Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 41 (Thursday, March 17, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 41 (Thursday, March 17, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1780-S1788]
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:

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.
Cornyn amendment No. 186, to establish a bipartisan
commission for the purpose of improving oversight and
eliminating wasteful government spending.
Paul amendment No. 199, to cut $200,000,000,000 in spending
in fiscal year 2011.
Sanders amendment No. 207, 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.
Hutchison amendment No. 197, to delay the implementation of
the health reform law in the United States until there is
final resolution in pending lawsuits.
Coburn amendment No. 184, to provide a list of programs
administered by every Federal department and agency.

[[Page S1781]]

Pryor amendment No. 229, 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.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.

Amendment No. 244 to Amendment No. 183

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I call for regular order now with
respect to the McConnell amendment, which is the pending amendment on
our bill, amendment No. 183, and send a second-degree amendment to the
desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The McConnell amendment is now
pending.
The clerk will report the second-degree amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an
amendment numbered 244 to amendment No. 183.

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

At the end, insert the following:
The provisions of this title shall become effective 5 days
after enactment.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. That now puts us in order to
continue the discussion of our very important bill that Senator Snowe
and I have been managing this week on the floor. I appreciate all the
Members' cooperation, particularly the members of the Small Business
Committee who voted this bill out 17 to 1, because they know, both
Republicans and Democrats, the importance of reauthorizing this vital
program--one of the Federal programs that works, one of the Federal
programs that helps to create private sector jobs, one of the Federal
programs that gives the taxpayer a great return on their investment.
One of the gentlemen who testified before our committee last week
said for every $1 invested in this program, the taxpayers get a return
of $107. That is a pretty good return on investment.
I see two of my colleagues. Senator Cardin is a member of our
committee and a very valued member of our committee, I may say. He
would like to speak for 5 or 10 minutes about an amendment he thinks is
important that we potentially could get included in our bill. I see
Senator Coats from Indiana, who is here to speak on the McConnell
amendment. I think we do not have a consent, but we will kind of go
back and forth as Members come and continue to talk about some
important aspects of the bill.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland is
recognized.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, let me thank Senator Landrieu for
her extraordinary leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. This
is a critically important bill for our economy. It helps small
businesses. It helps the economic engine of America. It helps with
innovation with small businesses.
We already know small businesses will be where most of the job growth
will take place. We know that. We also know small businesses are where
most of the innovation will take place. When we look at patents that
are filed, there are more from the small businesses per employee than
we see from large companies. But in order to help small businesses be
able to be innovative, the SBIR Program is critically important.
I congratulate Senator Landrieu for bringing this bill forward. It
has received strong bipartisan support within the Small Business
Committee. It provides the resources where small companies can take
risks and innovate for America's future. It extends the program for 8
years, giving predictability to companies and investors, so they can go
out and do what is best for this country, extending the program to
2019.
It increases the allocations available for the small business
community over time from 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent. It increases the
individual size of the grants from $100,000 to $150,000 in phase I and
in phase II from $750,000 to $1 million. It does one other thing that
is critically important. It allows small businesses to bring in venture
capitalists and still be able to qualify for an SBIR loan.
For all these reasons, I strongly support the efforts of Senator
Landrieu and Senator Snowe and would encourage my colleagues to support
the legislation that has been brought forward.
But I come to the floor, and I am going to ask consent that the
pending amendment be set aside, but first let me explain the amendment
I would like to offer. It is an amendment that would continue a policy
that was started in 2009 to allow small businesses the opportunity to
be able to get surety bonds to be able to compete on government
procurement in the construction industry.
Current law requires that for all Federal and State construction
projects--Federal and State construction projects--exceeding $100,000,
the company must provide a surety bond. Congress established the Surety
Bond Guarantee Program more than 30 years ago because they knew it was
difficult for small businesses to be able to get a surety bond. The
limit had been $2 million under that program. So we assisted small
companies in being able to get surety bonds of up to $2 million until
2009.
As part of the Recovery Act, I offered an amendment with Senator
Landrieu and Senator Snowe--this was a bipartisan amendment; as a
matter of fact, I do not know of any objections to the amendment--that
increased the amount from $2 million to $5 million and gave the
Administrator the authority to guarantee bonds of up to $10 million to
permit small companies to be able to compete with large construction
companies for procurement work.
What is so difficult? Well, you talk to a small business owner, and
they will tell you what they have to go through with their bankers in
order to get any type of financing. Then, if they try to get a surety
bond, it is the same assets that the surety bond company wants them to
guarantee in order to get the surety bond, putting them in a catch-22
situation, where they cannot get the surety bond and financing. They
have to choose between one or the other. That is the reason why we
established the Surety Bond Guarantee Program 30 years ago.
The higher limit had been in place from 2009 to 2010. The SBA had
estimated they would issue $147 million in bonds in support of projects
over $2 million. In March of 2010, the SBA Performance Report indicated
that more than $360 million in bonds was actually issued. It has been
an unquestioned success--the higher limits.
One other point: There have been absolutely no losses under the
surety bond program, zero. That is why the Congressional Budget Office
has given us an informal estimate that this amendment would have no
direct impact on spending or revenue. This is a no-cost amendment that
is strongly supported by the small business community because they know
it is critically important for them to be able to compete fairly on
construction contracts. It has bipartisan support.
What the amendment does is extend the limits we put in law in 2009
that expired at the end of 2010. That is the amendment.
Mr. President, I do want to make a unanimous consent request, but I
understand we are under an agreement now that we cannot ask that. I am
getting word from my chairman. But let me go on record to say I would
request that there be an opportunity for this amendment to be offered
or included. I do not believe it is controversial. It does not cost, as
I said, any expenditures. It is very important for the small business
community. It has bipartisan support, and I hope I will be given the
opportunity to be able to offer that amendment.
With that, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana is
recognized.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Cardin for his
cooperation. He has been so patient. It is an important amendment. It
is an amendment that both Senator Snowe and I support and many other
colleagues support it. We hope to get to a time, if not this week, as
soon as we get back, to be able to offer and have this amendment
pending so it can receive the vote I do think it deserves.
I see the Senator from Indiana, who I think wants to speak on a
different amendment, so I will yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio). The Senator from Indiana
is recognized.

