[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12327-12357]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          AMERICAN JOBS AND CLOSING TAX LOOPHOLES ACT OF 2010

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate 
     amendment with an amendment to H.R. 4213, an act to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring 
     provisions, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the 
     amendment of the Senate to the bill, with Reid amendment No. 
     4425 (to the amendment of the House to the amendment of the 
     Senate to the bill), in the nature of a substitute.
       Reid amendment No. 4426 (to amendment No. 4425), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid motion to refer in the amendment of the House to the 
     amendment of the Senate to the bill to the Committee on 
     Finance, with instructions, Reid amendment No.4427, to 
     provide for a study.
       Reid amendment No. 4428 (to the instructions (amendment No. 
     4427) of the motion to refer), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 4429 (to amendment No. 4428), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


            Congratulating the University of South Carolina

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the 
University of South Carolina men's baseball team for making history by 
winning the NCAA College World Series last night.
  Whit Merrifield's clutch hit in the 11th inning brought home the 
winning run and gave USC its first ever national championship for any 
men's team at the university.
  In spite of losing their first game in Omaha, the team persevered 
through multiple elimination games. They were motivated by the 
courageous spirit of one young fan, Bayler Teal, who at age 7 may have 
been the biggest Gamecock fan in America. He suffered from a rare form 
of cancer and died last Thursday during the Gamecock's come-from-behind 
victory over Oklahoma. He wore his Gamecock ball cap the day he died.
  Fortunately, Bayler's parents and 5-year-old brother were able to be 
in Omaha last night to see the Gamecocks win the final game of the 
College World Series.
  So today I join all South Carolinians and Gamcocks fans everywhere to 
congratulate the players, Coach Ray Tanner, and his staff for an 
outstanding victory.
  Now all America knows that USC means the University of South 
Carolina. Go Gamecocks.


                    First-time Home Buyer Tax Credit

  Mr. President, I want to speak in objection to the majority's latest 
attempt to secretly push through another extension of the first-time 
home buyer tax credit--the third time the

[[Page 12328]]

Senate has modified or extended this credit since July of 2008, when it 
was originally included in the majority's Housing and Economic Recovery 
Act.
  Home buyer tax credits have several flaws, and I opposed them in the 
past because I believe they are a temporary infusion of capital into 
the marketplace and simply increase the government's grip on our 
Nation's economic growth.
  As often happens when the government becomes involved in attempting 
to grow a portion of the Nation's economy, we only create a bubble that 
will eventually burst. As the National Association of Realtors said in 
late April, shortly before the expiring of the tax credit on April 30:

       It is time for the housing market to stand on its own feet.

  It is time for the government to stop picking winners and losers in 
the housing market based on arbitrary dates and arbitrary 
qualifications. For the people who haven't closed on their homes by 
today, it is not that they won't get their house; it is only that they 
won't get a taxpayer subsidy for having bought a house now rather than 
later. This taxpayer subsidy has been funded by their neighbor, who may 
not have had the opportunity to buy on the government time line.
  We have watched this majority push through big spending bills and 
targeted government credits. What we have learned is that government 
spending does not grow economic prosperity; rather, government spending 
grows deficits. It creates economic bubbles. Without a doubt, it 
increases taxes.
  For 18 months, this majority has created a false sense of hope for 
consumers and markets while increasing taxes on small businesses and 
the most productive and hard-working Americans. Rather than creating 
tax equality and predictability for all Americans, this Congress has 
tried to force taxpayers to subsidize the purchasing of cars, homes, 
and even appliances.
  We know what works. When American businesses have the predictability 
of low tax rates, they in turn invest in job creation and create real 
economic growth.
  The enormous amount of spending this Congress has taken on is 
unsustainable and will eventually lead to the highest tax increases in 
our Nation's history.
  This bill is no different. I ask my colleagues, how many times do we 
need to extend this home buyer tax credit? What do we tell the people 
who bought their homes just before it started, and the ones who bought 
their homes right after it expired? Do we say their mortgage rates will 
be higher for the whole time they own their home, and their taxes will 
be paying for their neighbor's home, who happened to buy in the 
government's window of opportunity?
  The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has called the home buyer credit 
``Washington's worst tax policy idea.'' They have estimated that the 
$12.6 billion already spent on this program through February created 
``close to zero'' jobs and that at least 85 percent of these buyers 
would have likely purchased a home anyway.
  Also, the Treasury Department's inspector general found the home 
buyer credit has been riddled with fraud and chronicled over 14,000 
instances of false claims. This is typical of government programs. The 
report ``found as many as 67 taxpayers using the same home to claim the 
credit''--the same home. It also found that over 1,000 prisoners 
received credit for homes they claimed to buy while in jail.
  How is it fair to subsidize Americans who purchased their first home 
only because they purchased it on the government's timetable?
  With this latest extension of the credit, the majority is not only 
cutting defense spending to fund the credits, but now it is admitting 
that taxing Americans at the highest rates in history isn't enough. Now 
they are going to tax foreign visitors to pay for buying our homes in 
America.
  My hope is that my colleagues will use the recess next week to 
finally listen to the millions of Americans who are tired of this 
Congress choosing winners and losers. They are tired of the excessive 
spending, and they are fearful of tax increases yet to come. They are 
telling us very clearly: Stop spending, stop borrowing, stop adding to 
the debt, and stop the government takeovers.
  Most of all, they agree on one thing: This Congress needs to get out 
of the way and let America get back to work.


                  Unanimous-Consent Request--H.R. 3371

  Mr. President, I will now speak on the status of the Federal Aviation 
Administration legislation and, hopefully, move the process along a 
great deal. At the end of this, I will offer a unanimous consent 
request.
  As many Senators will remember, early last year a small commuter 
plane crashed just outside Buffalo, NY. The accident killed all 49 
people onboard and one person on the ground.
  In the months following the crash, the Senate Commerce Committee and 
its aviation subcommittee held a number of hearings to get a better 
understanding of what exactly went wrong during Flight 3407 and what 
Congress could do to help fix it.
  I thank Senator Dorgan in particular for his leadership on this 
issue. From those lessons we have learned and during the drafting of 
the FAA reauthorization, our colleagues in the House worked with us, 
and we were able to craft a number of important reforms that formed the 
safety section of both the House and the Senate reauthorization bills.
  Let me take a moment to outline some of them: an FAA pilots records 
database. Had we had a database like the one we have in this bill, it 
would be very likely that the pilot of Flight 3407 would not have been 
allowed to fly that day.
  Increased hourly requirements for copilots: If we had these 
requirements, the copilot on Flight 3407 would have had more 
experience, and we may have averted a disaster.
  There are a number of improvements in the House bill, including 
enhanced mentoring for pilots, increased utilization of safety 
management programs, better crew management initiatives, as well as 
clearer responses to NTSB safety recommendations. All of these reforms 
will go a long way to improving aviation safety.
  Sadly, we have yet to get this legislation across the finish line 
that would implement these reforms. Parochial politics, political 
payoffs, and backroom deals are keeping these important safety measures 
from passing.
  Some Members are trying to cut special deals for special flights to 
their States. Numerous Members are looking to impose new taxes on 
travelers already burdened by too much taxation. Some Congressmen are 
trying to cut a special deal for their buddies in the labor unions. All 
of these things are beside the point and are exactly what aviation 
policy should not be about.
  Since last October, the Senate has had a bill sitting before us that 
will immediately implement the reforms that the families of Flight 3407 
have been calling for. They have waited too long. The fights over 
FedEx, taxes, and special flights aren't going to go away anytime soon. 
If we let them, these controversial issues will continue to hold up the 
safety provisions on which we all agree.
  Let's say that enough is enough; it is time to pass the safety 
improvements and let the rest of the FAA stand on its own.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on 
Commerce be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3371 and the 
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read 
the third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Is there objection?
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from North 
Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, might I inquire of the Senator, we have 
been trying to move a 30-day extension of existing authorities for the 
FAA, which is essential and very necessary. Is the Senator holding that 
up? We have had objection from his side, and my information is that the 
objection was the Senator's. Is that accurate?
  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I very much support the extension, but I

[[Page 12329]]

have asked that this safety provision be moved along with it so that we 
can get this done instead of continuing to allow it to be held hostage 
to political interests on the bill.
  I would be supportive of a unanimous consent request that would 
extend the FAA authorization 30 days if it included my request for the 
safety provisions of the bill.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I think this will be extended 30 days. 
Failure to extend the current authority for the FAA for the next 30 
days while we finish the conference report will mean that 4,000 people 
at FAA will be furloughed, laid off. Don't tell me that promotes 
aviation safety. That is the worst possible thing we can do--to decide 
that we are not going to extend current authorities, and after July 4, 
4,000 people will be furloughed at FAA.
  With respect to what my colleague has just done, without consultation 
with anybody else, he decided to come to the floor of the Senate and 
talk about ``special deals'' and ``new taxes'' and so on.
  Let me describe where we are. We have tried to keep the Senator's 
staff and him involved so that he understands where we are. In the 
event there is missing information, let me explain where we are.
  No. 1, we passed an FAA reauthorization bill that includes 
modernization of the air traffic control system, very substantial 
safety provisions, far more than what the Senator suggests we adopt 
today.
  As the Senator knows because he is ranking member on the 
subcommittee, we held a good number of hearings on the subject of the 
Colgan crash and the safety provisions that need to be done as a result 
of it. The things the Senator raises on the floor today include most of 
what I have suggested, among other things. I appreciate the cooperation 
the Senator offered when he was at the hearings we held on these safety 
issues.
  But following the passage of this bill by the Commerce Committee, we 
have not been able to appoint conferees in this Chamber. That is 
symbolic of how dysfunctional the Chamber is these days because we have 
objections even to appointing conferees. Notwithstanding the 
objections, Senator Rockefeller and I have been working with the House, 
and we have kept the Senator involved, trying to narrow down most of 
the provisions that differ between the House and Senate. There are 6 or 
8 or perhaps 10 significant differences we are working on now, and the 
Senator mentioned a couple: the issue of the perimeter rule, slots at 
Washington National Airport, a FedEx issue, passenger facilities 
charge, and other issues.
  I believe there is almost no dispute at all about the majority of the 
safety provisions that both the House and the Senate will include in 
the bill when it is complete. We had hoped it would be complete this 
week. That is not going to be the case.
  Shortly after we return, I fully expect to have a conference report 
on the floor of the Senate that will include all of these safety 
provisions and more, I should say--many more--because, as the Senator 
knows, I chaired the hearings that helped develop these very 
procedures.
  It would have been nice to have gotten some notice about what the 
Senator chose to do today. I do not think it is appropriate to try to 
leverage an extension for 30 days for the current authorization of FAA, 
which, if not extended, will result in 4,000 people being furloughed at 
the FAA. To try to leverage passing a portion of the FAA 
reauthorization bill that we are now negotiating with the House and we 
are very close to concluding does not make any sense to me.
  No one cares more about these safety issues than I do. I can speak at 
length--and perhaps I will--about the Colgan crash. I understand what 
happened in that cockpit. I read all the transcription. I read all the 
information available about it. I sat for hour after hour in hearings. 
What happened there is an enormous tragedy. Some of the things that 
caused it, in my judgment, will be remedied and can be remedied and 
some of it is already remedied as a result of the action by the new FAA 
Administrator.
  I simply want to say to the Senator from South Carolina that I think 
it is very important that we extend for 30 days the current authority 
of the FAA and avoid the furloughs his objections would entail. If 
there is any way to quickly and immediately and dramatically injure 
safety in the skies in this country, it would be to decide to have that 
kind of furlough.
  I did ask unanimous consent for a 30-day extension. I will do so 
again this afternoon and hope that my colleague will not object to it. 
I have worked with my colleague all along the way on these safety 
issues. I wish perhaps he would have consulted us in terms of coming to 
the floor today at 12:45 p.m. as a ranking member of a subcommittee and 
saying: I am going to take this on myself and do this, for whatever 
reasons he described.
  Mr. DeMINT. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield without losing the floor, if the 
Senator has a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, we have been promised for months that 
this bill, the FAA reauthorization, which the Senator from North Dakota 
and I approve, would go through. The families of flight 3407 have been 
here constantly. As the Senator knows, one of those families is from my 
hometown. They have waited long enough. There is no reason that we need 
to hold these safety provisions hostage to passing a whole bill that is 
bogged down in political fights.
  I ask unanimous consent to amend my unanimous consent request to 
include the 30-day reauthorization of FAA. There are none of these 
provisions the Senator objects to. If there are additional safety 
provisions that can be in the final bill, we can do that. But nothing 
in my request compromises what the Senator from North Dakota wants to 
accomplish. I ask unanimous consent to amend my UC to call up and pass 
H.R. 5611.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Why don't we stop this sort of thing? It is unbelievable 
to me how dysfunctional this place is. I say to my colleague, we have 
worked on this issue for months and months. I wish it had been done in 
January, but it was not. But we are very close to getting this done the 
right way. We have a couple things we have to do together, and I hope 
we would not be debating this. We need to extend the authorities for 
the FAA--and do it now--for 30 days. I expect--and the Senator knows me 
because I have had conversations with Senator Kyl, the No. 2 person on 
his side. We all had conversations with the Senator from South Carolina 
and his staff. He knows we have been involved in finalizing at long 
last just the few remaining issues in order to get a conference report 
to the floor of the Senate.
  I have talked with and met with the families of the victims on the 
Colgan flight many times. I do not know that anybody here has done much 
more than I have done to reach out to them, to hold hearings, to listen 
to them, to compliment them, to say to them: Because of what you are 
doing as families of victims, other people are going to have their 
lives saved because of aviation safety. I do not take a backseat to 
anybody in my interest and concern about that and what I have done 
about that.
  I have not had the families of the victims come to me to say: Let's 
decide to object to extending for 30 days the FAA reauthorization or, 
by the way, let's decide to take this legislation apart and pull part 
of it out and leave some of the safety provisions outside the Senator's 
amendment.
  What the Senator is suggesting is that we should pass legislation 
that came to us from the Senate with an amendment of his that takes a 
portion of the bill out that he decided he wants out.
  This bill, by the way, passed the Senate 93 to 0. The Senator was not 
there

[[Page 12330]]

that day, so he did not vote. But 93 Senators voted, and no Senators 
voted against it. We can get this done, but we are not going to get 
this done by coming to the floor without consulting anybody; let's take 
a portion of it and add it to a House provision and threaten to have 
the FAA not have their authority extended and they can furlough 4,000 
people in the coming weeks--that is not, in my judgment, a thoughtful 
way to proceed.
  My hope is that perhaps we, in a rational moment, can just decide: 
Let's do the right thing. We are in conference with the House--not a 
formal conference but a substantial number of meetings have gone on. We 
have another one at 5 o'clock this afternoon. My hope would be that the 
Senator from South Carolina would agree that there is the right way and 
the wrong way to do this business. We will get all those safety 
provisions done and more--much, much more--and we will not leave any 
safety provisions behind that were in the legislation that passed the 
Senate 93 to 0. It is going to take another week or so beyond July 4, 
and we will have this done.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on 
Commerce be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3371 and the 
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read a 
third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table.
  Let me say that this is the 30-day extension of the FAA 
reauthorization bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me withdraw that request.
  Mr. DeMINT. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may withdraw his request.
  Mr. DORGAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I just told my colleague that the 
unanimous consent request I intend to read is a unanimous consent 
request that will extend for 30 days the existing authorities of the 
FAA. The House has passed it, has sent it to us, and is now awaiting 
action by the Senate. I personally do not intend to support amending it 
and sending it back to the House. I believe we ought to do what we 
should always do; that is, try to make things work, and the way to make 
things work is to give the FAA the extended authority they need while 
we finish the negotiations with the House.
  I indicated that we have a meeting this afternoon. Senator 
Rockefeller and I have a meeting with the House counterparts this 
afternoon on these issues. We have had staff working for a long period 
of time. We are down to very narrow, in my judgment, or at least a few 
narrow differences that I believe we can resolve. It would be a shame, 
in my judgment, if we do not, just as a matter of courtesy, decide, 
yes, this is the right thing to do while we try to negotiate these 
final areas in that legislation.
  This issue of safety, I indicated to my colleague--I guess the 
Senator was absent when the Senate voted on the bill itself. It passed 
93 to 0. The Senator from South Carolina has been at the hearings. My 
colleagues have been at the hearings I have called on safety. The 
crafting of the provisions on safety are provisions I largely crafted 
in consultation with my colleague.
  It seems to me to be Byzantine to be standing here and having my 
colleague come to the floor offering this without consultation with 
anybody. It does not make sense to do it this way. Let's finish this 
the way Congress should finish its work: negotiate with the House. We 
can do that in the next week or two, get a conference report, bring it 
here, and have a vote on it, and it will include all the safety 
provisions my colleague wants, which I helped create, and many more. 
That is the right way to legislate.
  The wrong way to legislate would be for us to decide we are going to 
threaten to not extend the reauthorization of the FAA and have about 
4,000 people laid off sometime over the Fourth of July weekend. These 
are people who work at the airports division, engineering facilities, 
and equipment division. It makes no sense to do this.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent--this is H.R. 5611, the FAA 
extension bill for 30 days--I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 5611, which was received 
from the House.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DeMINT. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, I assure 
the Senator I am in complete support not only of the 30-day extension 
but the bill he and I passed out of the Senate. Believe me, I was here 
for that and very much support it. If the Senator's colleagues will 
accept it the way we passed it through the Senate, it would be done 
today. But because of this holdup, what I consider safety provisions 
being held up unnecessarily for political reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, let me make a point very clearly. A 
number of the provisions dealing with safety that relate to the Colgan 
air crash are being implemented already by the FAA. Let me make that 
point, No. 1.
  No. 2, in order to successfully do what we really need to do to 
promote aviation safety, we need to get the bill passed that promotes 
modernization of the air traffic control system. That is critically 
important. We are losing ground on those issues. We need to be able to 
move airplanes around this country and the world with GPS capability. 
It allows them to fly more direct routes, with a much greater margin of 
safety for passengers. The modernization of the system is critically 
important. We worked long and hard on that issue.
  This comprehensive bill includes air traffic control modernization, 
safety provisions, and so many other provisions that are important.
  My colleague, who is the ranking member on the subcommittee that 
helped produce this bill, knows and I know that we have to have a 30-
day extension. That has to be done and will be done this week. I cannot 
believe my colleague would go home and decide: I don't care who is laid 
off. I will tell my colleagues how to quickly diminish safety in the 
skies, and that is to do that, to behave like that. That is a 
nonstarter, in my judgment.
  It is also the case that we are not going to have somebody come to 
the floor without consultation and pull this provision, that provision, 
or the next provision out of the bill and say: By the way, I want 
unanimous consent to get this done. That is not serious legislating. It 
just is not. Everybody knows that.
  It is time for us to start working together. This place is pretty 
dysfunctional these days. This is exhibit A as to why it is 
dysfunctional. My hope is that in the next couple of days, we can reach 
an understanding to fix some of the issues that affect the Senator.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                   Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 3462

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 
3462, a bill to provide subpoena power to the national commission on 
the British Petroleum oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico, and that the 
Senate then proceed to its consideration; that the bill be read

[[Page 12331]]

three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table; that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the 
Record, with no further intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, on behalf of other Members of the 
Republican conference, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.


                  Unanimous-Consent Request--H.R. 5481

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 442, H.R. 
5481, a bill to give subpoena power to the National Commission on the 
BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling; that the bill be 
read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon 
the table, with no intervening action or debate.
  This is legislation that passed the House 420 to 1.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, on behalf of other members of the 
Republican Conference, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I think we are witnessing exhibit B to 
Senator Dorgan's exhibit A about what the problems are in this Chamber.
  I don't understand what is so objectionable. In the House, 169 
Republicans voted in favor of giving the Presidential commission 
subpoena power. They understand how important that is because this 
commission begins their investigation in the next few weeks. This 
should not be a partisan issue. I don't understand why my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle are turning this into a partisan issue.
  I find it unbelievable that after everything the people of the gulf 
region have endured, and that this entire country has witnessed for 
over 2 months now, that anyone is still standing with the oil company 
that caused this disaster instead of the victims who are suffering from 
it.
  We recently learned that while BP was publicly telling us that the 
Deepwater Horizon rig was leaking an estimated 5,000 barrels of oil a 
day, internal BP documents showed, in a worst-case scenario, up to 
100,000 barrels of oil could actually leak into the Gulf of Mexico. 
What that says to me is that we need to make sure when we are 
investigating this oilspill, whether it be with employees of BP or 
anyone else, that they are being straight with the American people. 
That is what subpoena power would do. If we want to get to the bottom 
of what happened so we can stop it from happening again, the 
Presidential commission needs the authority to compel people to provide 
documents and to testify under oath.
  The full devastation of this catastrophic spill is far from being 
known, but surely we know now that it will be one of the worst, if not 
the worst, economic and environmental disasters in American history. We 
need to make sure this never happens again. The Presidential commission 
needs subpoena power to get the job done for the American people. The 
House moved quickly to pass this legislation and the Senate should now 
pass this important legislation also. I can't understand why anyone is 
objecting to this.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I want to rise in support of what my 
distinguished colleague from New Hampshire is trying to accomplish 
here, which is simply to give the oilspill commission the subpoena 
power it needs to be able to do its job--to bring those individuals 
before it who might be reticent to come forth.
  What we have seen here on the floor--and what we have seen in the 
last few minutes--is a whole process that I hope the American people 
understand is a clear contrast between who stands on their side and who 
stands on the side of special interests. How is it possible that 
Members of this Chamber find it difficult to even proceed, when the 
House of Representatives, in a near unanimous vote, could say that the 
subpoena power is necessary for the commission to be able to get to the 
bottom of what happened? The House voted unanimously, save for one 
vote. Yet we cannot even proceed.
  This isn't rocket science. It is common sense to most Americans. We 
need to fully learn the lessons of this disaster with a thorough 
investigation, not to protect oil companies from having their 
negligence exposed. We need to get answers from BP and Transocean and 
Halliburton and everyone else, including the Federal agencies, not to 
give apologies to them, as I have seen Republicans suggest that we 
should apologize to BP for making sure the residents of the gulf region 
are held whole. We need to know the truth, and the commission needs 
subpoena power to get the truth. So who are you protecting? What are we 
hiding here?
  In addition to holding information and blocking data collection, BP 
has seemingly misrepresented the magnitude of the spill. We need the 
truth. Let's go through a little bit of remembering a very short period 
of time how this Congress and the American people were deceived. That 
is why there is a need for subpoena power, to get to the truth and to 
bring people to testify under oath.
  We were told after the Deepwater Horizon burst into flames and then 
sank onto the ocean floor that there was no spill. Anybody remember 
that? Can you believe it? The next day, they estimated that an absurdly 
low flow rate of 1,000 barrels per day was taking place. Then, on May 
20, BP said they were siphoning off 5,000 barrels of oil a day from 
what they claimed was a 5,000-barrel-a-day spill--meaning that they 
were capturing all of it. Can you believe it?
  Then, video feed released under pressure from Congress on May 21 
showed a very different story, with a heavy flow of oil still spilling 
from the well. In response, only after that pressure and that video 
feed could be measured, the company adjusted their siphon estimate down 
from 5,000 to 2,200 barrels a day to explain why oil was still flowing. 
We now know that what the video actually showed was a much heavier flow 
rate. Only recently have experts begun to have access to some of the 
data they need to make more credible estimates.
  On June 15, the Federal Government officially estimated that the flow 
may be as high as 60,000 barrels a day, which means that an estimated 3 
million barrels have been spilled so far. Three million barrels. That 
would amount to more than 13 Exxon Valdez spills, which took place in 
Alaska.
  The point of all of this is that we need the truth. That is what 
Senator Shaheen is trying to accomplish--subpoena power for the 
commission so they can bring in all the parties they need to make sure 
we get to the truth. We need someone to swear under oath that they are 
telling us, in fact, the truth about what happened and how much oil is 
spilling every day into the gulf.
  Common sense and good judgment demand that we pass the legislation 
and move quickly to get to that truth. I can't understand, when I hear 
so many of my colleagues talk about truth and honesty and transparency, 
that they can oppose the very effort to give the subpoena powers that 
get us there. It is a sad day.
  While I have the floor, let me briefly say that something good did 
happen today as it relates to this process, and I want to thank Senator 
Boxer, the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator 
Lautenberg, and the very supportive members of that committee, for 
passing my Big Oil Bailout Prevention bill out of committee today so 
that we can get an up-or-down vote on the floor to hold big oil fully 
liable for the economic and environmental damage they have caused. 
Frankly, it is time we have a vote, after so many Republican 
objections, to this commonsense legislation. The bill that the 
committee passed is simple and common sense. It asserts that we want to 
protect those families, those taxpayers--and all of us as taxpayers--
not oil company profits. It asserts that oil companies should bear

