[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14499-14538]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                SMALL BUSINESS LENDING FUND ACT OF 2010

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 5297, which the clerk will 
report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5297) to create the Small Business Lending 
     Fund Program to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to make 
     capital investments in eligible institutions in order to 
     increase the availability of credit for small businesses, to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax 
     incentives for small business job creation, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Baucus-Landrieu) amendment No. 4519, in the 
     nature of a substitute.
       Reid amendment No. 4520 (to amendment No. 4519), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 4521 (to amendment No. 4520), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 4522 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 4519), to change the enactment 
     date.
       Reid amendment No. 4523 (to amendment No. 4522), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Reid motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance 
     with instructions, Reid amendment No. 4524 (the instructions 
     on the motion to commit), to provide for a study.
       Reid amendment No. 4525 (to the instructions (amendment No. 
     4524) of the motion to commit), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 4526 (to amendment No. 4525), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will be 1 hour for debate prior to the cloture vote on amendment No. 
4519, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 
10 minutes each, with the final 10 minutes reserved for the two leaders 
or their designees, with the majority controlling the final 5 minutes.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I wish to begin by thanking Leader 
Reid for his very kind comments regarding the work that is going into 
this bill. It has been my pleasure and honor to help lead a team, 
actually, which the Presiding Officer has been a part of, as well as 
Ms. Cantwell, the Senator from Washington; Senator Murray; Senator 
LeMieux from Florida; and many others. Senator Cardin, who I know is on 
the floor, is an outstanding member of the Small Business Committee and 
a long-time advocate of small business, serving many years in the House 
of Representatives, and now brings his expertise to the floor of the 
Senate. I like having bulldogs on my committee and he is one of them 
and I greatly appreciate his support.
  Let me be very clear that in 1 hour, we will come to the end of a 
very long, important public and open debate on the best way we can help 
Main Street.
  This bill is not about Wall Street. We have had enough of those. This 
bill is not about big corporations; they take up 80 percent of the 
agenda in this place on any given day. This bill is about the 27 
million small businesses that need the Members of the Senate to stand 
up for them today. If we can stand up for small businesses today, they 
will stand up for us and lift this country out of the worst recession 
since the Great Depression. I want to repeat that. It will not be the 
big banks that do this. It will not be the big international firms that 
do this. As it always has been since the beginning of America, since 
the first small business, the first enterprise, it will be small 
businesses that create jobs.
  For 1\1/2\ years, this debate has been going on--not 1\1/2\ weeks, 
not last month, but for 1\1/2\ years we have been debating, as we 
should as Senators, about the best way to do that. There have been 
differences of opinion. There have been two primary committees focused 
on building this package, including the Finance Committee, which has 
put forward in a completely bipartisan

[[Page 14500]]

fashion a $12 billion tax cut package for small business. The leader 
just spoke about some of those provisions this morning. The chairman of 
that committee, Max Baucus, has been to the floor on several occasions 
to explain the extraordinarily significant tax cuts I will mention. I 
will mention only one.
  For a decade, Members on both sides of the aisle have been trying to 
get the self-employed in America to have parity with other businesses 
when it comes to health care. Madam President, the Chair knows that her 
State of New York is full of self-employed people. Do they get the same 
tax break as General Electric? No. Do they get the same tax break as 
General Motors? No. These individuals who are self-employed pay more 
for their health care than big corporations. Is that right? No. We 
tried to help them in the health care bill, and we could not. We didn't 
give up the fight. They are in this bill--a $2 billion tax cut for the 
self-employed. That is just one of the good tax provisions.
  Senator Reid read off the list, and I will share it with you because 
I know there are going to be critics coming to the floor, and 
unfortunately some people will vote against cloture. I hope most people 
are smart enough not to. If some of them do, I want them to know we 
have widely distributed this red line document to every news outlet in 
the country. We have distributed it to many, many organizations. There 
are over 70 organizations supporting this. This is what we call our red 
line document. So there is no confusion, the most wonderful thing about 
this document is that it is just four pages. It is very easy to read. 
There are not 40 pages. It is not 4,000 pages. There are no special 
deals. It is all here, and it is all bipartisan.
  I am going to read some of the names associated with the bill: Kerry-
Snowe-Menendez; Snowe; Merkley-Alexander; Snowe; Bingaman-Hatch-
Landrieu; Grassley; Baucus-Grassley-Brownback-Inhofe-Johanns-Menendez; 
Baucus-Grassley-Crapo; Kerry-Ensign and 72 bipartisan cosponsors 
equally divided between Democrats and Republicans; Snowe; Grassley; 
Grassley.
  If somebody comes to the floor and says this bill doesn't have 
bipartisan support, they might want to answer why their names are here: 
Landrieu-Snowe; Snowe; Snowe-Landrieu; Snowe-Merkley; Landrieu-Snowe; 
Landrieu-Crapo-Risch; Snowe; Landrieu-Nelson; Snowe-Pryor; Snowe.
  I don't know how many more items a Senator can have in a bill. 
Senator Snowe wrote lots of pieces of this bill. LeMieux-Landrieu; 
LeMieux; LeMieux-Landrieu; Klobuchar-LeMieux; LeMieux-Landrieu; 
Cantwell-Boxer-Murray. That lists just a few.
  So we bring a bipartisan bill to the floor, and then we have a 12-
hour debate on one amendment, the first amendment, which is a 
Republican amendment by Senator LeMieux and myself--it is LeMieux-
Landrieu-Nelson. Both Senators from Florida have been extraordinary in 
their advocacy for this. We had a public, open vote, and we got 60 
votes. So now the small business lending provision is in this bill, 
which makes it even better, even greater, and equally bipartisan. If 
some people aren't happy with that--I don't write the rules of the 
Senate. I showed up, and that is what the rules were. If you got 60 
votes, you got your amendment on the bill.
  There are other Members who are coming to speak. I want to just say 
this has been a very vital debate. This is the time for us to say yes 
to Main Street. There are literally millions of business owners who not 
only want this package to pass, they need it to pass. If it passes now, 
they might be able to hold on. They might be able to create the jobs 
that are necessary. It is now our chance to deliver a bipartisan bill 
that will help 27 million small businesses on Main Street.
  In conclusion, we have spent a lot of time helping big auto 
manufacturers from Detroit. Today, we can help that repair shop in our 
neighborhood. This is about corner stores. This is about small banks. 
Are we going to vote for them or are we going to leave them high and 
dry?
  I see the chairman from the Finance Committee, who I think is 
scheduled to speak. I also see the Senator from Maryland. I will soon 
yield to the Senator from Maryland, a member of the Small Business 
Committee, to say a word, and then we have the time under our control. 
I am sorry, the Senator from Washington is here. I didn't see the 
Senator. I was blocked. I apologize. I see the Senator from Washington 
and the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Maryland.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah is 
recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I believe I was next.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thought we had the first half hour and the Senator's 
side had the second, but I understand now that it is back and forth.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah is 
recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise to express my frustration and 
disappointment with the decision of the majority leader yesterday that 
seems to have effectively precluded Republicans from offering 
amendments to the small business lending bill that is before us today.
  Let's understand one thing. Since the health care bill, we have not 
marked up one bill in the Finance Committee. That is just not right. 
These bills have been brought to the floor through a rule XIV 
parliamentary procedure without the impetus and agreement of all of us 
who are on the Finance Committee. I am not going to blame anybody for 
that other than to say I don't think that is the proper way to do 
things. Then we get here on the Senate floor and the majority leader 
fills up the amendment tree so that neither Republicans nor Democrats 
have a chance to amend this bill.
  Having said that, let me say that the majority leader has put forward 
this small business lending bill in an ostensible effort to help the 
economy create more jobs. Of course, this is what every Senator on both 
sides of the aisle wants to see happen. This is what every American 
wants to see happen. Yet once again we are faced with an ``it is my way 
or the highway'' attitude in dealing with this legislation.
  Let me be clear. The small business lending bill before us includes 
many positive provisions. I commend those who have put them in there. 
It has a number of tax provisions that I fully support and that 
Republicans and Democrats alike believe would be helpful to small 
business growth.
  Yet, I do not believe that any Member in this Chamber truly believes 
that this bill would do enough to solve our job creation problem. This 
is because it ignores the main problems that are afflicting the economy 
and preventing the kind of job creation that we need right now.
  This is exactly why Republicans want to improve this bill. Many parts 
of the bill are fine as far as they go. But, again, they do not go 
nearly far enough.
  One of the amendments the Republican leader was trying to get 
permission to offer to this bill is a motion I would like to make to 
commit this bill to the Finance Committee with instructions to report 
it back to the Senate with an amendment to address the biggest problem 
facing small businesses at this time. And that problem is the threat of 
the largest tax increase in history that is due to hit this country 
like a monster tsunami in just 155 days.
  In just over 5 months from now, on January 1, a good share of 
America's most prolific potential job creators--small businesses that 
generally employ between 20 and 500 workers--are going to face large 
tax increases unless Congress acts to stop them. The problem is that 
President Obama and many of his allies in Congress have already made it 
clear that they have no intention of stopping these increases.
  The President called on the Senate yesterday to pass this legislation 
to help small businesses so they can create jobs. But, ironically, he 
and his supporters just cannot seem to see that their support for 
allowing these massive tax increases to hit these fastest growing small 
businesses will do far

[[Page 14501]]

more harm than the good that could come from this bill as it now 
stands.
  The bill before us, while well intentioned, misses the boat.
  The real problem that this bill does not address is that the threat 
of these tax increases, combined with the other business unfriendly 
changes this Congress has recently passed, have created such an 
atmosphere of uncertainty in this country, that no one wants to take 
the jump and risk their capital on new business ventures or expansions. 
These other changes include the recently enacted financial regulation 
bill, the tragically misguided health care bill from earlier this year, 
and the menace of a monstrous climate bill that still hangs over our 
heads.
  Let us briefly review what it takes to create a private sector job in 
our economy. First, we need an entrepreneur--a risk taker. Second, we 
need an idea. Third, we need some capital. Finally, we need some 
certainty so that the risk the entrepreneur is facing is manageable.
  We have plenty of entrepreneurs in our economy. America has always 
had these, and they are a big part of what has made this country great. 
We also have lots of good ideas for new businesses. This is another 
area in which our Nation has never lacked.
  We also have lots of capital in our economy. Studies indicate that 
banks are flush with money and corporations have more cash on their 
balance sheets that at any time in the past 50 years. Investors have 
money too and are just waiting for the last ingredient.
  And that last ingredient is what is missing. A degree of certainty 
that the business climate will begin to improve, or at least not get 
any worse. This means stable tax rates, a manageable level of 
regulation, and customers who are not worried about the future.
  But if we have a situation, as we have now, where the investors and 
entrepreneurs cannot see any real stability, risk taking freezes up. 
Everyone decides to stand on the sidelines and wait it out and see how 
things look in a few months, or next year.
  The result of this inaction is that the new expansion to the 
manufacturing plant is put on hold, the bank loan is not extended, and 
the new equipment is not ordered. The result, of course, is that the 
new job is not created, and everyone stands and waits.
  Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle and in the 
administration seem to be puzzled as to why the economy has not yet 
started to create the jobs we so desperately need. After all, the huge 
stimulus bill that they pushed through last year was supposed to solve 
these problems.
  A very big part of the reason for this lack of jobs is this terrible 
uncertainty, which has a corrosive effect on the economy. We need to 
add the lubricating oil of lower taxes, fewer regulations, and 
certainty to the engine of economic growth.
  Instead, we have been adding the acid of uncertainty to the engine--
uncertainty about higher taxes, uncertainty about a worse regulatory 
climate, and uncertainty of what might come next. It is small wonder 
that the engine is not working as it should.
  What little certainty that might have existed in the recent past has 
surely been evaporating because of the President's broken pledge to not 
raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 per year and the 
Democratic leadership's obvious willingness to allow these huge tax 
increases to go into effect for millions of Americans.
  This attitude is often excused by the misguided belief that the 
``rich'' are not paying their fair share of taxes and need to 
contribute much more to the Treasury.
  Many of our colleagues forget that a high percentage of new and small 
businesses, where most of the new jobs are created in a recession, pay 
their taxes as individuals. This means that attempts to make the so-
called rich pay more will backfire and harm the very people our liberal 
colleagues are trying to help--those who desperately need employment.
  This is not so much a question of fairness as it is of economic 
reality. If we raise the top rates on individuals, we raise tax rates 
on small and growing businesses and stifle them from fulfilling their 
job-creation potential.
  According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, tax increases on those 
making more than the limits the President has pledged to protect will 
attack one-half of all small business income. Owners of these small 
businesses, as well as those who want to invest and start new 
enterprises, are frozen on the sidelines. They are not going to take 
the risk as long as these tax increases are hovering on the horizon. As 
long as they do not act, they will not create those jobs.
  Let us look at the calendar. We simply do not have the time to pass 
small Band-Aid bills when the patient--our underperforming economy--
needs a blood transfusion. We need to address the real problems facing 
our economy, not play around at the edges. Our first job should be to 
reduce the uncertainty that is throwing sand into the cylinders of the 
job creation engine of small businesses, and the first step of this is 
to remove the threat of these huge tax hikes.
  Let us assure investors, entrepreneurs, lenders, and other players in 
the job creation machine that we will not raise taxes in 5 months. Let 
us dispel these clouds of uncertainty and let the private sector do 
what it does best--innovate and create and put America to work.
  Having said all that, it is important for me to add to this 
discussion a few other points.
  Dr. Christina Romer, Chair of the President's Council of Economic 
Advisers, in last month's issue of the ``American Economic Review'' 
said this:

       . . . tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, 
     and highly negative impact on output.
       . . . [T]he more intuitive way to express this result is 
     that tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output 
     effects.

  Senator Kent Conrad, our great Budget Committee chairman--and he is 
also on the Finance Committee--had this to say:

       As a general rule, you don't want to be cutting spending or 
     raising taxes in the midst of a downturn.

  That was in the Wall Street Journal on the 23rd of this month.
  He also said:

       In a perfect world, I would not be cutting spending or 
     raising taxes for the next 18 months to 2 years. This 
     downturn is still very much with us, unfortunately.

  He said that on CNN on the 26th of this month.
  Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska ``supports extending the expiring 
tax cuts at least until the economy is clearly recovering and supports 
addressing them before the fall elections.''
  Senator Evan Bayh had this to say:

       And so raising taxes right now--

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has consumed 10 
minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 1 
more minute.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I object unless--it is off his time. Fine. I do not 
object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Senator Evan Bayh said:

       And so raising taxes right now would be the wrong thing to 
     do because it would dampen consumer demand and lessen 
     business investment.
  ```We're not creating jobs, and raising taxes now would not be a 
great idea,' Rep. Michael McMahon, a New York Democrat, said this 
week.''
  This is a quote from the Wall Street Journal on July 21:

       Martin Vaughan and John McKinnon: ``Bush Tax Cuts Split 
     Democrats.''

  ``Rep. Bobby Bright, a Democrat facing a tough reelection race in 
Alabama, said tax increases, even if limited to the wealthiest 
families, could imperil the recovery.''
  This is a quote from The Hill newspaper on July 22:

       Alexander Bolton: ``Democrats may stop Bush-era tax cuts 
     for wealthy from expiring.''

  ```I think the recovery is sufficiently fragile that we ought to 
leave tax rates where they are,' said Rep. Gerry Connolly, a freshman 
Democrat from Virginia. Connolly said Democrats should

[[Page 14502]]

not allow the 2001 Bush tax cuts to expire for anybody.''
  Again, a quote from The Hill newspaper on July 22:

       Alexander Bolton: ``Democrats may stop Bush-era tax cuts 
     for wealthy from expiring.''

  The leader of the Federal Reserve, Dr. Ben Bernanke, said: ``In the 
short term I would believe that we ought to maintain a reasonable 
degree of fiscal support, stimulus for the economy . . . There are many 
ways to do that. This is one way.''
  I do not blame the distinguished chairman of the committee because we 
have not marked up these bills. I blame the leadership here for not 
realizing that is why we have a Finance Committee, to mark up these 
bills and let both sides have a chance to make them better if they can.
  We all have an interest in spurring small businesses and getting the 
economy going. Bringing these important bills right to the floor and 
bypassing the Finance Committee, and then doing what has been done on 
every bill since the health care bill and even before--locking up the 
parliamentary tree so we cannot have a reasonable shot at even putting 
up some amendments--is not the way to do business. It is not what 
creates the bipartisanship we need right now in our Senate.
  I wanted to make that point and hope we can change our ways so the 
Senate will be what it ought to be--the greatest deliberative body in 
the world.
  I thank my colleague from Montana for granting me additional time. I 
appreciate him as leader of the Finance Committee. I enjoy working with 
him, and I enjoy working with my colleagues on the other side. But my 
gosh, let's stop this business of locking up the tree on everything and 
not debating the way we should, not giving people half a reasonable 
shot of bringing up their amendments, and, above all, let's start 
marking up these very important bills in the Finance Committee.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I know other Senators have risen before 
me, so I will be very brief. I will take a minute. The Senator from 
Washington is next. I thank her for her indulgence in letting me take 1 
minute.
  This is very clear: The American people want us in Congress to do 
their work. They want us to do something that is reasonable and makes 
sense. Most Americans are not way off on the left side, and they are 
not way off on the right side. They are basically in the middle and do 
a good job.
  Most Americans would want us to help small businesses in a good way, 
in a solid way--maybe not in the exact way each American would want but 
in a good, solid way. This bill clearly does that. It does what the 
American people want.
  Small businesses generate jobs. They are the small engine of growth. 
We need to help small businesses. This bill does that. It cuts taxes 
for small businesses. It gives lending authority for small businesses. 
There are many other provisions I do not have time to explain that help 
small businesses.
  This is not some small Band-Aid bill. This is a bill that makes sense 
for small businesses. It provides certainty to small businesses. It 
helps them. We cannot solve all the world's problems in one bill, but 
we can certainly help small businesses in this bill.
  I can say--and I am pleading, frankly, with a few Republican Senators 
who have not quite decided how they are going to vote on this cloture 
vote--this is a good bill, a solid bill, a start in the right 
direction. Let's pass it. Let's not get hung up on who said what to 
whom, caught up on debating points, and come across like kids in a 
sandbox. Let's pass this bill. It is a good bill. It is good for 
America.
  We can deal with other issues, such as the expiring tax cuts, another 
time in the future. But right now this is small business. It is solid. 
It is getting done. It is going to help people. That is what people 
want us to do. They want us to do the right job. I urge us to pass this 
bill.
  I yield 5 minutes to my good friend from Washington.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, on Tuesday, I came to the floor to 
voice my support for this bill by telling the stories of small business 
owners in every corner of my State who have struggled so hard to get 
credit since this recession began.
  I talked about people who were driven by their passions, who want to 
grow their businesses, who want to hire, but who have been stymied by 
the lack of credit flowing from our banks.
  I talked about the drivers of our economy and job creation. But if 
small businesses are the driver of our economic recovery, then our 
community banks are the engine. Right now we all know that engine is in 
neutral. That is because for far too long, our community banks have 
been ignored in our economic recovery.
  Since this recession began, we have seen banks fail one after 
another, lending dry up to our small businesses, and job growth suffer. 
While Wall Street institutions, such as AIG and Goldman Sachs, were 
deemed ``too big to fail,'' the collapse of our community banks has 
apparently been ``too small to notice.''
  Last year, I introduced the Main Street Lending Restoration Act which 
would have directed $30 billion to help jump-start small business 
lending. That is why I have spoken with Secretary Geithner and 
President Obama about this directly and why I have been pushing so hard 
to make small business lending a priority.
  I have felt very strongly that we have to focus more on our community 
banks if we want to make progress and bring true recovery to our Main 
Street businesses. It is why I am so proud to stand here today and 
support this bill. I thank Senator Landrieu and others for working with 
us in creating the Small Business Lending Fund and the State Small 
Business Credit Initiative.
  This Small Business Lending Fund takes the most powerful idea from my 
Main Street Lending Restoration Act and sets aside $30 billion to help 
our local community banks--those that are under $10 billion in assets--
to help them get the capital they need to begin lending to our small 
businesses again. It is going to reward the banks that are helping our 
small businesses grow by reducing the interest rates on capital that 
they get under this program, and it will help our small support 
business initiatives run by our States across the country that are 
struggling because of local budget cutbacks. And, as Senator Landrieu 
has told us, it will save taxpayers an estimated $1 billion.
  It is a bill that should have broad support and, in fact, it does 
from small business groups of all stripes, community bankers, and so 
many others across this country who have found common cause with this 
bill.
  Once again we are finding ourselves faced with opposition from the 
other side. Once again a commonsense bill that will save taxpayers 
money is being held hostage by political calculation. I think an 
editorial in yesterday's Seattle Times on this bill summed up some of 
the frustration in living rooms and communities across the country very 
well on the obstruction we see every day.
  The editorial first noted the importance of this bill we are 
considering by saying:

       Economic recovery is all about jobs. And American 
     consumers, who help power the economy, are spending less in 
     the shadow of a shaky employment market. Small banks lending 
     to small businesses puts people to work. Access to credit is 
     key. Helping Main Street rekindles hiring, boosts consumer 
     confidence in overall economic conditions, and fuels the 
     recovery.

  That is how the editorial started. It went on to say this is ``part 
of a larger package of legislation for small business and Main Street 
America that has attracted scant Republican interest or support.''
  Then the editorial briefly, but very accurately, summarized what I 
think so many in our country are thinking when they return home from 
pounding the pavement, looking for work only to turn on their TV to see 
that a bill such as this is blocked from consideration. It said:

       Nothing should be more nonpartisan than putting people back 
     to work.


[[Page 14503]]


  It is a line that speaks volumes in this Chamber because it is a line 
that truly represents how so many of our constituents feel. This is a 
nonpartisan bill. This is a bill that puts credit back into the hands 
of our small business owners. It puts people back to work. And nothing 
should be more nonpartisan than putting people back to work.
  I urge all of our colleagues to listen to the voices of their 
constituents and small business owners. Support this cloture motion. 
Let's get this sent to the President.
  Quickly, I do want to say that I worked very hard to include funding 
in this bill to help save over 130,000 teacher jobs. Again that effort 
has been blocked by Republican obstruction.
  I remind all of us, every day we see more reports about the 
continuing wave of layoffs affecting our school districts. This is not 
just about school districts. It is about losing teachers, and it may be 
the only teacher who touches a child in their classroom. It is about 
kids in every one of our States. We need to be sure we do not lose 
focus of this issue.
  I am going to continue to fight to ensure that our teachers return to 
the classrooms and our kids have the best instructors in September.
  Again I thank Senator Landrieu for her tremendous work on this bill.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, how much time is remaining on our 
side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 8 minutes 36 seconds 
remaining.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. The Senator from Maryland has been on the floor for 
almost an hour. May he have the next 3 minutes? I see the Senator from 
Maine who could then speak after him.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I thank Senator Landrieu for her 
incredible leadership and work in regard to the Small Business Jobs and 
Credit Act of 2010. This is the work of the Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship Committee and the Finance Committee.
  As Senator Landrieu pointed out, it has been the work of Democrats 
and Republicans working together on many important provisions to help 
the small business community. It truly is a bipartisan bill. It is a 
critically important bill. I, quite frankly, do not understand why 
there are those who want to oppose us getting this done.
  It contains many provisions that have been brought to us by the small 
business community that we need to get done. We all profess and 
understand that the growth engine of America is in small business. That 
is where new jobs are created. Sixty-four percent of the net nonfarm 
new jobs are created by small businesses.
  Innovation is the way for America to stay on the cutting edge. More 
patents and more copyrights are created through small businesses per 
employee than a larger company.
  This bill is about creating jobs for Americans who desperately need 
them. This legislation combines many bills reported out of the Small 
Business Committee. I say congratulations to Senator Landrieu and 
Senator Snowe. These are bills that both of them worked on together 
that are important for us to get done.
  Let me just summarize some of the important bills that came out of 
our committee that are included.
  We helped small businesses with international trade, leveraging $1 
billion of export capital. This alone will affect 40,000 to 50,000 
jobs. We deal with government contracting. We have had hearings--I had 
a hearing in the State of Maryland on behalf of the Small Business 
Committee--where small business companies pointed out how difficult it 
is for them to access the government procurement system. So our 
committee went to work.
  Thank you, Senator Landrieu; thank you, Senator Snowe. We went to 
work and reported out a bill that is incorporated that deals with the 
abuses of bundling. Bundling is when the agency puts together a lot of 
small contracts into a large contract where a small company can't 
compete for it. We have taken action to correct that in this bill so 
that small companies can access government procurement in an easier 
way.
  We started to attack what is known as prime contract abuse, where 
prime contractors don't pay their small contractors on time or abuse 
their small contractors, which are more likely to be small businesses. 
That is dealt with in this legislation.
  We deal with gender equity by investing in the Women's Business 
Center. As Senator Landrieu has pointed out, working with the Finance 
Committee, we deal with tax equity. Business owners can deduct the cost 
of health care for their families in calculating the self-employment 
tax. This is a matter of fairness for small business owners to be 
treated equally with larger companies; to be able to increase the 
amount of startup costs that can be deducted from $5,000 to $10,000.
  These are all important issues. If you are a small business owner 
struggling to make payroll or to keep your doors open, this help could 
be the difference between hiring another employee or not.
  Lastly, Madam President, it deals with credit. It extends credit to 
small businesses. We all talk about that.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has consumed 3 minutes.
  Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. The credit provisions are critically important. We make 
permanent the SBA guarantee programs--90 percent guarantees, the cost 
reductions, the 7(a) limits from $2 million to $5 million, the 504 
limits from $1.5 million to $5.5 million, the microloans. We boost 
lending, by that alone, in the first year by $5 billion. Then, as our 
chairman has talked about, the State programs are funded as well as the 
community bank programs.
  I want to mention one additional point, if I might. I am disappointed 
the surety bond extension is not in this bill. I will work with the 
chairman of the Small Business Committee and the Finance Committee to 
make sure we find a way to include that in the American Recovery Act. 
We increase that from $2 million to $5 million. It deals with small 
construction companies.
  It is very important because for State and Federal contract projects 
over $100,000, you need to have a surety bond. If you are a small 
business owner, what you need to pledge in order to get that surety 
bond can deny you credit in the market. We have to extend that to the 
$5 million that was included in the Recovery Act, and I feel confident, 
after talking to the chairman, that we will find a way to get that 
done.
  The bottom line is this is a critically important, well-balanced bill 
that will help small businesses. This is our opportunity to vote for 
it. In half an hour, we will have a chance to decide whose side we are 
on. Are we on the side of small business owners, to help this economy 
recover, or are we just going to continue this partisan division in the 
Senate? I hope my colleagues will vote on the side of small businesses.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, all I can think of, in listening to the 
Senator from Maryland, is if we could have limited this legislation 
before the Senate to the provisions we agreed to on a bipartisan 
basis--in fact, many of which passed unanimously in the Senate Small 
Business Committee--clearly, we would be in a far better position than 
we are today. That is the regrettable dimension to the situation we are 
facing procedurally in the Senate.
  I know from the majority side there is not an inclination to 
accommodate the rights of the minority, but that is the tradition in 
the Senate. The majority rules, but you accommodate the rights of the 
minority. That is the essence of what the institution of the Senate is 
all about.
  I regret we are where we are today in the Senate on this issue that I 
have

