
breaking the rules.
  At Crescent Manufacturing in Burlington, Steve Wilson demonstrates 
the destructive consequences of Chinese currency manipulation, when 
they effectively devalue their money and subsidize their exports so the 
prices of their products undercut Connecticut-made goods and jobs.
  The people of Connecticut don't need Washington to tell them what is 
wrong; they need help making it right. They want job creation to be the 
priority in Washington, just as it is in Connecticut. They are 
frustrated because Washington seems beholden not to them but to some of 
the financial gamblers who made the economy their own personal casino 
and put millions of Americans out of work and out of their homes.
  On Main Street, small businesses struggle to get started and ongoing 
businesses face roadblocks when they try to grow. They can't get 
capital, credit, or loans. They can't find workers with the skills they 
need. They face unfair trade practices from foreign governments 
promoting the products of their manufacturers.
  Taxpayers are angry for good reason, not just for themselves but for 
their children and the growing danger to the American dream, the great 
fear they will be the first generation to leave the next a lesser 
America and trillions in unpaid bills.
  A new report from the Government Accountability Office documents what 
we instinctively have known: Waste and duplication in government costs 
taxpayers billions of dollars every year--early estimates say between 
$100 billion and $200 billion. And experts say we could save tens of 
billions of dollars by aggressively prosecuting health care waste and 
abuse, just as we saved millions of dollars going after health care 
fraud when I was attorney general.
  The people of Connecticut--indeed, of America--will not tolerate and 
should not tolerate billions in waste and duplication. It must be cut. 
That is where we should focus, not on the thoughtless slashing of 
essential services that provide a safety net for our most vulnerable 
citizens. When we cut, let's be smart about it.
  The people of Connecticut are sick of the special breaks and tax 
loopholes that have been protected for far too long--tax breaks to 
companies that send jobs overseas; subsidies to huge oil and gas 
interests, some of them the most profitable companies in the history of 
the planet; and giveaways to giant agribusinesses, many given tax 
dollars not to grow anything.
  Shutting down those loopholes and special breaks and sweetheart deals 
will take a fight, but the people of Connecticut and the country are 
ready for that fight, and so am I. And we must fight. That fight will 
require support for the prosecutors and enforcers who prevent and go 
after waste, abuse, and lawbreaking. Cutting enforcement funds may make 
appealing political sound bites until we realize that real-world 
lawlessness has real-world consequences. Consistent, vigorous 
enforcement is critical. Good cops on the beat make a difference.
  These steps--responsible cuts in spending, clear rules, and 
consistent, rigorous enforcement--are absolutely necessary to help our 
economy grow again, but they alone are not enough to create jobs. 
Washington must provide tools and remove obstacles to the people and 
small businesses that are the real job creators. We have to make ``Made 
in Connecticut'' and ``Made in America'' mean something again. We must 
invest more, we must make more, and we must invent more right here in 
the United States.
  Step No. 1, we must invest more. We must invest in infrastructure and 
education--in roads, transmission lines, and airports, in everything 
from our grade schools to our community colleges and job-training 
programs. In New Haven, as just one example, cutting-edge 
biotechnologies are taking root and growing thanks to the Downtown 
Crossing project, where a new building and road rebuilding are 
necessary for dynamic growth. Instead of thoughtless threats to slash 
Downtown Crossing transportation grants, we should be encouraging this 
promising development.
  In the coming weeks, I will introduce new legislation that will help 
small businesses to set aside money to invest and reinvest in their 
business.
  Step 2, making more, which means more manufacturing and fair trade, 
and strengthening ``Buy American'' requirements to ensure that our tax 
dollars are creating jobs here not abroad. Chinese currency 
manipulation is costing us jobs and undermining our businesses, and it 
must be stopped. And we need stronger enforcement of laws to prevent 
foreign export subsidies and intellectual property theft.

[[Page S1721]]

  Third, we must invent more. The renewable energy tax credits and 
other incentives which encourage businesses to create and produce green 
energy solutions should be made permanent. The R&D tax credit, which 
creates incentives for businesses to invest in research, should be 
extended indefinitely and expanded.
  The people of Connecticut want bipartisan efforts to achieve job 
creation and economic growth. They want partnerships among business, 
labor, and education. They want bipartisan efforts to help our veterans 
so that after those veterans serve our country, they return to a 
paycheck instead of an unemployment line. That is why, in coming weeks, 
I will introduce a bill to help secure job opportunities for our 
veterans and provide training, health care, higher education, and more.
  As I travel across the State of Connecticut, I listen to people like 
the Squatritos of Carla's Pasta. Their business is in South Windsor. An 
immigrant from Italy, Carla Squatrito started making pasta in her 
kitchen and grew it into a successful small business. This year, thanks 
to smart, targeted tax incentives, Carla's financial recipe includes 
investing in a fuel cell from the Fuel Cell Energy Corporation in 
Torrington to provide a low-cost source for most of her company's 
electricity needs. This cleaner, greener energy source will lower their 
energy bills and allow them to hire more workers and create more 
Connecticut jobs.
  The people of Connecticut sent me here to fight for them--to fight 
for jobs and justice, to fight against a Capitol that caters to 
powerful special interests. The best moments of my career have been 
when we fought and won battles for ordinary people--for Skylar Austin 
and others when their health insurance companies wrongly denied them 
medically necessary, sometimes lifesaving treatment; for businesspeople 
such as Kathy Platt when General Motors sought wrongfully and unfairly 
to shut down her car dealership, Alderman Motors; or Terry, a marine, 
like many veterans, who returned from Iraq or other military service 
only to be denied proper treatment from our own government. I am here 
because the people of Connecticut know me as a fighter, and in the 
challenging time, again, I will fulfill that trust by listening to them 
and working for them and fighting for them.
  As we gather today, young Americans are serving and sacrificing at 
home and abroad. Like all of you, I am grateful to them every day, and 
to all the veterans who have served and sacrificed before them, for 
giving us the freedoms we enjoy every day, including the extraordinary 
opportunity to speak today in this historic Chamber and participate in 
the greatest democracy in the greatest Nation the world has ever known.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, while we are waiting for Senators to 
come to the floor, I would like to put a couple other quotes or 
comments from very well-respected organizations about the importance of 
this bill into the record. I, again, appreciate the 84 Members of the 
Senate who voted yes to bring this bill to the floor because those 84 
Members of the Senate understand we cannot close budget gaps and reduce 
deficits without growing the economy. Those 84 Members understand that 
in order to grow the economy, helping government create the atmosphere 
for the private sector to grow is absolutely imperative. If we would 
spend a little less hot air time around here and a little more on 
illuminating discussion, the benefits of programs such as this would be 
clear. It is actually a Federal program, but it is a Federal program 
that establishes a partnership with the private sector that is exciting 
and that works and that helps to create jobs.
  The Biodistrict in New Orleans, which was newly formed after Katrina, 
sent a document to the office that said, in reference to the temporary 
extensions of this program:

       These repeated, temporary extensions have wreaked havoc on 
     agencies' ability to make strategic decisions in regard to 
     the programs.

  The Small Business Technology Council says:

       Not only does this program spur technological innovation 
     and entrepreneurship, it helps create high-tech jobs, and 
     does so without increasing Federal spending.

  The National Small Business Association, another strong supporter, 
said:

       The uncertain future of the program has deterred potential 
     participants and investors.

  We do not want to deter anyone. We do not want to discourage anyone 
from making that investment or taking that step to create the next 
business that could create not just a handful of jobs but dozens, 
hundreds, and potentially thousands. That is why President Obama is 
talking about--and I support his efforts--the need to outinnovate and 
outcompete, to fight our way out of this recession.
  This bill of Senator Snowe and mine might be a relatively small bill 
from a small agency, but it packs a lot of power and potential to 
create the jobs that people--in your home State of Minnesota, in my 
home State of Louisiana, in Maine, and other places--want to see us 
creating, with virtually no additional cost to the Federal Government. 
We are simply setting aside a slightly larger portion of research and 
development moneys already budgeted for cutting-edge research and 
development and targeting those to small businesses that have proven 
themselves to produce excellent innovations, technology, and in fact 
have a disproportionate share of high-impact patents.
  The National Venture Capital Association says:

       At a time when our country needs to build new businesses, 
     the venture capital industry believes the best use of 
     government dollars is to leverage public/private 
     partnerships. . . .

  That is what this does. I know there are a few people around this 
place who do not think the Federal Government can do anything right. I 
am not one of them. I actually think the Federal Government can do lots 
of things right. Yes, we make mistakes; yes, there is money wasted; 
yes, there is duplication; and, yes, sometimes there is even fraud. But 
programs such as this need to be reauthorized. We have been debating 
now for 6 years whether this program should be authorized.
  If it takes us 6 years to reauthorize one of the best programs in the 
Federal Government, I wonder how long it is going to take us to 
reauthorize some of those that are not as well run and to give us the 
opportunity to make them run better instead of just running around, 
throwing up our hands, saying nothing works, nothing ever works, 
everything in Washington is broken. This program is not broken, and it 
deserves to be reauthorized.
  According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce:

       The SBIR program serves as an important avenue by which 
     agencies harness the creativity and ingenuity of small 
     business to meet specific research and development needs of 
     the Federal Government.

  Might I say, they may be the today needs of the Federal Government; 
such as we need a way to cool our tanks in Afghanistan and Iraq because 
our tanks are operating in temperatures that are excessive. That was a 
real need of the Defense Department. They sent out, basically, an SOS: 
Can anybody come up with a better way?
  Not only did we come up with a better way in a radiator out of 
technology we actually developed in Louisiana, but as you know, these 
technologies do not stay in the Department of Defense. Once they go out 
to be used in our tanks, helping keep our war fighters safe and helping 
win the wars we send them to fight, this technology can now be 
deployed, potentially, in the racing car industry or in Detroit or some 
of our other car manufacturing. While it is launched by Federal 
scientists and inventors and people who are good employees and good, 
solid Americans who are looking for a better way, it finds its way out 
into the general public for all of our benefit.
  Let me give two more quotes. I see the Senator from Kentucky. The 
BioTechnology Industry Organization says:

       This bill represents a balanced approach to ensure that 
     America's most innovative small businesses can access 
     existing incentives to grow jobs by commercializing new 
     discoveries.


[[Page S1722]]


  Finally, from the University of California, the CONNECT group says:

       Because acquiring funding through traditional lending 
     sources continues to prove difficult in today's tight credit 
     market, SBIR/STTR grants provide tech start-up companies 
     another viable chance to compete for early-stage funding.

  Yes, there are many venture capitalists out there. There are always 
very savvy inventors looking for the next best thing. But before the 
next best things are invented, there has to be somebody betting on the 
human capital in our Federal agencies, the human capital in our 
academic institutions, and the human capital in small businesses that 
take the risks and believe they can invent that next best thing.
  This financing is early. It is high risk. Not every SBIR grant works. 
But according to the man who gave us the review of this program, if 
every one of these inventions works, we are not running the program 
correctly. This program is early, before it is clear whether it is 
going to work, a chance to get it to work. But the upside is so great 
when one or more does work, and we have hundreds of companies that have 
sort of broken out.
  I see the Senator from Kentucky. I will rest my discussion. I do want 
to put some other things in the Record, but to keep the debate moving 
forward, this would be a good time for him to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                           Amendment No. 199

  Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment 
and call up my amendment, No. 199.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 199.

  Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment follows:

   (Purpose: To cut $200,000,000,000 in spending in fiscal year 2011)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

              TITLE ___--CUT FEDERAL SPENDING ACT OF 2011

     SEC. __01. SHORT TITLE AND DEFINITION

       (a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Cut 
     Federal Spending Act of 2011''.
       (b) Defund.--In this Act, the term ``defund'' with respect 
     to an agency or program means--
       (1) all unobligated balances of the discretionary 
     appropriations, including any appropriations under this Act, 
     made available to the agency or program are rescinded; and
       (2) any statute authorizing the funding or activities of 
     the agency or program is deemed to be repealed.

     SEC. __ 02. LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.

       Amounts made available for fiscal year 2011 for the 
     legislative branch are reduced by $654,000,000.

     SEC. __ 03. JUDICIAL BRANCH.

       Amounts made available to the judicial branch for fiscal 
     year 2011 are reduced on a pro rata basis by the amount 
     required to bring total reduction to $155,000,000.

     SEC. __ 04. AGRICULTURE.

       Amounts made available to the Department of Agriculture for 
     fiscal year 2011 are reduced on a pro rata basis by the 
     amount required to bring total reduction to $1,427,000,000.

     SEC. __ 05. COMMERCE.

       Amounts made available to the Department of Commerce for 
     fiscal year 2011 are reduced on a pro rata basis by the 
     amount required to bring total reduction to $2,700,000,000.

     SEC. __ 06. DEFENSE.

       Amounts made available to the Department of Defense for 
     fiscal year 2011 are reduced on a pro rata basis by the 
     amount required to bring total reduction to $30,000,000,000.

     SEC. __ 07. EDUCATION.

       Amounts made available to the Department of Education for 
     fiscal year 2011 are reduced on a pro rata basis by the 
     amount required to bring total reduction to $46,258,000,000, 
     except for the Pell grant program which shall be capped at 
     $17,000,000,000.

     SEC. __ 08. ENERGY.

       Amounts made available to the Department of Energy for 
     fiscal year 2011 are reduced on a pro rata basis by the 
     amount required to bring total reduction to $9,602,000,000.

     SEC. __ 09. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.

       Amounts made available to the Department of Health and 
     Human Services for fiscal year 2011 are reduced on a pro rata 
     basis by the amount required to bring total reduction to 
     $26,510,000,000.

     SEC. __ 10. HOMELAND SECURITY.

       Amounts made available to the Department of Homeland 
     Security for fiscal year 2011 are reduced on a pro rata basis 
     by the amount required to bring total reduction to 
     $4,603,000,000.

     SEC. __ 11. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT.

       Amounts made available to the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development for fiscal year 2011 are reduced on a pro 
     rata basis by the amount required to bring total reduction to 
     $22,000,000,000.

     SEC. __ 12. INTERIOR.

       Amounts made available to the Department of the Interior 
     for fiscal year 2011 are reduced on a pro rata basis by the 
     amount required to bring total reduction to $1,808,000,000.

     SEC. __ 13. JUSTICE.

       Amounts made available to the Department of Justice for 
     fiscal year 2011 are reduced on a pro rata basis by the 
     amount required to bring total reduction to $4,811,000,000.

     SEC. __ 14. LABOR.

       Amounts made available to the Department of Labor for 
     fiscal year 2011 are reduced on a pro rata basis by the 
     amount required to bring total reduction to $3,260,000,000.

     SEC. __ 15. STATE.

       Amounts made available to the Department of State for 
     fiscal year 2011 are reduced on a pro rata basis by the 
     amount required to bring total reduction to $8,216,000,000.

     SEC. __ 16. INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE.

       International assistance programs are defunded effective on 
     the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. __ 17. TRANSPORTATION.

       Amounts made available to the Department of Transportation 
     for fiscal year 2011 are reduced on a pro rata basis by the 
     amount required to bring total reduction to $14,724,000,000.

     SEC. __ 18. VETERANS' AFFAIRS.

       The Department of Veterans' Affairs shall not be subject to 
     funding cuts in fiscal year 2011.

     SEC. __ 19. CORPS OF ENGINEERS.

       Amounts made available to the Corps of Engineers for fiscal 
     year 2011 are reduced on a pro rata basis by the amount 
     required to bring total reduction to $4,135,000,000.

     SEC. __ 20. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.

       Amounts made available to the Environmental Protection 
     Agency for fiscal year 2011 are reduced on a pro rata basis 
     by the amount required to bring total reduction to 
     $3,506,000,000.

     SEC. __ 21. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION.

       Amounts made available to the General Services 
     Administration for fiscal year 2011 are reduced on a pro rata 
     basis by the amount required to bring total reduction to 
     $1,140,000,000.

     SEC. __ 22. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION.

       Amounts made available to the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration for fiscal year 2011 are reduced on a 
     pro rata basis by the amount required to bring total 
     reduction to $480,000,000.

     SEC. __ 22. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION.

       Amounts made available to the National Science Foundation 
     for fiscal year 2011 are reduced on a pro rata basis by the 
     amount required to bring total reduction to $1,733,000,000.

     SEC. __ 23. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.

       Amounts made available to the Office of Personnel 
     Management for fiscal year 2011 are reduced on a pro rata 
     basis by the amount required to bring total reduction to 
     $133,000,000.

     SEC. __ 24. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.

       The Social Security Administration shall not be subject to 
     funding cuts in fiscal year 2011.

     SEC. __ 25. REPEAL OF INDEPENDENT AGENCIES.

       The following agencies are defunded effective on the date 
     of enactment of this Act:
       (1) Affordable Housing Program.
       (2) Commission on Fine Arts.
       (3) Consumer Product Safety Commission.
       (4) Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
       (5) National Endowment for the Arts.
       (6) National Endowment for the Humanities.
       (7) State Justice Institute.

  Mr. PAUL. This amendment would cost $200 billion in spending. Earlier 
this morning we voted, nearly unanimously in this body, to cut 5 
percent from our legislative budget. Similar to so much in Washington, 
it sounds good. I voted for it. But 5 percent of our legislative budget 
will be a few million dollars. We have a deficit this year of $1.65 
trillion. We are awash in debt. It is America's No. 1 problem. Even the 
administration has said our national debt is our No. 1 threat to our 
national security at this point. We have to get our fiscal house in 
order.
  Voting to cut our own budget by 5 percent is wonderful. It is a first 
step. It is about $1 million--a couple million dollars. It will not put 
a dent in the overall problem.
  If we were truly concerned as a body about our deficit, we could cut 
the entire budget by 5 percent. It has gone up by 25 percent in the 
last couple years.

[[Page S1723]]

If we were to cut our entire budget by 5 percent, it would be about 
$200 billion. That is what I am proposing, a $200 billion cut in 
spending.
  Are we bold enough? Will we do it? If we do not do it, what happens? 
My fear is, if we do not have significant cuts in Federal spending, 
that ultimately in the next few years we could have a debt crisis. This 
amendment will give us a chance, will give the Members of this body a 
chance to say: Are we serious? Are we serious about addressing the debt 
problem or do we only want to do token things such as cutting our 
legislative budget 5 percent?
  It is a good start, but it is not enough. This was actually only a 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution, so we didn't cut our budget by 5 
percent. We said we might be in favor of that. This would be a real 
cut, $200 billion.
  I hope the Senate will support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask the Senate set aside the pending 
amendment so I can call up amendment No. 207.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 207

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 207.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], for himself, Mr. 
     Brown of Ohio, Ms. Boxer, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Whitehouse, and 
     Mr. Lautenberg, proposes an amendment numbered 207.

  Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To establish a point of order against any efforts to reduce 
benefits paid to Social Security recipients, raise the retirement age, 
  or create private retirement accounts under title II of the Social 
                             Security Act)

       At the end, add the following:

                TITLE VI--SOCIAL SECURITY PROTECTION ACT

     SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Social Security Protection 
     Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 602. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Social Security is the most successful and reliable 
     social program in our Nation's history.
       (2) For 75 years, through good times and bad, Social 
     Security has reliably kept millions of senior citizens, 
     individuals with disabilities, and children out of poverty.
       (3) Before President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Social 
     Security Act into law on August 14, 1935, approximately half 
     of the senior citizens in the United States lived in poverty; 
     less than 10 percent of seniors live in poverty today.
       (4) Social Security has succeeded in protecting working 
     Americans and their families from devastating drops in 
     household income due to lost wages resulting from retirement, 
     disability, or the death of a spouse or parent.
       (5) More than 53,000,000 Americans receive Social Security 
     benefits, including 36,500,000 retirees and their spouses, 
     9,200,000 veterans, 8,200,000 disabled individuals and their 
     spouses, 4,500,000 surviving spouses of deceased workers, and 
     4,300,000 dependent children.
       (6) Social Security has never contributed to the Federal 
     budget deficit or the national debt, and benefit cuts should 
     not be proposed as a solution to reducing the Federal budget 
     deficit.
       (7) Social Security is not in a crisis or going bankrupt, 
     as the Social Security Trust Funds have been running 
     surpluses for the last quarter of a century.
       (8) According to the Social Security Administration, the 
     Social Security Trust Funds currently maintain a 
     $2,600,000,000,000 surplus that is project to grow to 
     $4,200,000,000,000 by 2023.
       (9) According to the Social Security Administration, even 
     if no changes are made to the Social Security program, full 
     benefits will be available to every recipient until 2037, 
     with enough funding remaining after that date to pay about 78 
     percent of promised benefits.
       (10) According to the Social Security Administration, 
     ``money flowing into the [Social Security] trust funds is 
     invested in U.S. Government securities .  .  . the 
     investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full 
     faith and credit of the U.S. Government. The Government has 
     always repaid Social Security, with interest.''.
       (11) All workers who contribute into Social Security 
     through the 12.4 percent payroll tax, which is divided 
     equally between employees and employers on income up to 
     $106,800, deserve to have a dignified and secure retirement.
       (12) Social Security provides the majority of income for 
     two-thirds of the elderly population in the United States, 
     with approximately one-third of elderly individuals receiving 
     nearly all of their income from Social Security.
       (13) Overall, Social Security benefits for retirees 
     currently average a modest $14,000 a year, with the average 
     for women receiving benefits being less than $12,000 per 
     year.
       (14) Nearly 1 out of every 4 adult Social Security 
     beneficiaries has served in the United States military.
       (15) Social Security is not solely a retirement program, as 
     it also serves as a disability insurance program for American 
     workers who become permanently disabled and unable to work.
       (16) The Social Security Disability Insurance program is a 
     critical lifeline for millions of American workers, as a 20-
     year-old worker faces a 30 percent chance of becoming 
     disabled before reaching retirement age.
       (17) Proposals to privatize the Social Security program 
     would jeopardize the security of millions of Americans by 
     subjecting them to the ups-and-downs of the volatile stock 
     market as the source of their retirement benefits.
       (18) Raising the retirement age would jeopardize the 
     retirement future of millions of American workers, 
     particularly those in physically demanding jobs as well as 
     lower-income women, African-Americans, and Latinos, all of 
     whom have a much lower life expectancy than wealthier 
     Americans.
       (19) Social Security benefits have already been cut by 13 
     percent, as the Normal Retirement Age was raised in 1983 from 
     65 years of age to 67 years of age by 2022.
       (20) According to the Social Security Administration, 
     raising the retirement age for future retirees would reduce 
     benefits by 6 to 7 percent for each year that the Normal 
     Retirement Age is raised.
       (21) Reducing cost-of-living adjustments for current or 
     future Social Security beneficiaries would force millions of 
     such individuals to choose between heating their homes, 
     putting food on the table, or paying for their prescription 
     drugs.
       (22) Social Security is a promise that this Nation cannot 
     afford to break.

