Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 83 (Thursday, June 9, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 83 (Thursday, June 9, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3635-S3667]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REVITALIZATION ACT OF 2011

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 782, which the clerk will report
by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 782) to amend the Public Works and Economic
Development Act of 1965 to reauthorize that Act, and for
other purposes.

Pending:

McConnell (for Snowe) amendment No. 390, to reform the
regulatory process to ensure that small businesses are free
to compete and to create jobs.
DeMint amendment No. 394, to repeal the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
Paul amendment No. 414, to implement the President's
request to increase the statutory limit on the public debt.
Cardin amendment No. 407, to require the FHA to equitably
treat home buyers who have repaid in full their FHA-insured
mortgages.
Merkley-Snowe amendment No. 428, to establish clear
regulatory standards for mortgage servicers.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.

Amendment No. 390

Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I called for regular order, which I am,
that would mean the Snowe amendment would be pending; is that right?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is now pending.
Mr. REID. OK. Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate the
cooperation of Senator Snowe, Senator Coburn, and others. It is
important we move along with this legislation. So for the next 3 hours
we will be able to debate the Snowe amendment. The time will be equally
divided during that period of time.
We have a number of amendments others want to offer. We already have
four in addition to hers that have been offered. We have time
agreements on those. I appreciate everyone's help in moving forward in
this regard.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 2:15 p.m.
be equally divided between Senators Snowe and Boxer or their designees;
that at 2:15 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Snowe
amendment; that no amendments, points of order or motions be in order
to the Snowe amendment prior to the vote, other than budget points of
order and the applicable motions to waive; the amendment not be
divisible; that the amendment be subject to a 60-vote threshold; and
that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the
table.
I would also say, before the Chair rules, we have Senator McCaskill
who wants to offer an amendment on the same subject matter. We will do
that at some subsequent time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as I understand it, I will have an hour
and a half to present our side on the amendment and Senator Snowe will
have an hour and a half. Could the Chair please give me the exact
timeframes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the order, 1 hour 37 minutes
for each side.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much. I was close.
I wish to let Senator Snowe know what my plan is at this time. First,
I am going to yield some time on another subject--but it will be used
on our time--to Senator Whitehouse, who has something very important
pertaining to his State, and then I am going to come back and take as
much time as I might consume and it will not be that long. I wish to
lay out where we are in this debate, why this bill is so important, and
I am going to make some remarks about Senator Snowe's amendment. So I
do not know exactly how long it will take, but I will do it as quickly
as I can and retain the remainder of my time.
But at this time, I yield 10 minutes of my time to Senator
Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse is coming back into the Chamber with his charts,
and I reiterate, I will yield the first 10 minutes of my time to
Senator Whitehouse.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio). The Senator from Rhode
Island is recognized.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Boxer.

Commemorating Gaspee Days

Mr. President, my time in this Chamber often gives me cause to
reflect on our history and on the brave patriots who went before us,
many of whom risked or even gave their lives to create this great
Republic. Today, I would like to talk about a group of men who, 239
years ago tonight, engaged in a daring act of defiance against the
British Crown.
For many, the Boston Tea Party is one of the first events on the road
to our revolution. Growing up, we were taught the story of painted-up
Bostonians dumping shipments of tea into Boston Harbor, to defend the
principle: ``no taxation without representation.''
Conspicuously missing from history books is the story of the brave
Rhode Islanders who challenged the British Crown far more aggressively
more than a year before Bostonians dumped those teabags into Boston
harbor. Today, on its anniversary, I would like to take us back to an
earlier milestone in America's fight for independence, to share with
you the story of a British vessel, the HMS Gaspee, and to introduce you
to some little-known heroes now lost in the footnotes of history.
In 1772, amidst growing tensions with American colonies, King George
III stationed his revenue cutter, the HMS Gaspee, in Rhode Island. The
Gaspee's task was to prevent smuggling and enforce the payment of
taxes. But to Rhode Islanders, the vessel was a symbol of oppression.
The offensive presence of the Gaspee was matched by the offensive
manner of its captain, LT William Dudingston. Lieutenant Dudingston was
known for destroying fishing vessels and confiscating their contents,
and flagging down ships only to harass, humiliate, and interrogate
sailors. But on June 9, 1772, an audacious Rhode Islander, Captain
Benjamin Lindsey, took a stand.
Aboard his ship, the Hannah, Captain Lindsey set sail from Newport to
Providence. On his way, he was hailed by the Gaspee to stop for a
search. The defiant captain ignored the command and continued on his
course. Recently, Dr. Kathy Abbas, director of the Rhode Island Marine
Archaeology Project, has suggested a motivating factor for Dudingston
to have sought to seize the Hannah: she may have been carrying 250
pounds sterling onboard. As Dr. Abbas told the Providence Journal, that
was ``an enormous sum'' in those days.
In any event, Captain Lindsey and his Hannah sought to evade the
Gaspee. Gunshots were fired, and the Hannah sped north up Narragansett
Bay with the Gaspee chasing behind in pursuit.
Outsized and outgunned, Captain Lindsey drew courage and confidence
from his keen familiarity with Rhode Island waters. He led the Gaspee
into the shallow waters off Namquid Point, where the smaller Hannah
cruised over the sand banks. The heavier Gaspee ran aground, and stuck.
The Gaspee was stranded in a falling tide, and it would be many hours
before high tide would lift her free.
Arriving triumphantly in Providence, Captain Lindsey visited John
Brown, whose family helped found Brown University. The two men rallied
a group of patriots at Sabin's Tavern, in what is now the East Side of
Providence. The Gaspee was despised by Rhode Islanders who had been too
often bullied in their own waters by this ship, and the stranding of
this once-powerful vessel presented an irresistible chance.
On that dark night, 60 men in longboats led by Captain Lindsey and
Abraham Whipple moved quietly down Narragansett Bay. They encircled the
Gaspee, and demanded that Lieutenant Dudingston surrender the ship.

[[Page S3636]]

Dudingston refused, and instead ordered his men to fire upon anyone who
tried to board.
The determined Rhode Islanders took this as a cue to force their way
onto the Gaspee, and they boarded her in a raging uproar of shouted
oaths, gunshots, powder smoke, and clashing swords. Amidst this violent
struggle Lieutenant Dudingston was shot by a musket ball. Right there
in the waters of Warwick, RI, the very first blood of what was to
become the American Revolution was drawn. Victory was soon in the hands
of the Rhode Islanders.
Brown and Whipple took the captive Englishmen back to shore. You can
go today down behind O'Rourke's Tavern in Pawtuxet Village, down Peck
Lane toward the water, and see the bronze plaque commemorating the spot
where the captured crew was brought ashore.
The Rhode Island patriots then returned to set the abandoned ship on
fire and rid Narragansett Bay of this nuisance once and for all. As the
Gaspee burned, the fire reached her powder magazine and she exploded
like fireworks. The boom echoed across the bay, as the remains of the
ship splashed down into the water. The Gaspee was gone: captured,
burned, and blown to bits. The site of this historic victory is now
named Gaspee Point.
The wounding of Lieutenant Dudingston and the capture and destruction
of the Gaspee occurred 16 months before the so-called Boston Tea Party.
Perhaps this bold undertaking will one day show up in our history
books, alongside pictures of the blazing Gaspee lighting up
Narragansett Bay. Perhaps American children will memorize the dates of
June 9 and 10, 1772, and the names of Benjamin Lindsey, Abraham
Whipple, and John Brown.
I do know that these events will never be forgotten in my home State.
Over the years, I have often marched in the annual Gaspee Days Parade
in Warwick, RI, as every year we recall the courage and zeal of these
men who risked it all for the freedoms we enjoy today, and drew the
first blood in what became the revolutionary conflict.
I would add, in the context of fires and disasters, we have lost one
of the signature buildings of Woonsocket, RI, last night. It was called
the Woonsocket Rubber Company. The building was known as the Alice
Mills, named after the mother of the president of the company who built
it, and it existed for--I do not know--100 years or more. It burned in
a fire so great that 12 municipal fire departments had to answer it
last night; fire departments all the way from Wrentham, MA, down to
Warren, RI.
I want to express my sympathies of Woonsocket on this loss and my
pride in the firefighters who responded from so far and wide to tend to
this fire. Unfortunately, the mill could not be saved. These mills are
very hard to prevent fires in once they get burning. We have lost
something very precious in Rhode Island. I just wanted to note that in
addition to my remarks about the Gaspee.
Let me thank very much my chairman on the Environment and Public
Works Committee. I know she has important business on the Senate floor.
It was very kind of her to give me those few minutes to talk about this
historic day in Rhode Island and American history.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I just want to thank my colleague for his
remarks. I offer my deepest sympathies to these impacted by that
terrible fire. Unfortunately, in this country we are witnessing so many
disasters. It is so difficult for the people to deal with this, but we
have to always respond. I am glad he paid tribute to the firefighters,
the first responders, because they are the ones who put everything on
the line to help us.
We have before us a bill called the Economic Development
Revitalization Act of 2011. It is S. 782. It is a good bill. It is a
bill that is needed for our economy because it is a bill that is
focused on one thing, jobs. When people are asked what our focus should
be--and we all know we need to reduce the deficit and the debt--they
all say No. 1 is jobs because without jobs, deficits only get worse,
debts only get worse, as people have to turn to the safety net that is
provided in this great Nation for their very survival. So when we have
an opportunity to come together across party lines with a jobs bill,
one would think we would be delighted to do it.
This EDA, the Economic Development Administration, was reauthorized
back in 2004 when George W. Bush was President. Let me tell a story
because everybody came together, and that EDA reauthorization passed by
voice vote and was signed into law by President George W. Bush. So it
is a bit perplexing for me to note that we have dozens and dozens of
amendments that are absolutely nongermane to this reauthorization. We
have one amendment that is pending that my colleague, Senator Snowe, is
offering, which has never had a hearing. It has never had a markup, and
it is absolutely going to change the way we can protect our people from
pollution, from danger.
I think it is unfortunate that rather than work on this together, we
are seeing this offered as an amendment. It is Senator Snowe's complete
right to do this. I respect it. I honor it. I understand how strongly
she feels. But I feel just as strongly that something that would ignore
public health and safety and not even put that in the benefits column
is something that is a danger to the people we serve.
So we are going to have a debate about it, and the votes will come at
2:15. I am pleased we will get to vote. I do hope at some point we will
be able to look at regulatory flexibility, we will be able to work to
make sure that as we assist our businesses--and we all want to do that.
That is what this bill, the EDA bill, does. It is assisting businesses.
It is jump-starting business development. We have example after example
of that--we also can work to ease their burden a bit while not
endangering the life and the health of the people. That is pretty
straightforward, and I would be very happy to work with my colleague.
But this bill has never even had a hearing. This bill she is offering
has never been marked up. I have had no opportunity, other than this
one, to basically say how I feel.
I know it is in contrast to the way Senator Snowe feels, and Senator
Coburn. I have lots of respect for them. I hope they have respect for
me as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee because my
view is, my obligation is, to protect the health and the safety of our
kids.
How many kids have asthma? If I asked a group here, I bet one-third
of the hands would go up. If I asked how many people know someone with
asthma, I bet more than half would raise their hands. So I think we
cannot willy-nilly just support an approach that would take away the
ability to put the benefits of protecting health into any formulas
before we say regulation should be thrown overboard. I think there are
ways to definitely work together. Unfortunately, today we are going to
have an up-or-down vote on the Snowe amendment without that
opportunity.
I want to go through the fact that the bill that is before us, the
underlying bill, S. 782, has strong bipartisan support. It was reported
out of our EPW Committee by voice vote, only one objection, and that is
because this EDA has operated for 50 years. It has a very good
tradition of creating jobs and spurring growth in economically hard-hit
communities nationwide.
This bill is going to ensure that EDA can continue to create jobs,
thousands of jobs, protect existing jobs, and drive local economic
growth. It is distressing to me to see, for example, an amendment by
Senator DeMint. He is very proud of his amendment. What would it do? It
would do away with the EDA. So on a bill to reauthorize the EDA, he has
an amendment to eliminate the Economic Development Administration.
Now, again, I respect his view, but I do not understand it. Why do I
not understand it? Because in 2005, Senator DeMint sent out a press
release congratulating local leaders for securing an EDA grant for the
City of Dillon, SC. So we have Senator DeMint proposing to eliminate an
agency which he lauded not once but more than once.
Senator DeMint was quoted in the press release as saying:

This investment in Dillon County will save and create
hundreds of South Carolina jobs. And I am pleased that the
EDA has awarded these funds.

So what planet are we on? We have a Senator who sends out a press
release lauding an agency he now wants to

[[Page S3637]]

eliminate. So you would say, well, maybe that was 2005 and he has
suddenly changed his mind. No. One year ago, Senator DeMint's staff
held a workshop in Myrtle Beach to highlight competitive funding
opportunities available to local communities and businesses through EDA
and other Federal agencies.
June 16, 2010. Here it is:

Workshop to Highlight Competitive Funding Opportunities.
The office of U.S. Senator Jim DeMint and the Myrtle Beach
Chamber of Commerce will provide a workshop--

It goes on to say that the staff of Senator DeMint will be there.
I don't get what is going on. How do you send out a press release
lauding an agency and then say: Let's do away with it. I don't get it.
If jobs are our No. 1 priority--and I certainly know the occupant of
the chair is fighting 24/7 for jobs, for outsourcing jobs, and for job
creation.
For every dollar spent in EDA, $7 of private investment is attracted.
Historically, $1 of EDA investment attracts nearly $7 in private sector
investment. Now, you say: Well, for our investment with Federal
dollars, how much does it cost for us to create one good job? The
answer comes back: EDA creates one job for every $2,000 to $4,600
invested. That is a good investment. EDA is a job creator. That is why
it is perplexing to me to have a host of amendments that are
distracting us from jobs, jobs, jobs.
Between 2005 and 2010, with an investment of $2.4 billion, total jobs
generated were 450,000 and total jobs saved were 85,000. At the $500
million funding level authorized, if that was spent, EDA would create
87,000 to 200,000 jobs every year and 400,000 to 1 million jobs over
the life of the bill. We don't know that that $500 million will stay,
but historically that is what we have authorized through EDA.
Here are the people who are supporting an authorization of the EDA:
U.S. Conference of Mayors, American Public Works Association, National
Association of Counties, AFL-CIO, American Planning Association,
Association of University Research Parks, Educational Association of
University Centers, International Economic Development Council,
Association of Development Organizations, National Business Incubation
Association, State Science and Technology Institute, University
Economic Development Association, and National Association of Regional
Councils.
We have a letter from an arm of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce lauding
this program, citing how well they work with the EDA. They say:

We are the citizenship arm of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
and in this capacity we work with thousands of businesses and
local chambers of commerce on community development and
disaster recovery. These local chambers and businesses are
constantly looking for national best practices, lessons
learned, technical assistance, strategy support, and other
insights and tools and techniques to make communities as
competitive as possible.

This is the chamber of commerce arm:

As you consider EDA's future roles and responsibilities, we
would be happy to share with you our experiences and lessons
learned in working with the agency and provide you with
additional information.

They talk about the unique capability the EDA can and does support.
They say EDA staff members displayed a high degree of professionalism
and technical expertise. They say they have engaged with them on
multiple levels, from consultation to sharing valuable field experience
at the State and local level.
We have tremendous support. The AFL-CIO, dealing with the loss of
construction jobs, says:

EDA has established an admirable track record in assisting
economically troubled low-income communities with limited job
opportunities by putting their investments to good use in
promoting needed job creation and industrial and commercial
development.

The last chart is the American Public Works Association, which builds
public works and the water and sewer systems we need. This is from
Peter King, executive director of American Public Works Association,
dated this month:

I write on behalf of the 29,000 members of APWA in support
of the Economic Development Revitalization Act, S. 782. We
urge the Senate to pass this legislation, which will create
jobs, stimulate economic growth in distressed areas, and
improve the economic growth of local communities.

After Senator Snowe speaks and others speak, I will reserve my time
to go into specifically what programs we have seen flourish because of
that little spark that gets lit when EDA gets in there. The private
sector loves this program, and local governments and State governments
love it. It has worked since 1965.
I urge my colleagues, if you have amendments, let's get time
agreements and dispose of those amendments. Let's get to a final vote
on this very important program, which has flourished under Democratic
Presidents, Republican Presidents, Democratic Congresses, and
Republican Congresses. For goodness' sakes, does everything have to be
a battle royale around here? We ought to be able to reach across the
aisle when there is a bill brought up that deals with jobs. If we don't
do that, we honestly fail the people.
My very last point is that Senator Inhofe has worked very hard on
this bill. Republicans have added a lot of reforms to the EDA. I think
those reforms are important. One would eliminate a duplication of
effort, and others would give the private sector the ability to buy out
the EDA interests. So I think, clearly, at this time, we should get
these amendments done.
I am pleased Senator Snowe is here, and she is anxious to speak. I
will conclude at this time and reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 76 minutes remaining.
Mrs. BOXER. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, before I begin to address the pending
amendment I have offered along with a number of Senators in response to
regulatory reform, I am going to yield to the Senator from North
Dakota, who is a cosponsor of this legislation. I am delighted that he
is a cosponsor, and that he recognizes and acknowledges the importance
of changing the regulatory environment in America if we are going to
have job creation and economic growth.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here with Senator Snowe
and to rise in support of her legislation, the Freedom Act of 2011. I
will be brief in my comments. I know she has comments to make. I also
appreciate Senator Boxer's comments in regard to Republican and
Democrats coming together on this legislation. I think that is exactly
what needs to happen with the Snowe-Coburn amendment, the Freedom Act
of 2011.
I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation. I draw on 10
years of experience as a Governor in our State in expressing how very
important it is that we create the kind of legal tax and regulatory
structure at the Federal level that will help us to stimulate private
investment and get this economy going and growing and get people back
to work. I know that is exactly what Senator Snowe hopes to achieve
with this amendment, and will. That is why we need to pass it.
Just this morning, jobless claims came out. New jobless claims were
higher than anticipated, at 427,000. Last week, we got the employment
numbers, and we gained only 54,000 jobs. Unemployment is 9.1 percent.
At the same time, we face a more than $14 trillion debt, and our
deficit is more than $1.5 trillion. We are spending $3.7 trillion a
year and only taking in $2.2 trillion in revenue. Clearly we need to
get a grip on spending, but to get out of this deficit and debt and to
get people back to work, we need to get this economy growing. That
doesn't mean the Federal Government spending more; it means the Federal
Government spending less and creating the kind of progrowth, jobs-
oriented economy and legal tax and regulatory structure that will help
us grow.
If you look back at the 1990s, when we had a deficit, and even
before, when we had stagflation, it was a combination of a growing
economy and better fiscal management that got people back to work and
got us out of the deficit and to a surplus. We need to do that again.
We need this kind of legislation that will help us create a regulatory
environment that stimulates business investment, creates jobs, gets

[[Page S3638]]

people back to work, and gets the economy growing, and then, with good
fiscal restraint, will help us get on top of this huge deficit and our
debt. It is vitally important for us now, and it is vitally important
for future generations.
This is an important step in the right direction. I am pleased to
cosponsor this legislation with the Senator from Maine. I look forward
to hearing her remarks.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota, Mr.
Hoeven, for his excellent remarks. As a former Governor for 10 years,
he knows the impact of regulations on small businesses and how
detrimental they can be to job creation, particularly at this time
where we have a very difficult economy. We have persistent high
unemployment and subpar economic growth. We are at a consequential
moment in our economic history, frankly, that deserves the attention of
the Senate. So, again, I thank the Senator for his comments in
recognizing the effect regulatory reform will have on the performance
of small business and, ultimately, job creation in this economy.
I am very pleased to have many colleagues cosponsoring this
amendment. I am pleased to have worked with Senator Coburn from
Oklahoma, and this amendment is also cosponsored by Senators McConnell,
Ayotte, Barrasso, Brown of Massachusetts, Coats, Enzi, Isakson, Kirk,
Hoeven, Johnson, Moran, Thune, and Vitter. It is clear to me that many
of the Senators understand the value and imperative of reforming our
regulatory system. It is absolutely vital that the Federal Government
consider the small business economic impact of the rules and
regulations that agencies promulgate.
The question might be asked, Why do we need regulatory reform? We had
a bill on the floor last month, in early May, wherein I was denied a
vote, which was regrettable because it is clear that many people don't
understand how important this is and how central it is to small
business job creation, how vital it is to the survival of small
businesses and the cost of doing business across America. But I keep
hearing from certain colleagues, ``Yes, we understand it is important;
however'' or ``but'' or ``at some point.'' Let's define ``at some
point.'' When?
When I was denied a vote on regulatory reform, on May 4 in the
Senate, I heard that we are going to have hearings on the issue. Well,
that obviously has not occurred. So it becomes the politics of
obfuscation, not the reality. As I heard from a small business owner
yesterday, ``When I come into Washington, it is a walled city--walled
off from reality, detached from the real world on Main Street.''
I have been told that a concern with this amendment is that we have
not had hearings. We had a hearing in the Small Business Committee on
regulatory reform, but that is not enough for the Senator from
California, who is saying we have not had hearings. She has offered
plenty of amendments that haven't had hearings in the Senate. We had a
major issue yesterday that was very important to small business--the
interchange fee--which didn't have hearings. It didn't have hearings
the first time it was offered to the Dodd-Frank legislation last year,
and yesterday's amendment didn't have a hearing. So is there a new
standard, in the Senate, when it comes to regulatory reform? Do you
think there have been any overtures by anybody who opposes my
legislation to work with us on this right away?

What is happening on Main Street America is that we are not creating
jobs. Why? Because of what is failing to happen in Washington, DC, in
the Senate. There is a clear detachment from the real world. Small
businesses keep asking me what is going on. I say I can't explain it,
other than it is clear that people don't understand what is going on
because if they did, we would be working on it.
I heard the Senator from California say, ``at some point.'' But tell
that to the person who is running a small business and trying to keep
their neck above water and keep their business afloat during these very
difficult times. What do these small business owners talk about? They
talk about the regulations that are suffocating their ability to
survive in a very tough economic climate.
We are dithering. That is what this is all about. It is all a
masquerade, a facade, just bringing up bogus arguments. I have been in
the legislative process for the better part of four decades, and I know
when there is a serious purpose about working together and solving a
problem. It appears to me that there is no interest in solving this
problem here in Washington. Everybody has their own agenda, but people
are wondering why there is this unemployment rate of 9.1 percent.
When I raised these concerns to the Secretary of the Treasury back in
early February in the Finance Committee, when he was testifying--I
described the concerns about what was happening on Main Street because
I take Main Street tours, and I invite people to do that and to
actually listen to what people are saying--he said: ``I think your view
of the economy is dark and pessimistic.''
I said: Well, maybe I wasn't hearing it right. Maybe I wasn't hearing
it right on Main Street. So when I meet with small business owners, I
mention the Secretary's comments to them, and they cannot believe it.
They cannot comprehend that the Secretary of the Treasury doesn't
understand what is going on on Main Street; that the administration
doesn't, the Senate doesn't, and the Congress doesn't. If they did, we
would be working here day and night.
I was told I had to have a vote on this amendment right now. Why?
Because it is Thursday, and certain members of this body are smelling
the jet fumes while people are suffering on Main Street. Our fellow
Americans are losing their jobs. Have my colleagues heard the stories
about what people are facing? Time and time again I hear the same old
refrains: ``We don't have time. We have to rush it. It hasn't had
hearings. We will do it sometime.'' Well, tell that to the average
American who is struggling to keep a job, to find a job or to keep the
doors open to their business. That is what this amendment is all about.
That is the reality.
We can pretend it is something else, but the macroeconomic numbers
are demonstrating time and again there is a desperation out there. Yet,
we take 2-week recesses, then we come back and have morning business
and chat along, but it does nothing to resolve the consequential issues
facing this Nation. There was a time when the Senate used to work,
where we could sit down and solve a problem. Now it is all a facade, a
few talking points and we move on. In the meantime, people are
suffering and they are handicapped by our inability to work together.
Regulatory reform is central to that agenda, make no mistake about it.
Let's look at what we are talking about and why we need regulatory
reform. The analysts have lowered their forecast for the second quarter
growth this year. The first quarter growth was already abysmal at 1.8
percent of GDP. Manufacturing recovery has slowed. Housing remains in
shambles. New claims for jobless benefits, as the Senator from North
Dakota indicated, exceeds 400,000--again. Growth of consumer spending
is sluggish.
The President talks about job creation and stimulating the economy,
but the results speak louder than words. Since the President took
office, unemployment has dipped below 9 percent for only 5 months. Even
that data is skewed because it doesn't account for the millions of
workers who have exited the workforce altogether. Just last week, the
unemployment rate for May increased to 9.1 percent. We are experiencing
the longest unemployment period in American history since data
collection started in 1948, surpassing even the 1982 double-dip
recession for the length of unemployment.
Despite the President's promise, and an $800 billion stimulus
package, a $700 billion TARP program, up to $600 billion in
quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve, and over $2 trillion in
overall government spending, we are years away from where we need to be
in terms of job or economic growth. Mr. President, 40 months after the
start of the four deepest postwar recessions our economic output
averaged 7.6 percent higher than pre-recession levels. Yet since
December 2007, when the most recent recession commenced, our GDP has
only increased 0.1 percent. That is why we need regulatory reform. We
need to bolster job creation, and the only place we can do that is
through small businesses.