[[Page 12332]]

the burden of the economic damages that their spill causes, not 
taxpayers.
  As we see the images and read the stories from the gulf coast night 
after night, it could not be clearer that coastal families and 
taxpayers are the ones who need protection, not oil companies. With 
action such as this one in the committee today, we have a lot of 
momentum going right now. I think the American people have shown 
clearly they want oil companies held fully accountable, and we are 
working to do just that. I think we are developing a head of steam.
  It seems that the only people who consistently work to protect oil 
companies instead of coastal families right now are the oil companies 
themselves and some colleagues who seem to, no matter what, oppose, 
oppose, oppose either having subpoena power to get to the truth or 
lifting the liability cap so that the oil industry will be held 
responsible.
  Four times my Republican colleagues have blocked the Big Oil Bailout 
Prevention Act from passing quickly by unanimous consent here on the 
Senate Floor, even though there is a fierce urgency of doing so now. 
All but one in the committee today voted in favor of the poison pill 
amendment that would have gutted the bill. And they have blocked, as I 
have said, the attempts of my colleague from New Hampshire to give the 
commission all the tools necessary to do a full investigation.
  So I say to them, if they continue to stand in the way of our efforts 
to hold oil companies fully accountable, they are going to get run over 
by public opinion. I hope that now the committee has acted, we can use 
this as an opportunity to finally hold big oil accountable, and in 
doing so, to send a message to the industry that they are going to have 
to be extremely careful; that they cannot cut corners; that they cannot 
go cheap as they drill--to the extent that we are going to allow 
drilling to take place. We cannot risk the kind of environmental 
disaster we now have in the gulf. By the way, 11 lives were lost on 
that day on that rig. We must guard against a future generation facing 
this kind of environmental degradation. That is what is at stake here. 
That is what is at stake here.
  It is incomprehensible to me that we cannot get our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle to join us in this effort.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Brown of Massachusetts pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 3551 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. If I may, before my colleague speaks--I will yield to him 
right away.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Before my neighbor from Massachusetts leaves the floor, let 
me commend him for his comments here without getting into details of 
the bill he has offered but, more importantly, the general thrust of 
what he has expressed. As he is a newly arriving Member of this body 
and may be here for many years, I am wrapping up three decades of 
service. But I hope people will listen to what he has to say.
  People come to the Chamber and to this institution with the idea of 
getting things done for our country. That is so critically important. 
What he has suggested, what I have heard others talk about today, is 
making this institution functional so we can actually come to terms. It 
is not easy. We represent different constituencies and different 
interests. But if the spirit expressed by Senator Scott Brown of 
Massachusetts in these brief remarks he has made this morning can carry 
forward in all the debates and discussions we have, we will find a lot 
more solutions. I want to say thank you.
  Mr. BURRIS. I thank the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, who 
has certainly been an inspiration to me in this body, and an 
inspiration to all of us. I will be leaving with him, although I 
certainly did not come with him. But he has been an inspiration to all 
of us. He knows what my--I will not say publicly, but I thought the 
Senator would have made a heck of a Supreme Court Justice.
  Madam President, as a public servant, I have long been a strong 
advocate for American small businesses--especially disadvantaged and 
minority-owned businesses.
  And even before I sought elected office, when I was a banker, I 
worked hard every day to spur investment on Main Street.
  I fought to make capital available to small businesses, so 
entrepreneurs and innovators could create jobs and bring prosperity to 
local communities.
  But in today's harsh economic climate, many of these businesses are 
finding it harder than ever to stay afloat.
  Credit has largely dried up, and capital investment is difficult to 
come by.
  And even as our economy begins to inch along the road to recovery, 
small and disadvantaged businesses continue to lag behind.
  I believe we need to do better.
  I believe we need to place small businesses at the very center of our 
response to this economic crisis. They are uniquely positioned to 
create well-paying jobs and generate growth at a local level--so it is 
time to make them a priority again. Because, if this Congress fails to 
take action, if we neglect to pass the Small Business Lending Act, and 
fall short of our commitment to America's innovators and entrepreneurs, 
then I fear that our Nation will slip into a jobless recovery, and 
disadvantaged businesses will continue to suffer the full effects of 
this great recession.
  I recognize that government cannot directly create jobs in the same 
way that the private sector can. But few can deny that government has 
an important role to play in setting America back on the road to 
recovery.
  Our job is to support and encourage responsible practices, impose 
common sense regulations, and help to direct investment to the areas 
that need it most. That is why I believe we need to pay special 
attention to the disadvantaged and minority-owned small businesses that 
have borne the brunt of this crisis.
  Under current law, the Small Business Administration provides key 
support to these entities through its 8-A program. This initiative 
offers technical assistance, training, and contracting opportunities to 
small businesses that meet specific criteria. I am a strong supporter 
of this program, which has helped to keep disadvantaged businesses 
viable, and made sure everyone has the chance to share in economic 
prosperity. Since its inception, 8-A has made a difference in countless 
communities, and eased some of the worst effects of this crisis for 
those who stood to suffer the most. Yet, despite its success, this 
program's impact has been artificially limited, because only a small 
number of businesses are eligible for this kind of support.
  As we cast about for a solution to our economic troubles, I believe 
we should leave no stone unturned.
  At various times since the onset of the recession, both Democrats and 
Republicans have come to the table with constructive ideas. Many of 
these have been passed into law--and I think they have made a real 
difference. But we must not find false security in early reports of 
success.
  We have made progress--but the situation remains fragile. There is 
still much more to be done. That is why I have introduced an amendment 
that would improve and expand the 8-A program.
  This measure would increase the continued eligibility amount, from 
$750,000 to $2.5 million, so more small businesses could benefit from 
this assistance.
  It is no secret that minority-owned businesses, particularly those in 
poor or urban areas, have been hit hardest by the current economic 
downturn, so as we look to our recovery, these are the areas we should 
target for our strongest support.
  By expanding the existing 8-A program, we can increase its economic 
impact, without having to reinvent the

[[Page 12333]]

wheel. We can rely on a proven initiative to inject new life into 
disadvantaged areas.
  I ask my colleagues to support my amendment, as well as the 
underlying bill as a whole.
  On behalf of small and minority-owned businesses, I ask for their 
assistance in these troubled times.
  Our economic future may be uncertain, but with my proposal and the 
Small Business Lending Act, we have the rare opportunity to influence 
that future.
  Let's pass these measures, to guarantee some degree of relief for the 
people who continue to suffer the most. Let's renew our investments in 
America's small businesses, and rely on them to drive our economic 
recovery.
  Let's do so today. Let's do it now, for tomorrow may be too late.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I should have noted, I will be leaving 
with my friend and colleague from Illinois as well. He has been a 
wonderful addition to this institution. He has done a very fine job 
representing the people of Illinois. I regret we didn't get to serve 
more years together, that he didn't get a chance to come here earlier. 
He made a good contribution in the short time we have been here. Had 
the Senator been here longer, I think he would have made a significant 
contribution over the years. I thank the Senator for the time he has 
served and the manner in which he served as well.


                           Wall Street Reform

  I rise this afternoon to spend a few minutes to talk about a most 
important piece of legislation facing this body and, more importantly, 
our country, and that is the Wall Street reform bill. In fact, the 
Presiding Officer has had a deep interest in the subject matter and in 
her previous life actually worked in the area of financial services. 
She not only brings an interest from the State of North Carolina, one 
of the fine States that has a significant involvement in the financial 
services of our country, but has also a knowledge about these 
institutions, how they work, and how the financial system works. I am 
very grateful to her for her thoughts and suggestions as we have been 
through this rather long journey over the last couple of years in the 
wake of the financial crisis that befell our Nation most dramatically 
in the fall of 2008.
  I think all of our colleagues here know what is at stake. We do not 
need to spend a lot of time talking about the circumstances over the 
last couple of years. We know it, and more importantly, and more 
poignantly, our constituents know it, because they are living it.
  All of us have jobs here. We are fairly well compensated, to put it 
mildly, by any standard. We have good health care. We own our homes or 
are not worried about whether we can afford the rent in the places we 
live--whatever the circumstances. We are in some ways insulated from 
the day-to-day agonies our fellow citizens go through and have gone 
through over these last couple of years.
  But I also have a deep appreciation of the fact that my colleagues, 
despite not personally going through these terrible times as their 
constituents are, understand the importance of this issue. I am deeply 
grateful to each and every Member of this Chamber over the last 2 years 
and almost everyone in this Chamber has been involved in this debate or 
discussion to one degree or another. The fact is we have come as far as 
we have in this bill because there is that interest and because there 
is that concern that we need to address the architecture, the financial 
structures of our Nation so as to avoid the kind of problems we have 
seen our Nation go through over these last several years.
  Again, the numbers have been repeated so often I am almost hesitant 
to repeat them this afternoon. Certainly we will know better tomorrow. 
I guess the unemployment numbers will come out again.
  But well over 8\1/2\ million jobs have been lost. Frankly, I think 
that number is an underestimation of what has happened. Some people 
have found part-time work, falling back in and out of it. But the 
number, 8.4 million, is used. It is certainly no less than that and, I 
suspect, as I said, far more than that.
  Seven million of our fellow citizens have had their homes fall into 
foreclosure. Every time I say that sentence it seems it is so brief to 
cite the number. But imagine, as we must, that moment when, despite all 
of your efforts, that dream house you have acquired for your family, 
because of a lost job, the lost retirement, the closed business, all of 
a sudden that which you had hoped and dreamed for that has brought 
stability to your family, a great sense of joy and hope, dreams 
fulfilled, is all of a sudden closed, foreclosed, lost.
  Imagine coming home that night when all of the efforts to hold on to 
that home are gone and facing your family and telling them the house 
you have lived in--where you have played, you have eaten, you have 
dreamt, you have laughed, you have cried, you have done all of the 
things that building enshrines in the American family--is no longer 
yours. For 7 million of our fellow citizens that night has happened. 
Many more face the prospect of that occurring in the months ahead, 
despite the efforts to get our economy moving again. Retirement 
incomes, of course, have vanished in a flash, watching the markets 
decline. Literally years of building security for those retirement 
years, to contribute to a child's higher education costs, to blunt the 
costs of a health tragedy to hit your family, all of those rainy days 
that retirement or savings account can provide to weather those storms 
have been eliminated.
  So there has been a shocking loss of wealth in our Nation as well. 
Trillions of dollars are gone, incomes that will never be made up. As I 
mentioned, lost home values, even if you have been able to hold on to 
your home, home values, on average, have declined about 30 percent. So 
that equity you might have built up in that dream house, where you have 
raised your family over the last 10, 15, 20 years, you paid one price 
for it maybe 20 years ago and had the full expectation that property 
value, while it may not skyrocket, would increase in value over the 
years.
  So as you became that empty nester as your kids went on to college or 
marriage or jobs on their own, the hope that you would be able to sell 
that home to another hopeful buyer and come out of it with some equity 
that would then provide for that security that you needed to contribute 
to your family's well being has been totally gone in many cases, even 
if you have held on to your home.
  Well, the bill I briefly want to talk about does not do anything 
about what has happened. I would love to tell you if we passed this 
bill that you could get your job back; that passing this financial 
reform bill would give you your job back. I would love to be able to 
tell you that when we pass this bill you would get your home back or 
that somehow you would be able to magically replenish that retirement 
account or savings account.
  This bill does not do any of those things. All this bill does is to 
say that when the next crisis comes--and surely it will as night 
follows dawn, as tomorrow follows today we will have another economic 
crisis. I never suggested this bill was going to stop that. What I hope 
we are able to do with this bill is minimize the effects of that crisis 
when it occurs so that it does not metastasize. That may be the best 
word to use in this case, much as a cancer does.
  When an economic crisis hits, if you are able to handle it when it 
happens, much as you are able to handle a cancer when you discover it 
before it contaminates your entire body--the crisis that will happen if 
we can control it, identify it early enough, begin to address the 
problems that it poses, then we might avoid the kind of catastrophic 
effect this present economic catastrophe has caused, the most 
significant in almost 100 years, since the Great Depression more than 
80 years ago.
  So I want to briefly talk about not only the process we have gone 
through over the past year and a half, but also what this bill is 
trying to do. Let me be

[[Page 12334]]

the first to acknowledge and admit that it does not do everything I 
would like it to do. I am not overly enthusiastic about every provision 
in this bill. There are measures that I objected to that are in the 
bill.
  But we serve in a body of our fellow colleagues, the 100 of us who 
serve here, who work with those who work down the hall from this 
Chamber where 435 of our colleagues serve, with an administration and 
regulators, not to mention financial institutions and their employees 
and all that are involved in the financial network of our Nation, all 
are impacted and affected by this bill. So it is difficult to try to 
fashion a piece of legislation that accommodates the various interests 
and allows us to move forward. But that is what we have tried to do.
  Process is important. I will not dwell on this point, but as someone 
who has spent three decades of my life at this very desk--and it is the 
only desk I have ever sat at since the day I arrived. This desk was 
planted over in that far corner as the 100th Senator in the body up 
until I--some 20 years ago when, through seniority, you get to move 
your desk around. I ended up in this seat, this spot about 20 years 
ago, next to this remarkable man whose life we are going to celebrate 
and are celebrating those days, Robert C. Byrd. He has been my seatmate 
for the last two decades.
  As I said the other day, I was an 8-year-old child sitting in the 
galleries of the other body watching my father, on January 3, 1953, and 
a 35-year-old new Congressman from West Virginia be sworn in as newly 
minted Members of Congress. Some 6 years later, I sat in that gallery 
up here, in the family gallery, watching my father be sworn in as a 
Senator from Connecticut, along with a new Senator from West Virginia 
named Robert C. Byrd, never imagining, as a 7- or 8-year-old or as a 
14-year-old, that I would spend 20 years of my life at a desk next to 
the man who has served longer than any other human being in the history 
of our Nation.
  Process meant a lot to Robert C. Byrd. The Constitution meant a great 
deal. I carry with me, and every day I have for 20 years, the 
Constitution that Robert C. Byrd gave me and autographed to me. It is 
rather threadbare and worn today, but he revered this document. He 
could absolutely quote it verbatim. He gave me a copy, as he did to all 
new Members when they arrive, and the importance of understanding the 
role of this body in our constitutional framework.
  He was such a great advocate of the civility and the respect for each 
other as we try to fashion answers to our Nation's problems. We have 
been through two major bills in the last Congress. There have been a 
lot of other bills to consider, but the health care debate and the 
financial reform debate, I would argue, are the two largest in this 
Congress, and they are two models of how an institution can operate.
  Even though I am glad we prevailed with the health care debate and 
are going to finally end up dealing with cost and access to our health 
care system and making it more available to people as a result of our 
actions taken, it was not a pretty process. Anyone who watched it, let 
alone those of us who were involved in it, certainly would have 
preferred that we arrive at the conclusion in a manner differently than 
what we went through. Maybe not everyone would agree with that. I feel 
that way.
  The second model, if you will, is the one we just went through on 
financial reform, which was about as open a process as you could ever 
have. We went through literally months of listening in our committee, 
the Banking Committee which I chair, to hundreds--and I am not 
exaggerating--hundreds of experts who came and briefed us either 
formally or informally, literally dozens and dozens of formal hearings 
to dissect what had happened, how we got into this mess, who caused it, 
how was it caused, and what steps we should be taking to see to it this 
problem, another economic crisis, would not explode as broadly as this 
one has.
  I invited my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to be involved in 
all of those meetings, to see to it that they would be present, even at 
White House meetings, to talk about what we needed to do. We laid out 
our first ideas together a year and a half ago, even before marking up 
anything close to a bill.
  I presented our first discussion draft of this legislation in 
November of last year, and it was a discussion draft. After that draft 
was put forward, I assigned bipartisan working groups to attack the 
major issues in the bill. In March of this year, I unveiled a new bill 
that incorporated many of the bipartisan ideas that the working groups 
had produced. In fact, what I asked to be done in our committee, in the 
Banking Committee, was divide up the labor between Democrats and 
Republicans on certain large, complicated subject matters. And to their 
credit, they worked very hard. It did not always come up with a final 
answer in various areas, but they contributed significantly to the 
product we now have before us in the form of a conference committee 
report coming to this body, coming to the Senate.
  So I am grateful to Richard Shelby, who is not supportive of the 
bill, but was my ranking member and was the chairman of the Banking 
Committee for 4 years before I took over the chairmanship in January of 
2007.
  I will not go down the list and mention all of the members, but the 
committee members worked very hard. Even though we ended up disagreeing 
with what we finally produced, I am grateful to them for the efforts 
they put into the legislation. Beyond that, I have worked every day to 
keep my colleagues informed every step of the process, at least I have 
tried to, and if not them directly, their staffs, so there was that 
sense of inclusion, the model that everyone ought to be able to have a 
role and participate in the debate of a significant bill.
  So the point I am making is, this bill was the product of 
collaboration of many of my colleagues before the debate even began on 
the floor of the Senate. On this floor, the debate lasted almost a 
month, one of the longest debates in many years in the Congress of the 
United States. Nearly 50 votes were cast by Democrats and Republicans 
over a 4-week period.
  One of the many that passed was the very second one, I think. Senator 
Boxer of California offered the first amendment that said taxpayers 
should never again be asked to pay for a bailout of a financial 
institution. I think that passed unanimously. Then Senator Shelby and I 
offered an amendment where we reached a bipartisan agreement on 
measures to end all bailouts of financial institutions once and for 
all, one of the most contentious areas of the bill.
  From that point forward, over the next 4 weeks, with almost 60 
amendments back and forth, we ended up passing the legislation by the 
thinnest of margins, overcoming the procedural votes we needed to in 
order to reach financial passage of the bill.
  The last time the Banking Committee held a conference on any 
legislation was 7 years ago. So I took my committee product, the Senate 
product, and we went to what is called a conference. The House had 
passed its bill in December. We had passed our bill in May. So what 
normally has happened in the past is they never meet, or if they do 
meet they met in closed-door sessions to work out the differences. Then 
they would come back with a product.
  The last time the Banking Committee had been to a conference with the 
House of Representatives on any bill was more than 7 years ago. Those 
meetings were held mostly in private; the public was never even invited 
into the room, let alone the press, to observe and to cover the event. 
We changed all of that. Our conference committee, the 42 members of 
both Chambers who met, again, for a 2-week period, almost 70 hours that 
we met, we considered 180 amendments in 70 hours. And 54 amendments 
were offered by Senators, 34 of which were offered by my Republican 
colleagues in the conference, 20 by the Democrats.
  So combined, between the number of amendments we debated on the floor 
of

