[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4260-4269]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 SBIR/STTR REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2011

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 493, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 493) to reauthorize and improve the SBIR and 
     STTR programs, and for other purposes.


[[Page 4261]]


  Pending:

       McConnell amendment No. 183, to prohibit the Administrator 
     of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any 
     regulation concerning, taking action relating to or taking 
     into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to 
     address climate change.
       Vitter amendment No. 178, to require the Federal Government 
     to sell off unused Federal real property.
       Inhofe (for Johanns) amendment No. 161, to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the expansion of 
     information reporting requirements to payments made to 
     corporations, payments for property and other gross proceeds, 
     and rental property expense payments.
       Cornyn amendment No. 186, to establish a bipartisan 
     commission for the purpose of improving oversight and 
     eliminating wasteful government spending.
       Paul amendment No. 199, to cut $200,000,000,000 in spending 
     in fiscal year 2011.
       Sanders amendment No. 207, to establish a point of order 
     against any efforts to reduce benefits paid to Social 
     Security recipients, raise the retirement age or create 
     private retirement accounts under title II of the Social 
     Security Act.
       Hutchison amendment No. 197, to delay the implementation of 
     the health reform law in the United States until there is 
     final resolution in pending lawsuits.
       Coburn amendment No. 184, to provide a list of programs 
     administered by every Federal department and agency.
       Pryor amendment No. 229, to establish the Patriot Express 
     Loan Program under which the Small Business Administration 
     may make loans to members of the military community wanting 
     to start or expand small business concerns.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.


                 Amendment No. 244 to Amendment No. 183

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I call for regular order now with 
respect to the McConnell amendment, which is the pending amendment on 
our bill, amendment No. 183, and send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The McConnell amendment is now 
pending.
  The clerk will report the second-degree amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 244 to amendment No. 183.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end, insert the following:
       The provisions of this title shall become effective 5 days 
     after enactment.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. That now puts us in order to 
continue the discussion of our very important bill that Senator Snowe 
and I have been managing this week on the floor. I appreciate all the 
Members' cooperation, particularly the members of the Small Business 
Committee who voted this bill out 17 to 1, because they know, both 
Republicans and Democrats, the importance of reauthorizing this vital 
program--one of the Federal programs that works, one of the Federal 
programs that helps to create private sector jobs, one of the Federal 
programs that gives the taxpayer a great return on their investment.
  One of the gentlemen who testified before our committee last week 
said for every $1 invested in this program, the taxpayers get a return 
of $107. That is a pretty good return on investment.
  I see two of my colleagues. Senator Cardin is a member of our 
committee and a very valued member of our committee, I may say. He 
would like to speak for 5 or 10 minutes about an amendment he thinks is 
important that we potentially could get included in our bill. I see 
Senator Coats from Indiana, who is here to speak on the McConnell 
amendment. I think we do not have a consent, but we will kind of go 
back and forth as Members come and continue to talk about some 
important aspects of the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland is 
recognized.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, let me thank Senator Landrieu for 
her extraordinary leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. This 
is a critically important bill for our economy. It helps small 
businesses. It helps the economic engine of America. It helps with 
innovation with small businesses.
  We already know small businesses will be where most of the job growth 
will take place. We know that. We also know small businesses are where 
most of the innovation will take place. When we look at patents that 
are filed, there are more from the small businesses per employee than 
we see from large companies. But in order to help small businesses be 
able to be innovative, the SBIR Program is critically important.
  I congratulate Senator Landrieu for bringing this bill forward. It 
has received strong bipartisan support within the Small Business 
Committee. It provides the resources where small companies can take 
risks and innovate for America's future. It extends the program for 8 
years, giving predictability to companies and investors, so they can go 
out and do what is best for this country, extending the program to 
2019.
  It increases the allocations available for the small business 
community over time from 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent. It increases the 
individual size of the grants from $100,000 to $150,000 in phase I and 
in phase II from $750,000 to $1 million. It does one other thing that 
is critically important. It allows small businesses to bring in venture 
capitalists and still be able to qualify for an SBIR loan.
  For all these reasons, I strongly support the efforts of Senator 
Landrieu and Senator Snowe and would encourage my colleagues to support 
the legislation that has been brought forward.
  But I come to the floor, and I am going to ask consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside, but first let me explain the amendment 
I would like to offer. It is an amendment that would continue a policy 
that was started in 2009 to allow small businesses the opportunity to 
be able to get surety bonds to be able to compete on government 
procurement in the construction industry.
  Current law requires that for all Federal and State construction 
projects--Federal and State construction projects--exceeding $100,000, 
the company must provide a surety bond. Congress established the Surety 
Bond Guarantee Program more than 30 years ago because they knew it was 
difficult for small businesses to be able to get a surety bond. The 
limit had been $2 million under that program. So we assisted small 
companies in being able to get surety bonds of up to $2 million until 
2009.
  As part of the Recovery Act, I offered an amendment with Senator 
Landrieu and Senator Snowe--this was a bipartisan amendment; as a 
matter of fact, I do not know of any objections to the amendment--that 
increased the amount from $2 million to $5 million and gave the 
Administrator the authority to guarantee bonds of up to $10 million to 
permit small companies to be able to compete with large construction 
companies for procurement work.
  What is so difficult? Well, you talk to a small business owner, and 
they will tell you what they have to go through with their bankers in 
order to get any type of financing. Then, if they try to get a surety 
bond, it is the same assets that the surety bond company wants them to 
guarantee in order to get the surety bond, putting them in a catch-22 
situation, where they cannot get the surety bond and financing. They 
have to choose between one or the other. That is the reason why we 
established the Surety Bond Guarantee Program 30 years ago.
  The higher limit had been in place from 2009 to 2010. The SBA had 
estimated they would issue $147 million in bonds in support of projects 
over $2 million. In March of 2010, the SBA Performance Report indicated 
that more than $360 million in bonds was actually issued. It has been 
an unquestioned success--the higher limits.
  One other point: There have been absolutely no losses under the 
surety bond program, zero. That is why the Congressional Budget Office 
has given us an informal estimate that this amendment would have no 
direct impact on spending or revenue. This is a no-cost amendment that 
is strongly supported by the small business community because they know 
it is critically important for them to be able to