     SEC. 603. LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY 
                   PROGRAM FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE BENEFICIARIES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of 
     Representatives to consider, for purposes of the old-age, 
     survivors, and disability insurance benefits program 
     established under title II of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 401 et seq.), any legislation that--
       (1) increases the retirement age (as defined in section 
     216(l)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 416(l)(1))) 
     or the early retirement age (as defined in section 216(l)(2) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 416(l)(2))) for 
     individuals receiving benefits under title II of the Social 
     Security Act on or after the date of enactment of this Act;
       (2) reduces cost-of-living increases for individuals 
     receiving benefits under title II of the Social Security Act 
     on or after the date of enactment of this Act, as determined 
     under section 215(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     415(i));
       (3) reduces benefit payment amounts for individuals 
     receiving benefits under title II of the Social Security Act 
     on or after the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (4) creates private retirement accounts for any of the 
     benefits individuals receive under title II of the Social 
     Security Act on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Waiver or Suspension.--
       (1) In the senate.--The provisions of this section may be 
     waived or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative 
     vote of two-thirds of the Members, present and voting.
       (2) In the house.--The provisions of this section may be 
     waived or suspended in the House of Representatives only by a 
     rule or order proposing only to waive such provisions by an 
     affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members, present and 
     voting.
       (c) Point of Order Protection.--In the House of 
     Representatives, it shall not be in order to consider a rule 
     or order that waives the application of paragraph (2) of 
     subsection (b).
       (d) Motion to Suspend.--It shall not be in order for the 
     Speaker to entertain a motion to suspend the application of 
     this section under clause 1 of rule XV of the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this amendment is identical to the Social 
Security Protection Act I introduced yesterday with Senators Mikulski, 
Boxer, Sherrod Brown, Blumenthal, Stabenow, Akaka, Whitehouse, Begich, 
and Lautenberg.
  This legislation has the strong support of the National Committee to 
Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the American Federation of 
Federal Employees, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Military 
Order of the Purple Heart, and the Jewish Veterans of America, among 
others.
  Social Security is the most successful and reliable Federal program 
in our Nation's history. For 75 years, through good times and bad, when 
the economy was strong and when the economy was weak, Social Security 
has paid out

[[Page S1724]]

every nickel owed to every eligible American. While we take that for 
granted, that, in fact, is an extraordinary accomplishment. It is all 
done at very modest administrative costs.
  Social Security has been enormously successful in accomplishing 
exactly what its founders hoped to accomplish. Before President 
Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law in August of 1935, 
approximately half our senior citizens lived in poverty. Before Social 
Security, about half our seniors lived in poverty. Today, fewer than 10 
percent of seniors live in poverty. That number is too great, but it is 
a significant improvement over what occurred before the establishment 
of Social Security.
  What we should be very clear about, given the volatility of today's 
economy--there is a great deal of anxiety among the American people 
about whether they are going to be able to retire with dignity. At a 
time when millions of Americans have seen the value of their private 
retirement plans plummet, at a time when major corporations have 
significantly cut back on the defined benefit pension plans and 401(k) 
contributions, it makes no sense to me that anybody in this Chamber 
would contemplate dismantling the one retirement program that has been 
there for 75 years and has worked for 75 years.
  There was an interesting article in USA Today yesterday. These are 
just a couple facts they threw out in yesterday's USA Today. The 
percentage of workers who are not at all confident about saving enough 
money for a comfortable retirement reached 27 percent in 2011 compared 
with 22 percent just last year--a significant increase in a 1-year 
period. When combined with those who said they are ``not too 
confident,'' the total reaches 50 percent of workers. So we are in a 
situation, according to USA Today, where almost 50 percent of American 
workers lack confidence about whether they are going to have enough 
money to retire with dignity. There is another point that the article 
made. This is what they say:

       Quite a few workers virtually have no savings or 
     investments. In 2011, 29 percent said they have less than 
     $1,000.

  Well, you are not going to go too far in your retirement with less 
than $1,000.

       56 percent said that their savings and investments, 
     excluding their home value, totals less than $25,000.

  The bottom line is, for a variety of reasons, A, the Wall Street 
collapse of a few years ago, the fact that wages for millions of 
workers have not kept up with inflation, a significant part of our 
older workforce today is extremely worried about what will happen to 
them when they retire.
  Within that context, why there are people in the Congress who would 
want to start dismantling the one program that has, without fail, been 
there for 75 years, makes no sense to me at all. Let me also make 
another point. I think it is important to make this point 24 hours a 
day because we hear so much misinformation coming to us from pundits, 
from the media, and from Members of Congress. So let me be very clear.
  This country has a very serious national debt problem and a very 
serious deficit problem. We just heard about that, a $1.6 trillion 
deficit. That is serious business. In my view, Congress has to be 
aggressive to address that issue. But here is the point. Social 
Security has not contributed one nickel to the Federal deficit or the 
national debt--not one penny.
  So when you hear people say we have a serious deficit problem, 
therefore we have to cut benefits in Social Security or raise the 
retirement age, what they are saying makes no sense at all. These are 
two very separate issues.
  In fact, Social Security currently has a $2.6 trillion surplus. Let 
me repeat that. Social Security has a $2.6 trillion surplus. That is 
projected to grow to $4.2 trillion in 2023. In 1983, when we look back 
a little bit, it turns out that Social Security did face a crisis. At 
that point, in 1983, if the Congress and then-President Reagan had not 
acted, Social Security was projected to run out of necessary funding in 
6 months--6 months. That is a crisis.
  As a result of the discussions and negotiations and a committee put 
together by the President, Tip O'Neill, et cetera, a resolution was 
reached to that problem. The Congress overwhelmingly voted for it. 
Today is not 1983. Today the Social Security Administration has 
estimated that Social Security will be able to pay out 100 percent of 
promised benefits to every eligible recipient for the next 26 years.
  This country does face a whole lot of crises: Unemployment is off the 
wall; childhood poverty is too high; we have serious deficit problems; 
two wars; we are worried about global warming. We have a lot of 
problems. But it seems to me to be totally absurd that people would 
say: Oh, my goodness, we have to cut Social Security because it can 
only pay out benefits for the next 26 years.
  Go to Minnesota and say to a business person: If you could pay out 
all that you owe for the next 26 years, do you think it is a crisis? 
People would be shaking their heads.
  I should point out that after those 26 years, if nothing is done--and 
I think something should be done--Social Security will be able to fund 
about 78 percent of promised benefits. So it seems to me that given the 
enormous importance of Social Security not only to the elderly but to 
people with disabilities, to people who are widows and orphans who have 
lost the income that a bread winner had brought into the family, we 
have to do everything we can to protect Social Security.
  We have to make it very clear that Social Security is strong, can pay 
out every benefit for 26 years, that has not contributed one nickel to 
the deficit. And that is the amendment that I will be bringing up as 
soon as I possibly can.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SANDERS. I sure would.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Would the Senator explain--I think he knows because he 
is quite an expert on this program. I agree 100 percent with the views 
he just expressed. What is the basic average Social Security income 
that a person might receive? I understand it is somewhere between 
$7,000 and $10,000.
  Mr. SANDERS. I think it is a hair higher than that. I think it is 
about $14,000 a year. But the point is, I would say to the Senator from 
Louisiana, there are millions of seniors for whom that is either all or 
almost all of their income. That is it. That is it. In this day and 
age, that is the average. So your point is, there are people certainly 
below the average.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. The reason I ask the Senator that is because it is 
striking to me that some Members from the other side of the aisle will 
come and argue that programs like this should be slated for cuts and 
reductions, and yet failed to vote favorably to raise slightly the 
income tax on families making over $1 million a year in annual income. 
I, frankly, Senator, do not understand that. I am not sure people 
listening to this understand it.
  Could you enlighten us?
  Mr. SANDERS. Here is the story. I agree with you. I find it hard to 
understand that there are people who get up here--and we hear the 
speeches every day. They say we have a serious deficit crisis. It is 
unfair to leave that burden to our kids and our grandkids. We agree 
with that.
  We say, OK, let's address the deficit crisis. But let's do it in a 
way that is not on the backs of the sick, the elderly, the children, 
the most vulnerable people in the country. So what this Senator is 
pointing out is that in the last number of years what we have seen is 
that the people on top have been doing very well--the top 1 percent now 
earns about 23 percent of all income, which is more than the bottom 50 
percent. The effective tax rate for the very wealthiest people in this 
country is about 16 percent, which is the lowest in recent history. We 
have given huge amounts of tax breaks in recent years to these very 
same people.
  So what I think the Senator from Louisiana is saying, and I agree 
with her, is, if we are going to go forward with deficit reduction, 
which you and I agree we should, let's do it in a way that calls for 
shared sacrifices.
  The Senator from Louisiana knows that H.R. 1, the Republican House-
passed bill, would throw over 200,000 kids off of Head Start. Millions 
of students who are trying to get through college would either get 
lower Pell grants or no Pell grants at all.
  It is an attack, a devastating attack, a cruel attack, against some 
of the most vulnerable people in this country. They are cutting back on 
the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,

[[Page S1725]]

Infants, and Children. There are low-income women now, who are trying 
to make sure they do not give birth to low-weight babies--cut back on 
their program. But when we say, well, maybe billionaires--who are doing 
phenomenally well--might be asked to pay a little bit more in taxes, 
oh, my word. We will have none of that at all.
  So the issue is shared sacrifice. Do not balance the budget on the 
backs of the weak and the vulnerable.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Vermont for that eloquent and 
very accurate description of the situation we are in. I see the Senator 
from Oklahoma here for an amendment. We want to keep these amendments 
being discussed. So I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for joining us.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, so the chairman knows, my planned time to 
introduce these amendments is 3:30. That is what they have given me 
time on. I did want to engage in some of the comments of the Senator 
from Vermont.
  As someone who was on the deficit commission and looking at that, the 
first presumption was making Social Security solvent was our goal, 
making it solvent for 75 years. The flaw in the argument given by my 
colleague from Vermont is the assumption that the IOU at the Treasury 
for Social Security is good.
  It is good as long as people will loan us money. It is not any good 
if they will not. So when people say, why fix Social Security? We can 
fix Social Security by taking the very haircut from the people the 
Senator from Vermont just described and markedly lessening the 
benefits, even though they continue to pay into Social Security, that 
they will receive, the billionaires and the millionaires. We can do 
that. But if, in fact, we do not send a signal to the international 
financial community that on the largest expenditure we have, that we 
are going to make it solvent, then we will not be in the market and 
available and have the ability to borrow the $2.8 trillion.
  Now, one other thing on which I would disagree: The Social Security 
trust fund trustees say Social Security is running a net deficit this 
last year and will run one this year and for every year forward in 
terms of what comes in versus what goes out. There is no question I 
want to keep our commitments. Nobody is talking about eliminating 
benefits except to the very rich in this country in terms of Social 
Security. As a matter of fact, the deficit commission raised the 
benefits in Social Security for the poorest in this country. So we 
actually did the opposite of what the Senator claims that Republicans 
might want to do.
  What we have to do is to make sure Social Security is viable for the 
future. And having looked at every aspect of Social Security, I can 
tell you if we are not able to borrow the $2.6 trillion, the benefits 
will not be there. The money has been stolen. There is no trust fund. 
There is no money there. If you read what the head of the OMB said in 
1999, he said it is not there.
  So what is really happening in Social Security? Congresses, under 
both Republican and Democratic control, both Republican and Democratic 
Presidencies, have stolen money from Social Security and spent it. The 
money is gone. It has been used for another purpose.
  So there are two ways of solving this: One is to make Social Security 
the priority and not fund anything but that until we get it paid back 
or we can actually refund that $2.6 trillion by going to the debt 
market, to which we will go every year from now forward under the 
present plan on Social Security. The rate of taxes between now and 2035 
that will be taxed will rise from $106,000 or, I think, $107,000 to 
$168,000 between now and then. That is a 60-percent increase in the 
taxes on the wealthy that is planned and programmed right now.
  Even with that, Social Security will run a deficit every year, every 
year now forward. Even with the $2.8 trillion, it still is in a 
negative cashflow. So to deny the fact, if we do not want to fix Social 
Security, then what we are saying is we do not want to fix it for our 
children's children or our children.
  Mr. SANDERS. Will my friend yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I would like to finish my point. It is not about taking 
something away, except from the very wealthy, the fix from the deficit 
commission. That is what it did. We also added back. When you reach 
80--and a lot of people may be running out of their combination of what 
their retirement was plus their Social Security--we give another little 
bump.
  So what the deficit commission did was significantly increase the 
viability for Social Security for the next 75 years. The Social 
Security trustees know we have to do this. Everybody knows we have to 
do this. The question is, Does this Congress owe that $2.8 trillion 
back to Social Security? Yes. But where do we get the money to repay 
it?
  Unless we can calm down the international financial markets, where we 
make major changes not just in Social Security but in discretionary 
spending--$50 billion out of the Pentagon, modifying Medicare, where we 
get the fraud waste and abuse out of Medicare--unless we do those 
things, we are not going to be able to borrow the money.
  One final fact and then I will yield back to my chairman because I 
have a meeting to go to. So far, in the last 5 months, who do you think 
has bought our bonds to finance the deficit? We ran a $223 billion 
deficit in the month of February.
  Who bought them? Was it the Chinese? Who was the biggest buyer? The 
Federal Reserve bought 70 percent of the bonds we put on the market. 
What are they doing? They are debasing our currency and creating future 
inflation which will hurt the very people who are going to be on Social 
Security because the cost of living index will never truly keep up with 
the real cost of inflation.
  All of us have received letters from constituents wondering why there 
was no COLA. We know why there was no COLA. When we look at food and 
transportation costs and what they have done in the last 3 years, that 
is what is important to seniors--their health care costs, housing 
costs, food costs. Yet we have a COLA system that does not recognize 
that we may get into a period of hyperinflation because the Federal 
Reserve is buying the bonds because nobody else will buy them. Right 
now, 30 percent are bought in the market.
  Final point. The largest bond trader in the world, PIMCO, last week 
sold every U.S. Government bond they had. They expect the price of the 
bonds to go down because they expect the interest rates to go up. What 
happens to us if we don't fix Social Security? If the interest rates 
are going to be a lot higher on our debt and if they are a lot higher 
and we owe $14 trillion for every 1 percent increase in the cost of 
borrowing that we have, it adds to our deficit $140 billion.
  I am honored Senator Sanders is adamant about making sure we keep our 
commitments. But in terms of cashflow, it isn't there. We have to 
address that. That is the only way we create confidence for the 
international financial community to say: You have a solvent program 
for 75 years--the largest segment of our expenditures--and we are going 
to loan you money. If we don't do that, interest costs are going to be 
higher, and we are going to pay for it anyway. Right now, we are almost 
to the point where these decisions will not be controlled by us. I 
would rather us be in a situation of control.
  This is not a partisan issue. There isn't one Senator who wants to 
take money away from needy seniors. This is about making changes far 
down the road that will affect people 30, 40, 50 years from now. It 
makes sense to do that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me make a few points, if I may.
  Is the Senator leaving?
  Mr. COBURN. I have to.
  Mr. SANDERS. I did wish to make a few points.
  No. 1, the Senator from Oklahoma gave his understanding about what 
the debt commission would do to Social Security. I do not agree with 
his characterization. In point of fact, what the debt commission does 
do is cut retirement benefits by more than 35 percent for young workers 
entering the workforce today. Today's 20-year-old workers who retire at 
age 65 would see their benefits cut by 17 percent if their wages 
average $43,000 over their working lives, by 30 percent if their wages

[[Page S1726]]

average $69,000 over their working lives, and by 36 percent if their 
wages average $107,000 over their working lives, according to the 
Social Security Chief Actuary. The proposed cuts would apply to 
retirees, disabled workers and their families, children who have lost 
parents, widows, and widowers. It is not accurate to say that the debt 
commission left unscathed workers--quite the contrary. There are 
devastating cuts to young workers.
  If the Senator from Oklahoma wants to make sure Social Security is 
financially solvent for the next 75 years--and I want to see that as 
well--there is an easy and fair way to do it. It is a way that doesn't 
require slashing benefits for younger workers. When Barack Obama ran 
for President, he had a pretty good idea. I hope he still has that 
idea. What he said is that it is important to understand that right now 
somebody making $1 million a year pays the same amount of money into 
the Social Security trust fund as somebody who makes $106,000. If we 
lift that cap, start at $250,000, ask those people to contribute into 
the Social Security trust fund, we will go a very long way to solving 
the financial solvency of Social Security. I think we should do that. 
That is certainly not what the deficit reduction commission 
recommended.
  We keep hearing that the Social Security trust fund has a pile of 
worthless IOUs. The fact is, Social Security invests the surplus money 
it receives from workers, from the payroll tax, into U.S. Government 
bonds, the same bonds China or anybody else purchases. These bonds are 
backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. And in our 
entire history--and many of us want to make sure this continues--the 
U.S. Government has never defaulted on its debt obligations.
  The point is, to say these are worthless IOUs is not dissimilar to 
saying: Guess what. Because we have a deep deficit and a deep national 
debt, we don't have any money to fund equipment for soldiers who are in 
the field in Afghanistan or Iraq. They are just worthless IOUs, and we 
can't fund them.
  That is, of course, nonsense.
  Do we have to address the deficit crisis? Yes, we do. But my friend 
from Oklahoma did not respond to the issue of why, if he and his 
friends are so concerned about our deficit crisis, they vote year after 
year for hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for the 
wealthiest people or why they want to repeal the estate tax, which will 
provide $1 trillion dollars in tax breaks to the top three-tenths of 1 
percent.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this has been a very interesting debate. 
It really gets to the heart of the larger amendment on Capitol Hill and 
in the minds of all Americans. How are we going to close this budget 
deficit, annual deficit, and how are we going to substantially reduce 
the national debt?
  I am pleased this discussion is taking place on this bill because the 
intention of this legislation is to close that gap by creating jobs. 
Some Senators actually believe we can accomplish that by cutting 
discretionary spending alone.
  The Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Paul, was arguing along that line, 
that if we just accept his amendment, which I will strongly object to, 
and cut $200 billion out of the discretionary side of the budget, that 
will get us in the direction we need to go. All that will do is eat the 
seed corn this country needs to invest in important things such as 
infrastructure and education to secure the future for our children and 
grandchildren.
  I remind Senators that since 1982, military discretionary spending 
has never dropped below 5.5 percent in any given year. The Paul 
amendment, if adopted--and I doubt it will be--would propose a 50-
percent reduction in the discretionary funding of Education, Energy, 
Housing and Urban Development. It is a drastic cut that would not 
support a foundation for growth and expansion.
  Having said that, the other offensive thing to that approach is that 
there never seems to be a discussion of a reduction of the military 
budget when it comes to waste, fraud, and abuse. There are billions of 
dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars documented in the Defense 
Department by the Secretary of Defense himself that people object to in 
trying to get to a balanced budget. Then we have Members who are trying 
to use the Social Security situation to argue for their point that the 
roof is falling in, the world is collapsing, and we have to cut back on 
Social Security.
  I wish to add to what Senator Sanders said and clarify something. I 
respect Senator Coburn. No Member has worked harder on the issue of 
deficits and debt reduction. I do not agree with all the things he 
suggests, but I most certainly recognize effort when I see it. Senator 
Coburn has most certainly put in the effort. When he says the Social 
Security Program is running a deficit in terms of money in and money 
out, he is correct. But, as Senator Sanders pointed out, the reason is 
because the Federal Government used the surplus over the last 15 or 20 
years to fund other operations of government. But the Social Security 
Program itself is intact. When that money is paid back, it will have a 
surplus. Using the fact that it is running an annual deficit to argue 
for either cutting benefits to Social Security or cutting benefits from 
education or from health to pay for Social Security is not a legitimate 
argument. Again, Social Security is intact. It is actually running a 
surplus. They would have a surplus right now in the account if the 
money had been left there.
  It continues to amaze me that even in this discussion, we never, ever 
hear from the other side a willingness to raise $50 billion, if we are 
trying to get to $100 billion in cuts--and some people want to get to 
200, but we would like to close the gap by anywhere from $10 to $100 
billion--if we want to get 50 of that billion by raising the income tax 
on people who make over $1 million, we could get halfway to $100 
billion by doing that. But we never hear that. We just hear: Cut Social 
Security benefits, cut education, cut health care, cut Pell grants, cut 
homeland security.
  I know we have to cut back on spending. I know we have to get our 
deficit under control. I know our debt is too high. But we are not 
going to achieve the goal of fiscal responsibility by cutting 
discretionary spending on the domestic side, which means cutting Head 
Start, Pell grants, and education, and adamantly refusing to raise the 
income tax for people who make over $1 million.
  This is going to be a very interesting debate over the next couple of 
weeks. It will not be settled on the SBIR bill, but it will be settled 
sometime in the next couple of weeks in this Congress. I, for one, look 
forward to the debate. I believe the American people need to have an 
open and honest debate about what is actually going on.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                           Amendment No. 183