[[Page S3639]]

The Senator from California says we need hearings on this amendment.
Then we should change the rules of the Senate and require that every
amendment offered on this floor has a hearing, and every bill. That
must be a new standard, Mr. President. We have had hearings on this
question in the Small Business Committee, and the focus is that we
desperately need reform.
In a small business regulatory reform hearing in November 2010 we
heard a witness note if there was a 30 percent cut in regulatory costs,
an average 10-person firm would save nearly $32,000--enough to hire one
additional person.
When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much
worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. I know
because I served in the House of Representatives at that moment in
time. With unemployment soaring into double digits, at a peak of 10.8
percent, huge chunks of industrial America shut down in the recession
of 1981-1982 and never reopened. Yet once the recovery began in earnest
in the first quarter of 1983, the economy boomed. It exceeded 7.1
percent for five consecutive quarters and kept growing at a 4-percent
pace for another 2 years.
The contrast in results between the current recovery and the Reagan
years is instructive because the government's response was so
different. As a recent Wall Street Journal article reiterated, in the
1980s the policy goals were to cut tax rates, reduce regulatory costs
and uncertainty--which is what these regulations are producing day in
and day out--let the private economy allocate capital free of political
direction, and focus monetary policy on price stability rather than on
reducing unemployment. That is the type of policy mix we need to
rediscover if we are going to climb out of this economic downturn.
Let's look at the first chart--small business job creators in my
State and across America because they are the ones that create 70
percent of all the net new jobs in America. That is why regulation
reform becomes so essential and imperative. The total cost of
regulation is at $1.7 trillion--that is with a ``t''--and small firms
with fewer than 20 employees bear a disproportionate burden in terms of
those costs. It is $10,585 per employee, which is 36 percent higher
than the regulatory costs confronting larger firms.
I know some people like to dispute numbers and say: Oh, no, that is
not really a true number. Oh, really? Just add them up. There was a
study that was done by Crain and Crain. They added the estimated cost
of four categories or types of regulations--economic regulations at
$1.2 trillion; environmental regulations at $281 billion; task
compliance, $160 billion; and regulations involving occupational
safety, health, and homeland security, $75 billion.
Some studies omit independent agencies. Some even omit the Internal
Revenue Service from the calculation cost of regulations. Well, ask a
small business or any business in America about whether IRS regulations
have a cost for them. Of course they do. We have to include all
agencies of government that have an impact directly on small business
or any business in America.
Even a separate White House finding acknowledges that the estimated
annual cost of major Federal regulations reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget this past decade cost between $44 billion and $62
billion.
The point is, the principal impediment to job creation in this
country is a broken regulatory system. We have repeatedly talked about
it. It is a top priority for the small business community across
America. Every major organization that is a key voice for small
business echoes this repeatedly: Federal regulations have placed a
tremendous burden on them.
I know many of my colleagues and I understand the critical nature of
all of this. We have heard the message loud and clearly. Even the
President, interestingly enough, issued an Executive order in January
to begin the process of reviewing Federal regulations, citing the need
for ``absurd and unnecessary paperwork requirements that waste time and
money.'' So in 4 months the administration's preliminarily findings
uncovered over $1 billion in savings in 30 agencies. They ran the
gamut. They included even environmental regulations.
So, obviously, there is some recognition and acknowledgment that
regulations are a barrier and an impediment. The President is making
eliminations at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and
the Environmental Protection Agency. And yet, I don't think anybody
would suggest he is trying to eradicate all environmental protections
in America by identifying some that just aren't worthy of support
because they are onerous. He would eliminate the requirement that
States install a system to protect against fuel polluting the air at
gas stations since modern vehicles already have these systems. That
would save up to $67 million a year. But no one in this Chamber is
going to accuse the President of saying, well, we are undermining all
environmental regulations in the country.
It is as if we can't be discerning and discriminating in evaluating
what is worthy and what isn't, what is too costly and complex and what
isn't, what makes sense and what doesn't in this current context of
this economic environment. Can we spend time doing that, since I was
denied the time on May 4 and an ability to vote on this amendment?
Could we have worked that out? Absolutely not. So why can't we become
involved in this effort?
It seems we are turning a blind eye to it. There is no recognition
because I don't think there is a full understanding or an appreciation
of what is going awry in the economic landscape in every community
across this country and why there is that despair, that anxiety.
By the way, about 80 percent of the American people believe we are
moving in the wrong direction when it comes to our economy. That should
be a Paul Revere wake-up call. It should be a message on which we might
want to realign our focus in the Senate.
Maybe we should spend some time in the Senate working out the issues
to solve the problems so we can create jobs for Americans who are
unemployed, because we know that 9.1 percent doesn't capture all
unemployed Americans. There are many who have dropped out of the
workforce entirely. You could have, underemployed or unemployed, as
many as up to 25 million Americans. That is staggering. That is
breathtaking.

Since the time I was denied a vote, we could have been moving ahead
on this legislation, or in the interim from when I was denied that vote
on May 4, working out a solution, working through these issues. And
during that time, the chairman of President Obama's own Council on Jobs
and Competitiveness, General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt, announced the
top four priorities. This just happened on May 10. Understand, on May 4
I was prevented from having a vote on regulatory reform. That is
preposterous. We have not had hearings. Hearings sometimes are a path
to nowhere; leading to nothing. But since then, have there been
hearings called for? No, of course not.
But 6 days later, who is speaking on regulatory reform? The
President's own Council on Jobs and Competitiveness chairman, that is
who, and he is noting a number of priorities. Guess what. One of them
happens to be regulations to support a pro-growth environment and
strengthen U.S. competitiveness. He listed improving and innovating
education and bolstering exports to the world's fastest growing markets
as three of those priorities. Then he called for ``collaboration
between government and business with regard to regulation'' as a top
priority, noting that ``Decades of overlapping, uncoordinated
regulations create unnecessary hurdles and increased burdens for
entrepreneurs and businesses, large and small, across the country.''
Let me repeat, this is from the President's hand-selected chairman of
a council dedicated to create American jobs and boosting our
competitiveness. He made this pronouncement less than a week after the
Senate failed to consider my regulatory reform amendment to the SBIR
Reauthorization legislation that we were considering for nearly two
months, with a mere three days of votes over that time.
You might think that if there were some reasonable concerns about my
amendment, the other side would try to work with me since then.
Nothing. Nothing. We might have had a recess or two. We had days
without votes, days without debating key issues--actually not just
days, weeks. Nothing. Nothing is connecting.

[[Page S3640]]

What is connecting, though, unfortunately for small businesses and
people who depend on them for jobs, is that there is a cause and effect
and that is why you are seeing the deleterious effects of our inability
to work on the issues that matter, that we have basically relegated all
of this to the backseat, we have substituted other things without
purpose. It is truly regrettable because of what it is doing to the
average American and for those who are struggling. People, rightfully,
know it. The American people understand what is happening here--or what
is not happening here, I should say.
The breadth of regulations is truly punitive on businesses in
America. The Heritage Foundation reported last year that ``[t]he burden
of regulation on Americans increased at an alarming rate in fiscal year
2010,'' with a record 43 major new regulations costing $26.5 billion
alone, ``far more than any other year for which records are
available.''
That is just in 1 year, $26.5 billion. That is on top of the $1.75
trillion in already existing total regulatory costs. That is just 1
year, $26.5 billion.
It is clear the administration and the agencies have gone on a
regulatory rampage. Again, it is that detachment from the real world.
What does this mean? What are the real, practical implications for the
person running a small business and trying to calculate the costs or
anticipate future costs? Why are they going to hire a new employee and
take on new costs? Why should they make investments? They don't dare.
They can't take the risk. They say: We don't know.
I meet with small businesses regularly and talk to them and they say
it is the uncertainty with regulations that continues to limit their
decisions. This demonstrates it.
The Heritage Foundation reports that ``[r]egulatory costs will rise
until policymakers appreciate the burdens that regulations are imposing
on Americans and the economy, and exercise the political will necessary
to limit--and reduce--those burdens.''
That is exactly what our amendment will do. This is a clarion call
for regulatory reform. There should be no political or philosophical
boundaries. There should not be philosophical differences. You might
have some arguments about what approach you take, but those things
could be worked out. In fact, that is exactly what I did with the
amendment I offered on which I was denied a vote back on May 4.
From the other side there were some issues. We made five major
modifications to my proposal because it is important to build
bipartisan support. I have certainly reached across the aisle on so
many occasions. I would have thought we could have had a corresponding
response to work out these issues. That is what I do not understand. I
cannot understand. There should not be any debate. If they talk to
their small business community, they will get the same response.
What can we do to make it better? That is the key. The key is making
some changes. One, I called for a small business review panel to be
required for every agency so they can review the regulations before
they are promulgated, before they are implemented, so we find out
beforehand what might be of concern to small business, what might have
potential costs or risks, or will not work out, and know it beforehand.
I hear from some: Oh, no, we will work it out later, afterward. You ask
the small business person how you are going to work it out afterward,
after they paid astronomical costs to comply with that regulation.
Let's set up the small business review panels. This is not a new
model. There are such panels for OSHA and EPA. And due to an amendment
that I offered to the financial regulatory reform bill, one also now
exists at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and it is part of
that mechanism now. There was a model that we adopted from OSHA and
EPA, from 1996, when we had a Democratic administration, and it worked
exceptionally well. So I thought, Why not apply it to every agency?
But we heard, absolutely not.
So I said OK, what can we do to work it out? I talked to those on the
other side of the aisle and we changed it and said for the 3 years that
this bill will be authorized we will do it for nine agencies, three a
year, to see how it works for the nine agencies who's rules have the
most effect on small businesses. I did that. I made that change to
address the concerns that were expressed on the other side of the
aisle.
Then we said we should start requiring the agencies to do what they
are supposed to do by law. You think it is a little redundant to ask
them to do what they are required to do already, which is to review the
rules? They are supposed to review the rules every 10 years but, guess
what, they do not. So I said: If they are not reviewing a rule every 10
years, then that rule cannot be that important. So let's take it off
the books. That is what I proposed. If an agency cannot be bothered to
review the regulations as they are required to do under the law every
10 years, if they are not doing it, then it must not be that important
so let's take them off.
There was some resistance on the other side so I made the change in
response to the concerns. What I incorporated is that they would lose 1
percent of their operating budget. That is fair. We have to give them
incentives to do what they should be doing by law but we will now give
them some greater impetus to comply with the law. It is amazing that we
are in that position, but that is where it stands. So I made that
change because I thought it was important.
We have tasked inspector generals with assuring that these reviews
are taking place and they can do so in consultation with the chief
advocacy counsel at the Small Business Administration. It is not
unusual for an IG to determine that the agency they are overseeing
complies with existing laws. After all, isn't that what they precisely
do? Would anybody argue that outdated and ineffective regulations hurt
the environment or harm small businesses? The administration's own
preliminary review of regulations at 30 agencies in 4 months identified
$1 billion worth of savings. Why would we not want to start having
those reviews become the norm rather than the exception? I do not
understand it. Are we that busy here that we cannot do it? Maybe we
could forfeit a few recesses and do some work for America to connect
what is going on in Main Street--getting back to Main Street because
that is where the jobs are created.
Maybe we could spend more time here doing that instead of deferring
to sometime down the road.
I made some other key changes in hopes that we could build that
bridge in response to the concerns that were given by the other side. I
made five major modifications because I thought it is important to
build bipartisan support. Again I was denied that opportunity.
Now we are being told that the main concern is that it has not had a
hearing. Does that mean that we ought to change the rules of the
Senate, as I said earlier, to require a hearing for every amendment?
Perhaps that would slow the train down even more here. Maybe we could
get back to achieving some results.
Another provision I have in my Regulatory Reform Act that I have
introduced with Senator Coburn and so many others here, is a basic
commonsense approach: incorporating the indirect economic effects of
regulations on small businesses so we make sure they anticipate the
foreseeable indirect economic effects in addition to the direct
effects, because we know there are a multiplicity of effects that
resonate and reverberate with other industries. That needs to be
calculated and incorporated and factored into the equation in terms of
cost. And let's be clear. This is not a radical or partisan
proposition. In fact, the language was taken directly, word for word,
from the President's Chief small business regulatory watchdog, the head
of the SBA Office of Advocacy.
I also recommend that we expand the judicial review requirement so we
make sure that when an agency proposes a rule, it has complied with its
existing legal requirements to consider the economic impact of the rule
on small businesses, that it has contemplated less costly alternative
ways to make the rule less burdensome.
That is important because they ought to listen to diverse options, in
terms of the rule they are proposing, to make sure that they have
incorporated the views of small businesses in understanding the
implications, being more exact and precise in the process--not waiting
until months and years down

[[Page S3641]]

the road, after you go through a very extensive, complicated rulemaking
process, to try to make your case. Small businesses do not have the
resources to do that to begin with, let alone the time or employees to
do it. That is not a good use of their capital, by the way, to be
spending their time arguing with a government agency time and again.
For 30 years, small businesses have had the ability to seek judicial
review of an agency's small business impact statement after the rule
has been made. In this entire time period, for over 30 years, even with
the ability to obtain judicial review, we know of only two rules that
were remanded by the courts. One was a mining regulation that did not
account for the number of small businesses that had gone bankrupt under
bonding requirements. The other was fishing restrictions issued without
realizing the impact on fishermen. This means that waiting until the
rule is final is simply too late; the damage is done.

To correct this injustice, our amendment would provide small
businesses the ability to bring legal action earlier in the process so
we can avert mistakes at the outset so we do not force small businesses
to go through this onerous, complicated, costly process, and then find
out we made a mistake, the agencies made a mistake, and they say: You
know what. You are going to have to fight it and go through another
rulemaking process which takes months if not years. It is not going to
happen. That is why we are not stimulating economic growth; we have
thousands of regulations.
As a result, we have provided small businesses the ability to bring
legal action, to seek judicial review prior to the rule becoming
finalized, whether an agency failed to comply with its existing small
business review requirement. This is a commonsense approach, to ensure
agencies abide by the law prior to a rule being made final. It is not a
partisan measure. It is just practical sense. If somebody has not run a
small business, they probably do not understand it, do not appreciate
what it takes to start or run a small business, the ingenuity and the
cost involved.
If you take a small operation with 5 employees, 10 employees, 20
employees, they are the majority of small businesses in America. And
small businesses account for up to 70 percent of the net new jobs in
America. Remember, in the last 2\1/2\ years other than 4 months, we
have had 9 percent or higher unemployment rates. I mean, that is a dire
commentary of where we stand today after we have spent $2 trillion, and
the deficit is growing, the debt is growing. We are facing the
potential of a debt crisis if we do not deal with this massive
accumulation of debt. That is why job growth becomes such an
imperative. This is why regulatory reform is urgent and why we must do
something about it.
We could work across the aisle instead of making broad accusations
that this is going to decimate the environment, and workplace safety,
that this is going to decimate health care. If that is the case, the
President must be doing the same thing because he has just proposed
revoking more than $1 billion worth of regulations from agencies in 4
months. We cannot even have a hearing in 4 months on the issue if
hearings are so important to the outcome. I would be more than happy to
have hearings to get it done, but we cannot even get hearings, cannot
work it out. It is just talk, talk, talk.
Many of my proposals have bipartisan support. In fact, interestingly
enough, this proposal regarding judicial review was a provision that
actually the Small Business Committee chair, the Senator from
Louisiana, proposed and Senator Cardin from Maryland, in a nearly
identical fashion as section 605 of the Small Business Investment and
Innovation Act of 2010 in the 111th Congress. They obviously agreed
with the approach. There is nothing partisan about this. We ought to be
able to work this out. There is nothing complicated about it. There is
nothing complicated about addressing a fundamental issue facing small
business.
I just want to set things straight so it is clear and we are not
misunderstood. Some are making generalized mischaracterizations. People
have not read the amendment, or taken the time and effort to understand
it. Reason it out, and if you disagree, come up with something so we
can move with urgency, with dispatch because we are losing jobs in
America. We are losing businesses. This would help enormously.
That is why the legislation I have introduced, and the Senator from
Oklahoma and others, has broad support from major small business
organizations across America. They understand. They are hearing from
their membership. And speaking of this, Mr. President, I ask unanimous
consent to have printed in the Record two letters of support, one from
32 major business organizations and another from the Chamber of
Commerce.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

June 8, 2011.
Hon. Olympia Snowe,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Tom Coburn,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Snowe and Coburn: As representatives of small
businesses, we are pleased to support Freedom from
Restrictive Excessive Executive Demands and Onerous Mandates
(FREEDOM) Act of 2011. This legislation puts into place
strong protections for small business to help ensure that the
federal government fully considers the impact of proposed
regulation on small businesses.
In an economy with high unemployment, and where almost \2/
3\ of all net new jobs come from the small business sector,
we appreciate that your legislation would require regulators
to further analyze the impact of certain proposals on job
creation. The annual cost of federal regulation per employee
is significantly higher for smaller firms than larger firms.
Federal regulations--not to mention state and local
regulations--add up and increase the cost of labor. If the
cost of labor continues to increase, then job creation will
be stifled because small businesses will not be able to
afford to hire new employees.
The Small Business Regulatory Freedom Act expands the scope
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) by forcing government
regulators to include the indirect impact of their
regulations in their assessments of a regulation's impact on
small businesses. The bill also provides small business with
expanded judicial review protections, which would help to
ensure that small businesses have their views heard during
the proposed rule stage of federal rulemaking.
The FREEDOM Act strengthens several other aspects of the
RFA--such as clarifying the standard for periodic review of
rules by federal agencies; requiring federal agencies to
conduct small business economic analyses before publishing
informal guidance documents; and requiring federal agencies
to review existing penalty structures for their impact on
small businesses within a set timeframe after enactment of
new legislation. These important protections are needed to
prevent duplicative and outdated regulatory burdens as well
as to address penalty structures that may be too high for the
small business sector.
The legislation also expands over time the small business
advocacy review panel process. Currently, the panels only
apply to the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. These panels have
proven to be an extremely effective mechanism in helping
agencies to understand how their rules will affect small
businesses, and help agencies identify less costly
alternatives to regulations before proposing new rules.
We applaud your efforts to ensure the federal government
recognizes the important contributions of job creation by
small business, and look forward to working with you on this
important legislation.
Sincerely,
Air Conditioning Contractors of America; American Bakers
Association; American Chemistry Council; American Farm
Bureau Federation; American Trucking Associations;
Associated Builders and Contractors; Food Marketing
Institute; Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association;
Hispanic Leadership Fund; Independent Electrical
Contractors; Institute for Liberty; International
Franchise Association; National Association for the
Self-Employed; National Association of Home Builders;
National Association of REALTORS; National Association
of the Remodeling Industry (NARI); National Automobile
Dealers Association (NADA); National Black Chamber of
Commerce; National Federation of Independent Business;
National Funeral Directors Association.
National Lumber and Building Material Dealers
Association; National Restaurant Association; National
Retail Federation; National Roofing Contractors
Association; Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors--
National Association; Printing Industries of America;
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council; Snack Food
Association; Society of American Florists; Society of
Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates; U.S. Chamber of
Commerce; Window and Door Manufacturers Association.

[[Page S3642]]

____
Chamber of Commerce of the

United States of America,

Washington, DC, June 8, 2011.
Hon. Olympia J. Snowe,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Tom Coburn,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Snowe and Coburn: As a longstanding advocate
for reducing excessive regulatory burdens on small
businesses, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly supports S.
1030, the ``Freedom from Restrictive Excessive Executive
Demands and Onerous Mandates (FREEDOM) Act of 2011.'' If
enacted into law, this legislation would expand the
responsibilities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
of federal agencies during the rulemaking process so that a
more thorough economic impact of proposed regulations on
small businesses would be taken into account by regulators.
One provision in the bill would force agencies to take into
account the foreseeable indirect economic impact of rules on
small entities when analyzing potential burdens. As a result,
regulators would have a better picture of the downstream
implications of a proposed rule on other businesses that
might not otherwise be considered.
Another section of the bill would subject agency guidance
documents to the small business safeguards contained in the
RFA. In many cases agencies have circumvented their
rulemaking responsibilities by issuing informal guidance.
Requiring agencies to perform small business economic
analyses before publishing informal guidance documents would
help prevent regulators from subverting their rulemaking
duties under the law.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest
business federation, representing the interests of more than
three million businesses and organizations of every size,
sector, and region. More than 96 percent of the Chamber's
members are small businesses with 100 or fewer employees. On
behalf of these small employers, we applaud your leadership
on introducing this important piece of legislation and look
forward to working with you on its passage.
Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten.

Ms. SNOWE. Our amendment includes a number of other provisions that
would be important. For instance, we asked the Internal Revenue Service
to consider small business impact on rulemaking, and that agencies
review their rule penalty structures. I think we should ask the
Internal Revenue Service to consider small business impact as well. It
is reasonable. They obviously have a broad effect on small businesses
across America.
I have spoken on this issue at great length because I think it is
that important. I have been a ranking member of the Small Business
Committee. I have been chair of the Small Business Committee, since
2003 in either capacity. My State of Maine is a small business State
with over 97 percent small businesses, so I fully understand and
appreciate the magnitude of the situation, the circumstances in which
they find themselves and struggle to survive. The interchange fee
amendment to this bill, was an important issue that consumed a lot of
time in the Senate. I certainly did not complain because I understand
that. It did not have a hearing. It is a new proposal--that did not
have any hearings. I did not complain, but it is important to
understand--I just want everybody to understand not every amendment
offered on the Senate floor, every proposal, has a hearing. Far from
it. Very few ever do.
We had a hearing on small business regulations last fall. That is why
I am working this out, but we cannot work it out. There is no process
or mechanism. It is all talk. No action for where it matters most, and
I feel the despair and anxiety of my constituents. I feel it
intuitively. I wish we could do better.
I have been in the legislative process, as I said earlier, for the
better part of four decades. My whole reason for serving in public
office is to rise to a higher level. I believe it is my responsibility
to solve the problems on behalf of people I represent and, hopefully,
the country. There are only 100 United State Senators. It matters for
our States, and it matters for our country. I would hope we could
aspire to a higher level than this; certainly, in the aftermath of the
last election, where there was an indisputable, unequivocal message
from the American people begging and pleading with us to solve
problems.
We have an individual and a collective responsibility. We know how to
do it, and we can do it. The genius of America has always been working
together to solve our problems. It has been the hallmark of the
innovation and the can-do spirit of America. I happen to believe in
that can-do spirit. I know it is possible if we have a process and a
procedure in the Senate that allows for it.
When I get up every day, it is about what I can do for the people I
represent and for this country at a very trying and anguishing moment,
where the uncertainty is permeating the American psyche; to feel and to
understand the fear that people get up with every day wondering if they
are going to find a job or keep a job. Even if they get a job, it is
about one-third of what they were making before. I heard that story
yesterday from some constituents, about the hundreds who apply for a
job for one-third of what they were making. How are they going to keep
their families afloat, their homes? If they can keep it. That is what
it is all about.
Why is it we cannot replicate it here in actions and speak to the
American people and give voice to those fears and say we are going to
do it, we are going to do it right here, and then systematically tackle
those issues one after the other and just do it and do it as long as it
takes, even if we have to work weekends? Americans are working
weekends, two and three jobs. They are doing everything. We take
recesses. We do this. We ``obfuscate'' is the word that comes to mind,
sort of create a confusion, a masquerade that we are doing something to
mix it up.
The practical impact in the absence of what we are doing is directly
felt at home on the average American. I know we can do better. There
have been soaring moments in this Chamber and there can be again. This
is one of the most consequential times in our economic history, and we
have an obligation to lift up the spirits of the people by working
together on the issues that matter, and this is one issue that matters
because there are 30 million small businesses in America. They are the
job generators and creators, and if we do not recognize the reality of
this type of reform and we cannot get it done, then we have failed to
do our jobs. And I regret that.
I believe we can do it, and working it out instead of talking about
hearings at some point, some ambiguity, as if we cannot appreciate or
understand what is happening in the real world and households every day
on our Main Streets. If you do not, then I suggest you take a few Main
Street tours and talk to small businesses and talk about their fears.
These are Americans who are working mighty hard to make a difference in
this world. All they want is a better life for themselves and their
families and their children and, in fact, we are retreating.
We have an obligation to stand up to do what is right. I hope we can
find our way somehow, somewhere. This is a great place to start to make
a difference.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I appreciate the passion with which my
colleague spoke, and I could not disagree more with her when she says
we are masquerading as if we are doing something.
Were we masquerading when we brought the small business jobs bill to
the floor, and Senator Landrieu, who chairs the Small Business
Committee, stood here day after day after day and only faced a
filibuster from the Republicans? We could not get that bill done, and
millions of jobs were in the balance. Were we filibustering? No, they
were. Were we masquerading?
Were we masquerading when we brought the FAA bill to the floor, in
which my colleague, Senator Snowe, played a huge role? Thank God, we
passed it. Were we masquerading? That bill is held up because the House
Republicans have not chosen conferees, and we are waiting to have a
21st-century aviation system in this great Nation where we are using
radar that was used in the last century--practically the century
before. Come on. We are trying to do our job.
She talked about the last election. I will talk about the last
election. I was on the ballot, so I can talk about it. It was about
jobs. I told my people when I get back here: Jobs, jobs, jobs. I am
proud to say we have on the floor right now a bill to reauthorize the
Economic Development Administration, a program that has been around
since 1965 and one which has a stellar record of attracting $7 of
private capital for

[[Page S3643]]

every $1 we spend. The cost of each job created is approximately $3,000
per job, and they are good jobs. The Chamber of Commerce arm is
supporting this and the AFL-CIO.