[[Page 14504]]

been championing since January of this year. It seems to me we are all 
worried about the legislative train running out of the station. If we 
are all concerned about the limited time we have available to address 
the issues of small business and job creation, which are the foremost 
issues in the United States of America, I would have suggested--and I 
did and I asked and I pleaded--that we should have addressed this issue 
in January, at the outset of the legislative session, not, at the end 
of July, when we are about to recess for August.
  So everybody is worried about the recess. We only have 1 week left. 
Well, that is right. What do we know today that we didn't know earlier? 
Jobs and the economy are the foremost issues facing the country, facing 
Americans. If it took several months to address those issues, then we 
should have taken several months to address those issues. But now we 
are faced with a procedural impasse because we are being denied the 
opportunity to offer some amendments to this legislation.
  Now, you would think we ran out of time. We didn't run out of time. 
We didn't run out of time. We had 81 days this year--81 days--in which 
we did not have rollcall votes; 81 days excluding weekends and Federal 
holidays, all through yesterday, when we didn't have any recorded 
votes. We could have addressed this issue long before now, given it the 
attention it deserved, rather than treating it as a mere afterthought 
in the legislative process that we have to ram through here and deny 
the minority the opportunity to offer a few amendments. That is all we 
are asking.
  Now, you think we just dropped this bill on the floor of the Senate 
yesterday? This bill was on the floor more than 3 weeks ago. How many 
amendments have we been able to offer on this bill on our side? Zero. I 
will give them the lending facility that was offered by Senator 
LeMieux. But, obviously, that was an amendment the majority wanted. I 
recognize the Chair here, and that was one of her major issues, an area 
in which I disagreed in creating a $30 billion lending facility. But we 
have not been able to offer any amendments.
  We have had this bill on the Senate floor for 3 weeks. We have had 
three substitutes--three substitutes. No amendments. No amendments. 
Then yesterday, no votes on anything. We could have been finished with 
this bill by now, if you had given the minority the right to offer a 
few amendments. We are shutting down this process, Madam President, 
denying the opportunity to debate the foremost issue facing America--
creating jobs. We have a 9.5-percent unemployment rate. We need to 
create jobs in America.
  As illustrated last month, only 83,000 jobs were created in the 
private sector, and we are saying we don't have time to address this 
issue? It is not only frustration, Madam President, it does a 
disservice to the American people. They know better. We have had plenty 
of time to address this issue. This bill has been on the floor of the 
Senate for 3 weeks and we have had three substitutes and 81 days that 
we have had no rollcall votes. We had no rollcall votes yesterday. 
Then, suddenly, what appeared last night was that we have a substitute 
and we have side-by-sides, or alternatives, to Republican amendments. 
No opportunity to review them, no opportunity to have a discussion or 
to reach a true unanimous consent.
  The majority has said we have a unanimous consent agreement, but 
actually it is an ultimatum to the minority--take it or leave it. So we 
had no opportunity to review these alternatives because they were just 
filed. Actually, the amendments were not even filed. The majority 
leader posed them in his unanimous consent agreement that we either had 
to accept or reject. There was no opportunity to have a discussion 
yesterday. How could we reach an agreement, maybe on several amendments 
that would be important to this legislation, Madam President?
  So we had four amendments that were filed on the majority side, and 
now we are faced with a cloture vote today at 10:40. Why are we rushing 
to a cloture vote? Why don't we spend more time talking to each other 
to get the policy right? Is it something that we are not familiar with 
anymore--how to sit down and talk to one another, to discuss the 
issues?
  What are the alternatives the majority provided in the unanimous 
consent agreement that wasn't a consent agreement because nobody talked 
to anybody about it? Well, it is adding issues that were in the 
supplemental. It is basically taking the supplemental, the tax 
extenders bill, fiscal assistance to the States, education funding, and 
agricultural appropriations disaster funding that is actually in the 
new substitute that was filed. Those are the alternatives that have 
been offered to this bill.
  So this has become a mega bill. It is a mega supplemental, it is a 
mega tax extender bill, it is now an agricultural disaster bill on the 
small business bill. So if we were to take the issues that we agreed to 
on a unanimous and bipartisan basis in the Senate Small Business 
Committee, we could have had 75 to 80 votes. But that wasn't sufficient 
for the majority. It wasn't sufficient.
  So here we are today with a cloture motion--take it or leave it--
because we only have 1 week left. Well, why do we have 1 week left? Why 
don't we take as long as it requires to do what is right, to try to get 
the best policy to create jobs in America instead of facing this 
figurative legislative brick wall that is artificially contrived? It is 
all political theater. It is not about legislating anymore. It is all 
political theater. It is scoring political points. It is all for the 
next election, which is coming very shortly. It is not about getting 
the right policy for America--for small businesses that are suffering, 
for the 8 million who have lost their jobs, the nearly 15 million who 
are a part of that, with the underemployed who are desperate and who 
need certainty.
  The House is adjourning tomorrow. So where is this legislation going? 
This was supposed to be a jobs agenda legislative session. That is what 
we were told by the majority. That is what we were told by the 
President of the United States. I said back in January--I sent letters 
to the President, to the Small Business Administrator, to the 
majority--saying let's do it now. I had a major initiative that I filed 
in early March, and I was asked by the majority leader to defer because 
he said we were going to be addressing this on the floor of the Senate 
before the April recess.
  Well, according to my calendar, we are at the end of July, and here 
we are. We are not even going to get done before the August recess 
because the House is adjourning tomorrow. So we have to get this done. 
So we are going to ram it and jam it and take it or leave it, but we 
are not going to be able to offer any amendments on this side. We are 
not going to be allowed to offer any amendments because the majority is 
going to dictate the will of the minority on a few amendments.
  Madam President, this is unacceptable. I regret this. I deeply regret 
this, as one who has worked across the political aisle. I wish more 
would do it on both sides--look at the policy and see what is right and 
what works. Now we are talking about these side-by-sides offered by the 
majority last night--the night before a cloture vote. We filed a 
cloture vote on the third substitute that has disallowed any amendments 
to be offered by the majority; the third substitute in the third or 
fourth week this bill has been pending. The third substitute was filed 
on Tuesday and we are having a cloture vote at 10:40 this morning, 
Madam President, with no amendments because the majority is going to 
tell us what amendments we can offer. But they are going to offer 
plenty of amendments that aren't even related to the small business 
bill.
  Enough is enough. This has been anything but a jobs agenda. The 
American people are suffering. I suspect we will all go home and talk 
to our constituents. What do you think is happening on Main Street? Yet 
here we are, all for jobs. Oh, but by the way, we are going to offer 
the supplemental that we dropped last week.
  Last week, before we voted on the lending facility amendment, I 
deferred

[[Page 14505]]

my remarks on the lending facility out of deference to one of our 
colleagues on the other side. I never made my final arguments because 
we went to the supplemental. They stripped everything and sent it to 
the House. Now they are taking all the rest of it and putting it in 
this package on top of tax extenders, the fiscal assistance and 
education funding? They are talking billions and billions. $40 billion 
here, $20 million there, all that added to the small business bill.
  For what purpose? Is that the way we legislate? Well, the American 
people know. They know it. They can see through this masquerade. They 
see it all the time. They know it. That is why they have lost 
confidence. That is why we are at a historic low, Madam President, in 
terms of public approval. It is a disgrace for this institution. It is 
a disgrace and a shame, and I am speaking as one who has worked 
mightily across the political aisle for more than 30 years, in both the 
House and the Senate. My career and my legislative record is replete 
with examples of bipartisanship. I think this is nothing but a disgrace 
and a shame and I regret that--more than anything else, for the people 
who are suffering in America in every one of our communities. We all 
know better.
  We had no votes yesterday. It was possible to sit down and talk and 
see what unanimous consent request could be agreed to between the 
minority leader and the majority leader. But, no, we decided we are 
going to forgo all that. We are going to play a political game. Isn't 
this nice, offer these side-by-sides so the American people should know 
there are so-called alternatives to whatever the majority would allow 
us to offer. It is a sad commentary because two-thirds of the American 
people disagree with the direction we are going.
  But more than anything else, they need jobs to support their 
families. I supported the unemployment benefit extension, much to the 
consternation of the minority leader and others on this side, because 
they wanted to pay for it and I would have preferred to also, but I 
knew that would not be acceptable on that side. But I was willing to do 
it because I didn't want to put people in the terrible position of 
making a choice in their lives about how they are going to put food on 
their table. I have talked to people in Maine. I talk to my 
constituents and I listen, so that is why I supported it, because I 
thought it was important to do it for the American people, and I hope 
there could be some reciprocity here, to do what is right for America.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has 
expired. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, what the American people want from us is 
for us to work together. They don't want partisan political attacks. 
Here is what is so strange about this particular partisan attack we 
have just heard. The Senator from Maine said she wants a chance for her 
side to have ``just a few amendments.''
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the offer made 
by the majority leader to allow that. Any of the amendments they 
wanted, the other side wanted, matched by amendments we wanted. I ask 
unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Leader: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
     pending motion to commit be withdrawn, and all pending 
     amendments be withdrawn except #4519, and that the following 
     amendments be the only amendments in order to amendment 
     #4519, with no motions to commit or motions to suspend the 
     rules in order during the pendency of H.R. 5297; that all 
     amendments included in this agreement be subject to an 
     affirmative 60 vote threshold; and that if the amendment 
     achieves that threshold, then it be agreed to and the motion 
     to reconsider be laid upon the table; that if it does not 
     achieve that threshold, then it be withdrawn; that any 
     majority side-by-side amendment be voted first in any 
     sequence of votes; further that debate on any amendment 
     included in this agreement be limited to 60 minutes each; 
     with all time equally divided and controlled in the usual 
     form:
       Baucus amendment re: information reporting provisions 
     health care as a side-by-side to the Johanns 1099 reporting 
     amendment; Johanns amendment 1099 reporting; Murray/Harkin 
     amendment re: education funding; Republican side-by-side 
     amendment re: education funding; Hatch amendment re: R&D 
     Reid amendment re: FMAP/Cobell funding Grassley amendment re: 
     biodiesel.
       That upon disposition of the listed amendments, no further 
     amendments be in order; that the substitute amendment, as 
     amended, if amended, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be 
     read a third time, and without further intervening action or 
     debate, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; 
     finally, that once this agreement is entered, the cloture 
     motions on the substitute and bill be withdrawn.

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I also work across the political aisle. 
I worked with Senator Snowe on the Passenger Bill of Rights. I worked 
with the former Senator Smith on guns in the cockpit. I worked with 
Senator Ensign on afterschool, I worked with Senator Inhofe on highway 
bills, on WRDA bills. We all work across the aisle and I too compliment 
the Senator from Maine for standing with us on some very tough votes. 
But I have to say--she is asking for a bipartisan bill?
  Let me read the sections of this bill and I ask unanimous consent to 
have this printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 14506]]





[[Page 14507]]



[[Page 14508]]



[[Page 14509]]



[[Page 14510]]


  Mrs. BOXER. The first amendment written by Landrieu-Snowe; the 
second, Snowe-Landrieu; the third one, Snowe-Merkley; the fourth one, 
Snowe-Landrieu; the next one, Landrieu-Nelson; the next one, Snowe-
Pryor--and on and on.
  The next section: Merkley-Alexander. We all know Senator Hatch worked 
with Senator Bingaman on many of these. Senator Grassley is involved in 
this, Senator Brownback is involved.
  I have to say, of all the bills we have taken up, this is the most 
bipartisan. I think that to make a process argument now is a shame.
  Let me read some of the groups that support this bill, even though 
the Senator from Maine doesn't like it. Let me tell you where you are. 
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Pass this bill; National Federation of 
Independent Businesses: Pass this bill; the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of 
Commerce: Pass this bill; the Black Chamber of Commerce: Pass this 
bill; the National Association for the Self-Employed; the Small 
Business Majority--and on and on.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the entire list printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          Supporters of the Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF)

       American Apparel and Footwear Association; American Bankers 
     Association; American International Automobile Dealers 
     Association; Arkansas Community Bankers; Associated Builders 
     & Contractors; California Independent Bankers; Community 
     Bankers Association of Alabama; Community Bankers Association 
     of Georgia; Community Bankers Association of Illinois; 
     Community Bankers Association of Kansas; Community Bankers 
     Association of Ohio; Community Bankers of Iowa; Community 
     Bankers of Washington; Community Bankers of West Virginia; 
     Community Bankers of Wisconsin; Conference of State Bank 
     Supervisors; Fashion Accessories Shippers Association; 
     Financial Services Roundtable; Florida Bankers Association; 
     Governors of Michigan, Ohio, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, 
     Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, New York, North 
     Carolina, Oregon, Washington, West Virginia.
       Heating, Air conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors 
     International; Independent Bankers Association of Texas; 
     Independent Bankers of Colorado; Independent Community 
     Bankers Association of New Mexico; Independent Community 
     Bankers of America; Independent Community Bankers of 
     Minnesota; Independent Community Bankers of South Dakota; 
     Indiana Bankers Association; International Franchise 
     Association; Louisiana Bankers Association; Maine Association 
     of Community Banks; Marine Retailers Association of America; 
     Maryland Bankers Association; Massachusetts Bankers 
     Association; Michigan Association of Community Bankers; 
     Missouri Independent Bankers Association; National 
     Association for the Self-Employed; National Association of 
     Government Guaranteed Lenders; National Association of 
     Manufacturers; National Automobile Dealers Association.
       National Bankers Association; National Council of Textile 
     Organizations; National Marine Manufacturers Association; 
     National Restaurant Association; National RV Retailers 
     Association; National Small Business Association; Nebraska 
     Independent Community Bankers; Pennsylvania Association of 
     Community Bankers; Printing Industries of America; Small 
     Business California; Small Business Majority; Tennessee 
     Bankers Association; Travel Goods Association; Virginia 
     Association of Community Banks; Women Impacting Public 
     Policy.

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, the Senator from Maine is right when she 
says we have to move to help this economy, and this bill is one of the 
answers. That is why it has such broad support. Republicans and 
Democrats across the country support this, Independent voters support 
this, small businesses support this. The only group that is 
filibustering this bill happens to be the Republicans in the Senate. I 
am telling you, if they say no again, they are hurting this economy.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I understand the leadership has 5 minutes each, equally 
divided.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time remaining currently 
belongs to the Republican leader. There is 5 minutes, followed by the 
majority leader.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. That is fine. Thank you. I would like the minority 
leader to go ahead. It is his 5 minutes, and I will reserve the last 5.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I had the opportunity to hear the 
distinguished Senator from Maine, a few moments ago, speak on the 
measure before us and how it has seemed to become completely enmeshed 
in the political agenda of the other side. I commend her for her 
efforts to get this bill right. Senator LeMieux was on the floor 
earlier, another one of our colleagues on the Republican side who 
worked long and hard to get this bill across the finish line.
  But I must say, it takes a lot of effort to make a partisan issue out 
of a bill that should have broad bipartisan support. You have to go out 
of your way, as Senator Snowe pointed out, to make a small business 
bill controversial, but our friends on the other side have managed to 
pull it off.
  They have outdone themselves. We got this bill in late June. This is 
July 29. Since then, the Democrats have set it aside six separate times 
to move on to something else. So, from the beginning, this bill clearly 
was not a priority to them until they realized they didn't have 
anything to talk about when they go home in August. I think one 
Democratic Senator put it best when he suggested this week that a 
midterm campaign that revolves around his party's agenda and that of 
the White House is a losing proposition for the majority.
  He was summing up their strategy on this bill. They knew they could 
not run on a record of job-killing taxes, burdensome new regulations, 
massive government intrusions and record deficits and debt. So what do 
they do? What do they do? They create an issue where there is none. 
That is what this debate is all about.
  It was clear from the beginning there was a path for this bill to 
pass with a very broad bipartisan majority. Instead, we are standing 
here this morning looking at a third version of a bill and we have yet 
to engage in any substantive amendment process. They have been adding 
either controversial or completely unrelated matters to the bill--all 
to avoid any real debate and to avoid voting on Republican amendments.
  This bill now has over $1 billion in agricultural spending in it. It 
has $1 billion in agricultural spending in a small business bill, in 
the core bill--the most recent version of the core bill. As I said, we 
have been on this since June 29.
  Republicans have asked for a total of eight amendments. That is about 
two votes a week if we had been on this bill. That is not too much to 
ask.
  It is obvious what is going on. They wanted to make this an issue so 
they have something to talk about other than their failed economic 
policies. The President made that clear 2 weeks ago when he accused 
Republicans of blocking this bill, a statement every single fact 
checker in town has shown to be false. So they can try to deflect 
attention all they want, they can manufacture a legislative impasse--
and that is what has happened here, a manufactured legislative 
impasse--but the American people know what is going on. Nearly every 
major piece of legislation this Congress has considered has had painful 
consequences for small business. Nearly every major piece of 
legislation this Congress has considered has had painful consequences 
for small business. Attempting to create a controversy is not going to 
hide that from anyone.
  Hopefully, if cloture is not invoked, we can return to the original 
intent of this bill, strip it of its controversial add-ons and pass a 
small business bill that attracts broad bipartisan support and helps 
American small business owners. Given the legislative record of this 
Congress, they could certainly use the help.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. We have 5 minutes left; is that right?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REID. I yield 4 minutes to my friend from Louisiana.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.

[[Page 14511]]


  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I would like to respond directly to 
the minority leader because I wish to make clear that there are no 
extraneous provisions in this bill other than disaster relief for 
farmers. The last time I checked, they were small business owners, many 
of them. They are running a different kind of business. It is not a 
hardware store, it is not a restaurant--they go out and actually get 
their food out of the ground. The last time I checked or thought about 
it, they were small businesses.
  If the minority leader is suggesting there is not bipartisan support 
for agricultural disaster relief, I urge him, at his next available 
opportunity, to file an amendment to repeal it because I think his side 
would have strong objection to that. That was put in at the request of 
Senator Lincoln and Senator Chambliss from Georgia, and he very well 
knows that--through the Chair to the minority leader.
  There were only two arguments made this morning against this bill 
because it was just a political advertisement that the minority leader 
outlined, so I will not even respond to him, to the Senator from 
Kentucky, but I will respond, in closing, to Senator Snowe and Senator 
Hatch.
  Mr. Hatch came to the floor, the Senator from Utah, and said we 
couldn't possibly pass a $12 billion tax cut for small business today 
unless we could, as a Senate, in the next few hours, make final 
decisions on whether to extend the entire tax package passed by George 
Bush when he was President 8 years ago. I think that is a big lift for 
the Small Business Committee. We want to give $12 billion of tax cuts 
today. I hope people will vote for them.
  Second and finally, Senator Snowe does deserve the last reference on 
this because she is an outstanding Senator, one of the finest I have 
ever worked with, but this issue is a public debate between those of us 
who support the Small Business Lending Fund and those who do not. She 
does not support it. She has made excellent arguments. Her arguments 
are given merit. We voted on it, but we got 60 votes.
  Senator Reid, I know, has the last minute and he has been outstanding 
in this, but, please, there are only two legitimate arguments. We 
cannot solve extension of all the tax cuts in the next 2 hours. Our 
small businesses have picked up enough weight. They cannot handle that 
weight. If we don't give them some help now, today, many of them are 
not going to be here, I want the Senator from Kentucky to know, when we 
show up in September.
  I yield the last minute to the leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, let me bring all of the Senators up to 
date as to where we are.
  A member of the minority indicated that that Senator would vote for 
cloture if we took out a provision we put in, the agricultural disaster 
relief. So after having conferred with a number of Senators on both 
sides of the aisle, I have agreed we will take that out. With that 
provision not in the bill it got 60 votes on Thursday night, that same 
provision. But even to show good faith, which I am not sure it is 
necessary, but to show we are going to go the extra mile, I will not 
only agree to take out that extra provision but also have the same 
amendments we asked for yesterday; that is, the three amendments the 
Republicans wanted, which are the Johanns, Hatch, and Grassley 
amendments. I will be more specific on the legislative language in a 
minute. So we would take the agricultural disaster relief out and have 
the same amendments we had yesterday and offer the same amendment we 
had.
  I don't know how we could be more fair. In fact, a number of my 
Members think we should go ahead with this, but we are willing to do 
that.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Title 4, part 3, under 
substitute B, be stricken; and that the pending motion to commit be 
withdrawn, and all pending amendments be withdrawn except No. 4519, as 
amended, and that the following amendments be the only amendments in 
order to amendment No. 4519, with no motions to commit or motions to 
suspend the rules in order during the pendency of H.R. 5297; that all 
amendments included in this agreement be subject to an affirmative 60-
vote threshold; and that if the amendment achieves that threshold, then 
it be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; 
that if it does not achieve that threshold, then it be withdrawn; that 
any majority side-by-side amendment be voted first in any sequence of 
votes; further, that debate on any amendment included in this agreement 
be limited to 60 minutes each, with all time equally divided and 
controlled in the usual form:
  Baucus amendment regarding information reporting provisions health 
care as a side-by-side to the Johanns 1099 reporting amendment; Johanns 
amendment 1099 reporting; Murray/Harkin amendment regarding education 
funding; Republican side-by-side amendment regarding education funding; 
Hatch amendment regarding R&D Reid amendment regarding FMAP/Cobell 
funding; Grassley amendment regarding biodiesel; that upon disposition 
of the listed amendments, no further amendments be in order; that the 
substitute amendment, as amended, if amended, be agreed to; the bill, 
as amended, be read a third time, and without further intervening 
action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; 
finally, that once this agreement is entered, the cloture motions on 
the substitute and bill be withdrawn.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, let me 
first compliment my friend the majority leader. I think we are 
beginning to make some real progress here toward making a bill that was 
initially bipartisan bipartisan again. This doesn't quite get back to 
where I had hoped we could get, but I think we are making progress.
  Therefore, I would encourage my Members to oppose cloture on the 
vote, but we are going to continue the discussion. This is only 11:30 
on Thursday. I think we are getting closer to getting where we may be 
able to do some business and get this bill out of here, but there will 
have to be some amendments on our side. Actually, I think our friends 
on the other side knew it would have to be more than three. I 
appreciate the movement in the direction with the three, but that would 
not be enough, at least for this juncture right now, to be 
satisfactory. Therefore, I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. My frustration is pretty high. I cannot possibly understand 
how my friends on the other side of the aisle could vote against 
cloture. We have agreed to take out the provision dealing with 
agricultural disaster--take it out. We have agreed to have the 
amendments they have indicated they have wanted for days. We have 
agreed to do that. It is unreasonable.
  Some people said, Well, why don't you talk to Senator McConnell. I 
have talked to Senator McConnell. It is obvious that no one on the 
other side of the aisle wants this bill to pass. I am so disappointed.
  We are going to have this cloture vote in a minute. I hope Senators 
on the other side of the aisle understand the good faith we have 
engaged in. This is not a victory for Democrats or a defeat for 
Republicans; it is an effort to help small business. It is an effort to 
help small business. I went over line by line what this does for small 
business. It is miraculous. Hundreds of thousands of jobs--not tens of 
thousands--will be created with this legislation.
  I appreciate the chairman of the Small Business Committee leading 
this effort. I understand that I said Lincoln-LeMieux; of course I 
meant Landrieu-LeMieux when I spoke earlier. I am not going to mention 
Republicans by name,

[[Page 14512]]

but there are some Republicans who have stepped forward, and I 
appreciate it very much. Again, it is not for my appreciation, it is 
for the appreciation of the American people. Look what this message 
will send. We have at least 80 groups, entities, which support this 
legislation. Major small business conglomerates support this 
legislation. This is all they have. We shouldn't leave here and not 
complete this legislation. It would be too bad. This should not be 
partisan.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, we turned to this bill initially on 
June 24. We have left it six times over the last month. There is 
widespread agreement on a bipartisan basis that we should pass a small 
business bill. We are finally making some progress. It has become less 
a political instrument and more the initial bill, as Senator Snowe has 
been asking us to do for quite some time. I think we should continue to 
discuss it after the vote.
  It is only 11:30 on Thursday. I think there is a chance we may be 
able to make some significant progress very soon. In the meantime, we 
should go ahead and have the vote. The majority leader and I can 
continue to try to unsnarl this problem and see if we can move forward.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. There is nothing to unsnarl. We have agreed to take out the 
offending provision that Senators on the other side of the aisle said 
they wanted out. I took it out. They wanted to offer amendments. I have 
agreed to let them offer amendments. There is nothing snarled. There is 
only an effort to stop passage of this bill.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the majority leader is graciously 
giving us three amendments. What I am saying is three amendments is not 
enough, and he knows that. So we are not expecting to have an unlimited 
number of amendments, but three amendments will not suffice.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, could I ask the minority leader a 
question, please. Will he yield?
  Would the minority leader be willing to say how many amendments might 
be enough? The Senator from Maine, the ranking member, said a few. The 
Senator from Florida--if I could finish--the Senator from Florida, Mr. 
LeMieux, said he thought it would be fair if there were four or five. 
We have offered three. Is there any sort of possibility--because that 
would help us get even further.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Is that a question?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I will tell my friend from Louisiana that is the sort 
of thing the majority leader and I work on every day, is to try to 
determine the number of amendments, and we ought to continue to try to 
do that.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, let me press for a minute on this 
question, because with all due respect to the minority leader, until we 
can finally agree on that number, it is going to be hard to figure out 
a path forward. So my question to the minority leader is, so we can do 
this in a more public way----
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate has a cloture vote at 
this time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Regular order.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion to invoke 
cloture.
  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, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Reid-Baucus 
     substitute amendment No. 4519 to H.R. 5297, the Small 
     Business Lending Fund Act of 2010:
         Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Edward E. Kaufman, Amy Klobuchar, 
           Mark R. Warner, Jeff Merkley, Jack Reed, Jon Tester, 
           John D. Rockefeller IV, Dianne Feinstein, Daniel K. 
           Akaka, Sherrod Brown, Barbara A. Mikulski, Patty 
           Murray, Jeff Bingaman, Debbie Stabenow, Bill Nelson, 
           Carl Levin.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory 
quorum call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 4519, offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, to 
H.R. 5297, the Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010, shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 58, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 221 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Goodwin
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--42