[[Page 12335]]

the Senate and the number of amendments we debated in conference as 
Senators--forget the House Members and their amendments--there were 
over 100 amendments by Democrats and Republicans to the financial 
reform bill. C-SPAN and the press sat there and watched every minute of 
the conference and covered every second, gavel to gavel, of the 
proceedings that went on for almost 70 hours over a 2-week period. My 
point is, this model of conducting our business, listening to each 
other, debating and deciding what ought to be in this bill, stands in 
stark contrast to how we went through the health care debate.
  What is the point I am trying to make? If at the end of this process 
it appears as though we still face a procedural objection to going 
forward, what difference did it make, then, which course we followed if 
at the end of the process it did not make any difference?
  The motion to invoke cloture is a strange phrase that I suspect most 
Americans do not have the vaguest idea of its meaning, or very few do. 
It sounds like something a doctor may do if you are ill, to get a 
cloture or something. That is what I thought it was when I first 
arrived here.
  Briefly, cloture is a method by which you end a filibuster. In this 
Chamber, under our rules, we respect the rights of the minority, 
including a minority of one.
  Members can talk as long as they can stand up, under most 
circumstances, and continue. Robert C. Byrd, in fact, held one of the 
records. It wasn't the record--Strom Thurmond holds the record, a 
former Senator I served with from South Carolina--but Robert C. Byrd 
conducted a filibuster for more than 14 hours. We can do that in this 
Chamber. But if we want to end the filibuster, we have to invoke 
cloture. That takes 60 votes--more than a simple majority--to say: We 
have had enough debate. The process has been fair. It is now time to 
vote. So we invoke cloture. If we don't think the process has been 
fair, that we haven't been given a chance to express ourselves, that we 
have been denied the opportunity to offer amendments or contribute to 
the debate, then we vote against invoking cloture.
  There have certainly been many circumstances when that has been 
warranted, but I don't know how anyone could make a case that a 
filibuster on procedural grounds is warranted on this financial reform 
bill such as we have been through. I don't know what else I could have 
done to make every Member of this Chamber feel more included in the 
debate on the reform of Wall Street. If there is something else I could 
have done to say to a Member: You would have had additional rights or 
opportunities, I would like to hear it. I don't think I could have. You 
can't spend 4 weeks in this Chamber through almost 60 amendments, 54 
more in a conference, virtually allowing unlimited debate on almost 
anything that came up, and tell me you think you have been denied the 
opportunity to fully vent your feelings, to be heard, to offer your 
ideas and thoughts.
  As a departing suggestion of one about to leave in 5 or 6 months, 
there ought to be some value to the process we have gone through. I 
have heard this morning already concerns expressed because the 
institution, in the minds of some, is dysfunctional. I don't want to 
believe that. I want to believe it is still a functional institution. 
But if, at the end, this process of what I have tried to lead on the 
banking bill causes people to believe that it doesn't make any 
difference, we are still going to vote for procedural roadblocks to 
this bill because we don't like some of the provisions in it or don't 
like the bill, then I do despair in some ways for whether this 
institution can ever function. If, at the end of all of that, we end up 
with the same kinds of procedural roadblocks as we had on the health 
care debate, where I would argue there was more legitimacy to invoking 
those procedural roadblocks, then I think the institution is in a lot 
more trouble than I would like to believe. I mention the process 
because it ought to be important to people, seeing to it that we have a 
chance to go forward.
  At the end of that conference, we came up not only with the 
compromises necessary for a bill but also how to offset the cost of 
this bill. The House rules require that we demonstrate that the cost of 
the bill to the overall Treasury of the United States is not going to 
leave it in deeper debt than would otherwise be the case. We had to 
come up with offsetting costs for the bill.
  The first proposal was not met warmly. It was assessments on large 
institutions primarily. But there were strong objections expressed, and 
two or three of our colleagues, who have been very helpful on this bill 
in offering ideas that would strengthen the bill and made significant 
contributions, expressed their concerns to me that this was an 
unacceptable offset, in their minds. So I took the extraordinary step 
of reconvening the conference. We met yesterday to change the offsets. 
We did so by two things. One we kept the same, and that was by making 
permanent the insurance fund in the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation, making it permanent at $250,000. That requires an 
assessment increase in order to meet those obligations. That was 
already in the bill. The Congressional Budget Office scores that as 
providing about $8.5 billion in revenues over the next 10 years. That 
was there.
  The second piece we did is end TARP. That is something all of us have 
wanted to see since the inception of the program. Can we bring this 
thing to a close? Under our alternative offset, we end TARP 
immediately, except for its current obligations. The Congressional 
Budget Office--and I will provide letters from the CBO confirming these 
numbers--scored that at about $11 billion over 10 years in savings. 
That money goes into deficit reduction. This is an offset; it is not a 
pay-for. What do I mean by that? If the budget of our Nation was $100 
and the cost of a program was $10, you would have to make up that $10. 
It doesn't go directly to pay for those programs, but it provides the 
offset for the cost of those programs.
  The third piece of this to make up the difference was by increasing 
the reserve ratio at the FDIC, which was supported by the chairperson 
of the FDIC, to go from 1.15 percent to 1.35 percent but to hold 
harmless all financial institutions or banks that have assets under $10 
billion and to do that not over 4 or 5 years but over the next 10 years 
until 2020. That provides an additional $5.7 billion.
  The CBO has thus scored the entire bill as providing an additional 
$3.2 billion in deficit reduction because the amounts we will be 
bringing in exceed the cost of the bill.
  So, for my colleagues, ending TARP and complying with what the 
Chairman of the FDIC has said is a far better suggestion.
  I would be remiss at this juncture if I did not specifically thank my 
colleagues from Maine, Susan M. Collins and Olympia J. Snowe. It was 
Ms. Collins who said this is a better idea to look at as an offset. I 
am grateful to her, as I am to her colleague from Maine and my 
colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Brown, who expressed his concerns 
about the assessment approach. Again, I will let them speak for 
themselves on these matters.
  But it is important that colleagues know that, going back to a few 
moments ago talking about process, it was at the suggestion of 
Democrats and Republicans that changes were made to the bill, including 
the extraordinary step yesterday of opening the conference. There are 
those who wanted me to go forward anyway with it. Why would I do that 
if, in fact, Members have said: I can't be supportive under the present 
circumstances. The opportunity to make a correction in the bill and 
therefore come up with a better idea that was more acceptable to more 
of our colleagues seemed the appropriate step to take. That is exactly 
what we did. That is how we have offset the cost of this bill.
  I will provide additional data. If I have misspoken on the numbers, I 
will correct my own statement for the record. But I believe I am 
approximately correct.
  Again, none of this is easy. I know there is a temptation at times 
like this for emotions to rise, passions to find

[[Page 12336]]

expression. I have great respect for all of my colleagues in the 
efforts they made. There are moments of frustration when you are trying 
to pass a major bill, seeking cooperation from your colleagues to get 
the job done. But this is a complicated piece of legislation. More than 
2,000 pages are included in the bill. There are provisions that are not 
ones I would write myself, but this is the legislative process.
  I introduced a bill last November, the one I would have preferred, 
but in the months since, many Members have had their opportunities to 
make changes. Some changes I liked; some I didn't. But it should not be 
that because you don't like one or two or several provisions of a bill, 
that ought to become more important than the total impact of what you 
are trying to achieve. There are those who don't like the bill, any 
part of it at all or very few parts of it. Again, I understand that. 
Those people are going to vote no. But when someone tells me there is 
one provision or two they don't like and as a result they are going to 
vote against everything, that I don't understand, candidly.
  We have had our debate. We voted on hundreds of individual provisions 
between the House and this body. There will be procedural votes. I have 
made my case that at some point, a process that is as open as this one 
has been, as inclusive as this one has been, as hospitable as I could 
possibly make it, as civil as I could possibly make it--if the 
procedural roadblocks are no different than the legislation that was 
conducted without any civility, without any of the cooperation and 
inclusiveness of this, then what is the lesson? What is the lesson for 
the next major bill if, in fact, going through all of that gets you no 
further in the process than what we have been through?
  This bill doesn't bring back your home, your job, your retirement 
income. What it does do is to try to see to it that the next crisis 
will not cause the deep problems this one has.
  Let me briefly identify the two or three or four things that are 
major in the bill. In the absence of these, if we defeat the bill, all 
of this is gone and we are right back to September of 2008, right back 
where we were when this body voted, with less than 40 days to go before 
a national election, to ask the American taxpayer to write a $700 
billion check to bail out and stabilize financial institutions. If you 
reject this effort we have been involved in for almost 2 years in the 
week when we come back, then we are exactly where we were in the fall 
of 2008, with all of the vulnerabilities we saw our country experience 
as a result of not reforming the structures to our financial system.
  This bill will end taxpayer bailouts by making it tough for companies 
to engage in the kind of irresponsible behavior that threatened the 
economy. It sets up a way to shut down the giant, dangerous companies 
that failed, through bankruptcy or through a resolution mechanism that 
lays all of the cost and pain on them, not on the American taxpayer. 
That is a major achievement.
  We also include for the first time institutions that are financial 
institutions that have operated in the shadow economy of the Nation--no 
regulation, no one moderating their behavior. This bill brings them all 
in. They will now be regulated and controlled, so they can't engage in 
the kind of wildcat behavior that brought our Nation to the point we 
have been.
  The bill creates a consumer financial services protection bureau. I 
get people acting as if this was the most radical idea in America. If 
you buy a faulty product--a toaster, a car, a television set--and it is 
a crummy product, you have a place to go to get some sort of redress. 
In fact, they are required to recall the products under the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission and others. If you get a crummy mortgage, a 
crummy insurance policy, you get a crummy piece of stock because 
someone lied about it, where do you go? Whom do you call? You get a 
lawyer--I guess that is the answer--if you have the resources. This 
bill sets up, for the first time in our history, a place where the 
average consumer of financial services might be able to get a redress 
of their grievances.
  I know people are acting as if this is some wild socialistic idea, 
some crazy leftwing notion, after what the country has been through, 
that we could end up having a place where the average American citizen, 
who wants to have faith and trust in our economic system, can go to get 
some relief. God forbid they are treated as they have been in too many 
instances in the past. That is part of this bill.
  This bill will create an advanced warning system. Instead of one set 
of eyes that, frankly, were closed most of the time, we now have what 
we call sort of a risk assessment council made up of the various 
Federal agencies that have prudential responsibility over financial 
institutions to be meeting and looking at what is going on in the 
economy, not only here in our Nation but abroad as well. Are there 
things occurring within companies, within interconnected companies, 
within countries that could pose a financial risk to our Nation? 
Spotting them early enough to put a stop to them, to break them up, as 
a last resort, or to insist that certain things be done to avoid these 
metastasizing events that have contaminated every aspect of our life 
because no one stood up early enough to stop them when they first 
spotted them.
  The bill further brings transparency and accountability to the 
derivatives market, a $600 trillion--that is not misspeaking; that is 
not a million, not a billion--a $600 trillion market. It is a 
phenomenal market. Basically, it has been unregulated and out of 
control.
  We have central clearing exchange trading with new margin and capital 
requirements for large bank dealers and major swap participants. These 
safeguards will ensure taxpayers are not left on the hook for Wall 
Street's bets, particularly with depositors' money, as we saw happen, 
or an AIG circumstance.
  The bill has the so-called Volcker rule to prohibit banking 
organizations from engaging in proprietary trading and strictly 
limiting their sponsorship and investment in hedge funds and private 
equity funds. Again, if they want to risk their own money, that is one 
thing. Risking your money ought to be something else. We have expanded 
the Volcker rule, with balance to it. We don't totally eliminate the 
ability of a bank to hedge on things that are critically important for 
them. We believe it is an important rule. Without it, we are right back 
where we were before.
  The bill brings transparency to the Federal Reserve. I thank Bernie 
Sanders of Vermont and others who have insisted on greater auditing and 
accountability out of the Federal Reserve System which under our bill 
will bring transparency to it with audits of the so-called 13(3) 
emergency lending that took place during the financial crisis, and a 
requirement that the Fed disclose who these so-called counterparties 
are and information about the amounts they are putting at risk and, in 
turn, for the American taxpayer, setting conditions on how that money 
can be used, putting real limitations on it, and giving this body, the 
Congress of the United States, a chance to respond if, in fact, they 
exceed their authority.
  Further, the bill limits the emergency Fed lending through 13(3) so 
it can no longer be used to prop up an individual company, as they did 
with AIG.
  The bill requires people to have skin in the game, requiring 
companies that sell products like asset-backed securities to retain at 
least 5 percent of the credit risk, so there is no longer an incentive 
to sell garbage and junk loans to people who could never pay them back 
thus exposing our economy and our country to further abuse.
  These are all things in the bill. If we scrap it, we are right back 
without any of these protections. I will tell you, it will be a 
generation before the Congress comes back to deal with these issues 
again because in the absence of the crisis we have been in, we would 
not have gotten to this. The crisis gave us an opportunity to respond. 
These were not new issues. These issues had been lingering around. But 
the financial resources behind many of these operations are totally 
resistant to the

[[Page 12337]]

changes we are talking about because there is too much money to be made 
for them and too much risk for the American consumer to absorb, and it 
was not going to have the same kind of concerns and interests brought 
to the bargaining table when these issues and this legislation was 
drafted.
  The bill gives shareholders, the owners of public companies, a say on 
executive pay and so-called golden parachutes. We require public 
companies to take back compensation awarded based on phony financial 
statements. Shouldn't the owners of public companies have some say in 
these matters?
  Further, the bill encourages whistleblowers with a new program at the 
Securities and Exchange Commission to encourage people to report 
securities violations. Ask the victims of Bernie Madoff whether that 
kind of provision might have made a difference, when we had the 
whistleblowers writing and begging the Securities and Exchange 
Commission to take note of what was happening with the Madoff scam. No 
one was willing to do a darn thing about it. Literally thousands of 
people were wiped out because no one bothered to listen to a 
whistleblower who identified the problem.
  This bill changes that. It is not to say there will not be additional 
scam artists. I promise you, there will. But instead of denying the 
existence of a whistleblower standing up and telling a regulatory body 
their responsibilities, this bill requires them to take note and to 
act.
  Additionally, because of the size and the complexity of this bill, it 
is almost certain there will have to be a bill with technical 
corrections in the future.
  So when we take the sum total--obviously, I am describing five or six 
provisions in a 2,000-page bill--we have a product that I think 
restores financial security and trust. Let me mention just this point 
on trust because there is no financial number I could put on trust. But 
it may be the most important element of all. Put aside all of those 
individual provisions and titles of the bill, the one thing that has 
been so severely damaged that is the most important to restore is the 
trust of the American people in our financial system. Today that trust 
has been shattered by what has happened.
  In the absence of people trusting that the financial system is fair 
and equitable, then I think we are in deeper trouble than any fix I can 
write into a bill. People understand when they deposit a paycheck in a 
bank, there is an assumption of risk that ought to be very little. When 
they buy an insurance policy, it is a different assumption of risk. 
When they buy a stock, there is an even further assumption of risk. 
There are no guarantees it is going to give a great return. In fact, it 
may fail.
  But we ought to be able to trust the system; that it is not going to 
deceive us and defraud us; that it is not going to send people out to 
lure us into situations they know we cannot afford and they know they 
can sell off quickly and make a fast buck on. That trust in our 
financial structure, which was so important for so long, has been 
severely damaged over what has occurred in these last several years.
  More than any other provision of this bill, more than anything else 
any of us can write into a piece of legislation, is whether we are 
going to regain the confidence and the optimism and the trust of that 
hard-working American family to believe that when they deposit that 
paycheck, there is not going to be someone investing in a hedge fund or 
some risky venture with their money--that is prohibited in this bill--
or when they buy a stock there is not going to be someone out there who 
is actually scamming them in a kiting system which ruins them forever 
and their families, or when they get a mortgage on a home there is 
someone not sitting across the table promising to be their financial 
adviser when they are anything but in the process.
  That trust has been so severely hurt that our hope is, more than 
anything else I have written into this bill, we will be able to bring 
us back to where Americans feel confidence and trust in our country's 
financial systems again. So nothing less than that is at stake.
  This is a fundamental overhaul of the way our financial system is 
regulated. It is the greatest change to occur since the reforms which 
were invoked after the Great Depression of the 1930s.
  Beyond that, of course, it is important that what we have done could 
be harmonized with other nations. The American President, Barack Obama, 
went to Toronto a few days ago to a meeting of the G20. The 
conservative Prime Minister of Canada pointed to this legislation and 
said: This is an opportunity for America to lead in helping the rest of 
the world to harmonize its rules on financial services. Defeat this 
bill and someone else will set the ground rules, and we will have to 
harmonize with them.
  If my colleagues think that is a better result, to let the European 
Union or someone else write what the standards are going to be, then 
have it and defeat the bill. But if my colleagues believe it is better 
for the United States to lead and provide the guidelines and the 
structures that the rest of the world can rally around, then get behind 
us and support this effort because nothing less than that is at risk, 
as well, in this legislation.
  So no one is going to get everything they want in this bill. I 
certainly did not. No one ever does. I have never seen a bill in 30 
years that ended up becoming the prerogative of one small group. This 
has been a collective effort--a truly inclusive, collective effort. 
Over 100 amendments have been offered and considered by my fellow 
colleagues to this bill in this Chamber in the most open process in 
decades. It is the only time I have ever seen a conference conducted 
with the public viewing every single second of it, with 42 Members from 
the House and Senate participating almost 70 hours in a 2-week period, 
not to mention the month we spent on the floor of this Chamber.
  So I have done everything I know how to do in trying to accommodate 
my colleagues to make this as fair and as balanced and as thoughtful as 
we possibly could. But now is the time to act.
  I wanted to take a few minutes today before we, tomorrow, participate 
in the solemn ceremony of celebrating the life of Robert C. Byrd in 
this Chamber. It will be a historic moment. I know it was a desire of 
his when he was alive that at the time of his passing he be recognized 
in this Chamber. Then, on Friday, many of us will travel to his home 
State of West Virginia, which he served so remarkably well over the 58 
years of his service, to participate at his funeral services. Then we 
will be gone for a week over the Fourth of July break. Shortly after we 
come back, based on the schedule set by the majority leader and the 
minority leader, we will vote on the financial reform package and bill.
  So today I wanted to take a few closing minutes to say to my 
colleagues, I do not know what else I could have done to make this more 
inclusive, to provide more balance and sense to all of this, to respond 
to the concerns my colleagues have raised in what we have done.
  I urge you, I plead with you to give us the vote on this bill and to 
understand the process we have gone through and to set a template to 
say that a process followed by which everyone gets a chance to 
participate ought to be the model of how the Senate conducts its 
business. I hope my colleagues will not underestimate the value and 
importance of that approach we have taken with this bill.
  I have taken a long time, and I apologize to my colleagues. But I 
wanted to explain the process of what we have done in conference. 
Again, I thank the majority leader. The majority leader does not get 
thanked enough. He is the captain of our Senate, as the majority leader 
was under Howard Baker and Bob Dole and Bill Frist and Tom Daschle and 
George Mitchell and Robert C. Byrd. Without his willingness to make 
sure we are here to conduct that debate, it would not happen.
  So I would be terribly remiss, at the conclusion of these remarks, if 
I did not express a special thank-you to Harry Reid of Nevada, the 
majority leader, for making it possible and being supportive of this 
open process we have been through. Without his willingness to allow 
that to happen, it would not

[[Page 12338]]

have happened. I am deeply grateful to him and his staff and others for 
making it possible for us to come to the moment we are in; that is, to 
vote for this important piece of legislation.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The Senator from 
Wyoming is recognized.


                              Health Care

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today, as I have 
each week since the health care bill became signed into law, to visit 
with Members of this Chamber about experiences I have had, having 
practiced medicine in Casper, WY, since 1983. For a long time, I was an 
orthopedic surgeon taking care of families across the Cowboy State. I 
come today, as I have week after week, to offer a doctor's second 
opinion about the health care law because it seems every week since 
this bill has become law there is some new, unintended consequence, 
some new development, some new sharing of information that the American 
people seem to say: That is not what I want for my health care. It is 
not what I want for my family.
  During the debate of the health care bill, it was the Speaker of the 
House, Nancy Pelosi, who said: First you must pass the bill to find out 
what is in it. Well, as the American people continue to learn about 
what is in this new health care law, they continue to be disappointed 
with so many broken promises that were made by Members on the 
Democratic side of this body and by the President of the United States.
  The initial goal of the health care bill, which is now law, was to 
lower the cost of care, to increase the quality of care, and increase 
the access to care. Yet in the weeks that have gone by--and the 
President of the United States had a press conference last week, 90 
days into the process--it seems to me this law is going to be bad for 
patients, those who need medical care in this country; it is going to 
be bad for payers, the patients who pay for their care, the businesses 
that pay for the insurance, the taxpayers who are going to be burdened 
additionally; and it is bad for providers, the nurses and the doctors 
who try to take care of these patients.
  So as I look at this, it seems to me this health care law is going to 
result in higher costs for patients and less access and less quality. 
That is why across the board still a majority of Americans want this 
bill repealed, want the law repealed and replaced because, basically 
and fundamentally, they do not believe this was a law that was passed 
for them. They believe it was a law that was passed for somebody else. 
They think, as a result, they are going to end up paying more and 
getting less.
  That is why today I come to the Senate floor to talk about an 
additional broken promise and why the American people continue to be so 
very skeptical about this new health care law.
  We have heard the promises in the past by the President. He said: If 
you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health 
care plan. Period. He said: No one will take it away. Period.
  Last week I came to the floor to talk about the fact that over half 
of the people in this country who receive health care through where 
they work--half of them--will lose the coverage they have, and it may 
be within the next 4 years. Those are not my statistics. That is the 
report that came right out of the White House just a little over a week 
ago.
  So the public is skeptical. I come to you as someone who has worked 
with preventive medicine, who has worked as the medical director of 
Wyoming Health Fairs that have provided low-cost health screenings for 
people all across the Cowboy State, where thousands of people show up 
at health fairs on weekends to learn what their blood sugar is and how 
to help get that down; to help people with diabetes, where they get to 
learn what their cholesterol levels are and how to get that better 
controlled, to learn if they have thyroid problems and do screenings 
for cancer as well.
  So people all across this country are concerned with their care and 
the quality of their care and the cost of their care.
  The President has made a number of promises, and there is another one 
he made that I wish to talk about today, and that is a promise the 
President made to small businesses. On May 7, President Obama, on his 
monthly job numbers, said:

       Four million small businesses recently received a postcard 
     in their mailbox telling them that they are eligible for a 
     health care tax cut this year.

  That is what the President said. He said:

       Four million small businesses recently received a postcard 
     in their mailbox telling them that they are eligible for a 
     health care tax cut this year.

  He went on to say:

       It's worth perhaps tens of thousands of dollars to each of 
     these companies.

  Well, on face value, that sounds pretty good. Small business owners 
all across the country would welcome that sort of help. Yet I wish to 
bring to the floor today an article written by one small business 
owner, Charles Arp. The title of his column is ``ObamaCare's Broken 
Promise: One Company's Experience.''
  I talked with Mr. Arp yesterday by phone. He is in Illinois. He said 
this is absolutely what has happened to his business, and he knows I am 
going to be sharing it on the floor of the Senate today, because he has 
concerns. He got that postcard. He was at first encouraged by the 
President's words, the President's promise, but, again, it is another 
broken promise to the American people. This is a letter dated June 18 
of this year. He says:

       A few months after the passage of President Obama's health 
     care overhaul, a postcard arrived which led me to believe 
     there may be a benefit coming to my small firm. The mailing 
     from the Treasury Department touted a generous 35 percent tax 
     credit to firms with less than 25 full-time employees 
     averaging less than $50,000 per year in wages, a category 
     which includes my company. In fact, I thought we were right 
     in the sweet spot, with 17 full-time employees averaging 
     slightly more than $42,000 per year.

  Well, small business needs relief. He goes on to explain about his 
company:

       I manage Pinney Printing Company in Sterling, Illinois. I 
     am the president of the firm which our family has owned for 
     100 years. Health care expenses are a major obstacle to 
     Pinney's long-term prosperity. Each year in May, our policy 
     renews and we are faced with double-digit premium increases--
     20 to 40 percent in recent years.
       Some of the increase is absorbed by the company, and some 
     gets passed on to the employees through higher premiums, 
     deductibles, and copays. We have experimented with self-
     funding and high-deductible health plans. Last year we were 
     forced to downgrade to an HMO plan.
       We are nearing the end of our rope, so I was hopeful to 
     learn there could be some benefit for us in the new law.

  And what small business owner wouldn't?
  He goes on to say:

       Postcard in hand, I did a quick calculation and figured our 
     tax credit should be about $28,000. That is 35 percent of the 
     $80,000 we expect to spend this year on employee health care 
     premiums. I phoned our health insurance broker and inquired 
     whether anything special had to be done, not wanting to be 
     excluded by some technicality. He reported there was no 
     special requirement--more good news.