We are dealing with amendment after amendment after amendment, and it
is fine. It is everybody's right, and I appreciate the fact that we
will be voting on this amendment at 2:15. We even have an amendment to
do away with the very agency we are trying to reauthorize by Senator
DeMint, even though in 2005 he had a very big press release lauding the
EDA and, as recently as last year, his staff attended a workshop where
they were working with the EDA and praising the EDA for their work to
reinvigorate jobs.
I appreciate being lectured--and it is everybody's right to do it--
and I will do anything to defend my colleagues' right to say whatever
they want. It is just not true. The masquerading here is being done by
Republicans who filibuster almost every single thing we do.
I hope we are going to get to the series of amendments. We are being
very cooperative with our colleagues. We are going to take some of
these--some of these amendments are for show. Fine. Everyone has that
right. It is fine. But let's get it done, and let's get going with
authorization of a bill that is going to create jobs. That is the whole
idea of it. The last time we voted on it, we had a unanimous vote.
Since 2004, we had a unanimous vote, and George Bush signed this into
law.
I just want folks to know I have another couple minutes of remarks,
and then I will yield such time as he may require to Senator Brown of
Ohio.
Mr. THUNE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. What are the rules of discussion or debate right now? When
the Senator from California wraps up her remarks, would it not be
appropriate to have someone from the other side speak at that time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no order for speakers. The Senators
from Maine and California control the time, and they yield.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am happy to propound a unanimous consent
request so that at the conclusion of my remarks Senator Brown will
speak for, say, 10 minutes and then it would go to Senator Thune; is
that all right?
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. I appreciate that, Mr. President. I don't know if there is
any time agreement, but I think it is appropriate to go back and forth.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I have said I would offer a unanimous consent agreement.
We are dividing the time between the two of us. It is my decision to
yield to Senator Brown because Senator Snowe has spoken for a very long
time and I want him to have some time and I am wrapping up my comments.
I would be happy to propound a unanimous consent request that after
Senator Brown's remarks for 10 minutes, we then turn to Senator Thune
for 10 or 15 or 20 minutes or whatever it is he wishes.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, point of clarification. My understanding is
the Senator from California cannot yield time to another Senator.
Mrs. BOXER. I am not yielding time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator can yield time but not the floor.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you. So is there objection to my unanimous consent
request that Senator Thune be recognized immediately after Senator
Brown for as long as he wishes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Reserving the right to object, the Senator from California
has been addressing the Senate, so wouldn't it be appropriate for the
Senator from South Dakota to speak?
Mrs. BOXER. My unanimous consent request is that I have the right to
call on Senator Brown. I can yield to Senator Brown is my
understanding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator can yield time but not control of
the floor.
Mrs. BOXER. I wish to yield time to Senator Brown.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It does not give Senator Brown the floor.
Mrs. BOXER. So then I will yield to him for some questions. I can do
that under the rules; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mrs. BOXER. All right. So that is what we will do, unless my
colleagues would rather do it the way I said before. If not, I will
just yield for questions. Either way. It is up to my colleagues.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the request was that at the conclusion of
the remarks of the Senator from California, the Senator from Ohio would
have how many minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Then Senator Thune would be recognized for as much time
as he wishes.
Mr. THUNE. I don't have any objection to that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Reserving the right to object, I wish to include the
Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. At the conclusion of Senator Thune?
Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object,
could we have some indication of timeframe? It is all fine.
Ms. SNOWE. Fifteen.
Mrs. BOXER. All right. I think I have the time; is that right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let's make sure. Up to 10 minutes for Senator
Brown of Ohio, then Senator Thune to follow, and then Senator Coburn
will follow.
Mrs. BOXER. That is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. I have one more question. I still have the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mrs. BOXER. I said at the conclusion of my remarks we would turn to
Senator Brown. How many minutes remain on each side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 68 minutes for the majority and 47
minutes for the minority.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much. I will wrap up in a couple minutes
and come back later.
I think it is very important to reiterate what I said before. I don't
think we are masquerading around here; I think we are trying to do our
work. The bill before us was voted out of the committee. It had
hearings. It had a vote. It was bipartisan, unlike the amendment
offered by my friend who never had a hearing. Let's be clear. We are
not masquerading; we are doing our work.
I only hope this bill gets better treatment than the small business
bill. My friend is speaking for small business. We all know small
business is the engine of jobs, and that is why it was shocking to me
that the Republicans filibustered the last small business bill that was
on this floor. It is outrageous, when we say we want jobs.
The reason I am going to vote to table the Snowe amendment or against
the Snowe amendment--there are many, but one is process. We haven't had
a hearing. It is very far-reaching. But I also wish to speak as
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. One of our
biggest laws and regulations that stem from it has to do with the Clean
Air Act. The way my friend has put forward her amendment, there would
be no benefit put into a regulation because of its impact on the health
of us and our families.
The Clean Air Act has been attacked by those who want to say let's
not have regulations for this segment of business and that segment. We
just had a vote in California and 60 percent of the people--
Republicans, Democrats, Independents--more than 60 percent said we want
to see our health protected.
Here is what has happened. In 2010, the Clean Air Act prevented
160,000 cases of premature deaths--premature deaths. Now we are going
to come in with some regulation that has never had a hearing, never had
a vote, that is not going to take into account the benefit of a health
regulation such as that. By 2020, that number is projected to rise to
230,000 cases of premature deaths.
In 2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 1.7 million asthma attacks--1.7
million fewer attacks. We want jobs. We want

[[Page S3644]]

people healthy. They can't go to work if they can't breathe, because if
you can't breathe, you can't work. So let's not get up here and pass
something that hasn't had a hearing, hasn't had a vote, and suddenly
say we are no longer going to take into account the benefits of some of
the regulations we have.
In 2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 130,000 acute heart attacks. In
2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 3.2 million lost days at school.
So my point is, yes, we want regulations to be sensible; yes, we want
them to be flexible; yes, we should work together to make sure our
businesses aren't facing undue delays and all the rest and I am very
willing to do that. But what I am not willing to do is pass something
that has far-reaching impacts. We don't even know what it would mean to
the health and safety of our families, and it would absolutely ignore
the benefits of regulations that protect our children's health, their
safety, their well-being and our working families because a lot of
these regulations are meant to protect them.
I hope we will vote down the Snowe amendment. I appreciate the
passion on all sides. I truly believe we are not masquerading. We have
a bill with real impacts, a bill that I have shown has made a major
difference in job creation, in business creation, and in bringing hope
to our most ravaged communities. It is such a good program that even
Senator DeMint, who says he doesn't like this program, certainly
throughout his career has praised the progress it has made in his
State.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I thank the Senator from
California, and I thank the Senator from South Dakota also for his
indulgence. I will be no more than 10 minutes.
I listened to Senator Boxer. This EDA issue is important for job
creation. I know when it comes to something such as this, there is a
whole array of issues that EDA is involved with in job creation. Just
one of them is what EDA does with incubators and accelerators.
Last week, I was in Shaker Heights, OH, at a place called the
LaunchHouse. It used to be an auto dealership, and there are now 40
entrepreneurs working there. We know EDA investment, public dollar
investment, in these incubators pays real dividends. The EDA estimates
a $10,000 investment creates 50 or more jobs. We are seeing that in
places such as Shaker Heights and Youngstown, one of the best
incubators in the country. Athens, OH, is the home of the National
Association of Incubators, and they know what that means.
Before the Senator from Alaska was presiding, I was in the chair
presiding and listening to some of this debate. I am a bit amazed by
it. First of all, let's remember a little bit of history. I hear the
talking points, apparently distributed to all 47 of the Republican
Senators, all coming to the floor and blaming government regulation for
every problem known to humankind. They are forgetting government
regulation is seat belts, airbags, safe drinking water, prohibition on
child labor, the Food and Drug Administration so our food is pure and
our pharmaceuticals are safe. But they lump it all together and say get
rid of all this government regulation. I think the history they need to
think about is the last time they preached on the Senate floor about
deregulation, they were successful in deregulating Wall Street, and
look what happened to that.
When I hear this sort of preachy: ``We have to get rid of government
regulation,'' let's be a little more specific. There are some
regulations, to be sure, that we should do away with. But when I hear
them talk about trillions of dollars of regulation, a lot of that is
what keeps our food pure, our drinking water safe, our workplaces safe,
our quality of life better for the broad middle class. Let's not forget
that.
I wish to speak for the last 5 or 6 minutes about something my
colleagues and I will be debating fairly soon; that is, the pending
trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. It is a bit of
deja vu--as Yogi Berra said, deja vu all over again. The promise of
jobs is an echo we hear about every 3 or 4 years: Time to do a new
free-trade agreement; time to promise lots and lots of new job
creation; promise more exports for the United States. We heard it with
NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, almost 20 years ago. We
heard it with PNTR with China in the late 1990s. We heard it with the
Central American Free Trade Agreement in the last decade--2003, 2004,
2005, 2006--and now we are hearing it again with Colombia and South
Korea and Panama.
I recall both Republican and Democratic administrations saying
200,000 new jobs created by NAFTA. I heard proponents of PNTR promise a
more balanced trade relationship with China, and new, increased
exports. We have seen increased exports to China but nothing like the
number of--there were jobs created because of that, I acknowledge that,
but nothing like the export of goods from China to the United States,
which, in essence, is outsourcing jobs in the United States.
There is a company in Bryan, OH, called the Ohio Art Company. They
make something we are all familiar with, and that is the Etch A Sketch.
We all played with it as kids. Walmart went to that company--the
biggest retailer in the history of the world--and said: We want to sell
your product for less than $10 at Walmart. Do my colleagues know what
they did? They basically shut down production in the United States and
moved to China so they could sell it for $10, costing hundreds of jobs
in that northwest Ohio community.
Before PNTR, before these promises about increased jobs, we had a $68
billion trade deficit in goods with China. Last year, it was $273
billion. About $600 million or $700 million every single day we bring
in--we buy from China, then we sell to China. I hear this word
``unsustainable'' in this body all the time about Medicare, whatever
they are talking about. But this is what is unsustainable. We can't
keep adding to that trade deficit and think we are going to have good
jobs.
In April alone, our trade deficit with China was $21 billion--in 1
month, $21 billion. So when I hear, this year, the Korean Free Trade
Agreement--and the President of the United States is going to submit it
to Congress fairly soon, I assume, depending on what happens with the
trade adjustment assistance; and this President has made this agreement
with Korea, significantly better than the last President's trade
agreement with Korea but not all that good yet--the Congressional
Budget Office estimates this agreement will cost--in addition to the
jobs issue, but hold on to that for a second--about $7 billion over the
next 10 years--$7 billion.
My conservative friends on the other side of the aisle are going to
say: How are we going to pay for $7 billion? They want to offset cuts,
they want to offset any other kind of spending, but they do not seem to
want to offset spending on this trade agreement. So this trade
agreement is costing us $7 billion. So free trade simply is not free.
The administration says this agreement is expected to support--not
create--70,000 jobs. Do the math. It is about $100,000 for every job
supported. But do another piece of math, if I could ask the indulgence
of the Presiding Officer. George Bush the first said for every $1
billion trade deficit or surplus, that translates--these are his
numbers--into about 13,000 jobs. So when I mentioned that trade deficit
with China a minute ago--$21 billion in just April alone--for every $1
billion, 13,000 jobs are either gained or lost. If it is a trade
deficit of $21 billion, that means 13,000 jobs for every $1 billion of
loss. So you can see, without belaboring this point or putting too fine
a point on it, there is significant job loss from these trade
agreements.
The Obama administration sought to address the Bush administration's
neglect of American automakers, which the free-trade agreement the Bush
administration negotiated with Korea did. But I fear we have not gone
far enough. Korea is the most closed automotive market in the world to
America and other foreign autos. No manufacturer can export vehicles in
significant volumes into Korea--not Toyota, not Volkswagen, not Ford,
not Fiat. U.S. vehicle exports to Korea in 2010 were 7,500 units. In a
country approaching perhaps 90 million people in Korea--80, 90, 95
million people--we sell them 7,500 cars? Imports currently make up
about 6 percent of the Korean auto market.

[[Page S3645]]

Six percent of the cars driven around in South Korea are made somewhere
other than South Korea. That is not quite fair trade.
This bill, this Korean Free Trade Agreement, does not get us there.
The Obama administration approved it, but nothing like it needs to be.
So I just caution my colleagues, the Korea Free Trade Agreement is a
permanent agreement. If we pass this agreement in a couple months, what
we pass in establishing that formalized trade agreement with that major
industrial country in East Asia is a permanent relationship.
It does not sunset like a so-called authorization. It does not sunset
the way many of my colleagues have recently let the trade adjustment
assistance lapse for service workers and for workers who lose their
jobs to countries we do not have a free-trade agreement with. Some of
my colleagues insist trade adjustment assistance needs to be
reauthorized in the short-term, little baby steps, year-by-year
intervals, while they press for more permanent trade agreements.
Here is the deal. Madam President, I know you in North Carolina have
shown real leadership on these trade relationships. Here is the deal
conservative politicians in the Senate and in the House of
Representatives want. They want us to pass permanent trade agreements,
but then they may want to take care of workers for just 1 year at a
time, 6 months at time--6 weeks at a time the last time they
reauthorized this.
This does not make sense. The trade agreement with Korea is a
significant problem for job growth in our country and for protecting
jobs in our country. There is nothing wrong with the word
``protecting'' jobs in our country. But at the same time, before we
even consider that, we need to make sure we pass the trade adjustment
assistance. We should have learned our lessons from NAFTA, from NPTR
with China, from CAFTA, and from these other trade agreements that the
promises coming from an administration on job creation, when it comes
to trade agreements, are mostly empty promises.
I yield the floor.
I thank Senator Thune from South Dakota for his indulgence.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment that
has been proposed by my colleagues from Maine and Oklahoma, Senators
Snowe and Coburn, the Freedom from Restrictive Excessive Executive
Demands and Onerous Mandates Act of 2011. This is a very commonsensical
piece of legislation. It is something that certainly responds to a
concern I hear from small businesses all across this country about the
need for relief from burdensome, one-size-fits-all Federal regulations.
We hear a lot of discussion--in the Senate and around this town and
around the country, for that matter, because that is where it truly
matters--about creating jobs. Yet for all the rhetoric about job
creation, it seems there is very little that is actually being done
with regard to the substance of putting the right kind of policies in
place that will make it cheaper and easier for small businesses to
create jobs. It seems as if everything we do makes it harder, more
difficult, and more expensive for our small businesses to create jobs.
As the Senator from Maine very correctly pointed out, 70 percent of
the jobs in our economy are created by small businesses. I think there
are a whole range of issues that impact small businesses in this
country and their ability to create jobs.
My colleague from Ohio just talked about trade. I happen to have a
view on trade that you ought to have trade agreements that are fair,
that are enforceable, obviously, but that we are a country that
benefits enormously from the opportunity to export the products we grow
and make to other countries around the world.
To just give you an example of one particular country, one of the
bilateral trade agreements that is under consideration--or at least I
wish was under consideration; it has been negotiated and has not been
submitted by the White House yet to the Congress for consideration--is
the one with Colombia. I mentioned this earlier today in some remarks
on the floor, if you look at it and its impact on agriculture in this
country: In 2008, in the commodities of corn, wheat, and soybeans, our
country had 81 percent of the Colombian market when it comes to those
three agricultural commodities. In 2010, that was down to 27 percent.
Why? Because a lot of other countries that had negotiated free-trade
agreements with Colombia have stepped in to fill the void because we do
not have that kind of agreement.
This has very direct and profound impacts on the American economy.
Because when you lose that kind of market share--81 percent in 2008,
down to 27 percent in 2010--that is a significant number of jobs that
are impacted in industries in this country. The same would be true with
Panama and South Korea, all of which would be trade agreements that are
teed up that have been sitting and languishing for 3 or 4 years now
without action in the Senate. It is absolutely insane for us not to be
moving trade agreements that could benefit our economy and create jobs
at a time when job creation--certainly, at least rhetorically around
here--is stated to be the No. 1 priority we deal with.
When it comes to jobs and the economy--and I think there are a number
of things, as I said, that impact that, trade being one--there are a
number of policies coming out of Washington that impact small
businesses and their ability to create jobs. Clearly, tax policy is
one. Tax policy is something I think needs to be reviewed. We need tax
reform. It is long overdue. It is making us noncompetitive with other
countries around the world because our tax laws are outdated relative
to other countries, our takes rates are higher relative to every other
industrialized country in the world, with the exception, perhaps, of
Japan. That is something we need to be looking at. If we are serious
about being competitive and about growing our economy and in the global
marketplace creating the kind of jobs we need here at home, we have to
have trade policies, tax policies that are conducive to economic growth
and job creation.
The other area, however, on which we can be impacted by what happens
in Washington is regulation. That is what this particular amendment is
all about. It is about making regulation coming out of Washington, DC,
reasonable, making it based upon common sense, making it based upon
science, making it where any objective bystander or person out there--
an observer who looks at these regulations--would say: They are trying
very hard not to make it more difficult for small businesses to create
jobs in this country.
But I think what happens too often is the exact opposite. It looks
like what is coming out of Washington are heavyhanded, burdensome
requirements, mandates, and regulations which drive up the cost of
doing business in this country. Frankly, I do not disagree with what
some of my colleagues on the other side have said about regulations
that are important to public health and safety. What I am talking about
are excessive, overreaching regulations, which in some cases go beyond
the congressional intent, the statutory purpose that Congress, when
they enacted the laws, wanted to see take place. So you have regulatory
agencies that go way beyond the congressional intent and the statutory
purpose with regard to many of these policies that are being put in
place.
I have to say that when I travel in my State of South Dakota--and,
for that matter, outside the State of South Dakota--and I talk to small
businesses, I talk to agricultural producers, the overriding theme, the
consistent theme I hear over and over and over again is: You have to
get these out-of-control regulatory agencies under control. They keep
spinning and kicking out more and more regulations that are making it
more difficult for us to grow our businesses and to create jobs.
Maybe that is a function of the fact that we have a government that
has gotten too big and out of control. If you look at government today
relative to historical standards, we are looking at government, as a
percentage of our entire economy today, of being somewhere in the 24-
to 25-percent range. I mentioned earlier this morning in some remarks
on the floor that back in the year 1800, the government was actually 2
percent of our entire economy. For our entire economic output at that

[[Page S3646]]

time, 2 percent represented what we spent on the Federal Government.
Today we are spending one-quarter--one-quarter--of every dollar of our
entire economic output in just the Federal Government. That does not
include State and local governments. When you add those in, you get up
over 40 percent. The trajectory we are on today will take us up to 40
percent of spending on the Federal Government to GDP in the not-too-
distant future. If you look at 2035, 2040, that is where we are headed
if we stay on our current path.
So it necessarily follows, I suppose, that when government keeps
getting bigger and more expansive, more government regulations, more
government redtape, more bureaucracy is a natural outgrowth of a
growing government. What I think makes the most sense is for us to be
creating jobs in the private economy. What we have seen here in just
the last few years is that the government economy is growing relative
to the total economy. The private economy, thereby, is shrinking. We
have seen, over the last 40 years, the average of the Federal
Government, as a percentage of our entire economy, being 20.6 percent.
So 20.6 percent of our entire economy spending has been by the Federal
Government. As I said, now it is 24 to 25 percent.
So we are on a path where we are rapidly ramping up, we are rapidly
growing the size of government relative to our entire economy. That is
not where we want to go if we are serious about creating good-paying,
permanent jobs for people in this country. Those jobs originate and
come from the private sector. They come from small businesses. That is
where we want to create the jobs.
So I would say the amendment that is being proposed by the Senator
from Maine and the Senator from Oklahoma is a very reasonable one
because all it is simply saying is, before these new regulations go
into place, the small businesses ought to have access to some review
and perhaps even, if necessary, to the court system, to make sure those
regulations are consistent with the legislative intent and not overly
burdensome and putting an unnecessary and excessive burden on our small
businesses.
I think it is common sense. If we are serious about job creation, if
we are serious about economic growth, getting the economy back on
track, this is the very type of legislation we ought to be supporting.
Too often around here we end up off on these tangents, working on
things that do not have an impact on job creation. I will say that one
of the things we should be working on--and that we are not--it has now
been 771 days since Congress passed a budget. Think about that: $3.8
trillion, $3.7 trillion, $3.8 trillion in annual spending, and it has
been 771 days now since Congress passed a budget.
It strikes me, at least, that if we are serious about getting our
fiscal house in order and sending signals to the economy and to the
market that we want to create jobs, the first thing we could do is get
the fiscal house in Washington, DC, in order. Yet we have had 771 days
now without a budget.
If you are really serious about getting the economy back on track,
you have to also restrain spending. You have to grow the economy, you
have to restrain Federal spending, because when you have a government
that is growing at the rate ours is, it does crowd out private
investment. It makes it more difficult for small businesses to get
access to capital and create jobs because they are competing with the
government.
Back to the issue at hand here--that is regulations--I think that
whether it is a farmer or rancher in South Dakota--by the way, I spoke
yesterday with someone who is in town representing a livestock
organization in my State--the No. 1 issue is overreaching government
regulation driving up the cost of doing business.
You look at some of the proposals and suggestions that are out there,
and sometimes they fall into the category of ``you can't make this kind
of stuff up.''
There was a proposal under consideration here recently at the EPA--
which they have not, to be fair, promulgated regulations on yet or
proposed regulations on yet--that would regulate fugitive dust. I mean,
imagine and think about what that means in an agricultural. What it
essentially means is you could not have dust from your property drift
over onto someone else's property.
Some of this stuff borders on insanity. I think that is the point
that is being made by the amendment of the Senator from Maine. Let's
use some common sense. Let's use some reason. If we are going to have
these regulations, let's at least put them forward in a way that does
not disproportionately adversely affect small businesses and make it
more difficult for them to create jobs.
Here is another example. Just last month, the DOT started seeking
comment on the need for commercial driver's licenses for individuals
who are driving off-road farm equipment such as tractors. Well, where I
come from, that is a pretty important part of our economy. You have a
lot of young people working in farm operations, a lot of people,
period, who are out there who grow up learning or knowing how to drive
tractors, how to handle farm equipment, and this particular requirement
would force them to get a commercial driver's license.
I mean, some of this stuff, as I said, falls into the category of
``you can't make these kinds of things up.''
The EPA recently threatened ranchers in the Flint Hills region of
Kansas to stop or limit the controlled burn of their prairie pastures,
which is a practice that allows for the new growth of grass to feed
cattle, or to be faced with EPA-mandated regulations.
The list goes on and on.
It strikes me again that when you have as many of these studies that
are out there, and a lot of data supports these arguments, we ought to
be responding in a way that recognizes that science, data, and input
from people who are impacted by these regulations ought to have more of
an influence on the regulations that are imposed by these agencies.
What this does is it simply puts in place a way in which small
businesses can get access to that kind of a review.
I hope my colleagues in the Senate will support the Snowe-Coburn
amendment and move us in a direction where we are dealing fundamentally
with the issues that are important to our economy right now because,
for all of the rhetoric, as I said earlier, about wanting to grow the
economy and create jobs, it seems as though every policy coming out of
Washington, DC, is contrary to that objective, whether that is tax
policy, trade policy, energy policy, but perhaps more important now
than ever, regulatory action coming out of the executive branch of the
government and running amok by creating all kinds of roadblocks and
hurdles and impediments to job creation in this country.
Again, when you are at 9.1 percent unemployment, when you have as
many people out of work as we have and who have been out of work for as
long as they have, you would think that, first and foremost, we would
be looking at policies that make it easier and less expensive to create
jobs in this country. And what is happening is we are making it more
difficult and more expensive to create jobs by these excessive,
overreaching, runaway regulations that are coming out of Federal
agencies every single day.
It is hands down the thing I hear more than anything else from people
in my State of South Dakota. As I said, whether that is the Farm Bureau
or a livestock group or a small business organization, right now
government regulation is the thing they state most often as the biggest
impediment to them going out there and creating jobs.
So this is a very commonsense amendment. It is something our small
businesses are all supporting. We saw the list of small business
organizations the Senator from Maine put up earlier. This is something
this Senate ought to act on and act on today. I hope we will get a
strong affirmative vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Would the Senator yield for a question? Is the Senator
aware that there are at least four other bills--Senator Vitter, Senator
Roberts, Senator Collins, and Senator Portman--and, in addition, that
Senator Lieberman is developing a comprehensive bill on reg reform? Is
the Senator aware of those other bills?
Mr. THUNE. Well, I would say through the Chair that there may be