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I believe there is a pending amendment, 
which hopefully we will vote on, called the McConnell amendment. It 
basically takes away from the Environmental Protection Agency the 
authority to regulate greenhouse gases. The Environmental Protection 
Agency gets this power from a Supreme Court decision that said they had 
the authority to do so. That decision was about 2 or 3 years ago. It 
came about 16 or 17 years after the 1990 Clean Air Act was passed. 
Those of us who were around here and debated and worked on the Clean 
Air Act of 1990 don't remember any discussion about EPA under that 
legislation having the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, but 
obviously the Supreme Court read the law differently than we intended.
  The Environmental Protection Agency was told it could regulate 
greenhouse gases. The Environmental Protection Agency did not have to 
do that, but I suppose they are like regulators, generally. Some ask: 
Why do cows moo? Why do pigs squeal? And why do regulators regulate? 
Because regulators know how to regulate, and that is all they know how 
to do. So they are going to issue a regulation if they think they have 
the authority.
  The situation is this: If we don't take away the authority--and in a 
sense overturn the Supreme Court case--EPA is going to put us in a 
position of being economically uncompetitive with the rest of the 
world, particularly in manufacturing.
  When you increase the cost of energy by anywhere from $1,800, under 
one

[[Page S1727]]

study, to $3,000, under another study, per household, you are very 
dramatically increasing the cost of manufacturing. If we are worried 
about too many manufacturing jobs going overseas--and we if would let 
the EPA follow through with what they want to do, increasing the cost 
of energy--we will lose all our manufacturing overseas.
  I have not checked the record, but my guess is a lot of my colleagues 
who are fighting the McConnell amendment and think it is not the right 
thing to do are the very same people who are very chagrined because 
jobs are going overseas and are blaming American industry.
  Well, if we are going to pass a law that increases the cost of energy 
in this country, we are not going to have a level playing field with 
our competitors overseas. That is why I have always said, if we want to 
regulate CO2, we need to do it by international agreement. 
Because if China is not on the same level playing field as we are, then 
we are going to lose our manufacturing to China and other countries.
  It happens that China puts more CO2 in the air than we do. 
Take China and Brazil and India and Indonesia, and they put a lot more 
CO2 into the air than the United States does. Yet somehow 
EPA is of the view that the United States acting alone can solve the 
global warming problem? Well, even the EPA Director has testified 
before committees of Congress that if the rest of the world does not do 
it, we are not going to make a dent in CO2 just by the 
United States doing it.
  But the argument goes that the United States ought to show political 
leadership in this global economy we have, and if the United States 
would do something about CO2, the rest of the world would 
follow along. But China has already said they are not going to follow 
along. Even Japan, which signed on to the Kyoto treaty, said they would 
not be involved in extending the Kyoto treaty beyond 2012.
  If the United States did it by itself, under the guise of being a 
world leader and setting an example, and the rest of the world did not 
do it, Uncle Sam would soon become ``Uncle Sucker,'' and we would find 
our manufacturing fleeing the United States to places where they do not 
have regulation on CO2, where energy expenses are not as 
high, and we would lose the jobs accordingly. In a sense, then, those 
people who have complained for decades about American manufacturing 
moving overseas would destine the United States to lose more of it.
  I do not understand how people who are concerned about losing jobs 
overseas could be fighting the McConnell amendment. Because if we want 
to preserve jobs in America, our industry has to be competitive with 
the rest of the world. So I hope the McConnell amendment will be 
adopted, and I hope there will be some consistency in the reasoning of 
people who are concerned about the movement of jobs overseas, that it 
is intellectually dishonest to support EPA adopting regulations that 
are going to make America uncompetitive.
  There is nothing wrong with seeking a solution to the CO2 
problem. There is nothing wrong with working on the issue of global 
warming. But it ought to be a level playing field for American industry 
so we can be competitive with the rest of the world and not lose our 
industry, not lose our manufacturing overseas, and not lose the jobs 
that are connected with it.
  But it often is the case that when either the courts or the Congress 
delegates broad powers to the executive branch agencies, it seems like 
we give them an inch and they take a mile.
  There are plenty of other examples as well--and I will go into some 
of them in just a moment--of EPA having some authority and moving very 
dramatically beyond what Congress intended in a way that does not meet 
the commonsense test.
  The work of EPA on CO2 is a perfect example of this kind 
of overreach. First of all, they did not have to do it just because the 
Supreme Court said they could do it. But like regulators, they want to 
regulate, and they are moving ahead.
  I suppose they are moving ahead also because, in 2009, the House of 
Representatives passed a bill regulating CO2--a bill that 
would have made the United States very uncompetitive, as I have stated 
the EPA will--but the Senate declined to take it up. I think this 
administration is intent upon getting the job done, and so they go to 
EPA to issue a rule because Congress will not pass the legislation it 
wants.
  It is so typical of so many things this administration is doing; that 
because Congress will not pass a law they want, they see what they can 
do by regulation. So they are setting out to accomplish a lot of change 
in public policy that Congress declines to endorse, but they are going 
to act anyway. If they claim the authority to do it, they will probably 
get away with it and avoid the will of the people, the will of the 
people expressed through the Congress of the United States. So if 
Congress decides to not do something, can the administration ignore the 
will of the people? Yes, they can, if they want to, but they should 
not, in my judgment.
  It brings me to not only the McConnell amendment but a lot of other 
things we should be doing around here to prevent this outrageous 
overreach by not only the Environmental Protection Agency but by a lot 
of other agencies as well.
  Because when the EPA and other agencies promulgate rules that go 
beyond the intent of Congress--and never could have passed Congress--it 
undermines our system of checks and balances. The American people can 
hold their member of Congress accountable for passing laws they do not 
like. However, when unelected bureaucrats implement policies with the 
force of law that they would not have been able to get through the 
Congress--and that is without direct accountability when a regulator 
acts instead of Congress acting--something is very wrong, and it is 
against the will of the people.
  I think it is time for Congress to reassert its constitutional role. 
We try to do this from time to time in a process called the 
Congressional Review Act. I recall last June the Senator from Alaska, 
Ms. Murkowski, proposed doing that on these very rules affecting 
CO2. We did not get a majority vote, so it did not happen. 
Maybe in the new Congress such an attempt would get a majority vote.
  We cannot apply that Congressional Review Act again to those same 
rules, so that brings about the McConnell amendment I am speaking 
about--to take away the authority of EPA to do it. But perhaps we can 
use the congressional Review Act on a lot of other issues yet that 
regulators are regulating maybe against the will of the people, and I 
hope we will.
  But there is one measure Senator Paul has suggested and I ask 
unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 231.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. He uses the acronym REINS, but it is called the 
Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act. Basically, what 
it does--and I applaud Senator Paul for his amendment, and I will 
surely vote for it--and that is, when we delegate authority to agencies 
in the executive branch of government to write regulations, and if 
those regulations are considered ``major rules,'' then they would have 
to be submitted to the Congress for our approval before they can go 
into effect and then would also have to be signed by the President 
before they would go into effect.
  It seems to me that is a natural extension of Congress's authority 
under the Constitution to legislate and to be the only branch of 
government that can legislate. It seems to me to be a very adequate 
check on out-of-control bureaucracy, that they can only do those things 
Congress intended they do in the legislation they pass.
  I would extend my remarks on something a little bit unrelated to the 
McConnell amendment but still to the overreach of the Environmental 
Protection Agency; this is, in regard to some of their regulations on 
agriculture. When it comes to their regulation of agriculture, instead 
of EPA standing for Environmental Protection Agency, I think it stands 
for ``End Production Agriculture.'' That is not their intent. But in 
this city of Washington--and I describe it sometimes as an island 
surrounded by reality--it is evidence of not enough common sense being 
put into the thought process of issuing regulations. I could give 
several examples, but I may just give a few.
  Before I give those examples, I wish to compliment EPA on one thing. 
A

[[Page S1728]]

year or two ago, when one of their subdivision heads testified before 
Congress--and the issue was agriculture, and she said she had never 
been on a family farm, in the 20-some years they had been working in 
the EPA and yet dealing with agriculture issues--I invited her to a 
family farm and she came and showed a great deal of interest. We had a 
very thorough tour of some facilities in research, agriculture, and 
biofuels industries within our State. They were very thankful we did 
it. I believe it has helped their consideration of the impact that 
maybe some of their regulation writing has on agriculture.
  But, still, I am not totally convinced. So I would use one or two 
examples of regulation that is out of control. One of them would deal 
with what I call the fugitive dust issue.
  ``Fugitive dust'' is a term EPA uses to regulate what they call 
particulate matter. The theory behind fugitive dust rules is that if 
you are making dust that is harmful, then you have to keep it within 
your property line. So let's see the reality of that.
  You are farming. The wind is blowing, and you have to work in the 
fields. The wind is blowing so hard that you cannot keep the dust, when 
you are tilling the fields, within your property line.
  Well, are you supposed to not farm? Are you supposed to not raise 
food? Are you supposed to not be concerned about the production of food 
that is so necessary to our national defense and the social cohesion of 
our society? Because we are only nine meals away from a revolution. If 
you go nine meals without eating, and you do not have prospects of it, 
are we going to have revolts such as they have in other countries 
because they do not have enough food? No, we have a stable supply of 
food in this country, so we do not have to worry about it. But suppose 
we did have to worry about it. Well, there is more to farming than just 
the prosperity of rural America. There is the national defense and 
social cohesion, and all those issues.
  But the point is, they are thinking about issuing a rule--in fact, 
they started a process, 2 or 3 years ago, of issuing a rule maybe a 
year or two from now--hopefully, they will decide not to--that says you 
have to keep the dust within your property line. I wonder, when I talk 
about the common sense that is lacking in this big city--not only in 
EPA, but in a lot of agencies--do they realize only God determines when 
the wind blows? Do they realize only God determines when soybeans have 
13 percent moisture in September or October, and at 13 percent moisture 
you have to harvest them and you only have about 2 or 3 days of ideal 
weather to harvest them? When you combine soybeans, dust happens; and 
if dust happens and you can't keep it within your property lines, you 
are going to violate the EPA regulation. What are you supposed to do, 
shut down and let a whole year's supply of food stay in the field? No. 
Good business practices would say when beans get to 13 percent 
moisture, whether the wind is blowing or not, you are going to take 
your combine out into the field and not worry about the dust. Does 
somebody at EPA think John Deere and Caterpillar and New Holland and 
all of those companies are thinking about: Well, we have this problem 
with EPA; we have to do something about the dust and we have to control 
it coming out of our combines? Or, when our tillage equipment goes 
across the field we have to consider the dust that comes up from 
tilling the field? Well, we have asked these manufacturers. They don't 
have any solutions to these problems. I think they probably think it is 
ridiculous, after 6,000 years of agriculture throughout our society, 
that it is an issue. But there are people down at EPA who think it is 
an issue. So I use fugitive dust as one example as to whether they 
realize what they are doing to production agriculture.

  Another one would be spilled milk. Milk has fat in it. So now they 
are saying if dairy farmers have above-the-ground tanks to store their 
milk, they are the same as above-the-ground oil tanks and they are 
going to have the same regulation applied to them as applied to 
petroleum. The compliance requirements on this have been delayed 
pending action on an exemption, so maybe this won't go through. But 
think how ridiculous it is that people at the Environmental Protection 
Agency are saying if you are a dairy farmer and you happen to spill a 
little milk, you have to follow the same environmental requirements as 
an oil company if they spill oil with respect to the cleanup. But that 
is where we are on these sorts of rules.
  I have other examples such as Atrazine, and the potential application 
of Chesapeake Bay requirements to the rest of the country. But I hope 
we will take a look at this McConnell amendment that speaks to carbon 
dioxide plus the examples I have given of the harm EPA regulations will 
do to family farming and stop to think about it. We have to find ways 
to stop EPA from doing things that don't make common sense. I think a 
start would be to vote for the McConnell amendment, and I am going to 
vote for it.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. 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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2 o'clock 
I be given 5 minutes to speak, and the Senator from Texas, Mrs. 
Hutchison, speak immediately after me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Federal Budget Debate

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the current 
debate over the Federal budget. Yesterday, we had a very telling and 
troubling vote in the House of Representatives. On the 3-week 
continuing resolution needed to avoid a government shutdown on March 
18, Speaker Boehner was forced to rely on votes from House Democrats in 
order to pass a measure he himself had negotiated. The reason was that 
conservative Republicans abandoned their party leadership in droves out 
of anger that the measure lacks special interest add-ons dealing with 
ideological issues, such as abortion, global warming, and net 
neutrality.
  In all, 54 conservative Republicans rejected the measure, even though 
it was necessary to avert a shutdown and even though it included $6 
billion in cuts to domestic discretionary spending.
  This is a bad omen. This was not supposed to happen. Last week, the 
Senate held two test votes--one on H.R. 1 and one on a Democratic 
alternative. We knew that neither one would have the votes to pass, but 
we held the votes anyway. And, sure enough, they both went down. The 
purpose of those votes was to make it clear that both sides' opening 
bids in this debate were nonstarters and thus pave the way for a 
serious, good-faith compromise. But, unfortunately, an intense 
ideological tail continues to wag the dog over in the House of 
Representatives. Speaker Boehner had hoped after H.R. 1 failed in the 
Senate that it would convince his conservatives of the need to 
compromise. Instead, those conservatives have only dug in further. Not 
only will they not budge off $61 billion in extreme cuts on the long-
term measure and special-interest add-ons, but they also won't support 
any more stopgaps to avert a shutdown. So Speaker Boehner is now caught 
between a shutdown and a hard place.

  The Speaker has said all along he wants to avoid a shutdown at all 
costs, and I believe him. He is a good man. The problem is, a large 
percentage of those in his party don't feel the same way. They think 
``compromise'' is a dirty word. They think taking any steps to avert a 
shutdown would mean being the first to blink. And don't take my word 
for it. Here is what some in the other Chamber are saying: Conservative 
House Member Mike Pence said passing a 3-week bill to keep the 
government running would ``only delay a

[[Page S1729]]

confrontation that must come. I say, let it come now. It's time to take 
a stand.'' That is what Congressman Pence said. Michelle Bachmann said, 
``If a Member votes for the continuing resolution, that vote 
effectively says, `I am choosing not to fight.' ''
  Outside forces on the far right are also cheerleading a shutdown. Tea 
Party Nation, for example, has called on Republicans to oppose any more 
budget measures unless they repeal health care and do away with family 
planning.
  The tea party element in the House is digging in its heels. That is 
putting the Speaker in a real bind. His need to avoid a shutdown is in 
conflict with his political desire to keep his tea party base happy.
  I don't envy the position the Speaker is in, but he is going to have 
to make a choice one way or the other. There are two choices but only 
one of them is responsible. The Republican leadership can cater to the 
tea party element and, as Mike Pence has suggested, ``pick a fight'' 
that will inevitably cause a shutdown on April 8 or the leadership can 
abandon the tea party in these negotiations and forge a consensus among 
more moderate Republicans and a group of Democrats. I think we all know 
what the right answer is. Speaker Boehner wouldn't have been able to 
pass this short-term measure without Democratic votes, and he won't be 
able to pass a long-term one without Democratic votes either. It is 
clear that there is no path to compromise that goes through the tea 
party. We urge Speaker Boehner to push ahead without them. We are ready 
to work with him if he is willing to buck the extreme elements in his 
party.
  Throughout this debate, Democrats have repeatedly shown a willingness 
to negotiate, a willingness to meet Republicans somewhere in the 
middle. Yet the rank-and-file of the House GOP has been utterly 
unrelenting. They have wrapped their arms around the discredited, 
reckless approach advanced by H.R. 1, and they won't let go. Worse, the 
last few days have taught us that spending cuts alone will not bring a 
compromise.
  The new demand from the far right is that we go along with all their 
extraneous riders. They do not belong on a budget bill, but they were 
shoehorned onto H.R. 1 anyhow. Now these hardliners in the House want 
them in any deal. These measures are like a heavy anchor bogging down 
the budget.
  In recent days, a number of rightwing interest groups, such as the 
Family Research Council, began encouraging Republicans to vote against 
any budget measure that doesn't contain some of these controversial 
policy measures. That is why a compromise has been so hard to come by 
on the budget. It is because hard-right Republicans want more than 
spending cuts; they want to impose their entire social agenda on the 
back of a must-pass budget. Those on the right are entitled to their 
policy positions, but there is a time and a place to debate these 
issues and, Mr. President, this ain't it.
  If this debate were only about spending cuts, we could possibly come 
to an agreement before too long, but we will have a hard time coming to 
an agreement with those on the far right threatening the budget as an 
opportunity to enact a far-ranging social agenda.
  The tea party lawmakers are putting a drag on the progress of these 
budget talks. Many Republicans in the House recognize the 
unreasonableness of the hardliners. Kevin McCarthy was reported to have 
gotten into a ``tense exchange'' with Mr. Pence, one of the lead 
defectors. Republican Mike Simpson acknowledged it was ``unexpected'' 
to have so many defections yesterday. Steve LaTourette of Ohio said 
passing the 3-week stopgap was ``exactly what people expect us to do--
find cuts and continue to talk.'' And Michael Grimm, from my home State 
of New York, said the tea party lawmakers were ``a big mistake.'' This 
shows there are enough commonsense conservatives in the House to go 
along with reasonable Democrats that Speaker Boehner can find a way 
around the tea party. In order to avoid a dead end on these budget 
talks, he should abandon the tea party and work to find a bipartisan 
consensus. It is the only way out of this bind.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from Texas.


                           Amendment No. 197

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 197.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. No objection, Mr. President, but may I ask--I see 
Senator Murray on the floor and Senator Stabenow is on the floor, so I 
ask unanimous consent that after Senator Hutchison from Texas, we 
recognize Senator Murray for 7 minutes and Senator Stabenow for 7 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Texas so modify her 
request to allow the others to speak after her?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I do, Mr. President. I would like to have my 
amendment called up, then speak, and then I am happy to have the 
unanimous consent so that they know the order following me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. May I request of the Senator how long she intends to 
speak?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. For 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the request is granted.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 197.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To delay the implementation of the health reform law in the 
   United States until there is final resolution in pending lawsuits)

       At the end of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 504. EFFECTIVE DATE OF PPACA.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
     Care Act (Public Law 111-148) and the Health Care and 
     Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), 
     including the amendments made by such Acts, that are not in 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act shall not be in 
     effect until the date on which final judgment is entered in 
     all cases challenging the constitutionality of the 
     requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage under 
     section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that are 
     pending before a Federal court on the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (b) Promulgation of Regulations.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Federal Government shall not promulgate 
     regulations under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
     Act (Public Law 111-148) or the Health Care and Education 
     Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), including 
     the amendments made by such Acts, or otherwise prepare to 
     implement such Acts (or amendments made by such Acts), until 
     the date on which final judgment is entered in all cases 
     challenging the constitutionality of the requirement to 
     maintain minimum essential coverage under section 5000A of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that are pending before a 
     Federal court on the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I do wish to thank the Senator from 
Louisiana, who is managing the bill for her side, for allowing us to go 
forward with amendments. I think that is very important, and I do have 
an amendment that I think will help our small businesses and our States 
throughout the country. The cosponsors to amendment No. 197 are 
Senators Hatch, Kyl, Barrasso, Burr, Johanns, Murkowski, Cochran, 
Moran, and Ensign.
  We are approaching the 1-year anniversary of health care reform 
becoming law, and it is important to highlight the reality of what this 
bill has done to every American family, every patient, every doctor, 
health care provider, and every small business in this country.
  One year later, the skyrocketing cost of health care is still the No. 
1 concern among our Nation's job creators. Just today, my office heard 
from a small business in Corpus Christi, TX, that has 34 employees. 
This company has now gotten the bids for renewal of the policies they 
had before, and the cheapest option for their health insurance 
represents a 44-percent increase from last year's cost. They have until 
April 1 to decide whether to continue to offer their employees health 
insurance and to try to figure out how they are going to compensate for 
that increase in cost. But this isn't the first small business I have 
heard from that is telling me the same thing--that their premiums are 
coming up for renewal, they

[[Page S1730]]

are getting bids, they are trying to get the best bid they possibly 
can, and the costs are skyrocketing.
  These price increases have not happened in a vacuum. They are the 
result of the 2,000-page, $2.6 trillion health care bill signed into 
law 1 year ago. One year after that bill was signed, small businesses 
are facing unprecedented premium increases. Their policies are being 
canceled as insurers close up shop because of new Federal regulations.
  The reality of the small business tax credits touted by the 
administration are really just an empty promise that a majority of 
small businesses will never see. In fact, the Obama administration 
estimated that by 2013 as many as 80 percent of small businesses will 
not even be offering their current health care plan anymore due to the 
new Federal regulations and mandates and the increasing costs, leaving 
the promise our President made--if you like what you have, you can keep 
it--as a distant memory.
  A former Director of the Congressional Budget Office has warned that 
health reform includes strong incentives for employers and employees to 
drop employer-sponsored health insurance for as many as 35 million 
Americans.
  A recent employer survey conducted by the National Business Group on 
Health reports that 81 percent of employers have experienced increased 
administrative burdens because of health reform. This same survey also 
reported that because of the increased cost from health reform, 68 
percent of employers are increasing the contributions required for 
dependent insurance coverage. The Congressional Budget Office agrees 
and has reported that these increased burdens and mandates on employers 
will result in fewer jobs, as well as a shift from full-time to part-
time jobs in our country. The Congressional Research Service adds that 
lower wages will also become a reality because of the new employer 
mandates.
  The only good news our small businesses have gotten recently on this 
health care reform bill is from the courts. Two Federal courts have 
found the law unconstitutional--one in Virginia and one in Florida. In 
January, the Florida judge voided the entire law because the 
Constitution doesn't allow Congress to force individuals, small 
businesses, or families to purchase anything just because you live in 
this country. That is why I am offering an amendment to S. 493, the 
small business innovation bill, that would delay any further 
implementation of health reform until the Supreme Court rules whether 
the law is actually a valid law.
  Included within the 2,000 pages of the law are provisions that harm 
small businesses, their employees, and families. The health reform law 
contains $500 billion in new taxes, cuts nearly $500 billion from 
Medicare to fund the new government entitlement, and puts the Federal 
Government between patients and their doctors. Health reform requires 
individuals and businesses to buy government-approved health care or 
have IRS agents knocking at their door. If business owners want to grow 
their business and hire new employees, health reform says: If you have 
over 50 employees, there will be costly new Federal regulations with 
which you have to comply. Small businesses across the country that now 
have 48 or 49 employees are facing a Federal mandate that discourages 
them from hiring more people. And this is occurring during one of the 
highest unemployment rates in our country's history.
  We need to get government off the backs of small businesses, our job 
creators, and stop putting up miles of redtape that restrict 
innovation. This bill is the perfect place to do it.
  My amendment would pause further implementation of this law so that 
we don't spend millions of our taxpayer dollars and our small business 
dollars implementing a bill that ultimately could be struck down by the 
highest Court in the land in a case that has already said the law is 
unconstitutional. It is making its way to the Supreme Court as we 
speak.

