[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 122 (Wednesday, July 19, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4073-S4074]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



      Small Business Employee Ownership Promotion Enhancement Act

  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, each Michigander I talk to has their own 
unique hopes and dreams, but some aspects of the American dream are 
truly universal--financial security, the opportunity for your children 
to grow and prosper, and a dignified retirement. We know there are 
almost limitless paths to achieve these shared goals. For my parents' 
generation, this often meant a fair day's pay for a day of hard work, a 
good wage that grew steadily over time, and perhaps a pension that 
could support a comfortable retirement, and even the money to help for 
college tuition for your children. For small business owners, the path 
could mean bootstrapping a business from scratch, scraping by at first, 
building a business that made a good product, and doing the right thing 
by your employees and growing into a profitable business.
  But in today's economy, for so many people, the connection between 
today's hard work and tomorrow's economic security isn't always so 
clear. New entrants to our workforce are increasingly unlikely to have 
a pension they can rely on for retirement. We are also seeing an entire 
generation of business owners rapidly approaching retirement after 
spending a lifetime building their businesses. We have a younger 
generation of employees who are increasingly disconnected from their 
employers and an older generation of entrepreneurs who are trying to 
figure out how to retire without disrupting their successful 
businesses.
  Actually, I see this as a unique opportunity to solve two problems at 
once. The employee ownership model, including employee stock ownership 
plans--better known as ESOPs--allows employees of a company to become 
partial owners. ESOP plans, which often are created as heads of family-
run small businesses look to retire, create employee-owners who have a 
real stake in the company to which they have dedicated their careers. 
For both management and employees, ESOPs mean that their goals are 
aligned--a growing, sustainable company that gives a shot at prosperity 
for everyone, from the highest ranking employee, to midlevel managers, 
to the front office staff.
  For both business owners and employees, the proven benefits of the 
ESOP model are clear: Employee-owners have higher wages, more job 
stability, higher net worth, and larger retirement accounts than non-
employee owners in similar companies. For entrepreneurs who want to see 
the company they built continue to thrive after they are gone, research 
has shown that businesses see their sales grow faster in the years 
following their conversion to employee ownership.
  The data is clear on what employee ownership means for a company's 
bottom line and for workers' performance, but when I have the chance to 
visit employee-owned businesses, the benefits are as clear as day.
  Last summer, on the first day of my motorcycle tour across Michigan, 
I visited Sport Truck USA, an aftermarket suspension and offroad 
distributor in Coldwater that makes world-class parts. Sport Truck USA 
wasn't just proud of their offered products, they were also proud of 
their achievement as an employee-owned business. I met a longtime front 
office employee who had a retirement account worth upwards of $1 
million. I met a warehouse worker who does as well. And they were both 
very happy to show up for work every day. When Sport Truck was sold in 
2014, the ESOP model ensured that their employee-owners had a say in 
whether to approve the sale and fully compensated them when it went 
through.
  Sport Truck USA is a great success story, but for many businesses, 
the idea of an employee-owned transition is simply not on their radar. 
Despite having been enshrined in the law by Congress in 1974, for many 
business owners and employees, the ESOP model is not well known or 
understood. Before an ESOP transition can take place, there can be 
months or sometimes even years of preparation and planning that have to 
take place. But it is clear--the more people who are aware of their 
options for employee ownership, the more businesses that will decide 
this is the path they want to take.
  There is now bipartisan agreement that Congress can take steps to 
help businesses find the awareness and support they need to make this a 
reality. That is why I recently introduced bipartisan legislation with 
the chairman of the Small Business Committee, Senator Risch. Our Small 
Business Employee Ownership Promotion Enhancement Act will increase 
awareness and provide technical assistance for the creation of ESOPs 
and other employee-ownership models. We do this by empowering the 
business experts at SCORE--the nonprofit small business counseling 
organization--to provide information about employee ownership. Many of 
these counselors themselves participated in ESOPs and can speak to 
their benefits and what it takes to transition to this structure.
  As a partner of the Small Business Administration, SCORE and their 
volunteers are on the ground in communities across the country, and I 
believe they will help create the next generation of employee-owners. 
Increasing awareness of ESOPs is a vital first step, and I am committed 
to finding new ways to provide resources to businesses and employees as 
they transition to employee ownership. But, for Michiganders who are 
looking to secure their futures, building awareness of the ESOP model 
can help make this critical transition.