[[Page S3647]]

many efforts, as there typically are here in the Senate, to address
some of the issues, and a lot of our Members have different ideas about
how best to do that. I happen to believe the proposal put forward by
the Senator from Maine is, as I said, a very reasonable, commonsense
approach to this.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act is something that is in need of some
revisions, particularly in light of the fact that we have so many
regulations coming out of these agencies that are so costly, so
difficult, and so burdensome for small businesses in this country. I
think we ought to be, at every opportunity, looking for ways to lessen
the cost and the difficulty for our small businesses to create jobs.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Through the Chair, I understand Senator Coburn, under
the UC, has the next 15 minutes. But, through the Chair, I would end my
question by saying that I think the Senator is right. There are some
regulations that are coming fairly fast and furiously. But I think the
Senator would also understand that the normal process is reviewing the
bills at the committee level, comparing and contrasting, and then
bringing the best approach to the floor. And that is what some of us
are objecting to. It is not the goal of reducing regulations; it is the
process.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have listened to this debate all
morning, as an original cosponsor with Senator Snowe on her bill. I
wish to talk about the EDA first, and then I will talk about what most
of us do not realize because most of us have not taken the time to
look.
There are 80 economic development programs in the Federal Government
through 4 agencies that spend $6.6 billion a year. Not one of them has
a metric on it to see if it is successful.
We have heard all morning about $3,000 per job. That is all self-
reported stuff. No oversight on it. No committee oversight on it. No
hard work to see--there is not a metric on one of these programs to see
if it is working. Now we have a bill on the floor to spend another $500
million a year on something we have no idea what--we have anecdotal
evidence, but what does the OIG say? The OIG says, first of all, this
program has been used as a congressional slush fund to direct money to
friends of Members of Congress. That is what they say. Fully one-third
of the projects never come to completion. So the money that was spent
on it ends up being totally wasted. We are reauthorizing a bill that
nobody can show the statistics that it is, in fact, effective. It is
not just that we are reauthorizing this bill, we have 79 other
programs.
Ask yourself a question. We are $14 trillion in debt. We are nearly
bankrupt. We are running a $1.5 trillion deficit. And we have a bill on
the floor to spend $500 million, and we do not know whether it works.
We claim, anecdotally, we see positive things every now and then. Well,
you know, there are positive outcomes to illness too. But the fact is,
we do not know what we are doing.
What the Congress ought to be doing is saying: If, in fact, it is a
role for the Federal Government to have economic development
activities, then we ought to center it in 1 area, and we ought to have
1 or 2 programs, not 80 with 80 sets of administrators, 80 sets of
commissions, and $6.6 billion a year, with half of it not accomplishing
any purpose for the American people other than make the Senators and
Congressmen feel good because they think they may have done something.
So the whole idea that we would put forward a bill that has never
truly been oversighted in terms of the way everybody else would
oversight the way they spend their money to see if it is effective in
the whole, not anecdotal evidence of one company or one benefit--put it
all together, and if we have a role, let's put together a program that
will work, No. 1; No. 2, that has metrics on it so we can measures
whether it is effective when we are actually borrowing the money to do
this. By the way, if we actually pass this bill and $500 million gets
spent, we are going to borrow $200 million from the international
financial community to do it. When we know one-third of it is wasted,
that just does not make any sense.
So the whole idea of Congress passing this EDA bill, in light of not
doing oversight on the other 79 economic development programs under the
other 4 agencies, is the definition of insanity. We don't know what we
are doing.
Now, let's talk about regulation for a minute. There is well over $2
trillion in the United States sitting in small, medium, and large
businesses right now that is not invested for jobs. Why is that? Why
are people afraid to go out and invest and get a return on capital? It
is because they do not see any clarity in the future. The
administration we have today has issued 40 percent more regulations--40
percent more regulations--than any administration in history in the
first 2 years. One of the reasons people do not have confidence is they
cannot handle the regulatory framework that is coming at them so fast.
The other thing I have observed is that when regulations are written,
they are oftentimes written without people with the real knowledge of
what they are writing the regulations for. Eighty percent of the
regulations written in this country are written by lawyers within the
agency in which they are doing it. Now, I like lawyers. That is good
enough. But how about having someone who has real experience in the
area in which they are writing the regulation rather than a lawyer
write a regulation for it?
A great example is that one of the good things about the new health
care bill was going to be where we combine things into accountable care
organizations, where we end up putting hospitals and doctors and
physical therapists and mental health workers all together, and then we
work as a team so we can cut the costs and not have duplication and get
better outcomes. The regulations on that were 220 pages long, with 65
things you have to do every day on every patient to report back to the
Federal Government. Well, that is just idiotic. It is asinine. Yet that
is the regulation that came out on what I view as one of the few
positive things about the affordable care act.
The Senator from Maine outlined the cost of business regulation to
small businesses and large businesses. It is $1.7 trillion a year; that
is, fully 12 percent of our GDP is the cost of regulations that are
coming from the Federal Government.
All this bill says is--it is a way to force the administration and
the agency--it does not matter if it is a Republican or Democratic
administration. They are both the same. It does not have anything to do
with what party is in power in the administration, but to hold the
agencies accountable, that they will look at the impact of the
regulations they write so they are not counterproductive to our
country.
We are at a time period where we are at great risk as a nation--great
risk--because we are so overly exposed on our debt and our deficit. For
every 1 percent increase of interest rates that we are going to see
next year, it is going to cost us, the taxpayers of America, $150
billion additional. And there is no question we are going to see
interest rates rise in this country. So we do not create the confidence
of the small and medium businesses to go out and build that next
production line or build a way to produce this next new idea, because
what they are seeing is so much blowback from an unaccountable,
misdirected Federal Government.
So what Senator Snowe wants to do is totally connected with common
sense. But you know what, we don't want to do that. We don't want to do
that. And the excuse is that we have not been through committee. Well,
let me tell you, one-third of the bills that come to the floor of the
Senate have never been through the committee, and now we are saying an
amendment has to come through the committee. It is ludicrous. It is
also false. It is that we really don't trust the American people. That
is what it really says, we really don't trust the American people to
use common sense. The reason we don't is because we have no connection
with common sense whatsoever in this body, and because we can't figure
it out, we don't think they can. So Big Brother has to tell you every
time, every location, at every situation what you can do.
The thing that has changed in my adult lifetime is when I was a
medical device manufacturer in the seventies,

[[Page S3648]]

the presumption was on the government to prove that I was doing
something wrong.
With our regulatory framework now, the presumption is on you, the
American citizen, to prove you didn't do something wrong. That is why
this overregulation, this attendance to detail matters to nothing,
except a gnat on the top of a pin. It is out there and is so costly, in
terms of the cost of compliance, it makes no difference in terms of
somebody's outcome. But, mainly, it is costing us jobs. It is costing
us the very thing that built this country--the premise that you can put
together an idea and build on that idea with hard work and minimal
capital and make it a success.
The thing that is blocking that is the regulation coming from the
Federal Government. This is a straightforward bill. Let's hold the
bureaucrats accountable. If they will not be held accountable, you will
have a way to hold them accountable.
I don't get it. I don't get why anybody would object to this because
it is not stopping regulation; it is saying you have to figure out
whether it is prudent. If you are not following the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, then we are going to make you do it because, we will
give you a basis in a court of law to be able to do that.
What is wrong with that? Nobody has addressed what is wrong with
that. They have just said, no, we don't like it, we don't want it. So
we are going to do everything we can to make sure an amendment, which
will fix the problems in this country and start creating jobs, and will
actually move money into investment to create new opportunities for
jobs for Americans, when we have 17 million Americans who want to work
but can't, we are going to defeat it. We are so disconnected with what
is important in this country, and it is so frustrating. I am surprised
I still have hair on my head.
Senator Snowe knows more about small business in this Senate than any
other Senator. She has worked on it for years. She knows the problem.
She has offered a solution that is common sense, that will work, that
won't cost a lot of money, but will rein in the bureaucracy when they
do the wrong thing or they don't follow the law.
For us to say, no, we are not going to do it because there may be a
small amount of risk that something might go wrong, that is exactly the
same way the bureaucracies work. Let me tell you how they work. They
never do what is best for the country, they do what is safe for the
bureaucracy. That is why we have so much regulation, because they don't
want to be criticized. You can't walk through life without being
criticized. Nobody is perfect. No action is perfect. So let's hold them
accountable and help them be better. Let's be uplifters to them and put
some tools there that will enable us to have a good regulatory
framework that actually accomplishes the purpose of the regulations but
doesn't destroy what small amount of manufacturing business we have
left.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understand our side has about 50
minutes left in this debate on the Snowe amendment and we will vote at
2:15. I will speak for the next 15 or 20 minutes. There is nobody else
on the floor on our side. I will continue to try to answer some of the
issues raised in the last few minutes about this particular amendment.
First of all, I have a great deal of respect for the Senator from
Oklahoma, and nobody has worked harder on trying to bring more
efficiency to the Federal Government. He has spent hours and hours and
hours in meetings, official meetings, informal meetings, on budgets,
efficiencies, and regulations. I have a great deal of respect for the
Senator from Oklahoma personally. But I do take offense at some of
the--not just the suggestions but accusations and specific attacks made
on the floor against the government. Two or three were issued in the
speech he just gave--statements like this: ``The bureaucracy never
takes risks.''
I wish to ask him, what bureaucracy did he think supported the
elimination of Osama bin Laden? Does the Senator from Oklahoma believe
there were no risks taken by this bureaucracy that he so routinely
wants to degrade--to no good end? I would ask him, if he were still on
the floor, were no risks taken by anyone when they launched the strike
against Osama bin Laden that eventually killed him?
Would the Senator from Oklahoma suggest we have no regulations on
Wall Street; that we should trust the big international bankers of the
world to do what is right every day for the people of Oklahoma? I know
the people on Wall Street wake up every morning and think to themselves
while they are eating breakfast: What can I do today to help the people
in Oklahoma or in Louisiana?
Of course, that is absurd. There is a place for appropriate
regulation, and bureaucracies aren't always bad. When George Washington
led the creation of this country, he most certainly had in his mind a
government that worked for the people, by the people.
Let's fix the government. Let's not tear it down by statements that
have no basis in fact, that do not uplift people, do not encourage
people. They numb people. They make people angry. They make people
think there is no hope, when there is. There are thousands of people
who put on a uniform every day and go to work for this country. They
are mothers, fathers, grandparents, aunts, and uncles. They work hard
and they do not deserve the disparaging remarks that come too often
from the other side of the aisle.
If you don't like government--you have made it plain--then fix it.
One of the ways to fix it is to take a bill--and this is not an
amendment that Senator Snowe has, it is a bill. I have seen it. She
asked me to cosponsor it, and I have declined. It is a bill--a major
bill--that has jurisdiction that will find its jurisdiction not in one
committee--the Small Business Committee--but in five committees that
have jurisdiction over the aspects of Senator Snowe's bill. One of the
reasons we should not vote favorably is not because we are not for
regulatory reform but because this bill has ramifications that go far
beyond the Small Business Committee, which I chair, and five or six
other committees need to look at the provisions in her bill. That is
one reason we have asked to go through the committee process.
No. 2, there are, at least to my knowledge, four other bills that
attempt to fix this overregulatory reach which, I agree with Senator
Thune, with Senator Coburn, and I agree with Senator Snowe, needs to be
tapped down and harnessed--not eliminated--and made less onerous for
all business, not just small business. There are at least four other
bills I know of that are attempting to do that. One is by Senator
Vitter, one by Senator Roberts, one by Senator Collins, and one by
Senator Portman. I have not had the opportunity to review in detail all
of these other bills, but I am sure they have some very excellent
points to them.
The committee process allows a chairman such as Senator Lieberman,
who is not here today, whose committee would have primary jurisdiction
over this, to bring all five bills before his committee, hear the best
aspects of each, potentially combine them into a bill, and bring them
to the floor. Do you know what. Senator Lieberman, I know, has offered
to do that in his committee. That bill could potentially come out of
committee--potentially with Senator Snowe as lead author, with other
cosponsors--a bill that both Democrats and Republicans can agree to,
which could give relief to reg reform.
This is not about finding a solution. This is about public relations,
campaigns, and Republican rhetoric about the election. That is what I
object to. If this were about regulatory reform and finding a solution,
the five Senators who have bills, and other Senators--Senator
McCaskill, for one, who is here today, is developing a bill, and
Senator Carper, who has spent years on this subject and is quite the
expert--they would all come before the Homeland Security Committee, on
which I have the privilege of serving, and in a short amount of time--
just a few weeks--figure out something the majority could support.
This is not about fixing the problem. This is about bumper stickers
for elections, and I am very tired of it. I am not the only one. As
chair of the Small Business Committee, I can promise you that our
committee, with Senator

[[Page S3649]]

Snowe as ranking member, has worked every day very hard through this
recession to put forward bills on this floor that could help create
jobs, bring relief. In fact, regarding one of the most burdensome
regulations that the business community was screaming about, our
committee was very aggressive in helping to eliminate that. That was
section 1099, which would have required every business to report to the
IRS any purchase they made for goods over $600. It would have brought
many businesses to their knees, buried in paperwork.
Did our committee sit around and twiddle its thumb? No. We worked
hard. We had, I think, the only hearing in Congress on 1099, and we
repealed it. It took us a while to find the right offset. The minute
the business groups brought it to our attention, we said we made a
mistake and it will take us a while to find the $20 billion to offset
it, but we will look at it before it goes into effect and repeal it. We
did that.
When Republicans say Democrats don't care about regulatory burdens, I
find that offensive. It is not helpful. This bill is not on the floor
on regulatory relief. This bill is on a small but effective economic
development program that has worked beautifully in my State. Contrary
to what the Senator from Oklahoma and others have said, this program--
in Louisiana, as far as Louisiana is concerned--actually works. One of
the reasons it works so well is because many of the decisions about the
grants are not done in Washington but at the regional level. Our office
happens to be in Austin, TX. When the Chamber of Commerce comes to
visit me--and they are not always huge supporters of the Democratic
caucus--they say to me: Senator, one of the best programs that our
members like and feel the Federal Government does a very good job with
is the EDA grants, because they are not that bureaucratic. They make
quick decisions and help us fill gap financing in programs that make a
meaningful difference to people in our communities. I didn't raise this
subject to the Chamber of Commerce; they raised this subject to me.
Maybe the Senator from Oklahoma is correct that some of these moneys
were earmarked. But we don't allow earmarks anymore. So this program is
going to go on without earmarks directed by Members. It is going to be
done on a regional basis, and these programs have been--at least in
Louisiana's experience--quite effective. Louisiana Tech, one of my
universities, received a $2 million EDA grant. I will submit this for
the Record: Our ongoing partnership with EDA has greatly enhanced the
university's overall economic development efforts. We are creating the
EDA University Center.

This is from the mayors of both cities. You know, I do trust my local
elected officials. I do trust the people I represent. When they say a
program works, I like to believe them.
There is a list of projects and recent investments in Louisiana--$1.2
million to Tulane University.
Can I tell you one thing about Tulane University, since it was
damaged significantly after Hurricane Katrina? We have over 45,000
applicants to this school. Why do people want to come to Tulane? They
want to come because not only is it a great school, but it is in a
great city that is rebuilding itself. An EDA grant--that some people
wish to eliminate--is helping to rebuild our city. So $1.2 million to
Tulane University. It is a microloan program.
I believe the people at Tulane University. I have a great respect for
Scott Cowen and their board. Everywhere I travel around the United
States as a Senator I could not be more proud when people come up to me
and comment what a great university Tulane is. I don't need somebody in
Washington telling me how good this program is. I have the people I
represent at home telling me.
We have $75,000 given to the downtown development district which was
underwater after Katrina for the Idea Village. You know where the Idea
Village was recently advertised? Maybe on the front page of Enterprise
Magazine; maybe in Time magazine. This Idea Village is one of the best
ideas in the whole country. You know who funded it? The program Senator
Boxer is trying to reauthorize.
We have $400,000 for a startup fund for the creation and development
of stimulus funds to support fledgling enterprises in the greater New
Orleans region. Our seafood industry went completely--no pun intended--
underwater after the BP oilspill. This agency stood up, when no one
else would--BP wouldn't give them a penny, Ken Feinberg wouldn't give
them any money--and gave them $350,000 to keep their head above water--
the Seafood Promotion Board. That is why, in large measure, people are
eating gulf coast shrimp today.
So I don't know what report Senator Coburn is looking at, but the May
19 GAO report states they have not concluded that duplication exists
among programs, and plans to address these issues in their future work
on overlap and duplication.
I don't know if the Senator has asked his Chamber of Commerce from
Oklahoma, but I am going back to my office and I am going to call them
myself, because I wish to find out. Maybe their program works
differently in Oklahoma than it works in Louisiana. But when I call my
people at home--and they will tell me: Senator, some of these programs
aren't worth a hill of beans and you should eliminate them; these
programs are too difficult. I have that all the time about some
programs. Not all the time, but some programs. This isn't one of them.
The reason I am a little exercised is because this is like deja vu. I
came to this floor 4 weeks ago to try to get a similar program in
size--a $1.2 billion program that has worked so well. Senator Warren
Rudman had created it. It is a great program. It is the country's best
venture capital program for all small business. It makes money. It
doesn't lose money. We got the same thing done to us by the other side
of this aisle that says we don't care about small business over here
because we have to talk about X, Y, and Z.
So this is the second time for one of our chairmen. I was the first,
and now Senator Boxer is trying to bring to the floor a program that is
not that complicated. It is a little program but it has big bang for
the buck. It gets rave reviews from the people in my State--Republicans
mainly but Democrats as well--and we can't seem to get this program
approved until we take bills that Members want to put on this bill that
have nothing to do with it and that haven't gone through committee.
I am going to be voting against Senator Snowe's bill. But to make
clear, I support Senator Snowe's efforts to reduce regulation. My
people in Louisiana are screaming about this. I have tried to
communicate this to the administration in many ways, whether it is EPA
or the Corps of Engineers, or the more recent one coming out of one
agency that wants all my oilfield workers to put on HAZMAT suits to go
to work. If you put on a HAZMAT suit in Louisiana when it is 100
degrees, you won't get to the oil rig because you will faint before you
get there.
I am not unaware--I want the Senator from Oklahoma to understand--of
some ridiculous rules and regulations that come flying out of some of
our agencies. But the way to fix them is not to bring a bill to the
floor that has not had a hearing when six different committees have
jurisdiction, when Senator Lieberman, who has the lead jurisdiction as
chair of Homeland Security has indicated a complete willingness to take
this on.
There are enough bumper sticker printing operations in America today.
There is only one U.S. Senate. I suggest we start acting like the U.S.
Senate and stop acting like a bumper sticker operation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I want to make a couple of comments. I
said in my earlier comments there are some good things about the EDA.
But the fact is, they are all self-reported. There is no data. There
are no methods. Any time you send money to the State of Oklahoma, I
guarantee you the people who are going to get the money are going to
like it. But there isn't one metric, one set of metrics that measures
the effectiveness of the money that has been spent through EDA in terms
of job creation. Fully one-third of the dollars don't get through to
completion over the history of the program.
The very idea we would defend the bureaucracy--the bureaucracy didn't
help us on 9/11 because they were

[[Page S3650]]

stovepiped and they didn't communicate. The bureaucracy failed to
ensure the safety of the levees in New Orleans--this same bureaucracy
that doesn't need to be controlled. The bureaucracy didn't protect us
from the financial crisis of 2008 because we didn't do the oversight.
The bureaucracy didn't protect the gulf from the Deepwater Horizon. We
had a bureaucracy that was supposed to be in charge of that, but they
didn't do their job.
The SBIR--you had my full support on SBIR; the Senator from Louisiana
knows that. She had my support on that because that is one of the
proven programs inside the SBA that actually has metrics on it that
works. So the debate is whether we hold back the regulatory framework.
I find it ironic that you agree with us in principle but won't vote
with us on this amendment because it didn't go through a committee. It
is amazing.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. COBURN. I want to finish my points and then leave the floor
because I have something else I have to do.
It is amazing the negative effects we all are hearing from all across
the country. Every Senator is hearing how regulation is drowning out
opportunity for investment that creates jobs in this country. Every
program has some positive aspects to it. The question isn't whether
they have positive aspects, it is what is our priority now that we are
bankrupted. Where should we be spending the money so we get the best
bang for the buck. How do we pull back the regulatory framework so that
it is common-sense oriented rather than bureaucratic oriented? That is
what Senator Snowe is trying to do and to give some type of power to
the very people who are being regulated. Because we certainly won't do
the oversight. We haven't done the oversight.
It is interesting that when the GAO put out this last report on
duplication, they are right, they didn't say in these particular
programs. But I put out a report 9 months before that detailed the
duplication in these programs, and it was published, so you can find
the duplication.
The important point is we are strangling business and job
development--small and medium. The big guys can take all this
regulation, and they are already staffed up. The small- and medium-
sized businesses can't. We have to give them a way to force common
sense onto the bureaucracy. That is all this does. Everybody hears it
from all of their constituents, that regulation is killing business
formation and job creation. Why would we not want to put in some
balance? I don't understand it.
The real problem with the regulatory agencies is us, because we won't
oversight them. There was no oversight hearing on the EDA. Nobody ever
asked the question: Where are the metrics? We hear all this anecdotal
evidence about how great it is when we give money to the States that
they can do things, but where are the numbers that show the job
creation for every thousand dollars that gets spent? It is self-
reported, but there is nothing that looks at it that says statistically
here is the proof.
If the EDA is the best way to create jobs in this country, I am all
for it. But I want to see some data that says that right now. We have
job training programs, 47 of them in this country, and we spend $18
billion a year on them. We have 104 science, technology, engineering,
and math programs across nine different agencies we are spending $16
billion on a year. We have no data on any of those programs anywhere,
but we have it out there. We have no idea what we are doing because we
won't ask the hard questions and we won't study it. Nobody would have
104 science, technology, engineering, and math programs. We have 64
programs--and 20-some of them are outside the Department of Education--
to improve teacher training quality.
The reason we are in trouble is because we haven't done our job on
oversight. So anyone can claim anecdotal evidence that something is
good, but you should know that when we spend $1,000 of the taxpayers'
money--money we don't have today because we are borrowing it from
China--we ought to be certain that it is actually going to create
something because our kids are paying the bill. The next generation is
going to pay the bill, and they will pay that bill through a markedly
lower standard of living.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, how much time remains on the Republican
side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirteen minutes.
Ms. SNOWE. Thirteen minutes. Thank you, Mr. President.
I want to make a few points. It is about solving problems. That is
what this is all about. It truly amazes me that we have an amendment
here on regulatory reform that everybody agrees with in principle and
everything else, that goes to the heart of the issues concerning the
economic well-being of small business and, hence, America's well-being
in these desperate times, yet we can't manage to get it together and to
work on these issues.
I made a number of good-faith changes in my legislation, and I would
have done more if I had heard any response from the other side to
working those out. I made five major changes to the proposition back in
April to respond to this. But there is no response. Then I hear about
these hearings. Can somebody please tell me where it is in the rules of
the Senate that every amendment has to have a hearing?
We had a major vote yesterday on interchange for the second time.
That is important to small business. But even the committee of
jurisdiction didn't have a hearing. So this is, again--as I describe
it--the politics of obfuscation. Let's get to the heart of the matter
and solve the problems for America. It isn't about who authors it and
who is doing it. Let's do it. That is the point: We are not doing it.
We are just sitting here talking, recessing, going home today, going to
do something else, going to have recesses.
We have five committees that have jurisdiction over this issue. We
are going to need a roadmap pretty soon. I don't want to go home and
tell my constituents this is what happened on regulatory reform. So let
me get this straight. Let me get this straight. We have five
committees, there are a number of bills, time is running out, people
have to leave, and we can't have enough time to debate this.
That is what I was told this morning. All of a sudden I was given a
call saying: Sorry, you have to do it right now. I said: Well, is the
bill over? We just started. There are a number of pending amendments
that haven't even been addressed yet. Let's vote on those. This is an
important issue. Let's give this the equivalency of the interchange
amendment. Let's do something that is important for small business.
Absolutely not.
This is about jobs at a very difficult time in America.
Let me repeat, 40 months after the start of the four deepest postwar
recessions, our economic output averaged 7.6 percent. Here we are, our
GDP has only increased .1 percent. Those are terrible numbers. But
behind those numbers are people and human beings because it means we
are not creating jobs.
We heard here today that sometimes bureaucracy is good. Well,
bureaucracies, by definition, and I read, mean ``excessive
multiplication of, and concentration of power in administrative bureaus
or administrators'' Absolutely. They are unelected. We are elected. We
understand the problems. Even the President--let's read this headline,
``Obama to scale back regulations in an effort to spur economic
growth.''
What is interesting about all this--nobody is accusing the President
of decimating the environment or workplace or health care.
Understanding that, 6 days after I was denied a vote on this very
amendment where I made five different adjustments to respond to the
other side, you have the President's Economic Competitiveness Council
coming out with four major priorities, one of which is a need to
improve the regulatory process because there are decades of overlapping
and uncoordinated regulations.
Even by the administration's estimate, this White House's own
estimate, that regulations last decade cost anywhere from $44 to $62
billion, last year's alone with a $26 billion. This is a serious issue.
Can we work it out? Can we do it? Do we have the capacity to work on
issues anymore, thoroughly and deliberatively? It has been almost 2
months