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 58, the nays are 
42. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by 
which cloture was not invoked.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture 
motion on H.R. 5297 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, we have had a very enlightening debate 
this morning on the floor that started at 9:30. It has been continuing 
until now. The good news about this debate is that although we did not 
win on this vote--cloture was not invoked--Main Street is still winning 
and we are alive. We are still standing. Earlier this morning, the two 
leaders came to the floor and said--basically agreed--that if we can 
have a few more amendments, what I heard the minority leader say, the 
Senator from Kentucky--the minority leader said a few more amendments, 
we could then bring some help to Main Street.
  Main Street has been waiting for a year and a half. We have had bill 
after bill, amendment after amendment. What I heard this morning from 
the minority leader was very positive. He said: All we need is just a 
few more amendments. I asked what ``a few'' was. Was that two or three 
or four or five? That answer never came. I am assuming that ``a few'' 
is a few, and if we work hard over the next few hours and come up with 
a few, Main Street could win because this bill is about Main Street and 
businesses on Main Street. It is not about Wall Street. It is not about 
big banks. It is about small community banks and the small businesses 
in our country that are desperate for help.
  This bill has $12 billion in tax cuts for small business, not big 
business. This bill has a $30 billion lending program that is 
voluntary, with no restrictions for small banks, not big banks. This 
bill is supported by over 70 organizations. I would like my colleagues 
on the other side to know that

[[Page 14513]]

the chamber of commerce and the National Federation of Independent 
Business are supporting this bill. Chambers and community bankers all 
over America are supporting this bill. And we are two votes from 
passage.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, will the Senator yield for one question?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I very much would like to yield to the Senator from 
California for a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am just asking a question through the Chair. This is 
the time of the Senator from Louisiana.
  I have watched the Senator from Louisiana make a case for this 
bipartisan bill day after day, and I have heard her lay out why we 
should come together, Republicans and Democrats, to do something right 
for small businesses that create 62 percent of all jobs. It is 
astounding to me that we could not get even one Republican to join with 
us today. But I do have hope. As we speak, we see the majority leader 
and the minority leader discussing amendments.
  I want to ask my friend two questions. The Senator from Maine gave a 
very impassioned speech saying that the Democrats were the ones who 
were stopping this legislation. She said all we needed to do was offer 
``a few'' amendments to the Republicans.
  My first question: Is it not true, I say to my friend who is managing 
this bill, that, in fact, the majority leader, Harry Reid, did offer 
the other side a few amendments--clearly did before this cloture vote? 
And the second question is whether my friend would be willing to share 
with our colleagues and the people who are engaged in this debate how 
this bill is perhaps the most bipartisan bill ever to come out of any 
committee. I know my friend gave me that information--title after title 
after title containing the names of Republicans and Democratic 
Senators.
  So if she would answer those two questions, No. 1, when the Senator 
from Maine says that our leader did not offer a few amendments to the 
other side; isn't she incorrect? And, No. 2, isn't this one of the most 
bipartisan efforts to come out of any committee?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I would like to answer the Senator from California by 
saying the record will speak for itself because that vote we just took, 
there were 59 Senators, all on this side of the aisle, who pushed a 
green light, and there were 41 on the other side who pushed a red 
light. So it is very clear who is trying to move forward and who is 
trying to stop this bill. It is very clear.
  I don't think there is anyone, even in the press, confused about that 
because this debate, amazingly, has been so open. So much of it has 
gone on on the Senate floor that they can actually follow it. These 
deals are not being done in back rooms; they are being done right here 
on the Senate floor, and they are following it. They know there are 70 
organizations, and they know this bill is bipartisan.
  I am just going to read the names, not the provisions, that the 
Senator was asking about: Landrieu-Snowe, Snowe-Landrieu, Snowe-
Merkley-Landrieu-Crapo-Risch, Snowe-Landrieu, Landrieu-Nelson, Snowe-
Pryor.
  And let's continue: Kerry-Snowe-Menendez, Merkley-Alexander, Snowe, 
Bingaman-Hatch-Landrieu-Grassley, Baucus-Grassley-Brownback-Inhofe-
Johanns-Menendez, Baucus-Grassley-Crapo, Kerry-Ensign--there are 72 
cosponsors that Senators Kerry and Ensign put on this bill--Snowe, 
Grassley.
  For the ranking member to come and suggest that there are not enough 
bipartisan amendments, let me continue. There are more: There is 
LeMieux-Landrieu, Nelson is on this one, LeMieux-Landrieu-Nelson-
Klobuchar.
  This bill came out of the Finance Committee and the Small Business 
Committee with bipartisan support. One of the things we couldn't agree 
on was the Small Business Lending Fund. I understand the rules; I have 
been around here 14 years. So we had a vote on it. You know what. It 
got 60 votes. The Small Business Lending Program got 60 votes on the 
floor of the Senate after it passed the House of Representatives.
  When I was in school, I learned that once a bill was passed, it comes 
to the Senate, they pass it, and it goes to the President for 
signature. Maybe there are some people who don't want that provision to 
go to the President for signature. I understand that. But we got 60 
votes on the bill, as the Senator from California knows.
  So here we are. The other side is very good about hiding behind 
pages. They bring out these big pages of bills and they say: We don't 
know what is in it, and we can't tell. So I sent the four pages in my 
hand to all the press organizations today. It is just four pages. 
Anyone can read this. They are on my Web site and lots of other Web 
sites. There are just four pages. That is all that is in the bill--all 
small business items.
  There was an agricultural provision that was in the bill that I 
actually support. Senator Lincoln put it in the bill, along with 
Senator Chambliss. But you heard the minority leader say this morning 
that he didn't think farmers were small businesspeople. I will let him 
explain that to the farmers in Kentucky. But he said he did not think 
the provision for the farmers had anything to do with small business. 
Maybe he hasn't been in a seed store lately, or maybe he hasn't been 
where people purchase hay and supplies. Maybe he hasn't been to a John 
Deere dealership, but they sure are all over Louisiana and Arkansas.
  Mrs. BOXER. Would the Senator yield?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield for a question.
  Mrs. BOXER. Of course. I just have one more question for my friend.
  We hear every Senator--Democratic, Republican, Independent--say the 
biggest issue before us, the biggest one is jobs--jobs, jobs, jobs. 
When my friend goes home, I know she has to deal with the oil disaster 
and still rebuilding after Katrina. In California, we have our series 
of deep problems in tough, tough times. But she knows that whatever we 
do here we have to push forward with policies that create jobs, and we 
have to keep our eye on the deficit.
  So my friend has brought forth a bill, along with Senator Baucus and 
many Republicans--because she just went through the many bipartisan 
provisions--that will leverage $30 billion into $300 billion from the 
private sector. If we turn that into jobs, we are talking thousands and 
thousands of jobs created by the innovators, the small businesspeople 
who have gotten no help. That is why my friend has the sign ``Main 
Street.'' We have to help Main Street.
  So I want to ask in the form of question, and then I will leave the 
floor at that point: Isn't this a bill that is desperately needed by 
our small businesses? Aren't our small businesses the creators of jobs? 
Is this bill not paid for? And won't this bill deliver the kind of 
policy that will allow for job growth through growth of small 
businesses that are solid, with community banks that are solid? Isn't 
this bill just what we need to do before we leave to go home and be 
with our constituents in August?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Absolutely, the Senator is correct. I am glad I have 
this chart to answer her question because she has been representing the 
State of California beautifully for so many years. She knows this 
without me showing it, but 81 percent of the jobs lost in America are 
from small business.
  So when the other side complains and complains and just flaps and 
flaps and flaps all day long about it is a jobless recovery, we have a 
bill on the floor to create jobs from small business and they say no. 
That vote today was a ``no'' vote to give help to small business. They 
can color it, paint it any way they want. That is what it was.
  We know this recovery is having a hard time with jobs. I am going to 
yield in a minute because there are eight other Senators on the floor 
who want to speak on different subjects, so I will conclude with this. 
This isn't Mary Landrieu information. This comes from the monthly 
national employment reports from 2008 to 2010--the job losses with 
small business.

[[Page 14514]]

  That crew over there on the other side of that aisle can't run fast 
enough to help big business, to help Wall Street. But when it comes to 
voting to help small businesses that are bleeding jobs, they want to 
run and hide off the floor.
  The minority leader said a few amendments. I would like to know how 
many is a few? Is it three, is it four, is it five, is it six? Let's 
get a deal done today. I would just as soon do it here, out in the 
open, but I guess that is not the way things are done here.
  So I will yield the floor and let other Senators speak about judges 
and other things that have to be done because there are other problems 
in the world. This isn't the only one. This is a big one, but it is not 
the only one.
  I will end with this sign because this is what this debate is about. 
It is about Main Street. You are either for it or you are against it. 
It is about as simple as that.
  When I became chair of this committee, I said: We are going to fight 
hard for small business, and I asked the chamber the other day: How 
many of your members are small businesses? They said: Senator, you 
would be surprised. It is 96 percent of the members of the chamber.
  I asked: Are you all standing up for this bill? They said: Yes, we 
are. So I thank the chamber and I thank the NFIB. I feel like I am 
Alice in Wonderland. Most of the time they are on that side, but this 
time they are on our side, and we can't get the Republicans to vote.
  Finally, the Senator from Utah came to give a feeble argument this 
morning. He said he could not vote for it because we haven't debated 
the entire extent of the Bush tax cuts. That is a big debate that we 
need to have, but we don't have to have it on this bill. These people 
can't take any more waiting. They have had enough. We can handle that 
debate on another day, on another bill, but not on this one. So I would 
suggest to the Senator from Utah that he has quite a few amendments on 
this bill, and of the few amendments we might have, he may have two.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I will yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. I see the Senator from Florida is here, but I wanted to 
ask a question through the Chair.
  Is it my understanding that we have been debating this small business 
bill, which has come out of the committee the Senator from Louisiana 
chairs, for quite some time now? Isn't this the second week, or maybe 
even longer? Is it true the other side objected to a provision in the 
bill because it related to agricultural disaster assistance in a few 
States?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Louisiana argued that farmers are small 
businesspeople too. So it is not unreasonable to include it. But we 
decided, in an effort to get a bipartisan agreement on the bill, that 
we would remove the section they objected to. Then they came in with a 
list of three amendments and said they wanted to offer these three 
amendments, which have maybe a loose connection with small business but 
not much more of a connection, and we said: Fine, you can offer those 
three amendments, and we will offer three amendments, and let's go and 
get this done. Then they came back and objected again.
  So isn't it correct that right now we are trying to get to a point 
where we are providing credit to small businesses all across the United 
States through good sound banks, and that credit will help these small 
businesses survive and hire more employees, and we are being stopped by 
the Republicans in our effort to help small business? Is that what is 
happening?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. That is exactly what it looks like. The Senator from 
Illinois has described it accurately. If anybody believes he has not 
described it accurately, let them come to the floor because he has 
described the truth. He has said the truth.
  So I am going to yield right now because others wish to talk, but I 
thank the Senator from Illinois. This battle is going on, and we intend 
to win it for Main Street. I hope the other side will get their short 
list of a few amendments together pretty quickly.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, before the Senator from 
Louisiana leaves the floor, I just want to say that this issue is very 
simply characterized as Main Street versus Wall Street. It is a 
question of whether we are serious about reviving this economy and 
getting money into the hands of small business through community banks. 
Anybody voting no on a motion to invoke cloture to go to a bill that is 
ready to be embraced is inexcusable.
  This legislation is critical to getting small businesses back on 
their feet. That is certainly the case in my State of Florida. It gets 
the credit flowing again on Main Street through the community banks.
  The statistics about small business and jobs is all too familiar. 
Small businesses create most of the jobs in this country. In the last 
15 years, they have created 12 million jobs or two-thirds of the 
American jobs that have been created. When the economy falters, guess 
who takes it on the chin the hardest? Small business does. Over the 
past couple of years, small firms have accounted for between 64 and 80 
percent of net job losses. So it is time for us to step up and help 
them.
  For example, in Florida, small businesses play an even bigger role in 
the local economy. According to the Small Business Administration, 
small business employers account for 99 percent of the State's 
employers and provides for nearly half of the State's private sector 
jobs. Just when it looked as though things could not get worse for 
small businesses--and especially so in our State--along came the tragic 
explosion of the Deepwater Horizon platform, and our seasonally 
adjusted unemployment was 12 percent, representing in our State 1.1 
million people out of work in a labor force of 9 million.
  We have not yet gauged the full impact of that oil spill on Florida's 
economy, but there is ample evidence that it is the small businesses 
that are the ones that have been hurt the worst and the ones who have 
had to lay off the jobs as a result of that oil spill.
  There was a study done by Dun & Bradstreet that found that the impact 
of the spill on Florida tourism, boating, and fishing industries--these 
businesses located along the gulf coast--is going to affect 46,000 
businesses, with almost 300,000 employees and $14 billion in sales 
volume. One of the key features of this legislation and another main 
reason why we need to pass it is that Small Business Lending Fund. It 
sets up the voluntary capital investment program, under which the 
Treasury Department can purchase up to $30 billion in equity from small 
banks, those whose total assets fall under $10 billion. Although the 
fund is set at $30 billion, conservative estimates indicate it will 
lead to $300 billion in new small business lending. This is the 
economic shot in the arm that so many States need, including ours. I 
cosponsored the amendment that was added to this overall small business 
bill that put the lending facility back in the bill.
  It is an overlooked feature of the legislation that it actually 
provides $56 billion in tax relief for small businesses over the next 
couple years. Upfront tax relief comes in the form of early tax 
writeoffs for investments in new equipment, new machinery, and new 
construction. That is all a part of this small business bill. Together 
with the tax breaks, the targeted tax incentives, and the lending fund, 
we have a package that is exactly the type of relief small businesses 
need today. We need to jump-start them and that is what this bill 
accomplishes.
  Obviously, as the Senator from Louisiana has already said, this bill 
has very wide support. I underscore the Independent Community Bankers 
of America, and 29 State community banking associations have urged 
approval of this plan. So does the American Bankers Association, the 
National Small Business Association, the National Association for the 
Self-Employed, the Small Business Majority, the National Bankers 
Association, and the Conference of State Bank Supervisors.

[[Page 14515]]

  I have heard from many constituents--including small business owners, 
bankers, chambers, entrepreneurs--who believe this legislation is 
needed. I am proud to cosponsor it.
  I ask unanimous consent to join as a cosponsor of the Baucus-Landrieu 
substitute amendment because I think it is the right thing to do and 
the right thing for our State.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. It is my hope we can pass this substitute 
amendment without further opposition as we are continuing to see.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. LeMIEUX. Madam President, it has been my privilege to work on the 
measure that is before the Senate, the small business bill that has 
been championed by my friend from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, that Ms. 
Cantwell, the Senator from Washington, has been so instrumental working 
on, as well as my friend, Senator Klobuchar, with whom I worked on the 
export portion of this bill.
  To the American people at home watching this, this must be a rather 
confusing process. Why is it that there is a piece of legislation, a 
Small Business Promotion Act, that has bipartisan support--why is it 
not being voted on today? Frankly, there are a lot of things around 
here we cannot agree on--the majority of things, it seems. But this is 
something we can agree on. It is going to be good for America. I was 
pleased to sponsor the amendment along with my friend from Louisiana, 
the LeMieux-Landrieu amendment, which is the lending facility. It is a 
provision that will bring money to local community banks to loan money 
to the people on Main Street--not Wall Street bankers but the bankers 
you see at Rotary or Kiwanis or at church or synagogue who loan to the 
auto mechanic, to the dentist, to the hair stylist, to the people 
working in your local communities.
  In my home State of Florida, that is the vast majority of our 
businesses--nearly 2 million small businesses in Florida, small 
businesses that are struggling in the worst economy anyone can 
remember, the worst economy in Florida since the Great Depression.
  Today I saw a report out of Florida Trend, one of our leading 
business magazines, saying that for the first half of the year, Florida 
now leads the country in home foreclosures. We are No. 1 behind on 
payments on our mortgages. Our unemployment rate is 11.4 percent, but 
that does not truly capture how bad the situation is because that 
unemployment rate is a moving average over time, and after a certain 
period of time when you have been out of work, you are no longer 
counted as unemployed because those who make these statistics believe 
you are not actively in the job market anymore. The truth of it is, if 
you walk down the street in my home State of Florida, you have a 1-in-5 
chance, if you see an able-bodied adult, that they are unemployed or 
underemployed. Twenty percent is the real number of people who don't 
have a job or don't have enough of a job.
  The people in my State are hurting. This is a bipartisan bill and it 
should pass. I am hopeful our leaders, Leader Reid and Leader 
McConnell, who are meeting right now, are going to come to an agreement 
on amendments.
  Let me break this down for the American people so they can understand 
what is going on. Our friends on the other side of the aisle, the 
Democrats, are in the majority. They have 59 votes. They can control 
the agenda. We, here on the Republican side, want to offer amendments 
to bills, but we can only offer amendments by agreement. The majority 
that is in charge only lets us offer amendments if they agree to it, so 
we have little bargaining power. But we believe we should have the 
opportunity to make bills better.
  So we are going to have some amendments to this bill, and we should 
have some amendments to this bill. You know what. If they are good 
ideas, the power of our ideas will prevail and the other side will 
agree to them and if they are not, they will not. If the American 
people, later on, think we have better ideas, maybe they will send more 
of us here and if they don't, maybe they will send more of them. But we 
should have the opportunity to offer our amendments.
  On the other side, they are going to have some amendments, too, and 
that is fine, but they should be relevant to this bill. They should not 
be leftover appropriations on issues that have nothing to do with small 
business just because this is the train leaving the station and some 
Members of this body want to see their stuff put on it. I understand 
why they want to get things done, but this small business bill should 
pass, it should pass with relevant amendments from both sides, and we 
should do it today. We should do it today and pass it and send it over 
to the House so the House can pass it and send it to the President and 
he could sign it.
  I say that as a Republican because, before I am a Republican, I am a 
Floridian and I am an American, and this bill is good for our country 
and it is especially good for my State.
  I was pleased that the leader, Leader Reid, came down and made some 
changes in his proposal. I am heartened he is meeting with Leader 
McConnell right now. I hope they can work this out, because if they 
cannot work this out, shame on us. Shame on us if we cannot get this 
done when there is bipartisan support for this bill, a bill that will 
cut taxes for small businesses providing much needed credit and lending 
for local community banks to lend to small businesses without 
increasing taxes and without increasing the debt or deficit. When do we 
get to do that around here? Not too often--we do not.
  I have tried to work in good faith with my friends on the other side 
to facilitate the negotiations today to get us to a place where we can 
have reasonable amendments, where the rights of the minority will be 
protected and in the same vein we can still get this bill passed and I 
hope we can do so because we have good people on the other side of the 
aisle who I know want to get this done.
  I remain hopeful. I thank Senator Landrieu and Senator Cantwell. I 
see my friend from Rhode Island, whom I also thank for his good work on 
this bill, and I hope today we will get this done with a reasonable 
accommodation so we can help the American people.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LeMIEUX. I am pleased to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Through the Chair, if I can inquire of the junior 
Senator from Florida, is it not true that if one Member of his caucus, 
just one, had voted with us just a few moments ago on this vote, we 
would actually be on this bill and we could begin to move to amendments 
and consider the bill; is that not correct?
  Mr. LeMIEUX. That reminds me, my friend, if I may, reminds me of the 
saying that half the truth is no truth at all. Yes, that part is true. 
But the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey would say, is if this bill 
were not loaded with all these appropriations bills that have nothing 
to do with small business, we would be on this bill right now and it 
would be passed.
  The keys to the kingdom lie with the majority. This deal could be 
done right now and we could get to this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                          Judicial Nominations

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I rise on an important matter 
that affects all of us, Senators and citizens of our States alike, and 
that is the shortfall in the process of confirming nominations to the 
Federal bench. In particular, I wish to talk about one outstanding 
nominee from my home State of Colorado, William Martinez. Bill has an 
inspirational story. I will tell you more about it in a minute, but 
first I wish to explain why there is such an urgency to confirm this 
fine nominee.
  The situation in the Colorado District Court is dire--and I do not 
use that word easily or casually. There are currently five judges on 
our court and two vacancies, both of which are rated as judicial 
emergencies by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

[[Page 14516]]

These five judges have been handling the work of seven judges for 
nearly 2 years, and it has been over 3 years since our court had a full 
roster of judges.
  But there is more to the story. In 2008, based on the significant 
caseload in Colorado, the Judicial Conference of the United States 
recommended that an eighth judgeship be created. So you could argue we 
are actually three judges down from what we should have.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from 
Chief Judge Wiley Daniel to Leaders Reid and McConnell, explaining the 
profound impact this vacancy is having on the courts of the District of 
Colorado.
       There being no objection, the material was ordered to be 
     printed in the Record, as follows:

                                     United States District Court,


                                         District of Colorado,

                                          Denver, CO, May 6, 2010.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Reid and McConnell, I write this letter in my 
     capacity as Chief Judge for the District of Colorado. As more 
     fully detailed in this letter, our court has suffered 
     multiple judicial vacancies for years. Presently, we are down 
     two district court judges. It is important that you 
     understand that these vacancies have caused a profound impact 
     on the court's ability to discharge its important obligations 
     to the citizens within the State and District of Colorado in 
     a timely and efficient manner.
       As you are aware, President Obama nominated William 
     Martinez to be a judge on the court several months ago. 
     Within the past several weeks, he was voted out of the Senate 
     Judiciary Committee and is presently on the Senate floor 
     awaiting a vote. I urgently ask the two of you, in your 
     capacities as Senate Majority and Senate Minority Leaders, to 
     reach a ``Time Agreement'' so that a Senate vote on Mr. 
     Martinez's nomination can occur. As I am sure you understand, 
     this is a critical resource issue for me as it is my 
     responsibility to ensure the adequacy of judicial resources 
     to handle the business of the court.
       The court is presently authorized seven judgeships. At this 
     time, the court has five active judges and the assistance of 
     five senior judges with each senior judge having various 
     levels of a partial workload.
       A history of vacant judgeships continues to impede the 
     public service of the court to the citizens of Colorado and 
     to those outside of the state who depend on the court for 
     timely judicial rulings. For more than three years, the court 
     has not had a full complement of authorized judges.
       In March, 2007, Judge Phillip S. Figa underwent medical 
     treatment necessitating extended periods of absence from the 
     court. Following nine months of intermittent service, Judge 
     Figa, unfortunately, passed away on January 5, 2008. During 
     the time of Judge Figa's illness, the majority of his 
     caseload responsibilities were covered by other judges. 
     Following his untimely death, his cases were permanently 
     reassigned to other judges resulting in an average ten 
     percent increase in per judge workload, and the number of 
     active judges went from seven full-time active judges down to 
     six full-time active judges.
       Shortly thereafter on March 31, 2008, Judge Walker D. 
     Miller elected to take senior status, and on April 4, 2008, 
     Judge Lewis T. Babcock took senior status. As senior judges, 
     each exercised their discretion to assume reduced caseloads. 
     With the unfortunate death of Judge Figa, and the taking of 
     senior status by two active judges, the number of full-time 
     active judges was reduced to four full-time active judges, a 
     judge vacancy rate of 42.8%.
       In July, 2008, the Judicial Conference of the United States 
     conducted a scheduled biennial judgeship need survey. The 
     survey reviews the caseloads of all district courts 
     throughout the nation applying a workload formula to 
     determine the need for additional judges. The survey 
     indicated, and the Judicial Conference subsequently approved, 
     the need for an eighth authorized Article III judge for the 
     District of Colorado. At the time of the survey, the court 
     was attempting to address a workload requiring eight judges 
     with only four full-time active judges.
       In October, 2008, two of the three vacant judgeships were 
     filled with the appointments of Judge Philip A. Brimmer and 
     Judge Christine M. Arguello. As a result, the court's 
     judgeship vacancy numbers were reduced from three to one. The 
     court was now staffed with six full-time active judges; 
     however, the overall workload numbers continued to justify a 
     need for eight judges.
       On October 29, 2008, Judge Edward W. Nottingham elected to 
     resign from the court. The court was again down by two 
     judges, with five full-time active judges and two vacancies. 
     Over 200 civil and criminal cases formerly assigned to Judge 
     Nottingham were reassigned drastically increasing per judge 
     caseload assignments. From that date to the present, the 
     vacancies have contributed to a growing case backlog within 
     the court.
       Before leaving his senatorial office, Secretary of Interior 
     Ken Salazar worked with a local committee of legal experts to 
     identify possible nominees for the vacant two judgeships. In 
     a January 16, 2009 press release it was reported that then 
     Senator Salazar was asking Senator Mark Udall and Senator-
     Designee Michael Bennet to continue to urge the early 
     appointment of qualified judicial candidates to fill the two 
     vacant positions. In a reported letter to Senator Udall and 
     Mr. Bennet, Senator Salazar wrote ``Over the last thirty 
     years, the U. S. District Court has often been plagued with 
     vacancies that have prevented the court from functioning at 
     its full capacity.''
       Though the court has the continued assistance of well 
     qualified senior judges, and has also been relying on 
     visiting judges from other courts to assist with heavy 
     workloads, having a fully staffed cadre of authorized judges 
     is the most effective method by which the court can address 
     the needs of those depending on its vital services.
       In that the U. S. District Court for the District of 
     Colorado has been subject to lengthy periods of judicial 
     vacancy, I believe it is in the best interest of the court, 
     and the public it 2 serves, that the judicial nomination and 
     appointment process proceed at a responsible pace designed to 
     yield qualified judges within a reasonable period of time. 
     Reasonableness to me means that the two of you agree, without 
     further delay, to set a date certain for a vote on Mr. 
     Martinez's pending nomination.
       As the work of the court continues to grow, the court needs 
     judicial officer resources sufficient to conduct the business 
     of the court in a timely and efficient manner. The overall 
     integrity of the federal judicial process can best be 
     maintained by having a sufficient number of judges to address 
     the disputes of our citizenry without unnecessary delay or 
     expense.
       In closing, I appreciate your consideration of my viewpoint 
     as to the judgeships urgently needed by the court. Until the 
     two judicial vacancies are filled, it is impossible for the 
     court to possess the judicial resources that are necessary to 
     effectively discharge the business of the court. Scheduling a 
     vote on Mr. Martinez's nomination is the next critical step 
     in this important process. I await your response to this 
     letter including your indication of the date on which the 
     Senate will vote on Mr. Martinez.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Wiley Y. Daniel,
                                                      Chief Judge.