[[Page S1782]]

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana for
arranging the opportunity for me to speak. I intended to do this in
morning business, but that time was running out, so she graciously
arranged time for me to speak as we took the bill back up.

Amendment No. 183

Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of the McConnell amendment
that would prohibit the EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, from
regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. This is
nothing more than a backdoor energy tax that should be the purview of
Congress to enact or not enact and not the responsibility or the
authority given to the EPA.
The McConnell amendment, which is essentially the amendment language
that was provided by Senator Inhofe and Senator Vitter, is patterned
after the Energy Tax Prevention Act, which I have cosponsored, along
with a bipartisan group of nearly 43 Senators. An identical bill was
passed recently on a bipartisan basis by a House committee.

There is a growing consensus in Congress and across the country that
Washington bureaucrats cannot be and should not be setting our Nation's
policy on climate change. The McConnell amendment would make it clear
that it is the Congress and not the Environmental Protection Agency
that ought to be squarely in the driver's seat with regard to energy
and climate policy.
It has become clear that the administration's cap-and-trade bill has
had no chance of passing the Senate--again, because of bipartisan
opposition. It is also clear that the White House has then determined
they are going to try to circumvent the Congress and try to push this
agenda through rules and regulations made by unelected bureaucrats. As
a result, the EPA has created these new greenhouse gas regulations that
are nothing more than a backdoor cap-and-trade regime. So while the
administration talks about the need to strengthen the economy and put
Americans back to work, these types of harmful rules that are being
imposed by regulatory agencies--and specifically the EPA on climate
control in this regard--are having just the opposite effect.
The reality is that not only in my home State of Indiana, which
obtains more than 90 percent of its electric power from coal resources,
but in States across this country that are using fossil fuels currently
to generate energy, this would have an extraordinary, detrimental
effect on their economies and their ability to produce the necessary
power needed to run businesses and heat and cool homes.
Particularly at a time such as this, it is extraordinary that this
backdoor effort by the EPA is simply throwing a major impediment in the
way of the economic growth we are now starting to see after 2 years of
a very serious downturn. The factories are starting to move again. Some
are starting to hire. The machines are starting to turn. At a time such
as this, all of a sudden, an unelected bureaucracy in this government,
supported by the White House, simply says: Now is the time to attack
the climate control issue. We didn't like what Congress did when they
turned this down, so therefore we will take over and do it ourselves.
I have nothing against looking at ways to provide additional sources
of energy that can help with our climate control, whether it is solar,
wind, biothermal, biomass, geothermal, or any number of other
alternatives. But these alternatives need to be cost-effective and
competitive, and currently they are not.
I had the opportunity to serve in Germany as Ambassador for 4 years.
During that time, I was able to pay very close attention to a mandate
that was imposed by the German Parliament of switching to alternative
sources, on a mandated basis, to 20 percent of the total energy being
derived by a certain period in time. As a result of that, the
government provided enormous subsidies to wind and solar in particular
and other alternative forms of energy, which was to be financed by
those industries using fossil fuels to provide energy. The results
recently announced in Germany were that this is not obtainable, and
this came at a considerable cost to consumers and to industries of that
country.
Two things happened. No. 1, when the government provided massive
subsidies to move to wind and solar, of course a lot of attention went
to production of those two types of alternative energy sources, it
wasn't based on a competition. It wasn't based on what it would cost
the taxpayer. There was an extraordinary subsidy that had to be paid by
the fossil fuel industries--namely, coal and oil and natural gas--to
subsidize those sources.
The problem is, they ended up with a distorted economic picture, and
ultimately the cost goes to the taxpayer and to the consumer.
Basically, the fossil fuel industry producing energy had to subsidize
the alternative forms of energy--namely, wind and solar--on a 5-to-1
basis, obviously raising prices to consumers and to industries using
energy that was derived through fossil fuels.
The second problem was that the politics--which always happens in any
situation like this--rears its ugly head, so every member of every
State had to get their share of the subsidy. So we see windmills all
over Germany that are not turning because the wind doesn't blow in some
sections of the country, and we see solar panels being installed in
places where, in the North in particular, the sun doesn't shine very
much. So they have an extremely cost-ineffective system put in place
subsidized by the taxpayer.
So as we look forward to alternative sources of energy, we have to
recognize the realities of what we are dealing with here, particularly
at a time when we are in economic distress and just trying to move into
a better economic picture for the future. If we are going to impose
massive taxes on industries that are providing energy to drive our
factories, run our businesses and heat and cool our homes, it is going
to add significant costs to employment and all of those who use that
electric energy.
So these are issues that need to be debated in this Congress and with
the American people and in a transparent way, rather than addressed by
a regulatory agency that has no responsibility to the taxpayer, no
responsibility to the consumer, and is trying not to have any
responsibility to the congressional authority that governs this.
I have yet to hear of a credible alternative that can fully replace
coal for electric power generation. Most of our States and particularly
many of our heavy manufacturing States are nearly totally dependent on
fossil fuels to run their businesses.
It seems to me that while technology can help us in the future move
toward a position of having some additional forms of energy to meet our
energy needs, today, the reality is we need this source of energy to
run our economy. If only the EPA could recognize the reality of this
situation, then maybe we could reach some commonsense agreement on how
to move forward on climate control and other issues. Instead, it
appears this agency is determined to shut down coal plants, costing
thousands of jobs, weakening the economy, and increasing electric bills
for families who are already struggling to make ends meet. The EPA's
actions simply are irresponsible and exceed their authority.
So we come back to the essence of what the McConnell amendment does.
It returns the responsibility and authority for energy and climate
policy to the elected Members of the Congress. These are issues that
impact every American and should not be determined by unelected
Washington bureaucrats who have made up their minds to regulate
regardless of the consequences. These decisions belong to the Congress
and not to the EPA.
We need to pass the McConnell amendment. I believe it will achieve
bipartisan support because our Nation's energy policy needs to be
addressed by this body and not the EPA. So I urge strong support for
the McConnell amendment when it comes up for passage.
With that, I yield the floor, and I again thank the Senator from
Louisiana for the time that was allocated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio). The senior Senator from
Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleague, the chair of
the Small Business Committee, to further elaborate on some of the key
issues regarding the pending legislation before the Senate to
reauthorize the Small