[[Page S3651]]

and we have not gotten any further. We haven't even had a hearing.
Somewhere, somebody has bills. Great. Bring them up. Let's debate them.
Let's compare them. Let's do something. Let's do something for small
business. They desperately need it. Now I will be glad to yield to the
Senator from Illinois.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I would like in this context to focus on the
economic policy, to look at where we are right now, the state of the
economic union and the State of Illinois.
If we look at basic numbers we see we will take in about $2.1
trillion in tax revenue, but our government is currently projected to
spend $3.4 trillion in tax revenue, yielding a deficit of approximately
$1.3 trillion. We will have to borrow from the American people, from
China, and other foreign powers.
Total unfunded liabilities of the Federal Government are $61
trillion, yielding a debt of $196,000 per American, currently. When we
look at economic growth and the way to expand the available pie for the
United States, our economy last year grew at a 2.8-percent rate. China,
on the other hand, grew at 10.3 percent, and Libya--currently under
attack by NATO--grew at 4.2 percent. In fact, quiz question: Which
economy grew more last year, the United States or Iran? The answer: The
Iranian economy grew at a faster rate than the United States.
The situation probably is even more bleak in the State of Illinois.
For the State of Illinois, we are going to take in about $27 billion in
revenue, spending $33 billion, for a $5.8 billion gap. This is for a
State whose credit rating is deteriorating quite rapidly, having not
funded its pensions to a greater degree than almost any other State,
the unfunded liability of the State of Illinois of $62 billion for a
per-citizen debt on top of the Federal debt of $4,800.
When we look at our State and its economic growth, the State of
Illinois is at just 1.9 percent growth. Other States, Wisconsin, even
with its highly controversial Governor now rapidly improving its
business climate at 2.5 percent; the State rated No. 1 for creating
jobs in America, 2.8 percent, and the State that is on fire, the State
of Indiana at 4.6 percent. This is clearly a sign that things are going
well in Indiana, things are going well in China, things are even going
better in Libya than in the United States, and it shows that we need to
change course for our country economically, to back the amendment of
the Senator that she has here, and to make sure we can lay out better,
more pro-productive policies like the small business bill of rights
that represents 10 new policies to accelerate economic growth.
On behalf of that entity, which represents half of all the jobs in
the United States, and my own State--these are private sector jobs.
They are sustainable. They do not depend on a failed stimulus which is
now running out of gas--given the records, I think we can see it is
clear we ought to go back to economic fundamentals to correct the
system and look clearly at the state of economics where we are now.
With that, I yield to the Senator from Maine and thank her for the
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. I now yield to the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Brown.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 4 minutes, and the
remaining time for the Democratic side is 35 minutes.
The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for additional time
on the bill, since the vote is not going to occur until 2:15, and that
time be equally divided.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. I yield the remainder of the time to Senator Brown. It is
regrettable, since this is an important issue, that we couldn't have
more time on this key issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I want to begin by
expressing my support for what Senator Snowe has been doing and for the
EDA Reauthorization Act. I applaud the committee for producing a good,
comprehensive bill. These EDA grant programs provide vital resources,
not only for Massachusetts economic development and its businesses, but
also other States throughout the country to help communities get back
on their feet in this tough economic climate. For that reason, the
reauthorization of this bill is incredibly important, and I encourage
that it be done.
I rise to speak about two amendments to this bill that affect the
stability of our small businesses. Senator Snowe and Senator Coburn's
FREEDOM Act, to reform the small business regulatory system, is one
that I have consistently supported because it is a commonsense
solution. When I am traveling around my State, no matter where I go and
no matter with whom I speak, from CEOs all the way down to the worker
who is just doing the everyday work, one thing I hear over and over is
a plea to get rid of the one-size-fits-all Federal regulations that are
limiting businesses.
Businesses need certainty and stability in order to create an
economic climate for jobs not only to be created but to be retained,
not only in Massachusetts but throughout the country.
This amendment would require that Federal agencies conduct
comprehensive analysis on the potential impact of regulations on small
businesses. It has the support of the NFIB and the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce. Simply put, burdensome regulations are hurting our small
businesses and job creators and are preventing them from growing and
hiring. It is a shame this amendment got caught up in partisan
volleying in the SBIR reauthorization. I am happy to have an
opportunity to speak about it today.
I also want to turn the Senate's attention to amendment No. 405 to
repeal the 3 percent withholding tax, a malignant and business-
threatening provision. It is based on S. 164, the Withholding Tax
Relief Act, which enjoys bipartisan support and is critically needed
now. Senator Snowe is a cosponsor, as well as 14 of my colleagues.
We need to repeal once and for all this onerous and costly unfunded
mandate. This is a jobs amendment, plain and simple. It would repeal a
part of our Tax Code that promises to kill jobs.
As you know, Mr. President, we have had many comments about how this
bill would, in fact, cost potentially as high as $75 billion to
actually implement. The moneys received back to the Federal Government
would be about $8 billion over that same period. It is absurd. Any
program that costs more to implement than it brings in revenues should
be repealed immediately.
Two months ago I received a letter from the Massachusetts State
secretary of finance, Jay Gonzalez, warning Congress of the inevitable
threat to the ability of small businesses to survive in this economic
climate if we allow the continuation of this stealth tax.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. I encourage colleagues to also adopt that
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Senator from California was on the
Senate floor this morning, Mrs. Boxer, advocating passage of this bill
and urging colleagues to vote against the Snowe amendment. I am here to
support that position.
I would like to respond briefly to Senator Coburn's last couple of
statements about where the bureaucracy failed. He didn't have to remind
me, of course, the bureaucracy failed to respond to Katrina and Rita,
the largest disasters by far in the history of the country. But we have
spent 6 years fixing that bureaucracy, not printing bumper stickers for
reelection campaigns. You know what. It has worked because our efforts
to fix the bureaucracy have helped the people of Missouri and Arkansas
and Tennessee and Montana and Indiana who are currently experiencing
terrible disasters as we speak.
The bureaucracy that showed up at the Superdome is a lot better today
in many ways--it is better today than the bureaucracy that showed up at
the Superdome. That is because we had hundreds of hours of committee
meetings, where this hard work is done, to bring

[[Page S3652]]

significant and important bills and changes that take debate, not on
the Senate floor but take debate in the work of the committee. When you
are working on major pieces of legislation that have major impacts,
that is where it is done.
Besides the FREEDOM Act that is on the floor today, there is the
Regulatory Responsibility For Our Economy Act, sponsored by Senator
Roberts with 46 cosponsors. I am assuming--I don't have the list, but I
am assuming they are Democratic and Republican cosponsors. That is a
major regulatory relief bill.
There is a bill by Senator Collins called the CURB Act, Clearing
Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens. The CURB Act has two cosponsors.
Then there is a smaller bill by Senator Portman that has no
cosponsors, but he is the lead sponsor. That looks to me like it is a
smaller bill and has limited scope but nonetheless on regulatory
reform.
There could be 12 other bills filed in the Senate--I don't know--and
hundreds of other bills filed in the House. Forget the House bills.
When bills like this are filed in the Senate, the usual route and the
most effective route is to go through the committee of jurisdiction.
You can understand in this topic, which is so broad--regulatory
reform--it is regulatory reform in the Department of Commerce and
regulatory reform in the Department of EPW, Environmental and Public
Works, regulatory reform for the Department of Homeland Security,
regulatory reform in the Department of Defense. There are many
committees of jurisdiction.
What everyone has agreed to is to have the hearing in the Homeland
Security Committee, which has broad jurisdiction, and get the work
done. Senator Lieberman is not here today because he is on Jewish
holiday. He has said time and time again he will have this hearing in
the committee and that is the appropriate place so we can come forward
with a bill on regulatory relief.
There are a couple of reasons why this particular approach is flawed.
I would like to read the comments from the administration. I would like
to read three specific reasons why this particular FREEDOM Act is not
in the proper position it should be. But the way to fix it is not
debating on the floor of the Senate on a bill that is not really
germane to the bill that we are debating, that we are trying to pass.
It is to have this kind of debate in committee so we can work out these
details. Senator Snowe has shown herself to be in the past, and still
today, willing to work in a very cooperative manner, and the place to
do this is in committee.

No. 1: The bill as currently drafted would allow judicial
review before the completion of rulemaking. That provision in
the Freedom Act would undermine regulatory certainty, making
it harder for businesses--

not easier, harder--

for businesses to plan for the future and compete in the
marketplace. It would also invite excessively costly and
unwieldy litigation.

We don't want to have more lawsuits. We want to have less lawsuits.
That is one of the problems small businesses are facing today--lawsuit
after lawsuit after lawsuit. The last thing we want to do is encourage
more of them. Many people have reviewed the technical writing of the
bill in its current form and believe it will result in more lawsuits,
not less. We wish to fix that in committee.

The amendment would make it harder, not easier, to see the
actual cost of regulation, by expanding the Regulatory
Flexibilities Act definition to include indirect effects.

I can understand why she wants to do it, but in interpreting the
language as the Senator has written it, this legislation would likely
undermine any reliable and meaningful economic analysis of regulation,
thereby distracting the agencies from focusing on what the actual
impacts of the rules would be.

Finally, the amendment inappropriately links regulatory
decisions to budget cuts. Decisions about regulation should
be based on sound economic science and not on the threat of
budget cuts.

This is a preliminary review of some of the current problems.
Senator Snowe is right, I guess. We could stay on the floor for the
next 2 or 3 or 4 weeks and the other Senators who are not on the floor
could agree to come and debate their bills on the floor, which is
highly unusual. But why not just go to the Homeland Security Committee,
have all of the sponsors of these major pieces of legislation present
their bills and have that committee work through these technical
difficulties? Because it is an important issue. Many of us support
regulatory reform. We know there are some burdens, particularly on
small business. We want to get it fixed, so let's fix it instead of
continuing to rail on this subject on every bill that comes before the
Senate, whether or not it has anything to do with regulatory reform.
One thing I wish to point out to the Senator, and I point this out
with the greatest respect, about 6 months ago or longer now, we were
both on the floor trying to pass the small business jobs act, a very
significant bill that would actually help to bolster this economy and
help provide literally billions of dollars of loans to small businesses
that couldn't get them anywhere. Their credit card companies had raised
the rates so high or their banks had shut down their lines of credit.
Senator Snowe and I worked together to bring a bill to the floor--and
we did, and passed it, unfortunately, without the support of the other
side of the aisle. But in that debate, the Senator from Maine said--
because I included in that bill, with a 60-vote margin--I got Senator
Voinovich and Senator LeMieux to vote for the small business lending
fund, which was a little unusual. She said:

. . . not included in the overall. First and foremost, it
has not had a single hearing with respect to this issue, and
in my view, it certainly does resurrect the controversial
TARP program . . . and because it hasn't had a hearing, this
should not pass.

Yet, within a year, she is back arguing against that argument--that
her bill, which hasn't had any hearing in the committee--should pass.
So there is some inconsistency here. I say this with the greatest
respect to the Senator from Maine. But if we want to be serious about
regulatory reform, we have to have this debate in the committee of
jurisdiction, which is right now Homeland Security, and then have the
other chairmen of the committees try to cooperate with that committee
and bring something to the floor. We will be happy, many of us, to vote
for it. But doing this in this way is not helpful. It is not going to
fix the problem. It is only going to make the burden on small business
worse. We have to move past it.
I wish to refer my colleagues to the floor remarks Senator Snowe made
on July 22, 2010.
Can these be fixed? Yes. But this is not the place, on the Senate
floor, when there are many other bills as well. Senator Snowe could
remain the main sponsor because she has put in the most work. She has
been a tireless advocate. She should get tremendous praise for bringing
forth this issue and keeping the fires burning and pushing the Senate
to this end, and that would be terrific. Many of us would join that
effort. But this is not the bill to do it on. This is not the place to
do it. I would suggest that, again, taking this to the committee of
jurisdiction, working it out, bringing the administration forward so we
can actually make some real progress on curbing regulatory overreach by
the Federal Government would be welcomed by all.
I see the Senator from Vermont is here on the floor. I am assuming he
wants to talk.
How much time do we have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 24 minutes remaining.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent that the final 10 minutes be
equally divided and controlled between Senators Snowe and Boxer, with
Senator Boxer controlling the final 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes of majority
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Deficit

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, there are a number of huge issues facing
our country. Our middle class is collapsing. Poverty is increasing. We
are in two wars. We are concerned about global warming, the quality of
our education, and massive unemployment. So this country today has its
share of serious problems we have to address.

[[Page S3653]]

Right now, a whole lot of attention, not inappropriately, is on our
very large deficit and a $14 trillion-plus national debt. This is an
issue which is perhaps going to come to a head over the next few months
as it becomes tied to whether we raise the debt ceiling. I wish to say
a few words on this issue.
No. 1, when we talk about deficit reduction, it is important for us
to understand how we got to where we are today. How did it happen? How
do we have a $1.5 trillion deficit this year, and a $14 trillion-plus
national debt? Let's remember that not so many years ago, at the end of
President Clinton's tenure, this country had a significant budget
surplus and the expectation was that surplus was going to grow in the
years to come.
But then a number of things happened during the Bush years. No. 1, we
became engaged in two wars. No. 2, we passed a Medicare Part D
prescription drug program. No. 3, we bailed out Wall Street. And No. 4,
we gave huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country. Then,
as a result of the Wall Street-caused recession, revenue dropped, and
the result was that we now have a very high deficit and a very large
national debt. But it is important to remember how we got to where we
are today.
It is also important when we talk about deficit reduction to take a
look at American society today in order to determine what is a fair
way--a fair way--to address deficit reduction. When we look at American
society today, the trends are very clear. The middle class is, in many
ways, disappearing as a result of stagnant or, in fact, lowered wages
for millions and millions of American workers. Median family income
over the last 10 years has gone down by about $2,500. The middle class
is hurting. Many millions of Americans, in fact, have left the middle
class and entered the ranks of the poor. Poverty is increasing. But at
the same time as the middle class is shrinking and poverty is
increasing, there is another reality we cannot ignore--or I am afraid
many of my colleagues choose to ignore it--and that is that the people
on top are doing phenomenally well. Over a recent 25-year period, 80
percent of all new income went to the top 1 percent. The top 1 percent
now earns more income than the bottom 50 percent. When we talk about
distribution of wealth, we have the top 400 Americans--the 400
wealthiest Americans--owning more wealth than the bottom 150 million
Americans.
That gap between the very rich and everybody else is growing wider.
It is important to discuss that issue about what is happening to the
middle class, to lower income people, and the growing gap between the
wealthy and everybody else when we address the issue of deficit
reduction.
My Republican colleagues in the House came up with an idea that I
think most people almost can't even believe they would pass; it seems
so incomprehensible. At a time when the middle class is hurting and
things are getting worse as a result of a recession, our Republican
colleagues say, Well, what we want to do is move toward deficit
reduction by making savage cuts in Medicaid, in education, in
infrastructure, in nutrition, in virtually every program that low- and
moderate-income Americans depend upon. Furthermore, what we want to do
in the House--what they have done--is to end Medicare as we know it,
convert it into a voucher program, giving seniors a check for $8,000
and have them go out and get a plan from a private insurance company
which clearly will be totally inadequate for most seniors and end up
raising their out-of-pocket expenses.
Then when it comes to the wealthiest people who are doing
phenomenally well, not only do our Republican colleagues not ask the
wealthiest people or the largest corporations to pay one nickel more in
taxes to help us with deficit reduction, they come up with this
brilliant idea that we are going to give $1 trillion in tax breaks over
a 10-year period to the wealthiest people in America. So the rich are
getting richer, and they get tax breaks. The middle class is shrinking,
and what they are asked to do is to assume huge cuts in programming
which will impact them very strongly.
This is clearly the Robin Hood proposal in reverse. We are taking
from working families who are hurting and giving it to the wealthiest
people who are doing phenomenally well. The Republican plan is clearly
absurd, and I think most Americans understand that.
The question is, What will the President do? What will the Democrats
do? It is my very strong hope Democrats will be strong on this issue.
The President has to be strong on this issue. The President has to go
out to the American people and win the support that is there for a
deficit reduction package of shared sacrifice. We need to say very
clearly to the American people: No, we are not going to move toward
deficit reduction solely on the backs of the most vulnerable people in
this country. No, we are not going to decimate Medicare so elderly
people will not be able to get the health care they need when they are
old and sick. No, we are not going to throw millions and millions of
people off of Medicaid and endanger families who have their parents in
nursing homes. We must have shared sacrifice. The wealthy and large
corporations must be involved and contribute toward deficit reduction.
There is a lot of responsibility on the President, but let me make it
very clear. I, personally, as a member of the Budget Committee and as a
Senator from Vermont, will not be supporting any package that does not
call for shared sacrifice.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President I have supported regulatory reform since
before my election to the Senate in 1978, to make regulations more
sensible and efficient while protecting the public's health and well-
being. The Snowe regulatory reform amendment would amend the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, RFA, to require that Federal agencies consider all
potential direct and ``indirect economic impacts'' of proposed
regulations. I will vote against this amendment because it is so broad
and undefined. Also, the Snowe amendment would give standing to seek
judicial review and seek injunction of a rulemaking while the rule is
still in its draft form and still receiving public comment. I am
concerned that such a change could paralyze the regulatory process, not
reform it.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as cosponsor of the Freedom Act, I
would like to add my voice to those who have spoken in its support.
But first I would like to thank Senator Snowe for her dedication and
hard work in support of the many small business owners across her state
and across the country who would benefit from this legislation.
As we all know, America's job creators are suffocating under
regulations and redtape.
The administration doesn't seem to realize that all its interference
has a human cost.
Businesses want to create jobs and help communities recover, but they
can't.
Whether it is new financial requirements, health care mandates,
energy mandates, onerous new fees, burdensome tax filing requirements,
or threats of higher taxes, businesses today are faced with so many new
rules and requirements from Washington that they can hardly see
straight.
The Freedom Act says enough is enough.
This regulatory reform amendment would help give small businesses
much-needed relief from the Federal government and its one-size-fits-
all approach.
Specifically, it would modernize the Regulatory Flexibility Act to
require that from now on, Federal agencies conduct a comprehensive and
careful analysis of the potential impacts--both direct and indirect--of
regulations on small businesses. It would make sure that the voices of
small business owners are heard in government agencies that frankly
don't seem to be listening to them.
This amendment has broad support from the small business community.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of
Independent Businesses have issued strong letters of support.
At a time when nearly 14 million Americans are looking for work, this
is exactly the kind of legislation that would help America's job
creators.
When I ask business owners what they want us to do to help them
create jobs, they usually have a simple five-word response: get out of
the way. That is what we are doing with this legislation.

[[Page S3654]]

And the only people who could possibly oppose it are those who think
the needs of bureaucrats in Washington are more important than the
needs of job creators everywhere else.
I thank Senator Snowe and Senator Coburn for their strong advocacy on
behalf of small businesses.
I intend to vote for this important amendment. I urge my colleagues
to do the same.