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Judicial understaffing in Colorado and in the 
home State of the Presiding Officer and all the Senators has a real 
effect on residents and businesses. As the caseload increases for each 
judge, more and more time must be devoted to criminal cases. That is 
because the Constitution guarantees a speedy trial. But as time and 
energy shifts to the criminal docket, the civil docket in turn suffers. 
It continues to become increasingly difficult to schedule a trial as 
these backups grow longer and longer.
  This increased caseload I am referencing also has a huge impact on 
our rural and tribal communities around the State as well. Our Federal 
District judges are all located in Denver, but they often have to 
travel to other parts of the State for hearings or trials. The 
geography in Colorado makes travel a little more complicated than in 
some other States. We have a big State with the Rocky Mountains running 
right through the middle of our State, and I can tell you from my own 
experience getting around the mountainous areas of Colorado during the 
snowy winter months is not easy. As a result, all over the State, 
residents on the Western Slope and down in the valleys, my tribal 
constituents, they have a more difficult time accessing the Federal 
judicial system--as plaintiffs, defendants, even as witnesses.
  As pressing as this situation is in Colorado, I know it is not 
unique. Of the nearly 100 current judicial vacancies, 42 are considered 
judicial emergencies--almost half. I understand our Senate has 
confirmed only 24 nominees so far this year and 36 total since 
President Obama was elected. That is a historic low.
  I don't wish to turn my comments on these nominations to a partisan 
affair, but the Senate has not kept up with the pace of past 
Presidents' judicial nominees.
  In fact, last year the Senate confirmed the fewest judges in 50 
years--50 years.
  Bill Martinez, the man whom I spoke of when I began my remarks, was 
nominated in February of this year, had a

[[Page 14517]]

hearing in March, and was referred favorably by the Judiciary Committee 
in April. Today, his nomination has been sitting on the Senate 
Executive Calendar--on that calendar--for 105 days. Here is the 
question: Can we set aside our partisanship and support the people who 
need our system of justice and those who work in our system of justice? 
The people of Colorado want us to vote on Bill Martinez and help us 
reduce the workload on the Federal District Court of Colorado.
  Senator Bennet has joined me, and I know he is going to speak in a 
few minutes.
  Last year, we convened a bipartisan advisory committee so that we 
could have the best candidates put forward. It was ably chaired by 
Denver lawyer Hal Haddon, a well-known figure, and former Colorado 
Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Kourlis. The committee interviewed 
numerous candidates, and based on his life experience, his record of 
legal service, and his impressive abilities, we both recommended, on 
the advice of the committee, Bill Martinez for a Federal judgeship.
  I know I was very impressed with Bill. In addition to being an 
accomplished attorney and a true role model in his community, Bill has 
a personal story which captures what is great about America and 
highlights what can be accomplished when you have focus, discipline, 
and you work hard.
  Bill was born in Mexico City and lawfully immigrated to the United 
States as a child. He worked his way through school and college and 
toward a career in the law. He received undergraduate degrees in 
environmental engineering and political science from the University of 
Illinois and earned a law degree from the University of Chicago. As a 
lawyer, he is an expert in employment and civil rights law. He 
currently practices in those areas. He previously served as the 
regional attorney for the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission in Denver.
  I believe--as we all do, I think--in strong, well-balanced courts 
that serve the needs of our citizens. Bill Martinez brings that sense 
of balance because of his broad legal background, professionalism, and 
outstanding intellect. I am pleased to have been able to recommend 
Bill, and I am certain that once he is confirmed, he will make an 
outstanding judge.
  I was going to ask for unanimous consent that we move to consider Mr. 
Martinez's nomination. I am going to hold back on that request for the 
time being, but I want those who watch the Chamber to know that a group 
of us who are going to speak to this backlog are going to ask, at the 
appropriate time, for that to be considered.
  Whatever happens today in these unanimous consent requests--and I 
would hope they would be granted--I am not going to give up. I am going 
to continue to work with people on both sides of the aisle, as well as 
any Senator who might have reason to block Bill Martinez's nomination, 
to find a reasonable solution so we can fully stock our courts and we 
can deliver justice and services to our citizens, who deserve courts 
that are up and running fully.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Madam President, I also rise today in support of Bill 
Martinez's nomination to serve on the Federal district court in 
Colorado.
  Before I talk about that, I wish to take a moment to address this 
small business bill that is before the Senate because people are 
watching this in my State, and they are saying to themselves: We have 
spent 18 months with credit frozen--longer than that for small 
businesses--and Washington cannot seem to do anything for us.
  Today is the day Washington could do something for small businesses 
in my State and across the country. And it is not a case of Democrat 
against Republican; this feels to me like a case of Washington politics 
against the rest of the country. So I lend my voice to the Senator from 
Florida and say that I hope the leadership can get it together.
  I wish to add my push today for the unanimous consent request of the 
senior Senator from Colorado to consider this nomination of Bill 
Martinez. We need him confirmed so he can begin serving our State.
  Bill appeared before the Judiciary Committee in March, where I had 
the privilege of introducing him. His nomination passed the committee 
with votes to spare in April. The Martinez nomination, like so many 
others, has gotten stuck because of the obstructionist tactics of a 
few.
  So this man with a breadth of public and private sector legal 
experience that makes him more than qualified to serve on the Federal 
bench is being held up month after month.
  Like my senior Senator, I am frustrated with the secret delays in 
this body. The purposeless shelving of nominations such as this one and 
even of important legislation affects real lives and poisons the 
atmosphere in the Senate.
  There are 99 vacancies in the Federal court right now. To date, the 
President has nominated 39 individuals to fill these vacancies. For the 
sake of judicial efficiency and ensuring fair access for all of our 
people to our courts, I think it is time to move ahead on outstanding 
nominees who have cleared the Judiciary Committee easily. For the 
nominees, careers and families are being put on hold. If a nominee is 
unqualified or unfit for office, then let's have those concerns 
registered for public consumption.
  Like far too many Coloradans, I am so frustrated with our broken 
politics. Instead of making sure qualified candidates are confirmed to 
key government posts, the Senate has secret holds and stall tactics. It 
is painful to watch, and it is painful to the American people to live 
through.
  Bill Martinez, for one, has earned better treatment through a 
lifetime of professional achievement. He has a stellar reputation and 
credentials in Denver and possesses rare intangibles too. His career 
spans the legal profession and represents a true immigrant success 
story on which this country is founded. Bill was the first in his 
family to attend college. His experience is an inspiration to all 
Coloradans.
  Is there any reason this attorney with an expertise in employment law 
and civil rights, coupled with years of courtroom experience, should 
not receive an up-or-down vote? I, for one, would like to know, as 
would the people of Colorado. I ask my colleagues to end the delay of 
consideration of Bill Martinez. Let's have an up-or-down vote on Bill 
Martinez and then move forward and go through other remaining nominees 
being needlessly upheld.


                     Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act

  With the indulgence of my colleague from Minnesota, I wanted to 
mention one last thing. While I am here, I would also like to call 
attention to another priority that languishes as the Senate wastes time 
wrangling over nominees and partisan politics: the Healthy, Hunger-Free 
Kids Act, a fully paid for, bipartisan bill that unanimously passed out 
of committee last March. This bill will make a tangible difference in 
the lives of millions of children.
  It is high time the Senate begin doing the people's business again.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise today to address the need to 
move quickly and to confirm several qualified judicial nominees--I 
would say many qualified judicial nominees. You are going to hear about 
a number of them today. I am going to talk specifically about the 
highly qualified nominee for the District of Minnesota who was 
unanimously voted out of our Judiciary Committee more than a month ago.
  Our failure to confirm Susan Richard Nelson quickly has consequences 
for my State. The judge she has been nominated to replace took senior 
status as of last October and is stepping down from the Federal bench 
altogether in a couple of weeks. That means a smaller number of judges 
will be doing the same heavy workload until she is confirmed, which is 
not fair to my State or many of the States you will hear from today.
  This nomination is important to our district. Our district's caseload 
has increased significantly in recent years.

[[Page 14518]]

In fact, as of June 2008, our district had the second highest number of 
case filings per judgeship in the entire country--the second highest in 
2008 in the entire country. Yet, if she is not confirmed after coming 
through our committee unanimously, we will be down a judge even though 
we have this high caseload. Even as of December 2009, we were still in 
the top 10 most overloaded districts in the country. From 2008 to 2009, 
the district saw a 54-percent jump in the number of civil cases filed. 
That is over 5,000 civil cases currently pending and only 6 judges on a 
full-time status to deal with these cases, not to mention the docket of 
criminal cases on top of that. The district needs Judge Nelson to be 
confirmed quickly. Delay is not an option.
  It is worth noting that by this time in President Bush's 
administration, we had confirmed 61 judicial nominees. By contrast, we 
have only confirmed 36 of President Obama's.
  When a vacancy arose on the Federal district court in Minnesota, I 
convened a judicial selection committee to consider mainly highly 
qualified candidates. From this fine pool of applicants, I recommended 
Susan Richard Nelson to the President. President Obama formally 
nominated her for this position, and I appreciate the work of Senator 
Leahy and Senator Sessions, who is also here, in making sure she had a 
speedy nomination hearing. However--this is a familiar story for 
several nominees--after Susan Richard Nelson received a unanimous vote 
in the committee, her nomination stalled on the Senate floor.
  There is no reason to hold up this nomination. Susan Richard Nelson 
is exactly the kind of person you would like to see sitting in a 
judge's seat. She has been a magistrate judge for the District of 
Minnesota for the last 8 years, where she has earned the respect of 
litigants, lawyers, and judicial colleagues alike. She has the judicial 
temperament, personal integrity, and keen legal mind that are absolute 
prerequisites for this job. Throughout her tenure, she has gained a 
reputation as a fair but stern magistrate judge, one who is thorough 
and prepared. She has been described as a judge ``who favors neither 
plaintiff nor defendant, who listens carefully to both sides of every 
matter she hears, and who can be relied upon to give articulate, well-
reasoned explanations for her decisions.'' The ABA Standing Committee 
on the Federal Judiciary unanimously gave Judge Nelson their highest 
rating.
  I believe she will make a fine Federal judge, and that is why I rise 
to speak today. But this is not just a Minnesota issue; this is a 
national issue. As a former prosecutor, I know what happens when you 
have an overloaded judiciary, when you do not have the players in 
place, either the prosecutor, the public defender, or the judges. When 
you do not have judges available to hear cases, judges whose time is 
spread too thin, cases do not get heard, victims do not get justice, 
and litigants do not get their problems solved. In other words, it 
slows down the wheels of justice when you do not have the people in 
place to actually hear the cases.
  It is my hope again that we can end this waiting game and confirm 
these nominees. I truly appreciate the bipartisanship work on our 
committee to get these judges through to the floor. But now is the time 
to get the work done.
  I know we will be asking for unanimous consent for a group of the 
judges whom we are addressing. I know Susan Richard Nelson's name will 
be included at that time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise to today in support of Louis 
Butler's nomination to be District Court Judge for the Western District 
of Wisconsin. Justice Butler is an accomplished lawyer whose career has 
been distinguished across the board as an advocate, trial court judge, 
Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, and professor. He is supported 
throughout Wisconsin and I am confident that he will be an excellent 
Federal judge.
  For 30 years, Justice Butler has dedicated himself to public service. 
He began his career fighting for the rights of indigent defendants as a 
public defender. He was the first public defender in Wisconsin history 
to argue a case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
  As a trial court judge, he earned a reputation for being a tough but 
fair jurist and was recognized as a top Milwaukee judge. For more than 
10 years, Justice Butler has shared his expertise and knowledge by 
training judges as a faculty member of the National Judicial College.
  Justice Butler served with distinction on the Wisconsin Supreme Court 
for 4 years. There, he participated in hundreds of cases, many of, 
which were decided by a unanimous or near-unanimous court. During his 4 
years on the bench, he proved himself to be a hard-working, thoughtful 
and consensus building jurist.
  Throughout his career, Justice Butler has been a judge who upholds 
the rule of law in an impartial and deeply respectful manner. He 
possesses all the best qualities that we look for in a judge: 
intelligence, diligence, humility, and integrity. In addition to 
Justice Butler's impressive legal background and solid record as a 
judge, he is a fine man. He is deeply committed to his family, to his 
community, and to public service.
  Justice Butler's nomination proves once again that the process we use 
in Wisconsin to choose federal judges and U.S. attorneys ensures 
excellence. The Wisconsin Federal Nominating Commission has been used 
to select Federal judges and U.S. attorneys in Wisconsin for 30 years, 
through Republican and Democratic administrations and the tenure of 
Senators from both parties. Through a great deal of cooperation and 
careful consideration, and by keeping politics to a minimum, we always 
find highly qualified candidates like Justice Butler.
  I along with Senator Feingold are confident that the people of 
Wisconsin will be enormously proud of him and that he will serve them 
well.
  So, it is clear that this upstanding and well-qualified nominee 
should be promptly considered by the Senate. Justice Butler has been 
pending for far too long and a vote on his confirmation is overdue. 
Someone like this deserves an up or down vote. I understand that some 
of my colleagues may oppose his nomination, and I accept that, but let 
us take an up or down vote as soon as possible.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I am pleased to support the efforts of 
my colleagues to call attention to the refusal of Republicans in the 
Senate to allow confirmation votes on judicial nominees. We have all 
heard the numbers only 9 circuit and 27 district judges confirmed so 
far in this Congress, 7 circuit and 14 district judges now awaiting 
floor action, with 15 of those nominees having been reported by the 
Judiciary Committee before the end of May. This is an inexcusable 
blockade of justice in America for wholly political reasons, and it 
needs to stop.
  I am pleased also to join the senior Senator from my State, Mr. Kohl, 
in specifically seeking consent to debate and vote on Justice Louis 
Butler's nomination to be a U.S. District Judge for the Western 
District of Wisconsin. Justice Butler, who was the first African 
American to serve on Wisconsin's Supreme Court, was first reported by 
the Judiciary Committee on December 3, 2009. He has essentially been 
waiting for the full Senate to take up his nomination for more than 7 
months.
  Justice Butler is the product of a system for picking Federal judges 
and U.S. attorneys in our State that has been used since the late 
1970s. A nominating commission interviews and considers applicants and 
presents a slate of candidates to the Senators. We then send our 
recommendations to the President drawn solely from the commission-
approved slate. This process has yielded highly qualified nominees 
under both Republican and Democratic presidents, and the nominees have 
had the support of both Republican and Democratic Senators.
  Justice Butler clearly has the experience and the qualifications 
needed to serve with distinction as a U.S. District Court judge. First, 
he has experience as a judge on both the trial court

[[Page 14519]]

and appellate court levels in Wisconsin. He understands the difference 
between following precedent and making precedent. Handling criminal 
trials is probably the biggest job of a Federal trial judge, and 
Justice Butler has a great deal of criminal experience both as a judge 
and as a public defender in his early days as a practicing lawyer. He 
is well versed in Wisconsin law, which as we know is often applied in 
diversity jurisdiction cases in the Federal courts.
  Justice Butler is widely admired for his intellect and his judicial 
temperament. In 1997, Milwaukee Magazine named him the top municipal 
judge in the city. He has been a law professor. In short, he has a 
depth of experience that is unusual for a nominee to the district 
court.
  Justice Butler has been a trailblazer in our State. As I mentioned, 
he was the first African American to serve on the Wisconsin Supreme 
Court, and he would be the first African American to be a judge on the 
Western District. He is a man of great distinction and achievement.
  Justice Butler is a thoughtful and conscientious judge. I know I will 
not agree with every decision he makes, just as I do not necessarily 
agree with everything he has said or done thus far. But I know he will 
be conscious of the judicial role, and that he will make his decisions 
based on the facts and the law and do his very best to carry out his 
responsibilities with dignity and care, as he has done throughout his 
career.
  Now I understand that Justice Butler's nomination is opposed by some 
Members of the Senate and a number of outside organizations. The 
Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted against the nomination. 
They have every right to do so, and I respect their positions. I 
believe the arguments against him are misguided and unfair. But I am 
prepared to have that debate on the Senate floor and live with the 
result, if only the Republicans will allow the debate to take place.
  It is time for the delay of Justice Butler's nomination and the other 
nominations that have been pending for months to end. Let's have a 
debate and a vote. I thank Mr. Kohl and my other colleagues for shining 
a spotlight on this issue, and I hope we can look forward to debating 
and voting on the pending judicial nominations soon. Such delay, 
particularly for a district court nominee, is unprecedented. I urge my 
colleagues to consider Justice Butler's nomination forthwith.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise to join Rhode Island's senior 
Senator Jack Reed and other colleagues to call attention to the 
recurring Republican roadblock of qualified nominees to circuit and 
district courts. On the circuit courts, I spoke some time ago about 
Albert Diaz and James Wynn to sit on the fourth circuit in North 
Carolina. I know the Presiding Officer has a keen interest in those 
two. These two were reported out of the Judiciary Committee on January 
28, 2010, 6 months ago yesterday. Albert Diaz was voted out 19 to 0. 
James Wynn was voted out 18 to 1. That means a combined score of 37 to 
1 for these two candidates whom the two Senators from North Carolina 
had agreed on, a Republican Senator and a Democratic Senator. I came to 
the floor 3 months ago, given that background, on April 20 to ask 
unanimous consent for their confirmation. Senator Kyl, who voted for 
both of these nominees in committee, objected on behalf of his 
colleagues. That is the environment we are in.
  Unfortunately, that environment has filtered down to district judges. 
Consider the four district court nominees currently on the Executive 
Calendar, voted out of committee by a party-line vote, who are ahead of 
our Rhode Island nominee and who have to be cleared before we get to 
our Rhode Island judge. Lewis Butler is a former Wisconsin Supreme 
Court justice. Ed Chen and Benita Pearson are long-serving and well-
respected Federal magistrate judges in San Francisco and Akron, OH. 
Bill Martinez is a well-known and well-respected attorney in Colorado. 
Each nominee had the full support of both of their home State Senators. 
Each nominee would bring proper expertise, judicial temperament, and 
great diversity to the bench. Each nominee would be confirmed, if we 
could simply get them voted on by the Senate. The way these nominees 
have been treated stands in stark contrast to the way district court 
nominees were treated in the Bush administration. In 8 years, only one 
district court nominee during the Bush administration was reported by 
the Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote. That nominee got a vote 
and was confirmed on this floor 51 to 46.
  Why is it that nominees of President Obama are being held to a 
different, new standard than applied to the nominees of President Bush? 
Why have we departed from the longstanding tradition of respect to the 
views of home State Senators who know the nominees best and who best 
understand their home districts? Is disregard for the views of home 
State Senators the standard Republicans want to live by during the next 
Republican Presidency? Is that the new precedent we wish to set here in 
the Senate? I ask this because we have a highly qualified nominee in 
Rhode Island, Jack McConnell, who was reported by the Judiciary 
Committee on June 17. It was a bipartisan vote, 13 to 6, with the 
support of Senator Lindsey Graham. Jack McConnell is a pillar of the 
legal community in Rhode Island. He is a pillar of the community 
generally in Rhode Island, serving with great generosity and 
distinction on numerous boards that help communities in Rhode Island. 
The Providence Chamber of Commerce has praised Jack McConnell as a 
well-respected member of the local community. Political figures from 
across our political spectrum have called for his confirmation, one of 
them being my predecessor as Rhode Island attorney general, Republican 
Jeffrey Pine. The Providence Journal, our hometown paper, has endorsed 
his nomination by saying that Jack McConnell, in his legal work and 
community leadership, has shown that he has the legal intelligence, 
character, compassion, and independence to be a distinguished jurist.
  Notwithstanding the support of Senator Reed and myself, the two 
Senators from Rhode Island, notwithstanding that this is a district 
court nomination, notwithstanding the powerful support across Rhode 
Island from those who know Jack McConnell best, special interests from 
outside the State have interfered in his nomination. The U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce, not the Rhode Island chapter, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
has attacked Jack for having the temerity to stand up to big business, 
to the asbestos industry, to the lead paint industry, to the tobacco 
industry, and to have devoted his career to representing the rights of 
the powerless. In doing so, the U.S. Chamber has created a cartoon 
image of Jack McConnell that bears no relation to the man Senator Reed 
and I know as a great lawyer, as a great Rhode Islander, and somebody 
who will be a great judge.
  I ask my colleagues--I see the distinguished ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee here on the floor with us today, the distinguished 
Senator from Alabama--do we want to let powerful out-of-State interests 
trump the better informed views of home State Senators about district 
court nominees? That is not the tradition of this body. I again ask my 
colleagues: Is this the tradition they want to set? If they open the 
door to out-of-State special interests trumping the considered judgment 
of home State Senators on district court nominees, will they ever get 
that door closed again? I submit it is a mistake for this body to go 
that road. I urge colleagues on the other side to reconsider what I 
think is a terrible mistake, which is to allow out-of-State special 
interests to prevail over the considered judgment of home State 
Senators when they agree on the best qualified nominee for district 
court in their home State.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Rhode Island who, 
with

[[Page 14520]]

eloquence and passion, has clearly highlighted a disturbing phenomenon 
taking place in this Chamber. Well-qualified individuals who have 
received the support of the Judiciary Committee--in many cases, 
unanimous support--are being denied a final confirmation vote by the 
full Chamber. This is a break from our history. At the end of the first 
Congress, during President Reagan's first term, 88 Circuit and District 
Court nominees were confirmed. At the end of the first Congress during 
President George H.W. Bush's term, 72 Circuit and District Court 
nominees were confirmed. At the end of the first Congress under 
President Clinton, 126 Circuit and District Court nominees were 
confirmed. At the end of the first Congress during President George W. 
Bush's first term, 100 Circuit and District Court nominees were 
confirmed. As of now, if nothing else is done, President Obama, at the 
end of this Congress, will have only 36 Circuit and District Court 
nominees confirmed by the Senate, in contrast to 88 for President 
Reagan, 72 for President George H.W. Bush, 126 for President Clinton, 
and 100 for George W. Bush.
  Something is going on here. What is going on is a deliberate attempt 
by the minority to frustrate the traditions and precedents of the 
Senate where, as Senator Whitehouse suggested, there is a long-held 
view that Senators have more insight into the skills, ability, and 
integrity of nominees from the Senators' home State than national 
special interest groups, whose major goal seems to be the generation of 
controversy for the purposes of contributions.
  We in Rhode Island have an extraordinarily competent and capable 
individual. As Senator Whitehouse indicated, Jack McConnell is an 
accomplished attorney. He is a plaintiff's lawyer. He takes cases of 
individual Americans, who have been harmed, and he fights the good 
fight for them. He has been very successful doing it. He has received 
the bipartisan support of members of the bar, judges of both political 
parties, and the Providence Journal, our major Statewide newspaper, 
which has a reputation of being very sensitive to the legitimate 
concerns and needs of our business community. He is supported because 
he is an outstanding attorney and because he is an outstanding 
individual. He is someone who knows the law and knows the court. I am 
always kind of interested when someone who has spent a long time as a 
corporate counsel for a big corporation is suddenly--and in most 
cases--very quickly confirmed as a District Court Judge, even though 
that individual may or may not have had a lot of experience in a trial 
court. Here, we have an individual who actually has spent his life in 
trial court, both Federal and State courts.
  Jack McConnell is a fair and good man, and he understands that a 
judge must hear the facts, apply the law, and indicate clearly to all 
plaintiffs and defendants who come before the court that there is no 
bias and that the case will be decided fairly on the merits within the 
bounds of the law. That is something all of my colleagues in Rhode 
Island, Republicans and Democrats alike, recognize that Jack McConnell 
will do.
  There is something else about this individual. He is an 
extraordinarily decent person. That counts for something too. There is 
no one in our State who is more generous, not only with his money, but 
with his time. There is no one in our State who is more committed to 
helping people, not to gain notoriety, but because it is the right 
thing to do. Those qualities are important. Ultimately, I believe one 
of the major criteria that should be met by a Judge is that when 
someone goes before the court, whether it is a big corporation or a 
person who has been harmed, they know they will be treated fairly. 
Frankly, Jack McConnell passed that test with flying colors. As Senator 
Whitehouse pointed out, he passed the Judiciary Committee on a 
bipartisan vote. I thank Senator Lindsey Graham, who has used his 
experience as a lawyer fighting for individuals as well as 
corporations. He was able to recognize these talents, these skills, and 
these qualities in Jack McConnell and support him. I appreciate that. 
But we are here now in a situation where not only Jack McConnell, but 
21 other nominees are pending. We have to do more. We have to get them 
to a vote here in the Senate, and I will insist upon that vote as best 
I can.
  Again, the numbers don't lie. They suggest there is something going 
on here, something that was not at work during the Reagan 
administration, the George H.W. Bush administration, the Clinton 
administration, and the George W. Bush administration, regardless of 
which party was in the majority or the minority. Particularly, when it 
came to District Court Judges, if they had cleared the Judiciary 
Committee, if they had the support of the two Senators from the home 
State, there would be at least an opportunity, an obligation, to bring 
their nomination to a vote and let the Senate, as a whole, decide.
  I urge that we return to what has been a dependable practice, one the 
Senate has embraced for good reasons, that we let these gentlemen and 
ladies come to the floor for a vote, and that we vote.
  That is all we ask. I think if that is agreed to, it will provide for 
not only the disposition of these nominations, but it will continue a 
tradition of thoughtful, appropriate practice by this Senate.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues who are expressing 
our frustration on the inability of the Senate to take up for 
confirmation judges who have been approved by the Judiciary Committee. 
You have heard our colleagues from Colorado, Minnesota and Rhode Island 
and there are many others who have come down and given similar 
circumstances about their judges being held up from a final vote.
  I know next week we will be considering the nomination of Elena Kagan 
to the Supreme Court of the United States and that will get a lot of 
attention and rightly so. It should get a lot of attention.
  Let me point out the facts. The Supreme Court will issue less than 
100 opinions in a given year; whereas, our circuit courts of appeals 
will issue many more opinions that will have a direct impact on the 
lives of the people of this Nation. Most Americans who have contact 
with a court are going to have contact with the district court and the 
circuit court, where the cases are heard, where the juries are convened 
in trials. So there is a great interest in making sure we have 
confirmed judges for our intermediate appellate courts and our district 
courts.
  Here is the problem. The vacancies in these judgeships today are 
about 11 percent of the court. More than 1 out of every 10 judicial 
spots is vacant currently in the United States. My colleagues have told 
you about the backlog. So let me try to put it in, I hope, terms that 
those listening to this debate will understand as to why we are so 
frustrated by the obstructionist tactics being taken by our Republican 
colleagues.
  Most nominees for judicial vacancies, once they have cleared the 
Judiciary Committee, are brought forward under unanimous consent; that 
is, if they have the support of their home State Senators, if there has 
not been controversy in their nomination, if the Judiciary Committee 
has approved them by a bipartisan vote, they will come to the floor of 
the Senate by unanimous consent and will be handled that way.
  Well, we are not able to do that because Republican Senators are 
objecting to that process. So we go to the next level. We say: OK, if 
we need to have debate on the floor, how much debate time do you need--
1 hour, 2 hours, 4 hours? Well, we cannot get consent to the number of 
hours in order to debate the nominee and then vote on the nominee in an 
up-or-down vote. The majority leader said we could have that time, but 
they will not allow us to bring the nomination to the floor.
  So then the only course the majority leader has will be to file a 
cloture motion. A cloture motion takes several days, and we have 100 
vacancies on our district and appellate courts. Obviously, we do not 
have enough time.