  Aha, the next section: ``Barrier to Tax Credit.'' He said:

       But there was a problem. A few weeks later I received an e-
     mail with a link to the National Federation of Independent 
     Business's online calculator. This is a calculator designed 
     to help firms determine their qualifications for the tax 
     credit. I plugged in our numbers, and pressed ``update'' to 
     yield a calculation of . . . zero-zip, nada!
       Double-checking, I tried again and again, finally concluded 
     that the 35 percent tax credit will be available only to 
     firms with ten or fewer employees averaging $25,000 or less 
     per year. Increasing either factor--either the number of 
     employees or the average salary--greatly diminishes the 
     magnitude of the tax credit. Increasing both factors yields a 
     parabolic reduction in the result.
       Being in the graphic arts industry, I decided to create a 
     chart diagramming the limits of this ``generous'' tax break.

  I have the chart here.
  He goes on:

       Not one to give up easily, I continued my pursuit--

  because he had the postcard, of course.
  He said:

       Surely, there was some benefit in this for me, after years 
     and years of paying the toll

[[Page 12339]]

     for big-government programs and receiving nothing.
       The vague language on the postcard instructed readers to 
     learn more at www.irs.gov. There it said to exclude owners, 
     those having a stake of 5 percent or more, from all the input 
     values. I eagerly entered new numbers--subtracting myself, my 
     annual premium, and my salary. This brought our head count 
     down to 16 employees and dropped the average salary to 
     $40,000.
       I entered the numbers, and the NFIB calculator displayed 
     the same result--another big goose egg.

  He goes on:

       Talk about unintended consequences! My firm would have to 
     reduce its workforce and cut employee wages to benefit from 
     this newly enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
     Act. Is this what the objective should be?
       I would never consider taking such an action. Most of the 
     employees have worked at Pinney for twenty years or more. It 
     did get me thinking, though: Maybe we could divide Pinney 
     Printing Company into two smaller firms. While I'm no expert 
     at gaming the government, like some people, it's certainly a 
     possibility many will consider.
       I feel foolish now, after getting my hopes up for a 
     government solution to our problem. Our firm is running out 
     of affordable options.
       It is my belief that health insurance should be decoupled 
     from employment and bought by individuals and families in the 
     same way automobile insurance is purchased. It is my fear 
     that ObamaCare is a step in the wrong direction and matters 
     will get worse, not better, for Pinney Printing Company and 
     others like us.

  So there you have it. It is a heartfelt letter written by someone who 
got the postcard from the IRS, from the President, listened to the 
President's statement that said you will be eligible, but what he found 
out, as did many small business owners all around the country who 
received this postcard, is that it doesn't apply to them, and if they 
want to make it apply to them, what they are going to need to do is 
actually fire employees and lower the wages of the other employees. It 
makes no sense at all, and that is why I talked to Mr. Arp yesterday, 
the owner of the company, who said he found this deceiving.
  So that is why I come week after week to the Senate floor to say it 
is time to repeal this legislation and replace it with legislation that 
delivers more personal responsibility, puts patients in charge; a 
patient-centered health care plan that allows Americans to buy 
insurance across State lines; one that gives individuals the same tax 
relief as the big companies when they buy their own personal health 
insurance; one that provides individual incentives like the people who 
attend the Wyoming health fairs--people who take responsibility for 
their health and who try to find and detect problems early to get down 
the cost of care. We need to replace it with something that deals with 
lawsuit abuse and the expense of unnecessary tests due to doctors 
practicing defensive medicine. We need one that allows small businesses 
to join together to find less expensive insurance to their employees.
  These are the things I will continue to work on. These are the things 
I will continue to come to the Senate floor and share with the Members 
of this body and the American public. Today, that is why I offer this 
second opinion, and another reason to repeal and replace this health 
care law.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I wish to talk about the extension of 
unemployment benefits in the larger context of our national debt.
  Allow me the opportunity to throw out a few numbers which I then will 
explain in a few minutes: $30 billion, $200 billion, $13 trillion, 
$114,000, and 60 percent of GDP. To many Americans, these numbers are 
just that--numbers with no real meaning to them. Unfortunately, the 
same can be said for many here in the Senate as well. These are just 
simple numbers without consequence.
  Nothing can be further from the truth. These five numbers are markers 
along the road to fiscal catastrophe that we are heading down at full 
speed. These five numbers together are symbols of the great threat to 
the stability of our country, both today and in the future.
  So the $30 billion number. Fourteen percent of Nevadans are 
unemployed at this point. People are hurting across my State. We lead 
the country in unemployment. Well, a lot has been said on the issue of 
extending unemployment benefits, and while this issue has become one of 
political fodder and partisanship, the facts on this issue have been 
left out in favor of high-strung rhetoric and political opportunity.
  Let me take a moment to explain to my constituents the real debate on 
this issue. I, along with my Republican colleagues, believe that 
extending these benefits for the unemployed should be a top priority 
here in the Senate. I think both sides of the aisle agree on that. I 
know we could pay to extend these benefits now by cutting spending in 
other areas and redirecting some stimulus funds which have had little 
impact on the economy in my State and across the country.
  Despite what some of my other colleagues may say here on the floor, 
there is no debate on extending the benefits for those who have fallen 
victim to OUR downturned economy. The debate on this issue actually 
lies with the fact that those on the other side of the aisle want to 
take the easy way out, and they want to avoid paying for this important 
legislation because it is tough to make cuts. Instead, we are going to 
add another $30 billion on to our record-breaking national debt. I know 
that $30 billion is just another number to those on the other side of 
the aisle, but it is one that could easily be paid for now by adhering 
to their own policy of pay-go. Each time the Senate has proceeded to 
vote on extending unemployment benefits, Members in this body have had 
two options: One, the Democratic option of extending these benefits and 
putting the debt--adding the debt on to our children and our 
grandchildren. On the other side, they have had the Republican option 
of not only extending these vital unemployment benefits but also paying 
for them at the same time by reducing spending in other areas. The 
other side of the aisle has voted against these commonsense proposals 
each time--six times, to be exact.
  Let me make that more clear. Democrats have voted against paying for 
the unemployment extension six times. Unfortunately, this isn't the 
first time those on the other side of the aisle have gone against their 
own pay-go policy, but it is the first time they have hurt thousands of 
Americans in doing so.
  I mentioned the number of $200 billion earlier. This is the number 
that represents the amount of spending that has violated the Democrats' 
own pay-as-you-go policy. Four months ago, there was a signing ceremony 
down at the Rose Garden with the President. The Democrats decided to 
heed the warnings of many here, including myself, who said that we were 
literally bankrupting the future of our country with the amount of 
national debt we were passing down to our children and our 
grandchildren. So they came up with a policy that would mandate paying 
for spending proposals now rather than later. However, there were a few 
caveats to this new fiscal responsibility proposal, one of which 
allowed for emergency funding to be exempt. What we have witnessed in 
the last 4 months has truly been a genius way of skirting this pay-as-
you-go policy. They have deemed a grotesque amount of domestic spending 
as ``emergency spending'' when, in fact, it is not an emergency.
  They have done this most recently with unemployment benefits. It is 
hard to argue that funding that we knew would expire to be an 
emergency, but they have tried to do so anyway. The real sticking point 
here is that if we are to deem every spending measure that comes to the 
floor of this body as an emergency, then we are only speeding up our 
path to fiscal ruin, ensuring that our record-breaking national debt 
continues to be just that--record breaking.
  Another number: $13 trillion. That is our national debt today that we 
have reached. It is a new milestone. But it is not one that I think 
many are celebrating. Our national debt broke into a new stratosphere 
when it crossed the $13 trillion threshold--truly an astounding number. 
But this gets much worse over the next 10 years under the

[[Page 12340]]

President's own budget. The debt that will be added by 2019 will be 
three times the amount that was rung up over the first 232 years of 
this country's history. So take all of the Presidents before President 
Obama, all the way through George W. Bush, and add the total debt they 
added to this country, and we are going to triple that in the 10 years 
from 2009 to 2019.
  Just like an average family, when they delay payment on a purchase 
and charge it to their credit card, they are borrowing money from the 
bank, with interest added to the amount they need to pay back. The 
United States, when borrowing money, is charging it on our national 
credit card, so it is the same situation. However, our country isn't 
borrowing the money from a bank; we are borrowing it from China, 
Russia, and Saudi Arabia.
  Each time the majority deems a spending bill as an emergency funding 
bill, we delay paying the cost for this legislation. We are adding on 
to this national credit card bill with interest we pay to China, 
Russia, Saudi Arabia, and many others. At any point, these countries 
could decide to up our interest rate to such a level that, when we 
attempt to start paying down our debt, we are only able to pay off the 
interest we owe on our credit card, not the actual debt. Further, 
should our economic situation continue to decline, these countries 
could revoke our borrowing privileges altogether. If that happens, this 
would be catastrophic for the economy of the United States.
  I mentioned $114,000 earlier. When President Obama first took office, 
a child born in the United States was born with $85,000 of debt on his 
or her back. In a very short period of time, that child born in the 
United States today now has $114,000 of debt on his or her back. That 
amount is going to continue to rise because of how fast we are adding 
to the national debt. Going even farther into the future, should 
President Obama receive a second term and our spending levels stay at a 
high level, as they are now, a child born in the United States will owe 
$196,000. As they are born, that is how much debt they will have--
$196,000 for every child born in the United States.
  I have spoken a lot over the past year about the future of our 
country and what this debt burden will actually mean. A new child owing 
that much money means they won't be able to pay for college, buy a 
house, start a small business, raise a family, and maybe retire 
someday.
  So this isn't just an abstract number; we actually owe these 
countries the money we have borrowed from them, with interest. We have 
to pay that money back. Whether these countries demand payment 5 years 
from now or later, we still have to pay it back.
  I mentioned 60 percent--60 percent of GDP. Let me remind you of this 
final number, what it means. It is a critical milestone on the path to 
fiscal ruin. Most of us remember the images we saw on the nightly news 
of the riots breaking out across Greece when it was revealed that the 
government was beyond bankrupt and was no longer able to guarantee 
services throughout their country.
  Historically, our Federal debt has been around 35 percent of GDP. 
Since the Democrats have taken control of Congress, this debt has 
skyrocketed.
  The tipping point is what Greece found when they had so much debt on 
their books that people realized they were going to be unable to pay it 
back. The tipping point where the world community realized that they 
should be charging a lot more to lend Greece money was when Greece 
exceeded 60 percent of GDP. The United States passed that magic number 
this year. Sixty percent was the tipping point for Greece. How far 
behind them do you think we really are? The United States passed that 
60 percent part of GDP this year with the help of the health care 
bill--the $200 billion that should have been offset with pay-go, the 
stimulus bill, and last year's appropriations bills, which had large 
increases in each one of them.
  The country of Greece is foreshadowing the possible fate of the 
United States if we don't take responsibility for the fiscal mess we 
have created. We have lived this year through instant-gratification 
policies, and not only is the future of our country in jeopardy, so are 
the next 10 years, the next 5 years, and this year.
  Mr. President, $30 billion represents the amount of money the 
Democrats want to add to our national debt to extend unemployment 
benefits; $200 billion represents the amount of money that has been 
deemed as emergency to get around the pay-go rules; and $13 trillion 
represents the recordbreaking national debt we have reached just this 
year. The $114,000 I mentioned is the amount each child born today in 
the United States has as debt on their back. Sixty percent of GDP is 
the tipping point of economic collapse that puts the United States one 
step closer to Greece. To many in this body, these are just numbers. I 
think we all have to face the reality that these numbers represent 
markers on a path to fiscal ruin if we don't turn it around. We are 
heading dangerously close to fiscal catastrophe, and our country 
literally stands at a crossroads. We have to draw a line in the sand 
and stop borrowing money for legislation when the option to pay for it 
stands only one vote away.
  Extending unemployment benefits isn't a partisan issue, and neither 
is our country's impending fiscal crisis. The Senate needs to extend 
these benefits by paying for them now, and we can take the first step 
and move the country in the right direction toward fiscal 
responsibility and economic recovery.
  Why are we not reducing unnecessary and wasteful government spending 
to pay for these unemployment extension benefits? Senator Coburn's 
office has identified almost $4.4 billion in savings over 10 years from 
reducing unnecessary printing and publishing costs of government 
documents. Add up the savings from these cuts and this kind of wasteful 
spending, and it could pay for unemployment extension for a short time.
  How about redirecting some of the unused stimulus funds? The stimulus 
bill was supposed to be an immediate stimulus. Some of the money has 
still not been paid out or obligated. How about, instead of just adding 
to the debt, we take that money and pay for and offset spending for the 
unemployment benefits?
  I don't understand the absolute refusal by the other side to extend 
unemployment benefits in a fiscally responsible way. For example, the 
small business lending bill, which the Senate is set to consider, 
contains a number of offsets for improving tax collections and changing 
the tax rules on retirement accounts. The so-called Medicare doc fix 
was recently signed into law by the President. This was completely 
offset by changes in Medicare billing and antifraud provisions and 
changes in pension rules.
  I don't necessarily agree with some of the offsets the other side of 
the aisle has used, but the point is that the debate on the floor 
regarding paying for any piece of legislation should not rest with 
whether we pay for new legislation but how we should pay for it. This 
is a debate we owe to the American people, our future generations, for 
the continued prosperity of our great Nation.
  We will soon be voting on a bill that will extend unemployment 
insurance benefits. The other side of the aisle will have one that 
extends those unemployment benefits, but it will just be adding to the 
national debt. The Republican side will be offering an alternative that 
will be completely offset. I hope this Chamber finally gets its fiscal 
house in order and extends those very important unemployment benefits 
that need to be given to folks who are struggling in America, but let's 
do it in a fiscally responsible way.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Webb are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')


                           Post 9/11 GI BILL

  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, today marks the 1-year anniversary of the 
implementation of the post-9/11 GI bill, landmark legislation I was 
privileged to introduce on my first day in office. The idea was to 
provide those who have

[[Page 12341]]

served since 9/11 with the most comprehensive educational benefits 
since World War II. We did that. We began with a simple concept even 
before I decided to run for the Senate, and that was, if we keep 
calling these people the ``next greatest generation,'' we should, as a 
Nation, express our appreciation in a proper way--by giving them the 
same types of educational benefits those who came back from World War 
II received: pay their tuition, buy their books, and give them a 
monthly stipend. It was a formula that worked magnificently for those 
who served during World War II, where 7.8 million of those veterans, 
because of the GI bill, were able to have a first-class future and make 
an imprint on the future of our country.
  We worked very hard in my office, with a lot of staff, pushing this 
legislation. We eventually achieved the key cosponsorship of three 
other Senators, including Senators John Warner, my former senior 
Senator, a Republican from Virginia; Chuck Hagel, of Nebraska, now 
departed, another Republican; and Frank Lautenberg, of New Jersey, a 
fellow Democrat. So we approached this in a way that we were trying to 
show a balance. We had two World War II veterans, two Vietnam veterans, 
two Republicans and two Democrats. We wanted to strip the politics out 
of the issue.
  Along with our colleagues on this side and also in the House and the 
cooperation of the leading veterans service groups and the higher 
education community and, quite frankly, despite the continued 
opposition of the previous administration, which for some reason 
opposed this legislation all the way to the day before they signed it, 
we were able to get this bill through.
  I am so proud of the fact of having accomplished that goal 2 years 
ago. The bill was signed into law 1 year ago today. This bill went into 
effect for those who have served this Nation so honorably and so well 
since 9/11. I can report to this body that as of today, in this first 
year of implementation alone, more than 550,000 veterans have applied 
to receive this benefit, and more than 267,000 veterans are now 
attending classes using the post-9/11 GI bill. That is more than a 
quarter of a million young men and women who otherwise might not have 
had the opportunity for a truly first-class future.
  As my fellow Senators know, I am someone who grew up in the military. 
I was privileged to serve as an officer in the U.S. Marine Corps. I am 
very proud of my son who served as a marine in Iraq and my son-in-law 
who also served as a marine in Iraq and Afghanistan and continues to 
serve, and so many of my friends and compatriots over the years. I 
understand what it means to be a proper steward in this body toward 
those who have given this type of service. That is our duty, and this 
GI bill shows a sense of responsibility and the desire of the 
leadership of this country to see those who serve be able to move 
forward in their lives after their service and continue to provide 
great contributions to our country.
  When I ran for office--also I should point out--I spoke about the 
need to reclaim economic fairness in this country, particularly in 
times as we see right now where our economic health is in danger. The 
health of our society overall is measured by how working people are 
able to make it through different barriers and achieve alongside people 
who have had greater advantages. This bill today does that, just as it 
did after World War II.
  We should remember, as we look at the implementation of this GI bill, 
what it did for those who served in World War II, very few of whom ever 
thought they would be able to have a college education once they went 
into the military during those dark and troubled times.
  For every dollar through taxes that was put into that World War II GI 
bill, our country received $7 in tax remunerations because those people 
were able to go forward and have a truly first-class future. This is 
what we are doing now.
  We have never erred as a country when we have made sustained 
investments in higher education for our people, particularly when it 
comes to veterans. This is not simply an advantage for this country, it 
is an obligation we have.
  I want to, on this day, remember the contributions of other people in 
this body and in the House of Representatives in coming together to 
pass this legislation. I thank the American Legion, the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the 
Military Officers Association of America, the American Council on 
Education, the National Association of Independent Colleges and 
Universities, and many others, including nearly 60 Senators and more 
than 300 Members of the House who signed on as cosponsors to this 
landmark effort.
  We can all take pride today in saying we have been able to provide a 
proper investment in the future of those since 9/11 who have given so 
much to this country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Reed are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. REED. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  (The remarks of Ms. Landrieu are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to talk about the 
underlying bill that we are actually on today, which is the extenders 
package.
  The Democrats negotiated in very good faith with the Republican Party 
to try to figure out a way to get tax credits, tax cuts to businesses 
that we all need to make sure continue in terms of research and 
development. These are credits they have relied on to keep not only 
their businesses open but keep them hiring. There is a long list. They 
have been well explained on the floor. They are all very popular with 
both sides of the aisle. They have been negotiated over and over.
  The Democrats have, in good faith, argued or debated with the 
Republicans that we need to get these extended for the purpose of 
stimulating our economic growth. But we have said there is one that we 
are not going to pay for because, A, we don't have to pay for it; and, 
B, because it is an emergency. So everything in the extenders package 
is paid for. Every single item is paid for. Although some people don't 
like the pay-fors, every single item to extend a tax credit--not new 
spending on the part of the Federal Government through bureaucracy but 
tax credits--is paid for except for the unemployment benefits because 
it is an emergency.
  With 15 million people out of work, it is an emergency. For anyone on 
that side to come to the floor and say Democrats are big spenders and 
we can't pay for anything and we don't know how to run the government, 
we have put a great package together. But there is one thing that is 
not paid for, and that is unemployment because it is an emergency. That 
is what this debate is about, whether they are going to vote for it. If 
they don't want to vote for it, it is completely at their feet that 
people in America today, who have no benefits, will not get them for 
the Fourth of July. They will not get them as we celebrate the birthday 
of our country. If they are not going to get them, it will be because 
the Republican Party decided that we, as a Congress, are going to have 
to find a way to pay for unemployment benefits, when they never paid 
for even 1 year of any war they helped lead us into when their party 
was in charge.
  So I hope the leadership over here holds the line. We are going to 
pass the extenders package the way it was presented. They can continue 
to vote no on it. That is their choice. But everything in this bill--
many things very important to the State of Louisiana, such as flood 
insurance--is paid for and is now being held up; for example, the 
placed-in-service date which keeps four or five of our major housing 
projects from being built. When I say housing, I mean neighborhoods, 
really, being rebuilt. That is being held up because this side is 
trying to make an issue of finding a way to pay for unemployment