Amendment No. 390

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are working on a bill that is a jobs
bill, plain and simple. It does not have any fancy parts to it. It is a
reauthorization of a program that was set up in 1965. The purpose was
very clear: to go into areas in our States where the communities are
hurting for jobs, where the communities are hurting for business. It
works in a way that every $1 we put into the program attracts $7 of
private investment.
I will show you the job creation on some of these charts that we see.
At the $500 million funding level that is authorized in the bill, the
EDA is projected to create up to 200,000 jobs a year and over the life
of the bill up to 1 million jobs. It is done at a very low cost per
job. Mr. President, $3,000 per job is what it costs the Federal
taxpayers because of all the leverage that comes in as cities join in,
counties join in, and so on.
I have a list of projects we can talk about today. I have talked
about a number of projects that have been funded through the EDA over
the course of this debate in the last few days. I have talked about
them in California and Minnesota and I wish to add just a couple other
recent projects from across the country.
In California, EDA awarded $3 million to the Inland Valley
Development Agency in a county that is going through some tough times,
San Bernardino, to support the renovation of an existing building at
the former Norton Air Force Base. This project is going to help the
conversion of that base into a commercial and light industrial area,
attracting new companies that are interested in locating there.
This investment, funded by the Department of Defense Office of
Economic Adjustment and administered by EDA, is part of a $3.6 million
project that will create 100 jobs and generate $20 million in private
investment.
So here you have a $3 million investment that is going to be
leveraged to $20 million. It is pretty extraordinary, and this is the
bill we are talking about.
In Florida, the EDA awarded nearly $4 million to construct a new
wastewater system for western Palm Beach County. The region suffered
flooding in 2008 from Tropical Storms Hanna and Fay, which caused
environmental damage. It closed local businesses.
The construction is going to support three city industrial parks and
a general aviation airport, as well as a major inland port and
intermodal center that are being developed. That investment is part of
a $5.3 million project that will create 240 jobs, save 270 jobs, and
generate $48 million in private investment.
So a $4 million investment attracting $48 million in private
investment.
In Idaho, we have a very good example of a $4.4 million grant to the
College of Southern Idaho in Twin Falls to fund the construction of the
Applied Technology and Innovation Center. This new LEED-certified
facility will help the college meet the region's needs for a higher
skilled workforce. They will learn to operate computer-driven
manufacturing equipment, maintain alternative energy systems, and to
use environmentally sound construction processes for these green
buildings. This investment is part of a $6.9 million project that will
create 486 jobs.
In Indiana, EDA provided $2.4 million; in Kansas, $1.4 million to the
city of Hutchinson. I will go on with this in my remaining time that I
will have later.
But the point is, this is a jobs bill, and it is being hijacked by a
slew of amendments, and I see the handwriting on the wall. I have been
here long enough to know what is going on. There is no cooperation. We
have everything from the Snowe amendment to endangered species, dealing
with a chicken that somebody wants to take off the endangered species
list. I mean, I was not born yesterday, as you can tell. I know what is
happening. This is a dance. It is a slow dance. It, unfortunately,
signals to me maybe the slow death of this bill. I think that is very
sad, when you have a bill that has been supported by Republican
Presidents, Democratic Presidents over the years, and the last vote on
this floor was unanimous, in 2004--by unanimous consent--and George W.
Bush signed it. I have fought George W. Bush in a number of areas. He
and I saw eye to eye on this one. This is not controversial.
I hope we can dispose of this amendment. I will have more to say on
the amendment in a couple minutes.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Under the previous order, the
Senator from Maine has the next 5 minutes.
The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President.
I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is about
jobs. It is about small businesses. It is about the well-being of
American families. Just remember this: the stark numbers. The
unemployment rate is at 9.1 percent; the average over the last 2\1/2\
years, 9.4 percent. For 23 out of the last 28 months, unemployment has
been at 9 percent or higher. Housing prices are at the lowest level
since mid-2002. This is the longest recession since modern record-
keeping.
These are stark, grim numbers. What I am hearing here today is a
bureaucratic process and response, exactly what we are trying to
attack. This is not indiscriminate, as some have described on the other
side of the aisle about this regulatory reform measure. It is very
consistent.
I know the Senator from Louisiana was talking about several of the
issues. I would like to go through them.
First of all, she mentioned about the concerns of the judicial
review. But this provision is nearly identical to one that she and
Senator Cardin introduced in their own legislation in the 111th
Congress.
The Senator also was concerned with our tying budget cuts to the SBA
to this amendment as a way of paying for some of the costs of it. But,
to avoid controversy, we specifically selected as offsets, cuts in the
SBA that had been proposed by the Agency's Inspector General, and in
the President's very own budget.
The Senator from Louisiana talked about the problems associated with
considering indirect economic effects on small businesses when issuing
rules. But, for that provision we used the exact same language
suggested by the President's chief small business regulatory appointee,
the chief advocate at the Small Business Administration.
So this is not indiscriminate and some are mischaracterizing the
provisions in this legislation because they have not bothered to read
the amendment. I made a number of changes in order to address the
concerns on the other side. If there were further concerns, that we
could work through, I would have addressed those as well. So I think we
better make sure we get our facts straight because it is about small
businesses and jobs. That is what it is about. We are just stalling,
deferring, delaying.
We heard concerns that we did not have a hearing on my specific
amendment. Well, the Senate did not hold a hearing on it since I was
denied a vote on it on May 4. And the President came out a few days
later and said regulatory reform was one of the top four issues for
American economic growth and job creation.
Then we hear a bureaucratic conversation about hearings and multiple
jurisdictions and committees and committees. I have to say, I have
never known amendments to require hearings before they are considered
on the floor. In fact, I believe the Senator from California had 19
amendments in the last Congress--19 amendments--8 of which were
accepted and none had hearings. Yesterday we had a major amendment on
interchange. We did not have a hearing on that major issue.
I am just making a point. This is just bringing up issues to
obfuscate and obscure. I do not know exactly what the concern is, to be
honest with you. If there are some issues to address, then let's
address them. But to just postpone in conversation, debating--the talk
goes nowhere. There are no hearings. There is nothing.

[[Page S3655]]

The President scaled back regulations, as I said earlier in an effort
to spur economic growth, including some in the Environmental Protection
Agency. He did not undercut the Endangered Species Act. Nobody is
accusing him of scaling back every environmental law that has ever been
on the books.
I think we ought to get away from extreme mischaracterizations,
inaccuracies and untruths. Let's talk about the facts. Let's read the
bill. Let's know what we are talking about and get our facts straight.
This goes to the heart of economic growth. It goes to jobs.
It goes to the American people's well-being.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in my 5 minutes, here is what I wish to
say: Yes, I have offered many amendments on this floor, as have all my
colleagues. But if I see an amendment and colleagues see an amendment
that could hurt, we believe, the health of people, I am going to say,
yes, let's have a hearing.
I wish to show you a picture of a child with asthma. She is
beautiful. This is not a pretty picture.
I will show you another picture of a little boy with asthma. This is
also a beautiful child and a terrible picture.
Let me tell you, we are trying to protect these children. We are
trying to protect our families. We are trying to stop premature deaths.
How do we do it? Yes, we have regulations. Have they worked? You bet
they have. That is why I say, if you are going to change them, yes, I
hope we would look at--you know, everybody is motivated in the right
direction. Jobs? Absolutely. But I have to tell you, when you are sick,
you cannot go to work. If a breadwinner dies prematurely, the family is
destitute.
Let me show you just one act that would be impacted by this Snowe
amendment and why I think we ought to have an alternative amendment. If
you look at the study that was required by Congress, you find out that
in just 2010 alone, the Clean Air Act prevented 160,000 cases of
premature death; if you look at 2010 alone, 1.7 million fewer asthma
attacks; if you look at acute heart attacks prevented, 130,000.
What happens in the Snowe amendment: All you are going to look at is
the economic benefits, not the health benefits. It flies in the face of
common sense and our moral responsibility.
Here is what I see wrong with this amendment: It hurts protection for
families and communities. It stops or delays important protections for
those people. It ignores public health and safety benefits. It only
looks at the benefits of economics. Yes, we have to do that. But we
also need a balanced approach. As I said, if someone is sick and they
cannot go to work, they cannot keep a job.
It would also create additional, expensive litigation. The amendment
allows polluters to sue Federal agencies during the public comment
period on a proposed Federal safeguard that allows one polluter to hold
up an important, let's say, drinking water or clean air protection
standard for months, maybe years.
So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Let's get together and
come up with something that balances economic growth with the
protection of the health of our families.
I yield the floor and hope we would now go to a vote under the
previous order.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
All time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 390.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 87 Leg.]

YEAS--53

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kyl
Lee
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker

NAYS--46

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Stabenow
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Leahy

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are
46. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of the
amendment, the amendment is rejected.
Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made
and laid upon the table.
The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator McConnell and I discussed what we
should do the rest of the day. We have a number of Senators who have
come to both of us wanting to offer amendments. We think we need to
have people offer amendments so that we can find the universe of
amendments and work through them and come up with a reasonable way to
proceed forward.
Having said that, I want people to offer amendments on my side, and I
think Senator McConnell feels the same way on his side. We will make a
determination later today as to how we will proceed on this next week.
I think it would be fruitless at this stage to have a bunch of votes--
well, we need consent to do it, so I don't think there will be any more
votes this afternoon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.

Amendment No. 389

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment, and I call up my amendment No. 389.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl] proposes an amendment
numbered 389.

Mr. KOHL. 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 amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting
cartels illegal)

At the end of the bill, insert the following:

SEC. ___. NOPEC.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``No Oil
Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2011'' or ``NOPEC''.
(b) Sherman Act.--The Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) is
amended by adding after section 7 the following:

``SEC. 7A. OIL PRODUCING CARTELS.

``(a) In General.--It shall be illegal and a violation of
this Act for any foreign state, or any instrumentality or
agent of any foreign state, to act collectively or in
combination with any other foreign state, any instrumentality
or agent of any other foreign state, or any other person,
whether by cartel or any other association or form of
cooperation or joint action--
``(1) to limit the production or distribution of oil,
natural gas, or any other petroleum product;
``(2) to set or maintain the price of oil, natural gas, or
any petroleum product; or
``(3) to otherwise take any action in restraint of trade
for oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product;

when such action, combination, or collective action has a
direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the
market, supply, price, or distribution of oil, natural gas,
or other petroleum product in the United States.
``(b) Sovereign Immunity.--A foreign state engaged in
conduct in violation of subsection (a) shall not be immune
under the doctrine of sovereign immunity from the
jurisdiction or judgments of the courts of the United States
in any action brought to enforce this section.

[[Page S3656]]

``(c) Inapplicability of Act of State Doctrine.--No court
of the United States shall decline, based on the act of state
doctrine, to make a determination on the merits in an action
brought under this section.
``(d) Enforcement.--
``(1) In general.--The Attorney General of the United
States may bring an action to enforce this section in any
district court of the United States as provided under the
antitrust laws.
``(2) No private right of action.--No private right of
action is authorized under this section.''.
(c) Sovereign Immunity.--Section 1605(a) of title 28,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``or'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting
``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) in which the action is brought under section 7A of
the Sherman Act.''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside
the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 423

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 423.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for herself, Mr.
Barrasso, Mr. Burr, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Portman, Mr. Risch, and
Mr. Hatch, proposes an amendment numbered 423.

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)

On page _, between lines _ and _, insert the following:

SEC. __. 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, this amendment, I hope, will save our
businesses and our States the millions of dollars they are now spending
to implement the health care reform bill, which is in the courts.
Yesterday, the court in Atlanta--the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals--heard arguments from the government and the State about
whether the Florida District Court ruling that the health care law is
null and void because it is unconstitutional should be upheld. Since we
are in this court fight and this will surely go to the Supreme Court--
there is no doubt that either side that loses is going to appeal--my
amendment would put a moratorium on the implementation of the law. So
it would save the Federal Government and the taxpayers who are paying
for it, and it would save the State governments that are trying to
implement a law that may be unconstitutional and cost millions of
dollars to adjust their system and the businesses across our country
that are trying desperately to determine if they are going to be able
to even offer health insurance or if they want to offer health
insurance to their employees anymore.
We are in a time when there are unprecedented regulatory burdens on
our businesses. We are facing a $14 trillion national debt in this
country--trillion. We are looking at having to raise that debt limit if
we don't severely cut spending and get our house in order.
In the past 2 years alone, this Federal Government has borrowed an
additional $3.2 trillion. Washington passed a health care reform bill
that cost nearly $2.6 trillion and a stimulus bill that cost $821
billion, which has only given us higher unemployment since the stimulus
bill passed. The U.S. economy is frozen, job creators are facing new
levels of taxes, they are looking at this health insurance cost going
up and, on top of that, new regulations.
Heavyhanded government regulation is not what we need right now. The
health care reform bill is a perfect example of government regulations
hamstringing our businesses with more redtape and bureaucracy. It has
been over a year since that bill was passed, and businesses are still
facing unprecedented premium increases--as high as 20 percent.
Employers are finding their policies being canceled because insurers
are closing up shop due to new Federal regulations. Health care reform
is requiring individuals and businesses to buy government-approved
health care or they pay hefty fines. Health reform has discouraged
businesses from hiring, because if you go over 50 employees, new
Federal regulations that will be imposed on you are going to be costly.
A new study out this week confirms that health reform will not let
you keep your health plan, as promised. This report found that when
businesses fully understand all the new regulations required under
health reform, as many as half of them say they will definitely or
probably stop offering health insurance benefits to their employees.
That would leave as many as 78 million Americans on their own to find
health insurance for themselves and their families.
That is why I have filed amendment No. 423--to delay further
implementation of health reform until the courts determine whether it
is constitutional. My amendment would pause further implementation of
this law so we don't spend millions more taxpayer dollars at the
Federal and State levels, costing small businesses as well, when it
could be struck down.
Twenty-six States have joined together to sue the Federal Government,
and a Florida district court found in favor of these 26 States, saying
Congress had overstepped and overreached its authority and that
mandating individuals to purchase health insurance was
unconstitutional. The 11th Circuit Court, as I said earlier, is
considering this case as we speak and we should not burden any further
businesses, States and taxpayers who support the Federal Government
until we know if this law is constitutional. Let us put in place a
moratorium, a pause, so that no one gets penalized for not continuing
the implementation process. That is what my amendment would do. Let's
clarify, and then, if the law is constitutional, there is plenty of
time to go forward. But if it isn't, as I hope is the case, we will be
able to start all over. We would make health care more available and
more affordable in this country without cutting Medicare, overburdening
our taxpayers and businesses, and maybe even get our economy going and
stop this rising unemployment we are seeing in our country right now.
Nine percent unemployment is too high, and health care reform is a part
of the problem that is causing it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Amendments Nos. 417 and 418 En Bloc

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside, and that I be allowed to call up amendments
Nos. 417 and 418 en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Portman] proposes en bloc
amendments numbered 417 and 418.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
the reading of the amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:

[[Page S3657]]

Amendment No. 417

(Purpose: To provide for the inclusion of independent regulatory
agencies in the application of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.))

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. INCLUSION OF APPLICATION TO INDEPENDENT REGULATORY
AGENCIES.

(a) In General.--Section 421(1) of the Congressional Budget
and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658(1)) is
amended by striking ``, but does not include independent
regulatory agencies''.
(b) Exemption for Monetary Policy.--The Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) is amended by
inserting after section 5 the following:

``SEC. 6. EXEMPTION FOR MONETARY POLICY.

``Nothing in title II, III, or IV shall apply to rules that
concern monetary policy proposed or implemented by the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal
Open Market Committee.''.

Amendment No. 418

(Purpose: To amend the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C.
1501 et seq.) to strengthen the economic impact analyses for major
rules, require agencies to analyze the effect of major rules on jobs,
and require adoption of the least burdensome regulatory means)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM.

(a) Regulatory Impact Analyses for Certain Rules.--
(1) Regulatory impact analyses for certain rules.--Section
202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C.
1532) is amended--
(A) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 202. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSES FOR CERTAIN RULES.'';

(B) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections
(d) and (e), respectively;
(C) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `cost' means
the cost of compliance and any reasonably foreseeable
indirect costs, including revenues lost as a result of an
agency rule subject to this section.
``(b) In General.--Before promulgating any proposed or
final rule that may have an annual effect on the economy of
$100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation), or that may
result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more
(adjusted for inflation) in any 1 year, each agency shall
prepare and publish in the Federal Register an initial and
final regulatory impact analysis. The initial regulatory
impact analysis shall accompany the agency's notice of
proposed rulemaking and shall be open to public comment. The
final regulatory impact analysis shall accompany the final
rule.
``(c) Content.--The initial and final regulatory impact
analysis under subsection (b) shall include--
``(1)(A) an analysis of the anticipated benefits and costs
of the rule, which shall be quantified to the extent
feasible;
``(B) an analysis of the benefits and costs of a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives within the range of the
agency's discretion under the statute authorizing the rule,
including alternatives that--
``(i) require no action by the Federal Government; and
``(ii) use incentives and market-based means to encourage
the desired behavior, provide information upon which choices
can be made by the public, or employ other flexible
regulatory options that permit the greatest flexibility in
achieving the objectives of the statutory provision
authorizing the rule; and
``(C) an explanation that the rule meets the requirements
of section 205;
``(2) an assessment of the extent to which--
``(A) the costs to State, local and tribal governments may
be paid with Federal financial assistance (or otherwise paid
for by the Federal Government); and
``(B) there are available Federal resources to carry out
the rule;
``(3) estimates of--
``(A) any disproportionate budgetary effects of the rule
upon any particular regions of the Nation or particular
State, local, or tribal governments, urban or rural or other
types of communities, or particular segments of the private
sector; and
``(B) the effect of the rule on job creation or job loss,
which shall be quantified to the extent feasible; and
``(4)(A) a description of the extent of the agency's prior
consultation with elected representatives (under section 204)
of the affected State, local, and tribal governments;
``(B) a summary of the comments and concerns that were
presented by State, local, or tribal governments either
orally or in writing to the agency; and
``(C) a summary of the agency's evaluation of those
comments and concerns.'';
(D) in subsection (d) (as redesignated by paragraph (2) of
this subsection), by striking ``subsection (a)'' and
inserting ``subsection (b)''; and
(E) in subsection (e) (as redesignated by paragraph (2) of
this subsection), by striking ``subsection (a)'' each place
that term appears and inserting ``subsection (b)''.
(2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of
sections for the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is
amended by striking the item relating to section 202 and
inserting the following:

``Sec. 202. Regulatory impact analyses for certain rules.''.

(b) Least Burdensome Option or Explanation Required.--
Section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2
U.S.C. 1535) is amended by striking section 205 and inserting
the following:

``SEC. 205. LEAST BURDENSOME OPTION OR EXPLANATION REQUIRED.

``Before promulgating any proposed or final rule for which
a regulatory impact analysis is required under section 202,
the agency shall--
``(1) identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives within the range of the agency's
discretion under the statute authorizing the rule, including
alternatives required under section 202(b)(1)(B); and
``(2) from the alternatives described under paragraph (1),
select the least costly or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the statute.''.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, today we are considering a bill intended
to promote economic development, and I think it is only appropriate we
also talk about regulations, because, unfortunately, regulatory
mandates are stifling economic growth today and keeping us from
creating the jobs we so badly need.
I hear it all over my State, and I am sure my colleagues do as well.
Companies are saying they want to expand. They say: We have a good
idea, we have a business plan that works, but we are deterred by the
cost of complying with regulations. It is the redtape and also the
uncertainty. It is not just the bureaucracy and redtape, it is the
uncertainty about future regulations.
This regulatory burden on employers, by the way, is growing, and it
is already a mess. There is a recent study commissioned by the Small
Business Administration and the Obama administration which estimates
the annual toll now of Federal regulations on the American economy is
$1.75 trillion. That is more than the IRS collects in income taxes in a
year. With the unemployment rate now at 9.1 percent, we can't continue
to ask businesses to spend more on redtape. Instead, we want them to
invest in job creation.
The current administration, unfortunately, I believe, is moving in
the wrong direction on this score. We have seen a sharp increase over
the past couple of years in new ``major'' or ``economically
significant'' rules. These are regulations that impose a cost on the
economy of $100 million or more.
According to the Office of Management and Budget, the Obama
administration has been regulating at a pace of 84 of these new
``major'' or ``economically significant'' rules--costing the economy
over $100 million--per year, including rules issued by independent
agencies. By the way, that is about a 50-percent increase over the
regulatory output during the Clinton administration, which was about 56
major rules per year.
I was very encouraged by the words of President Obama as he
introduced his January Executive order on improving regulation and
regulatory review, but now we need action. We need to be sure the
agencies are actually taking the measures necessary to provide
regulatory relief for job creators and reducing this drag on our
economy.
One commonsense step we can take now is to strengthen a piece of
legislation that is already in place. It is called the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act. It was passed by Congress and signed into law by
President Clinton in 1995. It was bipartisan legislation. I was one of
the authors of this legislation in the House of Representatives. UMRA,
as it is called--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act--was a bipartisan effort
basically to say that regulators had to evaluate a rule's cost and find
less costly alternatives before adopting one of these so-called
``major'' rules.
The two amendments I am offering today would improve UMRA in a way
that is entirely consistent with the principles President Obama himself
laid out in his January Executive order on regulatory review. The first
amendment, 418, would require agencies specifically to assess the
potential effects of new regulations on job creation and to consider
market-based and nongovernmental alternatives to the regulation. It
would also broaden the scope of UMRA to require cost-benefit analysis
of rules that impose direct or indirect economic costs of $100 million
or more. It would require agencies to

[[Page S3658]]

adopt the least costly or least burdensome regulatory option that
achieves the policy goal set out by this Congress. A commonsense idea.
The second amendment, 417, would extend UMRA to independent agencies.
In 1995, it was imposed upon the executive agencies but not on
independent agencies. Those independent agencies have grown, and so
have their regulations. This would be an agency such as the SEC--the
Securities and Exchange Commission--or the CFTC or even the new
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has gotten a lot of
attention here in the Senate in the debate over the Dodd-Frank Act.
Right now they are exempted from the cost-benefit rules that govern all
these other Federal agencies.
Major rules issued by what is called the ``headless fourth branch''
of government are not even reviewed for cost-benefit justification by
OIRA, which is the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB
which reviews regulations from all the other agencies.
Based on information from the GAO, it now appears that between 1996
and this year independent agencies issued nearly 200 regulations that
had an impact of $100 million or more on the economy. So again, over
200 regulations were not subject to review under UMRA because they were
from independent agencies. There is a clear need to extend UMRA to
these independent agencies. Closing this loophole is a sensible reform.
By the way, this reform was endorsed by the President's own
regulatory czar, Professor Cass Sunstein, who wrote in a 2002 law
review article that it only made sense to require independent agencies
to undertake the same cost-benefit analysis that we require of
executive agencies.
No major regulation, whatever its source, should be imposed on
American employees or on State and local governments without serious
consideration of what the costs are, what the benefits are, and whether
there is available a less burdensome alternative. That is what these
amendments are all about. Both would move us further toward that goal,
and I urge my colleagues to support them both.
Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 428

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise to speak to amendment No. 428 on
the regulation of mortgage servicing. We spend a lot of time in
Washington talking about many topics but often not getting to the issue
most important to American citizens; that is, getting them back to
work, creating jobs. Creating jobs should be the paramount concern of
every person in this town. We are not going to get job growth going
again until we deal with the housing crisis that started this recession
and that is blocking our recovery.
Three years ago, our economy was nearly destroyed by a combination of
high-risk, high-cost subprime mortgages and reckless bets on Wall
Street. Since then we fixed many of those problems in subprime
mortgages. We have ended three of the key predatory practices. One of
those was undocumented loans, otherwise known, commonly, as ``liar
loans,'' where the information was fictionalized.
Then we had the prepayment penalty. It was a steel trap in which a
mortgage document would lock people into a loan with an exploding
interest rate and would prevent them from being able to get out of that
loan. We knew from a Wall Street Journal study that 60 percent of the
families in these predatory loans with the steel trap prepayment
penalties qualified for regular, ordinary, fully amortizing 30-year
prime loans.
That leads us to the third point, which was the undisclosed bonuses,
otherwise known as steering payments or kickbacks, that were paid to
mortgage originators when they steered families from the prime loan
with a fair interest rate and 30-year amortization into the predatory
subprime loan with an exploding interest rate and a steel trap
prepayment penalty.
It is good that we ended those practices for the future. But for the
families who have been caught up in the flood of foreclosures, it is as
though we rebuilt the levees but we have not done anything to take away
the water that is still flooding their living rooms.
Just last week, new reports, the Case-Shiller Index, showed that home
prices have reached their lowest level since 2002. If home prices are
that low, it is also hard to build new homes. Indeed, a recent report
said the number of new homes being built each month had reached the
lowest level since 1965--that is almost 50 years ago. Simply, our
economy is not going to recover until our housing market recovers. A
home is the single biggest investment that most families make, and it
is the key to their financial success. It is often the key to happiness
in retirement.
In addition to the impact on millions of families--and we are looking
at the possibility of 5 to 8 million more families facing foreclosure
stemming from this predatory lending crisis that melted down our
economy in 2008 and 2009--in addition to the impact on those families,
it has an impact on our communities. When there is an empty house on
the street, it pulls down the value of every other home on that street
by as much as $2,000 to $5,000 per home. That further drives down
prices, which means more foreclosures, more families underwater, less
confidence in the recovery, more inclination to hold onto every dollar
rather than to spend in our economy, so the consumer spending is
suppressed and our GDP is directly linked, both to the amount of money
invested--and we know many companies around America are sitting on vast
sums rather than investing them--and on the amount of money families
spend.
These things all tie together, whether our economy is going to
succeed or remain in its current paralyzed shape. Often it is important
to take these big numbers and translate them to individual stories. I
would like to share today a story about Tim Colette and his son in my
State of Oregon. We received this article from Economic Fairness
Oregon. It is titled, ``A Homecoming With No Home.'' I will read the
first paragraph. Mr. Colette says:

My biggest problem now is, my son comes home from the
military in August and my home is being foreclosed on in 18
days. He's been hit by an IED, people shooting at him and he
just wanted to come home and sleep in his room in his bed and
be safe for 15 days . . . and I told him I'd make that
happen. I don't know how yet, but I will.