  In addition to the effects on the individuals and small businesses of 
our country, State legislators and Governors across our country are 
also making very tough decisions needed to close nearly $125 billion in 
budget shortfalls. They too are having to meet the Federal mandates of 
health care reform. Their Medicaid systems are being drastically 
impacted.
  Some States are saying, because of the Florida judge's ruling, they 
are not going to go further in implementing the law. They do not want 
to spend the millions if the law is going to be declared 
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. On the other hand, we are 
putting them in the position of taking a chance because there are fines 
if they do not implement the law in a timely way, according to the law 
that was passed. If they do not implement it, while the court has said 
the law is unconstitutional, they could pay, on the other end, by 
having fines because they did not implement it.
  My home State of Texas is going forward with implementation, but they 
are facing a $27 billion shortfall in their budget. Yet they are 
spending money that may be money down a rat hole to implement a law 
that may not be a valid law.
  Today we could take one Federal mandate off the list. Today we can 
make it easier for job creators to create jobs. The least we can do for 
the businesses and States and families in our country is to delay the 
burden, the mandates, the regulations and taxes until the highest Court 
in the land rules on whether it is a valid law.
  This amendment would not affect any of the law that has already been 
implemented. We are not doing something that is retroactive at all. But 
when this bill passes, everything going forward would be halted until 
the Supreme Court has ruled on whether, in fact, the health care law 
that was passed last year is a valid law. I ask my colleagues to join 
me in taking this heavy burden from our employers and our States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Louisiana, 
Ms. Landrieu, for her tremendous work on the bill in front of us today, 
the small business bill. It is so important that we keep focusing on 
what is most important right now for families and small business owners 
across the country; that is, to continue working to create jobs and 
boost the economy. That is exactly what this bill is all about.
  Last month our economy added over 200,000 private sector jobs, and 
the unemployment rate fell to the lowest in 2 years. We have a long way 
to go, but I am confident we have turned the corner and we are now 
beginning to move in the right direction. But we have to continue to 
make progress. That is exactly why I strongly support this long-term 
reauthorization of the Small Business Innovation Research Program, 
which supports research and development efforts by small businesses 
that will help them grow and create jobs.
  That is why I will continue working with all of our colleagues to 
make sure we pass a budget for this year that cuts spending responsibly 
while continuing to invest in programs that create jobs and boost our 
economy.
  The Small Business Innovation Research Program, or SBIR, is a 
bipartisan bill that has been successfully creating jobs since it was 
signed into law by President Reagan in 1982. The resources this program 
has provided to small businesses over the years have led to new 
products, new ideas, and new innovations. In fact, small business tech 
firms that receive SBIR grants produce 38 percent of our country's 
taxes, they employ 40 percent of America's scientists and engineers, 
and they have produced many of the most important innovations that have 
driven our economy forward.
  This program has been especially important in my home State of 
Washington, for over 200,000 grants have been awarded to small 
businesses totaling close to $700 million. One company that received 
the support of the Small Business Innovation Research Program is 
Infinia, in the Tri-Cities area of my State. Infinia was founded in 
1985 as an R&D firm, but they have been able now to successfully 
transition to commercial production and have emerged as a leader in our 
State's clean-tech industry.
  With support from SBIR's other programs, Infinia has been able to 
develop their products and grow from 30 employees to over 150. These 
are good family-wage jobs in that community. This is such a great 
example of what

[[Page S1731]]

small businesses can do with just a little bit of support.
  There are thousands of companies across the country with similar 
stories that have received a critical boost from SBIR. Unfortunately, 
the Small Business Innovation Research Program has been operating now 
under a short-term authorization over the last several years, and that 
creates uncertainty and makes planning very difficult for companies 
that do want to participate in this program.
  I hope we support this long-term legislation that will help our 
innovative small businesses develop their products and expand and 
create jobs and we do not continue to see all these extraneous measures 
added onto it that will stop us from getting it passed in the Senate 
and moving to a place that can help create jobs and grow our economy.
  I also want to mention another issue we are going to be discussing on 
the floor because it is directly connected to Senate Democrats' efforts 
to get workers back on the job; that is, the need to pass a long-term 
budget bill to keep the government open through the end of this fiscal 
year.
  I am disappointed that the same Republicans who came into office 
saying they were going to focus on the economy have now put forward a 
very damaging and short-sighted budget proposal that would literally 
destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and devastate our workers and 
small businesses and undermine our fragile economic recovery.
  I am disappointed that at a time when our middle-class families still 
need some support to get back on their feet, Republicans have proposed 
this very highly politicized slash-and-burn budget that is going to 
pull the rug out from under these families at a critical time.
  I am disappointed that while on this side, Senate Democrats have put 
forward some ideas to make responsible and prudent budget cuts that 
will allow us to continue to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build 
our competitors, that we need to do, we are seeing a Republican budget 
proposal that is going to hack away at the investments that strengthen 
our ability to compete right now and improve the quality of life for 
all of our families in this country.
  The proposal they put forward would slash programs such as Head 
Start. It would decimate housing and economic development. It would 
eliminate community health centers that the Presiding Officer has 
worked so hard to put in place. It would cut off critical investments 
for our workers and our infrastructure.
  Independent analysts have said their plan would destroy up to 700,000 
American jobs. That includes 15,000 in my home State. That is a hit we 
cannot take right now. It would be devastating.
  Senate Democrats are trying to put forward a proposal that goes in a 
very different direction. We will cut spending billions of dollars, but 
we will do it in a responsible and measured way to protect our middle-
class families and not kill jobs and continue making the investments we 
need to compete and win in the 21th-century economy.
  Unfortunately, as we all know, we were not able to pass that proposal 
last week. Now, unfortunately, we are back to passing a short-term 
funding bill just to keep the government from shutting down. I have to 
tell you, weekly spending bills are no way to run the government. I am 
hopeful that moderate Republicans will say no to the extreme members of 
their party and come to the table to work with us to pass a responsible 
long-term budget that will help us create jobs and invest in middle-
class families and workers across the country. That is what this is all 
about: creating jobs, getting our economy back on track, and setting 
our country up for continued success and prosperity now and in the 
future. That is exactly why this debate is so important, and it is also 
why having the Small Business Research Investment Program is so 
critical.
  I urge my colleagues today to support this reauthorization, to 
support small businesses and investment in innovation and growth. I 
hope we can get rid of these extraneous matters for all of us to come 
together and do something that helps create jobs and gets our economy 
back on track rather than diving into all the political debates of the 
past and offering all the amendments we can think of in order to slow 
it down.
  This bill is important, and I hope we can move it forward to final 
passage.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
Small Business Innovation Research Act. I congratulate and thank our 
distinguished chair, the Senator from Louisiana, for her leadership and 
advocacy for small business. I was pleased to join with her as we 
worked very hard last fall to pass the Small Business Jobs Act to 
create more capital for small businesses to be able to grow and thrive 
and start a new business, expand their business. The eight different 
tax cuts that were in that proposal as well are beginning to take 
effect and help our small businesses.
  This particular bill in front of us is one more opportunity for us to 
partner with small businesses that are on the cutting edge of 
innovation and new ideas. We just passed a patent change to update our 
patent laws last week. I am proud the one satellite patent office in 
the country is in Detroit because we are the heart of innovation and 
new technology. We need to make sure small businesses are able to 
compete successfully and have the partnership knowledge they need to 
create these innovations. That is what this legislation does.
  We know small businesses create two-thirds of all new jobs in 
America. Our top priority should be working with them to create an 
environment so small businesses can thrive and create jobs. I have to 
say, even in our wonderful automobile industry, which is roaring back, 
the majority of our jobs are in the small- and medium-size suppliers. 
It is very much about small business and medium-size businesses.
  This particular program was first created by President Reagan in 
1982, and it has helped literally tens of thousands of small businesses 
create jobs--new ideas, new innovations in our economy. We have led the 
way in a variety of military and communication and health care 
innovations. It has been extremely successful. In fact, small business 
tech firms have participated in SBIR producing 38 percent of our 
patents. Thirty-eight percent of America's patents have come from small 
businesses involved in the tech sector partnering with the Federal 
Government on new innovative opportunities--13 times more patents than 
coming from large businesses.
  This is a big deal. This is very much about out-innovating in a 
global economy so we can compete globally and create jobs. Our small 
businesses in the tech sector employ about 40 percent of our scientists 
and engineers. They produced 25 percent of our Nation's crucial 
innovations over the last three decades. Unfortunately, this important 
partnership has been allowed to nearly lapse, and it had to be 
reauthorized 10 different times in the last 3 years--over and over 
again, for just a few months at a time. It is impossible for small 
businesses to plan for the future and be able to create those 
innovative investments and partnerships without a long-term view.
  We have in front of us a bill that would reauthorize this important 
partnership for the next 8 years and give some opportunity to plan a 
little bit more long term, which I think is also critical.
  We have many outstanding small businesses that are partnering right 
now with our universities and with our Federal agencies to create jobs 
and innovations. One of those outstanding entities is Cybernet Systems 
in Ann Arbor, a leader in research and development in the medical and 
defense fields. They are one of the largest small business innovative 
research contract winners. Because of their success they have now added 
up to 60 employees, and they have had 30 patents as a result of the 
SBIR Program.
  Another important entity is Niowave in Lansing, MI, a high-tech 
business specializing in superconducting particle accelerators. They 
have been doubling their staff, and talking to them today, tripling 
their workforce because of new innovations they have created, they have 
now been nominated for the National SBIR business of the year.
  Finally, an important part of our economy in Michigan--and nationally 
as we look to alternatives to bring down gas prices by having better 
competition for alternatives, alternative

[[Page S1732]]

energy through battery policy and electric vehicles--has been aided by 
the small business program in front of us today.
  As an example, A123 Systems is a company that has received SBIR 
support. I was very pleased in September of last year to join with them 
when they opened the largest lithium ion battery manufacturing plant in 
North America, in Livonia, MI, and they are now creating 400 jobs.
  I could go on and on. I will not in the interest of time. But 
focusing on small business, focusing on innovation, new technologies, 
will create jobs, allow us to out-compete in a global economy, and 
allow us to grow our economy. We in Michigan are very proud to be 
helping to lead the way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I know Senator Portman is here on the floor, and under 
a previous order will be recognized in a few minutes. But before that, 
for clarification purposes on the previous agreement, I want to state 
that the next first-degree amendment in order after Senator Hutchison, 
who spoke a minute ago, will be from the Democratic side.
  As a recap, there are, I think, seven amendments pending. We are 
hoping to get some votes on those amendments that are pending later 
this afternoon, potentially in the morning. If there are other 
amendments Senators have to offer, come down to floor. We want to 
limit, of course, what we can. It is very important for us to move this 
bill forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                            twin challenges

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate being given the time to make 
a few remarks as a new Senator from Ohio. To be in the Senate, 
representing the people of Ohio, is a great honor and solemn 
responsibility, particularly at this critical time in our Nation's 
history.
  And it is actually not an honor I expected to have. After 
representing southern Ohio in the U.S. House for 12 years, and serving 
in the Bush administration, I returned home to Cincinnati, OH, 4 years 
ago. Although we had kept our home in Cincinnati, and raised our kids 
there, I had commuted for 15 years, and it was time to be home with 
three teenagers, my amazing wife Jane, and other family members 
including my dad, one of my true heroes.
  At that time, my predecessor, Senator George Voinovich, was serving 
with distinction here, and had said he intended to run for reelection. 
I was happy to be back in the private sector, involved in two small 
family businesses, practicing law, teaching at the Ohio State 
University and enjoying being a dad, including getting to coach my 
daughter's soccer teams. But I was also watching with apprehension the 
worsening economy and the way the administration and Congress were 
responding.
  When George Voinovich announced he would not seek reelection to the 
Senate, I made the decision to run because I was so concerned with the 
direction of my State and our country. I saw the bottom falling out of 
the Ohio economy. And I saw firsthand the pain that comes with layoffs 
and downsizing.
  Like others, I was frustrated that while Ohio small businesses and 
families were making the tough decisions to deal with a deepening 
recession, the Federal Government seemed immune, and out of touch. 
Instead of cutting expenses and figuring out how to do more with less, 
and focusing on private sector job growth, the Obama administration and 
Congress responded with a big government approach. Unfortunately, the 
$800 billion stimulus package had less to do with creating private 
sector jobs than growing the size and scope of government.
  And, in the midst of all this, I saw a new national health care bill 
working its way through the system that would substantially increase 
the Federal Government role and lock in place the unsustainable costs 
and inefficiency of our health care system, making health care even 
more expensive for families and small businesses and making it harder 
to deal with the exploding costs of health care in the Federal budget.
  And I saw record deficits building up to dangerous levels of debt 
that further threatened our economy.
  These issues, these deep concerns over jobs and the direction of our 
economy and fiscal crisis we face as a nation are my focus now in the 
Senate. And I am not alone. Whether Republican, Democrat, or 
Independent, I believe Ohioans understand that our State and our 
country are in trouble, and it is going to take real change and all of 
us working together across party lines to set things right.
  I believe the twin challenges of our time are how to revive the 
American economic miracle, and how to stop the reckless overspending by 
government that threatens to extinguish the American dream. And one 
affects the other. Without a growing economy and more jobs we cannot 
hope to reverse the dangerous trend of record deficits and deepening 
debt.
  And without getting our spending under control, we can not get our 
economy moving. It is not one or the other.
  These two goals are not inconsistent; in fact, they are reinforcing. 
With the fiscal time bomb on our doorstep and all the uncertainty it 
creates, we will never see the kind of strong recovery we hope for. We 
have to do both.
  In addition to taking steps to get our fiscal house in order, we 
revive the American economic miracle by moving aggressively to create 
the climate for job growth, for innovation, invention, and 
entrepreneurship. We need an environment that encourages risk-taking 
and private investment, which economists will tell you is the biggest 
challenge we face in this weak recovery. The current economic climate 
encouraged by Washington is one of uncertainty and apprehension. I have 
seen it all over Ohio.
  Last fall, I visited an independent trucking company, Wooster 
Trucking, based in Wayne County, OH. Paul Williams, the owner, pulled 
together a dozen or so local small business owners from the area for a 
roundtable discussion, one of the many I have had in the last couple 
years. Struggling in a tough economy, these small businesses all 
wondered the same thing: why has Washington made it harder on them to 
grow and create jobs, not easier? They talked about the threat of new 
EPA regulations that will drive up energy costs. Depending on their 
business, they were worried about other specific Federal regulations or 
mandates in trucking, manufacturing and banking that would drive up 
their compliance make them less competitive.
  They talked about the threat of higher income taxes coming, which 
creates uncertainty at a time when the opposite is needed to 
incentivize businesses to invest and grow. Like the vast majority of 
small businesses, most of those businesses around the table that day 
pay their taxes as individuals not corporations. The temporary 
extension of tax rates and capital gains and death taxes, with the very 
real possibility of higher taxes soon reduces their incentive to invest 
and create the jobs we need.
  Every single small business owner around the table talked about 
health care. All of them said the same thing. They said, since the 
health care bill passed, their health care costs are going up more, not 
less, and how that was increasing their cost of doing business and 
hurting their ability to create jobs. They talked about premium 
increases of 10 to 25 percent, eating away any profit and chance to 
expand even after cutting other expenses.
  At one of the 80 factory visits I have made in the past 2 years, 
Bruce Beeghley, an impressive small business entrepreneur in northeast 
Ohio, told me his orders were picking up but he was not hiring. He was 
paying overtime instead of hiring permanent workers for the long-term 
because of the embedded and increasing cost of health care.
  And our education system and Federal worker retraining system is 
failing us in Ohio: Around the State, high-tech companies have told me 
they cannot find the skilled workers they need. This is wrong: At a 
time of soaring unemployment, there is a skills gap in America. There 
are high-skilled, high-wage jobs available but our schools are not 
producing a sufficient supply of well-trained American workers.
  You cannot be out there talking to workers and management without 
seeing these issues. But I have heard it closer to home. In fact, I am 
the product of small family business. My dad,

[[Page S1733]]

Bill Portman, who we lost at age 88 last year, was one of those small 
business risk takers. He took a big risk when I was a kid. At age 40, 
he left a job. He had a good job with a big company as a salesman. He 
had health care coverage and retirement benefits. He gave it all up to 
start his own business, Portman Equipment Company, with five other guys 
and my mom as bookkeeper.
  He could not get a loan and his family did not have the money and the 
bank would not lend him money, so he borrowed money from my mom's 
uncle. The company lost money over the first few years, but they kept 
it alive through hard work, ingenuity, and sacrifice. My brother took 
the reins later and took it to a new level. By the time my dad retired 
the company employed almost 300 people, 300 families.
  We all worked there, and when I was growing up, the discussion around 
the kitchen table was often about how government--taxes, rules, and 
regulations--affected Portman Equipment and other Ohio small 
businesses. My dad is among my heroes because of his hard work and 
sacrifice. Because with my mom they built something of value. I have 
seen it done, and I know the role government can play and should not 
play in helping to create jobs and opportunities.
  About a year ago, I asked my dad if he would take the same risk 
today. He said, ``I don't know, there's a lot of uncertainty out there 
. . . That is a word I hear a lot from small business owners all over 
Ohio. That is why a lot of job creators, or potential job creators are 
staying on the sidelines, and keeping their cash on the sidelines, and 
keeping their cash on the sidelines rather than investing in plant, 
equipment, and people.
  Leadership is needed to create a positive climate which spurs job 
growth, drives opportunity and restores the American dream. Leadership 
is needed to get a handle on our serious fiscal issues. Instead, we are 
debating at the margins. You will see it play out on the floor of the 
Senate this week. We are locked in a fierce partisan debate about less 
than 1 percent of Federal outlays, actual federal spending, for this 
fiscal year. And we are not even addressing the biggest and fastest 
growing part of the budget, which is the important, but, unsustainable, 
entitlement programs.
  In fact, as American families have tightened their belts over the 
past couple of years and businesses have had to do more with less, the 
Federal Government has taken the opposite path, spending more, growing 
bigger, and becoming more involved in our private economy and our 
lives.
  Over the past 2 years, Paul Williams at that trucking company in 
Wooster I told you about had to cut expenses to stay afloat. They had 
to sell some of their trucks and let folks go. Here in Washington 
during that same time, the U.S. Government, though going deeper into 
debt, borrowing more money, brought on more government employees, and 
grew in size. During these same 2 years, Washington spent 27 percent 
more in its so-called domestic discretionary spending that is being 
debated this week. And that does not count the stimulus bill and other 
one-time spending, which gave us staggering 80 percent increase in this 
type of spending in 2 short years.
  This historic failure to control spending, directly affects all of us 
because it affects our economy and the ability to create jobs. It 
pushes up interest rates, affecting car loans, mortgages, and student 
loans, and crowds out private investment, and leaves us with three bad 
choices, far higher taxes, even more borrowing, or both.
  This will surprise no one, but recently, a group of 47 respected 
business economists agreed that the greatest threat to our economy was 
our debt and deficits.
  Restoring fiscal restraint is critical to creating the certainty that 
employers and entrepreneurs need to create jobs across Ohio and our 
country. It is truly dangerous because left unchecked, these mounting 
debts are likely to lead to the kind of debt crisis we have seen in 
Greece and other countries.
  The government spending more than it takes in hurts our economy today 
and mortgages the future for our children and grandchildren. Think 
about this: every child born in America today automatically, through no 
fault of their own, inherits $45,000 in U.S. debt.
  People are looking for a better way. People are looking for 
leadership from Washington that takes on those challenges that Ohio's 
businesses and workers face. The status quo is not working. There is an 
urgency about this that the American people get, even while many in 
Washington seem to be in denial. We must rise to the challenge and work 
together across party lines to meet our economic and fiscal problems 
head-on by aggressively putting in place pro-growth measures and 
spending restraint, and we must do it now.
  We must think and act differently to compete and win in the global 
economy, regain America's place in the world and give working families 
the hope of a better tomorrow. We can no longer rest on our laurels, no 
longer afford the luxury of living with a substandard education system 
that does not produce young people with the 21st century skills they 
need to succeed. We cannot afford a bureaucratic regulatory regime and 
a hopelessly complicated Tax Code that favors social engineering over 
sound business decisions. We can no longer sit back while our 
dependence on imported oil charts our destiny rather than American 
technology and innovation.
  And we cannot compete and win if our health care system is so 
inefficient that its costs are double the rest of the developed world 
while outcomes are unsatisfactory, especially for those millions of 
American families without coverage. This is wrong for the small 
businesses at the roundtable I talked about earlier who are trying to 
provide health care and yet stay afloat. And it is wrong for working 
families whose rising costs are eating away at their opportunity to 
move up the ladder.
  To revive the American economic miracle, we need to revolutionize the 
way we think about all the major institutions of our economy. We need 
structural reform of our regulatory system, energy policy, tax code, 
worker retraining and education, health care delivery, our trade policy 
and legal system. And of course, we must fix our broken budgeting 
process that has us so deeply in debt.
  These challenges are not insurmountable. I know because we are 
Americans and we have done this before. We waged a World War that 
required more resources and sacrifices than anything we face today, and 
we have come out stronger. We survived a Civil War, a Great Depression, 
and a Cold War to emerge as the beacon of hope and opportunity for the 
rest of the world.
  There is a long line of distinguished Senators from Ohio who were 
part of these historic times, including Warren G. Harding and William 
Henry Harrison.
  One famous predecessor is John Glenn, an American hero who, along 
with his wife, Annie, I have been honored to know and work with over 
the years. And immediately follow Senator George Voinovich--one of the 
very finest public servants our State has ever known. Jane and I are 
grateful to George and Janet for their support and friendship, and for 
the extraordinary legacy they leave.
  And there is another former Ohio Senator whose desk I requested and 
speak from today: Robert A. Taft, a fellow Cincinnatian, who actually 
worked at the same law firm where I was a partner before being elected 
to Congress. Like me, he also served in the executive branch. Unlike 
me, he was first in his class in high school, college and law school 
and was said to have had ``the best mind in Washington.'' Democrats 
joked that ``he had the best mind in Washington until he made it up.'' 
He was a principled and effective Republican leader. In fact, when his 
peers commissioned a review of the top five U.S. Senators in history, 
he was selected to be among them. That is why he is one of only five 
Senators to have a portrait in the President's Room off the Senate 
floor. He was a featured ``Profile in Courage'' in John Kennedy's book; 
on his memorial across Constitution Avenue it is written that it 
``stands as a tribute to the honesty, indomitable courage and high 
principles of free governments symbolized by his life.''
  It is always dangerous to predict how a former Senator would react to 
today's predicaments. But I am confident that were Robert A. Taft among 
us today, he would rise in full-throated