[[Page 14521]]

  So let me give you an example on the Fourth Circuit: Judge Barbara 
Keenan. I chaired her confirmation hearing. I chaired that confirmation 
hearing on October 3 of last year. The Judiciary Committee reported her 
out by a voice vote on October 29. That was October 29 of last year. It 
took us until March of this year to be able to get her nomination to 
the floor, and then it was not by unanimous consent. It was not by a 
consent as to the amount of time necessary to consider this nominee on 
the floor and then a vote afterwards. It came to the floor through a 
cloture motion the majority leader had to file--a cloture motion--
because we could not get consent to bring up her nomination almost 5 
months after the committee acted on her nomination.
  What happened with the cloture motion? It was approved 99 to 0 on the 
floor of the Senate, and she was ultimately approved as an appellate 
court judge by a 99-to-0 vote.
  My point is simple: These were dilatory actions in order to slow down 
the process of the confirmation of judges which my friends on the 
Republican side have used. That is why we had these huge numbers. As my 
colleague from Rhode Island pointed out, the numbers tell the facts. 
There were twice as many judges confirmed by this time when a 
Republican controlled the White House than there are today. In other 
words, we are working at less than one-half the pace than when the 
tables were turned. That is wrong.
  My friend from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse, talked about two 
vacancies we want to fill in the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit 
includes the State of Maryland. The two vacancies we want to fill are 
the North Carolinian spots, in which the two Senators--one a Democrat, 
one a Republican--have recommended their confirmation: James Wynn and 
Albert Diaz.
  Well, we held that confirmation hearing--and I chaired that also--in 
December of last year. The committee reported them out in January of 
2010. In Mr. Wynn's case, the vote was 18 to 1; and in Mr. Diaz's case, 
it was 19 to 0. Both of these judicial candidates were considered 
``well qualified''--the highest rating by the American Bar 
Association--and they would add greatly to the diversity on the Fourth 
Circuit, a circuit that is not known for its diversity. James Wynn 
would be the third African American to serve on the Fourth Circuit and 
Albert Diaz would be the first Latino.
  It is time--well past time--for these nominees to be confirmed by the 
Senate. I do not think anyone doubts, once this issue is taken up, both 
these individuals will be confirmed. Look at the votes in committee.
  For noncontroversial judicial nominations, it has taken, on average, 
2 months, after the Judiciary Committee has acted, for a district court 
nominee to be considered by the full Senate; and over 4 months for a 
circuit court of appeals nominee. That is not doing the work the Senate 
should do. There have been dilatory actions in order to slow down the 
process, and that is not what we should be doing as Members of the 
Senate.
  So I urge my colleagues, as my friends who have taken the floor today 
have done, let's get on with the process of confirming these 
noncontroversial judicial nominees. Let's give the people what they 
deserve; that is, a full complement of their judges. We should do 
better than we have done in the past. I urge us to put aside our 
partisan differences. This is not a tactic that should be used. It is 
time we move forward on the confirmation process.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado, Mr. 
Udall, and his staff for arranging this opportunity for us to speak on 
what is a far more important issue than I would have imagined, oh, 20 
years ago.
  Before I came to the Senate, in 2001, I was privileged to serve as 
Governor of my State for 8 years. I ran for that position in 1992, and 
my opponent was a very good man named B. Gary Scott. During the course 
of our campaign for the Governorship of Delaware, we had something like 
30 or more joint appearances. All kinds of questions were raised by the 
audience members at those joint appearances, and we would respond to 
the questions that were raised.
  I do not recall one question in any of those joint appearances 
related to what kind of criteria we would use to consider nominees for 
the judgeships in the State of Delaware. As it turns out, some of the 
judgeships in Delaware, some of the courts in Delaware, have national 
importance, national prominence--the Court of Chancery, the Delaware 
State Supreme Court. That was an issue that never came up.
  When I was fortunate enough to win, in 1993, I ended up, for the next 
8 years, actually spending a lot of time thinking about the qualities 
we should look for in the candidates for judgeships I would nominate to 
all our courts and ask the Delaware State senate to confirm. I am 
grateful to the State they confirmed them all.
  I came to the Senate in 2001. I ran against a wonderful man, Bill 
Roth, who had been our Senator for a long time. During our campaign, no 
one ever raised with us, to my recollection: What kind of qualities 
would you look for if you were in a position, as senior Senator, to 
recommend judges to the President of the United States for our courts, 
either for our district court or for the Third Circuit Court in which 
we are a part?
  But I had thought for years about the qualities I would look for, and 
the qualities look something like this: I concluded that my job in 
nominating people as Governor and in recommending people to this 
President or other Presidents is that we ought to look for somebody who 
is bright, smart, who knows the law, somebody who also embraces what I 
call the Golden Rule, treats other people the way he or she wants to be 
treated; that when they come before the court, the judge will treat all 
sides the same; that they will not go into a hearing or a proceeding 
having made up their mind; that they will show no favoritism to either 
side.
  I think it is important to nominate folks who have a strong work 
ethic and who will work hard to find the right decision, that they will 
have the ability to make a decision. Sometimes folks have a hard time 
making decisions. They should not be judges. We need judges who can 
make a decision and often the right decision.
  That is sort of the criteria I used in my last job, and it is the 
criteria I have used in my current position as I have suggested 
people--now twice--to this President to consider for filling vacancies 
on the U.S. district court in my State.
  We have four district court judges in our State at most times; we 
have that many judgeships. For several years, we have been down to 
three. As of tomorrow, we will be down to two, with the retirement of 
Judge Joe Farnan, who will step down for his well-earned retirement.
  But last year, I was pleased to provide to our President the names of 
three highly qualified Delawareans for him to consider for nomination 
to the U.S. District Court in Delaware. I said at the time--and I say 
here today--the talent pool from which I selected those three names was 
the strongest pool I have seen in my 8 years as Governor and during the 
time I have been here as a Senator. At least a half dozen of the people 
who applied for that judgeship to be a Federal judge would make us all 
proud. I could only select three and I selected three terrific 
candidates and submitted those to the administration last year.
  After careful deliberation, in March of this year, the President 
selected one name, and he sent to the Senate the nomination of U.S. 
magistrate Len Stark for a seat on the Delaware District Court.
  Following his nomination in March, I was honored to introduce Len at 
his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 
April. Ironically, the hearing was chaired by committee member Ted 
Kaufman from Delaware. Judge Stark was well received by the committee 
at that hearing and was unanimously approved by the committee in May of 
this year.

[[Page 14522]]

  So far so good. But since that time, for the last almost 3 months 
now, that nomination has basically been held up. We have not had an 
opportunity to debate it. We have not had an opportunity to vote on it, 
through no fault of Judge Stark.
  I think the lack of a U.S. district court judge in almost any State, 
large or small, is a problem. When you happen to have a court with four 
judgeships, and you are down to three, the workload does not go away. 
The workload is the same. The judges have to work harder. That is fine 
for a while. We go out and we literally borrow district court judges 
from other States to come in and sit with our court in Delaware to try 
to deal with the workload. That works for a while, but it is sort of 
robbing Peter to pay Paul. They have work to do in their own States in 
their own courts.
  When you go from three to two, and you have two judges trying to do 
the work of four, it does not work. It is not fair, and it means we 
delay, in too many cases, the justice that is needed. I do not recall 
who it was who said--I want to say it was William Gladstone, a former 
British Prime Minister, who once said: Justice delayed is justice 
denied. My fear is, if we find ourselves, next week, with two judges--
with two judges--in our district court, justice will be delayed and 
justice will be denied.
  Not everybody in this Chamber has a real understanding of who Len 
Stark is and what kind of person he is. I wish to take a few minutes to 
sort of introduce him to those who do not know him. Len Stark is a 
fellow University of Delaware graduate. Unlike most people who 
graduate--they maybe get an undergraduate degree with one major--when 
he graduated, in 1991, he earned an undergraduate degree in economics 
and an undergraduate degree in political science and he earned a 
master's degree in history, all at the same time. He was an 
extraordinary student at the University of Delaware. As a student there 
he received a full scholarship as the Eugene du Pont Memorial 
Distinguished Scholarship. Following graduation, he was twice honored 
by his fellow students and alumni by serving as their commencement 
speaker.
  Immediately upon graduating from the University of Delaware, Len 
Stark was elected a Rhodes Scholar. He studied at Oxford University. He 
has authored numerous academic and scholarly publications, including a 
book on British politics which he wrote--listen to this--in his spare 
time during his studies at Oxford. After Oxford, Len then went on to 
earn his law degree at Yale Law School where he served as senior editor 
of the Yale Law Journal.
  Len launched his legal career as a clerk for one of the most 
distinguished judges to come out of Delaware in the last century--
Walter Stapleton--on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and after that 
he practiced as a corporate litigator for the law firm of Skadden Arps.
  Len began his public service as an assistant U.S. attorney for 
Delaware, where from 2002 until 2007 he handled a wide variety of 
Federal, criminal, and civil matters. Currently, Len Stark serves the 
U.S. District Court of Delaware as a magistrate judge. In this position 
he has already done much of the same work as a district court judge. 
His docket consists of civil cases that are referred to him by the 
three active district court judges--at least three active as of today, 
not after tomorrow. On these referral cases, a great many of which are 
patent infringement actions, Judge Stark handles all types of pretrial 
matters, and in certain cases even presides at trial, just as he would 
if he were confirmed as our new district court judge.
  If I were half as accomplished as Len Stark is and half as smart as 
he is, my colleagues wouldn't want to be in the same room with me. But 
Len Stark is as humble a person as I know. He is a dedicated public 
servant. He has a great family. He is a dedicated husband, father, and 
person of great integrity and character. In every facet of his life he 
has performed with distinction, earning the highest praise from his 
colleagues and many of the most prestigious awards given to legal 
scholars and public servants.
  I can sum this up by simply saying that Len Stark has the heart of a 
servant. He has a big heart. A little State, Delaware, but we have a 
guy with a heart as big as Texas. Judge Stark's position as magistrate 
on the U.S. district court clearly provides him with the skills to be 
not just an adequate district court judge, he will be an outstanding 
district court judge.
  Len's legal acumen, his tireless work ethic, and his experience as a 
Federal magistrate judge, as assistant U.S. attorney and litigator, 
have prepared him well for this seat on the U.S. district court in 
Delaware.
  I will be honest with you. It is hard to think of anybody who would 
be a better candidate, a better choice to serve in this position. With 
that having been said, we all know there are a bunch of good candidates 
like Len Stark--Maybe not just like Len Stark, but people who are 
equally qualified who should be serving in vacancies around the 
country, and they ought to be confirmed.
  I will close with this, before yielding to Senator Kaufman. I wish to 
close with this: I have just come from a Bible study group. We meet 
every Thursday for about a half an hour off the Senate floor with our 
Senate Chaplain. It is sort of like an adult Sunday school class. 
Democrats, Republicans there, people of different faiths.
  One of the things Chaplain Barry Black is always reminding us to do 
is to treat other people the way we want to be treated. He urges us to 
live our faith. I don't care what faith we subscribe to, almost every 
faith, that idea of treating other people the way we want to be treated 
is a fundamental, basic tenet. It should be a fundamental, basic tenet 
with the way we behave in the Senate, whether the Democrats are in the 
majority or the Republicans are in the majority; whether the President 
is a Democrat or the President is a Republican.
  When we have somebody as good as this man is, Len Stark, and we have 
such a dire need for a district court judge in the district court in 
Delaware, I would just ask my Republican colleagues to put themselves 
in our shoes to see if they can't find it in their hearts to give us 
the opportunity to vote up or down on this nomination.
  Thank you very much. I am pleased to yield the floor for my colleague 
and friend from Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. 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. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I rise to echo the comments of my 
colleagues and object to the tactics being used by the minority in the 
Congress to block and delay confirmation votes for President Obama's 
judicial nominees.
  I support this body's--I really do--I support this body's 
longstanding tradition of respecting the rights of the minority. I 
think it is one of the most important characteristics of the Senate. I 
am not one of those who wants to change the filibuster rule. I think it 
is important that we have a filibuster rule and that political 
minorities in the Senate are respected and that their rights are 
respected.
  However, I think this practice of indiscriminately blocking 
nominations serves no legitimate purpose. I don't see the time created 
by the delay being used to meet with the nominee, to check the 
nominee's credentials, or to review the nominee's scholarship, 
speeches, or written opinion. This is delay for delay's sake.
  Of the 27 district court nominees confirmed during this Congress, 
only 1 has received a ``no'' vote so far, and even she was confirmed by 
a vote of 96 to 1. Not a single member of the minority objected to 26 
out of the 27 of these nominees. Yet someone forced them to wait for 
weeks or months for an up-or-down vote.
  The minority may say this is simply the way things are done in the 
Senate,

[[Page 14523]]

but that demonstrably is not the case. As this chart shows, during the 
first Congress of the Bush administration, President Bush's district 
court nominees waited for an average of 25 days to be confirmed after 
being favorably reported out of the Judiciary Committee. This pace was 
set when Democrats were in the majority party for most of the 107th 
Congress and reflects a willingness to cooperate with President Bush in 
a bipartisan manner.
  In contrast, President Obama's district court nominees have been 
pending for 74 days, on average, after being favorably reported out of 
committee. This wait only seems to be getting longer. Sharon Coleman of 
the Northern District of Illinois, the only judicial nominee to be 
confirmed so far this month, waited almost 3 months to be confirmed 86 
to 0.
  This is unacceptable. These nominees are good men and women who have 
agreed to put their lives on hold and submit to the scrutiny of the 
Senate in order to serve our Nation. This body owes more to these 
nominees for their sacrifices than to use them as instruments of delay 
and obstruction. As long as the minority continues to stall these 
nominees, then the American people will be deprived of the fair and 
efficient administration of justice. We now have nearly 100 judicial 
vacancies and more than 40 of them have been declared judicial 
emergencies. One of these emergencies is located in the district of 
Delaware.
  After tomorrow, the district will be operating at half capacity with 
only two out of four district judges confirmed to the bench. With this 
concern in mind, I join with my senior Senator, Tom Carper, and urge my 
colleagues to agree to consider the nomination of Leonard P. Stark to 
the district court of the district of Delaware without delay.
  Judge Stark was nominated on March 17 of this year. He received a 
nominations hearing on April 22, and the Judiciary Committee reported 
him out by a unanimous vote on May 14. Ranking Member Sessions has 
called him ``a fine nominee'' whom he would support. As of today, no 
Senator has raised any public objection to his nomination. So I am 
confident that Judge Stark will be confirmed by an overwhelming margin, 
perhaps unanimously, when he receives a final vote. However, he has 
remained on the Senate Executive Calendar for 2\1/2\ months now without 
justification or explanation.
  Judge Stark has all the qualities required to be a successful 
district judge. Since 2007, he has dutifully served the district of 
Delaware as a magistrate judge and previously spent 5 years serving in 
the district as an assistant U.S. attorney. In his career, he has 
established himself as a talented, dedicated, and humble public servant 
who possesses a strong work ethic and the highest integrity and 
intellect.
  He also has stellar academic credentials. He is a summa cum laude 
graduate of the University of Delaware, a Rhodes Scholar, and a 
graduate of Yale Law School, where he was editor of the Law Journal.
  Following law school, he clerked for Judge Walter K. Stapleton of the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Through his experiences in 
private practice, as an assistant U.S. Attorney, and as a magistrate 
judge, Leonard Stark has developed the knowledge, skills, and 
temperament to be an outstanding district court judge.
  Therefore, I support the unanimous consent request about to be made 
by my colleague from Colorado to move to the consideration of several 
well-qualified judges whose nominations have been delayed. I know Judge 
Stark will be on that list.
  I yield for the Senator from Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I believe over the last hour 
and a half the Senate has heard from almost one-tenth of the body. Nine 
Senators have come to the floor to talk about a litany of great 
nominees for district court positions all over our country. The viewers 
have heard and our colleagues have heard the importance of passing 
these nominees through the process so we can deliver justice to our 
citizens in all the ways that our courts operate. In that spirit, 
therefore, I have a series of unanimous consent requests that I wish to 
make at this time.


             Unanimous-Consent Requests--Executive Calendar

  Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that 
at a time to be determined by the majority leader, following 
consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to 
executive session to consider the following nomination on the Executive 
Calendar: Calendar No. 813, William Martinez, to be a U.S. district 
court judge for the district of Colorado; that the nomination be 
debated for up to 3 hours with time equally divided and controlled 
between Senators Leahy and Sessions or their designees; that upon the 
use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the 
confirmation of the nomination; that upon confirmation, the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume 
legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving the right to object, and I will object, I 
wish to express a few thoughts before my colleagues who are here and 
who wish to speak on another subject. I wish to be heard on the 
nomination process and maybe I can be recognized after I make that 
objection. Hoping to be so recognized, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, it is disappointing that we 
can't get unanimous consent for an up-or-down vote on the Martinez 
vote. I wish to make clear to all the Coloradans who watched the 
proceedings today that I attempted to bring up this nomination for a 
vote, along with my colleague, Senator Bennet, but the minority party, 
as you have heard, has objected. It is a shame. I will not give up. I 
will continue to work in every way possible with colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to confirm this important and impressive list of 
nominees.
  I shared Bill Martinez's story earlier with the full Senate. It is a 
quintessential American story, and Bill Martinez deserves to serve on 
our district court in Colorado.
  Mr. President, let me move to this unanimous consent request: I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to 
consider en bloc the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: 
No. 656, Albert Diaz, U.S. circuit judge for the Fourth Circuit, and 
No. 657, James Wynn, to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Fourth Circuit; 
that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, and the motions to 
reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that upon confirmation, the 
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the 
Senate then resume legislation.
  Before the Chair rules, let me indicate that the Diaz nomination was 
reported on a 19-to-0 vote. The Wynn nomination was reported with a 
vote of 18 to 1.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the Senate proceed to executive session to consider en bloc the 
following nominations on the Executive Calendar:
  No. 696, Louis Butler, to be a U.S. District Judge for the Western 
District of Wisconsin; No. 697, Edward Chen, to be a U.S. District 
Judge for the Northern District of California; No. 703, Benita Pearson, 
to be a U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio; No. 948, 
John J. McConnell, to be a U.S. District Judge for the District of 
Rhode Island; that the nominations be debated concurrently for a total 
of 4 hours, with the time equally divided and controlled between 
Senators Leahy and Sessions or their designees; that upon the use or 
yielding back of time, the Senate then proceed to vote on confirmation 
of the nominations in

[[Page 14524]]

the order listed; that upon confirmation, the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table, the President be immediately 
notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative 
session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SESSION. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I will continue to ask my 
friend from Alabama to consider joining with me in approving these 
unanimous consent requests.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session 
and consider en bloc the following nominations on the Executive 
Calendar:
  No. 883, Michelle Childs, to be a U.S. District Judge, South 
Carolina; No. 884, Richard Gergel, to be a U.S. District Judge, South 
Carolina; No. 885, Catherine Eagles, to be a U.S. District Judge, 
Middle District of North Carolina; No. 886, Kimberly Mueller, Eastern 
District of California; No. 893, Leonard Stark, to be a U.S. District 
Judge, District of Delaware; No. 917, John Gibney, to be a U.S. 
District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia; No. 935, James 
Bredar, to be a U.S. District Judge, District of Maryland; No. 936, 
Ellen Hollander, to be a U.S. District Judge, District of Maryland; No. 
937, Susan Nelson, to be a U.S. District Judge, District of Minnesota; 
that the nominations be confirmed en bloc and the motions to reconsider 
be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc; that the President 
be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then 
resume legislative session.
  Before the Chair entertains the request, let me indicate that all of 
the above nominees were reported unanimously or on a voice vote in the 
Judiciary Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Colorado 
raising these issues. The Senate does have a responsibility to treat 
nominees fairly. I have worked to do that as ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee, and they are entitled to be considered on the 
floor.
  But things don't always go as smoothly as you would like. I will make 
a couple of points that are very important.
  President Obama's nominees are moving considerably faster--to both 
circuit and district courts--than President Bush's nominees, many of 
whom were subjected to incredibly unjustified actions to obstruct their 
nominations. My good friend, the Senator from Delaware, says we should 
use the Golden Rule. I would say that is always a good policy. I am 
pleased that nominees are moving faster than President Bush's nominees 
were moved. But if we ask for parity, consistency, and if we ask for 
fairness, based on what was done to President Bush's nominees, they 
would be held considerably longer, and a lot of nominees would never 
even get a hearing, and they would wait for years.
  I want to mention a few facts about these matters. President Obama's 
circuit court nominees have waited for a hearing only 59 days, on 
average. President Bush's nominees waited, on average, 176 days to even 
have a hearing in the committee. Actually that was in his first 
Congress, and the Republicans had a majority at that time. But they had 
to wait 247 days to get a hearing for his entire Presidency. Whereas, 
we are now having hearings in the Judiciary Committee in 59 days. We 
had one yesterday, 14 days after the nomination of a district court 
nominee. That doesn't sound like a railroad to me. President Obama's 
district court nominees have waited for hearings only 45 days, on 
average, while President Bush's district court nominees waited 120 days 
for hearings in the committee. So they come out of committee at an 
unprecedented rate. That is all right; we will deal with that. But 
sometimes we have to ask ourselves, how fast should you move a nominee 
to the floor? Should you have some time that the nominee lays over?
  Let us talk about the time from nomination to confirmation. I guess 
that is the ultimate test. How long do you wait between the time a 
person is nominated until the time they are confirmed? President Bush's 
circuit court nominees, on average, waited 350 days from nomination to 
confirmation. By contrast, President Obama's circuit court nominees, on 
average, are being confirmed almost twice as fast, in 208 days.
  Similarly, President Bush's district court nominees, on average--
people have said somehow this is unusual, the way President Obama's 
nominees are being treated--waited 178 days from nomination to 
confirmation. By contrast, President Obama's district court nominees, 
on average, are being processed almost 2 months faster, about 130 days.
  I think it is important to look at other processes that cause 
disturbances in the Senate. It should not go unnoted that President 
Obama bypassed the Senate and recess-appointed Donald Berwick as 
Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services less 
than 3 months after his nomination, and without even a Senate Finance 
Committee hearing taking place. He was very controversial.
  The reasoning offered was that the Republicans are blocking this 
appointment and that he has to go forward. Without even having a 
hearing? That is particularly odd, since that position was vacant for 
16 months before we even had a nomination and hasn't had a confirmed 
Administrator since 2006, and now they want to move it through with a 
recess appointment, bypassing the confirmation process entirely, 
without even having a hearing in the Finance Committee.
  I have to note that the President has been slow to nominate. There 
are now 100 vacancies in our courts--20 in the circuit courts and 80 in 
the district courts--but only 48 nominations are before the Senate. So 
the President has been a bit slow, perhaps, in making his nominations. 
But he should take care; they don't have to be rushed. The Republic 
won't collapse if there is a vacancy for a reasonable period of time. 
But one reason the confirmations are as they are is because nominations 
are not being submitted in a rapid way.
  Look at the fourth circuit. A lot of complaints have been made about 
the fourth circuit. This is stunning to me. You know the old story 
about the man who killed his parents and then complained that he was an 
orphan. One Bush nominee--a highly qualified nominee--for the fourth 
circuit waited 585 days and never got a hearing. He was rated by the 
American Bar Association as ``unanimously well qualified.'' He was a 
presiding judge in the district court on which he served. He had served 
in the Department of Justice. He had been point guard on the Clemson 
basketball team in the ACC. I always thought that clearly meant he knew 
how to make decisions if he could be a point guard at Clemson and dish 
out the ball. He was also asked--out of the entire United States of 
America--by Janet Reno to investigate President Clinton. She had so 
much confidence in him, she picked him. He didn't indict the President. 
You would think they would be appreciative of that. No, they blocked 
him. He never got a hearing.
  When President Bush left office, there were five vacancies on the 
fourth circuit. What an outrage. They were systematically blocked by 
the Senate and the Democrats, who are now complaining so piously, and 
since that time, two have been filled. Now they are complaining that 
some other vacancies haven't been filled. Give me a break.
  Look, the nominations are moving rapidly out of the Judiciary 
Committee. They are coming on the floor. When they get here, they get 
caught up in all kinds of messes. The leaders on both sides have to 
talk and they have to work out floor time. Some of these nominees are 
going to have some debate about them. You have heard a