Mr. Colette shared his story with Oregon lawmakers in a recent
hearing on foreclosure reform, and I thank him for sharing his story.
For Tim and countless others, it did not need to be this bad. We have a
program in America called the Mortgage Modification Program, or HAMP,
Housing Affordable Modification Program. That program has not worked
very well. Indeed, it is a voluntary program. It has been more or less
a nightmare for the families who have been applying.
Often a servicer will encourage families to apply because they make
more money when a family is behind on their payments than when they are
current on their payments. So often the servicer will say: You know,
you probably qualify. What you need to do is stop making your payments
for a period of 3 months or maybe 6 months or what you need to do is
cut your payments in half and that will show financial distress and you
will qualify for this program.
So the family follows those directions, understands they are in the
process of getting a modification, and then it turns out the servicer
has a different story to tell, often saying: You know what. Your credit
score is not very good because you have only been making half payments
for 6 months. So, you know what, you don't qualify after all, and you
owe us a lot of money. If you do not pay us, we are foreclosing.
That is the nightmare of a program that was supposed to help families
but has often hurt families. Mr. Colette's story is one of these
stories of going through the difficulty of this program. He bought his
home in 2006. At the time it seemed like a great investment for him and
his son, especially considering that he was in a position to put down
more than $100,000 as a downpayment. It is a situation that very few

[[Page S3659]]

families can emulate. He was able to afford his mortgage payments quite
easily within his income.
But when Wall Street's bad bets sparked the national recession,
everything changed. He lives in one of the hardest hit areas of the
State of Oregon, Deschutes County, and the construction industry dried
up overnight and therefore his business, his construction business,
dried up overnight. He called his mortgage servicer to begin the
mortgage modification process, and he did what the bank asked him to.
At the time the bank extracted partial payments, actually for years,
on the false hope that Tim could receive a long-term fix. So month
after month his equity, that original $100,000 downpayment, was
siphoned away. It was siphoned away through bank fees, it was siphoned
away through declining property values, until there was nothing left.
Had his request for a modification been processed promptly, either he
would have been approved or denied. If he would have been approved, it
would have been great. It would have locked in his payments, and he
could have continued with that fine financial foundation. If he had
been denied, he would have had the ability to say: I have to make a
decision then. Do I put this home up for a short sale? Do I put it up
on the market and try to sell it for what is owed to the bank? He would
have had some savings left over to pick up and start over.
Tim did all that was right and he played by the rules, but he is in a
precarious position today. In just 9 weeks, his son, serving our
country overseas, will come home. Let's hope it is a homecoming with a
home, not a homecoming without a home.
This amendment does three important things: The first is, it
establishes a single point of contact so when a family talks to their
servicer they do not have to start from scratch every single time,
explaining their story. With that single point of contact there will be
somebody who has a coherent file. So often, each time a family talked
to a different person at the servicer, that person had lost the file or
lost key papers in the file or was sent additional information that had
been requested but did not put it into the file. So a single coherent
point of contact.
Second, this amendment ends the dual track on which servicers proceed
to pursue foreclosure at the same time they are talking to the customer
about a modification. Very simply, this amendment would set aside that
dual track, that foreclosure track, until they make a decision. They
can make it over a longer period of time, over a shorter period of
time, but until they make the decision and tell the customer, they set
aside the foreclosure track. That would reduce a lot of the stress, a
lot of the confusion, a lot of the enormous frustration that families
face.
The third point in this amendment is that it requires a third-party
review before a servicer sends a home into foreclosure. That simply
guarantees that the law has been followed, that there was a coherent
examination of the paperwork and a foreclosure is in order at the same
time a modification has been approved or a foreclosure is in order at
the same time a modification is on the verge of being approved or that
a foreclosure doesn't proceed because a document is missing from the
file. Connecticut and Maine have such a program, and it has kept 60
percent of the families who would otherwise be out of their houses in
their houses. So three basic, fundamental reforms.

I wish to thank my Republican cosponsor, Olympia Snowe, who stepped
forward on behalf of homeowners across this Nation to say yes to
fairness. I also thank the other dozen or so Senators who in the last
day have signed up as cosponsors. Many of them have been real champions
in their States, and some of them have worked very hard on these
issues, including Senator Reid and Senator Whitehouse. In fact, I would
note that Senators Akaka, Blumenthal, Durbin, Inouye, Levin, McCaskill,
Sanders, Shaheen, Whitehouse, and Wyden, and I imagine many more will
join us.
I encourage my colleagues to support fundamental fairness: single
point of contact and a foreclosure dual track and have a third-party
review so that homeowners get a chance, like Mr. Colette, to stay in
their homes.
Thank you, Madam President.

Amendments Nos. 411 and 412 En Bloc

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up amendments Nos. 411 and 412.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. MERKLEY. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent request is pending.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I still ask unanimous consent to call up
both amendments. It is my understanding amendments are allowed, but if
there are some amendments that are not allowed, I think we ought to
understand that. I understand the strength of the ethanol lobby, but
there was an agreement that amendments would be allowed to be called
up. If that is not the case, then I would obviously have to resort to
other parliamentary measures.
So I repeat my unanimous consent request to set aside the pending
amendment and call up both amendments, Nos. 411 and 412.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes amendments
en bloc numbered 411 and 412.

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

Amendment No. 411

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of Federal funds to construct ethanol
blender pumps or ethanol storage facilities)

At the end of the bill, add the following:

SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO CONSTRUCT
ETHANOL BLENDER PUMPS OR ETHANOL STORAGE
FACILITIES.

Effective beginning on the date of enactment of this Act,
no funds made available by Federal law (including funds in
any trust fund to which funds are made by Federal law) shall
be expended for the construction of an ethanol blender pump
or an ethanol storage facility.

Amendment No. 412

(Purpose: To repeal the wage rate requirements commonly
known as the Davis-Bacon Act)
On page _, between lines _ and _, insert the following:

SEC. __. REPEAL OF DAVIS-BACON WAGE REQUIREMENTS.

(a) In General.--Subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40,
United States Code, is repealed.
(b) Reference.--Any reference in any law to a wage
requirement of subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40,
United States Code, shall after the date of the enactment of
this Act be null and void.
(c) Effective Date and Limitation.--The amendments made by
this section shall not affect any contract in existence on
the date of enactment of this Act or made pursuant to
invitation for bids outstanding on such date of enactment.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I will be brief in discussing both of
the amendments.
The first amendment, amendment No. 411, is a simple amendment that
would prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture from funding the
construction of ethanol blender pumps or ethanol storage facilities,
which is the latest effort on the part of the ethanol lobby to take
more and more of U.S. taxpayers' dollars.
I would remind my colleagues that taxpayers have already provided
billions of dollars to ethanol producers over the last 30 years. Last
year alone, the ethanol tax credit cost the taxpayers $6 billion. In
the final hours of the last Congress, the ethanol tax credit was
extended for an additional year and will likely cost taxpayers an
additional $5 billion to $6 billion this year. Seeking to double-dip in
the Federal Treasury, advocates for the ethanol industry are seeking
taxpayer support for infrastructure for ethanol such as blender pumps
and storage facilities.
The Department of Agriculture was happy to comply with the industry's
request to fund infrastructure construction. On April 8, 2001, the
Secretary of Agriculture issued a rule that--get this--would classify
blender pumps as a renewable energy system. In other words, pumps are
now a renewable energy system, which would qualify it for funding under
the Rural Energy Assistance Program.

[[Page S3660]]

There is no one--no one--who believed the Rural Energy Assistance
Program would apply to putting ethanol pumps and storage facilities in
gas stations. When Congress created the Rural Energy Assistance
Program, it didn't have any intention of paying gas station owners to
upgrade their infrastructure and further subsidize the ethanol
industry.
According to the USDA, an ethanol blender pump and tank could cost an
average of $100,000 to $120,000 to install. With over 200,000 fuel
pumps currently operating in the United States, it would cost over $20
billion to convert them all--a corporate welfare project of significant
proportions.
I might point out that an amendment similar to this was
overwhelmingly supported in the other body during the consideration of
H.R. 1 by a vote of 261 to 158.
It is time we stop this. I am a well-known opponent of ethanol
subsidies to start with because it has never been of any value. It has
distorted the market, and it has been an incredible waste of taxpayers'
dollars. But now they want to go further by having us pay as much as
$20 billion so they can install, under the Rural Energy Assistance
Program, blender pumps and storage facilities.
So the ethanol advocates today have issued a release opposing this
amendment because it would enforce the foreign oil mandate over our
transportation fuels marketplace by blocking a job-creating effort to
promote the installation of flex pumps. So now this is all about jobs.
We want to create jobs by spending taxpayers' dollars to build pumps.
I hope my colleagues will take a look at this and support this
amendment.
The other amendment, amendment No. 412, basically eliminates Davis-
Bacon requirements from this legislation. The issue of Davis-Bacon is
well known. All it would do is, in my view, reduce costs by some 60
percent from market rates if we are indeed not imposing Davis-Bacon Act
requirements.
While I am on the floor, I wish to mention to my colleagues that as
we face increasing costs at the gas pump of $4 or more--there are
predictions that the cost of gasoline and a barrel of oil will continue
to increase--this administration continues to reject nuclear power in
every possible way.
Yesterday, a House committee released the latest evidence detailing
the administration's mishandling of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste
repository, providing further examples of this administration's
blatantly political decision to terminate the Yucca Mountain project
and close the facility.
I quote from the committee report:

Despite the President's continued assertions that his
nuclear waste management policy decisions would be driven by
sound science, the administration has repeatedly refused to
provide a scientific or technical justification for its
shutdown decision, instead simply stating that Yucca is not a
workable option.

This coincides with an April 2011 GAO study that reported:

DOE decided to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository
program because, according to the Department of Energy
officials, it is not a workable option and there are better
solutions that can achieve a broader national consensus. DOE
did not cite technical or safety issues.

There is a simple reason that neither Department of Energy Secretary
Chu nor any other member of the administration has put forth a single
scientific justification on the decision not to move forward with Yucca
Mountain--because there is none.
When the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board rejected the
Department of Energy's request to withdraw the license application, it
noted:

Conceding that the Application is not flawed nor the site
unsafe, the Secretary of Energy seeks to withdraw the
Application with prejudice as a ``matter of policy'' because
the Nevada site ``is not a workable option.''

In fact, according to the House report, the NRC staff review of DOE's
Yucca Mountain license application agreed overwhelmingly with the
Department of Energy on the scientific and technical issues associated
with the site, ultimately concluding that the application complies with
applicable Nuclear Regulatory Commission safety regulations necessary
for the site to proceed to licensing for construction.
The political interference orchestrated by the administration comes
with a very real cost. As of 2010, the taxpayers have spent $15 billion
to research and develop the Yucca Mountain site.
In addition, even while the administration is attempting to terminate
the place, the energy industry and therefore the ratepayers are still
contributing to the Nuclear Waste Fund that was established to pay for
a nuclear waste repository. According to the Congressional Budget
Office, the Nuclear Waste Fund is holding over $25 billion of
ratepayers' money. To date, no one has stated whether the energy
industry or the ratepayers will be refunded those fees, and it is
likely the taxpayer will end up footing the bill for the lawsuits filed
against the Federal Government by those who have been unfairly charged.
The need for a permanent waste repository remains clear. In fact, a
draft subcommittee report from the President's blue ribbon commission
on nuclear waste stated that ``permanent disposal of nuclear waste is
needed under all reasonably foreseeable scenarios'' and that ``we do
not believe that new technology developments in the next three to four
decades will change the underlying need for a storage strategy
combining interim sites with progress toward a permanent facility,''
thereby completely refuting statements by the administration that
technology and temporary storage sites are a sufficient replacement for
permanent disposal. In fact, the administration and the Secretary of
Energy himself have publicly stated that our most promising technology
to lessen the burden of storage--waste reprocessing--is not even being
considered as a viable option for addressing waste-storage needs.
Unfortunately, it has been reported that members of the commission have
been told that under no circumstances are they allowed to recommend
Yucca Mountain as a permanent waste repository--regardless of where the
scientific evidence leads them.
According to the Government Accountability Office, the termination of
Yucca Mountain would set back the opening of a new geologic repository
by at least 20 years and cost billions of dollars. Of course, these
billions would be in addition to the $15 billion taxpayers have already
spent to research and develop the Yucca Mountain site. It is really a
sad day when we allow politics or political influence to cause us to
allow at least $15 billion of the taxpayers' money to be wasted and to
really doom, to a large degree, the future of nuclear power in this
country.
We need to have energy self-sufficiency. I believe in wind. I believe
in tide. I believe in solar. But nuclear power must be a part of any
equation if we are going to be truly energy independent. And by closing
Yucca Mountain and by wasting already $15 billion of the taxpayers'
money, we have made that goal much, much harder to reach.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

Amendment No. 440

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside
the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 440 that is at the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant editor of the Daily Digest read as follows:

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Merkley] proposes an amendment
numbered 440.

Mr. MERKLEY. 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 require the Secretary of Energy to establish an Energy
Efficiency Loan Program under which the Secretary shall make funds
available to States to support financial assistance provided by
qualified financing entities for making qualified energy efficiency or
renewable efficiency improvements)

At the end of the bill, add the following:

SEC. __. LOW-COST ENERGY EFFICIENCY LOANS.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Eligible participant.--The term ``eligible
participant'' means a homeowner who receives financial
assistance from a qualified financing entity to carry out
energy efficiency or renewable energy improvements to an
existing home or other residential building of the homeowner
listed under subsection (d).

[[Page S3661]]

(2) Program.--The term ``program'' means the Energy
Efficiency Loan Program established under subsection (b).
(3) Qualified financing entity.--The term ``qualified
financing entity'' means a State, political subdivision of a
State, tribal government, electric utility, natural gas
utility, nonprofit or community-based organization, energy
service company, retailer, or any other qualified entity
that--
(A) meets the eligibility requirements of this section; and
(B) is designated by the Governor of a State.
(4) Qualified loan program mechanism.--The term ``qualified
loan program mechanism'' means a loan program that is--
(A) administered by a qualified financing entity; and
(B) principally funded--
(i) by funds provided by or overseen by a State; or
(ii) through the energy loan program of the Federal
National Mortgage Association.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Energy.
(b) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish an Energy
Efficiency Loan Program under which the Secretary shall make
funds available to States to support financial assistance
provided by qualified financing entities for making qualified
energy efficiency or renewable efficiency improvements listed
under subsection (d).
(c) Eligibility of Qualified Financing Entities.--To be
eligible to participate in the program, a qualified financing
entity shall--
(1) offer a financing product under which eligible
participants may pay over time for the cost to the eligible
participant (after all applicable Federal, State, local, and
other rebates or incentives are applied) of making
improvements listed under subsection (d);
(2) require all financed improvements to be performed by
contractors in a manner that meets minimum standards
established by the Secretary; and
(3) establish standard underwriting criteria to determine
the eligibility of program applicants, which criteria shall
be consistent with--
(A) with respect to unsecured consumer loan programs,
standard underwriting criteria used under the energy loan
program of the Federal National Mortgage Association; or
(B) with respect to secured loans or other forms of
financial assistance, commercially recognized best practices
applicable to the form of financial assistance being provided
(as determined by the designated entity administering the
program in the State).
(d) Qualified Energy Efficiency or Renewable Energy
Improvements.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish a list of
energy efficiency or renewable energy improvements to
existing homes that qualify under the program.
(e) Allocation.--In making funds available to States for
each fiscal year under this section, the Secretary shall use
the formula used to allocate funds to States to carry out
State energy conservation plans established under part D of
title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42
U.S.C. 6321 et seq.).
(f) Qualified Financing Entities.--Before making funds
available to a State under this section, the Secretary shall
require the Governor of the State to provide to the Secretary
a letter of assurance that the State--
(1) has 1 or more qualified financing entities that meet
the requirements of this section;
(2) has established a qualified loan program mechanism
that--
(A) includes a methodology to ensure credible energy
savings or renewable energy generation;
(B) incorporates an effective repayment mechanism, which
may include--
(i) on-utility-bill repayment;
(ii) tax assessment or other form of property assessment
financing;
(iii) municipal service charges;
(iv) energy or energy efficiency services contracts;
(v) energy efficiency power purchase agreements;
(vi) unsecured loans applying the underwriting requirements
of the energy loan program of the Federal National Mortgage
Association; or
(vii) alternative contractual repayment mechanisms that
have been demonstrated to have appropriate risk mitigation
features; and
(C) will provide, in a timely manner, all information
regarding the administration of the program as the Secretary
may require to permit the Secretary to meet the reporting
requirements of subsection (i).
(g) Use of Funds.--Funds made available to States under the
program may be used to support financing products offered by
qualified financing entities to eligible participants for
eligible energy efficiency work, by providing--
(1) interest rate reductions;
(2) loan loss reserves or other forms of credit
enhancement;
(3) revolving loan funds from which qualified financing
entities may offer direct loans; or
(4) other debt instruments or financial products
necessary--
(A) to maximize leverage provided through available funds;
and
(B) to support widespread deployment of energy efficiency
finance programs.
(h) Use of Repayment Funds.--In the case of a revolving
loan fund established by a State described in subsection
(g)(3), a qualified financing entity may use funds repaid by
eligible participants under the program to provide financial
assistance for additional eligible participants to make
improvements listed under subsection (d) in a manner that is
consistent with this section or other such criteria as are
prescribed by the State.
(i) Program Evaluation.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a program evaluation that describes--
(1) how many eligible participants have participated in the
program;
(2) how many jobs have been created through the program,
directly and indirectly;
(3) what steps could be taken to promote further deployment
of energy efficiency and renewable energy retrofits;
(4) the quantity of verifiable energy savings, homeowner
energy bill savings, and other benefits of the program; and
(5) the performance of the programs carried out by
qualified financing entities under this section, including
information on the rate of default and repayment.
(j) Credit Support for Financing Programs.--Section 1705 of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16516) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Energy efficiency projects, including projects to
retrofit residential, commercial, and industrial buildings,
facilities, and equipment, including financing programs that
finance the retrofitting of residential, commercial, and
industrial buildings, facilities, and equipment.''.
(2) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
``(e) Credit Support for Financing Programs.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of programs that finance the
retrofitting of residential, commercial, and industrial
buildings, facilities, and equipment described in subsection
(a)(4), the Secretary may--
``(A) offer loan guarantees for portfolios of debt
obligations; and
``(B) purchase or make commitments to purchase portfolios
of debt obligations.
``(2) Term.--Notwithstanding section 1702(f), the term of
any debt obligation that receives credit support under this
subsection shall require full repayment over a period not to
exceed the lesser of--
``(A) 30 years; and
``(B) the projected weighted average useful life of the
measure or system financed by the debt obligation or
portfolio of debt obligations (as determined by the
Secretary).
``(3) Underwriting.--The Secretary may--
``(A) delegate underwriting responsibility for portfolios
of debt obligations under this subsection to financial
institutions that meet qualifications determined by the
Secretary; and
``(B) determine an appropriate percentage of loans in a
portfolio to review in order to confirm sound underwriting.
``(4) Administration.--Subsections (c) and (d)(3) of
section 1702 and subsection (c) of this section shall not
apply to loan guarantees made under this subsection.''.
(k) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section and the
amendments made by this section such sums as are necessary.

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at the
conclusion of the presentation by the junior Senator from Oklahoma I be
recognized as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oklahoma.

Amendment No. 436

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside and I call up amendment No. 436.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, the clerk will report.
The assistant editor of the Daily Digest read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 436.

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, 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:

Beginning on page 17, strike line 14 and all that follows
through page 18, line 10, and insert the following:
(a) Brightfields Demonstration Program.--Section 218 of the
Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.
3154d) is repealed.
(b) Termination of Global Climate Change Mitigation
Incentive Fund.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall
terminate the Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund
of the Department of Commerce.

[[Page S3662]]

Amendment No. 436, as Modified

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, as a matter of right, I ask that my
amendment be modified with the changes I now send to the desk. Further,
I make the point that I retain my right to the floor after the
modification is made under the precedents of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to modify the
amendment.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To repeal the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit)

At the end, add the following:

SEC. ___. REPEAL OF VEETC.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act''.
(b) Repeal of VEETC.--
(1) Elimination of excise tax credit or payment.--
(A) Section 6426(b)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
is amended by striking ``December 31, 2011'' and inserting
``the later of June 30, 2011, or the date of the enactment of
the Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act)''.
(B) Section 6427(e)(6)(A) of such Code is amended by
striking ``December 31, 2011'' and inserting ``the later of
June 30, 2011, or the date of the enactment the Ethanol
Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act''.
(2) Elimination of income tax credit.--The table contained
in section 40(h)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended--
(A) by striking ``2011'' and inserting ``the later of June
30, 2011, or the date of the enactment of the Ethanol Subsidy
and Tariff Repeal Act'', and
(B) by adding at the end the following:

``After such date................................. zero zero''.

(3) Repeal of deadwood.--
(A) Section 40(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended by striking paragraph (3).
(B) Section 6426(b)(2) of such Code is amended by striking
subparagraph (C).
(4) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to any sale, use, or removal for any period after
the later of June 30, 2011, or the date of the enactment of
the Act.
(c) Removal of Tariffs on Ethanol.--
(1) Duty-free treatment.--Chapter 98 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by adding at
the end the following new subchapter:

``Subchapter XXIII
Alternative Fuels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rates of Duty
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Heading/ Article Description 1
Subheading ------------------------------------------------ 2
General Special
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9823.01.01 Ethyl alcohol Free Free 20%''.
(provided for in
subheadings
2207.10.60 and
2207.20) or any
mixture containing
such ethyl alcohol
(provided for in
heading 2710 or 3824)
if such ethyl alcohol
or mixture is to be
used as a fuel or in
producing a mixture
of gasoline and
alcohol, a mixture of
a special fuel and
alcohol, or any other
mixture to be used as
fuel (including motor
fuel provided for in
subheading
2710.11.15,
2710.19.15 or
2710.19.21), or is
suitable for any such
uses.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Conforming amendments.--Subchapter I of chapter 99 of
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is
amended--
(A) by striking heading 9901.00.50; and
(B) by striking U.S. notes 2 and 3.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
apply to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for
consumption, on or after the later of June 30, 2011, or the
date of the enactment of this Act.

Cloture Motion

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I now send a cloture motion to the desk
on the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending
amendment No. 436, as modified, to S. 782.

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the names be
waived.
Mr. MERKLEY. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, John McCain, Richard Burr, David
Vitter, Kelly Ayotte, Scott P. Brown, James E. Risch,
James M. Inhofe, Bob Corker, Michael B. Enzi, Johnny
Isakson, John Barrasso, Lamar Alexander, John Cornyn,
Jeff Sessions.

Mr. COBURN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask my colleague, my senior Senator
from Oklahoma--who I do not think is on the floor right now--to allow
time for Senator Brown to bring up an amendment.
I yield to him at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I thank the Senator who
spoke before me.

Amendment No. 405

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment
be set aside in order to call up amendment No. 405.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant editor of the Daily Digest read as follows:

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Brown], for himself and
Ms. Snowe, proposes an amendment numbered 405.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, 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 repeal the imposition of withholding on certain payments
made to vendors by government entities, and for other purposes)

At the end, add the following:

SEC. ___. REPEAL OF IMPOSITION OF WITHHOLDING ON CERTAIN
PAYMENTS MADE TO VENDORS BY GOVERNMENT
ENTITIES.

(a) In General.--The amendment made by section 511 of the
Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 is
repealed and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be
applied as if such amendment had never been enacted.
(b) Rescission of Unspent Federal Funds to Offset Loss in
Revenues.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, of all available unobligated funds, $39,000,000,000 in
appropriated discretionary funds are hereby permanently
rescinded.
(2) Implementation.--The Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall determine and identify from which
appropriation accounts the rescission under paragraph (1)
shall apply and the amount of such rescission that shall
apply to each such account. Not later than 60 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget shall submit a report to the
Secretary of the Treasury and Congress of the accounts and
amounts determined and identified for rescission under the
preceding sentence.
(3) Exception.--This subsection shall not apply to the
unobligated funds of the Department of Defense or the
Department of Veterans Affairs.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Thank you, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Amendment No. 436, as Modified

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I want to discuss for a minute the
modification to my amendment.
Corn prices today are at their highest level since 1974. Corn supply
is at its lowest level since 1974. We have tremendous problems with
food inflation in this country. What we put forward this afternoon is a
modification to the blending tax credit, as well as the import tax fee
on ethanol, and we look

[[Page S3663]]

forward to that debate as we go forward.
The Federal Government now spends $6 billion a year paying over 40
cents a gallon to have ethanol blended, which is already mandated by
law that they have to blend it anyway. So this, in essence, will save
$3 billion this year for the Federal Government.
No. 2 is, it will take significant pressure off corn prices, which
will lower food prices both here and abroad.
With that, I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma, who wishes to speak
as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment for consideration of the following three amendments:
Nos. 429, 430, and 438.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I reserve the right to object.
I ask the Senator if he can hold off for a moment. We wish to consult
with the chairwoman.
Mr. INHOFE. All right. While I am holding off, it is my understanding
that some of the rest of them are getting in the queue, and I am trying
to get these three in with the same treatment that has been afforded
those before me.

Amendments Nos. 430 and 438

Madam President, I amend my previous request and ask unanimous
consent to set the pending amendment aside for the consideration of two
of the amendments, Nos. 430 and 438.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, the clerk will report.
The assistant editor of the Daily Digest read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an
amendment numbered 430.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, 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 reduce amounts authorized to be appropriated)

On page 27, line 6, strike ``$500,000,000'' and insert
``$300,000,000''.