[[Page 12342]]

benefits when it is clearly an emergency, clearly qualifies as an 
emergency, and in the past was always clarified that way. That is what 
part of this argument is about.
  As one of the managers of the small business bill, which we are 
moving to, I am very hopeful and will make sure that the extenders 
debate stays separate from the small business debate. Now that the 
extenders bill has been set aside, we have another bill we believe we 
can move forward with more bipartisan support for, and I want to thank 
the Republican Senators who helped to move this bill to the floor: 
Senators Grassley, Voinovich, Snowe, Collins, LeMieux, Lugar, Bond, and 
Brown of Massachusetts. These eight Senators have negotiated in 
extremely good faith with both the Finance Committee and the Small 
Business Committee to bring a package to the floor that will actually 
help create, we hope, millions of jobs in our country.
  I want to make one editorial comment before I speak about the small 
businesses, and as a Senator from Louisiana, I feel compelled to do so.
  I have helped to manage and craft, along with my committee members--
and I am very proud of the small business piece of this bill. There are 
three pieces. There is the finance piece, there is a small business 
package, and then there is a treasury piece. I will discuss all of them 
briefly in just a moment.
  We have worked hard over this year trying to come up with some things 
that the government could do that wouldn't cost that much money but 
could spur growth in small business. As the Presiding Officer knows, it 
is not the big businesses that are creating jobs. They are still laying 
off people or are putting in efficiencies, which means holding the 
line. Even as they get more contracts, they are not hiring because it 
is not what big business does. They have enough cushion to hold what 
they have, but small businesses are affected immediately by 
contractions and expansions. They can't afford to hold three or four 
people on their payroll without a contract, so they let them go. But 
the minute they get a new contract, they will hire them back. They are 
immediately tied to the daily, weekly, and monthly jolts in this 
economy.
  That is why we see that 65 percent of all new jobs created since 1993 
have been by small business. When we want to look out from 2009 to the 
year we are in, 2010, and to 2011 and 2012, which the country is 
depending on us to do, we should focus our attention where the jobs can 
be created. Mr. President, that is in small business. So that is what 
we are here this week and next week to do, and these eight Senators 
have said yes, basically, to small business in America. The package 
isn't going to be what all ten of these Senators would write if they 
could write it themselves, but they understand this is a good package. 
It is a worthy package to pass--the small business, the finance, and 
the treasury package--to get small business moving again.
  I feel compelled to comment, before explaining some of the pieces of 
this bill, that it is concerning to me that while we are on the Senate 
floor talking about a small business package, back home in Louisiana 
and in Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas, because of events almost beyond 
the control of any of us here, we are facing a real economic challenge 
with the oilspill in the gulf and the subsequent moratorium that was 
laid down by the administration on deepwater drilling. I have to say 
right now there are, in fact, about 50,000 to 60,000 jobs immediately 
at risk while that issue is being worked out. So while I am here on the 
Senate floor to help create millions of new jobs--and I believe this 
bill will do that--we also want to be mindful of not losing the jobs we 
have in trying to come up with some very quick, appropriate responses 
to the BP spill--the Deepwater Horizon spill--and the call for safety 
in the gulf. We need to be getting our people back to work.
  I spent all morning in the Energy Committee on that subject, and I am 
proud to be leading and helping with some suggestions in that regard. 
But I have to say I want all the Members of Congress, both Democrats 
and Republicans, to understand there is an economic calamity brewing in 
the gulf that needs our immediate attention. We can do more than one 
thing at a time here, so we are going to continue to move forward on 
the small business bill because small business in Louisiana will be 
helped, as well as those in Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Texas, and 
small businesses all over this country.
  There are a couple of important components in this overall bill. 
Again, I thank the members of my committee who voted these items out 17 
to 1 and 18 to 0. Senator Snowe, the ranking member, did a magnificent 
job of working with the Republicans on our committee. We had many 
hearings and several markups. In the underlying bill, one of the most 
important provisions is the Small Business Jobs Creation Access to 
Capital Act. It increases 7(a) loans from $2 million to $5 million, 504 
loans from $1.5 million to $5 million, and microloans from $35,000 to 
$50,000. If I had my way, I would like to see that go up to $100,000. 
Why? Because small businesses need access to capital. They must have 
access to grow.
  If we want small businesses to be able to grow, they have to be able 
to expand by borrowing more money at relatively low interest rates on 
favorable terms, and then they can start hiring people to get the jobs 
necessary to, A, end the recession; and, B, as Senator Stabenow has 
said so beautifully all week, to start paying the deficit down.
  What the Republican Party doesn't understand is that one way to pay 
the deficit down--not the only way but one way to chip away at it--is 
to get more people working so they can pay the taxes to the local, 
State, and Federal Government and we can then take that tax money and 
apply it to deficit reduction. Yes, we have to cut spending. Yes, we 
have to stop giving out tax cuts we cannot afford. They never want to 
do the tax cut piece, and they do not do the cutting piece well either 
most of the time. But what they need to understand is that creating 
jobs, both private sector and public sector jobs, where it is 
appropriate, generates taxes to the local, State, and Federal 
governments. Then we can begin chipping away at the deficit--a deficit 
they left, by the way.
  When the last administration came in--when President Bush came into 
office--he was handed a surplus. We handed him a surplus of $5.1 
trillion and said: Mr. President, here is a world at peace and here is 
$5.1 trillion in surplus; the economy is creating jobs.
  When he left office 8 years later, he handed the next President a 
deficit twice that big, with Wall Street in collapse, two wars that 
hadn't been paid for, and a mess here at home--and they want to ask why 
we haven't fixed all that in a year and a half? It is quite humorous to 
me. I know President Obama is smart and good--though I don't agree with 
him on everything--but I don't think any human being could fix the mess 
they left in just a year and a half.
  We have been plodding along trying to fix different pieces of it, but 
it hasn't been pretty. All of it isn't working, but we are trying. Most 
of it is working. That is what the American people expect of us. They 
do not expect us to get it 100 percent right every day, but they do 
expect us to move forward; to say, yes, we will try not to say no and 
not to lecture Democrats about deficits they created.
  Having gotten that off my chest, I want to say here we are in our 
small business package. I am very proud that eight of these Republican 
Senators joined us to get on the discussion on the small business bill. 
This is going to do a lot of good for a lot of people in many places, 
let me say, not just New York and not just Wall Street. This is a Main 
Street bill. This is about creating jobs in little towns in Oregon as 
well as little towns in Louisiana, small towns in Washington State and 
Maine. That is what this is about.
  The second piece is the export piece. This is a very exciting chart 
to me. I am maybe not as good as Kent Conrad is with charts, Senator 
Conrad, but I like this one very much. This chart shows the potential 
of small business in America. Just think about this. We

[[Page 12343]]

have so many, millions and millions of small businesses, but less than 
1 percent of them today are exporting. This is tragic, if you think 
about it. If we can get a few percentage points, up to 3 percent, 4 
percent, 5 percent of small businesses in America exporting their 
products, using the Internet, using favorable tax provisions that will 
help--that are in this underlying bill--using new support and 
technological support from the Small Business Administration, from 
volunteer organizations such as SCORE, university-based technical 
support programs that can go to our small businesses and say: You sold 
50,000 pairs of shoes last year but you sold them all down the road. We 
can help you sell them to China or sell them to India. Think about the 
possibility of that. And it is real.
  That is what this bill does. Senator Snowe has done a tremendous 
amount of work. I am extremely proud of her work on the export portion 
of this bill. Again, large businesses, percent of firms that do not 
export, 58 percent. This number could be increased. But the exciting 
opportunity is small business. But sometimes they are intimidated, as 
you can imagine. They don't know how to negotiate with foreign 
governments. Some of the things we are going to do in this bill will 
help them move that number up and they are going to be able to grow.
  Third, the contracting piece. I know some people on both sides of the 
aisle believe government is too big. Sometimes I agree with that and 
think it is too. We have to shape it, make sure it is efficient and 
effective and muscular, not flabby and big but bold and muscular, so it 
can do things it needs to do that the private sector can't do. But one 
of the things all governments do is spend a lot of money, and it is not 
just money to hire their own employees, it is spending money for the 
private sector. We contract out a lot of our work. When the Government 
has a job to do, we do not always do it with government employees; we 
contract it out. I do not have the exact numbers in front of me but it 
is billions and billions of dollars. We are the largest--if you put us 
in terms of a corporation--the largest corporation, potentially, maybe 
in the world. So the contracting provision we have in this bill says: 
OK, Federal Government, if you were a business, if you could contract 
with more small businesses, meet your small business contracting goals, 
then we could create a lot of jobs in America because it is, again, the 
small businesses that are creating these jobs.
  If you give a big company a government contract, they might absorb it 
into their infrastructure. They are so big, they have millions of 
employees, or hundreds of thousands. But you give a contract to a small 
business, you know what happens? They might have five employees. If 
they get a very nice size contract from the government, they will hire 
10 people to implement that contract and they will do it right away. So 
we have some contracting provisions in this bill that I am, again, very 
proud of. They have broad bipartisan support.
  In addition, in this bill, which is paid for, is an additional $50 
million for the Small Business Community Partnership Relief Act which 
gives $50 million in addition to women business centers, microloan 
intermediaries. It weighs or reduces the non-Federal share of funding 
so that for 1 year States all over this country can start enhancing and 
improving their Women Business Owners' Center, their Minority Business 
Centers, the centers that are in universities all over the country. I 
am sorry I do not have a map to show what the Secretary or 
Administrator of the SBA fondly calls our bone structure, because it is 
a great structure in the country. It is not just isolated little 
offices of the SBA.
  If you can imagine, so many of our universities have small business 
development centers and SCORE chapters, which is retired business 
executives, senior executives who volunteer to help younger businesses. 
There are hundreds of these chapters around the country.
  If you could imagine a map of the United States, you could see, if I 
could show where these centers are, there are centers at universities 
and SCORE chapters and community banks, almost within a few miles of 
any citizen. Any citizen could find a SCORE chapter or a university or 
a local bank. This bill is sending funding and help to all of those 
places. Again, not just on K Street here. There are lots of jobs on K 
Street. In fact, there are so many buildings going up on K Street, I am 
amazed how many. It never stops. There are lots of buildings going up, 
maybe, on Wall Street--lots of office space. But where I represent, 
there are empty spaces. There are lots of vacancy signs.
  This bill is trying to push out money, not to the Federal Government 
but to our universities, to our private sector partners to help them 
tweak--help support small businesses to help small businesses grow. I 
am very proud of that piece. The job impact analysis was something 
Senator Snowe wanted. We worked with her. On everything we do, this is 
going to be a way to say, in this bill, how many jobs will actually be 
created, to record them so we can be accountable to the American people 
for that. I am happy she put that in the bill.
  Going back to the 7(a) loan program, this is the major loan program 
of the SBA. As you can see, it has been sort of a happy and sad 
situation here over the last couple of years since 2008.
  When Congress acts and puts money in this program, loans to small 
business go way up. When we dilly-dally and cannot agree and the 
program expires, loans go way down. When we get our act together again, 
it goes up. I wish this chart did not look like this. I wish it looked 
straight up, like this. Right now it is down beneath where it was 
before the stimulus act was passed. It has fallen below the ARRA 
average of $172 million. It is down to $154 million.
  We need to get it back up. When we initially announced that the Small 
Business Administration was expanding the amount you could borrow, 
reducing the fees so you did not have to pay as much, and giving you a 
95-percent guarantee rate, those loans are good loans. Small businesses 
need them, particularly because credit card companies are not lending 
the way they used to or charging you too much for the money they do 
give you. Credit lines are drying up. This is the core of the small 
business bill. I hope we will see this number go straight up.
  Banks all over our country want this program. Many of them--not every 
bank participates, but I would say about 1,000 or 1,200 out of the 
5,000 banks participate in this program, and they are very excited 
about getting this funding back in place so they can begin to loan 
money again to small business.
  There are many other things we can do and should do. One of the 
amendments I have filed--I wish I could have gotten this in the base 
bill, but even as the chairman of the committee you can't get 
everything you want in the base bill. So I have agreed to offer one of 
these as an amendment.
  I am very proud to have Senator Cochran's support, Senator Wicker's 
support, Senator Vitter's support. It is a bipartisan amendment. What 
it would do is provide in the small business bill interest loan relief 
for the gulf coast outstanding disaster loans from Katrina and Wilma, 
Gustav and Ike, from Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and 
Texas.
  There are 13,207 loans. I will take a moment to try to explain it. I 
will try to wrap up in about 5 minutes.
  There are currently today 13,207 small business loans that were taken 
out by businesses all along the gulf coast. Some of these loans are to 
fishermen whose boats were destroyed and they had just bought the new 
boat or fixed their net from some of these hurricanes. They were just 
getting back into the water. The water was coming back, the marsh was 
coming back after Katrina and Rita, and then all of a sudden the 
Horizon BP disaster happened.
  The same people who were affected by these hurricanes and who may be 
affected by hurricanes in this season--which unfortunately promises to 
be a very difficult one--these are the businesses that are struggling 
to pay these loans on top of the economic disaster they are 
experiencing. So I am asking

[[Page 12344]]

the Senate to please give some forgiveness--in the loan forgiveness, 
but give some special help to this group of loans. What we are asking 
in the amendment is 3 years of an interest rate reduction; not loan 
forgiveness, so the taxpayers will be paid back the full principal 
amount of all the loans these individuals and businesses have made. But 
if we could give them a little interest relief--let me give a specific 
example.
  I actually took Karen Mills, our Administrator of the SBA, to 
Louisiana on several occasions to impress upon her the seriousness of 
this situation. I took her to see the Bergerons, who run a gas station 
in Lakeview. This entire neighborhood was destroyed, 8,000 families. 
Three of my brothers and sisters lived in this neighborhood, with four 
children each. They lost everything, their homes, their clothes, 
everything was completely destroyed. That was true of their 8,000 other 
neighbors. This gas station--the Bergerons came back. They operated one 
of the most successful gas stations in this neighborhood. In order for 
people to be able to rebuild their house, because they had fled to 
higher ground hundreds of miles away, families would drive long 
distances after work to come and gut their homes in Lakeview and try to 
rebuild their homes. But when they went to go back, there was no gas 
station for them to fill up their car so they could get back to where 
they were living until they could get home.
  So the Bergerons, like a lot of what I call the pioneer businesses--
the hardware stores, the gas stations--said you know, I have been here 
40 years. Mr. Bergeron is in his 70s, still very active, but he said I 
am going to go back and open my gas station. So he went to the SBA and 
got a loan. The problem was, he did a great thing, but his business 
came back so slowly. But without his business no one in the 
neighborhood could come back because there was no place to get 
gasoline. He is paying on his loan $1,000 a month. If this passes, his 
note will go down to about $400 a month. It will give him a little bit 
of relief because right now in his same neighborhood he has a lot of 
people who work in the fishery industry or the seafood industry or the 
oil and gas industry, so some of his customers cannot come and get as 
much gas as they want to because they are being affected now by this 
Deepwater Horizon.
  I am begging the Members of the Senate to please help this particular 
group. I wish we could afford to do for everyone in America but not 
everybody in America right now is on the gulf coast. But these 13,207 
people are and we need to give them a little breathing room. That is 
one of my amendments.
  I am going to yield the floor after I make a comment on a nominee. 
But that is one of the amendments I am going to ask the Senate, when we 
get an opportunity to offer amendments, to please give us a chance to 
help these small businesses. It is a temporary relief for them, but I 
think it is something they deserve and will help this region that has 
now been hit again.


                     Nomination of Winslow Sargeant

  Mr. President, at this time I want to talk for a minute about Winslow 
Sargeant.
  He is a gentleman who has been recommended by the President to serve 
at the SBA, in the advocacy position at the SBA. He comes highly 
regarded and highly recommended. He has a Ph.D. from the University of 
Wisconsin in Madison in electrical engineering and a background as a 
very successful small business owner. He is managing director of 
Venture Investors, a Midwest venture capital country with a 
concentration in starting up health care technology companies.
  Dr. Sargeant has a great deal of support from a wide variety of 
individuals and businesses that I will submit for the Record.
  With more than 80 percent of job losses coming from small firms, I 
believe this is someone who should be in the Office of Advocacy. For 
some reason, he is being held up by the other side.
  I understand there are nominations being held up on both sides of the 
aisle, but I wanted to ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
executive session to consider--I am going to wait and ask for unanimous 
consent. I am not going to wait long, but I will continue talking for a 
few minutes. I will wait for a few minutes, but at some point I am 
going to ask for unanimous consent that he be moved ahead because here 
we are on a small business bill, and here is the man whom the President 
has nominated, who obviously is well credentialed, has tremendous 
support, who is being held up. We do not really understand why he is 
being held up, so I would like to know, and in just a few minutes, I am 
going to ask for him to go by unanimous consent.
  In the meantime, I will speak about one other potential amendment to 
the underlying bill. This amendment is coming from Senator Boxer, and I 
am so excited that she came up with this idea and this amendment. I 
think it has a lot of potential, and I think many Members might support 
it.
  Senator Boxer called to my attention that there are many small 
businesses that operate out of their homes, and if you think about it, 
there are many people who operate their business out of their homes but 
particularly women who are trying to raise children, they are still the 
primary caregiver--not the only caregiver, but in most homes the women 
are trying to balance being a good wife and a good mother and also 
contributing to the bottom line of their family income. So a lot of 
them might be running small businesses out of their homes.
  Well, it has come to our attention that in order to take the tax 
deduction that is rightfully there for anyone, man or woman, who works 
out of their home--it has come to my attention through Senator Boxer 
that it is not really very easy to take that deduction. In fact, it is 
so complicated, to my knowledge, that many people don't take it. Think 
about that.
  If we are really supportive of family values, of people being 
flexible; if we don't like spending a lot of gasoline traveling back 
and forth to work and we are kind of trying to encourage people to stay 
at home and work if they can--many women who are very well credentialed 
because the government spent a lot of money on our universities getting 
them the degrees they need, are home raising three, four, five kids, 
and they can't travel a long time to work, so they set up a business in 
their home. Senator Boxer's amendment would help them by simplifying 
this deduction.
  I am hoping Senator Boxer will come at some time to the floor over 
the next couple of days--I am sure she will--and explain the details of 
this, but I think it would be an excellent provision to add to the 
small business bill because again, remember, this underlying bill is 
cutting taxes for small businesses, specifically cutting taxes for 
small businesses; it is supporting the small business programs to 
create more of them, both in our country and their export potential; 
and then it is giving--the third leg of the stool--$30 billion to banks 
in America, voluntarily. It is not TARP-like, nothing about TARP; it is 
$30 billion to small banks in Oregon, Louisiana, and other places to be 
able to then take that money and lend it to small businesses. That is 
the essence of this bill.
  I am very hopeful we can add a couple of amendments to an already 
very good small business package. So I am hoping Senator Boxer will 
come at some point and explain this amendment.
  My colleagues are here to speak, I guess, on either the extenders 
package or the small business package. I see the Senator from Ohio, who 
has been very supportive of small business. Of course, Ohio is one of 
the States that has been hardest hit, and Michigan has been very hard 
hit in the underlying economy. So I am very happy to have, hopefully, 
their support on the underlying bill.
  But one more comment about the moratorium. And I started off by 
saying I am proud to be the chair of the Small Business Committee 
advocating for small businesses in the country. I think the small 
business package, the finance and treasury package that we have on the 
floor will deliver to the American people how to, in a very fiscally 
responsible way, help us create

[[Page 12345]]

the jobs we need. But one of the points--and I am going to be very 
brief because I see the minority leader here, but at the same time I 
want to say again that the moratorium on the gulf coast--and the 
Senator from Kentucky will, I believe, agree with me on this point--the 
moratorium on the gulf coast is really hurting many small businesses 
now.
  I know we have to get this drilling safer and it has to be very safe. 
The people of my State want that. The people of the gulf coast want 
that. But we hope sometime in the next few weeks to clarify or fix or 
modify this. The Federal judge, as you know, has ruled that the 
moratorium is lifted, because the Federal judge did not agree with the 
actions taken by this administration, nor do I. So while we are 
debating a small business bill, I am very hopeful that as soon as this 
small business package can pass, we can get on to getting more people 
back to work along the gulf coast who have been affected by both the 
moratorium and this bill.


             Unanimous consent Request--Executive Calendar

  I ask unanimous consent for Winslow Sargeant to be Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy, Small Business Administration; that the nomination be 
confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any 
statements relating to the nominee be printed in the Record; that the 
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the 
Senate then resume its regular legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley.) Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Snowe, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, it is unfortunate to watch what 
just happened again in this institution. The chair of the Small 
Business Committee, who is serving her State, is an incredible advocate 
for her State, is serving this country well, wants this government to 
be able to govern. And you see one after another after another where 
the President of the United States has dozens and dozens and dozens of 
appointees, noncontroversial. My guess is, when this nominee finally 
comes to a vote--I don't know this for sure, but my guess is there will 
be very few ``no'' votes. We have seen this with Federal judges, we 
have seen it with U.S. attorneys, we have seen it with U.S. marshals, 
and we have seen it with Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries 
and all kinds of commission nominees.
  We have never seen anything like this in this country where one party 
has consistently and persistently blocked nominee after nominee after 
nominee. I mean, if your goal in government--if you come to the Senate 
and your goal is to block anything from happening, the Senate rules 
serve you pretty well. But if you want to move this country forward and 
put party aside, we would not see this kind of thing happen over and 
over.
  So I commend Senator Landrieu for her work on the floor today, her 
passionate advocacy for small business, and her work generally in 
fighting for her State. But I was disturbed to watch what just 
happened. If it were the only time, I guess I wouldn't be judging of it 
much, but it is not.
  I come to the floor to talk about the unemployment insurance bill. I 
know Senator Landrieu, in her State, and the Presiding Officer, Senator 
Merkley, in his State of Oregon, have people all over who have seen 
their unemployment run out. I just don't get it.
  I know some of the opponents, some of the people who have voted no on 
unemployment compensation extension think it is welfare. I have heard 
some of them say: Well, these people don't really want to work. Why 
should we give them something for nothing?
  Well, these are people who deserve unemployment. They have earned the 
unemployment. They deserve the unemployment insurance. They have earned 
it. Again, it is not called unemployment welfare; it is called 
unemployment insurance. You pay in when you are working; you get out 
when you are not. So it is a lot like car insurance and health 
insurance. I don't want to collect on my car insurance premium. I don't 
want to collect on it. I don't want to ever have an accident that hurts 
somebody or damages a car. I have been in an accident like that. I 
don't want that to happen again. I don't want to have to cash in any of 
my health insurance. I don't want to be sick. I don't want my children 
to be sick. I don't want to be unemployed so I have to draw 
unemployment compensation. Most Americans don't want to be.
  I just wonder about some of my friends on the other side of the aisle 
who think about this--they really think it is welfare. I just ask my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to put themselves in another 
place. I know virtually all of us get out enough that we meet people 
who are unemployed occasionally, and I know we are pretty isolated here 
too often. But, you know, a lot of us meet people who are unemployed, 
people who have lost their insurance. These people sometimes have lost 
their homes. But I think it is important that we think about what that 
means and try to personalize it, try to think about a husband and 
wife--one is working part time, not making much money, the other one 
lost their job, and then they lost their insurance because they can't 
afford the payment for COBRA.
  COBRA is a bit of a cruel hoax. COBRA is the program where you can 
keep your insurance after you lose your job, but you have to pay your 
part as the employee and then you have to pay the employer premium. And 
if you lost your job, how could you? Well, we have subsidized that. We 
have actually under the Recovery Act, as the Presiding Officer knows in 
his work on this bill in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee, helped people to pay that COBRA so they can keep their 
insurance.
  But put yourself in the place--since we can't seem to get the 
Republicans to go along with that, either, now--put yourself in the 
place of that family. The husband has lost his job. The wife, who was 
making only a little bit of money, is struggling. They lost their 
insurance. Someone gets a little sick. They have these bills run up. 
They are getting 2 or 3 months behind on their mortgage. They have to 
sit down with their family. They have to sit down with their teenage 
kids and say: You know dad lost his job. You know mom cannot find more 
than part-time work. You know we do not have insurance anymore. You 
know Jimmy got sick. Well, we are behind on our house payments. We are 
going to have to move. We are going to have to sell our house. We are 
going to get foreclosed on.
  You have to explain to your kids that they are not going to have a 
room to sleep in--separate rooms--anymore. They are going to have to 
give away some of the stuff they have around the house or try to sell 
it. They are going to have to go to a new school.
  What new school, dad?
  Well, I don't know what school district we are going to move to.
  I just wish my colleagues, when they cast these ``no'' votes on 
unemployment insurance and cast these ``no'' votes on the extension of 
COBRA to help people keep health care, that they would think about what 
it means to an individual family.
  I mean, these are all numbers. I can give you some great numbers 
here. I can give you these numbers: The number of Americans who will 
lose their unemployment benefits: 1.3 million by the end of this week; 
1.7 million by the end of next week; 2.1 million by the end of our 
congressional recess next week; 3.2 million by the end of July. These 
are pretty troubling numbers, but forget the numbers. I am going to 
read from some letters of people in Ohio that will explain better than 
I can what this means to individual Ohioans or individual Oregonians or 
individual Floridians or Louisianians or Kentuckians.
  And if you want to make it an economic argument, make it an economic 
argument. Forget about the human faces for a minute. Make it an 
economic argument. If people are not getting their unemployment 
insurance, it means they are not spending money in the community. You 
know what has

[[Page 12346]]

happened when people receive unemployment benefits. The first 6 months 
following the passage of the Recovery Act, unemployment insurance 
pumped $19 billion into the local economy. If we hadn't done that in 
this recession President Obama inherited a year and a half ago when we 
were losing 700,000 jobs a month, we would have been losing 800,000 or 
900,000 because this $19 billion wouldn't have been pumped into the 
economy--grocery stores, going in and buying clothes for the kids, 
getting medicine, stopping at the drugstore--all of the things that 
keep economic activity generating in a community and provide jobs.
  The first half of this year, $6 billion went in benefits to the 
States. It would have meant layoffs of librarians and mental health 
counselors and teachers and police officers and firefighters and people 
who are cleaning the streets and picking up garbage. There would have 
been more layoffs, more unemployment, less economic activity.
  So it is pretty clear, if you want to look at the economics of this 
and listen to one of Senator McCain's chief economic advisers who said 
that nothing more than a dollar in unemployment has a greater 
multiplying effect than that. That means for every dollar in 
unemployment compensation, it generates a lot of economic activity. 
That dollar isn't pocketed. That dollar is spent by the unemployed 
worker to take care of his or her family's needs. It is the best thing 
for the economy to pump unemployment compensation into the economy.
  Yet time after time over the last several weeks Republicans have 
opposed extending unemployment benefits. Of all things to draw the line 
on. I hear the arguments over and over. They say we can't keep adding 
to the national debt. I was in the House of Representatives when they 
ran up the budget deficit, when George Bush and the Republicans ran up 
the debt. In 2000, when President Clinton left the White House, we had 
a budget surplus projected to be trillions of dollars in the years 
ahead.
  What happened? War with Iraq, hundreds of billions of dollars to pay 
for the war charged to our grandchildren; tax cuts for the rich, 
hundreds of billions of dollars, charged to the grandchildren; a 
giveaway to the drug and insurance industries in the name of Medicare 
privatization, charged to the grandchildren. They don't mind spending 
us into deficit for two wars, for tax cuts for the rich, and for a 
giveaway to the drug and insurance companies. But now that it is time 
to give about $300 a week to workers who have lost jobs and to help 
them keep their insurance, they say we can't afford it. They don't want 
to run up the budget deficit. What does that say about values and about 
us as a country?
  I don't get it. No matter how irrational or how much they want to 
play to the crowd and say: I am standing up against big government, 
they didn't stand up for taxpayers to pay for the wars, tax cuts for 
the rich, and bailouts for drug companies and insurance companies. All 
of a sudden they are standing up for taxpayers when it comes to funding 
unemployment benefits and health care benefits for those workers who 
lost their jobs and lost health insurance.
  I will close with reading four letters from people around my State. I 
get hundreds of these. I know the Senator from Oregon gets them from 
Portland and all over his State. I get them from all over my State. I 
will start with Mark from Wood County, just south of Toledo, home of 
one of the great universities in our country, Bowling Green.
  Mark writes:

       I send out on average 5 resumes a week, yet I almost never 
     hear back from employers. I have had only one interview, 
     though I didn't get the job.
       I am not lazy. I want to work and I am trying to find work.
       I didn't quit my job, my employer quit on me and everyone 
     else they laid off.
       We need unemployment benefits extended, please don't turn 
     your back on us.

