[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 55 (Thursday, April 14, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2495-S2497]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 493
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 11 a.m.,
Tuesday, May 3, the Senate resume consideration of S. 493, the small
business jobs bill; that no amendments, points of order, or motions be
in order during the pendency of this agreement other than the
amendments listed in this agreement and budget points of order and
applicable motions to waive; that the pending amendments be set aside
and Senator Landrieu or her designee be recognized to call up the
following amendments: DeMint No. 300 to Paul No. 299; Carper No. 289,
with a modification, which is at the desk; Pryor No. 278; Merkley No.
272; and Landrieu No. 234; that the DeMint second-degree amendment No.
300 be agreed to; that the time until 2:15 p.m. be equally divided
between the two leaders or their designees; that at 2:15 p.m., the
Senate proceed to votes in relation to the following amendments in the
order listed below: Cornyn No. 186; Paul No. 199, as amended; Hutchison
No. 197; Cardin No. 240; Snowe No. 253; Carper No. 289, as modified;
Pryor No. 278; Merkley No. 272; and Landrieu No. 234; that there be no
amendments in order to the amendments prior to the votes other than the
DeMint second-degree amendment to the Paul amendment; that each
amendment be subject to a 60-vote threshold; and the motions to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; further, that
the Vitter amendment No. 178 and the Pryor amendment No. 229 be
withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object, I have an
additional amendment I would like to have considered on this list. I
thought we had an agreement that there would be an even number of
amendments offered on both sides, and now I understand that in the
request that is put forward by the majority leader, there are five
amendments on the Democratic side and four amendments on our side.
I would like to ask consent, because I thought my amendment--Snowe
amendment No. 299--would also be included in the agreement. So I am
asking unanimous consent that the order be modified to include Snowe
amendment No. 299.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the leader modify?
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I object to my friend's request with the
following explanation: We have worked very hard to get this bill done.
This is a committee of which the Senator from Maine was chairman. She
is now the ranking member. This legislation--underline this--is
extremely important. It has done in the past wonderful things for our
country. This innovation that this bill allows to go forward has
created things such as the electric toothbrush and many other things.
It is a good piece of legislation.
The legislation of my friend from Maine is not relevant or germane to
this legislation. What is going to happen--if she objects to the
request I have offered, this bill will not go forward. And that is too
bad. We have worked all week long--in fact, some into last week--trying
to get these amendments cleared and agreed to.
The sad part about her amendment is that we cannot get agreement not
only from our side but on her side. Without going into detail who they
are, people do not want to do this amendment because it has no direct
relevance to this legislation.
In addition to that, Mr. President, her legislation has not had a
hearing. It is something that is a big bill not only in content but in
pages, and it should have a hearing. Senators should know what they are
voting on in more detail. The other amendments we have gone through
have been perused very closely and people understand what is in them
and people can vote intelligently on those.
Now, my first inclination is to say: Well, let's go ahead and do it
and try to defeat it, but that is not the way we should do legislation.
So I am terribly disappointed that the Senator from Maine, the former
chairman of this committee, recognizing the importance of this
legislation, is going to cause this legislation to fail, and we very
likely will not have time to bring it up again. Now, if that is what my
friend wants on her legislative conscience, that is fine. But I think
it really should not be there. For someone who understands this
legislation as well as she does, it is wrong to stand in the way of our
completing it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request?
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, further reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments that have been
made by the majority leader. But to the contrary, this is very relevant
to the underlying legislation. It is about regulatory reform. And if
you were to ask the small business community exactly what is their
major priority in the U.S. Congress, it would be regulatory reform.
Undeniably, it is one of the most onerous burdens placed on small
businesses today, and our economic well-being. We have had numerous
hearings within our committee that touch on the issue of regulatory
reform, and my legislation would reform the process to ensure that
small businesses are free to compete and to create jobs.
What could be more important at a time when we are struggling to
create jobs in our economy, where we need to create millions of jobs if
we are ever going to turn around this serious unemployment rate that is
plaguing our Nation today and critically affecting the personal
financial well-being of all Americans?
So, Mr. President, I am surprised with the standard proposed now
about hearings. We have had numerous hearings touching on the subject.
The question is that we never addressed the issue in the U.S. Senate.
As I look through the number of amendments that are going to be offered
to vote on in the majority leader's unanimous consent request, many of
these amendments have not had hearings either, they have not been the
subject of very specific hearings.
The point is, everyone has had the opportunity and would have the
opportunity to review this legislation and debate it amply, and would
be able to explore these issues. My legislation has drawn the broad
support of the small business community nationwide. They reviewed the
legislation. They understand the implications. They understand the
benefits if we do regulatory reform, and they understand the
consequences if we do not.
So I am just surprised that there is a new standard here because we
have passed numerous pieces of legislation on the floor of the Senate
that may not be subject to a specific hearing, but have been touched
upon in numerous hearings on various subjects. The same is true of the
amendment that had been included in the majority leader's unanimous
consent agreement.
So I will have to object at this time to the underlying consent
agreement since I am unable to have a vote on my amendment. Hopefully,
we can review this upon return from the recess so we can go forward
with these votes.
[[Page S2496]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would finally say that this legislation,
under any circumstances, is not relevant or germane to the underlying
bill. That is very clear. This legislation that now has to be
considered by the Senate has not had a hearing. Sure, we have had
hearings on regulatory reform. We have had hearings on the environment
also. But when you bring up a piece of legislation that is new, we
deserve to know what it is about.