The assistant editor of the Daily Digest read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], for himself, Mr.
Blunt, Mr. Johanns, and Mr. Cochran, proposes an amendment
numbered 438.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask by unanimous consent that I be
allowed to speak as in morning business, which I know the Chair will
honor.
However, I want to mention one of these two amendments. I think it is
very significant. It is somewhat similar, I think, to the amendment
offered by the senior Senator from Maine. What it has to do with is
these various regulations, and actually most of these are coming from
the Environmental Protection Agency.
One of the serious problems we have in the committee on which I am
the ranking member, the Environment and Public Works Committee--that is
chaired by Senator Boxer from California--we have oversight over the
Environmental Protection Agency, and we have been watching what has
been happening in the last several months. Many of the things they have
been trying to get through, they have been unable to get through
legislation here on the floor of this Senate, so they are trying to do
the very things they are unable to get done through legislation by
regulation. And these are very expensive.
Right now, we have a problem with our economy. We have overregulation
that is killing a lot of the businesses that are out there. What I am
trying to do is an amendment--and that is what amendment No. 438 is--to
get it into the Record. The bill sets up a committee to assess the
effects of the EPA's regulatory mandates, including key provisions of
the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Solid Waste Disposal
Act. This would include greenhouse gas regulations, Boiler MACT,
Utility MACT, ozone and particulate matter standards, coal ash
disposal, and water discharge requirements.
The assessment includes an evaluation of the cumulative effects of
the EPA's mandates on employment, economic development, and this type
of thing.
It does not otherwise modify or affect the statute. The reason I wish
to have this in here is we have now quantified what it is costing the
American people in terms of employment, in terms of dollars, and just--
greenhouse gas, for example. We know that the costs, if they do
anything like the cap and trade that they have tried to do through
legislation--and that is exactly what they are attempting to do right
now through regulations at the EPA--are somewhere between $300 and $400
billion of loss in GDP per year. That is every year.
You can call that a tax increase if you want to because that is
exactly what it is, the same as a loss in GDP. In my case, in Oklahoma,
because it is confusing when we--and this administration has been
talking about hundreds of billions and trillions of dollars. Nobody
truly has a handle on what it costs.
I keep track as to how many families file tax returns. In my State of
Oklahoma, if you take the number of families who file tax returns and
divide it and do the math, that would be somewhere around a little over
$3,000 per family if we were to pass a cap-and-trade regulation.
What is wrong with this? A lot of people are out there saying:
Inhofe, you have been wrong all this time. Since you are wrong on the--
you may be wrong or what if you are wrong. My response is this: We have
a very fine Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa
Jackson. I can remember talking to her about what would happen if we
were to pass any of these bills where we are going back to maybe the
Warner-Lieberman bill or Waxman-Markey bill or even by regulations, cap
and trade, the costs would be excessive.
However, my question to her was: If we were successful in doing this,
would this reduce the greenhouse gases? The answer was no. The reason
it would not is because it only applies to the United States of
America. So if we were going to pass a tax increase on every tax-paying
family in my State of Oklahoma of $3,000 a year, and they admit we are
not going to get anything for it, then we need to stop them from doing
that.
I could do the same thing about the ozone, the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. That would be $676.8 billion lost in GDP by 2020;
the boiler MACT rules and regulations, some $1 billion lost in GDP;
utility MACT, $184 billion in compliance costs. That is just between
the years of 2011 and 2030; the cement MACT, some $3.5 billion.
I am saying this because we need to have our eyes open and tell the
American people what the cost is of all these things. This will be done
by this amendment, No. 438, and we will hopefully be able to get a vote
on that.

Cote d'Ivoire

Madam President, I am going to take a little time on something else
that has to be said, and that is what I have been on the floor six
times already talking about. The only reason I am continuing to do this
is because somehow the State Department, the French, the United
Nations, and all of them seem to be laboring under this misconception
that I will go away and I will not talk about it anymore.
I am not going to go away. I am going to keep talking about it. The
problem we have right now started some time ago. I will share with you
some of the new developments today.
We are talking about the rigged election that took place in Cote
d'Ivoire and the fact that someone whose name is Alassane Ouattara--we
have demonstrated very clearly--won the election by fraudulent means.
The President of that country is Laurent Gbagbo. He has been
President now for a number of years. His wife, Simone Gbagbo, has been
a gracious and great First Lady.
What I wish to do--this is the seventh time I have been on the floor
talking about this--is give you the latest on this grave situation in
Cote d'Ivoire. I can only say it continues to be a targeted genocide
against supporters and perceived supporters of the deposed President of
Laurent Gbagbo.
This will be, as I said, my seventh time speaking about this on the
floor.

[[Page S3664]]

The last time we talked about it was on April 4. When we first started
talking about this, we were hoping we would be able to stop this, the
State Department and others from going along with what is going on now
in Cote d'Ivoire. I know it is complicated. A lot of people do not
remember the genocide in Rwanda of 1994. Now we look back and say what
a horrible event that was. Sure, it was horrible.
But right now what is going on in the streets of Abidjan in Cote
d'Ivoire is something that has to be raised to the surface in front of
the American people. I have new information that proves what I have
been saying for the last 7 weeks, that the rebel leader Alassane
Ouattara is still carrying out death squads, killing people in the
streets of Abidjan in Cote d'Ivoire. There they are. That is a death
squad. These are the people who are murdering and torturing people in
Abidjan as we speak.
I bet there are not a handful of people who even know where Abidjan
is. But this is the city, the capital of Cote d'Ivoire, a beautiful
country. These people, coming in from the north, under this Alassane
Ouattara, are in there today. I do not know how many hundreds of people
they are murdering just today, but they are doing it and they are
torturing and they are raping.
Before I tell you the most recent information that came out from
Human Rights Watch, I wish to remind you of what I said back on the May
27. That was when Amnesty International reported that a manhunt--I am
quoting now from Amnesty International--they reported that ``a
manhunt''--what I said right here from this podium. ``A manhunt was
launched against Gbagbo loyalists in Abidjan and several senior
officials close to him were beaten in the hours after his arrest.''
That was 2 weeks ago. I am further quoting now from Amnesty
International. ``In the west of the country, thousands of people who
fled their homes are still living in the forest, too frightened to
return.''
Look at this. There are the burned, charred bodies of people who have
been tortured to death. This just happened. This is going on today,
right now. Here is a man who was severely beaten. He died right after
that. Here is a small child who was put to death in the same way. Here
they are in the middle of executions. That is going on right now.
Gaetan Mootoo, who is Amnesty International's west Africa researcher,
said:

Human rights violations are still being committed against
real or perceived supporters of Laurent Gbagbo. Alassane
Ouattara's failure to condemn these acts can be seen as a
green light by many of his security forces, and other armed
elements fighting with them, to continue. Ouattara must
publicly state that all violence against the civilian
population must stop immediately.

That is what the mandate was 2 weeks ago. That is what they were
supposed to do 2 weeks ago. They went on to say from Amnesty
International:

Attacks against villages inhabited by people belonging to
ethnic groups considered supporters of Gbagbo--

The legitimate President--

continued in the first weeks of May. . . . Between 6 and 8
May several villages were burned and dozens killed.
Ouattara's republican forces justified these acts by saying
they were looking for arms and Liberian mercenaries.

They went on to describe this. There is an article in Guardian
magazine that talked about this. This, again, was a little over 2 weeks
ago. They said ``an Amnesty delegation spent 2 months in Ivory Coast,
gathering more than 100 witness statements from people who survived the
massacre in Duekoue. . . . ''
That is what this actually is in that small town of Duekoue and the
neighboring villages on March 29.

All the statements indicated a systematic and targeted
series of killings committed by the uniformed republican
forces [loyal to Ouattara], who executed hundreds of men on
political and ethnic grounds.
Before killing them, they asked their victims to give their
names, show identity cards. . . . Some of these cards were
found beside the bodies.
A woman who lived in Duekoue told researchers: ``They came
into the yards and chased the women. Then they told the men
to line up and asked them to state their first and second
names and show their identity cards. They then executed them.
I was present--

Quoting a woman who was watching her husband--

while they sorted out the men. Three young men, one of whom
was about 15, were shot to death in front of me.''
Amnesty's report also accuses the UN mission, which has a
base less than a mile from Duekoue, of fatal inertia.

``Fatal inertia,'' means they did nothing. They let this go on. We
are talking about the United Nations.
People around here--there are a lot of liberals in this body who do
not think that anything is worthwhile unless it comes from some big
body such as the United Nations. That is what is happening right now.
So I wish to go ahead--I know there is someone else on the floor who
wants to speak, but I just want to be sure we are informed that what
was going on then--what I talked about 2 weeks ago--is still happening
today.
What happened today? The newly released report by Human Rights Watch
states--this is a different group from Amnesty International and this
came out today:

Armed forces loyal to President Alassane Ouattara have
killed at least 149 real or perceived supporters of
the former President Laurent Gbagbo since taking control
of the commercial capital of Abidjan in mid-April, 2011.

The report goes on to describe the gruesome details, barbaric
episodes of torture and the deaths at the hands of the Ouattara forces.
This is happening today--right now. Here are a few examples. This is
from Human Rights Watch.

Ouattara's Forces . . . sealed off and searched areas
formerly controlled by pro-Gbagbo militia . . . and the
majority of documented abuses occurred in the longtime pro-
Gbagbo stronghold of Yopougon.

That is the town in that stronghold in the south part of the--you
have to keep in mind Ouattara's forces came from the Muslim area up
north.

Most killings were point-blank executions--

You are seeing a point-blank execution. That is what it looks like
right there, the gun to the head.

Most killings were point-blank executions of youth from
ethnic groups generally aligned with Gbagbo, in what appeared
to be collective punishment for these groups' participation
in Gbagbo's militias.
One man described how Republican Forces soldiers killed his
21-year-old brother: ``Two of them grabbed his legs, another
two held his arms behind him, and a fifth one held his
head,'' he said. ``Then a guy pulled out a knife and slit my
brother's throat. He was screaming. I saw his legs shaking
after they'd slit his throat, the blood streaming down. As
they were doing it, they said they had to eliminate all of
the [Young] Patriots that had caused all the problems in the
country.''

During the raid in Abidjan, the forces, the UN forces, the French and
Ouattara, they went in--and it happens that the seated President,
President Gbagbo, had not a lot of armaments, but he had a whole lot of
young people. They were armed not with weapons but with baseball bats,
with wooden clubs, and they surrounded the palace to try to protect
him, knowing they would kill their President. This is where they are
today. These are the young kids. That is in a gas station up here. They
are all lined up there. They are executing some of them, starving,
beating the rest of them. But look at that. There are the pictures of
what is going on.
These young patriots were young supporters to President Gbagbo, who
surrounded his palace in a human chain, armed with just sticks and bats
against the UN and French attack helicopters, which were bombing
Gbagbo's residence, now being searched out by Ouattara's forces for
torture and death.
The report goes on. This report came out today.

Another woman who witnessed the killing of 18 youths . . .
was brutally raped by a Republican Forces soldier after being
forced to load their vehicles with pillaged goods. On May 23,
an elderly man in the same neighborhood saw Republican Forces
execute his son, whom they accused of being a member of the
pro-Gbagbo militia.
Another witness described seeing the Republican Forces slit
the throat of a youth in front of his father after finding an
AK-47 and grenade in his bedroom during a 4 a.m. house-to-
house search. The witness was stripped and forced to hand
over his laptop computer, cell phones, and money.

And was murdered.

Human Rights Watch documented similar pillaging of scores
of houses in Abidjan.

By the way, I personally talked to these people in Abidjan who
witnessed this going on.

The witness, like many others interviewed by Human Rights
Watch, wanted to flee

[[Page S3665]]

Abidjan to his family village, but had no money for
transportation since the Republican Forces had taken
everything.
Human Rights Watch says it documented 54 extrajudicial
executions at detention sites, including police stations and
the GESCO oil--

That is the station we just now saw. Those were the executions of the
young kids taking place.

In addition to the killings--

I am reading now--

Human Rights Watch interviewed young men who had been
detained by the Republican Forces . . . and arrested for no
other apparent reason than their age and ethnic group. Nearly
every former detainee described being struck repeatedly with
guns, belts, rope, and fists . . . for alleged participation
in the Young Patriots.

Those were the young people surrounding the palace.

Several described torture, including forcibly removing
teeth from one victim and placing a burning hot knife on
another victim, then cutting him.

Human Rights Watch reports ``witnesses consistently identified the
killers and abusers as the Republican Forces'' of Ouattara, and they
were ``overseen'' by Ouattara and Soros. Soros is a general of
Ouattara. He is the one who is responsible for going into Duekoue. That
is where they murdered all the people. The Soros they speak of is the
one who was responsible for that under the supervision and direction of
Ouattara.
So the Human Rights Report calls on Ouattara ``to immediately ensure
the humane treatment of anyone detained'' by his forces. This is
something I have been demanding for 7 weeks. I hope now this report is
going to draw attention so at least the State Department knows what is
going on because our State Department is going along with all of this.
They had an opportunity to voice their opinions and come up with a
solution. The solution is to offer amnesty or to send him to a country
where he will be able to live.

I have been very critical of the State Department's handling of the
situation in Cote d'Ivoire. I sent them evidence months ago that showed
Alassane Ouattara engaged in massive election fraud during last year's
Presidential election. I called for an election and then a new
election. Of course, it was met with deaf ears. I called on the State
Department to inquire as to the health and safety of President Gbagbo
and his wife Simone. To date, we have heard nothing.
Last year, I urged the State Department to use its power and
influence and allow the reconciliation process in Cote d'Ivoire by
allowing Gbagbo to go into exile. I pointed out that at least half of
the population of Cote d'Ivoire supports Gbagbo. I acknowledged one
African leader who is willing to accept Gbagbo in his country--a Sub-
Saharan African country. The State Department has been aware of this
for over a month.
I strongly suggest that is a solution. It has been done before. It
was done in Haiti with ``Baby Doc'' Duvalier. I know people are tired
of hearing me talk about Cote d'Ivoire.
I had a pleasant experience yesterday. I met the nominee for the
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Bill Burns. I had a
chance to visit with him about this and other problems. I found him to
be very receptive. I am convinced he embodies the high traditions of
the foreign service--selfless, nonpartisan diplomatic service. He
indicated to me he will follow through with my requests of the State
Department regarding the health and well-being of the Gbagbos. I
appreciate that.
I will finish by letting you see a photo of the two Gbagbos. Here is
the President, Laurent Gbagbo, who I believe should be the legitimate
President of Cote d'Ivoire. The first photo was a happy guy I knew.
This next photo was him right after they took him. This side of his
face is bashed in. His wife is a beautiful lady, Simone. Here is a
picture of her. I have known her for over 15 years. She is a gracious
lady and everybody loves her. After Alassane Ouattara took her, here is
what she looked like. They ripped her hair out by the roots and went
dancing up and down the streets of Abidjan with the hair. You have to
use your imagination.
This is what is going on today in Cote d'Ivoire. There they are, the
death squad, and there is the First Lady, Simone.
The last thing is that I hope somebody in the State Department cares
enough to intervene and allow that party to go into exile. There is
already an operation for that. Almost every President of every African
country who called me is in agreement to what we are trying to do.
I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 427

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside
the pending amendment, and I call up amendment No. 427.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Is there objection? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Merkley] proposes an amendment
numbered 427.

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, 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 make a technical correction to the HUBZone designation
process)

At the end, add the following:

SEC. __. IDENTIFICATION OF QUALIFIED CENSUS TRACTS BY THE
SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT.

(a) Designation of Qualified Census Tracts.--Not later than
2 weeks after the date on which the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development receives from the Census Bureau the data
obtained from each decennial census relating to census
tracts, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall
identify census tracts that meet the requirements of section
42(d)(5)(B)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(determined without regard to Secretarial designation) and
shall deem such census tracts to be qualified census tracts
(as defined in such section) solely for purposes of
determining which areas qualify as HUBZones under section
3(p)(1)(A) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
632(p)(1)(A)).
(b) Effective Date.--The Administrator of the Small
Business Administration shall designate a date that is not
later than 3 months after the date on which the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development identifies qualified census
tracts under subsection (a) as the effective date for areas
that qualify as HUBZones under section 3(p)(1)(A) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p)(1)(A)).
(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be
construed to affect--
(1) the date on which a census tract is designated as a
qualified census tract for purposes of section 42 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
(2) the method used by the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development to designate census tracts as qualified census
tracts in a year in which the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development receives no data from the Census Bureau relating
to census tract boundaries.

Mr. MERKLEY. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

Amendment No. 441 to Amendment No. 436, as Modified

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I call for the regular order on
amendment No. 436, as modified, and send a second-degree amendment to
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to call for the
regular order.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment
numbered 441 to amendment No. 436, as modified.

Mr. McCAIN. 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 prohibit the use of Federal funds to construct ethanol
blender pumps or ethanol storage facilities)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO CONSTRUCT
ETHANOL BLENDER PUMPS OR ETHANOL STORAGE
FACILITIES.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Illinois for
allowing me to do that. I appreciate it and yield the floor.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, yesterday I voted for the Tester
amendment on debit card interchange fees. This amendment would give the
Federal Reserve more time to study the impact of proposed debit card
fee

[[Page S3666]]

regulations on consumers and the community banks and credit unions that
serve them.
I vigorously support the intent of the original Durbin amendment, and
I thank Senator Durbin for working to bring an end to the gouging and
the profiteering at the largest banks.
My No. 1 priority is consumers. I have always made sure I was on the
side of consumers and Main Street and against unfair and abusive
practices on Wall Street. I have a deep suspicion of how big banks
treat the little people and what they do with the little people's
money.
I voted for the original Durbin amendment during the debate over the
Wall Street reform bill because something had to be done to rein in
these hidden fees that kept rising and rising--and getting passed on to
consumers. The amendment included an exemption for banks with less than
$10 billion in assets to ensure that only the largest banks would be
affected.
Since then, the community banks and credit unions in my State tell me
that they are afraid that the current $10 billion exemption for debit
card issuers will not protect them and that they will be forced to stop
services, charge consumers new fees, or risk the stability of their
institution if they are not adequately protected from the debit card
fee limit. I take these concerns very seriously.
In this fragile economy, we have to be very careful about the
stability of our community banks and our credit unions. Often, they are
the only ones lending to our neighbors and small businesses. And making
sure that Americans in the middle class are not denied access to these
institutions is consumer protection, too.
After careful consideration, I am voting for Senator Tester's
amendment. I want to ensure that consumers are not hurt by unintended
consequences of well-intentioned regulations. That is why I call for
more study. It is the prudent thing to do. But I recognize that delay
can be a tool to derail, and my intent is not to derail. We must be
prudent, but we also must be prompt. Let me be clear, I will not let
this drag on indefinitely. If, at the end of 12 months, this issue is
not resolved--I will urge the Fed to act quickly and support
legislation to force action.
I have a long history on this issue. My family has fought for
generations to protect consumers and expand access to credit.
Before the stock market crash in 1929, when banks in downtown
Baltimore wouldn't lend to people who they regarded as on the wrong
side of the tracks, my grandfather, along with small businesses in the
area, got together to start a savings and loan to serve the community.
They lent to small businesses that didn't have access to credit and
they lent to women when no one else would.
When the tough times came in the Great Depression this savings and
loan was there so people didn't lose their homes. They refused to
foreclose on homes and businesses. If you paid a nickel a week on your
mortgage, you were considered current.
Later, in the heart of the African-American community in Baltimore,
when there was no access to credit, community members would be targeted
by Happy Harry. And why was Harry happy? Because he charged 18 to 20
percent interest for a loan and knew his customers had nowhere else to
turn.
So I worked with the Parish Council at St. Gregory's Church to
establish a credit union so that there would be access and to end the
scamming, the scheming, and the gouging.
As a Senator, I continued these fights. When I heard that innocent
people in Maryland and across the country were being gouged and ripped
off, I vowed to stop it. I helped create a flipping task force in
Baltimore that was to be a model for the Nation.
In 2003, after hearing that the Fairbanks Capital Corporation was
threatening a number of Marylanders with foreclosure, I called for a
Federal investigation of Fairbanks. The company paid $40 million into a
restitution fund so victims could get their money back and innocent
homeowners could get their good name back.
And in 2009, I put funding in the Federal checkbook to help the FBI
investigate mortgage fraud so that they can have the resources to help
stop the scamming, the scheming, and the gouging.
I said during the debate over the Wall Street reform bill that we had
gotten into a financial situation where we bailed out the big banks. We
bailed out the whales, we bailed out the sharks, and we had left the
people in the community, the little minnows, to swim upstream and be on
their own.
When I traveled around my State that summer, in diners and dry
cleaners, I heard anger and frustration in people's voices. They
watched Wall Street mortgage brokers profit off irresponsible lending
while their husbands work an extra shift to make sure they could make
the monthly mortgage payment. And they watched big firms take very
risky gambles with their money without any regulation.
We need to put government back on the side of the middle class. The
banks got their bailout; how about we make sure we protect the middle
class against fraud, duplicity, and gouging?
But we don't just need effective regulations to keep Wall Street in
line. We need to make sure our community banks and credit unions--the
institutions where Marylanders have savings accounts and where the
teller knows their name and their family--are not swallowed up by the
sharks and the whales on Wall Street.
I want to see that consumers are treated fairly in the debit card
marketplace. I want to be sure that the good guy community banks and
credit unions--and the customers who rely on them--are not harmed by
the unintended consequences of these regulations.
That is why I voted for the Tester amendment: to give the Federal
Reserve the additional time it needs to finalize its regulations so
that consumers, community banks, and credit unions are protected.
Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to discuss a bipartisan
amendment I have filed to S. 782, the Economic Development
Revitalization Act of 2011. This amendment, the Small Business
Contracting Fraud Prevention Act of 2011, is cosponsored by Senators
McCaskill, Grassley, Hagan, Collins, Merkley, and Enzi.
In the past year, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, has
identified vulnerabilities and abuses in virtually all of the SBA's
contracting programs, including the 8(a) Business Development Program,
the Historically Underutilized Business Zone, HUBZone, program, and the
Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned small business, SDVOSB, program. Our
amendment attempts to remedy the spate of illegitimate firms siphoning
away contracts from the rightful businesses trying to compete within
the SBA's contracting programs.
As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, I take very seriously our responsibility of vigorous
oversight. That is why, last December, Senator Landrieu and I sent a
letter to the SBA highlighting the recent press headlines and GAO
reports of fraud and abuse that have plagued the agency's contracting
programs. That letter stated unequivocally that our committee's first
priority this Congress is ensuring that all of the SBA's contracting
programs are running efficiently, effectively, and free of
exploitation. Adopting this critical small business legislation is an
effective first step at ensuring all small businesses are competing
fairly and honestly within the Federal marketplace.
The SBA has begun to take positive steps to address issues of fraud,
but reports continue to surface showing additional tools are needed. As
recently as Saturday, March 12, the Washington Post, as part of an
ongoing investigation, published an article titled, ``D.C. insiders can
reap fortunes from federal programs for small businesses.'' This
article states ``Government officials were not monitoring contracts for
compliance with rules.'' The report exposes a glaring deficiency in
contract oversight. Moreover, an SBA spokesperson is quoted as saying
the SBA ``long ago transferred that authority to the Pentagon and other
agencies.'' This hands-off attitude is unacceptable, and as I told the
SBA Deputy Administrator at a recent Small Business Committee hearing,
the ultimate authority for monitoring fraud lies with the SBA.

[[Page S3667]]

This amendment contains recommendations both from the SBA inspector
general and the GAO for combating these reports of fraud and addresses
vulnerabilities in the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned small business
program, the HUBZone program, and the 8(a) program. Additionally, the
bill will work to change the culture at SBA to make the process of
suspensions and debarments more transparent.
In order to effectively execute the small business contracting
programs, the SBA needs a comprehensive framework to provide effective
certification, continued surveillance and monitoring, and robust
enforcement throughout the SBA's contracting portfolio. This bill aims
to increase criminal prosecutions as well as suspension and debarments
for businesses found to have attained contracts through fraudulent
means, and requires the SBA to submit a report to Congress annually
detailing the specific data on all suspensions, debarments, and cases
referred to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecutions.
My amendment provides the SBA more stringent oversight capacity
across all the SBA contracting programs. It is SBA's duty to utilize
every fraud prevention measure at its disposal and this amendment puts
the tools in place to punish the bad actors that have infiltrated the
SBA contracting programs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

____________________