  These are millions of people around the country. What Mark says is 
what most of them would say: Please don't turn your back on us.
  Jennifer from Geauga County, southeast of Cleveland, writes:

       I am a single mother of three beautiful girls. I am also an 
     experienced architect. But late last year, I was laid off 
     from a large engineering firm in Northeast Ohio.
       I have been desperately seeking a job for the last six 
     months, but my industry has still not recovered.
       What do I do now? I have been working 20 years in my field. 
     I am already four months behind on my mortgage.
       Where do I even get the money to pay for it and the other 
     expenses to care for my family?
       What do I do?

  These are not people who don't want to work. I am sickened by some of 
my colleagues who think this is welfare, who think these people really 
don't want to work. Jennifer is a woman with three children, a 
professional, an architect. She has been working 20 years in her field.
  All of these people are required to send out resumes week after week. 
They are required to make calls and try to find jobs. They can't find 
them because of the economy President Obama inherited a year and a half 
ago--again, 700,000 jobs we were losing a month when the President took 
office. My State was lucky enough in April to have a bigger job gain 
than any State in the country, 37,000 jobs. But that is not nearly 
enough to make up for the hundreds of thousands of jobs lost because of 
this economy, because of bad trade policy, because of outsourcing of 
jobs, because of all that has happened with the financial crisis.
  Jill from Franklin County writes:

       I am very disappointed the Senate has not passed an 
     extension for those of us still facing unemployment.
       I have been out of work for six months, even though I have 
     a Master's Degree.
       I have never lived beyond my means, but without the small 
     check I get from unemployment, I will be losing my home at 
     the end of July.
       Please find a way to pass this bill. Please help us.

  I was not making it up when I said if somebody loses their job, they 
lose their insurance. Then they too often lose their home because a 
bunch of Republicans want to vote no on the extension of unemployment 
benefits, crying: We have to cut spending.
  I am sorry to say it over and over, but when I hear them say we can't 
afford it, when they didn't say that when it was tax cuts for the rich, 
paying for the war, or bailing out the drug companies and the insurance 
companies in the name of Medicare privatization--they only want to do 
it when it is unemployed workers. That is wrong.
  The last letter I will read is from Amy from Perry County, a small 
rural county southeast of Columbus:

       My husband is trying very hard to find a job. For the 
     government not to pass extensions is beyond me.
       I am a nurse and work two jobs to help make up the 
     difference of my husband's lost wages.
       Our hard working American citizens who helped build this 
     country are now in need of this country's help.
       Please urge other Senators to vote this bill through.

  I couldn't say it better than Jennifer and Mark and Amy and Jill. 
They are all typical, hard-working Americans who have done the right 
thing. Some are very well educated, all are hardworking. Many have gone 
back to school to improve themselves. This is the economy they have 
inherited because of a whole bunch of bad policy decisions in the last 
10 years. They are the ones paying for it. That is just not right.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                             Gulf oilspill

  Mr. LeMIEUX. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to talk 
about the tragedy affecting my State as well as other States that 
border the gulf. We are into this crisis now 72 days. On the worst 
days, there is as much as 60,000 barrels of oil spewing into the gulf. 
That is more than 4 million barrels of oil. That comes out to about 180 
million gallons of oil that has gone into the Gulf of Mexico. We know 
British Petroleum is at fault. We know they are responsible for paying 
for the cleanup. But that is just half of the story. The other half is 
that the Federal Government has a responsibility in times of crises to 
step up, to manage the crisis, to do everything possible to

[[Page 12347]]

bring all available resources to address the crisis, to keep the oil 
from washing up on our beaches in Florida, from getting into our 
coastal waterways and estuaries.
  This is not a Republican issue. This is not a Democratic issue. This 
is an issue of doing the job those who wanted to be elected to these 
positions in the executive branch now own. When you are the President, 
you don't get to pick which crisis comes. You don't get to say: I don't 
choose to address this problem or not address that one. When you are 
the President, your administration is responsible for trying to solve 
the problems that happen on your watch. This oilspill has happened on 
this administration's watch.
  I want the President to succeed. All Americans do. But the truth is, 
this administration is failing in keeping this oil off our shores. Why 
do I say that? I don't say that without some reservation because it is 
a serious charge. The facts speak for themselves. We have 2,000 
skimmers in the United States. These are ships equipped to suck up oil 
off of the top of the water, bring it into the ship so it can be 
removed from the area that has been polluted. We got this document last 
week from the Coast Guard. Admiral Allen, with whom I met with the 
President weeks ago, said there were 2,000 skimmers.
  I said to the President: Mr. President, if there are 2,000 skimmers, 
why aren't those skimmers in the gulf? At that time there were 24 
skimmers off the coast of Florida. Today we believe there are about 84. 
Florida says 84. The Feds say 130. Since this started, we couldn't get 
a straight answer or one that reconciled between the State and the 
Feds. The good news is, it has gone up to 84 from 24. But it is still a 
mere fraction of what it could be.
  We are told there are 400-some skimmers in the gulf. Around the 
country, there are 2,000; 1,600 or so in the continental United States.
  Why are all those skimmers not in the gulf? This is something I have 
been calling for for weeks. Between Texas and South Carolina there are 
850. Why aren't they skimming up the oil? When I raised this issue with 
the President, he and Admiral Allen said: Those skimmers need to be in 
other places in case there is an oilspill. That is like me saying that 
we can't send a fire truck to your house that is on fire because we may 
need it for another fire. That is not a lot of solace to you if your 
house is burning down, not a lot of solace to the people of the gulf 
when this oil is washing up onshore, ruining their lives, keeping them 
from working, hurting the ecosystem and the environment they love.
  Something has happened that is good news. The day after I met with 
the President, along with our Governor and other State and local 
officials, on day 57 of the crisis, on day 58 Rear Admiral Watson 
issued a memo, June 16, 2010.
  I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     From: J.A. Watson, RADM
     FOSC BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
     To: NIC
     Subj: FOSC Determination under 46 U.S.C. Sec. 55113 
         Concerning Oil Spill Response Vessels Capable of Skimming 
         Oil
       1. Pursuant to my authority contained in 46 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 55113, I have determined that an adequate number of oil 
     spill response vessels (OSRVs), as defined by 46 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 2101(20a), documented under the laws of the United 
     States and capable of skimming oil cannot be employed in a 
     timely manner to recover the oil released from the BP 
     Deepwater Horizon spill.
       2. Oil currently discharges into the Gulf of Mexico at 
     unprecedented levels. There are simply not enough U.S. OSRVs 
     capable of skimming oil available to keep up with the pace at 
     which oil flows from the well. Until the flow is stopped, 
     therefore, it is my opinion that domestic and foreign OSRVs 
     capable of skimming oil are needed to provide adequate and 
     timely protection to the Gulf Coast.
       3. This determination applies only to OSRVs capable of 
     skimming. No foreign OSRV may avail itself of any privileges 
     conveyed by this determination unless its country has 
     accorded to vessels of the U.S. the same privileges.
       4. Respectfully request that U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection be notified of this determination.

  Mr. LeMIEUX. This is a four-bullet point paragraph document. It reads 
in part:

       Pursuant to my authority, I have determined that an 
     adequate number of oil spill response vessels (OSRVs), as 
     defined by 46 U.S.C. Sec. 2101(20a), documented under the 
     laws of the United States and capable of skimming oil cannot 
     be employed in a timely manner to recover the oil released 
     from the BP Deepwater Horizon spill.
       Oil currently discharges into the Gulf of Mexico at 
     unprecedented levels. There are simply not enough U.S. OSRVs 
     capable of skimming oil available to keep up with the pace at 
     which oil flows from the well. Until the flow is stopped, 
     therefore, it is my opinion that domestic and foreign OSRVs 
     capable of skimming oil are needed to provide adequate and 
     timely protection to the Gulf Coast.

  That is the day after we raised this issue with the President. It 
comes on day 58. It should not have taken 58 days to figure out they 
didn't have enough equipment, but better late than never.
  Monday of this week, the EPA and Coast Guard, on day 70, issued an 
order releasing these skimmers to come to the gulf from whatever legal 
requirements keep them where they are, including releasing Navy 
skimmers. That is good too. Now it is day 70, but it is still progress. 
I am hoping, and what I am seeing is that these skimmers will come to 
the gulf soon. We are tracking the skimmers. We got a list of these 
2,000. We are calling folks in different places where the skimmers are, 
different ports around the Southeast and the Mid-Atlantic. We are going 
to check with them and say: Are your skimmers on the way? We need the 
help.
  I was in Pensacola Monday. I have been down there four or five times 
since the incident began. The oil on the beach is profound. It breaks 
one's heart to see it. It is a splattering of oil and muck and scum on 
the beaches. In some places I found what I would call tar rocks about 
the size of grapefruit that have washed ashore. Who knows what is 
happening down below the water, how far these plumes of oil go, what it 
is doing to marine life, to the turtles, to the porpoises, to the fish, 
what that is going to mean for the people of the gulf coast who rely 
upon fishing and the seafood industry, what it will mean for our 
health.
  When you stand on the beach, you can smell the oil. The people of my 
State are heartbroken. I can see it in their faces and hear it in their 
voices.
  I talked to one woman who works at the pier. I asked her: Are people 
coming to the beach.
  She said: People are coming who don't often come. People are coming 
who want to say goodbye, want to see the beach one last time.
  That is like having a loved one who is in the hospital on their 
deathbed, going to see the beach one last time.
  We have these skimmers, these 2,000. Hopefully they are on the way. 
That is progress. That is the domestic side of this issue.
  The other side is foreign skimmers. We have been hearing from the 
beginning that foreign countries have been offering assistance, 
reaching out to us the way we help the world because of the goodness of 
our hearts as Americans when the world has problems. When there is a 
typhoon in Southeast Asia or an earthquake in Haiti or Chile, the first 
country there to respond because of the goodness of our people is the 
United States. We provide help and relief, military sometimes. Other 
countries have also offered to help us in this, our time of need, 
sometimes for free. Sometimes those companies want to get paid. 
Nonetheless, they have offered to help.
  In fact, there have been 64 offers, according to the U.S. State 
Department's document of June 29, 2010. We have accepted 7 out of 64. 
Let me read some of these to you.
  On June 23, Canada offered skimmers. That is under consideration. On 
May 13, the European Maritime Safety Agency, still under consideration; 
on June 22, Japan, under consideration. On April 30, Norway; some have 
been accepted, other offers are under consideration. On May 2, the 
Republic of Korea offered skimmers--May 2--under consideration; on June 
23, Turkey; on June 22, Qatar; on May 10, the UAE, the United Arab 
Emirates, under consideration. Mr. President, 64 offers, 57 under 
consideration.

[[Page 12348]]

  Now, the State Department said yesterday they will accept 22 offers 
of assistance from 12 countries. Good. Good. It is day 72. Why wasn't 
it done sooner? I have come to the floor before and shown a picture of 
a ship called the Swan that was offered on May 6 from a Dutch company. 
The Swan had the capacity of soaking in thousands of pounds of oil and 
water, and we never got back to them.
  We now have the opportunity to bring another ship into our effort. 
The Swan was a huge ship. As shown in this picture I have in the 
Chamber, this is A Whale--appropriately named. It is reported to be the 
largest skimmer in the world. I met with the folks who own the ship 
yesterday, Taiwanese folks. They have no approval yet to use this ship, 
but they still steamed this ship from Taiwan to the gulf--it is just 
getting there now--on their own dime. Imagine what it costs to sail 
this ship, 300 yards long, bigger than an aircraft carrier. It is the 
largest oil skimmer ever devised. It is at least 250 times that of 
these modified fishing boats we are using for skimming. It has a 
capability to draw as much as 500,000 barrels of oily water per 8- to 
10-hour cycle, and it does not have to stop. It puts the ship next to 
it, which it offloads the oily water to, and it can keep going 24 hours 
a day.
  By the way, storms are not a problem either because it is so big. It 
does not rock in the waves of a storm. So you hear these concerns now 
with our Tropical Storm Alex in the gulf that certain ships are going 
to have to stop their efforts. If this ship is allowed to work, it does 
not have to stop, according to what the owners told me. It is being 
tested by the Coast Guard either today or tomorrow.
  Let's hope we use this incredible resource and ones like it because 
when this oil washes up onshore, when we have failed to respond to the 
offers of assistance from foreign countries, it is not just oil that is 
washing up onshore, it is failure. We need every resource, domestic and 
foreign alike, in the gulf, and we needed them yesterday. In fact, we 
needed them 50 days ago. It should not have taken this long to marshal 
this response.
  I just watched the President of the United States on television. He 
is in Racine, WI. He gave a speech, a very political speech. He likes 
to blame the Republicans for everything that has gone wrong in the 
country. It is all our fault. Well, let me take issue with him on this 
one point. This is his job. He may not want to be in charge of the 
United States of America and be the President when we have the worst 
oilspill we have ever had, but that is part of the job. It is not Thad 
Allen's job to run this. It is not Janet Napolitano's job. It is not 
Ken Salazar's job. It is not Jane Lubchenco's job or any other folks 
who work in the administration. It is the job of the President of the 
United States.
  When he ran for President, he said President Bush's response to 
Katrina was halfhearted and it was half measures. I am not sure he 
would want this same standard applied to him right now. I know it is 
fun to give a political speech, but the people in the Gulf of Mexico 
are suffering, and they need help and they need a President who is on 
the job managing through problems.
  Mr. President, being from Florida, we have had a lot of crises in the 
past several years with hurricanes. In 2004, in 2005, we had 9 or 10 
hurricanes come through Florida that devastated us. I got to watch a 
chief executive officer of our State, our Governor at the time, Jeb 
Bush, when I was in the Attorney General's Office, manage through 
problems, overcome obstacles, work 12, 14, 16 hours a day to make 
things happen, to get results.
  That is what it takes, and there is no one like the chief executive 
officer to overcome those obstacles. That is what we need from the 
President of the United States in this situation. I do not want to see 
him in Wisconsin giving a political speech. I want to see him in 
Florida getting these skimmers there, overcoming obstacles, solving 
problems, managing through this crisis, so we can protect our beaches, 
protect our estuaries, and protect the way of life for the people of 
Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana.
  This crisis is not over. It may not be on your television as much as 
it was, but the oil is still spewing out of this well. We hope these 
relief wells work. We hope they can stop the oil from leaking in the 
Gulf of Mexico at an unprecedented rate. We still do not know how much 
is leaking. We hope BP is capturing at least half of that oil now, 
maybe a little bit more, but we do not know.
  But every day that goes by that oil leaks in the Gulf of Mexico and 
washes up on the shore of my State--when I stand on the beach in 
Pensacola and I cannot see a single skimmer, I wonder where our Federal 
Government is. We need help. We need some urgency. We need some 
purpose. I am glad they signed the order this week to let those 
skimmers come. I am glad we are finally starting to accept foreign 
skimmers--72 days into the crisis. But I will continue to come to the 
floor every day until that oil wellhead stops leaking to talk about 
this issue and bring light and attention to it, to make sure this 
government is doing everything it can, marshaling every resource 
possible to keep that oil from coming on our beaches and into our 
coastal waterways.
  I will close with this: In Florida, people love the water. It is the 
reason most people come to Florida. It is not just because of the great 
way of life. It is not just because of the great climate. It is because 
of the water. Ninety percent of the people of our State live within 10 
miles of the ocean. We have more recreational boaters than any other 
State in the country. We have more coastline than any other State in 
the country save Alaska. The water is a way of life to people in 
Florida.
  I have had grown men, men I have known and respected my whole life--
not men you would consider emotional or soft--talk about the situation 
of this oil crisis with me and start to break down and cry. It is that 
much of an issue for the people of Florida. I want to see our Federal 
Government rise to the task and do everything possible to solve this 
problem.
  With that, Mr. President, I see my colleague is here and I yield the 
floor to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The Senator from Iowa is 
recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am sorry I was not here on the floor--
but I was watching in my office--when my colleague from Ohio, Senator 
Brown, made his recent statement on the Senate floor. I think Senator 
Brown pointed out very poignantly what is happening to so many people 
in our country today who have exhausted their unemployment insurance 
benefits. I would like to follow up on the comments made by Senator 
Brown to reinforce what he said just a few minutes ago on the Senate 
floor and the dire straits that so many people find themselves in going 
into the Fourth of July holiday.
  Recently, a national group of business economists released its 2010 
economic outlook, predicting that America's economy is ``on track'' 
toward recovery. Well, this is encouraging news. It indicates we are 
moving in the right direction under President Obama's leadership. But 
we also know the recovery is very fragile.
  For example, last week, we learned that sales of new homes plummeted 
33 percent in May, to the least level in 40 years. Let me repeat that. 
Home sales in May fell to the least level in 40 years. Banks are still 
reluctant to lend to small businesses. It is not that they do not have 
money. According to a new Federal Reserve report, U.S. companies are 
hoarding an all-time high sum of $1.84 trillion in cash, but they 
remain largely unwilling to invest, hire, and expand.
  U.S. companies are hoarding an all-time high sum--$1.84 trillion in 
cash--but they are not investing, they are not hiring, and they are not 
expanding. So the threat of this double-dip recession is very real.
  These economic warning signs are not just abstract facts and figures. 
They have very real consequences for families across the country. That 
is what my friend from Ohio was talking about earlier. The unemployment 
report for May was very disappointing.

[[Page 12349]]

By the official numbers, there are 15 million hard-working people who 
have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and they are 
struggling to find work. Those are the official numbers--the official 
numbers. Many experts in this field agree that the real numbers are far 
higher.
  So when you count the people who have become so discouraged that they 
have stopped looking for work, or who are working part time 
involuntarily because they cannot get full time work, the number of 
unemployed workers is far higher, like about 30 million people.
  So as shown on this chart, here is sort of the official figure of 15 
million. But that is just people who are right now on the unemployment 
rolls who are actively looking for work. We have enough data to show 
that people have been out of work for so long--they have hunted for so 
long, and they are discouraged; they are not looking right now 
actively--they are not counted as unemployed. The young people who have 
not had jobs for the first time, who are out of school but have not had 
jobs for the first time, they are not counted as unemployed. People who 
are working makeshift jobs for bits and pieces here and there, part-
time, who one time had a full-time job, they are not counted either. 
When we add all those up, our real unemployment in this country is 
right around 30 million people.
  The official figures will say there are five unemployed workers for 
every available job. That is not true. It is more like 10 workers. Job 
openings in America: 2.69 million. That is how many jobs are in America 
right now that are open--at least last month anyway. There are 30 
million people out there after those 2.69 million jobs; not 1 in 5, but 
1 in 10, a little over 1 in 10. It is little wonder that the average 
spell of unemployment in this country has skyrocketed to 34 weeks, far 
higher than in previous recessions. This chart shows that--here is the 
recession of 1980, 10 weeks; in July of 1981, 14 weeks; in July of 
1990, 12 weeks; March of 2001, the recession, 13 weeks. These are the 
unemployment spells we had during those recessions. We are now up to 34 
weeks and counting. Compare that to the recessions of the past. It is a 
small wonder that a lot of people say this is not a recession, this is 
a depression. People don't want to say it, but in many ways, we are on 
the edge of a depression.
  As a result, a record number of Americans is facing long-term 
unemployment; 6.8 million Americans out of work for more than half a 
year, by official numbers alone. That is the highest number of long-
term unemployed we have had since we started keeping track in 1948. Let 
me repeat that. The number of Americans out of work for more than half 
a year is the highest--the highest--since we have kept track of this 
since 1948. The families of these long-term unemployed are hanging on 
by a thread. Their savings are gone. Unemployment benefits are the only 
lifeline they have to pay the rent and put food on the table.
  Again, I know I am not the only Member of this body whose office has 
been flooded with heartbreaking stories of families back home 
struggling to make ends meet. We heard a number of those stories from 
Senator Brown from Ohio. These are people trying their hardest, doing 
everything they can to find work, but the jobs aren't there.
  I heard from a community college professor from Sioux City who was 
laid off due to budget cuts. She has applied for dozens of jobs, many 
far below her skill level. She is often told she is overqualified. She 
has exhausted her unemployment benefits. She and her sons, one of whom 
is a special needs child, are on Medicaid and they have applied for 
food stamps.
  I heard from a worker in Des Moines who has been in the insurance 
industry for many years. She was laid off almost a year ago and has 
struggled to find work. Her benefits were cut off last week. Here is 
what she writes. She says:

       My concern is that my family cannot survive without the 
     unemployment benefits. We have depleted our savings just to 
     save the house and not get behind on the bills. I know there 
     are others far worse off. Please help pass the emergency 
     unemployment insurance extension.