[[Page S1783]]

Business Innovation Research and the Small Business Technology Transfer
Programs for 8 years.
When we consider what the value is of both of these programs, what it
will represent to our Nation's economy during these perilous economic
times is indisputable. It certainly will bolster economic growth. It
certainly will bolster small businesses and innovation and put America
at the forefront of new technologies, as we have seen with the examples
of those who have been recipients of awards from the SBIR Program, most
notably Qualcomm when they started more than 25 years ago with fewer
than a dozen employees and $1.5 million in awards from SBIR. Now they
are, as we know, a Fortune 500 company with more than 17,000 employees,
just to cite one example. There are numerous examples certainly in my
State and in the chair's State of Louisiana and all across this
country, and that is the point.
This program has an illustrious history. I think it is important to
note how far back this program goes. It was really inspired as a result
of a White House small business conference that recommended applying
the original pilot program at the National Science Foundation to a
wider range of agencies. In particular, according to the National
Academy of Sciences' landmark study on the SBIR Program, the
recommendation was grounded in a number of facts, including evidence
that a declining share of Federal research and development dollars was
going to small businesses; difficulty among innovative small businesses
in raising capital in a period of historically high interest rates; and
research suggesting small businesses were at the vanguard of job
creation, which, as we all know today is certainly the truth.
So the SBIR Program was formally established in law back in 1982, and
I was a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives and an original
cosponsor of that legislation. The legislation set out several goals,
including to stimulate technological innovation, use small businesses
to meet R&D needs, foster and encourage participation by minority and
disadvantaged small businesses in technological innovation, and
increase private sector R&D.
So all of that has occurred with this legislation over that period of
time in which it has been part of our Nation's laws. That is why it is
so important, when we reconvene after this recess, to make sure we have
the opportunity to move this legislation along. It is critical because
we are at a point in time in our economy where we need the jobs, we
need the investments in small business.
This is not adding additional costs to the Federal budget because it
is drawing from the already appropriated funds for research and
development within 11 different Federal agencies that would set aside
certain amounts in both of these programs for small businesses. It has
broad support among a variety of organizations that are also crucial
because they have been at the forefront of benefitting from these
programs and understand the value of these programs and how they will
bolster our economy.
I am pleased to note that we have organizations such as the NFIB, the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Small Business Association, the
Small Business Technology Council, and the National Venture Capital
Association which, in a letter, stated that our legislation:

. . . represents a fair compromise to ensure that America's
most innovative small businesses can once again have access
to existing government incentives to grow jobs by
commercializing new discoveries.

Furthermore, groups that have long been at odds with these small
business groups on SBIR reauthorization are now solidly behind the
legislation. This is because we worked over the last 2 years during the
course of drafting this legislation for reauthorization and built a
compromise and a consensus on the definition of venture capital and who
can participate in the program. There had been a ruling within the
Small Business Administration that said it had to be individuals, which
excluded a number of different venture capital backed firms from being
able to participate. So we developed a consensus across the political
aisle--with broad support--that ultimately brought additional
organizations on in support of this reauthorization.
Most notable is the Biotechnology Industry Organization--again,
talking about bringing drug therapies to market that take 10 to 15
years. They require millions and millions of dollars to develop a drug
therapy and bring it to market, and the research and development and
ultimately to commercialize that drug therapy treatment certainly is
very costly. So to have the added benefit of venture capital
investments from research and development funds that are already
provided within the Federal agency is a long-term benefit for our
country.
In its letter, the Biotechnology Industry Organization notes:

[t]his 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.

The group also says it represents a compromise to ensure that
America's small businesses remain at the forefront of global
innovation. It also states that SBIR helps small biotechnology
companies continue lines of medical research that might otherwise go
unfunded. It will help to increase access to early-stage capital, which
is a critical source of funding if we are to develop the therapies that
are so important to advancing our medical systems in this country and
our health care. It bolsters economic growth, job creation,
breakthrough drug treatments, and therapies for patients, and it also
increases America's competitiveness in the global economy.
That is exactly the intent of this program that was created in 1982,
and that certainly underscores the value of this program as stated by
the Biotechnology Industry Organization. I am confident this
legislation represents an unprecedented compromise that will give us
the necessary momentum to get this reauthorization over the finish line
once and for all. This is a welcome change, after 10 temporary short-
term extensions over the past 2\1/2\ years. I think the legacy of this
program is making significant contributions to America's economy, and
to the well-being of small businesses, the engine that drives America's
economy. We depend on small businesses to create most of the jobs in
America. We need to facilitate that, given the high unemployment rate--
when we have had 21 consecutive months of an unemployment rate at or
above 9 percent. That is the longest stretch in our Nation's history.
These two programs collectively and individually will contribute
significantly to the growth of small businesses and job creation in
this country. That is why there is a broad array of organizations that
are supporting this legislation, because it is a testament to its
history of success.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio). The Senator from Louisiana
is recognized.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I see we have several colleagues on the
floor, and there is another coming down to speak on an amendment. I
thank Senator Snowe for her explanation of some of the compromises and
changes and modifications the two of us worked on with our committee
members over the last 6 years to bring a bill to the floor that has
bipartisan support. I thank her.
One telling chart I want to put up before yielding to the Senator
from Vermont, who wants to speak on an amendment, is very interesting.
It talks about job creation and the importance of this program. One
report that looked into this program between 1985 and 1995 said that
SBIR-awarded firms added an average five times as many employees as
comparable firms that did not receive SBIR funding.
Again, this is the Federal Government's largest program. Amazingly,
it doesn't cost the Federal Government any more money because it is
research and development dollars that are already set aside for the
purpose of research and development. It makes sure that small
businesses have access to these dollars.
When we do provide that kind of access, which this bill does, these
grants and contracts go to companies that not only produce great
technology but hire workers. I wanted to put that into the Record. I
have other things to put into the Record as well.
I see Senator Sanders, the Senator from Vermont, on the floor.