[[Page 14525]]

number of names mentioned. I point out to my friend from Colorado that 
Mr. Martinez had a lot of ``no'' votes. He was a top lawyer with the 
ACLU in Colorado. He doesn't seem to me to be the most mainstream 
nominee.
  The American people are very tired of judges who get on the bench, 
with lifetime appointments, and start advancing all kinds of agendas 
and legislate from the bench. They expect this Congress to make sure 
that whoever gets nominated will show restraint and will follow the 
law, and follow their oath to serve under the Constitution and not 
above it. So he is a controversial nomination.
  Mr. Butler from Wisconsin--I know he is controversial. Mr. Butler has 
twice run for the Supreme Court of Wisconsin and twice lost. He ran in 
2000 and lost by a 2 to 1 margin. He was appointed to a vacancy on that 
court in 2004, and then ran for election when term of the vacancy 
ended. Those kinds of elections are normally won easily. He lost that, 
because his reputation was that of one of the most pro-plaintiff judges 
in the United States.
  This is a serious concern when we appoint somebody on the bench with 
a lifetime appointment and he can't be voted out of office. Others have 
problems. Some of them are due to come up and be voted on for sure. It 
just takes time. I am not able to make the decisions that the leaders 
of our two parties make. They try to work out matters here. Some judges 
come forward and some don't. I have kind of quit worrying about who 
gets picked and who doesn't. That is above my pay grade.
  I will say that, at least with regard to any fair analysis of the 
numbers, the Obama administration judges are moving faster than the 
Bush administration judges moved. There is a growing concern about the 
philosophy that President Obama has about judges. He said that when he 
looks for a judge, he wants to know if they have empathy. Empathy for 
who? Which party does he have empathy for? He wants a judge who will be 
willing to help advance ``a broader vision for what America should 
be.'' I am not aware that judges need to be promoting visions. Whose 
vision? My vision, or the judge's vision, or President Obama's vision? 
Whose vision is the judge going to promote? Who is he going to have 
empathy for? This party or that party?
  The oath a judge takes is that they will do equal justice to the poor 
and the rich, and they will serve impartially. I believe Chief Justice 
Roberts' metaphor that a judge should be a neutral umpire is a simple 
and beautiful way to say what a judge should be. That doesn't mean he 
takes sides in a lawsuit because he has more empathy for one party than 
the other.
  We have a serious problem. This is the definition of activism. It 
politicizes the court. These kinds of empathies and other matters are 
not law; they are politics. We do not need politics in the court.
  Some of these nominations are controversial and are going to take 
some time to move forward. We are not a rubberstamp over here. We do 
not intend to stand by and have this court packed with nominees who are 
not absolutely committed to following the law as written whether or not 
they like it.
  The Constitution says in its Preamble: ``We . . . do ordain and 
establish this Constitution for the United States of America,'' not 
some constitution a judge who got appointed last week thinks it ought 
to be but the one that actually was passed. Otherwise, we do not have 
law in this country.
  We have a great heritage of law. We have a responsibility to move 
nominations. I made a commitment to the President, to Chairman Leahy, 
to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that to the extent I am 
able to do so, we are going to treat nominees fairly. We are not going 
to misrepresent their records. Certain nominees are going to be moved 
forward. I expect I will vote for over 90 percent of the nominees, 
giving deference to President Obama. Some of them I may be worried 
about, but I am not certain they are not going to be faithful to the 
law. I am going to give the President deference, and I am going to vote 
for them. If I do have objections, I am going to raise those 
objections. I believe the American people expect this Senate to 
scrutinize a nominee to make sure they will be faithful to the law and 
follow it whether or not they like it.
  My colleagues know a lot of these nominees. They care about them. It 
does seem like a long time. Perhaps we ought to get together, I say to 
Senator Udall, in a ``do unto others'' situation and see whether we can 
figure a way to be more effective in moving nominations as a whole and 
not have it change if Republicans were to elect a President next time.
  How we really got into the controversy--and I will conclude with 
this--was President Clinton had almost 95, 98 percent of his nominees 
confirmed. When President Bush got elected, Democratic Senators--
Senator Udall was not here then--met in a retreat. This is according to 
a New York Times article. Appearing at the retreat were Marcia 
Greenberger, Laurence Tribe, and Cass Sunstein--three very aggressive, 
liberal lawyers who believe that judges should be activists to promote 
the law, advance the law in a certain way. The report was that 
agreement had been reached to change the ground rules of confirmations.
  That is exactly what happened. President Bush nominated eight judges. 
He nominated Roger Gregory, an African American who had been nominated 
by President Clinton but was not confirmed before President Clinton 
left office, as a gesture of good faith. He nominated another Democrat, 
I think out of his 8 or 10, within a few months. Those were promptly 
confirmed. The rest of them waited months and years. Some never got 
confirmed. A filibuster took place that we had never seen before. We 
even had Justice Sam Alito filibustered by the Senate, one of the most 
fabulous nominees we have seen and who is doing a great job on the 
Supreme Court. All of this never happened before. It was quite a 
change. We are having more difficulties now than we probably should 
have.
  I say to Senator Udall, I appreciate his commitment to the nominees 
he knows and respects and would like to see confirmed. I am sorry they 
have not been brought up as quickly as he would like. When they get out 
of committee, it basically becomes a leadership matter. They have a lot 
of issues on the agenda, and frequently good nominees can get tied up 
in them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I listened intently to my 
friend from Alabama. I have had the opportunity when I have presided to 
listen to him share his point of view with the Senate. As always, he is 
articulate and passionate.
  Before I make two unanimous consent requests, I wish to make some 
brief remarks. I see a number of colleagues on the Senate floor.
  I heard the comments about the time in which the Judiciary Committee 
is considering these nominees. And there are numbers and there are 
numbers, but the number that stands out to me, as I mentioned earlier, 
is we have 100 judicial vacancies, which the Senator from Alabama 
acknowledged. Forty-two of those are considered judicial emergencies by 
the bodies that oversee and monitor the judiciary. The Senate has 
confirmed 24 nominees so far this year and 36 total since President 
Obama was elected. Those are historic lows. That is the fewest number 
of judges confirmed in 50 years. We may have accelerated the process by 
which nominees are considered, but we have not accelerated the process 
by which they are confirmed so they can serve on a circuit court or a 
district court.
  The Senator talked about a nominee who was in limbo for 8 years, and 
I heard the passion with which he thinks that was a wrong. But two 
wrongs do not make a right. We need to get our courts fully staffed 
with jurists who want to serve.
  I heard piety mentioned. The eight of my colleagues who came to talk 
about filling the district and circuit courts--I did not hear a lot of 
piety; I heard a need and a desire to fill the courts so

[[Page 14526]]

citizens' rights can be maintained and justice can be delivered, 
whether it is in criminal or civil settings.
  Finally, with all due respect to my friend from Alabama, I will wait 
until we hopefully have a debate on the floor about Bill Martinez to 
tell all the 99 Senators what a marvelous candidate he is and what a 
strong member of the bench he would be. We will set that debate aside 
until I hope, I say to Senator Sessions, we actually can discuss the 
Bill Martinez confirmation on the floor.


             Unanimous Consent Requests--Executive Calendar

  In that spirit, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
executive session to consider en bloc the following nominations on the 
Executive Calendar: No. 891, Goodwin Liu, to be a U.S. circuit judge 
for the Ninth Circuit; and No. 933, Robert Chatigny, to be a U.S. 
circuit judge for the Second Circuit. I ask unanimous consent that 
those nominations be debated concurrently for a total of 4 hours, with 
the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Leahy and 
Sessions or their designees; that upon use or yielding back of time, 
the Senate then proceed to vote on the confirmation of the nominations 
in the order listed; that upon confirmation, the motions to reconsider 
be considered made and laid upon the table, the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume 
legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving the right to object, I do say to my 
colleague, perhaps we should, in the spirit of harmony, work together 
and see if we can get a commitment that will be binding, not just for 
this Congress but perhaps one in the future, that would do a little 
better job than we have done in moving nominations. I do think there is 
room for criticism and we could do better. And I feel a responsibility, 
I say to Senator Udall, to work with good people on the other side to 
try to do that.
  With regard to these two nominees, Mr. Chatigny is a controversial 
nominee. He stayed the execution of a serial murderer, and, among other 
things he did, he found that sexual sadism was a mitigating factor that 
would mitigate against him receiving the death penalty after he had 
been duly convicted and sentenced by a Connecticut jury.
  Mr. Liu is probably the most controversial activist nominee before 
the Senate. He has written that people have a constitutional right to 
welfare. He would be very controversial.
  I say with regard to those two, when they are brought up, Majority 
Leader Reid will have to be sure there is considerable time available 
so the debate can be effective.
  For those reasons, Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. The concerns of the Senator from Alabama are 
his, and they are most likely shared by others. The point I am trying 
to make is, let's bring nominees to the floor, have that debate, fully 
consider their records, and then have an up-or-down vote.
  Mr. President, moving to my last unanimous consent request, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to 
consider en bloc the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: 
No. 892, Raymond Lohier, to be U.S. circuit judge for the Second 
Circuit of New York; and No. 934, Scott Matheson, to be U.S. circuit 
judge for the Tenth Circuit; that the nominations be debated 
concurrently for a total of 4 hours, with the time equally divided and 
controlled between Senators Leahy and Sessions or their designees; that 
upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate then proceed to vote 
on confirmation of the nominations in the order listed; that upon 
confirmation, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's 
action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I look forward to working with 
the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Vermont to move all of 
these worthy nominations to the floor. I appreciate the conversation we 
have had.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The small business bill is pending, H.R. 5297.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed 
as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Tribute to Ben Weingrod

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to make note of the fact that a young 
man who has worked with me for 3 years in this body and who is present 
on the floor today will be leaving to go to graduate school.
  I thank Ben Weingrod for his tremendous service to the Senate. Maybe 
this will be his last opportunity to be a staff member in a floor 
proceeding. I express my gratitude to him for his service to our 
country and as a member of our staff over the past 3 years. I thank him 
very much.


                         Free-Trade Agreements

  I rise today to talk about the importance of our relationship with 
Latin America and the role that free trade plays in those 
relationships. In particular, I wish to emphasize the need for action, 
in my view, by the Congress to implement free-trade agreements signed 
with the nations of Colombia and Panama. President Obama described the 
importance of these agreements in his State of the Union Address 
earlier this year. I know the President and the U.S. Trade 
Representative are currently working on the remaining details, and it 
is my hope that the President will soon submit legislation to the 
Congress to implement these agreements.
  While the recession has been a challenge to economies across the 
globe, it also has given us the opportunity to soberly reevaluate our 
global relationships and look to build stronger partnerships in places 
we may have overlooked in the past. The most logical place, in my view, 
to start that review is Latin America.
  For too long, American policy has treated Latin America as our 
backyard, and our policies toward the region have run the spectrum from 
shortsighted and unsophisticated to arrogant and paternalistic. The 
narrative of our relationship has been based on the negative, often 
ignoring and glossing over the important economic, political, and 
social advances that have been made in the region. The truth is that 
Latin America is not our backyard at all but part of our common 
neighborhood. We share far more than a hemisphere with our neighbors in 
this region. We share a common history, common goals, common 
opportunities, and a common future.
  From my time as a Peace Corps volunteer in the Dominican Republic to 
my current chairmanship of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee in the 
Senate, I have had the opportunity to watch this region change 
dramatically over almost the last half century. Thinking back over the 
past three decades of my service in the Senate, the progress in many 
ways has been astounding, and it is time our regional policies 
reflected these changes.
  Embracing these free-trade agreements is an important first step to 
achieve these goals. They will help to cement our regional partnerships 
and make important strides in shifting the story of the United States 
and Latin America from conflict to engagement, from division to 
empowerment.
  I had the opportunity to visit almost every one of these countries in 
the region over the last 6 or 7 months and have seen these changes 
firsthand. In my conversations with numerous leaders and citizens, I 
have come to see not just problems and conflicts but, rather, 
remarkable, positive changes and opportunities.
  Panama, for example, has been a critically important strategic and 
commercial partner of the United States.

[[Page 14527]]

The United States, in fact, helped Panama gain its independence, and in 
1914, the construction of the Panama Canal, as my colleagues will 
certainly recall, was completed.
  Since that time, Panama has developed into an advanced economy based 
on professional-level services and is currently a destination of $4.4 
billion worth of American goods. Despite its small size--3.4 million 
people, smaller than the population of my State of Connecticut--Panama 
rates in the top 50 of our trading partners globally.
  Panama has also made important strides in building democratic 
institutions. Over the last 20 years, five civilian governments have 
been elected. With each new election, its commitment to human rights 
and respect for the rule of law has grown stronger. Challenges, 
obviously, still remain, particularly in the areas of human 
trafficking, violence against women, and increasing transparency in the 
banking and financial sectors. But Panama has made progress--great 
progress--and I am confident that the Martinelli government is 
committed to continuing this trend and to implementing solutions.
  Mr. President, Panama is focused on becoming a financial and economic 
hub in Latin America. Passing the Panama Free Trade Act would give 
American businesses access to Panamanian markets. Today, tariffs and 
barriers remain on all goods and services sold in that country. By 
eliminating those barriers and tariffs on the overwhelming majority of 
goods and services, we could increase tremendously the job 
opportunities not only in my State but others around the country, and 
it would allow us to take advantage of the economic dynamism occurring 
in that country.
  It is estimated upon implementation of a free-trade agreement with 
Panama, nearly 88 percent of U.S. commercial and industrial exports to 
Panama would become duty free, and Panama would be required to phase 
out tariffs on over 60 percent of all U.S. agricultural exports. This 
would lead to more U.S. exports to Panama and more jobs at home in the 
United States. This is good news for American workers, for farmers, and 
for small businesses and consumers alike.
  Yet strengthening our partnership with Panama is not the only 
opportunity for increasing our engagement in Latin America. Our pending 
agreement with Colombia presents, as well, a chance to move forward in 
our renewed commitment to engagement and empowerment in Latin America. 
I believe this will have significant positive benefits over time.
  Colombia has weathered a civil war that has lasted longer than most 
Colombians have been alive. Fueled by narcotrafficking, this war has 
claimed the lives of thousands of innocent Colombians, from farmers and 
shopkeepers to judges, elected officials, candidates, and community 
leaders, and has left countless more homeless in that country.
  In fact, there are nearly 3 million internally displaced persons 
living within the country of Colombia today. Colombia still must 
improve its human rights protections and strengthen its commitment to 
the rule of law, but great changes have occurred on the positive side.
  I understand why, of course, some may question moving forward with 
this agreement. I firmly agree we must not ignore these very real 
challenges in Colombia. But I also recognize that tremendous progress 
has been made in Colombia. I recently spent time there, as I did in the 
neighboring Andean countries, and the common belief is that great steps 
have been made in moving in the right direction. Mechanisms are in 
place today that will strengthen the rule of law, protect human rights, 
and Colombia recently held, as we all know, its most free and open 
election in decades.
  In just 1 weeks' time, Colombia will mark a historic, dramatic 
transition to power from President Uribe to President-elect Santos. 
This peaceful democratic transition is an important marker in 
Colombia's history, and the President-elect has committed himself to 
strengthening Colombia's judicial system and working to reduce violence 
against labor leaders and others.
  The Colombian people have pursued a fresh start, and we must 
recognize this and be willing to do the same. By passing the Colombia 
Free Trade Agreement, we have a historic opportunity to do just that.
  This agreement, with its strong commitment to labor standards, 
environmental protections, and human rights will help shape Colombia's 
course to encourage its move toward a more open and democratic system 
and to build a relationship based on common values and not common 
enemies. This is an important opportunity that continues on the heels 
of the nearly 10 years of U.S. support for Colombia, including billions 
of dollars in aid through Plan Colombia.
  Allowing this agreement to continue to languish now poses a 
significant roadblock, in my view, to continued reform in Colombia 
because it calls into question our Nation's commitment to a sincere and 
ever more important partnership. We need to act now, in my view, to 
affirm our commitment to the Colombian people, to show them that we 
recognize the hard work they have done and to signal that the United 
States will be a strong partner in their continued improvement.
  Over the course of my career in the Senate, we have considered a 
number of trade agreements. I have evaluated each one, as I know my 
colleagues have, on its merits. Some I have supported strongly, and 
many others I have opposed just as strongly, including ones for Latin 
America. A poor free-trade agreement can undermine very important 
protections for workers, human rights, and the environment. So I 
opposed the Central American Free Trade Agreement much to my pain and 
disappointment. But that was a weak agreement which did not deserve the 
support of this body.
  These two agreements are different because since May 10 we have 
strengthened those labor protections, environmental protections, and 
human rights protections. I believe this agreement is deserving of our 
support. In the case of these two agreements, they are a commitment to 
our allies, and a signal to our friends that we value our partnerships 
and will continue to work with them to promote our shared values of 
democracy, the rule of law, and economic opportunity. As such, what 
they represent is much more significant than simply the exchange of 
goods and services between nations.
  Trade agreements such as the ones before us represent opportunities 
to build long-lasting partnerships as well. I believe that is the case 
with the Panamanian and Colombian agreements before us. With the 
inclusion of the provisions of the bipartisan May 10 agreement on 
labor, environmental, and human rights standards, I believe we have 
addressed some of the most significant concerns about these two trade 
agreements. I also believe that because these trade deals and 
agreements have languished for so long, they have turned some 
opportunities into roadblocks to the success of our bilateral and 
regional relationships. It simply makes no sense to continue the delay. 
It is time to pass these two trade agreements in order to help move our 
economy forward as well.
  Passage of these agreements is not just a good foreign policy 
decision; they also make strong economic sense as well. Currently, 
goods from Colombia and Panama flow north largely unhindered. Yet 
American businesses and American workers and the jobs, products, and 
services we provide are subject to significant duties and tariffs when 
we export goods to the nations of Panama and Colombia.
  For example, while the vast majority of goods from Colombia enter the 
United States duty free, American goods exported to Colombia face 
average duties of 12 percent and, in some cases, as high as 20 percent. 
This is costing America jobs and American business. If we implement 
this agreement, we would eliminate many--as I mentioned earlier, almost 
90 percent--of these duties and tariffs on these services and products 
nationwide, and U.S. exports to Colombia would increase, we are told, 
by a projected $1 billion annually.

[[Page 14528]]

  In 2009, more than $14 billion worth of goods were exported by 
Connecticut firms to markets all over the world. According to the 
latest available data from my State--the Department of Economic and 
Community Development--Connecticut firms exported about $91 million 
worth of goods to Colombia and roughly $15 million of goods to Panama. 
Connecticut businesses export a variety of products to these nations, 
particularly chemical products, manufactured machinery, transportation 
equipment, computers, electronic products, and paper goods.
  Under the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, 80 percent of all consumer 
and industrial goods, which include the categories I just listed, 
become duty free immediately. In addition, 88 percent would become 
immediately duty free once the Panama agreement is ratified as well.
  What can this mean for the future? Well, certainly jobs. The 
International Trade Administration calculates that nearly one-third of 
all manufacturing workers in my State depend on exports for their jobs, 
and more than 4,000 companies engage in exporting some kind of products 
to these nations. Of those firms, 89 percent were small or medium-sized 
businesses--precisely the firms that President Obama's Export 
Initiative targets--that will be well positioned to take advantage of 
these agreements once they are ratified. This means expanded economic 
opportunities for workers in our own country and businesses in our 
various States across the Nation.
  The Panama and Colombia Free Trade Agreements were established over 2 
years ago. They have been the subject of intense scrutiny and public 
debate. They have benefitted by the input of the Congress, through the 
historic May 10 agreement, which I described earlier, that saw the 
inclusion of binding, enforceable, and meaningful labor, public health, 
and environmental standards. These discussions have allowed the 
Congress and the American people to critically examine the importance 
of these trade agreements and our partnerships with these key allies.
  I urge support of these trade agreements before us not in spite of 
our current economic situation but because of it. This recession 
demands bold moves and innovation. It requires us to strengthen our key 
economic partnerships and to expand into new markets where we can. Now 
is not the time to close our borders to nations with whom we already 
have strong ties. History shows that erecting barriers to trade has the 
potential for deepening the global recession. Conversely, these 
agreements mean more economic opportunities for American workers and 
our families.
  It is time for us to change the way we relate to the world, 
particularly in Latin America. For too long we have used our 
differences in this region with our allies as an excuse not to act, as 
a reason to disengage. These agreements offer us a chance to refresh 
that paradigm, to make the United States a proactive partner in 
fostering economic opportunity by bringing us closer together and 
promoting our shared values.
  It is time, in my view, for the United States of America to lead a 
global economic recovery. A small but important step down that road is 
the passage of the Panamanian and Colombian Free Trade Agreements, and 
I urge my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, to support these 
agreements. I hope we can do so before we adjourn this session of 
Congress.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                            Education Reform

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the President of the United States made 
an important speech this morning. He spoke to the National Urban League 
Centennial Conference on Education.
  Every speech a President makes is important, but this speech is 
especially important, and I commend the President for his courage, for 
his vision, and for his willingness to undertake the hard work of 
helping children across this country learn what they need to know and 
be able to do, and the competence with which he is doing that.
  Let me be specific about why I say that. No. 1, the President began 
with teachers. He extolled teachers. He said he wanted to lift them up 
as high as he could, he wanted them to be on the front pages of 
magazines, and for us to dignify them in every way we could. But he 
didn't back away from tackling the most important and the most 
difficult challenge that any of us who have dealt with education reform 
have found; that is, how do we reward outstanding teachers. Especially, 
how do we tie that reward to student achievement? In other words, what 
can we do to help reward and encourage those outstanding men and women 
who help our children learn, particularly our children who are having 
the hardest time learning?
  All of us know a great teacher makes a great difference. The 
President said that himself. Each of us in the Senate knows that. But 
any of us who have, over the last several years, spent time trying to 
find ways to reward outstanding teaching knows how hard it is.
  I worked on it in 1983 when Tennessee became the first State to 
reward outstanding teaching. Not one State at that time paid one 
teacher one penny more for being a good teacher. They could make more 
money for being around a long time. They could make more money for 
getting a degree. But they didn't make more money at all if the 
children were succeeding.
  For a while that worked because we were able to capture women. They 
had very few options and they became saints in the classroom and they 
were our teachers. But in the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s, women 
had many options, and they took them. In the companies where they went 
to work, they were paid more for excellence. They made good salaries. 
As a result, it became more difficult to attract and keep outstanding 
men and women in our classrooms.
  Governor Graham, who was later a Senator, tried the same thing in 
Florida. Governor Clinton--later a President--was trying many of the 
same ideas in Arkansas. Those were the 1980s. Every education meeting I 
go to comes down to the same point: After you get past the role of the 
parent, the teacher is the center of it. Whether a child is a gifted 
child or whether a child comes from a home where he or she does not 
have breakfast, or whether a child comes from a home where he or she 
has never been read a book until they are 7, whether a child needs to 
be in school 12 hours a day or 8, on Saturdays or not, the teacher at 
the center of the education of that school is the indispensable product 
and the best and most important part of a child's ability to achieve 
and to learn.
  What the President has done--through the Teacher Incentive Fund that 
he has continued to encourage, and through his leadership on the 
subject--deserves credit and support from all Americans. I for one am 
here to offer him that.
  Second, he talked about charter schools. He is not the first to do 
that either. I remember as Education Secretary on my last week in 
office, in 1993, I wrote a letter to all the superintendents in America 
to encourage them to try charter schools. At the time they were the 
invention of a few Democratic liberal reformers in Minnesota. There 
were maybe a dozen charter schools at that moment. But charter schools 
were simply ``start over'' schools. It was simply saying to a faculty: 
Let's start over. What if we took off the rules and regulations and 
gave you the freedom to do with the children who are presented to you 
what they need, so if you need to start at 7 in the morning and finish 
at 7 in the night, do it. If you need 2-hour classes, do it. If you 
need 200 days a year instead of 180 days at school, do that as well. If 
you need to learn during Easter holidays, do that.
  Who are the beneficiaries of the charter schools? When they work, the 
beneficiaries are most often the children who come from the most 
difficult circumstances.
  I can point to a charter school in Memphis I visited 3 years ago 
where it was an Easter holiday. The children there were ninth or tenth 
graders. Instead of being on Easter holiday, they

[[Page 14529]]

were studying for their advanced placement course in biology at the 
freshman or sophomore level. There was not any other school in 
Tennessee where children that age were studying advanced placement 
biology, especially during the Easter week break.
  President Obama has done what President Bush did, what President 
Clinton did, what Vice President Gore did, what I have done, what many 
others have done, which is to say: Let's have independent public 
charter schools and give teachers the freedom to do what they know how 
to do. The first thing is rewarding outstanding teaching. As the late 
Albert Shanker, the head of the American Federation of Teachers, used 
to say: If we can have master plumbers, we can have master teachers, 
and we can pay them accordingly, pay them very well, and let's have 
charter schools and give teachers the freedom to do what they in their 
own good judgment know to do.
  The third thing the President talked about was high standards. That 
is also not a new idea but he has advanced it down the road very well. 
Higher standards are an indispensable part of a good education in 
kindergarten through the 12th grade.
  The way I used to help Tennesseans learn about that was to say look 
at all these big new auto plants that are coming into our State. To get 
a job there, you have to know a lot more today than you did when your 
parents might have worked there, or your grandparents. You have to know 
algebra and statistics. You have to know English well to be able to 
communicate. In other words, the standards are high if we are going to 
compete in the world and keep our high standard of living.
  While a lot of work has been done by the Governors of the country 
through ACHIEVE, the President has advanced the idea of common 
standards very well in the last 18 months, and he has done it in the 
right way. He has not said: Okay, I am the President; we will write it 
from Washington. That would have killed it--or at least I hope it would 
have killed it. He didn't say that. He said let's create an environment 
in which States can make a difference and make their own choices, and 
States, in surprisingly large numbers, are beginning to do that, in 
terms of reading and math.
  The fourth area the President spoke about, and this is his own 
initiative, is the Race to The Top. This is infusing one of the hardest 
things that is possible to infuse in public education and that is 
excellence. We have a democratic society. We are usually interested in 
leveling things. If we have five things, one goes to each person.
  What is hard for us to do in government, and that means public 
education as well, is to say let's reward excellence. Let's say to 
those school districts or to those States or those teachers or those 
others who are making the A-pluses and the A's and doing the best job, 
we want to incentivize you to do that. He has found a way to do that. 
It is a fair way. He has kept politics out of it. He has put money into 
it and he deserves credit for it.
  Finally, he has picked a very good Secretary of Education. I said 
when Arne Duncan was appointed that he might be the President's best 
appointment. I still think that. That is not because I agree with 
everything Arne Duncan has recommended. In fact, I think he was 
completely wrong about the student loan takeover. I think his proposal 
on gainful employment, which is an obscure higher education thing and a 
different subject, is, with all respect, a little wacky. But what I 
think is he is an excellent leader for education, and he has a big 
heart and he has worked in a bipartisan way, and he has gotten results 
that are as good as anybody could possibly have gotten on some of the 
toughest subjects facing our country.
  The President and Arne Duncan deserve our applause and support for 
their efforts. We will have differences of opinion about how much we 
can spend and when we can spend it, but if the goal is to reward 
outstanding teaching, to create more charter schools, to help States 
raise standards in an environment where they are not told to do so by 
Washington, but create an environment to do it themselves; if the goal 
is to infuse excellence into public higher education by challenging 
States to do better, then we should be for that and we should do it 
together.
  I think President Obama has the opportunity in public education to do 
what President Nixon did in China. It may be easier for a Democratic 
President to make these changes or to lead the country in these changes 
than it would be for a Republican President, just as it was easier for 
a Republican President in the early 1970s to cause us to have an 
opening to China. That is a large claim to make but I think it is an 
equally important goal.
  About the only thing I disagreed with today in the President's speech 
was this. He said teachers were the most important part of a child's 
education. I think a parent is and I think he does, too. I think he 
would agree. I think parents and teachers are 90 percent of it and it 
starts with the parent. The reason I think he would agree with that is 
because he had good parents and he is a good parent and a very good 
example to the rest of the country.
  Anyone who has read his biography, ``The Audacity of Hope,'' knows 
the story of his mother getting him up at 4 o'clock in the morning in 
Indonesia and teaching him math and to read and telling him: Buster, 
it's not any fun for me so get busy and learn, and he learned very 
well. His example as a good parent and good student is exactly the kind 
of example we need for students and parents across our country.
  This is a time when we have differences of opinion on many issues. I 
will have some differences of opinion with the President on education, 
as I mentioned. But I have no lack of enthusiasm for the importance of 
his leadership on K-12 education, on rewarding outstanding teaching, on 
giving teachers the freedom to create schools in which they can use 
their common sense, on creating high standards, on the Race to The Top, 
on setting a good example as a good parent, and I thought it was 
important--perhaps especially for a Republican Senator who spent a 
number of years working on these issues as Education Secretary and 
president of a university and Governor--to come to the floor and say: 
Good work, Mr. President. An excellent address. And on those broad 
issues and themes, you have my full support.
  The President's remarks can be found at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/
the-pre
ss-office/remarks-president-education-reform-national-urban-league-
centen
nial-conference.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I come for a few minutes on the floor. I 
am down here with Senator Wyden from Oregon, and I want to talk a 
little bit and probably in an informal way about a piece of 
legislation, a bipartisan piece of legislation on tax fairness and 
simplification.
  There is one thing I hear a lot about when I go back home and when I 
was running for office, when I was mayor, and serving in our city 
government--how do you simplify the process of taxes, making them 
fairer for the middle class.
  For all my time prior to serving in the Senate, I have thought about 
these ideas and ways we can move forward. When I was mayor, we 
simplified the business taxes for our small businesses, making it 
easier and simpler, lowering their tax burden, for our residents doing 
the same thing.
  Here I am in the Senate and I look at lots of legislation every day, 
as I know you do, Mr. President, and I know the Senator from Oregon 
does. We see all sorts of ideas created and put on the table, and one 
which intrigued me was the Wyden-Gregg bill, which is focused on 
simplifying the tax paperwork mill, I call it, that we are subjected to 
every single year as individuals; the mound of paper we have to fill 
out not only as an individual but as a small businessperson trying to 
go through the rules and regulations and what is a reasonable amount of 
taxation that we should pay; also, the complicated system in what is 
owed or hopefully refunded