  The Small Business Employee Ownership Promotion Enhancement Act will 
help successful small business owners retire with the peace of mind 
that their legacies will be carried on by the employees they will have 
hired, mentored, and developed over the years. It will help businesses 
invest in their employees and employees invest in their businesses.
  When too many Americans feel as though they are being left behind, 
employee ownership lifts up employees and gives them a real stake in 
their companies and the opportunity to prosper and achieve their 
versions of the American dream.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S4074]]

  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to join my colleagues 
in opposing the nomination of John Bush to serve on the Sixth Circuit 
Court of Appeals. Mr. Bush's record leaves me deeply concerned that he 
has not demonstrated the civility, the temperament, and the judgment 
that are the most basic requirements to be a judge on a U.S. Federal 
circuit court.
  I also have some concerns with Mr. Bush's legal philosophy. At Mr. 
Bush's confirmation hearing, I asked questions about his interpretation 
of due process and the right to privacy. These constitutional rights 
protect the freedoms that are the linchpin of our modern, diverse, and 
inclusive society. They impact real people.
  My concerns about Mr. Bush extend far beyond disagreements about 
legal philosophy. I worry more deeply about his judgment and 
temperament.
  He has published statements that demonstrate not just a lack of 
judgment and temperament but also a fundamental lack of civility and 
decency.
  There are many examples which I could read, but let me cite just a 
few. He referred to the first female Speaker of the House as ``Mama 
Pelosi'' and said she should be gagged. He depicted a threat that Obama 
supporters stealing a campaign sign would ``find out what the Second 
Amendment is all about.'' He chose to repeat the use of a well-known, 
anti-gay slur in a speech he gave. All of this was not while he was in 
middle school or high school but after he had been practicing law more 
than 15 years.
  There is much more I could cite--some of it more offensive and more 
derogatory--but I frankly think they don't expand upon my core 
argument.
  These are not the statements of someone fit to serve on a Federal 
circuit court bench.
  Don't get me wrong. Mr. Bush has every right to put these views out 
into the world. Even now, over in the Senate office buildings, there 
are folks exercising their First Amendment rights, protesting and, in 
some cases, being arrested today, expressing strongly their feelings. I 
am sure some of them are saying things that are forceful, vigorous, 
even perhaps personally offensive to Members of the Senate as they are 
protesting.
  The vote this body will take on the nomination of Mr. Bush isn't 
about his First Amendment rights, it is about whether he is capable of 
conducting himself in a civil way such that he can give fair treatment 
to all litigants who come before his court.
  Our vote isn't about Mr. Bush's own constitutional rights of free 
expression; it is about upholding all Americans' constitutional rights 
to fair treatment before the courts and what sort of expectations 
litigants will have when they stand before him.
  Mr. Bush's judgment and his repeated choice to utilize not just 
negative, not just provocative but inflammatory and derogatory language 
when expressing himself do not suggest to me that he is capable of the 
fairness, the civility, and the impartiality we expect.
  Mr. Bush owns the reputation he has built for himself in many 
speeches, op-eds, blogs, and newsletters. I heard very little in the 
way of disavowing these prior statements at his confirmation hearing, 
suggesting that he either stands by them, doesn't see what is wrong 
with them, or simply doesn't care. I am not sure which is worse, but, 
to me, each of these is disqualifying.
  If my Republican colleagues have reservations about this nominee 
putting on the robe, sitting on a circuit court bench, and interpreting 
the law for years to come, I hope you will deliver that message with 
your vote on the floor.
  I haven't shied away from supporting President Trump's nominees when 
I believe they are fully qualified for the job--even when their 
politics have sharply diverged from my own, but this case isn't about 
partisan politics. The Senate should not be a rubberstamp for nominees 
of any President of any political party. We must guard the balance of 
power and the integrity of the Federal judiciary as an unbiased and 
fairminded institution.
  President Trump has more than 100 judicial vacancies to fill. If we 
don't demand any other standard of the White House than this, this 
problem will extend beyond the nomination of Mr. Bush to this circuit 
court seat, and the precious and vital reputation of our Federal 
judiciary will be damaged as a result.
  I pray we do not reach that outcome.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.