[[Page S1784]]

At this point, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, it was my intention to offer a
modification of the amendment I offered yesterday on Social Security.
Given the parliamentary situation right now, I can't do that. I intend
to do that as soon as I can.
Mr. President, the original Social Security protection amendment that
I introduced earlier would have prevented Congress from cutting Social
Security benefits, raising the retirement age or privatizing Social
Security without the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Senate and
the House.
I introduced this amendment because I strongly believe that Congress
should not be able to cut the hard-earned Social Security benefits of
current or future eligible recipients without a super-majority vote in
both the Senate and the House, and I continue to hold those views.
I have heard from some of my colleagues--colleagues who strongly
support protecting Social Security--that adopting this amendment would
have the effect of changing the rules of the Senate and establishing
new precedents. While I do not share those views, I have 1istened to my
colleagues' concerns and worked with the majority leader to modify this
amendment.
As a result, Majority Leader Reid is a cosponsor of this modified
amendment. There is not one Senator or Member of the House who is more
committed to protecting Social Security than Majority Leader Reid and I
thank him for his leadership on this issue.
The Sanders-Reid amendment expresses the Sense of the Senate that, as
part of any legislation to reduce the Federal deficit, Social Security
benefits for current and future beneficiaries should not be cut and
that Social Security should not be privatized.
The Sanders-Reid amendment makes it clear that Social Security has
never contributed one dime to the Federal budget deficit or the
national debt.
The Sanders-Reid amendment makes it clear that Social Security
currently has a $2.6 trillion surplus that is projected to grow to $4.2
trillion in 2023.
The Sanders-Reid amendment makes it clear that it would be absurd to
be discussing Social Security within the context of deficit reduction.
Let me repeat what I said yesterday. Social Security has not
contributed one nickel to our deficit, and it makes no sense to
conflate the serious problems of our deficit and national debt with
Social Security. That is not an accurate projection of reality.
As I think we all know, in 1983, Social Security did face a crisis.
Within a 6-month period of that point, it would not have been able to
pay out benefits it owed to eligible Americans. Today, Social Security
can pay out all benefits owed to all Americans who are eligible for the
program for the next 26 years.
I will speak more about this issue. I wanted to inform my colleagues
that we intend to modify the amendment we have offered. We will do that
when the parliamentary situation allows us to do that.
I thank the Senator from Louisiana for allowing me to say a few
words.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I want to talk for a while on the
Hutchison amendment which says that, while the health care reform bill
President Obama and the majority passed last year is going through the
courts, any related provisions would be put on hold until the courts
decide whether the law is constitutional.
This is an important amendment because States and private companies
are being forced to spend a lot of money putting programs into place
that may not have to be put into place if this bill is indeed struck
down as unconstitutional. During the health care debate last year, I
raised a constitutional point of order against the individual mandate
because, frankly, I believe strongly that it is unconstitutional. A few
of the courts around the country have agreed with me and ruled that it
is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, that constitutional point of order
was voted down along party lines. There is still a very good
possibility--and I am hoping the courts will see it this way--that this
bill will be struck down as unconstitutional because there are no
``severability clauses'' in the legislation. In other words, if one
part is found unconstitutional, the entire bill is unconstitutional.
The individual mandate is the place most people are focusing on. If
that is struck down as unconstitutional, the whole bill will come down.
Yet States, with all of the programs and exchanges they have to set up,
will literally be spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to
comply with a law that may be unconstitutional. We should not have them
go through that. We should actually have an expedited procedure to go
through the courts and put everything else on hold so we can determine
whether this law is constitutional.
Let me talk a little bit about some of the problems we are seeing
with the health care bill. First of all, we know it is raising
premiums. It was promised that the average premium in the United States
would go down by about $2,500 per year.
I will give you one quick anecdote I heard yesterday. I was on the
phone with one of Nevada's largest employers, Steve Wynn, of Wynn
Resorts. He is known to be probably the most union-friendly, the most
employee-friendly employer in the State of Nevada. He has been for
years. His employees love him. He pays well and offers good benefits.
He told me yesterday they did a study from 2005 to 2010 of their health
care costs. They increased, on average, about 8 percent a year. This
year, he said that, specifically because of this health care bill,
their increase was 12 percent. That is a 50-percent increase in the
rate of growth of their health care costs.
What did that mean to the average employee who works for Wynn
Resorts? Wynn Resorts shouldered a lot of the costs, but the economy in
Nevada is pretty tough right now. It is tough on employers, so they
passed some of those costs to the employees. It means an additional
cost of $900 a year to the average employee who works for Wynn Resorts.
This is a story I have heard repeated across Nevada over and over
again.
Two-thirds of our economy is driven by consumer spending. If you take
$900 out of the pockets of the average employee in my State--and I am
sure that is being repeated across the country--that is less money
people have to spend to encourage economic growth.
We know that this bill was over 2,000 pages. Very few people, if any,
have read it. If they did read it, I can guarantee you that almost no
one understood it, even the people who wrote it. This bill now has over
6,000 pages of regulations which, once again, are incredibly complex.
Unless you are a large company that has experts and lawyers who can
search through this law to figure out what it means to you, it is very
difficult to understand.
There was over $500 billion taken out of Medicare. It wasn't taken to
shore up Medicare; it was actually taken out to create a brand new
entitlement program. This health reform law takes $500 billion out of
Medicare and puts it toward a new entitlement program instead of
shoring up Medicare and making Medicare a better system.
There were also hundreds of billions of dollars in higher taxes in
this bill. Sure, the majority passed it. They said it was just the
health insurance companies they were going to tax, and just medical
devices were going to be taxed. There were 11 new taxes in this health
care bill, which is one of the reasons I opposed it.
Here is a real-life example of what those taxes mean to patients and
those developing future cures. One company produces an extraordinary
device for people who have uncontrollable seizures--epilepsy is a
common name for that condition. One of the treatments developed by this
company to treat epilepsy is an electronic device that helps reprogram
the brain. It is implanted in the brain: instead of a pacemaker for the
heart, it is like a pacemaker for the brain. It is an expensive device,
which costs over $20,000. The company that makes this device puts most
of the money they make back into research and development so they can
make better devices. Because of this new tax, they are not going to
have nearly the same resources to put back into R&D to develop better
products and help more patients in the future. If we had not had this
device in the first place, many people who have completely
uncontrollable seizures would