[[Page S1734]]

support of addressing the twin challenges we have talked about today. 
His honesty would force him to admit that our economic systems are not 
up to the global competition of the 21st century, his courage would 
force him to insist we address our budget woes, including entitlements, 
and his love of liberty would compel him to fight for solutions to our 
economic challenges that promote free markets and the power and dignity 
of the individual over the heavy hand of government.
  As we have discussed, there is a lot of hard work to do. In my role, 
I hope to be worthy of this great and temporary privilege. I will rely 
on my faith, my family, and the good people of Ohio. I will work 
constructively with my colleagues to achieve results, including working 
with the senior Senator from Ohio, Sherrod Brown, and others across the 
aisle. I will work every day to try to earn the confidence and trust 
the people of Ohio have placed in me. As we go forward together, may 
God bless Ohio and this great Nation and help guide us in our shared 
commitment to a better future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Ohio, I have 
listened with great interest to his first speech in the Senate. I was 
particularly interested in his reference to Robert A. Taft, whose 
portrait is in the Republican leader's office and has been there for 
some time. In fact, the place that is currently the office of the 
Republican leader became the office of the Republican leader about the 
time Senator Taft, in that all-too-brief period, was majority leader. 
He was actually only in that position for about 8 months before he 
passed away, but he left an incredible impression in this town, which 
the junior Senator from Ohio pointed out.
  Listening to the new Senator from Ohio, he is entirely able to fill 
the shoes of those who have come before representing the great State of 
Ohio in the Senate. He made reference to some of them. I predict by the 
time the Senator from Ohio leaves this body, he will be widely referred 
to in the same category.
  I thank him for his important first contribution in the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I join the Republican leader in 
congratulating Senator Portman on his first speech on the Senate floor. 
I remember those days some 4 years ago when I had the honor of doing 
that. I know how close Rob and Jane are and their children. I have seen 
them often over the last year, and I know the sacrifice and difficulty 
of leaving home, as he points out. I know he feels that way about his 
family. I look forward to this relationship. I look forward to what we 
have been working to do, especially on manufacturing, on jobs. Senator 
Portman has visited some 80 manufacturing plants in the last 3 years. 
He sees what I see on the shop floors. If we keep these jobs in the 
United States--much of the innovation is done on the shop floor--we 
will continue to lead the world in innovation and continue to lead the 
world in job creation. That is the importance of working with small- 
and medium-size and large manufacturing companies.
  I also would add that Senator Portman already understands Ohio is the 
home of two major Federal installations, NASA Glenn in Cleveland and, 
in the part of the State I live in, Wright Patterson Air Force Base 
near Dayton. In the part of the State Senator Portman lives in, there 
is the Battelle Memorial Institute, in Columbus, which, while not a 
Federal agency per se, serves much of the Federal Government by running 
the country's energy labs. There is synergism among those three, 
coupled with Ohio State and Case Western. I met today with President 
Williams of the University of Cincinnati, Senator Portman's hometown. 
The kind of synergism that comes out of this and innovation and high-
end manufacturing and all the kinds of things that he and Senator 
Portman and I will do together in job creation, whether it is USEC in 
southern Ohio or the solar industry in Toledo or the auto industry in 
the north or the aerospace industry in the southwest and throughout the 
State, this kind of work will absolutely matter to put people back to 
work and create the kinds of good-paying industrial jobs and good-
paying other jobs Ohioans aspire to, to create a strong, vibrant middle 
class.
  I congratulate Senator Portman.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to thank all of my colleagues for 
really helping us to focus on this debate yesterday and today. We 
started discussing the reauthorization of the SBIR and STTR Programs 
within the Small Business Administration. Senator Snowe has been on the 
floor most of the day yesterday and part of the day today as we have 
managed this bill.
  As I have said many times, this particular program is the Federal 
Government's largest research program for small business. It was 
started in 1982 by a bipartisan group of Senators and House Members who 
believed small businesses in America had something to contribute in the 
technological and scientific advances in this country, and they were 
right. They said the Federal Government spends billions of dollars 
every year on research and development, and yet some of our most 
promising small businesses--maybe independent scientists or researchers 
or engineers or inventors of all different backgrounds and 
persuasions--could not really get in the front door of the Department 
of Defense or NIH. In those days, people only wanted to see people from 
big companies.
  Well, not only was that not allowing small business an opportunity, 
but it was shortchanging the taxpayers because what taxpayers want is 
the best technology. It does not matter to them whether it comes from a 
small shop down the street operating on the second floor above a 
doughnut shop--like my father got started many years ago--or whether it 
comes from the back office of IBM. They just want the best, and they 
deserve it. This program delivers it. So this is about innovation and 
jobs.
  One thing I want to stress again: Several people have come down to 
the floor and said, why aren't we--I guess meaning Democrats--focused 
like a laser on closing the budget gap?
  Let me say that this is an effort to close the budget gap and to 
reduce the debt and to close the annual deficit because that can be 
done by cutting discretionary spending, cutting defense spending, where 
it is wasteful and not effective, raising revenues where it is 
appropriate--particularly for those making over $1 million a year would 
be a good place to start--and most importantly or equally important to 
all of the above is creating an atmosphere so the private sector can 
get about the business of creating jobs. That is what this program 
does. That is why Senator Snowe and I are on the floor. That is why our 
committee voted this bill out 18 to 1. We know it is important. 
Innovation creates jobs.
  I want to show you just three examples, as we are waiting for 
Senators to come to the floor to talk about their amendments. I want to 
share one story. This is from Connecticut.
  Might I say that over the 20-plus years of this program, there have 
been small businesses in every State that have benefited either through 
grants or through contracts. The Department of Defense has about $1 
billion of their research and development set aside for this purpose. 
Other departments call them grants. The Department of Defense actually 
enters into contracts with small businesses.
  I am not sure if this example came out of the Department of Defense. 
It is not noted on the chart. But one of our agencies thought it might 
be important to create a device to safely transport toxic chemicals.
  I am from Louisiana. We have a tremendous and are proud of our 
industrial base in petrochemicals. Some things we produce are really 
safe. Some things we produce are quite dangerous but necessary to 
undergird our economy. So the transport of these toxic

[[Page S1735]]

chemicals--to do it safely--is important.
  So one of the agencies--and I do not have exactly which one--
identified a company in Connecticut that might be able to come up with 
some such device. They did. That particular company, which is now ATMI, 
paid more than 10 times in taxes now that that invention has been 
commercialized, as we can see here on this chart. But what people 
really need to know is that this company paid more than 10 times in 
taxes than what they received from the program. This is just one 
example.
  ATMI went from 40 employees to employing 800 people worldwide. I am 
hoping their company is still located in Danbury, CT, and I am hoping 
most of these 800 people are working in America. There is no 
requirement in this particular program for that to occur, and we would 
not want to have that requirement because we are producing technology 
and innovation for America and for the world, and our people will 
benefit from it. But let's hope that is the case. That is just one 
example.
  A second example comes from Ann Arbor, MI. Senator Stabenow was on 
the floor earlier today, and I thank her so very much. She was a very 
strong supporter of our very important small business jobs and 
innovation bill in the last Congress. I am pleased the leadership has 
given our committee an opportunity to be on the floor with another 
important bill so early in this Congress.
  I think Leader Reid knows and feels strongly--as strongly as I do--
that there are more ways to cut a deficit than the one being trumpeted 
on the other side of this Capitol, and it is not even a way because it 
will not work. All we hear from the other Chamber is cut discretionary 
spending and you will get there. A, we will not get there, and B, we 
are going to shoot off both feet in the process of trying to go down 
that road because it is a road to a dead end.
  You cannot get to where we want to go the way some people are 
arguing. We can get to reducing our deficit, eliminating our debt, by 
doing all four of the things I mentioned, and one of them is creating 
jobs and doing it in the private sector.
  This is a Cybernet ammo sorter, as shown on this chart. This did come 
from the Defense Department. When people ask, how can you save millions 
of dollars, well, this particular invention has saved the government 
hundreds of millions of dollars in defense costs over 5 years. It 
started in Michigan. Now it is expanding to Florida. That will make 
Senator Nelson very happy. It was initially implemented at one of our 
camps in Kuwait. It was in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. It is 
now also in use at Fort Irwin, the National Training Center in the 
Mojave Desert, where troops train before deployment. It sorts 
ammunition in a way that saves our troops many manhours and hundreds of 
millions of dollars.
  So there is another way to cut spending besides just slashing and 
burning some of the best programs in the world, literally. Some of the 
best programs in the world have been left on the chopping block--not 
just in America, in the world, have been left on the chopping block--on 
the House of Representatives floor.
  I might suggest that they think outside the box and they think of 
other ways to reduce spending, which is investing in smart investments 
that streamline operations, that create efficiencies and save taxpayers 
money and create jobs at the same time; thus, companies can pay in more 
taxes at the local, State, and Federal levels, and we continue to get 
spending under control and reduce our deficit.
  So that is Cybernet's Automated Tactical Ammunition Classification 
System. Leave it to the Department of Defense to make up such a name.
  As shown on this chart, this is Beacon Interactive Systems' TurboWork 
out of Cambridge, MA. This company created technology to help sailors 
keep the fleet safe through streamlined and uniformed maintenance. It 
will be going now into all 250 ships in the Navy, and 460,000 sailors 
will use this technology developed out of the SBIR Program every day to 
protect and preserve our warships. In its first full year of 
implementation, the software should give a 300-percent return on the 
initial SBIR investment.

  The Presiding Officer knows this because he has been a very strong 
advocate nationally--not just in the State of Oregon--for small 
business. The Presiding Officer knows that with a little investment at 
the right time, there can be a tremendous upside, and that is what we 
are seeing here with this program.
  Our initial grants are only $150,000. People might say, geez, what 
can you do with $150,000? Well, $150,000 given to the scientist or the 
engineer or the inventor at the right time can help provide that half-
year or year of research and development necessary to grow and to 
mobilize the technologies to develop it into something that could work. 
Then phase II comes in with the potential: If it looks inviting and 
exciting and interesting to the agency, they might award such a grantee 
another $150,000 for phase II, and then it can go up to $1.5 million. 
That is the way these companies or these ideas grow.
  At some point, this program ceases to be necessary because what 
happens is it either becomes clear to the people managing it that this 
idea has failed, the technology is not going to work and the grant is 
simply shut down or the contract comes to end, then, yes, that money 
will be lost. But what often happens, although not in every case, is 
that technology goes to such a phase that it becomes so promising that 
venture capitalists step in, as they should, and other investors step 
in and take that company way up. That is what happened to Qualcomm. 
Twenty years ago nobody ever heard of them. They got a small grant from 
this program and they were one of the winners. We were winners too, not 
just the company, because now they employ 17,800 people operating in 
more than 30 countries worldwide. They paid in taxes in 1 year half of 
the cost of this entire program.
  As the doctor who researched this program said to us in our hearing--
we have five new members of our committee from the Republican side and 
Senator Snowe and I wanted to give them a chance to understand this 
bill. I am proud to say all but one supported it coming out of 
committee when they understood--of course, some of them had served in 
the House before and were familiar with this. But when they understood 
that this has been one of the most successful programs, and when it was 
reviewed by--I think it was Dr. Wessner who gave us a review of the 
program, he said, Let me tell you, Senator: If every single grant 
produces a company, you are running the wrong kind of program. Because 
this is a high-risk effort, but it is a risk that over time has paid 
off tremendously to the taxpayer and will continue if it continues to 
run in that fashion.
  We have tightened up fraud and abuse statutes in this bill. We have 
put in more oversight, which Senator Snowe and I thought was important, 
not to heavily burden the program but to make sure the people in our 
Departments, whether it is in Defense or NIH or the NASA program, are 
utilizing this program to the extent and with the spirit Congress 
intends. So we have made some adjustments, some perfections through 
some adjustments and modifications, and we think we have made this 
program hopefully even stronger.
  Not every grant that is given will result in jobs, and it will be 
folded. But when it works, it works, and we are so benefited as a 
nation. In fact, there was also testimony given before our committee 
that countries all over the world are trying to model some of their 
programs after this one. They keep asking: How is it in America you 
have such an innovative spirit? How is it you start so many small 
businesses, and many of them--not all--succeed? What is it?
  It is a number of things. It is our own nature and spirit. It is also 
because people have traditionally had a variety of accesses to capital, 
whether it is equity in their homes or a savings account or a banking 
system that is for the most part very honest and transparent. We have 
had some difficulties in the past few years with some of the antics on 
Wall Street that caused people to catch their breath. Generally, 
compared to many other countries in the world, our people have access 
to those things--private property they own. In many countries people 
can't even own private property. They can't even get a clear title to 
property, so how can they borrow against it to start a business? They 
don't.

[[Page S1736]]

  There are many things that go into this miracle we call the American 
economy, and this is a big part of it. The Federal Government doesn't 
do it all. But I am hoping, as people consider this debate, every State 
in the Union will create a similar program. Some of them already have. 
I will try to provide to all the Members here a list of what their 
individual States have done. Because if we think about it, the large 
cities, whether it be New York or San Francisco or Detroit or Chicago--
if every city government would think about setting aside a small 
portion of some of their research and development money to push out the 
small businesses that aren't obvious sometimes to Wall Street and New 
York or they are not obvious to Pennsylvania Avenue and Washington or 
they are not exactly located in the Silicon Valley in California, but 
there are budding entrepreneurs and Americans with great ideas and 
great drive and great determination--I am hoping our government can be 
smarter. I would like the Federal Government to be as smart as it can 
possibly be, and I am hoping our State governments will look at this 
program as a model and, potentially, cities.
  I can tell my colleagues one thing I am very excited about. I haven't 
talked with them about it specifically, but I have spoken at some 
length to the Goldman Sachs executives, and I wish to speak for a 
minute about a program I am very impressed with. It is not something we 
are doing. It is something they are doing, but I think it is worth 
mentioning here.
  Goldman Sachs has decided to try to create 10,000 new small 
businesses in America--not new small businesses. They are trying to 
grow 10,000 small businesses in America. They have a very strategic 
plan and one I am watching very closely for a number of reasons. One, 
their model is scaleable and other companies could potentially do it 
and maybe we could model some kind of Federal program, if theirs is 
successful.
  Secondly, I am watching it closely because one of the cities they 
chose for their pilot is the City of New Orleans, the city I represent. 
My brother serves as mayor there now. He is very engaged with the 
leadership there, because New Orleans has become a hotbed of 
innovation. When I hear President Obama talking about out-competing and 
out-innovating, that is not going to happen on Pennsylvania Avenue or 
right down on the intersection of M and Wisconsin in Georgetown. It is 
going to happen on Canal Street and in the lower ninth ward in New 
Orleans east, in Gentilly, and places all over the world.
  Goldman Sachs is saying, All right, Mr. Mayor, you get the city 
leadership and one of the community colleges to get the training. We 
jointly choose these entrepreneurs that have promise--they are already 
established and they have proven they can run a business and they can 
turn a profit, but they are stagnating. They are smaller. They have the 
potential to be larger, but they are not. What is it that is causing 
this? Maybe lack of knowledge, lack of capital. Our Delgado Community 
College--and I am very proud of Delgado. It is one of the finest 
community colleges in the country. Delgado stepped up and said, Let us 
put them through the training. When they succeed and successfully exit 
the training--and I believe it is a 6-month to 9-month program--at the 
other end, Goldman Sachs gives them a check for X amount of money. I am 
not sure if it is $25,000 or $100,000 or $200,000. I will get that into 
the Record so we can be clear. But they give them a check so they have 
the capital and know-how and then they have the support of some of the 
nonprofits in the area to help them grow.
  Think about that. If that is something only one company is doing, 
think about what companies such as Chevron--and I see them 
advertising--what they are doing to help small business. I think about 
other companies. American Express with their Plum card, if I am 
correct, talks about what they are doing. I am not promoting these 
companies, but they are examples of programs that are out there 
supporting small business. The Federal Government can do its part as 
well, and we have an obligation. We can't do everything, but we most 
certainly can do our part, as many large companies around the country 
and the world are also thinking about what they can do to help grow 
small businesses in their area. That is just one example.

  We are going to watch the success of some of these programs in the 
private sector, and then we will get some of their best ideas and 
potentially even strengthen our partnership. But this is a partnership 
between the Federal Government and private small businesses throughout 
our country.
  Let me switch for a minute to mention a couple of the organizations 
that are supporting this program. I don't see anyone on the floor at 
this time to speak, so let me read into the Record again some of the 
comments we have received from very strong organizations.
  The Small Business Technology Council says:

       Not only does this SBIR program spur technological 
     innovation and entrepreneurship, it helps create high-tech 
     jobs and does so without increasing the Federal deficit.

  The National Small Business Association says:

       The uncertain future of this program--

  and as I said, for 6 years it has been operating on short-term 
arrangements: 3 months here, 2 months there. For 6 years, nobody has 
had any idea, either from the private sector, from some of the best 
labs, from our agencies, whether this program would be there next week. 
That is unconscionable. That is why Senator Snowe and I have fought so 
hard to get this program authorized.
  I see Senator Coburn on the floor, the Senator from Oklahoma, and I 
wish to thank him, because as a result of his good compromising efforts 
with us last Congress we will be able to authorize this program for 8 
years, as the Senator will know, because he has been a strong advocate 
for good management and streamlining. Programs such as this need 
certainty. The labs, our agencies need to know. We are looking out 2 
years or 3 years for this new technology, but if there is a company out 
here we think could provide it to us, we need to know. So this 8-year 
authorization is important. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma, because 
some programs are only authorized for 4 years or 5 years. But we feel 
because we have been in limbo for 6 years, it would be a good idea to 
get an 8-year authorization.
  One more comment for 30 seconds and I will yield the floor. I wish to 
read into the Record the letters of support from a short list of 
companies, and as additional ones come in we will read into the Record 
their support:
  The Bay Area Innovation Alliance has sent their support. The Bio 
District of New Orleans, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, 
Connect of California, the National Defense Industrial Association, the 
New England Innovation Alliance, the National Small Business 
Association, the National Venture Capital Association, the Small 
Business Association of New England--and I wish to thank Senator 
Shaheen particularly for her support--Small Businesses of California, 
Small Business Technology Council, V-Labs, Inc./American Chemical 
Society, and the United States Chamber of Commerce, to name a few.
  Let's keep this debate moving forward. We have had a number of 
amendments today. I see Senator Coburn on the floor.
  I yield the floor at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. I thank the chairwoman for her kind words. It is 
necessary that we move this bill, I agree. I am thankful to Senator 
Landrieu and the ranking member for the movement on some of the 
commitments they made to me on programs that don't work within the 
small business area.
  I have multiple amendments, but in due deference to the chairwoman, I 
will not call those up. I am going to call up two. I wish to explain 
both of them.
  Amendment No. 184. Everybody was excited about the GAO report that 
looked at the first third of the Federal Government in terms of all the 
duplication. We don't know the extent of that duplication, and we are 
going to have to do some hard work to winnow out a lot of savings, but 
there are a lot of savings. People don't agree with me on my estimate, 
but nobody knows these programs better than I do. I have been studying 
them for 6 years. There is at least $100 billion where we can

[[Page S1737]]

save the American taxpayers and actually do a better job through 
redesigning the programs and eliminating the bureaucracies that make 
them less than effective.
  So one of the things we need to do to help GAO is have the agencies 
report to OMB and to us on a yearly basis on their programs. There are 
at least 2,100 programs that we know of in the Federal Government. When 
GAO looks at this, it is very difficult for them to ferret it all out. 
We only have one agency that publishes a list of their programs every 
year, and that is the Department of Education. The book is very thick, 
and it lists all their programs. That will make it much easier for GAO 
to do the next third.
  This is a simple amendment that requires every department of the 
Cabinet to fulfill to OMB, within a short period of time, all their 
programs and also report to us. When that happens that will make GAO 
much more effective in how it brings to us this next group of 
duplications. So it is a straightforward amendment. I hope it can be 
accepted.


                           Amendment No. 184

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 184 
and make it pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. There is no objection. But before we do that, I ask the 
Senator a question. I actually like this amendment, No. 184. The 
Senator spoke with me about this previously. It has some merit. I thank 
the Senator for being cooperative.
  If he could identify his other number, I would like to suggest that 
if we can get a Democratic amendment slid in between these, we might 
call up his two and the Democratic one.
  Mr. COBURN. The other amendment is No. 220.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Would the Senator mind explaining that amendment, and I 
will make sure it is cleared on our side and we will see what we can 
do.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I understand my first amendment is up and 
pending; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 184.