These other amendments, we know what they are about. Hers is too
detailed and complicated. It is not germane or relevant. It has had no
hearings. I am stunned by the new standard suggested by my friend from
Maine: Democrats have more amendments than Republicans; therefore, we
should consider an amendment that is not germane, irrelevant, and has
never had a hearing.
So I am disappointed my friend from Maine is killing this
legislation. We have spent enough time on this legislation, and it is
really too bad. The chairman of the committee doesn't support it. The
chairman of the Small Business Committee does not support this
legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I heard the majority leader's comments, and
I appreciate them. It is not about the evenness of the amendments, but
that was the agreement. That was the understanding before I arrived on
the floor. My staff worked in concert with the staff of the Small
Business Committee chair, Senator Landrieu from Louisiana, so that was
the agreement. So that agreement obviously changed sometime in the last
hour.
Getting beyond that point, though, in talking about hearings, when I
look at the list of amendments that are going to be voted on and put
forward in the majority leader's unanimous consent agreement, many of
these amendments have not had specific hearings. But everybody in the
small business community, every small business in America, understands
the value of regulatory reform. It is a very straightforward piece of
legislation.
Many of these issues have been addressed in hearings. Last fall we
had a small business jobs bill, part of which was a $30 billion lending
facility, and, believe me, there were serious problems with that
lending facility. But that was not the subject of one Senate hearing,
and I just want to understand, to garner clarity with respect to the
standards that are now being established.
This issue is very important. Regulatory reform is absolutely crucial
and central to small business job creation, not to mention survival.
You don't have to take too many Main Street tours to figure out what is
happening on Main Street. They are struggling to survive. Last year
alone there were $26 billion in additional regulatory costs that was
imposed on small businesses across this country as a result of new
regulations--$26 billion. But what is the total cost of regulations in
America? It is $1.7 trillion.
So is there any question in terms of the urgency and the imperative
of addressing this issue? It is very central to the underlying
legislation. It is about small businesses. It is about regulation and
the hardships and the costs that are associated with it, and it is
disproportionate on the small business community. It is
disproportionate. They pay more than $10,000 per employee, more than
the large companies because they don't have the number of employees to
be able to fill out the forms and do all that is required that is
associated with the complexities and the costs of complying with those
regulations.
So that is the issue. We had a $30 billion lending facility as part
and parcel of a piece of legislation that was voted on and became law.
There are issues with it today and it was not subject to even one
Senate hearing.
So what I am saying is it was my understanding that we had an
agreement. That is what I understood, that we were going to have an
even number of amendments on both sides to be offered and that my
amendment was going to be included and brought up for a vote. If
Members of the Senate don't want to vote for the amendment, they don't
have to vote for the amendment. It is just saying: Please allow us to
have a vote on this specific amendment just like the others that are in
the majority leader's unanimous consent request. That is all I am
asking.
We have had this bill pending for the last month, and I wanted to
bring it up, but, unfortunately, for a lot of reasons, we are where we
are today. That doesn't mean to say that we should not have the
opportunity to vote on this particular amendment that had been prepared
to go more than a month ago to be considered on the floor of the
Senate. But, in any event, I regret we are in this position tonight.
Hopefully, we can work through this during the course of the recess so
that we have the opportunity to vote on this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the longer the Senator from Maine talks, the
more reason there is not to bring that up in the status that it is in
now.
She is absolutely right. The issue she talks about in the Wall Street
reform bill was brought in at a time when there hadn't been hearings,
and it has created a furor around the country. Now there are people on
all sides of the issue trying to change that. That is why we need to
hold hearings. She is absolutely right. The more she talks, the more
reason there is not to do this amendment.
For her to suggest that regulatory reform is something she is all-
knowing about--and she hasn't said that, but that is the implicit
statement she is making--I understand regulation reform. It is a
burden, and we have to change it.
We have been through a number of procedures here. We can remember
during the Clinton administration when Al Gore was in charge of
reducing regulations, and we did a lot of that. It was good, but we
didn't do enough. I worked with a Republican Senator by the name of
Nichols from Oklahoma. We changed the law drastically, and it has been
used in this Congress and the last Congress on several occasions to get
rid of bad regulations that an administration promulgates. We now have
the ability to do that.
Is there more we can do? Yes. But to march into this, as suggested by
my friend from Maine, would cause people to make a decision on
legislation that has not been adequately reviewed. That is why, I
repeat, the more she talks about what needs to be done around here, the
more reason there is not to do her legislation.
As far as an agreement, I had no agreement with anybody. This consent
agreement was drafted just a short time ago. I have never suggested to
the Senator from Maine--we have never had a conversation about this
until during the last votes.
I moved to proceed to this bill more than a month ago--more than a
month ago. There comes a time when we have to move the bill or move to
something else.
During our next work period, we have some big, important things to
do. We are going to have to deal with the PATRIOT Act. We have other
things that are extremely important. We cannot spend more time on this
legislation. It is unfair to our country, and it is unfair to the small
business community that badly wants this legislation to go forward so
they can do things, as I repeat, such as invent more electric
toothbrush-type items.
There comes a time when we have to make a decision as to whether
people are just stalling this legislation or trying to send some
political message saying: Look, I was able to offer an amendment; I
want to do regulation reform, when there is no chance in the world that
the Senators have adequate information upon which to vote.
So I am very disappointed that very likely this legislation will be
killed as a result of my friend, the former chairman of this committee,
and certainly--I hope she understands how important this underlying
legislation is and how her legislation has nothing to do with what is
in keeping with the germaneness or relevancy to this legislation.
I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
[[Page S2497]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________