  I heard from a schoolteacher in northern Iowa who was laid off in 
October of 2008. She recently ran out of unemployment benefits and had 
to apply for welfare. She writes:

       I have not felt so humiliated in 20 years. I have been a 
     productive and hard-working woman since I was 13, but now I 
     feel insignificant. Please do not misunderstand. I have been 
     trying to find full-time employment, but to no avail.

  Again, these are hard-working people trying their best, who never 
imagined they would be in need of Federal assistance. They paid into 
the unemployment insurance system while they were working. Their 
employers paid in. They ought to be able to count on it when times get 
tough. To me, it is a matter of fundamental fairness and human decency.
  Yet, in the face of so many families in crisis, an extension--a 
short-term extension--of unemployment insurance is being needlessly, 
and I would even say cruelly, obstructed here in the Senate. Time and 
again we have tried to pass an extension of unemployment benefits and 
time and time again that effort has been blocked by Members on the 
other side of this aisle. As a result of this political gamesmanship, 
as of the end of last week--at the end of last week--1,350,000 
Americans exhausted their unemployment benefits because of the lapse in 
this program. By the end of this week, that will go up to 1,720,000 who 
will be cut off because we won't extend it here. By July 10, 2.14 
million--2,140,000 Americans will have their unemployment benefits cut 
off.
  Blocking this bill may be a political game for some over here in the 
minority party, but it is not a game to millions of Americans who have 
lost their lifeline. For them, the obstruction of this bill is a 
personal and family crisis of the first magnitude.
  Imagine: We are about to go out of here in a couple of days for 10 
days, 12 days, something like that, to celebrate our Nation's birthday, 
the Fourth of July weekend. I am sure Senators will be with their 
families; Congress men and women will be with their families, and all 
of our staffs. We all have jobs. We have good jobs that pay us well. We 
have good benefits--health benefits, retirement benefits--as does our 
staff, Republican staff and Democratic staff. Republican Senators and 
Democratic Senators, we have good pay. We will have a good Fourth of 
July with our families. We will watch the fireworks and have hot dogs 
and hamburgers, listen to patriotic speeches, maybe make a few 
ourselves. How about all these people? How about these people? How 
about these families? What are they thinking about on the Fourth of 
July? They have lost their benefits. They don't know where to turn. 
What are they going to be celebrating? What are they going to think 
about their country? What are they going to think about this Congress, 
that turns its back on these people?
  There is no reason why we can't extend the unemployment insurance 
benefits, none whatsoever. I think that is what we have to be thinking 
about.
  Another thing that I think hits pretty hard, I have heard political 
candidates out on the stump who want to take a place in the Senate, or 
maybe in the House of Representatives, out there talking about how we 
shouldn't extend these benefits because this encourages people not to 
go to work; it sort of encourages laziness. Well, I think that is 
insulting and illogical. As I said, there are 30 million people out of 
work looking for 2 million jobs. They say, Well, but if you give them 
these unemployment benefits, it makes them lazy. They won't go to work.
  The numbers vary from State to State, but the unemployment benefit 
nationwide is about $300 a week, below the poverty line. So here is the 
average income for a family of four on unemployment benefits: It is 
about $15,600. It is more in some States, less in other States. That is 
an average. So what is the poverty line for a family of four? It is 
$22,000. That is below the poverty line. They are telling me people 
don't want to go to work? These are people who had work. They are not 
out of work because they walked off the job;

[[Page 12350]]

they are out of work because they were cut off of work. In some States, 
benefits are smaller. For example, in Mississippi, the weekly maximum 
benefit is $235 a week. Again, that is thousands of dollars less than 
the annual salary of a full-time minimum wage worker. Again, I can't 
imagine anyone who had the alternative to make more money and to have a 
full-time job would say, No, I want to stay on unemployment benefits. 
That is insulting. It is insulting.
  I have also heard my colleagues object to this benefit extension on 
the grounds that providing these benefits is too expensive. It will add 
to the deficit. I understand the concern, and we are all concerned 
about the deficit of this country. But, it doesn't hold water when we 
are sitting in the midst of an economic crisis. We are about to pass a 
supplemental appropriations bill here sometime soon, probably after we 
get back from the Fourth of July break. It has about $37 billion in 
there in military aid to Iraq and Afghanistan. We are building 
infrastructure projects over there. We are putting people to work 
there. We are continuing to lose a lot of American lives, young 
Americans getting injured and killed, and that is adding to the 
deficit. Yet we are not paying for that. That is adding to the deficit.
  It seems to me if we are trying to look ahead and trying to protect 
the people of this country, we want to get people back to work. We want 
to get the economy going again. We need to get the recovery up and 
running. Unemployment benefits cost money, yes, but think about it this 
way. That money is spent here in America. It is not spent overseas and 
it is not spent someplace else. It is spent here.
  What do people do when they get unemployment insurance benefits? What 
do they do with that money? Do they put it in a shoe box? Do they bury 
it in a hole in the ground? No. They go out and they spend it. They 
spend it on food and clothes and the necessities of life: housing, 
rent, utilities. That money spins around in the economy. That is why 
the economists all agree that one of the--this is from 
moodyseconomy.com. The biggest boost for the economy in terms of 
benefits from the government, the biggest bang for the buck, so to 
speak, are food stamps. That is because poor people who get food stamps 
spend it right away on food. Not all, but most of the food is grown in 
this country and processed; not all of it, but most of it. So you get a 
big bang for the buck. For every dollar in food stamps, you get $1.73 
in economic activity in this country--$1.73 for every dollar invested. 
Unemployment benefits, $1.63. Right next to food stamps, unemployment 
benefits. Infrastructure investments that so many of us talk about, 
very close on their heels: $1.59. If we want to put people to work, 
let's start doing infrastructure rebuilding in America. Rebuild our 
sewer and water systems, our highways, roads, bridges, rails, high 
speed. That is a great investment, plus it will put a lot of people to 
work too.
  A whole lot of people say, Well, we have to extend the Bush tax cuts 
to get the economy going. Extending the Bush tax cuts is a 49-cent 
return on the dollar--not a very good investment, folks. Not very good.
  So unemployment benefits, yes, they cost money. Yes, they do add to 
the deficit, but they provide for a lot of economic activity in this 
country--a lot more than extending a tax cut. For example, in Iowa 
alone, more than 3,700 jobs were saved or created in my State in 2009 
thanks to the benefits of unemployment insurance. That is 3,700 jobs in 
my State alone because of unemployment benefits.
  Again, under these circumstances, obstruction of an extension of 
unemployment benefits is inexplicable. How do you explain it? How do 
you explain something such as that to someone who is on their lifeline, 
has lost their benefits, or is on the verge of losing their benefits 
right now? It is like a person who is in the hospital with a serious 
infection. The doctor says, OK, here is a 15-day course of antibiotics. 
The patient goes home and says OK, 15 days, I have to take the 
antibiotics every day. But day 8 comes, day 9 comes, the patient feels 
better, they stop taking their antibiotics. The infection reasserts 
itself, the patient is right back in the hospital.
  That is where we are in this economic recovery. We made the mistake 
once before; history shows this. In 1937, we were getting out of a 
depression, the public works projects and things President Franklin 
Roosevelt and the Democratic Congress put in place were getting us out 
of the recession. But then the so-called deficit hawks took over and 
began then to tighten down on the benefits and these programs. What 
happened? The Federal Reserve started tightening up the money, Congress 
slashed spending, the Fed tightened its policy, and the economy plunged 
back down into a depression.
  That is why I used the analogy of someone in the hospital with a 
serious infection and they are prescribed 15 days of antibiotics, but 
after 5 to 7 days, they feel better and they stop, the infection then 
reasserts itself, and they are right back in the hospital. That is 
where we are now.
  Well, quite frankly, there is an infection in our country. The 
infection is called a recession, a deep recession, a depression. Thirty 
million people are out of work. That is an infection. There is one 
thing that will help relieve that infection right now: the medicine of 
unemployment benefits.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HARKIN. I am delighted to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for bringing this 
issue and timely discussion to the floor.
  We had a meeting today of the deficit commission--18 of us who have 
been charged with finding a way to deal with our Nation's deficit. 
Speaking to us was the Director of the CBO, Congressional Budget 
Office, Mr. Elmendorf, who talked about what we need to do. I asked him 
a question that went directly to the Senator's point: As we talk about 
reducing the deficit, isn't there a worry or concern that if we hit the 
brakes too soon, we can plunge even deeper into a recession, with more 
people out of work? He said yes. He said that you have to make sure we 
start moving forward, putting people to work, with the GDP growing; and 
once you have the economy stabilized and moving forward, with people 
paying taxes--which, incidentally, brings down the deficit--then you 
can talk about the long-term deficit fix. So I say to the Senator from 
Iowa, he really hit the nail on the head.
  Our colleagues on the other side who refuse to support extending 
unemployment compensation benefits say: We want to take it from some 
other area of spending. Well, of course, that just reduces the stimulus 
to the American economy. So they are not helping things. What we need 
to do is help them.
  I see the Senator from Iowa has 3,700 workers in Iowa affected by 
this. We have over 10,000 in the State of Illinois. In fact, it is 
20,000 at this point. It will be 80,000 by the end of June, if I am not 
mistaken. At this point, these folks have reached a point of 
desperation.
  I had a call over the weekend from a friend who is unemployed. She is 
the mother of three kids, with a grandchild in the house. They are 
cutting off her utilities because her unemployment check was cut off. 
That is the reality of life for people who have lost jobs through no 
fault of their own.
  I thank the Senator for bringing up this issue. I will be embarrassed 
if we leave here for the Fourth of July break without taking on this 
unemployment issue and helping people across the Nation who are 
similarly situated.
  I will ask the Senator a question since he yielded for that purpose. 
Does the Senator even possibly agree with what I have said?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator, who has been a 
champion of working people and families for all the many years I have 
known him, and that is many years now. I thank him for telling us about 
what the CBO said in the deficit commission.
  I pointed out a couple of things earlier. The Senator is right on the 
mark in terms of economic activity, and that is why it is so important 
right now to get the economy moving again, to keep

[[Page 12351]]

it moving. The biggest bang for the buck we get is food stamps. People 
spend those right away on food.
  Second to that, for every dollar we put into unemployment benefits, 
it causes $1.63 of economic activity. That is not a bad return on the 
dollar. Well, down here on the chart, extending the Bush tax cuts, you 
only get 49 cents back. That is what my Republican friends say you need 
to do--more of these Bush tax cuts. That is dismal. Yet an 
infrastructure investment brings $1.59 cents. If you invest more in 
infrastructure--sewer and water, plants and highways, roads, bridges, 
high-speed rail--not only do you get a great return, you get a lot of 
people employed at the same time.
  How can we leave here tomorrow or Friday, when we leave for 10 or 12 
days, when we know this is what is happening? At the end of last week, 
1,350,000 Americans lost their unemployment benefits. At the end of 
this week, it jumps up to 1,720,000. By July 10, before we come back, 
it will be 2,140,000 Americans who will lose their benefits. How can we 
go home and celebrate the Fourth of July with fireworks--the birthday 
of our Republic--and give patriotic speeches about how great we are, 
what a good country this is, when we are going to leave all these 
people out in the cold? What does that say about this body, about the 
Congress?
  I will tell you, I say to all those families who have written me 
letters, contacted me by e-mail, and have come into my offices, telling 
me of your joblessness and your struggles: You are not forgotten. We 
are here fighting to try to get this done.
  My Republican colleagues refuse to let us extend unemployment 
benefits--even for less than half a year, a short period of time. Well, 
we will do everything we can to get this done. For the sake of these 
families, our country, and for the sake of, yes, our economy, we can't 
leave here without extending these unemployment benefits.
  I ask my Republican colleagues who have been blocking this to have a 
sense of humanity on this, a sense of compassion, of caring for these 
families. We all make good money around here. We get good pay and 
benefits, good retirement benefits. All our staffs are employed. 
Everybody here in this Chamber is employed. How about these people who 
are unemployed? You have to think about them before we close up shop 
and leave here this week.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Kerry are located in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I begin by complimenting the senior 
Senator from Massachusetts for a remarkable tribute to the late Senator 
Robert Byrd. It was beautifully delivered, beautifully written. It 
captured the spirit of this wonderful Senator and highlighted just a 
few of the extraordinary accomplishments in his life. I was privileged 
to be on the floor to hear it delivered by the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes 
as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Small Business Lending Fund Act

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I was here earlier today, following 
Senator Baucus's handling of a portion of the small business bill. I am 
pleased to share in that responsibility on a small business bill that 
is not immediately before the Senate because, remember, we came off it 
temporarily to talk about the unemployment measure that is pending 
about which Senator Harkin just spoke.
  I want to return to the small business bill because at some point, 
after a vote on the unemployment measure before the Senate, we will get 
back to a very important bill for you, Mr. President, and you have been 
a leader in this area, as well as many of us.
  I want to speak for a moment about a couple of provisions of the 
small business bill. The bill itself has three major pieces to it. 
There is a piece that came out of the Small Business Committee about 
which I spent some time this morning talking, the elements of 
strengthening the SBA lending programs, expanding the limits for the 
amount of money that businesses can borrow. There is a piece that is 
coming out of the Finance Committee that is broadly supported. Senator 
Baucus and Senator Grassley have done a great job. Basically, it is tax 
cuts relative to small businesses that can help them with tax 
provisions. Then there is a piece that has come from the Treasury, the 
White House, the leadership team, about small business lending.
  I want to talk for a few minutes about a piece of the small business 
package, and then I want to talk about the bank investment program, the 
$30 billion program.
  First of all, one of the most important aspects of the small business 
bill is the extension and the expansion of 7(a) loans. To put this in 
plain English, these are the loans that the Small Business 
Administration partners with banks to make what we call floor plan 
lending. It is any business that has inventory--maybe it is a tractor 
company or a manufactured home company or a boat, marine industry with 
a small business owner--and you have some of these in Illinois, I know, 
Mr. President, and I have many of them in Louisiana--that has to buy 
inventory and put it in their showrooms for when people come by and 
they look at the product.
  Some people might go on the Internet these days. My son does this. He 
spends a lot of time looking for automobiles because he has not yet 
been given permission to purchase his first one. He is looking every 
night, bringing pictures to his mother and father, talking about the 
benefits.
  People today go on the Internet. They look at all these products they 
want to buy--boats, tractors, for example. They do not usually push the 
button to buy these products on the Internet; they go down to their 
local dealer. They want to walk into a showroom. They want to look at 
the product. They heard about it, and they might have documents from 
the Internet. They go to their local small business, whether it is in 
some parts of Illinois or Louisiana down in Thibodeaux, Violet, Larose. 
They walk into that local marine operator and say: I have looked on the 
Internet, and this is the kind of boat I want to buy. Do you have one 
in stock? If we pass this bill, he might have one in stock. If we do 
not pass this bill, chances are he will not be able to make that sale. 
That is what the 7(a) lending program does.
  I have a letter from the National Marine Manufacturers Association 
that says they have over thousands of members. They say that they 
believe if we pass this provision in this small business bill, it could 
affect over 350,000 jobs in America because that is how these small 
businesses operate.
  Unlike a lot of businesses we talk about, these are not businesses in 
China or in India or in South Africa or in France. These are small 
businesses with American-made products in our own neighborhoods, almost 
in every neighborhood in America, that has an inventory, that is trying 
to sell something. When that purchase is made, tax dollars are 
generated, money changes hands, and our economy gets rolling again.
  This 7(a) lending program is not to be underestimated. It is not just 
an old government program that does not work. This program will 
potentially leverage loans up to $15 million.
  That is a lot of money for a small business to be able to purchase a 
number of tractors for their inventory or automobiles or RVs or jet 
skis. This is a big industry, Mr. President. You know it. You see it on 
Main Streets all over the country.
  When we pass this bill, I want my colleagues to know that those 
voting for it can be very proud. For those of my colleagues voting no, 
they are going to have some explaining to do because the automobile 
dealers in their States, the marine manufacturers in

[[Page 12352]]

their States are going to say why didn't you vote for a bill that would 
allow me to go to my local bank, borrow up to $15 million so I can put 
inventory in our showrooms so people in this town can come to my shop 
or my place of business and purchase that equipment?
  This 7(a) loan program is very important. It came out of our 
committee with broad bipartisan support. I am pleased it is in the 
underlying bill.
  I want to say one more word. I know there may be others on the floor 
to speak. In another section of this small business bill, in our 
attempt to get jobs created in America to bring this recession to an 
end, to get our people back to work--yes, we have to extend 
unemployment, but eventually--eventually, not now, but some time soon, 
not now because it is too soon, many economists say, but at some time, 
we are going to have to stop the emergency extension of unemployment 
and have a job for people to go back to because I agree with Senator 
Harkin, most people--99.9 percent of people in America--men and women, 
Black and White, Hispanic or Asian, would rather work because it not 
only helps their family economically, but it is very rewarding to work, 
particularly at something one likes to do, and it is life affirming. 
People aren't interested, as some of my Republican colleagues want to 
say, in sitting home and collecting $215 a week. In some States, I 
think in Mississippi, it is $146 a week. Who wants to do that? How many 
mouths can you feed at $146 a week? Please, tell me.
  Not many. I do the shopping in my family. That wouldn't cover 4 days' 
or 5 days' worth of groceries in my family, and I have only two 
children.
  So I am not sure what people are talking about on the Republican 
side, that people would like to stay home and collect a real big check. 
People want to get back to work. But in order to help them get back to 
work, we are going to have to have some extraordinary measures to get 
banks--medium-sized banks, community banks--lending again.
  I think the President and the Treasury have come up with quite an 
innovative program. It is $30 billion, and many Republican Senators 
voted for it--at least eight. I don't know what the others were 
thinking, but I would like to give them a couple of arguments to 
rethink their vote.
  Some of them have said this is the TARP again. Remember what TARP 
stands for. TARP stands for Troubled Assets Relief Program. It is a 
program for troubled banks. The ``T'' stands for ``trouble.'' This $30 
billion program we have come up with should be called the healthy bank 
provision because this is not for troubled banks; this is for healthy 
banks. These are banks that are not troubled. They are healthy banks.
  This program will allow them to voluntarily--not mandatorily but 
voluntarily--ask the Treasury to infuse some capital through an 
investment in all of our banks. The banks will then take that money 
and, if they follow the guidelines of Treasury in terms of the program 
as it is outlined, and they start to lend the money to small 
businesses, they will get a benefit. They do not have to pay the 
Treasury back a dividend. They can pay the Treasury back a lower 
dividend on the investment the taxpayers have made in that bank.
  So for my colleagues who say this is TARP II, they are absolutely 
dead wrong. There is not a ``T'' in this program for ``trouble.'' This 
is for banks that are healthy, and I am very excited to say that our 
community banks in Louisiana survived this meltdown because they didn't 
engage in some of this reckless behavior that some of the large banks 
participated in. Our community banks in Illinois and in Michigan and in 
Ohio--I know they had a little more trouble in the rust belt--but many 
of the community banks in the South did very well and were very smart 
about their lending. They never got into trouble.
  So this $30 billion infusion from Treasury into preferred stock in 
these banks, investments structured this way, will encourage these 
small banks to make money the old-fashioned way--not on transaction 
costs, not on charging people extra for the balance they do or don't 
have in their checking accounts, but by getting back to old-fashioned 
banking: making money in your bank when you make good loans to 
businesses. When you are smart and you are looking at businesses in 
your community and you are lending them money, they are expanding and 
they pay you back the loan with interest. You lend them more money, and 
they pay you back the money you lent them with interest. They grow, the 
business grows, the bank grows, and the community grows.
  Mr. President, I suggest in America that we get back to the old-
fashioned way that banks should make money. The Presiding Officer did 
that successfully when he was in Illinois--lend money to small 
business. That is what the President's $30 billion does.
  I hope Republicans who voted against this provision because they 
believe this is TARP II will actually read the bill. It is not very 
long. It is just a few pages. It is just a few pages. It is not a 
troubled bank program; it is a healthy bank program, and they should be 
for it because, as the chairman of the committee, I have received a 
letter from the association that represents the community banks. They 
said: Senator, we favor this provision. We want this to happen.
  So for the taxpayers listening, don't be fooled by the arguments on 
the other side. That just gets back to we are the party of no. We are 
going to say no, no matter how good the idea is. This is a good idea 
for healthy banks that the bank association supports. I think we should 
be for it, and I am hoping we can vote for it when we get back.
  One other point. Then I am going to cede the floor. Because of the 
great work Senator Warner of Virginia and Senator Levin have done, they 
have convinced enough of us on both sides of the aisle, I hope, to add 
to this provision something we call the State small business credit 
access fund. So in addition to what President Obama came up with, he 
and his team, Senator Warner and Senator Levin did a lot of work on 
this and explained it to many of us. Many of our colleagues were 
Governors before they got here, so they know something about this. 
Their job was to create jobs when they were Governors. Now, happy for 
us, they are Senators and they are still trying to create jobs. So they 
brought an idea to our committee which we looked at very carefully and 
said yes. Then they worked through Finance, and Finance said yes.
  What this does is set aside $2 billion for State programs that are 
already established and that act in very different ways but are 
mission-driven organizations run by our Governors. These are Governors 
from different parties, so it is not a partisan program. We are going 
to give $2 billion out through these programs, and they will then turn 
around and lend money and make the master plans of economic development 
in the State of Virginia real.
  It helps the State of Michigan, where they have some great small 
businesses, Carl Levin says. But he said to me: Mary, the problem is 
that they do not have the collateral they once had to get the loan 
because their collateral has depreciated. So the banks are not going to 
lend them the money because they do not have the collateral. So we have 
come up with a way to enhance their collateral to make it a good loan--
not a risky loan but a good loan. So that is in here.
  So for people who say government is not creative or not innovative or 
we are not trying to do the smart things, this is a smart bill. Besides 
being a healthy bank bill, it is a smart lending bill. In some of these 
instances, the Federal Government is actually going to make a profit. 
So I hope when we get back, when we are talking about small business, 
we can be enthusiastic in supporting the basically $32 billion lending 
program, the small business package, and the tax cuts that Senator 
Baucus and Senator Grassley, with the help of Senator Snowe, have put 
together for small businesses throughout the country. I hope we can 
stop fighting, stop saying no, and just say yes to job growth and 
creation in America for hard-working taxpayers

[[Page 12353]]

and Americans who deserve our best effort on this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I support the comments of and the 
legislation by the Senator from Louisiana. I think it makes a great 
deal of sense to strengthen small businesses. They are, after all, the 
job generators in this country. So I appreciated her comments. We don't 
always agree on every issue around here, but I am a strong supporter of 
her work as chairman of the Small Business Committee and of the 
legislation she has described.
  Mr. President, I wanted to come to the Senate floor briefly today 
because we are talking about extending unemployment compensation, 
unemployment benefits, to people who are out of work, and we are having 
a very difficult time doing that. These benefits are for people who 
worked on payrolls. They actually paid a little of their money in taxes 
to support an unemployment fund so if they lost their jobs they would 
be able to get some unemployment help. But in order to do that, this 
has to be extended by the Senate, and it has become increasingly 
difficult to extend unemployment compensation to those who are out of 
work.
  I find that kind of inexplicable because for the folks at the top of 
the economic ladder, there is no problem in their getting what they 
want out of this Chamber. I noticed in the last 24 hours or so that one 
of my colleagues objected to something that was in the financial reform 
bill. He said: Well, you are going to impose a fee on the biggest 
banks. He said: I won't accept that. He said: If you do that, I won't 
vote for the bill. The biggest banks in the country shouldn't have to 
pay this fee.
  I was thinking to myself: Why not? They drove the country into the 
ditch. They are the ones involved in the cesspool of greed, many of 
them, trading things on things they will get from people who never had 
it and making money on both sides, which created an unbelievable orgy 
of speculation that ran the country right into the ditch. There is 
nothing wrong, it seems to me, with their having to pay a fee here or 
there.
  But one of our colleagues said: I won't support that. All of a 
sudden, the conference committee got back together and said: How can we 
fluff up your pillow, big guy? Can we give you an aspirin, put you to 
sleep?
  If you are at the top of this economic ladder in this Chamber, you 
can do just fine because somebody will make you comfortable. But what 
about the people at the bottom? What about the person who came home 
from work after 18 years on the job and said: Honey, I lost my job 
today. And they can't find another job? What about that family and that 
person? What about extending unemployment help for that person?
  Things never change. Here is what Will Rogers said many years ago. He 
said:

       The unemployed here ain't eating regular, but we will get 
     around to them as soon as everybody else gets fixed up OK.