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide a list of programs administered by every Federal 
                         department and agency)

       At the end of title V, add the following:

     SEC. __. REQUIREMENT TO IDENTIFY AND DESCRIBE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Each fiscal year, the head of each Federal agency 
     shall--
       (1) identify and describe every program administered by the 
     agency, including the mission, goals, purpose, budget, and 
     statutory authority of each program;
       (2) report the list and description of programs to the 
     Office of Management and Budget, Congress, and the U.S. 
     Government Accountability Office; and
       (3) post the list and description of programs on the 
     agency's public website.
       (b) Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
     shall prescribe regulations to implement this section.
       (c) This section shall be implemented beginning in the 
     first full fiscal year occurring after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.


                           Amendment No. 220

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I will discuss amendment No. 220 now. Is 
the chairman's intention that I defer calling up that amendment right 
now?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I may not have an objection. We are trying to get it 
cleared on our side. If the Senator will explain it, we can get back to 
him in short order.
  Mr. COBURN. Amendment No. 220 is about making sure we don't send good 
money after bad. When you go to the pump today to buy gasoline that is 
blended with ethanol, you pay, as a taxpayer, $1.78. As a taxpayer, you 
pay that before you ever pay the $3.51 we are paying per gallon, 
through incentives, tax credits, and rebates for ethanol and blending.
  This doesn't take away incentives on corn-based ethanol. It says that 
because we already have a mandate that says 15 billion gallons of 
ethanol must be available and put through the system this year, no 
longer is there a necessity to have a blender's credit to the tune of 
$6 billion a year. So what this does is two things: One, it takes away 
an incentive that is no longer needed because we have already mandated 
the ethanol will be there. But it saves us $6 billion that we are 
paying to firms that are going to do the business whether we pay it or 
not.
  So it is silly to continue to spend $6 billion of American taxpayer 
money of which almost $3 billion of it will be borrowed money from 
either the Federal Reserve or from the Chinese to incentivize something 
that is already mandated to happen.
  If we look at ethanol, it is two-thirds as efficient when blended as 
gasoline. It gets poorer mileage, and there is no savings in terms of 
carbon output or pollution. So we are incentivizing the use of a fuel 
that goes against what most people would like to do environmentally. It 
causes us to markedly increase the cost of food, which we are seeing in 
our country and around the world today, and we are incentivizing 
something that is going to happen anyway.
  So it is a straightforward amendment. It says on the blender's tax 
credit we are no longer going to give a credit for something on which 
we already have a market--we are going to do without it. Some will say 
that is a tax increase. But when we send $6 billion to a small segment 
of American industry, and it is not going to impact their sales at all, 
what is the purpose for having tax credits? If we use tax credits or 
expenditures to expand the economy and it is not doing that, why would 
we continue to do it?
  As part of the President's deficit commission, we looked at that and 
said it is a no-brainer. There is no reason we would incent something 
that is already mandated by law and has to happen. I know it is a 
controversial subject for a lot of my colleagues from farm States. But 
the fact is, worldwide sophistication and food preference has markedly 
increased. This is creating an enormous pressure in taking food stocks 
out of the human food chain and putting it into the energy chain. So we 
are not stopping that. There are still all the other credits available, 
incentives and mandates. But we are saying we should not spend $6 
billion of American taxpayer money that we don't have--by the way, we 
do not have it--for something they are going to do anyway.
  The other point I make is that we are now a net exporter of ethanol. 
A lot of people don't recognize that. Through November 2010, we 
exported 397 million gallons of ethanol. That is almost 1 billion 
gallons since 2005. Not counting the blender's credit but all the other 
credits, we are supporting that to the tune of $1.20 a gallon.
  Now we are subsidizing the consumption of ethanol in Europe to the 
tune of $1.20 a gallon. That makes no sense when, in fact, we have 
significant energy needs ourselves.
  My hope is that we will consider this amendment and that we will vote 
on it. I recognize it is going to be a close vote. My count is at 55, 
and I know we have to get 60. I want the other 45 Members of our body 
to go and explain to their constituents why we are sending $6 billion 
to something that is going to happen anyway. It is a gift. That is all 
it is. We don't have $6 billion to spend that way.
  The other point I will make is that with the trouble we are in, we 
are not going to get out of it by cutting $200 billion at a time. We 
are going to get out of it $6 billion at a time. Senator Begich and I 
found $1 billion in the FAA bill from earmarks that are tied up. So if 
we do it $1 billion, $2 billion, $3 billion, $4 billion, $5 billion, or 
$6 billion at a time, pretty soon it will add up and we will take 
pressure off our country in terms of funding our debt.
  The ultimate course has to be to convince the world that we get it, 
that we can't continue to borrow 40 percent of our expenditures in the 
world financial market and expect them to continue to loan us money. It 
is very straightforward.
  My corn farmers in Oklahoma don't like it, and I understand that. It 
is about doing the right thing for our country. Now is the time to do 
it.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation of the 
Senator from Oklahoma. We have been able to

[[Page S1738]]

get his amendment No. 184 pending in the list of seven others, which 
gives us eight pending but not yet set for a vote. If he would allow me 
to get back to him about whether I will be able to clear that, I would 
appreciate it. Senator Snowe is not on the floor, and we need to 
consult with her.
  The number of the Senator's other amendment is 220. I will let him 
know within the hour about that.
  Senator Shaheen is here. I appreciate her letting me say--and she 
will ask to be recognized--that she has been an outstanding member of 
our Small Business Committee. She most certainly was the job creator in 
chief in New Hampshire and has brought a tremendous amount of expertise 
to the Senate. I am very pleased to have her input on many of these 
bills that come out of our committee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. 
Landrieu, for those nice words and also for her leadership. We are all 
indebted to Senator Landrieu and Ranking Member Snowe for their 
leadership of the Small Business Committee and in bringing forward this 
legislation before us, the small business innovation research program.
  They worked very hard in the last session of Congress to get this 
bill through the Senate, and it would have passed then except the House 
adjourned before taking it up. I am thrilled that we are getting back 
to it this early in this session.
  I think most of us recognize that our future economic prosperity 
depends on whether this country continues to be a leader in science and 
innovation. We can't compete with India, China, and other Third World 
countries for low-wage manufacturing jobs. That is not our future. 
America's future is to be the global leader in science and technology. 
America makes the best, most innovative products and services. That 
ingenuity and excellence is our chief economic strength as a nation.
  As a former small business owner, I understand it is the private 
sector and business, and not government, that is responsible for most 
of the job creation in this country. But I also understand that 
government has a critical role to play in fostering the positive 
business climate that we need in this country to remain competitive. I 
believe there are a few things we can do through policy to unleash the 
innovative spirit that is so alive and well throughout this country, 
and particularly in my State of New Hampshire.

  One of those policy initiatives that we can do that is essential in 
maintaining the creative dominance that has allowed us to lead the 
world in innovation is to enact a long-term reauthorization of the 
Small Business Innovation Research Program or the SBIR Program.
  SBIR is not just a typical grant program. Under the SBIR Program, a 
small business is able to compete for research that Federal agencies 
need to accomplish their mission--agencies such as the Department of 
Defense. Small businesses employ about one-third of America's 
scientists and engineers and produce more patents than large businesses 
and universities. Yet small business receives only about 4 percent of 
Federal research and development dollars.
  SBIR ensures that small business gets a tiny fraction of the existing 
Federal research dollars. Just in the last few weeks, I visited three 
New Hampshire companies that are doing cutting edge research because of 
the SBIR Program. Those three are Airex in Somersworth, Spire 
Semiconductor in Hudson, and Active Shock in Manchester. The research 
they have done under the SBIR Program has allowed them to develop new 
products, to add customers, and hire new workers--in other words, 
create jobs. All three have done essential research for the Department 
of Defense.
  Airex, for example, has developed a state-of-the-art program to 
manufacture critical components for our Nation's strategic missiles. 
This SBIR award positioned them perfectly to compete and win a contract 
to manufacture motors for use in military programs and to commercialize 
their research. They have been able to expand from a workforce of 10 
to, currently, 25 workers since they got that SBIR award, and they are 
continuing to grow.
  In Hanover, we have a company called Creare that is a poster child 
for the economic benefit that can be reaped through the SBIR Program. 
Senator Landrieu has talked on the floor about Qualcomm in San Diego. 
We should put Creare in Hanover, NH, in the same category as Qualcomm.
  Creare can trace more than $670 million of revenues they have earned 
because of the SBIR Program, its spinoffs, and technology licensees for 
the commercialization of its SBIR projects.
  Many New Hampshire small businesses have successfully competed for 
SBIR funding in the 28 years since the program has been in existence. 
All across New Hampshire, small businesses that otherwise would not be 
able to compete for Federal R&D funding have won competitive SBIR 
grants that advance technology and science and create good jobs--what 
we all want to happen right now in this economy.
  In just the last 2 years, New Hampshire firms have won 80 SBIR 
awards, and, in fact, despite its small size, New Hampshire is ranked 
22nd in the country for the total grants awarded through the Department 
of Defense under the SBIR Program.
  As a Senator from New Hampshire, I take particular pride in the SBIR 
Program because it was New Hampshire Senator Warren Rudman who, back in 
1982, sponsored the Small Business Innovation Development Act which 
established the SBIR Program.
  SBIR has a proven track record and its cost, as Chair Landrieu has 
said so often on the floor, is minimal. CBO estimates that implementing 
this bill would cost only $150 million over the next 5 years, and most 
of that minimal cost would have zero impact on the budget. That is 
because what this bill does is establish a 3-year pilot program that 
authorizes participating agencies to use the same dollars they set 
aside anyway for SBIR research to pay for administrative costs. That 
means we will not be using general operating funds to pay for 
administrative costs, and this bill imposes no mandates on business and 
imposes no costs on State and local governments.
  We need to address the long-term deficit and debt in this country. 
Our colleague from Oklahoma just spoke very eloquently to the need to 
do that and what it is going to take. We all know that. But the best 
way we can start dealing with the debt and deficit is through more 
robust economic growth. Objecting to the SBIR Program, as some have 
done, on the grounds that we should be focusing on the deficit alone 
makes no sense at all because the jobs created by the SBIR Program will 
lower the deficit.
  Just like stopgap budgeting is bad for business, so are stopgap 
extensions of the SBIR Program. Unfortunately, SBIR has been operating 
under short-term extensions--10 of them--since 2008. Short-term 
extensions are a problem because, as I hear and I know we all hear 
regularly from businesses--they need certainty in planning. This bill 
reauthorizes the SBIR Program for 8 years. It is a reasonable period of 
time, and it will allow small businesses and Federal agencies to 
effectively plan their research.
  I know we have heard from some quarters and it has become fashionable 
on the part of some people to say that this country's best days are 
behind us. But I do not believe that for one moment. As I have traveled 
around New Hampshire, I see cutting-edge innovators who are creating 
jobs. We in the Senate know what needs to be done. We just need the 
will to do it.
  I urge all our colleagues to join Senator Landrieu, Ranking Member 
Snowe, and the Small Business Committee in voting to reauthorize and 
strengthen the SBIR Program.
  I yield the floor. 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.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Tribute to Frank Buckles

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, we are waiting 10 or 15 minutes for 
Senators to come to the floor to speak

[[Page S1739]]

about the bill. Senator Snowe, myself, and others have fairly described 
it for hours today and yesterday. I thought I would take a minute to 
pay honor to a gentleman, the last U.S. veteran of World War I, who was 
laid to rest in Arlington Cemetery just yesterday and to put into the 
Congressional Record an article. I would like to read as much of it as 
I am able before the other Members come because it struck me as 
something important. It is a beautifully written article in the Post 
this morning. I hope many people got to see it. I am hoping many of our 
Members are able to read it. I learned some things I had actually no 
idea about, which will become apparent as I read this short article. It 
was beautifully written by Paul Duggan.
  I thought I would take a minute to read it into the Record. This is 
the last U.S. veteran of World War I so, of course, it was not just any 
ordinary funeral--not that any funeral is ordinary. It was extremely 
special to our country and to the world. President Obama was in 
attendance. Vice President Joe Biden was in attendance. I would like to 
read as much of it as I can:

       A lowly corporal of long ago was buried Tuesday at 
     Arlington National Cemetery, ushered to his grave with all 
     the Army's Old Guard solemn pomp.
       Frank Woodruff Buckles lived to be 110, the last of nearly 
     5 million U.S. veterans of a dimly remembered war--a 
     generation now laid to rest.
       In a late-day chill, after hundreds of strangers had paid 
     their respects in public viewings since the weekend, soldiers 
     carried the former doughboy's flag-draped coffin partway up a 
     knoll and set it on polished rails above his plot, a stone's 
     toss from the grave of his old supreme commander, Gen. John 
     J. ``Blackjack'' Pershing.
       A chaplain commended his soul to God; rifle volleys 
     cracked; a bugler sounded taps below the gentle rise. With 
     flags at half-staff throughout the U.S. military and 
     government, it was a fine send-off for the country's last 
     known veteran of World War I, who died peacefully Feb. 27 in 
     his West Virginia farmhouse.
       Yet the hallowed ritual at grave No. 34-581 was not a 
     farewell to one man alone. A reverent crowd of the powerful 
     and the ordinary--President Obama and Vice President Biden, 
     laborers and store clerks, heads bowed--came to salute 
     Buckles's deceased generation, the vanished millions soldiers 
     and sailors he came to symbolize in the end.
       Who were they? Not the troops of ``the Greatest 
     Generation,'' so celebrated these days, but the unheralded 
     ones of 1917 and 1918, who came home to pats on the back and 
     little else in an era before the country embraced and 
     rewarded its veterans. Their 20th-century narrative, poignant 
     and meaningful, is seldom recalled.
       ``I know my father would want me to be here,'' said Mike 
     Oliver, 73, a retiree from Alexandria, leaning on a cane near 
     the cemetery's amphitheater hours before the burial. Inside, 
     a hushed procession of visitors filed past Buckles's closed 
     coffin in the chapel.
       ``I'm here for Mr. Buckles, and I'm here for what he 
     represents,'' Oliver said. On his left lapel, he wore a tiny 
     gold pin, the insignia of his long-dead father's infantry 
     division in World War I, the Army's 80th. ``I'm here to say 
     goodbye to my dad,'' he said.
       Buckles, who fibbed his way into the Army at 16, was a 
     rear-echelon ambulance driver in war-ravaged France, miles 
     behind the battlefront. More than 116,000 Americans died, 
     about half in the fighting, most of the rest from illnesses, 
     in the nation's 19-month long engagement in a conflict that 
     scorched Europe for four years.
       Now the veterans who survived are all gone. What's left is 
     remembrance--the collective story of 4.7 million lives, an 
     obituary for a generation.
       Arriving stateside in 1918 and 1919, many of them, scarred 
     in mind and limb, they were met by postwar recession and 
     joblessness.
       A lot of veterans thought that they were owed a boost, that 
     they ought to be compensated for the good civilian wages they 
     had missed. But--

  Unfortunately, my words--

     lawmakers, year after year, said no.
       ``Oh, the YMCA did give me a one-month free membership,'' 
     Buckles recalled when he was a very old fellow. Except for 
     the $60 most veterans got from the government when they 
     mustered out, the YMCA gift was ``the only consideration I 
     ever saw given to a soldier after the war,'' the last 
     doughboy said.
       What he and other veterans finally received, in 1924, were 
     bonus certificates redeemable for cash in 1945. And Congress 
     had to override a veto to secure even that.
       With the 1920s roaring by then, the young veterans tucked 
     away their certificates and went about their lives. Buckles 
     became a purser on merchant ships, traveling the globe.
       Then the Depression hit, and their generation's legacy took 
     on another aspect, one of activism that helped propel a 
     reshaping of the nation's social landscape.
       Thousands of ruined veterans were left with nothing of 
     value but the promise of eventual bonuses. In 1932, while 
     Buckles was at sea, a ragtag army of ex-servicemen descended 
     on Washington with their wives and kids to lobby for early 
     redemption of the certificates, and a disaster ensued that 
     would long reverberate.

  This is the part I had no idea about, and I think it is important to 
recall it, to remember it:

       Living for weeks in a sprawling shantytown on mud flats in 
     the Anacostia and in tents and hovels near the U.S. Capitol, 
     the dirt poor ``Bonus Army,'' numbering more than 20,000, 
     defied orders to disperse. So the White House unleashed the 
     military.
       Infantrymen, saber-wielding cavalry troops and a half-dozen 
     tanks swept along the avenues below the Capitol, routing the 
     veterans and their families in a melee of blood and tear gas. 
     Then soldiers cleared out the Anacostia shacks and set them 
     ablaze.
       Two veterans died, and hundreds were injured. Four years 
     later, after a Florida hurricane killed 259 destitute 
     veterans at a makeshift federal work camp, political support 
     finally tipped for the bonuses, and the generation that 
     fought World War I finally got a substantial benefit.
       ``I think mine was $800,'' Buckles said of his bonus, equal 
     of $12,000 today. He said he gave it to his father, an 
     Oklahoma Dust Bowl farmer barely hanging on.
       The Bonus Army debacle weighed on Congress and the 
     Roosevelt administration during World War II. With 16 million 
     Americans in uniform--more than three times the World War I 
     total--policymakers feared massive unrest if the new veterans 
     got the same shabby treatment that Buckles' generation had 
     received.
       The result, in 1944, was the GI Bill, widely viewed as the 
     most far-reaching social program in U.S. history.

  I underscore that to say widely viewed as the most far-reaching 
social program in world history.

       It made college and homeownership possible for the great 
     wave of returning World War II veterans, when such 
     opportunities were considered luxuries, and spurred a vast, 
     decades-long expansion of America's middle class.
       Unfortunately for the veterans of Buckles's era, the bill 
     wasn't retroactive.
       Tuesday's hours-long viewing in the amphitheater chapel was 
     a consolation. Buckles's family and members of West 
     Virginia's congressional delegation had wanted him to lie in 
     honor in the Capitol Rotunda.

  They wanted him to lie in honor here, but it was not to be 
permissible.

       So the people of Arlington came to say goodbye.

  The article continues:

       A generation's end.
       When Murial Sue Kerr met Buckles--

  This was his wife--

     in the 1970s, she was a secretary at the Alexandria 
     headquarters of Veterans of World War I of the USA, which had 
     a large office staff at the time, scores of chapters across 
     the country and a quarter-million members out of 750,000 
     surviving veterans of the war.
       ``The commander,'' Kerr calls Buckles, who got that title 
     in 2008 when the only other living member, a Florida man, 
     passed away.
       The group was formed in 1948 after millions of World War II 
     veterans swelled the ranks of the American Legion and similar 
     organizations.

  It goes on to quote Kerr:

       ``The World War II guys had business loans, home loans, 
     education, all kinds of things,'' she said. ``My World War I 
     guys? Nothing. So they said, `Okay . . . we'll go start our 
     own bunch.' ''
       Which included Buckles, who had been captured by the 
     Japanese while working in Manila at the outbreak of 
     hostilities in the Pacific. Although he spent World War II in 
     an enemy prison camp, he was a civilian, so the GI Bill 
     didn't extend to him.
       In 1974, when Kerr was hired, most of the men were 
     retirees.

  She said:

       ``Every year they'd come to Washington, bus loads of them, 
     and testify before Congress,'' she recalled. They wanted 
     money for eyeglasses, hearing aids, dentures. ``And a little 
     pension,'' she said. ``Good ol' H.R. 1918--it was a bill they 
     were always putting in to give them $50 a month. But, of 
     course, it never, ever passed.''
       Just lot of memoirs now--the lobbying, the quarterly 
     magazine, the big annual conventions in Hot Springs and 
     Daytona Beach. Time ran out for all but the heartiest of the 
     Veterans of World War I of the USA, and they died fast. By 
     1993, when the office shut for good, Kerr, then in her 40s, 
     was the only staff member left.
       And occasionally she got phone calls from some of the few 
     remaining members, whose frail voices broke her heart.
       ``The typical sad things you'll hear from the elderly,'' 
     she said. ``I had one of my guys, he was absolutely in tears. 
     He was from Nevada, and his new nurse wouldn't cut the crust 
     off of his sandwich.''
       They were buried with honors Tuesday as scores of somber 
     onlookers crowded the hillside, a distant generation borne to 
     the grave with the last old veteran, who was cared for 
     lovingly by his family to the end.
       In the waning afternoon, the soldiers of the burial detail 
     strode in formation up the avenue from the grand marble 
     amphitheater to Section 34 of the cemetery, escorting the 
     horse-drawn caisson with Buckles's metal coffin, the 
     procession slow and deliberate, like the march of time.

[[Page S1740]]

       After the prayer and the echoes of the bugle and the rifles 
     had faded, the Army's vice chief of staff, Gen. Peter W. 
     Chiarelli, knelt before Buckles's daughter, seated by the 
     grave, and handed her a tri-folded American flag. He 
     whispered words of comfort, then stood and walked away.
       No more doughboys now.
       So long. Rest in peace.

  Madam President, I thought this was an article worth entering into 
the Record. I am pleased I had the time today, before Senators came to 
the floor, to actually read it into the Record so that we could pause 
to remember this week the burial of the last veteran of World War I and 
what an obligation we have to our veterans today and the kind of 
determination that we must continue to foster to honor them for the 
sacrifices they make, whether it was this generation, which we in large 
measure failed to do, the veterans of World War II, the veterans of 
Vietnam and Korea, of course, Desert Storm, our veterans from Iraq and 
from Afghanistan who are currently fighting those battles. It helps us 
to remember that the important work we do here--the bills passing, 
particularly bills that provide these kinds of fair and equitable 
benefits--is most certainly something the Federal Government must 
continue to keep as one of its highest priorities.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Arkansas.