[[Page S1785]]

not have had this help. With this device, over half of those people are
actually able to control their seizures. No other medication works for
them. Half of them are able to control their seizures because of this
device.
These are the types of things in this bill that are doing damage to
our health care system, which is by all accounts the finest health care
system in the world. The biggest problem with this health care bill is
that it didn't go after the No. 1 problem we have in health care: the
cost. Health care is too expensive in the United States. Even though it
is of the finest quality, it is too expensive. We should strike down
this bill as unconstitutional, or repeal it. Then, we should start with
a health care reform bill that goes after the true problem in health
care, and that is the cost.
What can we do about the cost of health care? We should absolutely do
something that many States are already doing; the State of Texas is a
good example of where it has been successful. We should change our
medical liability laws, to rein in out-of-control trial lawyers across
the country who are driving up all our health care costs. We know
doctors prescribe all kinds of unnecessary tests just to cover
themselves in case of a lawsuit.
When good medical liability reform bills are put into place, the true
victims of medical malpractice actually get compensation because there
are not as many frivolous lawsuits clogging up the courts. The other
thing that happens is the cost of medical liability insurance and the
cost to our health care system goes down.
The Congressional Budget Office reported that there would be
approximately $70 billion to $80 billion in savings over the next 10
years if we enacted medical liability reform. I think that estimate is
very low, but the number is not insignificant.
There are many other things we can do to create a health care reform
bill that brings down costs. First of all, we need to put the patient
back at the center of the health care universe. Today we have what is
called a third-party payer system. The person receiving the care is not
the person paying for the care. We need to put the person who is
receiving care back with, what is known as, skin in the game. Then,
they will start talking with their doctor and their doctor will talk
with them. This can be done through health savings accounts.
Health savings accounts combine a high-deductible policy with a
health savings account that either an individual's employer contributes
to or the individual contributes to, and the individual actually
negotiates with their doctors. The beautiful part about that is that
they do not have to worry about a gatekeeper. Anybody who belongs to an
HMO knows they have to go to a gatekeeper before getting to a
specialist. If it is your money, you can go to any doctor you want, and
the doctor has to be accountable to you because it is your money.
If we had over 300 million people in the United States shopping for
health care, then market forces would drive down the cost of care and
bring up the quality. Unfortunately, the government already controls
most health care in the United States. The government pays almost 60
percent of total bills. When we add it all up, about 60 percent of the
bills are paid for by the Government of the United States. The
government already controls health care. That is the reason we continue
to see costs in health care skyrocketing over many years, until
recently when the costs are going up even faster.
This health care reform bill that passed last year--some people call
it ObamaCare--is actually making the situation worse, not better, for
the health care system in the United States.
I believe strongly that the Hutchison amendment, which would freeze
any implementation of the health care bill until it is decided in the
courts whether it is constitutional, is a vital amendment. It will make
sure that States and private sector companies do not waste a lot of
money complying with a bill that might be struck down as
unconstitutional. This is money we cannot get back. Once it is spent,
it is gone. We cannot get that money back.
We already know how many States are struggling with their budgets
right now. We see what is happening in Wisconsin, Ohio, and my State of
Nevada. It is happening all over the country. We need to put this bill
on hold until we know whether it is going to be ruled constitutional.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Colorado is
recognized.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise to speak on a matter
that is a real concern to me and many in this body but, most
importantly, to the citizens of this country. It has to do with efforts
to climb out of this long recession. There are still pockets of the
United States--the Presiding Officer's home State, my State--that feel
as if we have not made any progress. When I talk with business owners
in my State, I know they are still weathering the storm, looking to
invest in a down economy, and they want to start hiring again. That is
why I am glad we are, once again, debating a small business bill and
that I have a chance to reintroduce the bipartisan Small Business
Lending Enhancement Act as an amendment.
I have to say, this is a little like ``Groundhog Day.'' I am looking
at my friend from the State of Louisiana. In October of last year, a
report by the New York Federal Reserve said three-quarters of small
businesses looking for credit last summer were turned down or received
only some of the financing they requested.
In this report from the Federal Reserve, they stated: ``Reports from
small-business owners of a credit gap have been both vocal and
frequent.''
We in Congress have decided to act on and try to extend additional
credit to small businesses because more credit means additional growth
and, therefore, increased job creation.
Unfortunately--I should say ``fortunately'' we created a $30 billion
lending fund for banks. The unfortunate part of that is we did not
simultaneously allow credit unions to do more. Since that time, banks
have been reducing credit availability. Even after receiving $30
billion of taxpayers' money in last year's Small Business Jobs Act,
banks still are not meeting demands for small business loans.
I am still very committed to taking the commonsense step to allow
credit unions to increase the amount of money they can lend to small
businesses. I, once again, introduced the Small Business Lending
Enhancement Act, which would open additional credit to small businesses
without costing taxpayers a dime. Let me say this again--without
spending a dime of taxpayer money.
We have to acknowledge credit unions know the small businesses in
their communities that need loans to expand and hire. The credit unions
have money to lend to those businesses. Right now, Federal law limits
the amount of small business loans a credit union can extend to 12
percent of their assets. Nearly 350 credit unions, accounting for
approximately 60 percent of all business loans subject to the 12
percent cap, are facing their cap and will have to dramatically slow
their business lending.
It is hard for me to believe the government is telling these
financial institutions they cannot help create jobs in their local
communities. That is why my amendment would double the amount of money
credit unions can offer small businesses.
We all know these small business owners. I wish to touch on two
stories. I was particularly compelled by a small businesswoman in
Colorado by the name of Stacy Hamon. She is a small business owner in
Thornton, CO. She started her own business, 1st Street Salon. She
initially went to a bank for a loan and was turned down because credit
was in short supply. To make her dream of owning her small business
come true, she went to her credit union, and they gave her the loan she
needed through a second mortgage on her home.
The success story of Stacy unfolds in pretty dramatic and wonderful
ways. When I visited her, she had plenty of business and even hired
more workers. These are real American jobs and a shining example of
economic expansion that would not have been possible if it were not for
a credit union stepping up and offering her a loan.
Another Coloradan, Lisa Herman of Broomfield, e-mailed me her success
story of securing a credit union loan to expand her business. She is
co-owner of