[[Page 14530]]

back to us because we overpaid the IRS.
  As I looked at a lot of different ideas, I have to tell you this 
idea--as we debate here on the floor a small business plan, small 
business ideas--sooner or later we will debate the Bush tax cuts and 
what we will do with those. To me, there is a simpler solution when it 
comes to issues of taxation, what we are going to do lowering the tax 
burden on small business, lowering the tax burden on the middle class, 
and simplifying it. Today there are so many different things we have to 
worry about and focus on: multiple retirement accounts we are trying to 
balance, trying to figure out who is a dependent, who is not, doing our 
returns--how to simplify this so our life is less burdened by the IRS.
  I want to first commend Senator Wyden and Senator Gregg for their 
work in multiple years pushing this issue forward, trying to figure out 
how we can help the middle class and the small business people of this 
country lower their tax burden; getting the IRS, as we would say back 
home in Alaska, out of our pockets. They have done a good job.
  If there is no objection from the Presiding Officer, if it is OK, I 
will ask Senator Wyden to join me here with couple of questions. 
Sometimes you look at these bills and you wonder are they too good to 
be true. Here we have, if I am not mistaken, not only the Heritage 
Foundation and some of the more conservative groups as well as the more 
liberal groups, the Brookings Institution and others, commenting 
positively about this legislation. In my year and a half here I have 
not seen that on anything.
  We have Republicans and Democrats who are looking at it positively. 
We have business groups that look at it positively because it lessens 
their burden and allows them to reinvest in their businesses, to grow 
this economy. It reduces the deficit, which I know Senator Wyden, 
myself, and others--like yourself, Mr. President--are concerned about--
the growing deficit and the burden it may lay onto future generations.
  But it also has true tax reduction, tax relief for the middle class 
and businesses. When you see something such as that--and, by the way, 
you can also do this in one page, a one-page return. When you hear 
those kinds of things, those claims, you are wondering, What is the 
catch? What does the small print say? What are you going to get hooked 
into and pay a pretty good price for later? We have been going through 
it, I have been going through it. Actually when you first introduced it 
before I was a Senator, I looked at this legislation when I campaigned. 
Here I am now in the Senate with a chance to participate, to see what 
we can do to accelerate this.
  We are going to talk a lot about the tax extender bill and other tax 
issues in the future. But my view is it is time to reform the system. 
The system is broken. The middle class is paying higher than they 
should. Small businesses are burdened with incredible paperwork and 
increased costs. It is time that we reform the system and do something 
that is dramatic and makes a difference.
  Today it is an honor to be down here. Senator Wyden, I hope doesn't 
mind; I have extracted off of every piece of his Web site every 
document related to this, the research to understand it, to make sure I 
do not see that small print that later I might regret. So far what I 
have seen is small print, big print, that I do not regret and that is 
why a few weeks ago I cosponsored the legislation to be one of those 
who joined the team, to move us forward to real reform.
  I know when I joined, Senator Bob Bennett from Utah also joined on--
again, focused on the same issues we are, again keeping it a 
bipartisan, fair, simplification of taxes.
  No one likes to talk about taxes. No one loves to be around April 15. 
But the fact is, it does occur. So how do we make the burden less on 
middle-class America?
  How do we make the burden less on small businesses? This bill does 
it. So, again, I say to the Senator from Oregon, I wish to make sure I 
am saying the right stuff. So maybe the Senator could comment back to 
me. But it does have a positive impact. Correct me if I am wrong, but I 
think the numbers, for example, on average for a small business, they 
are pretty much going to be guaranteed they are going to save at least 
$5,000 in taxes and more, depending on the size of their business.
  For middle-class America, they are clearly going to save. Their rates 
will be lower, which means their cash out of their pocket will be less 
to the IRS, meaning the IRS is not reaching in there, not only in your 
front pocket but your back pocket. They will have less capacity to do 
that.
  Tell me, I hope I am right on this and I do not want to mislead--the 
public is watching--but also make sure I am correct.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague. I especially appreciate his kind 
words about a piece of legislation Senator Gregg and I sat for the 
better part of 2 years working on. I think everyone appreciates 
colleagues supporting their legislation. I appreciate the Senator's 
kind words.
  I think he is right with respect to the relief, and colleagues will 
see that, whether it is the Heritage organization or the Brookings 
Institution or the various analyses that have been done by other 
groups. But I think it is especially important, even apart from our 
piece of legislation, that we get at the central question the Senator's 
talking about, which is, the current tax system is broken. It is 
broken, and we are not going to get the country where we need to go by 
just kind of tinkering here and tinkering there.
  I wish to give a couple examples because I think the central question 
is, Are we going to make a break with a broken system and look forward 
or are we going to do what has been done year after year after year, 
which is to just to tinker with a broken system and cause more 
problems?
  Here is the heart of it. What we are seeing today is that every few 
years there are thousands of changes in tax law. So that means all the 
small businesses--and you were a small business leader before you came 
to the Senate--all those small businesses, trying to compete in the 
tough global market, incredibly competitive markets, do not even have 
any certainty and predictability of what is ahead. They are not in a 
position to be able to know what the Federal Government and 
particularly the IRS is going do in terms of taxes, and that drains 
additional chances for them to make changes in their production, in 
their workplace, productivity areas. It defies common sense. So the 
fact that there are these thousands of changes every few years, in my 
view, is very antibusiness, and particularly antismall business.
  Then, the second point that the Senator touched on deals with 
individuals. The reality is, today, the current tax system is so 
complicated that most Americans do not even know when a tax break has 
been extended to them.
  The Senator and I have talked about it. It seems to me Senator Begich 
made the central point here. In the stimulus legislation, in the 
Recovery Act, there were $300 billion worth of tax cuts put into that 
legislation--$300 billion worth of tax cuts. If we left today and 
walked the streets in Anchorage or Portland or Gresham or wherever and 
asked people about the stimulus legislation, people would know 
virtually nothing about any tax incentives.
  Mr. BEGICH. If I may interject.
  Mr. WYDEN. Please.
  Mr. BEGICH. That is actually right. One thing I thought, wow, $300 
billion tax relief, predominately for middle-class America. I thought 
my phone would be ringing off the hook with people saying: Wow, what a 
great relief. If we got 1 e-mail on this out of the 1,000 or so e-mails 
and phone calls we get every single week, I would be surprised.
  Because, as the Senator said, it is a complicated system we have, and 
when we do relief, no one will even notice it. That is why I was so 
attracted to Senator Wyden and Senator Gregg's proposal, because it is 
reform. It is changing the system for the better. It is ensuring that 
middle-class America, making sure small businesses benefit.

[[Page 14531]]

  That is when I was shocked, actually. I know if I was back in the 
mayor's office when we did the small business relief, making sure 90-
plus percent of our small businesses did not have to fill out the 
paperwork anymore and got relief, I heard from them because they were 
very appreciative because they could reinvest it. But we made it real 
because we reformed it, not just tinkered with it as you talk about how 
the past Congresses have done.
  Mr. WYDEN. The other aspect of the Recovery Act, I think, that 
reaffirms this point with respect to the complexity is the Internal 
Revenue Service puts out what they call their annual ``oops'' list. 
This is the list of the 10 most common mistakes made by taxpayers when 
filing. The ``oops'' list released this past March included, for 
example, one of the principal credits in the Recovery Act because 
people simply were unable to figure out how to make it work on their 
1040EZ forms. So the fact is, the Tax Code today is anything but an 
easy system. It is quite the opposite.
  To further support the point with respect to the complexity, this 
year individuals and businesses are going to spend 10.6 billion hours 
to comply with the code. If the tax compliance sector were an industry, 
it would be one of the Nation's largest, requiring a full-time effort 
of 3.8 million people to get done that 7.6 billion hours.
  The cost of compliance is jaw-dropping, $200 billion a year, 15 
percent of all tax revenue the IRS collects each year. So the point of 
this is, we are at a fork in the road. We can either look to the kind 
of approach that a Republican President, Ronald Reagan, and a number of 
Democrats talked about one-quarter century ago and move in and drain 
the swamp, Democrats and Republicans together, taking on these special 
interest groups that have hijacked the Tax Code or the Congress can 
continue, as Senator Begich has said, to keep fiddling with one 
provision or another, making the Tax Code even more complicated, 
running what amounts to a full employment program for tax preparers or 
we can take steps that will make the code fairer and more progrowth.
  I also think it is worth noting that in the last round of tinkering, 
2001 and 2003, for much of that period we had stagnant economic growth. 
So we were not doing what the country needed in terms of fairness for 
the middle class, nor was the country doing what was essential in terms 
of promoting more high-skill, high-wage jobs.
  You and I know, for example, if you take away the tax breaks for 
shipping jobs overseas, you can use that money to lower the cost to 
manufacture in this country. I see Senator Casey. He comes from the 
State of Pennsylvania. He has done terrific work because I have heard 
him on the floor talking about the importance of manufacturing.
  This is one of the issues relating to the question of tax reform. 
Right now there are tax breaks in the code that reward companies for 
closing U.S. operations and moving them overseas. Why would not 
Democrats and Republicans want to go to a more simple system, as 
Senator Begich is talking about? That would be in the interest of 
fairness for all but also one that is likely to create more good-paying 
manufacturing jobs in Pennsylvania and other parts of the country, by 
taking away the tax break for shipping the jobs overseas and use those 
dollars to hold down costs for manufacturing red, white, and blue here 
in the United States. So I am very much appreciate Senator Begich 
taking this time. He has been awfully kind with us. I appreciate the 
kind words about the bill and having him on it. But I especially 
appreciate him outlining what this problem is all about in terms of 
starting--with getting beyond the tinkering and the complexity to real 
reform that works for all Americans.
  I thank my friend.
  Mr. BEGICH. To the Senator from Oregon, I will close and say thank 
you very much. It is kind of like the Senator said, a fork in the road. 
It is a moment. We can continue to do business as usual, tinker with it 
a little bit here, a little bit there, have special interests kind of 
run the show or we can turn it back to the American people by helping 
them keep more money in their pockets, helping small business keep more 
money in their pockets. Let them invest in the economy, as the data 
that I have seen around this can show, that over a 10-year spread, you 
will add over $2 trillion to the GDP, based on small business 
reinvesting those dollars instead of the IRS grabbing them from them.
  This is a positive step. I do think, I hope as our colleagues--a 
couple of them are on the floor and we will stop in a second so they 
can get their time to do their presentations. But I know and I hope 
other colleagues are watching and listening because this is a moment 
maybe in this body that we can actually do some significant reform in a 
bipartisan way.
  I do not sit on Banking. I do not sit on Finance. Some people have 
asked me: Well, if you are not on those committees, why are you 
interested in this? Well, simply because it has a simplification of the 
tax return system. It lowers middle-class taxes and those on small 
business. That is what drives this economy. That is what we should be 
focused on.
  So I credit these Senators for stepping up, kind of plowing the field 
in a way. I am a latecomer to this. But I am going to be one of those 
who is taking that plow and putting a high-speed engine on it so we can 
keep plowing more and getting more folks, hopefully, on board. So, at 
the end of the day, the American people can look at this Congress, 
Republicans and Democrats, and say: They did something that reformed 
the system, made it simpler in our lives, saved the middle-class 
taxpayer money and improved and lowered the taxes for small business.
  Now the business economy is humming along and investing those dollars 
to grow this economy and keeping those jobs right here in the country.
  So thank you for allowing us a few minutes to, hopefully, start to 
engage the Congress as we move into tinkering with the Tax Code, so we 
do something different and we reform the Tax Code for the betterment of 
this country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Kansas is 
recognized.


                         Aviation Subsidization

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I appreciate the discussion I was 
hearing. I would also like to draw attention to an issue that I think 
is about the most important to our Nation. We recently won a major 
trade case against the European Union and their subsidization of 
Airbus.
  This is an effort by the European Union, over a period of 30 years, 
to buy their way into the large commercial aviation marketplace. They 
did so. They did so successfully. They drove out two major U.S. 
competitors, McDonnell-Douglas, Lockheed-Martin, drove them out 
completely. They do not even make those big jet airliners anymore, and 
they had Boeing on the ropes.
  Airbus took more than half the market share globally in the large 
airliner business. The U.S. Trade Representative's office, over a 
couple different administrations, pursued Airbus's subsidization. We 
just won this case, a multibillion dollar trade subsidy case that we 
won against the Europeans and their subsidization of Airbus, taking 
market share in the large commercial airliner business in an illegal 
fashion, illegally subsidized.
  Now we will go into the damage and remedy phase. But we won the case, 
and it is a massive case. The reason I am raising this to my 
colleagues, my colleagues all know about, is a similar setting is 
starting in the small aircraft market, general aviation market. It is 
starting in the business jets, the small airplane business.
  This is a U.S. homegrown business, it is centered in my State in 
Kansas. It is a great business. It provides connection throughout this 
country and increasingly throughout the world. There are 5,000 airports 
in the United States; only 500 of them have commercial service.
  So the other 4,500, I guess you ride a bike to if you do not have a 
business jet or an airplane to get people there. Eighty-six percent of 
the passengers on

[[Page 14532]]

those business jets or airplanes are mid-level sales, engineers. They 
make connections in between their various properties as the company 
operates. They make them much more efficient within that business.
  But what is taking place today is this homegrown general aviation 
business in the United States that is a major exporter, recently cited 
by a major study by Brookings that this is a major export cluster, 40 
percent export that we do in general aviation, the small business jet-
airplane market is now under targeted attack by other countries to take 
this business away from the United States, the same way Airbus, 
subsidized by the European Union, took that market share away from the 
United States.
  Instead of going after the big airliners, they are going after the 
small jets, the small airplanes. Several countries are lining up to do 
this. This is one of the major challenges facing general aviation 
domestically--foreign countries targeting this industry, which has 
high-wage, high-scale manufacturing sets of jobs. Various governments 
around the world are lining up and preparing programs with various 
means of support for their domestic aircraft industries, in research 
and development, sales and export financing, as well as certification 
of new aircraft, very similar to what took place in Airbus taking over 
that market share that they did.
  In that situation, you had large companies fighting against a 
government operation, and they had, in some cases, deep enough 
pocketbooks to last, such as Boeing did. Lockheed-Martin, McDonnell-
Douglas did not and were driven out of the field. My great fear in this 
targeting of general aviation, of the smaller business aircraft market, 
is that they are going to have countries behind them, companies in 
those countries are going to push forward and they are going to take 
the market share away and they are going to be aggressive and it is 
going to happen rapidly if we do not get out in front of it and stop 
these other countries from doing this subsidization.
  It is absolutely critical to engage this competition now, that we 
stop it now, that we start the investigation of foreign governments' 
illegal subsidization in the general aviation market now, and that we 
get on top of this now, before it goes on 10, 20 years, as it did with 
Airbus, and we drive U.S. businesses out of the field.
  One country in particular I wish to draw attention to, and one 
company. The country in particular is Brazil. It has made a strong 
commitment to expanding its presence in this market, the general 
aviation market, through Embraer, one of Brazil's largest exporters and 
employers. Embraer has made it a strategic focus and publicly stated 
its goal in 2005 to become ``a major player in the business aviation 
market by 2015.'' That was their statement in 2005, so they are 5 years 
away.
  How have they done? After entering the business aviation market in 
2002, Embraer has been involved in a massive program to develop 
aircraft for this market segment. They have experienced unbelievable 
growth and have rolled out a full product line of new jets, including 
the Phenom 100 and 300, the Legacy 600 and 650, and the Lineage 1000. 
Beyond the staggering numbers of models Embraer has introduced since 
2002--in 8 years that number of product introduction--it is now 
responsible for around 14 percent of all global sales of business 
aircraft.
  Again, this is a U.S. homegrown business. This business didn't exist 
outside of the United States before we started it many years ago. It is 
headquartered in my State in Wichita, the air capital of the world. 
What they have done since 2002 is get 14 percent of the market share 
from a start position, a cold start position. This is quite an 
unbelievable feat for a company that has only been manufacturing 
business aviation for a little over 7 years. That is phenomenal. It 
also, I suspect, was done illegally and subsidized by the government. 
At the same time, Embraer continues full speed ahead toward its goal of 
being a major player in the business aviation market.
  U.S. manufacturers during this same period have had to delay or 
cancel new program starts due to challenging market conditions. I don't 
need to remind Members what has happened since 2008. It has been a 
horrific market condition. In my State, we have had huge job losses and 
sales in the business aviation field since 2008. We had a nice period 
going into 2007. We were up to 40 percent international sales. 
International sales helped us a lot because previously we sold 90, 95 
percent of the market domestically, so that's a nice expansion in the 
international marketplace.
  Since that period, 2007 moving forward, this has been a downward 
market. In that period, Embraer has moved up to 14 percent and 
introduced a whole new cross-section of planes. As someone who has seen 
similar signs in the past that were later proven to be the result of 
illegal subsidization of aircraft by the EU, this activity by Embraer 
and the Brazilian Government and growing market control does not seem 
possible without heavy and creative government support across the 
board. It does not seem possible to have done that in this market 
condition, in this atmosphere, in that short a period of time by a new 
startup company that hasn't been making these aircraft for more than 7 
years. That was the similar sort of trajectory Airbus went on when it 
had heavy and creative government subsidization to go into a 
marketplace they had not been anywhere close to in the past. That's 
seven years, now 14 percent of the market share by Embraer, starting 
from a dead start. There is heavy illegal subsidization.
  I urge the President to look into this matter through the U.S. Trade 
Representative's Office, the International Trade Commission, to start 
an investigation into what I believe is illegal subsidization. Let's 
get the factual setting established.
  We now see what they have accomplished in this period, I believe, 
through illegal subsidization. We need to get the International Trade 
Commission and the U.S. Trade Representative's Office focused on what 
needs to take place; otherwise, what will happen is Embraer will 
continue to grow in its market presence, taking over more and more of 
the global and U.S. domestic market. It will drive weaker incumbents 
out of the field in the United States, as happened in the large 
aviation market. We will lose export share. It will encourage other 
entrants such as the Chinese to come into this marketplace, possibly 
the Japanese as well in subsidized ways, illegal government 
subsidization into this marketplace that has high-wage, high-skill 
manufacturing jobs that we should be doing in the United States and not 
allow to be stolen by foreign treasuries to other places around the 
world.
  We have to do this and get in it before they do what Airbus and the 
EU did to the large market which is to drive Lockheed Martin and 
McDonnell Douglas out of the business. While we were sitting here 
saying: We think maybe there is a problem, there might be a problem, 
there was a huge problem, a huge illegal subsidization by the 
Europeans. But we didn't get on top of it until two major U.S. 
companies were completely driven out of the business. Let's not let 
this be repeated.
  As my colleague from Kentucky loves to say: There is no education in 
the second kick of a mule. We have seen this play before. We have seen 
countries go after key market segments in the United States. If we are 
not aggressive in confronting it, it goes on until we do. I hope my 
colleagues will look at this. There are two actions we can take near 
term with the International Trade Commission, starting the 
investigation in this particular case with the U.S. Trade 
Representative's Office, starting to raise this issue, particularly 
with the Brazilians but also other countries. Now is the time to do it, 
not 5 years later after U.S. companies have been driven out of the 
business.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                           Clean Energy Jobs

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a very important 
provision in the new Clean Energy Jobs

[[Page 14533]]

and Oil Company Accountability Act just introduced by the majority 
leader which would require public disclosure of hydraulic fracturing 
chemicals used in natural gas drilling. The bill itself will have a 
number of important benefits which I will highlight before getting into 
the issue I rose to speak about.
  This legislation will create at least 150,000 jobs and save millions 
of consumers up to $500 annually. Second, it will hold BP accountable. 
A lot of Americans are waiting for that accountability. Third, it will 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create up to 550,000 jobs. 
Next, it will protect the environment by providing full funding for the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund over the next 5 years. Finally, the 
bill will protect taxpayers from any future oilspills. That is the 
overall bill itself.
  I wish to speak about a provision included in the bill as it stands 
now. I thank the majority leader for his leadership on energy issues 
for many years but especially, as our leader, for his work on efforts 
to combat global warming, pollution, and certainly for his leadership 
in putting together this new piece of legislation. I thank him for 
including important language in the bill as it relates to natural gas 
drilling in places such as Pennsylvania.
  The language in the bill amends the Emergency Planning and Community 
Right-to-Know Act, which was designed to help local communities protect 
health, safety, and the environment from chemical hazards. It would 
require well operators to disclose to the State and the public a list 
of the chemicals used in each hydraulic fracturing process, including 
chemical constituents but not the proprietary chemical formulas the 
companies are so concerned about.
  This bill also includes the chemical abstract service registry 
numbers and material safety data sheets. If a State does not have a 
disclosure program in effect, the disclosure would be made to the 
public itself. This provision would also require disclosure of a 
proprietary formula or chemical constituents to a treating physician or 
nurse in an emergency situation. That is a narrow exception to the 
general disclosure rule.
  This is about something that is critically important to the people of 
Pennsylvania and people across the country. In order to extract the gas 
from the Marcellus shale which lies beneath large portions of 
Pennsylvania and several other States--of course, there is shale 
formations--the gas industry uses a process called hydraulic fracturing 
or, by the shorthand, fracking, as it is known colloquially, whereby 
about \1/2\ million or more gallons of water, sand, and chemicals, in 
combination, are injected at very high pressures into underground rock 
formations to blast them open and increase the efficiency of the wells.
  Each well must be fracked multiple times, really hit with that 
combination of sand, water and chemicals in order to release the 
natural gas from the shale. Then, of course, the gas is captured and 
can be used as an energy source.
  The explosive growth of natural gas wells in Pennsylvania in many 
incidents involving some of these wells highlights the urgent need--I 
think that is an understatement--for disclosure of the chemicals used 
in hydraulic fracturing. Pennsylvanians and people across the Nation 
have a right to know what is being injected into the ground at 
thousands of sites throughout the country.
  Fracking fluids are believed to contain toxic chemicals. These 
compounds are kept secret from the public as proprietary information. 
However, even low concentrations of toxic chemicals can have adverse 
health and environmental consequences.
  We all know the history of our Nation as it relates to the extraction 
of a natural resource. Pennsylvania has a history as well. We have 
developed our natural resources to power the region and, indeed, the 
Nation from the first commercial oil well, the Drake well near 
Titusville, PA, in the 1850s, to western Pennsylvania's production of 
natural gas and, of course, most notably, Pennsylvania coal. We have 
used that coal and other sources of energy but especially coal to 
provide electricity throughout the State and throughout many States in 
the Nation. We have been a producer of a resource which has helped to 
light and heat the country.
  Pennsylvanians are proud of that contribution. We are also proud of 
the way we have been able to balance the need for that resource and the 
benefit with what happens to our environment and our quality of life. 
However, before our State did the right thing in striking that balance, 
we did create a number of environmental legacies that we should not be 
proud of. Most were created in previous generations when Federal 
regulations that promoted responsible development did not exist. We 
know that history. We know it all too well. We cannot make those 
mistakes again in Pennsylvania or anywhere around the country when it 
comes to the benefit and the burden of having a resource under the 
ground.
  Natural gas has played and will continue to play an important role in 
our energy portfolio as we transition to a new energy future, and we 
are fortunate to have domestic sources to help us meet our growing 
needs.
  Pennsylvania will develop the natural gas in the Marcellus shale, and 
we should. But we should also make sure we develop the Marcellus shale 
using the best practices to protect our communities and our people. We 
have to get this right. The good news is that we have a lot of 
knowledge and information and research and technology and good-old 
American ingenuity and can-do spirit to get it right. Those old, false 
choices we used to debate all the time years ago--about choosing jobs 
over the environment, about choosing economic prosperity or great 
economic opportunity over quality of life and health and safety--are 
largely part of our history. But we have to make sure we get this 
right.
  It is not just underground sources of drinking water. That has been 
my main concern when it comes to this issue. What happens to 
groundwater or drinking water with all of this hydraulic fracturing 
going on? And the EPA, of course, is in the midst of a study. But it is 
not just a concern I have about underground sources of water. There 
have been cases where this fracking fluid--again, a combination of 
chemicals and sand and water and millions of gallons of it in one small 
area, in one geographic area--that those fracking fluids have, in fact, 
spilled on the ground.
  The language in this legislation will require that the natural gas 
industry provide complete disclosure of the chemical composition of 
hydraulic fracturing materials to ensure that if drinking water 
supplies, surface waters, or human health is compromised, the public 
and first responders will know exactly--exactly--what they are dealing 
with.
  The intent is not to stop hydraulic fracturing, and this disclosure 
language is not going to stop it, despite what we have heard in the 
last couple of days here in Washington and around the country. I would 
categorize some of that language, some of that hysteria from the 
industry as a lot of hot air and not a lot of truth. The provision that 
is in this bill that relates to the fracturing process simply requires 
well operators to disclose what chemicals they are releasing 
underground in our environment. What is so problematic or troubling 
about that? Let me read that again: requiring well operators to 
disclose what chemicals they are releasing underground into our 
environment. That is what we are talking about.
  We know companies, such as big soft drink companies, over many 
years--Coke and Pepsi--have put their ingredients on their soda cans 
without revealing their so-called secret formula. This is a lot more 
serious. This is lot more serious business. So for the life of me, I 
cannot understand--I really cannot, try as I might--why would oil and 
gas companies oppose this? What are they afraid of? If the chemical 
composition--the chemicals that are used in the process are not harmful 
or cannot compromise health and safety or contaminate drinking water or 
compromise groundwater or put the public at risk--if that is all OK, 
then why

[[Page 14534]]

can't we shine the light of disclosure on it? What are they opposing 
here or the better question is, I guess, why? Why would they oppose 
this kind of disclosure?
  This is very simple--not complicated, very simple. We do this in 
America. When we are getting it right, we disclose information to give 
the public the information they should have a right to expect about 
what is happening underneath the ground, underneath their own homes or 
in their communities. This is not a well every couple of miles. There 
are thousands of these--thousands--across Pennsylvania and a lot more 
across the country. In the next year, there will be thousands more just 
in Pennsylvania.
  So I think it is a simple matter of citizens having the right to 
know. You have heard that expression before, that line, that commitment 
we have made, that value of having information--the right to know about 
any risks in their communities.
  We have had some good news lately. One major company has already 
announced it will voluntarily disclose hydraulic fracturing chemicals 
used in each of its wells on a well-by-well basis. The chairman of the 
company, when they made the decision, said:

       It's the right thing to do morally and ethically. . . .