                           Amendment No. 229

  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I am sorry for the delay, but we wanted 
to make sure we had our i's dotted and our t's crossed.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up and make pending 
the Pryor amendment numbered 229, the Patriot Express loan program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 229.

  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish the Patriot Express Loan Program under which the 
Small Business Administration may make loans to members of the military 
 community wanting to start or expand small business concerns, and for 
                            other purposes)

       On page 116, after line 24, add the following:

     SEC. 504. PATRIOT EXPRESS LOAN PROGRAM.

       (a) Program.--
       (1) In general.--Section 7(a)(31) of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(31)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(G) Patriot express loan program.--
       ``(i) Definition.--In this subparagraph, the term `eligible 
     member of the military community'--

       ``(I) means--

       ``(aa) a veteran, including a service-disabled veteran;
       ``(bb) a member of the Armed Forces on active duty who is 
     eligible to participate in the Transition Assistance Program;
       ``(cc) a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces;
       ``(dd) the spouse of an individual described in item (aa), 
     (bb), or (cc) who is alive;
       ``(ee) the widowed spouse of a deceased veteran, member of 
     the Armed Forces, or member of a reserve component of the 
     Armed Forces who died because of a service-connected (as 
     defined in section 101(16) of title 38, United States Code) 
     disability; and
       ``(ff) the widowed spouse of a deceased member of the Armed 
     Forces or member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces 
     relating to whom the Department of Defense may provide for 
     the recovery, care, and disposition of the remains of the 
     individual under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1481(a) of 
     title 10, United States Code; and

       ``(II) does not include an individual who was discharged or 
     released from the active military, naval, or air service 
     under dishonorable conditions.

       ``(ii) Loan guarantees.--The Administrator shall establish 
     a Patriot Express Loan Program, under which the Administrator 
     may guarantee loans under this paragraph made by express 
     lenders to eligible members of the military community.
       ``(iii) Loan terms.--

       ``(I) In general.--Except as provided in this clause, a 
     loan under this subparagraph shall be made on the same terms 
     as other loans under the Express Loan Program.
       ``(II) Use of funds.--A loan guaranteed under this 
     subparagraph may be used for any business purpose, including 
     start-up or expansion costs, purchasing equipment, working 
     capital, purchasing inventory, or purchasing business-
     occupied real estate.
       ``(III) Maximum amount.--The Administrator may guarantee a 
     loan under this subparagraph of not more than $1,000,000.
       ``(IV) Guarantee rate.--The guarantee rate for a loan under 
     this subparagraph shall be the greater of--

       ``(aa) the rate otherwise applicable under paragraph 
     (2)(A);
       ``(bb) 85 percent for a loan of not more than $500,000; and
       ``(cc) 80 percent for a loan of more than $500,000.''.
       (2) GAO report.--
       (A) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term ``programs'' 
     means--
       (i) the Patriot Express Loan Program under section 
     7(a)(31)(G) of the Small Business Act, as added by paragraph 
     (1); and
       (ii) the increased veteran participation pilot program 
     under section 7(a)(33) of the Small Business Act, as in 
     effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act.
       (B) Report requirement.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall submit to the Committee on Small Business 
     and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee on Small 
     Business of the House of Representatives a report on the 
     programs.
       (C) Contents.--The report submitted under subparagraph (B) 
     shall include--
       (i) the number of loans made under the programs;
       (ii) a description of the impact of the programs on members 
     of the military community eligible to participate in the 
     programs;
       (iii) an evaluation of the efficacy of the programs;
       (iv) an evaluation of the actual or potential fraud and 
     abuse under the programs; and
       (v) recommendations for improving the Patriot Express Loan 
     Program under section 7(a)(31)(G) of the Small Business Act, 
     as added by paragraph (1).
       (b) Fee Reduction.--Section 7(a)(18) of the Small Business 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(18)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), in the matter preceding clause 
     (i), by striking ``With respect to'' and inserting ``Except 
     as provided in subparagraph (C), with respect to''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Military community.--For an eligible member of the 
     military community (as defined in paragraph (31)(G)(i)), the 
     fee for a loan guaranteed under this subsection, except for a 
     loan guaranteed under subparagraph (G) of paragraph (31), 
     shall be equal to 75 percent of the fee otherwise applicable 
     to the loan under subparagraph (A).''.
       (c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Small business act.--Section 7(a) of the Small Business 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)) is amended--
       (A) by striking paragraph (33); and
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (34) and (35) as paragraphs 
     (33) and (34), respectively.
       (2) Small business jobs act of 2010.--Section 1133(b) of 
     the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-240; 124 
     Stat. 2515) is amended by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) by striking paragraph (33), as redesignated by 
     section 504(c) of the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011; 
     and
       ``(2) by redesignating paragraph (34), as redesignated by 
     section 504(c) of the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011, 
     as paragraph (33).''.
       (d) Reduction of Government Printing Costs.--
       (1) Strategy and guidelines.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office 
     of Management and Budget shall coordinate with the heads of 
     the Executive departments and independent establishments, as 
     those terms are defined in chapter 1 of title 5, United 
     States Code--
       (A) to develop a strategy to reduce Government printing 
     costs during the 10-year period beginning on September 1, 
     2011; and
       (B) to issue Government-wide guidelines for printing that 
     implements the strategy developed under subparagraph (A).
       (2) Considerations.--
       (A) In general.--In developing the strategy under paragraph 
     (1)(A), the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
     and the heads of the Executive departments and independent 
     establishments shall consider guidelines for--
       (i) duplex and color printing;
       (ii) the use of digital file systems by Executive 
     departments and independent establishments; and
       (iii) determine which Government publications might be made 
     available on Government Web sites instead of being printed.
       (B) Essential printed documents.--The Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget shall ensure that printed 
     versions of documents that the Director determines are 
     essential to individuals entitled to or enrolled for benefits 
     under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) or enrolled for benefits under part B of 
     such title, individuals who receive old-age survivors' or 
     disability insurance payments under title II of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and other individuals with limited 
     ability to use or access the Internet have access to printed 
     versions of documents that the Director are available after 
     the issuance of the guidelines under paragraph (1)(B).

  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I wish to thank Senator Landrieu and 
Senator Snowe for their efforts to get this bill to the floor, to 
handle these

[[Page S1741]]

amendments, and to show the leadership we need to try to really focus 
on and emphasize small business.
  I am convinced that if we are going to get the full economic recovery 
we all want to see, the private sector--and especially small business--
is going to have to drive that recovery. That brings me to the 
amendment that I have filed today and that I have called up.
  In 2007, there were roughly 25,000 veteran-owned small businesses in 
my State. So you can do the math on that. There are probably 2 million 
around the country or more--maybe 3 million veteran-owned small 
businesses around the country.
  In 2007, the SBA created the Patriot Express Pilot Loan Initiative 
for members of the military community. That is part of the 7(a) 
program. My amendment would move that Patriot Express loan program from 
a pilot program to a fully authorized one, and this would ensure that 
veterans and members of the military community continue to have the 
ability to access capital when starting a new business or even when 
operating an existing one.
  The Patriot Express pilot program has been a very successful program, 
issuing close to 7,000 loans valued at $560 million and increasing 
veteran participation in the SBA programs. The amendment would make the 
Patriot Express loan program available to all members of the military 
community, including Active and non-Active members, veterans, spouses 
and children, widows and widowers of servicemembers. It would increase 
the maximum loan amount from $500,000 to $1 million. It would guarantee 
rates would be 85 percent for loans of $500,000 or less and 80 percent 
for loans over $500,000 up to $1 million. It would also reduce the fees 
imposed by the SBA for all veterans to 75 percent of the fees otherwise 
applicable under the 7(a) and express programs.
  This is a way we can really help our men and women in uniform. And 
one of the reasons I think this particular pilot program has been a 
success is because obviously these folks are hard-working, they are 
disciplined, they are well trained, and they are serious because of 
what they have been through for our country. But also one of the 
reasons I think this is compelling is that they have given years of 
their lives to military service. If they are in the Reserve or National 
Guard, these can be very disruptive years. It is hard for them to get 
anything going and in some cases hard to maintain a job over a period 
of years because they are being deployed, they are back and forth doing 
the training and fulfilling the requirements the country has required 
of them. So it is a very disruptive time during what otherwise would be 
potentially strong earning years where they could be really building 
their businesses.
  So this pilot program has been very effective and successful in 
providing access to capital, speeding the process along for our men and 
women in uniform, and we want to encourage small business ownership, we 
want to encourage that innovation, and I think this is a great way to 
do it. Again, this is a program that has been on the books, has proven 
to be successful, and we certainly hope we can move it from a pilot 
program to a fully authorized program.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I really appreciate the Senator coming 
to the floor, and I thank him for his help in advancing this bill and 
supporting many of the proposals.
  The ranking member is not on the floor, so until we run this through 
the other side for review, I am not sure we will be able to support it. 
But we are looking at it now, and I thank the Senator for offering it.
  Madam 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. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, we are currently, it is my 
understanding, on my amendment No. 183 to S. 493, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is not the pending amendment at this 
time.


                           Amendment No. 183

  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment 
aside for the purpose of considering amendment No. 183.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I notice we did not have any speakers 
here so I thought I would come down. We do have a bill in consideration 
right now, in process for a vote. It is my understanding there will be 
a vote on amendment No. 183 in the next perhaps hour or so, maybe in a 
few minutes.
  Let me give a little background on what happened on this, where we 
are today. Back in the early 1990s we had the Kyoto treaty that was up 
for consideration. That was during the Clinton administration. The 
Kyoto treaty was one we looked at and studied here in this Senate. One 
of the concerns about it was it was assuming we have catastrophic 
global warming that was due to manmade gases, anthropogenic gases--
methane. That assumption everybody thought probably was right, because 
everybody said it was--until such time as we thought what the cost 
would be if at that time we would have ratified the Kyoto treaty and 
lived by its emissions restrictions. The cost would be somewhere 
between $300 and $400 billion. That actually came from the Wharton 
School.
  We looked at that and thought we better look at that pretty closely. 
Over some debate we decided, if this treaty came back--which President 
Clinton signed but had to come to the Senate for ratification--if it 
came to the Senate for ratification we would not ratify any treaty that 
had either one of two things--No. 1, would be devastating to our 
economy and, No. 2, it would not treat developing countries the same as 
developed countries.
  As it turned out, it did both. It is one that only affected the 
developed countries and, of course, with the reports we had on the 
cost, it would be very expensive. But that was back in the 1990s.
  Starting around the year 2000 and specifically 2003, this was called 
to our attention at that time. I say to you, Madam President, I was the 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee that had 
jurisdiction. We looked at this and evaluated the science that was 
behind it as well as we could. The science on which this is predicated 
came from the United Nations. Actually, in 1988 the IPCC, the 
International Panel on Climate Change, was formed. This came in the 
United Nations and the science behind it was pretty much confined to 
recommendations from the IPCC.
  We started getting phone calls from well-respected scientists all 
over the country and these scientists would say to us that the IPCC is 
a closed society. They would not let anyone in to offer their judgment 
unless they agreed that in fact anthropogenic gases were causing 
catastrophic global warming.
  These scientists started piling up until, I believe it was around 
2003, we had a couple of hundred of them. I remember standing at this 
podium and talking on the floor about all the scientists who disagreed 
with the science of the IPCC. At that time I made a statement that 
became quite an irritant to a lot of people when I said: The notion 
that we are having catastrophic global warming due to anthropogenic 
gases could be the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American 
people.
  I remember going to one of the meetings. Every year the United 
Nations throws a big party. We just had our 15th, I would add. Everyone 
remembers a year ago it was Copenhagen. This year it was Cancun. Back 
then, in 2003, it happened to be in Milan, Italy. I was kind of 
detested by everyone there because everyone else there was saying we 
have to do something about this catastrophe that was about to hit us.
  As the years went by we had bills. We had the bill in 2003, the bill 
in 2005, the bill in 2007, in 2009, the last one was the Markey-
Waxman--Waxman-Markey bill. Each time those who were behind this, 
seeking to pass some kind of cap-and-trade bill, were fewer every time 
we voted. The last count there were a total of 30 Members of the Senate 
who would say they would vote for the last cap-and-trade bill.
  The interesting thing about the bill coming up now is that they were 
unable to pass it legislatively, which is what we should be doing. We 
should be

[[Page S1742]]

handling this through legislation. We tried. We considered it and it 
went through the process and it failed. Now they are trying to do it 
through regulations. It has been speculated that the cost to the 
American people would be even greater if done through the Environmental 
Protection Agency than if it were done legislatively.
  It was not long ago we had a hearing. I have a great deal of respect 
for President Obama's Director of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
Lisa Jackson. She testified before our committee live on TV, and I 
asked the question. I said if we were to pass this--it might have been 
the Waxman-Markey bill--it doesn't matter, they are all the same. Cap-
and-trade is cap-and-trade--it would have cost between $300 and $400 
billion if we ratified Kyoto and the same would be true of any of the 
five or six cap-and-trade bills we have defeated since then.
  But I said let's say we pass this and have it signed into law. Would 
this reduce CO2 emissions? That is the whole idea. 
CO2 emissions were supposed to be causing all this. I was 
very proud of her, because it took a lot of courage to give the 
response she did. She said in response: No, it wouldn't, because it 
would only affect the United States of America.
  Then I would take it one step further. What would happen if we have 
cap-and-trade--whether it is by legislation or by regulation, it 
doesn't matter--what they are going to do is regulate everything that 
is out there in our society. As I say, the cost would be between $300 
and $400 billion.
  What I do, since I am not as smart as the rest of them around here, 
when I hear the billions and trillions of dollars, I try to see what 
does this cost my people in Oklahoma. I did the math, and in Oklahoma, 
if we take the total number of people who have filed tax returns, and 
divide it into the amount of taxes this would cost, it would be about 
$3,100 per family in my State of Oklahoma.
  What do you get if you get it? You get something even the EPA 
Director said is not going to lower worldwide CO2 emissions, 
so you don't get anything for it.
  The big vote coming up in a few minutes is on a bill I have 
introduced, and we have now introduced this as an amendment to this 
small business bill, that would say to the EPA: You no longer have 
jurisdiction--which they should not have, and I questioned that they 
have it in the first place--over the regulation of CO2.
  There is a lot of talk about the Clean Air Act. I was a very strong 
supporter of the Clean Air Act. Several people who take a different 
position from me on the vote that is coming up talk about the Clean Air 
Act and all the wonderful things it has done--and I agree. It has. So I 
feel strongly about it. We have cleaner air now than we have had in a 
long period of time. The thing is, it was designed to take care of six 
known pollutants. CO2 was not one, it was not a pollutant. 
The Court said you do not have to count it as a pollutant but if you 
want to you can do it. So it was optional to the Environmental 
Protection Agency and to the government of our country.
  They elected to do that. In order to do that they have to have an 
endangerment finding. An endangerment finding is something that says 
CO2 is an endangerment to public health. When the same 
administrator, Administrator Jackson, was before our committee--and 
this was right before Copenhagen; this would have been a year ago last 
December--I can remember making a statement to her, again in the same 
public meeting: Madam Administrator, I have a feeling when I leave for 
Copenhagen tomorrow you are going to have an endangerment finding.

  I could see a few smiles. I said: If that happens, it has to be based 
on some science, doesn't it?
  She said yes, it does.
  What science do you base it on?
  Well, primarily the IPCC.
  Primarily--this was right before all the Climategate stuff came out, 
where they saw that they were falsifying science. All the things we 
found during the mid-1990s about scientists coming in, they were 
correct after all and they had been cooking the science on this thing. 
So that is another problem we have that we are faced with.
  The way to solve the problem, and I think many of my Democratic 
friends--many of them said they agree this should be a matter of the 
legislature and not a matter of the EPA making these decisions. This 
morning I quoted some of them. I have it right here.
  Senator Baucus, a Democratic Senator, said:

       I mentioned I do not want the EPA writing these 
     regulations. I think it is too much power in the hands of one 
     single agency, but rather climate change should be a matter 
     essentially left to Congress.

  I agree with that and it was left to Congress. We considered five or 
six bills on this.
  Senator Ben Nelson, another Democrat from Nebraska, said:

       Controlling the levels of carbon emissions is the job of 
     Congress. We don't need EPA looking over Congress' shoulder 
     telling us we are not moving fast enough.

  I agree with him. In addition to that, we have eight other Democratic 
Senators who said essentially the same thing, so I think that is pretty 
well understood.
  One reason I wanted to mention this before the vote takes place, my 
wife thinks the greatest problem facing America is the price of gas at 
the pump. My wife is not the only wife around here believing that, I 
know. She was saying for a long period of time, what causes these 
things? And it is very easy.
  Even my grandkids understand supply and demand. That is taught in 
elementary schools nowadays. So supply and demand is at work here. We 
have supply in the United States of America. We have--and I am going to 
show you in just a minute--in fact, I will go ahead and do that now 
because I want everyone who votes on this to understand anyone, 
Democrat or Republican, who votes against my amendment is voting to 
increase dramatically the price of gas at the pumps.
  The next time we hear someone say we have--this is something you keep 
hearing, that we have just 3 percent of the oil in this country. I 
think that is interesting because they say 3 percent of the proven 
reserves. Well, proven reserves cannot take place until such time as 
you drill to prove it.
  We have Members of the majority, along with the White House, the 
majority of the Members of the Senate have disallowed us to go out and 
drill. So if you cannot drill--something like 83 percent of our public 
lands where we could be drilling for oil, we cannot do it because they 
will not let us do it. So if they will not let us do it, then there 
cannot be proven reserves.
  But they do have recoverable reserves. Our recoverable reserves right 
now in America are 135 billion barrels. All we have to do, in order to 
do that, is go out and take advantage of that and use these recoverable 
reserves.
  With the CRS report that came out--the CRS is something that is 
recognized as an impartial, bipartisan or nonpartisan study group. They 
study these things. They said that, as of 1 year ago, the United States 
of America--now this is very important because the United States of 
America has the largest recoverable reserves in coal, gas, and oil of 
any of the nations. There they are right there. These are the reserves 
of coal--this is all three, isn't it? Fossil fuels. Yes, coal, gas, and 
oil. There it is. This is the United States of America.
  If you add this up, we have more than Saudi Arabia, China, Canada, 
and Iraq combined. That is what we have. But the problem is, 
politically, they will not let us drill for it.
  I know--and I regret to say this because I was just challenged, but 
it was true because I was there--21 years ago we had the Exxon Valdez. 
It was a disaster. It took place up in Prince William Sound. Most 
people here remember that now. It was an accident where you had a 
deficient ship that had leaked in that beautiful, pristine water up 
there.
  I went up there. Quite frankly, there are a bunch of the far left who 
were celebrating that it happened. Why would they celebrate a disaster 
such as that? They celebrated because they said: We are going to parlay 
this into stopping oil production on ANWR or on the North Slopes of 
Alaska.
  Well, that is kind of interesting that they are going to parlay that 
into that. I said: How do you figure that? Because Prince William 
Sound, the Exxon Valdez, that was a transportation accident. That hit 
something causing it to break.

[[Page S1743]]

  Then, I said: If you do away with drilling in America, that means we 
are going to have to transport it in from foreign countries, and the 
likelihood of it happening again is far greater. Nonetheless, they 
said: We are going to use that.
  I hate to say this also, but when we had our spill in the gulf not 
too long ago, a lot of people were saying: Aha, now we are going to 
stop all drilling, deepwater drilling in the Gulf.
  We have tremendous reserves down there in the gulf. While the 
moratorium was lifted, the administration has only issued one deepwater 
drilling permit since that happened.
  What I am saying is, we have all these reserves out there, and we can 
do it. I am talking about gas and oil and coal. It is not just the oil 
and gas, but we have another opportunity out there.
  We have talked about oil. We have talked about gas. In oil, if we 
would just export our own resources, that is what we know is there, the 
reserves that we have in oil and in gas, it would run this country, in 
oil and gas, for 90 years. That is our own stuff. That is not from 
Saudi Arabia. It is not from the Middle East. It is not even from 
Mexico. That is our stuff.
  The same is true with the coal reserves. There is the United States, 
28 percent of all the coal reserves. Right now, 50 percent of the power 
generated in the United States is generated with coal-fired generation, 
and they are trying to do away with that. So that is a target.
  But again, we have these tremendous reserves in the United States--
let's not forget--so we can run this country for 100 years on just what 
we have, except the politicians will not let us go in and recover our 
own reserves.
  Let's not forget about oil shale. Right now oil shale is something--
yes, there are several pilot projects to prove the shale's commercial 
viability. The Green River Formation, located in Colorado, Wyoming, and 
Utah, contains the equivalent of 6 trillion barrels of oil. Let me say 
that again, 6 trillion barrels of oil. The Department of Energy 
estimates that of the 6 trillion, approximately 1.38 trillion barrels 
are potentially recoverable. That is the equivalent of more than five 
times the oil reserves in Saudi Arabia.
  When I made this statement about having all these reserves, more than 
any other country, I was not counting shale because that is not quite 
here yet--almost but not quite. Another domestic energy source that 
could lessen our dependence is methane hydrates. I think everybody 
knows that. But I did not count that either.
  So all these things that we could have counted are not there. But the 
point is this: We have enough reserves to take care of all the problems 
we have in this country for the years to come. I look at--some people 
will come in, and they are well-meaning people, they will say: Well, we 
have to go to green energy. I am for green energy.
  But if you have something that is under development, and it might be 
1 year, it might be 20 years or 30 years before it comes, you have to 
continue to run this machine called America in the meantime. What do we 
know works and what is available? It is oil, gas, and coal.
  Just for a minute, I am going to deviate over there to what has 
happened in Japan. We just came from a hearing. I am very proud that 
not just our administration, the President and the Secretary of Energy, 
but also the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has said that should not 
affect what we are doing right now. We currently have 12 applications 
pending. Two of them are pending for almost immediate consideration for 
nuclear reactors, so that we will get into nuclear. Right now, we only 
develop about 20 percent of our energy from nuclear. France, for 
example, does 80 percent. So that is something that is out there.
  I would say, in my opinion, as one Member of the Senate, in order to 
stop, not reduce but stop, our dependance upon the Middle East 
altogether, all we have to do is keep working on all of the above. I 
want wind, I want solar, and all that. But I also want those things 
that are developed and available today--coal, gas, and oil.
  You may wonder what I am getting around to with these charts. It is 
the fact that we have a--everyone admits that the goal of this 
administration--I am looking for it right now--is to get prices so 
high, oil and gas so high that we will have to be dependent upon other 
things.
  President Obama said, not long ago: Under this cap and trade--we are 
talking about it could either be legislative or it could be 
regulations--``electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket.'' Notice 
he said, ``necessarily skyrocket.'' His administrator, or the Secretary 
of Energy, to give you an idea of what is behind this, the high price 
of gas at the pumps, said--now this is Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy 
for the Obama administration. He said: ``Somehow we have to figure out 
a way to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.''
  Let me repeat that. ``Somehow we have to figure out a way to boost 
the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.''
  What are the levels in Europe? The United Kingdom, $7.87 per gallon; 
Italy, $7.54; France, $7.50; Germany, $7.41. That is the motivation out 
there to do this. I think we have many others whom we could quote from 
the administration, but I do not want this to turn into something that 
gives the appearance that we are just criticizing the administration.