[[Page S1786]]

Happy Cakes Bakeshop in Denver's Highland Square neighborhood. She has
been in business since 2007. Despite the troubled economy, her business
blossomed. Her revenues were up 27 percent by the summer of 2009. She
is booking 20 weddings a month and had to expand her retail operations
and move into a new shop.
Same story: When she wanted to secure a loan through a traditional
bank, it did not happen. It did not pan out. But a local credit union
was able to provide her with a loan for her to grow her business. That
meant more business and more jobs for her community. That is the
American way.
Banks and credit unions are competitors. They do not always get
along. But this is not about them. This is about small business. For
perspective, credit unions today only represent 4.5 percent of all
business loans at depository institutions. If we take this commonsense
step I am proposing and double small business lending by credit unions,
it would still leave 91 percent of the small business market to banking
institutions. Again, this is a smart, no-cost way of increasing lending
without drastically changing the composition of the small business
lending market.

Since some of my colleagues I know have been visited by folks who do
not want credit unions to lend more to small businesses, I wish to make
one thing clear. Credit unions have been making small business loans
since their inception in the early 1900s. That is 100-plus years ago.
It was not until 1998 that there were any limits whatsoever on what
they could loan. That means, for 90 years, credit unions were free to
help small businesses in their communities without the Federal
Government necessarily getting in the way. That meant uninhibited small
business support, growth, and job creation. But right now, the Federal
law, whether initially intentioned, is keeping these jobs from
Americans who are out searching for work.
It is estimated that the average credit union small business loan is
approximately $220,000 and that each $92,000 in additional lending on
the part of the Nation's credit unions will create one additional job.
In the next year, I am going to say when we adopt this concept, credit
union business lending could increase to over $10 billion, which
conservatively would create 100,000 new jobs. All we have to do is
increase the statutory cap on credit union business lending.
I wish to state again for the record: These small, simple statutory
changes would not cost taxpayers a cent, but they would dramatically
increase the capital available to small businesses to help make
payroll, buy inventory, expand, and innovate.
Moreover, the proposed statutory changes are safe and fully supported
by the National Credit Union Administration, which is the credit union
regulator. They are the product of an agreement reached last year by
the Senate Banking Committee and the Treasury Department.
As I begin to close, I wish to note all the organizations that
support increasing credit union small business loans: Americans for Tax
Reform, the National Association of Realtors, the National Small
Business Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the
Heartland Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the League
of United Latin American Citizens, the National Cooperative Business
Association, National Farmers Union, the Hardwood Institute, National
Council of Textile Organizations, and many others.
I urge my colleagues to do what is right and let's finally fix this
unnecessary Federal limit on small business loans and support a small,
focused, bipartisan amendment to increase job growth and support for
our local small businesses.
I believe my amendment is at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that
the pending amendment be set aside and that the Udall amendment No. 242
be called up and I ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes, I object, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, if I may ask my colleague,
through the Chair, the nature of the objection given that this would be
so important to expanding business opportunities when our economy is in
a troubled state.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Louisiana is
recognized.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I am happy to report and respond through the Chair that
a Member of the Senate has put a hold on parliamentary procedures that
would allow us to move forward on any amendments, the Senator should be
aware. So we are unable, at this time, to have his amendment pending. I
am personally happy he came down to speak on the amendment. There are
other people who feel strongly about that issue as well. I hope the
Senator understands we are not able to take up his amendment at this
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I know the Senator from
Louisiana has an interest in the possibilities of this legislation. I
also see my colleague from Maine, who has graciously joined me in
cosponsoring this important bill and, as well, understands the way in
which we would trigger innovation, lending, and job creation. I thank
her.
I yield the floor.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I might note that Senator Johnson's
committee has jurisdiction over the amendment Senator Udall spoke
about. The Banking Committee has the jurisdiction, not the Small
Business Committee, which is one of the concerns I have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I want to rise in support of the comments
as well as the initiative of the Senator from Colorado, Senator Udall,
because I think this is a critical way to create jobs in America--by
lifting the member business lending cap at credit unions. As he
indicated, there was a historical norm of no cap on small business
lending--or business lending--that could be done by credit unions in
this country. I am very pleased to join him in this effort. Hopefully,
we will have the opportunity to consider this initiative here on the
floor. It deserves it.
At a time when government essentially has exhausted all of its
options to create economic growth and jobs, this is one demonstrable
way in which we can create jobs in America and also have a massive
infusion of capital at no cost to the Federal taxpayer, at no cost to
the Federal Government.
As the Senator from Colorado indicated, for 90 years there was no
cap. In 1998 the Congress decided to impose a cap of 12.25 percent on
business lending that could be done by credit unions. We want to raise
that cap to 25 percent to inject more than $10 billion of new capital
in our Nation's economy. It could create, potentially, as the Senator
indicated, 100,000 new jobs within its first year, including some 1,000
jobs in my own State. We are a small State--Maine. We have 1.3 million
people, and more than 600,000 Mainers are members of credit unions.
Credit unions play a pivotal role in our State and our Nation's
economy. They are on the front lines each and every day in our small
communities, serving their members and local businesses. One of the
greatest handicaps and hardships right now for small businesses, as
demonstrated by a recent survey by the Federal Reserve, is that three-
quarters of small businesses looking for credit last summer were turned
down and received only some of the financing they requested.
Small businesses are on the front lines of our economic recovery.
They are the innovators and the job creators, the driving engine of the
Nation's growth and prosperity, yet they are not getting the access to
capital that is necessary to create jobs and to make the investments in
their companies and firms that will stabilize the economy. So it is
indisputable about the value this legislation would represent in terms
of helping small businesses have access to that capital.
Credit unions have been making business loans since their inception,
for more than 100 years. They provide the essential capital in small
communities. They understand the importance of lending to creditworthy
customers, they understand the nature of their communities, they know
their members and can make a difference in so