  Those are not my words; those are the words of the leader of Range 
Resources. So if companies like that are willing to provide some 
disclosure--now, we have to check and double-check that disclosure is 
equivalent to the disclosure we are talking about here, and we will do 
that analysis--but if he is speaking in that way and using that 
language, I do not know what the others are all worried about. There is 
a lot of worry here by the industry.
  If the development of the Marcellus shale and other shale formations 
is carried out in a manner that fully protects the environment and 
human health, then I believe the economic benefits for Pennsylvania and 
a lot of other States can be achieved without environmental costs.
  So I hope we can kind of lower the rhetoric and speak forthrightly on 
this issue. But I will tell you, what I have heard over the last 
couple, 2 days or so or over the last couple of hours is really 
hysteria, and I think we have to make sure we do everything possible to 
get this right--have the economic benefits from this, the job creation 
potential, but make sure that when we are creating jobs and enlarging a 
new industry, we do not compromise the environment and we do not 
threaten health and safety.
  Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I am going to speak for some time and 
try and reengage this debate. We had an excellent debate this morning 
between 9:30 and 12:30 trying to find a way forward on a very important 
bill, the small business bill. This is the Main Street bill we have 
been working on. As you know, Madam President--you are a member of the 
Small Business Committee--we have been working in good faith up until 
the last few hours. It has been a good effort on both sides. I am 
hoping in potentially the next few hours we can work through this 
because we are extremely close on a very important bill for small 
businesses in America and for Main Street.
  I wanted to come to the floor to clarify a few things. Many people 
are following this debate. They heard the minority leader say that he 
was upset and some of the Republican Members were upset that they had 
not quite gotten amendments on this bill. That is a charge that needs 
an answer.
  I want to go over, again, this bill and point out how many amendments 
are already included in the underlying bill that were offered by the 
other side, by Republican Senators.
  I had in the last few hours several of my Members on the Democratic 
side say to me: Gee, Mary, I didn't realize there was so much in the 
bill and how good the bill was, but I didn't understand how many 
Republican provisions are in this bill.
  I want to take a minute, because the minority leader has made a 
charge that Democrats have been heavyhanded--it does not sit well with 
many of us who have a fairly light glove here. I don't think anybody 
watching this debate over the last couple of weeks, or even as it has 
gone through the iterations of the past year, can say we are trying to 
have a heavy hand. We are trying to get a bill that is important to the 
27 million small businesses closed, finished, and delivered to them.
  The fact is, the longer we stay here without coming to some terms, 
the harder and harder that gets. As the 70 organizations that support 
this bill most certainly understand, there is a risk because not every 
bill that every Member can think of is going to pass in this Congress, 
but they are going to think this is a bill that has a lot of support, 
which it does, and they are going to think: This bill is going to get 
passed, so I am going to add my amendment, I am going to add my 
amendment, I am going to add my amendment.
  If we do not hurry up and get this done--you can kill a bill in a lot 
of ways. One way you can kill it is put too many amendments on it and 
it is too heavy to carry itself. The small businesses do not deserve 
that. I said 100 times on this floor, they are already carrying a heavy 
load. They are carrying more regulations. They are carrying a weakened 
economy. They are having to lay off employees, and in a small business, 
it is like laying off family because these businesses are having to say 
goodbye and hand pink slips to people they literally know well and 
love. It is hard to fire anyone but particularly upfront, close, and 
personal, like this is happening.
  I want to put up one chart--the lost business chart--to make this 
point. I know that Members are clear, but this is according to the 
National Employment Reports. This is jobs lost by firm size. Small 
businesses, which are defined by businesses 500 or less--that is the 
official definition: 81 percent of the job loss has been absorbed by 
small businesses. They have laid off people.
  When people ask the question, How do we get this recovery engaged, 
how do we make this recovery successful, how do we get jobs attached to 
the recovery as opposed to just money--we know the big businesses have 
money. They are sitting on it. It has been widely reported. We know 
Wall Street has money because they just paid $1.8 billion in bonuses to 
top executives, the money we gave them. We know they have it. The 
people who do not have the money are the small businesses.
  That is what this bill is for, to help them in many different ways, 
voluntarily lay out some things they can choose. This is not government 
telling them what to do. They can choose. They can choose to take part 
of the $12 billion tax cuts we are providing them. They can file for 
those tax cuts. If they want to, they can get the tax cuts. They can 
apply for the lending program.
  Eighty-one percent of the jobs are lost by small businesses. If we 
want jobs, I suggest we focus on small business. That is what this bill 
is. For a year and a half, we have been pulling this bill together.
  I want to go over how many Republican provisions are in this bill. I 
do not want my Democratic colleagues to get upset. I am taking some 
risk because they could come to me and say there are more Republican 
proposals in this bill than Democratic proposals. But we tried to be 
very fair.
  Again, the 7(a) loans, an increase to $5 million, was a Landrieu-
Snowe provision; small business trade export was a Snowe-Landrieu 
provision; small business contracting was Snowe and Merkley, Crapo and 
Risch; small business management counseling, Senator Snowe took the 
lead on that amendment; Senators Snowe and Pryor took the lead on small 
business regulation relief; Senators Kerry, Snowe, and

[[Page 14535]]

Menendez, the 100-percent exclusion. You pay no capital gains. People 
on that side are talking about reducing capital gains from 20 percent 
or 15 percent. They are arguing it should not go up to 20 percent. This 
is 100 percent, zero capital gains. If you invest in a small business 
in America, you will pay zero capital gains. Zero. This is a bipartisan 
amendment.
  Merkley and Lamar Alexander, a leader on the Republican side, the 
increased deduction for small business expenditures; another Republican 
amendment, the Snowe amendment, extension of section 179; another 
bipartisan amendment, Senator Hatch, Senator Grassley, Senator Inhofe, 
Senator Johanns, Senator Brownback. These are Republican Senators.
  For the minority leader to say this bill has not had Republican 
input, this is the red line. I put down all of the sponsors of the 
amendment so that the press and the groups that are following this 
debate can see.
  This is probably the most bipartisan bill we have taken up on this 
floor in the last Congress and maybe in a long time, maybe a decade.
  The leader would come to the floor and say: That is in the underlying 
bill, Senator. What we are talking about is amendments on the floor. I 
will go through a few Republican amendments that were put in on the 
floor.
  The first bill the majority leader laid down was a bill that included 
the lending fund. Senator Snowe and others objected. A Republican 
objection was laid against that bill, so the lending fund was taken 
out. That was a Republican amendment. They were against the lending 
fund. It was taken out. We had to fight to put it back in.
  Then Senators Snowe, Grassley, Enzi, Isakson, and Collins filed 
amendment No. 4483 which adds the SBA Recovery Act extenders to the 
bill. That was not in the bill. I think these are Republican Senators--
Republicans Snowe, Grassley, Enzi, and Isakson. The last time I 
checked, they were Republicans. This is another amendment they got in 
the bill.
  Then Senators Thune, Johanns, Coburn, Inhofe, and  filed amendment 
No. 4453 to strip out the Small Business Lending Fund. That was agreed 
to. We have been fighting over this Small Business Lending Fund. They 
want to strip it out. We are putting it back in with support from two 
Republicans, maybe more as this debate goes on. We have two now. We won 
that.
  Then comes the substitute, the second one, with the SBA extenders in 
it and the lending fund is out. That is at least two or three 
amendments, in addition to the underlying amendments, that Republicans 
put in this bill, both in the Finance Committee and the Small Business 
Committee.
  I hope no one tries to tell a reporter, either in Washington or back 
home--because reporters are smart. They need to be listening, and I 
think they are. I hope no reporter takes the line: Oh, well, the 
Democrats were heavyhanded. They offered us no amendments, so we could 
not possibly vote for the small business bill.
  We are clear that there are many Republican amendments in the 
underlying bill. We have made clear in the Record that to get us to 
this point, there have been any number of Republican amendments either 
accepted or voted in or voted out. I have not mentioned one Democratic 
amendment yet.
  I am thinking we are doing fine. We are not being heavyhanded. We are 
going right along. We have an open vote, 12-hour debate on the Small 
Business Lending Fund, and we win with 60 votes. It is back in the bill 
because it is the right thing to do.
  I know some people are opposed to it, but we have 70 organizations, 
including the Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of 
Independent Business, Small Business Majority, manufacturers, heating 
and air conditioning--all sorts of organizations. I submitted for the 
Record several times this long and impressive list.
  In addition, we have the Community Bankers Association of Alabama, 
the community bankers of Georgia, the community bankers of Illinois, 
the community bankers of Kansas, the community bankers of Ohio, the 
community bankers of Iowa--I could go on and on; the Independent 
Bankers of America, the International Automobile Dealers. I don't know 
how many other groups we can have to step up and say: This is the right 
thing to do. The Travel Goods Association, the Tennessee Bankers 
Association, the Virginia Association of Community Banks, National RV 
Retailers Association, Nebraska Independent Community Bankers. They are 
for this lending program. They have been sitting on the sidelines 
watching us give money to big banks, bailing out Wall Street, bailing 
out big car manufacturers in Michigan. These small banks are sitting 
out there saying to us: Don't you know we are out here, 8,000 of us? We 
are ready to do our job, roll up our sleeves, be a partner with you, 
and go to work getting capital to small businesses so we can have a 
job-filled recovery instead of a jobless recovery. We want a job-filled 
recovery.
  This is not about this recovery making a few fat cats richer. This is 
about making the middle class stronger. It is about creating jobs and 
hope and opportunity for the broad middle class. I do not want to be 
part of a recovery that does not include that. It is not worth it.
  So we created a fund that works with our community bankers and we 
still can't get the Republican side to step to the plate and say it is 
time to close this debate.
  We have had a year and a half to talk and to think, and that is what 
the vote was this morning. Every Democrat, I am extremely proud to say, 
voted to say yes to Main Street. They gave a green light to go forward. 
Every single Republican in this Chamber voted no against Main Street 
this morning, which is why I am here, to try to pull up the shades here 
a little bit and shed some light, under the guise that they weren't 
given enough amendments.
  If I give them any more amendments, I am going to get in trouble with 
the Democrats because I am the Democratic chair of the committee. I 
have given more amendments to the Republicans than I have given to my 
own side. After a while, it is hard to convince our side, and my 
Democratic colleagues have been so good. I have 10 Democrats who are 
dying to offer amendments on this bill--and some of them are relevant 
to the underlying bill--but they know the more time that passes the 
less likely it is we will get this bill passed, and they know how 
important it is.
  I wish to say another thing about this, and hopefully the last about 
this amendment situation, unless the minority leader says something 
else--and he might this afternoon about amendments. I have in front of 
me, and every reporter also has this, the unanimous consent agreement 
from last night. Senator Reid offered four amendments--Baucus, Murray, 
another Baucus, and then another Reid amendment. Four. Senator 
McConnell reserved his right to object and he did object and then he 
offered eight. So that is where we are. We offered four, they offered 
eight.
  You would think, in the next few hours, that somebody could figure 
out around here how to split this baby and do six and get it done. I am 
hoping that is what we can do. We are running out of options. If six is 
too many, maybe we could agree to have no amendments, because we 
already have so many, and pass this good bill that is already right 
here on the floor. I mean, we do have a good bill already that has 
Republican and Democratic amendments in it.
  So the Democrats have offered four, the Republicans have offered 
eight. Some of them are directly germane and some are indirect. It gets 
a little confusing sometimes about what is direct and indirect. I am 
not confused about farmers, but the Senator from Kentucky said today he 
doesn't think farmers are small businesses. I think there are a lot of 
Senators who disagree with that. They do think farmers work hard, and 
many of them are small business owners and operate small operations. I 
think most people understand that those disaster payments that go to 
farmers don't stay in their pockets that long. They go to pay out all 
sorts of vendors--seed companies, to pay down their tractor or their 
equipment bill. I think people understand,

[[Page 14536]]

 even though it has the title ``disaster aid,'' it actually is a small 
business issue.
  I heard the majority leader say that if the Republican leader 
objected so much to that, even though Senator Lincoln worked so hard to 
put it in, we would take that out of this bill and find another way to 
do that. But that didn't seem to be enough either. So I am going to say 
again that I am so proud of the Senators who have worked hard on this 
bill--Senator Merkley, Senator Cantwell, Senator Murray, Senator Boxer, 
Senator Schumer--and Senator Durbin has been down to the floor--both 
Senators from Florida. I am hoping Senator LeMieux will do his very 
best and I know he is continuing to work through the afternoon to talk 
with his leadership, to say: Look, there are dozens of amendments 
already in the bill. The only amendments that have been offered on the 
bill to date have been Republican amendments, either Republican 
amendments by Senator Snowe to take things out or put things in or an 
amendment by Senator LeMieux to put the lending fund in, the only 
amendments.
  The amendment Senator Lincoln put in the bill, without a vote, we 
offered to take that out to try to move this forward. So I hope 
reporters here and around the country will not allow a Republican 
Senator to say they just couldn't get to the small business bill 
because Democrats would not let them have amendments. The question is, 
Do they want to get to a small business bill or do they want to just 
continue to support big business, big corporations, and Wall Street?
  That is the question. Do they want to get to Main Street? Do they 
want to help Main Street? They have to show that by their votes--not 
just by their words but by their votes. In this business it is not 
words, it is actions that matter, and the only action we have is them 
voting no. No. I am trying to help them say yes. I know they want to 
say no. That is what they think they should say to America: No on this, 
no on that. I don't think Americans want to hear no when it comes to 
help for small business. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. I 
think they want to hear yes.
  So let's find a way. I am asking my colleagues on the other side to 
look at their list of amendments again and see if there is some way 
between the numbers of two and four and eight we can find a way to move 
forward to help Main Street businesses.
  Just so people understand, again, this bill that is pending before 
the Senate--and I see the Senator from Michigan is here. I am hoping he 
wants to speak a minute about the provision he has. I am thinking in a 
minute we may have some word--I know the leadership is talking, and 
perhaps sometime in the next hour or so we may have something that has 
come together. But I hope the Members are focusing on the importance of 
this bill for creating jobs in America today, and that is what people 
want. That is what we should have been focused on.
  We have tried, in many different ways, through many different bills, 
but this bill has $10 billion in tax cuts to small businesses--not to 
the big businesses, not to Wall Street but to small businesses. It has 
so many helpful provisions, through the Small Business Administration, 
to give small businesses the support they need.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, would my colleague yield for a 
question?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I would be delighted to yield for a question.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I would like to ask the chair of the Small Business 
Committee, who has done such an outstanding job here, is it not true 
that we have heard many different numbers and types of amendments that 
should be offered?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes, it is true.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Is it not true that many of the amendments the other 
side wanted to offer had nothing to do with small business whatsoever?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. That is true.
  Mr. SCHUMER. They were not an attempt to improve, modify or help 
small business but were to simply get us off the subject?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. That is true.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Isn't it true that yesterday or a day or so ago, when we 
did the Citizens United bill, the minority leader was complaining that 
the leadership was getting off the subject of small business to go to 
some other subject? It would seem now, at least, that the other side is 
doing exactly that. Is that an unfair characterization?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. That is a fair characterization.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Is it not true as well that as chair of the committee, 
you have offered them every opportunity and all kinds of amendments and 
all kinds of compromises in the committee before we got to the floor 
and now on the floor?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. That is absolutely true.
  I say to the Senator, in some ways I have some trepidation of 
continuing to read this because I have had any number of Democrats come 
to me and say: But there are more Republican provisions in this bill 
than there are Democratic provisions in the underlying bill. That is a 
credit to Senator Snowe, I have to say, who worked so hard and does 
such a good job. But to come to the floor, I say to the Senator from 
New York, that there are no Republican provisions in this bill, it is 
laughable.
  Mr. SCHUMER. So it wouldn't seem, to me at least--and I am wondering 
about your opinion--to be an unfair conclusion that what is going on is 
not a dispute about which amendments or how many amendments, even the 
subjects of the amendments, but that they don't want to pass a small 
business bill that will help create jobs, for whatever reason.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. For whatever reason, I don't know why. I think maybe 
they think that is good politics. But I don't believe it is, and I 
don't think most Americans, even Republicans, would think that is good 
politics.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I see the Senator from Michigan, and I yield to him.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder, through the Chair, if I could inquire of the 
chairman of the Small Business Committee--unless the majority leader is 
seeking the floor.
  I am trying to figure out exactly why it is that the Republicans, who 
over and over say they understand that small business is the generator 
of at least two-thirds of jobs and maybe more--in fact, I use a figure 
that all the new jobs in this country were created by small 
businesses--but at least two-thirds. The Republicans, I think, believe 
that small businesses are the creators and generators of these jobs. As 
I understand it, organizations that represent small business have 
endorsed this bill. The Senator from Louisiana has done such a great 
job of putting those together.
  But I am trying to figure out exactly how it is that in the situation 
where the small business organizations--or those purporting to 
represent small business--have supported this bill and where 
Republicans say, and I think believe, that small businesses are the 
great generators of jobs, that we are now in a position where, despite 
those things being true, the Republicans are not letting us proceed to 
a bill supported by those organizations. Is that where we are?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. That seems to be where we are. That is why I said I 
feel like I am ``Alice in Wonderland,'' because it is topsy-turvy.
  Mr. LEVIN. I would hope the organizations which purport to support 
small business--and, by the way, the greatest complaint I get when I go 
home, just about, other than the general one of where are the jobs, is 
that credit is not available to small businesses that are creditworthy 
and have proven it over and over--never missed a payment, have 
contracts that provide services or goods--yet can't get credit.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. You are absolutely correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. This bill has provisions for credit to flow. The community 
bankers, as I understand it, are supportive of this bill.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Absolutely.
  Mr. LEVIN. I would just hope that between now and the time the 
majority

[[Page 14537]]

leader moves to reconsider that vote that we would hear loudly and 
clearly from those organizations representing community bankers, 
representing small businesses. Maybe they just have to say more loudly 
and clearly that this filibuster is wrong--wrong for Main Street, wrong 
for the organizations they represent, whether it is community banks or 
small businesses. If the NFIB has spoken on this already, and if 
community bankers have spoken on this, I would hope they would speak a 
lot more loudly and a lot more clearly and a lot more forcefully.
  This is the big job creator where I come from. I would just hope we 
would hear more clearly and forcefully from those organizations between 
now and the time the majority leader offers a motion to reconsider.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Well, through the Chair, I thank the Senator from 
Michigan because he is absolutely right. This is the wrong bill to 
filibuster. I mean, you may get political points by filibustering other 
issues, but to filibuster a small business bill, to filibuster a Main 
Street bill is not the way forward.
  Again, I cannot stand here and allow any Member of the other side to 
say there haven't been Republican amendments that have been accepted, 
offered. We have done everything to the point where there are almost 
more Republican provisions than there are Democratic provisions in the 
bill, which is completely paid for and provides a $12 billion tax cut 
today.
  I see the majority leader, and I will yield the floor in just 30 
seconds, but I wish to repeat one thing that is worth repeating. The 
Senator from Michigan was a cosponsor of this. For 10 years, 
independent entrepreneurs, sole entrepreneurs--and there are 20 million 
of them in America--have begged and pleaded to be on the same parity 
with big corporations so they could get a little bit of a break on 
their health insurance. This is a big issue for 20 million Americans. 
You know where it is? In this bill. Two billion dollars will leave the 
Federal Treasury and go into the pockets of every independent 
entrepreneur in America, and that side is standing in the way of that. 
I hope the reporters are following this carefully because the details 
are important.
  I thank the Senator from Michigan, and I see the majority leader on 
the floor. I think he may have a word or two to say.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll and the following 
Senators entered the Chamber and answered to their names.

                          [Quorum No. 4 Leg.]

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet (CO)
     Bennett (UT)
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Goodwin
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     LeMieux
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed (RI)
     Reid (NV)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is not present.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to 
request the presence of absent Senators, and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the 
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Gregg), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and the Senator from 
Kansas (Mr. Brownback).
  The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 23, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 222 Leg.]

                                YEAS--70

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Corker
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Goodwin
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--23

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Chambliss
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Graham
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Brownback
     Coburn
     Enzi
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Murray
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is present.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. We have before us the small business bill we have worked on 
so hard. As I went through the bill today, virtually every provision in 
this is bipartisan, except some are strictly Republicans with no 
Democrats involved. It expands access to credit for small business all 
across America, cuts taxes for small business, and expands domestic and 
foreign markets for small business. This has the potential of creating 
hundreds of thousands of jobs. The reason for that is that most jobs in 
America are small business jobs. Two-thirds of the jobs lost in America 
have been from small business.
  As I indicated today, I was disappointed that my friends on the other 
side of the aisle have not been willing to work with us. It seems to me 
the goalposts were moved often, but I have been here a while and I 
understand how things work.
  Last week, they requested; that is, the Republicans, that we give 
them votes on three amendments.
  We all know what they are now. Grassley has an amendment dealing with 
biodiesel. Hatch has an amendment dealing with research and 
development. Johanns has an amendment to repeal the corporate reporting 
requirement.
  Earlier today, I propounded a unanimous consent request where we took 
out of the bill the issue relating to agricultural disaster and that we 
would have the three votes I mentioned and we would have Democratic 
amendments that would be opposite those, three in number. There was an 
objection. I cannot understand why they, my friends on the Republican 
side, cannot take yes for an answer. It tells me and I think the 
American public that it is more about something than getting votes. It 
seems they think it is more important to say no to votes on Democratic 
amendments than say yes to helping small business. But I understand 
where we are, and I am working very hard.
  I have had a number of conversations with my friends on the other 
side of the aisle about a couple of amendments we have that we want to 
be voted on in opposition to the amendments offered by my friends on 
the other side of the aisle. A number of Republicans do not want to 
vote on those amendments as it relates to small business. I think that 
is unreasonable, but that is me. I accept their view that it is not 
unreasonable.

[[Page 14538]]

  As I have talked with the Republican leader and a number of other 
people, I am going to try my utmost--and I think I figured a way to do 
that--to get the two amendments my friends did not want to vote on as 
relates to small business off this bill. I am going to do everything I 
can to do that in the near, foreseeable future.
  But I say to everyone here: Let's take a little time over the next 
couple of days to kind of cool down. This is important. I know we have 
argued and scrapped, as my friend the Republican leader said, a lot of 
the time during this year. But let's do this legislation. This is not a 
victory, if we can get this done, for the Democrats. This is not a 
defeat for the Republicans. It is a victory for Democrats and 
Republicans and Independents and the people who supply most of the jobs 
in America today--small businesses. That is why, if one can imagine, 
the chamber of commerce supports this bill. They are in favor of the 
Johanns amendment, and I accept that. When I was here this morning, 80 
organizations supported this bill. We are now well over 100. This has 
gotten traction.
  This is something we should do. This is good legislation. It would 
set a very good tone before we leave for the August recess to do this 
bill because by the time we come back in September, there would 
actually be some jobs created as a result.
  I renew my request that I made this morning. I am not going to read 
this again. My request this morning was that we will take out the 
disaster relief, and they, the Republicans, can have their three 
amendments. We will have our three amendments. That is my request. I 
renew that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I 
think we are making some real headway. I appreciate the majority leader 
taking out basically the appropriations measures. One was in the 
underlying bill and the others were going to be offered as amendments.
  I had not originally intended to offer a counter UC, but in order to 
reassure everyone--I know there is support on our side of the aisle if 
we can get it right--I offer a counter UC which I suppose will be 
objected to, as I will object to the majority leader's, for the 
afternoon.
  But I want to underscore what he said, which is I do think we are 
getting closer to getting back to the original bill which started off 
on a pretty strong bipartisan basis and then seemed to deteriorate over 
the course of the last month. In fact, we turned to the bill on June 24 
and left it six times between then and now.
  Having said all that, I think we are heading back in the right 
direction.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture motions 
with respect to the small business substitute and the bill be vitiated. 
I further ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be the 
only amendments in order to the Reid substitute, and there are four: 
Johanns amendment No. 1099, repeal; Hatch, R&D Grassley, biodiesel; 
Sessions, spending caps. I further ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order for the majority to offer relevant side-by-sides limited to the 
subject matter of the above-listed amendments. And, as I said last 
night, we are prepared to enter into reasonable time agreements on each 
of these amendments.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object to my friend's proposal, I 
have to smile, even though I have not smiled a lot today. On the 
Sessions amendment, how many times do we have to vote on it? How many 
times? One of my friends on the other side of the aisle said: How many 
times do we have to vote on what you propose to vote on? Not nearly as 
many times as this Sessions amendment. There has been a general 
agreement between the Republican leader and myself that we are going to 
wind up there basically anyway. I understand he has people he has to 
satisfy on his side of the aisle. I do my best to satisfy people over 
here. But I have to respectfully object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has declined to accept the 
Republican leader's modification of his request.
  Is there objection to the majority leader's request?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

                          ____________________