  The fact is, we have to do something about developing our own 
resources. If we do that, we are going to be able to bring down the 
price--do two things. First of all, for our national security, quit 
worrying about depending upon the Middle East for our oil. We can stop 
that just by developing our own resources. Secondly, go right back to 
elementary supply and demand. If we can supply the oil and gas and 
coal, then we will lower the price and lower it dramatically.
  Everybody knows that. That is why this vote that is coming up is so 
important. Because the vote is not just to try to keep us from having 
between a $300 and $400 billion tax increase on the American people 
that will not accomplish anything. Remember what I said the 
Administrator of the EPA said--not only that we would stop that kind of 
a tax increase but also that we can stop the rise of gas at the pump.
  So if somebody votes against this amendment, all it does is say that 
the--which many Democrats, all Republicans and many Democrats agree--we 
are going to find out how many--the Congress should be the one to 
address these issues, not the Environmental Protection Agency. So that 
is what the amendment is all about. Anyone who is going to be voting 
against the amendment is saying we do not want to develop our own 
resources. That is one of the most serious problems we are dealing with 
right now.
  We have other problems that have to do with the EPA right now with 
all the regulations. They have this minimum achievable technology on 
emissions, on other things such as boilers and other things that would 
end up increasing the cost to do business. Ultimately, it is the 
consumer who pays. I actually have a quote I cannot seem to find right 
now, since I am not using notes, that says we do have the technology to 
do all these things. Yet we are going to allow this to happen, even 
though it is not necessary. So we have a big vote coming up. That vote 
is: Do you think the EPA should regulate the emissions of 
CO2 in America or do you think Congress should do it?
  If you think the EPA should do it, get ready for a tax increase, 
because I can assure you, the President is just waiting to sign 
something that will allow them to continue down the road of 
overregulating. There is a cost to regulation. I think we all know 
that. It is one that is huge.
  If you look at the regulations we have, I have already mentioned the 
$300 to $400 billion and how that relates to everybody in my State of 
Oklahoma who files a tax return. The boiler regulation that is coming 
out right now--the same EPA--that would affect 800,000 jobs in America. 
The utility MACT--that is something the Director of the EPA just had a 
news conference on today. The minimum achievable reduction in utilities 
would cost about $100 billion. The ozone and the PM would be about $90 
billion.
  As I say, we would be talking about a pretty big jobs bill but only 
on this. I wish to make sure everyone understands. My very good friend, 
John Barrasso, a Senator from Wyoming, has a bill that is going to go a 
lot further than this. I am a strong supporter

[[Page S1744]]

of his legislation. It will go into the--keeping the EPA from using 
CO2 to change the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the 
Endangered Species Act. That is very good. That is not what this is.
  I heard something this morning that I want to make sure to clarify 
because it is important because there are all kinds of things out there 
people are saying will happen if we pass this amendment.
  They are saying that is going to somehow affect--in fact, they said I 
respectfully asked the members of the committee to keep in mind that 
EPA's implementation of the Clean Air Act saves millions of American 
adults and children from debilitating and expensive illnesses that 
occur when smokestacks and tailpipes release unrestricted amounts of 
pollution. Yes, I agree with that. But let's keep in mind, I was a 
strong supporter when the Clean Air Act came out and when the 
amendments came out.
  It was designed for the six criteria pollutants at the heart of the 
Clean Air Act: lead, ozone, nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide, carbon 
monoxide, and particulate matter. These are real pollutants, not 
imaginary pollutants such as CO2. But that is what was 
targeted by the Clean Air Act.
  Of course, it has nothing to do with anything else. So those things 
are still going to be restricted. We have had some people say--and I 
have heard this several times today--this amendment would block the 
administration's announced plan to follow up with the Clean Air Act 
standards for cars and light trucks. This is not at all true. That is 
all done by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. That is 
not within the jurisdiction of the EPA. That is NHTSA, they call it.
  It has nothing do with mileage on cars, nothing do with the whole 
effort to increase mileage.
  EPA is contributing practically nothing to the administration's 
global warming car deal--about 4 percent of the joint EPA-NHTSA 
program's emissions reductions. Dropping EPA would, therefore, have a 
meaningless effect on oil consumption. According to the EPA, its 
greenhouse gas car standards would mean that ``global mean 
temperature'' is reduced by ``0.006 to 0.0015 [Celsius] by 2100.''
  That is not even measurable. Don't let anyone use the argument that 
this has anything to do with CAFE standards. It doesn't affect anything 
that is harmful for people to breathe.
  The amendment will be coming up soon. We are going to find out who 
wants to keep us from developing our own resources. It should be a very 
interesting vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, the amendment from the Senator from 
Kentucky seeks to reduce discretionary spending by $200 billion. The 
actual amendment would cut in excess of $155 billion from domestic 
discretionary spending programs and the balance from security-related 
programs. While I am sure the Senator is serious in his desire to cut 
spending, I would point out to my colleagues that for the remaining 6 
months of this fiscal year, with the passage of the next short-term 
continuing resolution, the Federal Government will have less than $200 
billion in fiscal year 11 funds remaining for domestic discretionary 
spending.
  My colleagues need to be advised that the CR that has passed the 
House will set a ceiling on domestic discretionary funding for the 
whole year at $400 billion. Since we are half way through the fiscal 
year, we have already allocated approximately half of these resources. 
Moreover, during the first 6 months of the fiscal year the government 
was funded at a higher rate, approximately $405 billion. Therefore, we 
only have approximately $195 billion remaining for the balance of the 
year to spend on all discretionary domestic programs. While there are 
examples where unobligated balances remain in some agencies, in general 
it is fair to say the Senator's amendment would cut this year's 
remaining domestic spending by 80 percent.
  The amendment stipulates that the Consumer Product Safety Commission, 
the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, the Corporation 
for Public Broadcasting are all abolished. If this wasn't bad enough, 
the amendment would also cut more funding from the Department of 
Education than they have remaining for the balance of the fiscal year. 
It would cut more than remains available for the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development and from the Office of Personnel Management.
  Some domestic agencies would have sufficient resources to survive 
this cut, but none without dire consequences.
  A cut of 35 percent to the EPA would seriously curtail funding for 
sewer and drinking water infrastructure, while leaving the agency with 
little funding to pay its personnel for the balance of the fiscal year.
  For the Department of the Interior, the Paul amendment would almost 
certainly necessitate the closure of our national parks and Indian 
schools.
  On security funding, the bill would slash the State Department's 
budget 75 percent below last year's level, effectively eliminating 
funding for most State Department functions worldwide with devastating 
consequences for ongoing operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
  The $30 billion cut to the Department of Defense would likely delay 
or terminate procurement programs supported by the Congress as the 
Department uses its authority to target cuts away from readiness and 
personnel programs toward investment programs.
  The Energy Department's nuclear weapons program would be cut by $2.5 
billion. This would put the safety, security and reliability of our 
nuclear weapons at risk.
  The only thing that many agencies would be able to do if they were 
faced with cuts of this magnitude would be to plan their shut down 
operations.
  Not a single Member of this Chamber can responsibly vote for this 
amendment.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 216

  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to speak about an amendment I have 
offered and we will be voting on in a little while. It is amendment No. 
216, and it is a basic, very simple amendment, but it will rectify or 
remedy a problem we have in our contracting.
  We have all kinds of businesses across the country that are part of 
the contracting process. But often when we have prime contractors who 
will have the opportunity to bid on Federal work, they will list 
subcontractors in their application. In some cases those subcontractors 
happen to be minority-owned firms and women-owned firms, known, of 
course, by the acronyms MBE and WBE. So the prime contractors will list 
them to make their applications more competitive, without informing--
this is where the problem comes in--without informing the 
subcontractor.
  This amendment does two basic things, and it is an amendment all of 
about 13 lines when we get to the heart of it. Basically, what it 
requires in these instances is that the prime contractor notify the 
subcontractor. That is part one. Part two is, in these instances where 
there may be an allegation of fraud or other problems the subcontractor 
wants to report, the Administrator, in this case, will establish a 
reporting mechanism that allows that subcontractor to report fraudulent 
activity by the contractor.
  So two very basic elements: a notification provision, so if you are a 
firm that is listed on paperwork a prime contractor files, you be 
notified of that--that is No. 1--and, in addition to the notification 
of the subcontractor, that the Administrator set up a program, a method 
where you can report fraudulent activity by the contractor.
  It is that simple. At a time when we are trying to create jobs and 
support small businesses across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and 
across the country, I think it is a very basic change that needs to be 
made.
  So I commend the work Chairman Landrieu has done on this bill and her 
leadership but in particular her support for this amendment.

[[Page S1745]]

  I yield to Senator Landrieu.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from 
Pennsylvania being so supportive and so helpful. I think this is an 
amendment we can support. I am hoping to get clarification to actually 
go to a vote on this amendment sometime in the next 20 minutes or so. 
We do not have that cleared at this point, but we are hoping to be able 
to vote on this amendment.
  I would like to ask the Presiding Officer, though, to read the 
pending amendments just by number and name because I think we have 
seven or eight pending amendments. Could the Presiding Officer clarify 
what amendments are currently pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendments are No. 183, a 
McConnell amendment; No. 178, a Vitter amendment; No. 161, an Inhofe 
for Johanns amendment; No. 216, a Landrieu for Casey amendment; No. 
186, a Cornyn amendment; No. 199, a Paul amendment; No. 207, a Sanders 
amendment; No. 197, a Hutchison amendment; No. 184, a Coburn amendment; 
and, finally, No. 229, a Pryor amendment.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. That is what our records 
show.
  I appreciate all these Members being very patient. We have their 
amendments pending. We are going to try to line up votes for them, 
hopefully, sometime either later tonight or tomorrow.
  We also have a few other Members who have said they would like to 
have their amendments considered. I would simply ask if they can come 
down to the floor. Tonight would be a good time because we have had a 
very good, open, encompassing debate on a variety of different issues. 
Of course, the underlying bill before us is the reauthorization of the 
SBIR and STTR Programs that have been operating on a very short term 
with very ineffectual authorizations that do not allow these programs 
to have the benefit for taxpayers they deserve. So we have struggled 
now for 6 years, three Congresses. It is time to get this done.
  So while we have many, many amendments that have been filed, I am 
happy to report that there are probably just a few more Members who 
want to actually come and speak on their amendments. Some have said: We 
will take up our amendments on a later day. Many of the Members who 
have filed five and six amendments have said: I am only going to go 
with one, Senator Landrieu and Senator Snowe.
  We are very grateful for everyone's cooperation.
  So, hopefully, we can vote on the Casey amendment tonight, and then 
have a queue of other amendments potentially in this order or some 
revision of this order. But all those pending will be, of course, 
provided an opportunity for a vote. We do have some outstanding 
questions about one of the Coburn amendments we have not cleared on 
either side.
  So I am hoping we can have that vote tonight, and we will know 
something in a few minutes.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 216

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we resume 
consideration of the Casey amendment No. 216; that there be 2 minutes 
equally divided before we proceed to a vote in relation to the 
amendment; that there be no amendments in order to the Casey amendment 
prior to the vote; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that the 
vote occur at 5:25.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as we are waiting for Senator Casey, I 
don't think there is any opposition to this amendment. I see the 
ranking member on the floor and I am wondering if she has anything she 
wishes to add at this point.
  I said earlier Members have been very cooperative in trying to 
minimize--still have an open debate but nevertheless minimize--the 
issues and the amendments so we can pass this important bill and get it 
over to the House and onto the President's desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair as well. I wish to speak 
to the amendment offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania. I think it 
is a critical amendment for the contracting process. As the Chair well 
understands, because I know the Chair has called many meetings on 
contracts and processes, and over the years we have attempted to 
rectify and mitigate many of the problems that have arisen during the 
course of a contract to make sure there is access for small business 
within the Federal agencies, I have heard, as I know the Chair has as 
well, from countless small businesses who feel abused by large prime 
contractors. During the procurement process when preparing for 
government bids, oftentimes large prime contractors do not fulfill 
their obligations to use small businesses as outlined in the 
subcontracting plan. They identify the small businesses in their own 
plan that they submit to the government, they win the contract, and 
then they turn around and don't use the small businesses they have 
identified in their bid they have submitted to the Federal Government. 
So I wish to congratulate the Senator from Pennsylvania for identifying 
an important way to make sure small businesses are not left out of this 
process, because they are required--once they have been identified in 
an open, large prime contractor's plan, they are required to use that 
small business. But, unfortunately, if a small business is not notified 
that the large prime contractor has won that bid from the Federal 
agency, they have no way of pursuing a process by which they make sure 
they are part of that overall bid.
  I think it is very important that small businesses have access to the 
procurement process, and when large contractors are including small 
businesses, we have to make sure they notify the small businesses about 
their intent to use them in the bid process, and to make sure they are 
aware that they have won the contract as well. This becomes paramount 
because small businesses then have the opportunity to contract with 
Federal agencies because the Federal Government is the largest 
purchaser of goods and services in the world, spending more than $500 
billion in fiscal year 2000 alone. For small firms that are struggling 
to stay afloat and maintain their workforce, Federal contracting can be 
an instrumental part of the larger strategy for broadening their 
customer base in creating jobs. So it is a commonsense amendment that 
protects small businesses from abuses during the Federal procurement 
process.
  Also, I think the reporting mechanism that is created by the 
Senator's amendment will allow small businesses to report fraudulent 
activity with respect to subcontracting plans. These small business 
protections will benefit small contracting firms without adding an 
undue burden to the government's acquisition workforce. I think it is 
an amendment that is not only practical but critical in making sure 
small business has fair access and opportunities for procurement within 
the Federal agencies, and more to curb the abuses that have occurred 
with large prime contractors that either disguise themselves as small 
businesses and go through the contracting process or use small 
businesses in their bid but never notify the small businesses of their 
intent to use them and, therefore, small businesses have no opportunity 
to pursue the legal process, due process to make sure they can report 
these abuses.
  I urge support of the Casey amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I already spoke earlier on the amendment--
actually, twice today, so I won't reiterate those points. I wish to 
thank and commend the work done by Senator Landrieu and Senator Snowe 
and the way they have worked together in a bipartisan manner to move 
this bill forward but in particular to help us pass

[[Page S1746]]

this amendment. We are looking forward to the vote, and I want to thank 
them for their help.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, how much time remains before the vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 45 seconds remaining.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Let me use the 45 seconds to ask unanimous consent to 
be listed as a cosponsor of the Casey amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I wish to join Senator Snowe in supporting this 
amendment. We have received actually many complaints from small 
businesses at any number of the roundtables we have held in our 
committee about the old bait and switch that is going on, where their 
names are used by large contractors to actually succeed in receiving 
the bid or winning the bid, and then, as Senator Snowe stated, their 
companies are switched out and they don't even know it. This also puts 
an enforcement mechanism in place and actually mandates the SBA to come 
up with an enforcement mechanism so we can have more honesty and 
transparency.
  Mr. President, 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 amendment No. 216.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 43 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Rockefeller
       
  The amendment (No. 216) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       National Agriculture Week

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to highlight the importance 
of agriculture and celebrate National Agriculture Week.
  President Dwight D. Eisenhower once said:

       Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and 
     you're a thousand miles away from a cornfield.

  This week reminds us that it is our job to bridge the gap between 
plowing fields and crafting laws and make sure our ranchers and farmers 
have the tools they need.
  In my home State of Montana, agriculture is the heart and soul of our 
economy. It is an essential part of who we are. In Montana, agriculture 
is not simply a livelihood, it is our way of life. Growing up on a 
ranch outside of Helena taught me firsthand the values of hard work, 
faith, family, and doing what is right--values I try to bring with me 
to work every day.
  Fifty percent of Montana's economy is tied to ranching and farming, 
and one in five Montana jobs is tied in some way to agriculture. It is 
our No. 1 industry. Each year, Montana ranchers and farmers produce 
nearly $3 billion of the highest quality agricultural goods produced 
anywhere in the world.
  As a nation, we are blessed with a safe, affordable, and abundant 
food supply. Our farmers and ranchers in our country put food on the 
tables of families around the world, and they help create good-paying 
jobs here at home. Every year, the average American farmer feeds 155 
people worldwide.

  While agriculture stands in the spotlight this week, it is critical 
to remember the words of President Eisenhower and recognize the needs 
of our ranchers and farmers every day throughout the year.
  Next week, I will be holding a series of listening sessions across 
Montana to discuss the next farm bill. I did that last time around and 
they were terrific. I learned so much by having these listening 
sessions all across our State. I will be starting Monday in the eastern 
part of Montana--in towns such as Forsyth and Miles City--and over the 
next year I will work my way across the State collecting ideas and 
information from Montana's farmers and ranchers to make sure the next 
farm bill works for them.
  I am lucky to represent so many ranchers and farmers in our State who 
have dedicated their life to the land. It is so important, and it roots 
us in our State. It grounds us. I am proud to honor these folks today 
during National Agriculture Week.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is proceeding 
to consider legislation to reauthorize the Small Business Innovation 
Research Program and Small Business Technology Transfer Program, SBIR/
STTR. Our Nation's small businesses and start-ups are crucial to 
maintaining America's position as the world leader in technology and 
innovation. The SBIR/STTR programs improve the ability of small 
businesses to take part in federally funded research.
  Last week, the Senate voted 95-5 to pass another bill to help small 
businesses and our economic recovery, the America Invents Act. This 
legislation will provide our small businesses and start-ups the legal 
landscape that they need to protect and commercialize their inventions 
to create jobs and boost our economy.
  The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, in strongly 
endorsing the America Invents Act, wrote that ``[p]atent reform is 
needed to clarify and simplify the system; to properly protect 
legitimate patents; and to reduce costs in the system, including when 
it comes to litigation and the international marketplace.''
  Similarly, Louis Foreman, an inventor and advocate for other 
independent inventors wrote that the legislation ``will make 
independent inventors, such as myself, more competitive in today's 
global marketplace.''
  Both the council and Mr. Foreman specifically noted the importance of 
transitioning to ``first-inventor-to-file'' and ending fee diversion at 
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
  The America Invents Act will benefit small businesses and start-ups 
in several specific ways. First, the legislation will make it more 
difficult for large infringers to harass a patent owner through 
successive administrative challenges of the patent or challenges that 
have no likelihood of success. Large corporations often use these 
challenges to avoid license fees or discourage an infringement suit. 
For small businesses, patent owners and independent inventors, the 
expense of countering these tactics can make enforcement of their 
patents difficult to impossible. The improvements that this legislation 
makes to the inter partes system will limit harassment.
  Second, the America Invents Act requires discounts for small 
businesses at the Patent and Trademark Office, PTO. Specifically, the 
bill mandates that the PTO provide a 50-percent reduction in fees for 
small business, and a 75-percent reduction in fees for businesses that 
receive a new ``micro-entity'' designation as truly small and 
independent inventors. Together, these provisions ensure that the PTO's 
need to collect fees for services is not done on the backs of small 
businesses. Small businesses will, therefore, be able to afford patent 
protection better than today.

[[Page S1747]]

  Third, as part of the transition to first-inventor-to-file, the 
America Invents Act eliminates costly interference proceedings as the 
method for determining the right to a patent between competing 
inventors in favor of a derivation proceeding. Under current law, 
before enactment of the American Invents Act, when more than one 
application claiming the same invention is filed, the patent is given 
to the applicant who has the resources to prove their claim to the 
invention. This costly proceeding is almost always won by larger 
corporations. A derivation proceeding is far simpler and does not 
require meticulous notes by the inventor, which gives large 
corporations an advantage, because the key date is the date of 
application.
  Finally, the legislation will improve patent quality overall. Roughly 
half of all patents in litigation have claims invalidated. When there 
are too many patents out there that are not able to withstand court 
scrutiny, it leads to a more difficult climate for small businesses to 
license their inventions and raise capital from investors. By improving 
our patent system, we can provide confidence that when a patent is 
granted, it is of high quality, and investors can rely on that.
  The New York Times editorialized last week that today, ``The patent 
system is too cumbersome, and it doesn't protect the small inventor. 
The America Invents Act is a smart reform.'' Indeed, the legislation is 
crucial to fulfilling the promise that we make to small businesses and 
independent inventors that if they put in the hard work, the United 
States is the place where a great invention will be rewarded. I thank 
the 95 Senators who voted in favor of Senate passage of the America 
Invents Act and look forward to continuing our work with Chairman Smith 
the House of Representatives to get the legislation to the President's 
desk without unnecessary delay. We tried to make sure that patent 
reform in the America Invents Act helps small businesses and increases 
their ability to serve as an engine for economic growth and good jobs 
here in America.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________