[[Page S1787]]

many businesses as well as in the local communities. We know that in
the past they have demonstrated responsible underwriting practices and
strong management. They have money to lend--at a time when capital is
much needed.
At a time when we are struggling to find ways to create jobs, this is
one sensible solution to that approach. Frankly, I am very disturbed
about the inability of our economy to create the kind of jobs Americans
deserve. As I said earlier, as of January this year, we have
experienced 21 consecutive months of unemployment at or above 9
percent, which is the longest stretch in the recorded history. The
second highest was back in the early 1980s. But if you think about the
jobs that were created last month--one of only 3 months in the last 2
years in which 200,000 jobs were created, at that rate it would take 8
consecutive years to achieve the pre-recession unemployment level of 5
percent. We would have to create more than 300,000 jobs every month
over the next 2 years to reach a 7-percent unemployment rate. In the
month of January only 36,000 jobs were created.
We have a long way to go. While the net unemployment rate, as it
stands today, is 8.9 percent, in all reality--as an article indicated
yesterday in the Washington Post--it is closer to 10.5 percent because
of so many discouraged workers that have left the workforce. In this
initiative, we have an important, effective, responsible way of putting
money into the communities, allowing the credit unions to lend to
creditworthy customers and businesses, the same entities that will help
drive this economy into recovery.
We depend on small businesses. They are the ones that are going to
make it happen. That is why I want to commend the Senator from Colorado
for offering this initiative. It is vitally important. I hope we don't
defer the consideration of this legislation in this Congress, that we
have the opportunity, when we return from this upcoming recess, to
consider it and to vote on it.
I also wish to give a few other facts that I think are important to
illustrate the value of these loans in the community. The Treasury
Department found that 25 percent of credit union member business loans
were made to members with household incomes of less than $30,000 and
that these loans totaled 13 percent of the outstanding member business
lending balances. Another 20 percent went to households with incomes
reported to be $30,000 and $50,000. So we are talking about middle-
class America. We are talking about mom-and-pop operations and
households that otherwise would be denied access to credit. We know
that. We have heard it chapter and verse. I have heard it anecdotally
from so many businesses in my State and across the country. We have
heard testimony before the committee about the inability of so many
small businesses to gain access to credit.
Banks have decreased lending, for all practical purposes, to small
businesses. That is why we have to do everything we can to enable these
firms to access credit and loans that will allow them to stay in
business and to sustain their operations in these very difficult times.
Again, I want to thank the Senator from Colorado for offering this
initiative, and hopefully we will have the opportunity to consider it
and to vote on it because it is one way of stimulating job growth. I
think that is indisputable based on the track record of the previous
lending that has been done by the credit unions. This is one
opportunity we should be able to have in making sure small businesses
have access to capital that will allow them to continue.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senators for their
discussion of that amendment. I wish, before Senator Udall leaves, to
correct one thing for the record.
As the manager of the Small Business Innovation Jobs bill, which the
Senator was so helpful to us in passing, we did ask the credit unions
if they wanted to be a part of that lending program and they declined
to participate. So I wanted, for the record, for that to be clear.
I do know--and let me speak for myself--that credit unions serve a
valuable role in our Nation today, and we want to acknowledge that. But
I want the Senator from Colorado to know that, according to the
information I have been given, they were asked if they wanted to
participate in the Small Business Lending Fund, and they declined. They
may change their mind later, and we can amend that program later should
they so decide. But I thank the Senator for his comments.
I see the Senator from Georgia is on the floor, so I will yield my
time. I think he wants to speak on a different amendment, but I think
that is the purpose of this morning's discussion.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. I thank the Senator from Louisiana, and I look forward
to being in New Orleans this weekend, I might add. It is a great State
and a great city.
Madam President, there is a pending amendment by Senator Hutchison
dealing with medical waivers, which prompts me to come to the floor for
a minute and talk about that issue as it affects Georgia today, and in
particular to talk about it in the context of what our Governor and
legislature are having to deal with right now in terms of the mandates
of the health care bill signed on March 23 of last year by President
Obama.
In fact, on the signing of that bill, there were a couple of
statements made, reflecting back on that long debate, and I want to
repeat them right now. One was made by Speaker Pelosi, saying about a
month before the House passed the health care bill, that you had to
pass it to find out what is in it. That was a funny statement at the
time, but it became prophetic as we are beginning to discover over and
over the unintended consequences of the legislation on our States and
on medicine.
Secondly, Vice President Biden declared the magnitude of the impact
of the health care bill. That magnitude is turning out to be higher
cost, less benefit, and more regulation on our States.
In particular, I want to bring two points up to talk about why this
whole issue of medical waivers is so important. Our insurance
commissioner, Ralph Hudgens, has submitted to CMS for a waiver on the
medical cost-benefit rule in terms of benefits paid on policies, taking
it up to 85 percent. That mandate in the health care bill is going to
force not better coverage but less coverage by our insurance companies
in Georgia because they will leave when they cannot meet it.
It is the intention to regulate the amount of benefits paid. But the
application means companies that can't meet it by the time set in the
bill will leave the State. So instead, you will have less of what was
promised rather than more. You will have less available choice and more
people forced to a single-payer system in the government operated
through an exchange.
This prompts me to talk about the second issue going on in Georgia.
Our newly elected Governor, Governor Nathan Deal, is trying to deal
with a mandate on setting up the State exchange that will be available
to operate by 2014, in a period of time where the public wants no part
of the national health care bill and wants to wait on a Supreme Court
ruling on June Vinson's opinion from Florida.
I come to the floor to say these medical waivers are important.
States are having to ask for them because of the impact of the overall
health care bill that was signed on March 23 of last year. If some
relief doesn't come, we are going to have some cataclysmic events. One
will be the impact on employees and small businesses, which is what
this bill is all about.
I ran a small business. I had independent contractors for whom under
ERISA you could not provide health insurance. I tried my best to get
this Congress and this President to consider an associated benefit
program approval so we could have people, such as those in my
profession, assemble together and form large risk pools so they could
compete for insurance, the same as major companies and States do. That
was rejected instead for an exchange and for a simple system that says
small businesses must provide health insurance to their employees, but
if they do not provide it, they will pay a modest fine that is much
less than the cost of the insurance. That one statement and rule alone
forces people in