  Boy, if there was ever a description of the way things work these 
days, this is it. Old Will Rogers. And this description is as old as 
eight or nine decades, isn't it? The unemployed here ain't eating 
regular, but we don't have time yet. We will get to them after 
everybody else gets taken care of. And who gets taken care of first? 
The folks at the top of the economic ladder.
  I wonder, I just wonder what would happen with a bill to extend 
unemployment benefits if the only Americans who were unemployed were 
investment bankers? Do you think that wouldn't have been passed in a 
nanosecond, just like that? But, no, the unemployed are people named 
Smith and Jones and Adams and Johnson. They are the ones somehow at the 
bottom of the economic ladder who don't seem to matter to some people.
  My hope is this Congress will have the good sense to do the right 
thing. During tough times, we have something called a safety net--that 
is the unemployment compensation--that helps people when they are laid 
off, when they are out of work and are having trouble and can't find 
another job. It is our responsibility to extend that. That is what we 
should be doing.
  As Will Rogers said: Everybody else gets help. In the last 24 hours, 
the folks at the top of the economic ladder got help--the biggest banks 
in the country. Why? Because somebody said they needed some comfort--a 
bedtime story, a fluffed pillow, an aspirin, some comfort. They got 
their comfort. But we are still waiting to see if the people who lost 
their jobs and who are at the bottom of the economic ladder will get 
the help they were promised. I hope so. We will have a vote on that and 
we will soon see.


                             Energy Policy

  Mr. President, I wanted to mention that yesterday a group of us went 
down to meet with the President on the subject of energy, and following 
that meeting a number of my colleagues spoke to the press. I did not. 
But because there were stories today about the representation of that 
meeting with the President, I thought I would at least offer my notion 
of what that meeting meant and what the consequences of it will or 
should be.
  The meeting with the President, calling a number of Republicans and 
Democrats--about 10 or 12 of us--down to the White House, was to talk 
about energy and to simply try to evaluate what is achievable, what 
should be done with respect to energy. We know two things are making 
this country vulnerable: No. 1, we are way too dependent on foreign 
oil. We use one-fourth of the oil that is pulled out of this planet 
every morning. Every day we use one-fourth in this little place called 
the United States. Yet over 60 percent of that which we use comes from 
other countries. That leaves us far too vulnerable to others, and, by 
the way, some of whom are in very troubled parts of the world. We are 
far too vulnerable to others for our energy supplies. That is a fact.
  The second something that is happening to this planet is called 
climate change. We don't necessarily know exactly what that is, but the 
wide consensus of scientists tells us we need to be concerned about it 
and we need to be taking actions to deal with it.
  I appreciate the President's leadership on these issues and saying we 
need to move. We need to do some things here. But the discussion was, 
What is achievable?
  What is achievable, in my judgment, from listening and participating 
in that meeting, is what I have always believed was achievable. The 
only thing achievable is that which will get 60 votes to come from the 
calendar of the Senate to the floor because it takes 60 votes on a 
motion to proceed to consider anything. I believe the only thing that 
can get 60 votes, based on not only the meeting yesterday but other 
discussions I have had, would be to bring the bill passed by the Energy 
Committee, which was bipartisan, to the floor of the Senate. That does 
not exclude anything else. That does not exclude anybody from offering 
climate change amendments, comprehensive climate change amendments. But 
we will never get to the floor unless we get to the floor with 
something that can get 60 votes, and I am convinced the only thing that 
can achieve that is the bipartisan Energy bill out of the committee.
  The Energy bill itself is a bill that does reduce carbon. It does all 
the things I think it should do. Yes, it says we are going to continue 
to use the fossil energy--coal, oil, natural gas--but we are going to 
use that in a different way. We are going to decarbonize and take great 
pains to protect the planet as we do. We are going to build some 
nuclear. We are going to maximize renewables--solar and wind energy. We 
are going to do the biofuels, including biodiesel, ethanol, and 
geothermal. All of these sources of energy are important to our 
country's future.
  All of these areas--conservation, including retrofitting buildings; 
the first ever renewable electric standard; building an interstate 
highway of transmission capability; high-voltage transmission so you 
can collect energy where the wind blows and the Sun shines and put it 
on a wire and send it to where it is needed in the load centers--all of 
that was part of the bill that was passed out of the Energy Committee 1 
year ago this month. That

[[Page 12354]]

is, in my judgment, what is achievable to get to the floor of the 
Senate, and then it is open for amendments. That does not exclude, by 
the way, any other amendments people wish to offer that can achieve the 
60 votes, once it is on the floor, that can address climate change.
  As I said before, there is something to climate change, as far as I 
am concerned. We would be fools not to recognize and fools not to 
address it. The question is not whether; it is when and how.
  I said before that I would support capping carbon and I would support 
pricing carbon. I also said I will not support what is called cap and 
trade because I do not intend to give Wall Street a trillion-dollar 
carbon securities market to trade so they can tell us what the cost of 
our energy is going to be. But that aside, I really think it is 
important that we not end this year without doing an energy bill that 
advances this country's energy and national security.
  Let me mention one additional item very quickly; that is, yesterday 
there was a hearing in the Armed Services Committee with respect to the 
nomination of General Petraeus to assume command in Afghanistan. I am 
not going to speak at length about this. I fully support General 
Petraeus and this nomination. I think the President has made an 
excellent choice. By the way, I don't think he had much choice but to 
replace General McChrystal, and replacing him with General Petraeus 
makes a great deal of sense to me.
  I wish to say with respect to Afghanistan that I think it is long 
past the time for us to have a very significant discussion about 
Afghanistan. The President has indicated the potential withdrawal date 
beginning on July 1 of next year, 2011. But I think that even before 
that, we need to have a discussion in this country about what our role 
is in Afghanistan. What, in fact, is victory in Afghanistan? Are we 
fighting al-Qaida? Are we fighting terrorists in Afghanistan or are we 
fighting insurgents in Afghanistan? What about the Afghanistan 
Government and President Karzai? What is achievable?
  Every day, we are sending young men and women to fight in a war, and 
many--I should not say ``many''--a number of them will lose their 
lives. We go on almost ``out of sight out of mind,'' not thinking about 
it, not debating it nearly enough. What is it we are achieving? We have 
been at war for nearly 8 years, spending a great deal of money--lost 
treasure and lost lives. By the way, with respect to treasure, not a 
penny of it has been paid for.
  I think it is time for us to have a good discussion in this country 
about what are we doing? How long will we do it? What is victory? What 
is achievable? Should we, in fact, be engaged in a long-term war 
against insurgents in that country? Where is al-Qaida? We know where it 
is in part: northern Pakistan. Where is al-Qaida? What is this--a war 
against terror or is it a war against insurgents?
  My own view is that I think it is highly unlikely, no matter how long 
this country is in Afghanistan, that we will ever be successful in the 
rural tribal lands of Afghanistan. But my hope and my desire is to want 
the best for this country. I think the best will be achieved if we have 
a thoughtful, good, full, complete discussion as a nation about what 
our objectives are, how we achieve those objectives, and when, at last, 
at long, long last, we can bring troops home and be in a position where 
we are not saying America at this point is at war. We need to be 
addressing the terrorist threat across this planet, and that will take 
us a long while, but I think that is a very different circumstance than 
being engaged in the fight in Afghanistan as it currently exists.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Levin are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Cochran are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. COCHRAN. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. 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.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, tomorrow evening, I think at about 5:30, 
we are going to have a vote that is going to immediately impact over 1 
million people across the country, and millions more after that, if we 
do not extend unemployment benefits as we have done in every recession, 
Democratic or Republican President, throughout our history.
  Anytime we have seen the unemployment rate, I believe at about 7.5 
percent, above 7.5 percent or so, we have extended unemployment 
insurance benefits--insurance benefits--because you pay in and then 
when you are not working, you receive benefits. We have done that 
throughout our history for two reasons: No. 1, because we acknowledge 
what happens to a family when someone in the family loses their job, 
when the breadwinner can't bring home any bread; and No. 2, because we 
know it stimulates the economy. Every economist, from the right to the 
left, has agreed that the best way to stimulate the economy is to 
provide dollars to people who are forced to spend it, because they 
don't have a job. So someone who receives that $250 or $300 a week--it 
is not enough to do much on, but it is enough to pay the rent, enough 
to buy some food, enough to pay the electric bill; maybe get the kids 
some clothes, maybe put some gas in the car so they can continue to 
look for work. So we know it not only stimulates the economy, but it is 
the right thing to do from the standpoint of ethics, morals, values.
  Tomorrow, we are going to have an opportunity to see whether there 
are 60 colleagues in the Senate who are willing to vote to stop a 
filibuster that has now gone on--I believe this is the ninth week--
actually, 8 weeks on a jobs bill that included unemployment benefits 
extension--and then this week, the ninth week on the bill that we are 
focusing on, including unemployment benefits. It will also do something 
important for people who have used the first-time home buyer tax credit 
that runs out at the end of this month, which has been a great 
stimulus, another part of the Recovery Act that has been very important 
to the economy. It runs out, and we want people who haven't yet closed 
on their homes not to lose the ability to have a credit, so the bill 
will also include extending the home buyers credit implementation until 
October.
  I understand there is a willingness and strong bipartisan support to 
help first-time home buyers but not to help the people who are out of 
work and probably are going to lose their houses, which I continue to 
not understand. I am grateful because I know we have at least one, 
maybe two Republican colleagues who will join with us to stop the 
filibuster. I am grateful for that. But we need at least three 
Republican colleagues to join with us in order to get this done 
tomorrow night.
  We hear a lot of debate, a lot of discussion, a lot of arguments from 
the people who say: We are happy to extend unemployment benefits; we 
just want to pay for it.
  That sounds great on the surface, unless you know the full history of 
how unemployment insurance works and the other kinds of decisions we 
make

[[Page 12355]]

as a body. We have always funded unemployment benefit extensions 
through something called emergency spending. As I have said before, if 
15 million people being out of work in America isn't an emergency, I 
don't know what is. That is more people than are affected by a 
hurricane or a flood or a tornado or an agricultural disaster. We have 
traditionally done this because it was the right thing to do as an 
emergency, but also because, again, we lose the economic stimulus, the 
economic benefit, if we don't do it that way.
  For two reasons we have always done it this way. It is interesting 
that folks who argue passionately that we should not worry about the 
deficit if we are expanding the estate tax cut for the top 200 or 300 
families in America, then deficits don't matter--or the top tax 
bracket, with the tax cuts under President Bush. Deficits don't matter 
to them. But, boy, they matter if we are talking about people who are 
out of work.
  I talk to people every day in my State, people who have never been 
without a job in their lives. They are horrified they can't find a job. 
They are looking for a job every day. They want to work, but they are 
in an economy they didn't create, where right now there are five people 
looking for every one job. That is better than last year when it was 
six people looking for every one job. We know that because of what we 
have done with the Recovery Act, we are slowly coming out of the hole, 
but we have a long way to go yet.
  Certainly, this isn't the time to filibuster jobs bills, whether it 
be small business or the jobs bill that we have been trying to pass in 
the last 8 weeks. It certainly isn't the time to say we are just tired 
of hearing about those people who are out of work; it is tiresome. Some 
people say that. They are tired of hearing about the unemployed.
  Well, people in Michigan are tired of being unemployed. They want to 
work. They know how to work. They have worked their whole lives. It is 
not their fault that the crisis happened on Wall Street that dried up 
credit, that stopped manufacturers and small businesses from getting 
loans to be able to continue to do business. It is not their fault that 
they lost their savings or their 401(k)s or their pensions. It is not 
their fault we didn't enforce the trade laws in this country and lost 6 
million manufacturing jobs under the previous administration because 
the focus was on cheap products rather than American jobs. That is not 
their fault.
  It was not their fault that we continue to have tax incentives that 
promote jobs going overseas, which we want to do away with in the jobs 
bill. It is not their fault.
  Mr. President, I want to read one e-mail out of the thousands I 
receive. I received it today. It is from Serena in Dearborn, MI. It 
says:

       Senator Stabenow, the argument by the Republicans seems to 
     be that they don't want to strap ``our children and 
     grandchildren'' with the debts of their parents; however, I 
     believe they are talking about their children and not mine. I 
     say this because my children will be homeless and hungry in 
     the next week or so.
       A lot more damage is going to be done in the here and now 
     than anyone realizes. If they are talking about the numbers 
     of people being taken off unemployment insurance benefits, 
     they are talking about families, not just adults. Families. I 
     have two sons; where are we going to live, and how are we 
     going to survive?
       I wonder how many of these ``intelligent'' people went to 
     college and paid for it all as they went and did not incur 
     any debt? I am attending college currently and I am incurring 
     debt because I plan, in the future, to be able to pay back 
     the money with my new, better paying job. That is how most 
     people have to do it, invest in the future and know that you 
     are doing something not just for yourself but also for the 
     country, become a positive influence on the society.
       I don't know what I am going to do with my children, how I 
     am going to pay my rent and utilities, have food to eat and 
     gas to put into my car, so I can continue going to school and 
     looking for work. I have never been without a job before.

  Mr. President, that is a story that is repeated hundreds of 
thousands, in fact, unfortunately, millions of times across this 
country right now. People who are doing what we have asked them to do; 
they are caring for their children, many going back to school and 
trying to do a different career or upgrade their skills to give them 
something that gives them an edge in the job market to be able to get a 
job. But they are using unemployment benefits to keep them between 
being on the street and having a roof over their heads.
  That is not some political rhetoric. That is what is happening to 
people. It doesn't have to happen to people. Serena, in Dearborn, MI, 
doesn't have to become homeless in a week or so. She doesn't have to, 
if we can come together and override this filibuster on unemployment 
benefits. We just need 60 people to support it in order to be able to 
get this done. I fear for Serena and for the tens of thousands of 
people in my State if we don't do this--and the millions who find 
themselves in a situation across the country.
  We will never get out of deficit with over 15 million people out of 
work. This idea that suddenly now nothing matters but deficits ignores 
how we are going to get out of deficit. Back in the 1990s, when we 
actually balanced the budget, I was proud to do so. I think it was in 
1997, when I was in the House under President Clinton. Part of what we 
did was focus on work, jobs, and education, and 22 million people got 
new jobs--22 million new jobs were created, and we came out of deficit. 
That is what we believe. That is what our Democratic majority believes, 
that you focus on work, you focus on small businesses getting capital, 
and manufacturers getting back to hiring people, and you focus on jobs. 
Then you lift us up out of deficit because people are working and 
buying things and paying their taxes, and they are part of the economy. 
It can't just be about a few people in our country.
  We will not have a strong country if somehow the policies are only 
set for a privileged few. We have been different from other countries 
because we have had this strong middle class, which we are losing as a 
result of the policies, yes, in the last administration, and the 
deficits that were created, and we are losing it because we cannot get 
past filibusters now to move forward on a jobs agenda and help people 
who are out of work to be able to continue to live.
  The Recovery Act that was put in place last year has worked, but 
there is much more to do. It stopped us from going over the cliff and 
began to turn things around. But there is much more to do. Somehow, 
just saying that, well, Wall Street is doing better--despite the ups 
and downs on Wall Street--and things are kind of doing OK now for those 
folks, so we are done ignores what is going on for way too many people 
in this country.
  Mr. President, I think the latest poll I saw was that 47 percent of 
the people in my State have someone in their immediate family who has 
lost their job, and their family is impacted by that. That is 
astounding. We don't have the highest unemployment rate anymore; we 
have the second highest rate. I am sure that can be said of Nevada, 
Rhode Island, California, and around the country.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to set aside the election politics, set 
aside whatever it is that has been getting in the way of getting this 
done, and be willing to look at what is happening for real families 
right now and how we can make sure that Serena isn't homeless with her 
two children in a couple of weeks and how millions of other Americans 
can be able to continue to care for their families while they look for 
work.
  Then the most important thing we can do is partner with business, 
create the atmosphere and incentives to create that work. That is our 
job. I am laser-focused on that as well.
  I see my distinguished friend from New Jersey. I will yield the floor 
to him and thank him for his passionate support for the people in this 
country who just want a fair shake. I thank the Presiding Officer, as 
well, for his passion and commitment to jobs and making sure we move 
our country forward by paying attention to the great middle class of 
this country, who need us to fight for them. That is what we are doing 
in the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey is 
recognized.

[[Page 12356]]


  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the daily digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. 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.
  (The remarks of Mr. Lautenberg are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. 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. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to speak for a few minutes in two 
areas, if the Chair can let me know when 10 minutes has expired.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will be so notified.
  (The remarks of Mr. Graham are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. GRAHAM. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture 
vote on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment to H.R. 4213 with amendment No. 4425 occur at 8 o'clock 
tonight, and that any time until then be equally divided and controlled 
between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the conclusion of 
this vote, if cloture is not invoked, the majority leader be recognized 
to enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not 
invoked; that upon the conclusion of this vote, the Senate then proceed 
en bloc to the consideration of Calendar No. 455, H.R. 5623, and H.R. 
5569, which is at the desk; that the bills be read a third time, 
passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; 
that any statements relating to these measures be printed in the Record 
with no intervening action or debate.
  Does the Senator from Texas wish to speak?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would appreciate, Mr. Leader, if I could ask a 
question.
  Mr. REID. We will have the vote start at about 3 after 8. Is that OK?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is fine.
  Parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. REID. That will give the Senator time to talk.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Is the flood insurance bill that was passed by the 
House that will extend flood insurance for those coastal State people 
in what the leader just read.
  Mr. REID. Yes. I was able to work that out with Senator Landrieu a 
short time ago so we could do that now.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. REID. OK. I was very anxious to get it done. So we can start the 
vote at 8 o'clock, if the Senator gets through speaking.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the leader very much.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, in the couple minutes before the vote 
starts, I just want to say this is a huge move for the people of the 
gulf coast who have been trying to purchase flood insurance under the 
National Flood Insurance Program that lapsed June 1. The hardship is 
that, of course, we are going into hurricane season. Private insurance 
is not available on the coast for floods right now, so the Federal 
program is all there is.
  People have not been able to close on housing contracts, on purchases 
of houses, because flood insurance is required and they have not been 
able to get it.
  So Senator Landrieu, Senator Vitter, I, Senator Cornyn, Senator 
Sessions, Senator Shelby, Senator Nelson, Senator LeMieux--everyone has 
been very concerned about this if we represent a border State--and 
Senator Cochran and Senator Wicker.
  So we have been pressing, and I know there have been a lot of 
competing interests. But it is very important we are passing the bill 
that has passed the House already. It will be sent to the President, 
and the people of the gulf coast will once again be able to purchase 
that flood insurance, as we see a tropical storm moving toward our gulf 
coast as we speak. So it is certainly timely. It will certainly be a 
relief, and the extension will be until September 30. So the people who 
want to purchase insurance, which, of course, they need and will know 
they are covered, will be covered.
  I thank the Chair. I thank the leader as well.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I originally said 8:03. I ask unanimous 
consent that the vote begin now.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order and 
pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
     4213, the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, with a 
     Reid amendment No. 4425.
         Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Jack Reed, Edward E. Kaufman, 
           John F. Kerry, Sheldon Whitehouse, Carl Levin, Roland 
           W. Burris, Richard J. Durbin, Jeff Merkley, Benjamin L. 
           Cardin, Christopher J. Dodd, John D. Rockefeller, IV, 
           Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, Robert P. Casey, Jr., 
           Charles E. Schumer.

  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 the 
motion to concur with amendment No. 4425 in the House amendment to the 
Senate amendment to H.R. 4213, the American Workers, State, and 
Business Relief 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 proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. 
Roberts), and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
DeMint) would have voted ``nay.''
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 58, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 204 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

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

                                NAYS--38

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn

[[Page 12357]]


     Crapo
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Reid
     Risch
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bond
     DeMint
     Roberts
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 58, the nays are 
38. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by 
which cloture was not invoked.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.

                          ____________________