[[Page S1788]]

small business to leave health care coverage from an insurance carrier,
getting it through their employer, and instead they are forced to go to
a government exchange where choice is limited and mandates are many.
I want to commend the distinguished chairman and ranking member of
the Small Business Committee for the effort they are making on this
bill, but also commend Senator Hutchison on the importance of
considering the volume of these waivers being filed; why are they being
filed, and are they an early warning for what will happen to us when
this bill goes into effect if we don't take the ObamaCare legislation
and commit drastic surgery or, better yet, start over and build a
system that works, where we have the private delivery of health care
and a minimum of government interference.
I thank very much the chairman for giving me the time to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Georgia for coming to the
floor to participate in the debate. I have a different view on the
amendment he spoke on, but we will continue that debate. In fact, we
have been debating health care policy in this country for the last 2
years. While I appreciate his views, I am hoping we get to keep the
debate very focused and specific, if possible. But I understand the
amendment of Senator Hutchison, and the amendment Senator Isakson
supports does affect small business, so we look forward to more
comments as we go forward.
Madam President, as we wait to move to the CR--which under unanimous
consent I think we are moving to in a few moments, so we will be off
the debate on this bill--I want to submit for the Record some of the
data associated with job creation.
I know Senator Snowe is very sincere in her comments about the lack
of job creation in the country, and I want to say I agree with
everything she has said in terms of the rates of unemployment being
very concerning. That is why she and I have spent so much time in the
committee trying to look at the array of bills we have, at least in our
jurisdiction, and see what we can do to help change the outlook. I am
very proud to say we have, I think, in large measure contributed in a
positive way.
But for the record, in terms of job numbers, because I don't think
President Obama and his administration get the kind of credit I think
they deserve, and frankly, the Democratic leadership doesn't get the
credit it deserves for turning around a desperate situation, I am going
to submit these numbers for the record, but I will also have a chart
later because I think it is important for people to understand. I want
to throw a few of these numbers out. I am sorry I do not have this
chart clearly reproduced at this point, but I am going to give you a
couple of numbers.

In January of 2009, this country lost 820,000 jobs, in that 1 month.
In that 1 month, we lost more jobs, according to this document I am
looking at, than any month probably in the last 10 or 15 years. I am
going to go back and check.
I ask for 1 more minute? I do not see Senator Inouye. I am going to
actually ask for 2 or 3 more minutes until he gets to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. That is the highest number of jobs lost in years, and I
will tell you exactly how many. The point is, President Obama was not
the President in 2009, January of 2009; he was just sworn in in 2009.
He was elected in 2008. So the job losses of a year before, which
started February of 2008, which was the beginning of the recession,
before President Obama was sworn in--we lost 83,000 jobs; in March,
72,000; in April, 185,000; in May, 233,000; in June, 178,000; in July,
231,000; in August, 267,000; in September, 434,000; in October,
509,000; in November, 802,000; in December, 619,000; and then in
January, the month he got sworn in, we lost 820,000. I understand
people have different views, but to blame a President who was not even
in office for this recession is wrong and it is not fair. That often
happens. It does not happen from my ranking member, but it does happen
from others around here.
In addition, that terrible loss of jobs continued as Wall Street
collapsed, fat cats ran off with the money, people's Social Security
and 401(k)s--not Social Security, thank goodness, but 401(k)s tanked,
public pension funds that people are screaming about, that something is
wrong with them--yes, a lot is wrong with them. The Wall Street greed,
unparalleled in the history of this Nation, sunk so many of our pension
funds--not necessarily the fault of Governors or legislators or
employees themselves--and there is some underfunding opportunity, I
would say, there. I know something about this. But the big culprit was
the collapse of the market which was started before this
administration.
These numbers continue: 500; 300. What is happening this year, 2010?
It is starting to reverse. Yes, ma'am, it is starting to reverse--in
March, a plus of 192,000; in April, a plus of 277,000; in May, a plus
of 458,000; in October, a plus of 171,000. I could go on.
The point is, it is not all gloom and doom. There are some things
that are working. We need to keep working together. That is why Senator
Snowe and I are on the floor.
I see Senator Inouye coming. It is time to go to the CR. But we are
working together the way our committee has had a tradition of working
to try to take a bill here, a bill there, putting good programs in
place, putting new ideas in, thinking outside of the box, because we
all have to do the best we can to get this economy moving again.
I wanted to say that for the record, to submit this data.
I see the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and I believe at
this time, Madam President, I will yield the floor and we can proceed
to the next order of business.

____________________