[[Page 4262]]

compete fairly on construction contracts. It has bipartisan support.
  What the amendment does is extend the limits we put in law in 2009 
that expired at the end of 2010. That is the amendment.
  Mr. President, I do want to make a unanimous consent request, but I 
understand we are under an agreement now that we cannot ask that. I am 
getting word from my chairman. But let me go on record to say I would 
request that there be an opportunity for this amendment to be offered 
or included. I do not believe it is controversial. It does not cost, as 
I said, any expenditures. It is very important for the small business 
community. It has bipartisan support, and I hope I will be given the 
opportunity to be able to offer that amendment.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana is 
recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Cardin for his 
cooperation. He has been so patient. It is an important amendment. It 
is an amendment that both Senator Snowe and I support and many other 
colleagues support it. We hope to get to a time, if not this week, as 
soon as we get back, to be able to offer and have this amendment 
pending so it can receive the vote I do think it deserves.
  I see the Senator from Indiana, who I think wants to speak on a 
different amendment, so I will yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio). The Senator from Indiana 
is recognized.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana for 
arranging the opportunity for me to speak. I intended to do this in 
morning business, but that time was running out, so she graciously 
arranged time for me to speak as we took the bill back up.


                           Amendment No. 183

  Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of the McConnell amendment 
that would prohibit the EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, from 
regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. This is 
nothing more than a backdoor energy tax that should be the purview of 
Congress to enact or not enact and not the responsibility or the 
authority given to the EPA.
  The McConnell amendment, which is essentially the amendment language 
that was provided by Senator Inhofe and Senator Vitter, is patterned 
after the Energy Tax Prevention Act, which I have cosponsored, along 
with a bipartisan group of nearly 43 Senators. An identical bill was 
passed recently on a bipartisan basis by a House committee.
  There is a growing consensus in Congress and across the country that 
Washington bureaucrats cannot be and should not be setting our Nation's 
policy on climate change. The McConnell amendment would make it clear 
that it is the Congress and not the Environmental Protection Agency 
that ought to be squarely in the driver's seat with regard to energy 
and climate policy.
  It has become clear that the administration's cap-and-trade bill has 
had no chance of passing the Senate--again, because of bipartisan 
opposition. It is also clear that the White House has then determined 
they are going to try to circumvent the Congress and try to push this 
agenda through rules and regulations made by unelected bureaucrats. As 
a result, the EPA has created these new greenhouse gas regulations that 
are nothing more than a backdoor cap-and-trade regime. So while the 
administration talks about the need to strengthen the economy and put 
Americans back to work, these types of harmful rules that are being 
imposed by regulatory agencies--and specifically the EPA on climate 
control in this regard--are having just the opposite effect.
  The reality is that not only in my home State of Indiana, which 
obtains more than 90 percent of its electric power from coal resources, 
but in States across this country that are using fossil fuels currently 
to generate energy, this would have an extraordinary, detrimental 
effect on their economies and their ability to produce the necessary 
power needed to run businesses and heat and cool homes.
  Particularly at a time such as this, it is extraordinary that this 
backdoor effort by the EPA is simply throwing a major impediment in the 
way of the economic growth we are now starting to see after 2 years of 
a very serious downturn. The factories are starting to move again. Some 
are starting to hire. The machines are starting to turn. At a time such 
as this, all of a sudden, an unelected bureaucracy in this government, 
supported by the White House, simply says: Now is the time to attack 
the climate control issue. We didn't like what Congress did when they 
turned this down, so therefore we will take over and do it ourselves.
  I have nothing against looking at ways to provide additional sources 
of energy that can help with our climate control, whether it is solar, 
wind, biothermal, biomass, geothermal, or any number of other 
alternatives. But these alternatives need to be cost-effective and 
competitive, and currently they are not.
  I had the opportunity to serve in Germany as Ambassador for 4 years. 
During that time, I was able to pay very close attention to a mandate 
that was imposed by the German Parliament of switching to alternative 
sources, on a mandated basis, to 20 percent of the total energy being 
derived by a certain period in time. As a result of that, the 
government provided enormous subsidies to wind and solar in particular 
and other alternative forms of energy, which was to be financed by 
those industries using fossil fuels to provide energy. The results 
recently announced in Germany were that this is not obtainable, and 
this came at a considerable cost to consumers and to industries of that 
country.
  Two things happened. No. 1, when the government provided massive 
subsidies to move to wind and solar, of course a lot of attention went 
to production of those two types of alternative energy sources, it 
wasn't based on a competition. It wasn't based on what it would cost 
the taxpayer. There was an extraordinary subsidy that had to be paid by 
the fossil fuel industries--namely, coal and oil and natural gas--to 
subsidize those sources.
  The problem is, they ended up with a distorted economic picture, and 
ultimately the cost goes to the taxpayer and to the consumer. 
Basically, the fossil fuel industry producing energy had to subsidize 
the alternative forms of energy--namely, wind and solar--on a 5-to-1 
basis, obviously raising prices to consumers and to industries using 
energy that was derived through fossil fuels.
  The second problem was that the politics--which always happens in any 
situation like this--rears its ugly head, so every member of every 
State had to get their share of the subsidy. So we see windmills all 
over Germany that are not turning because the wind doesn't blow in some 
sections of the country, and we see solar panels being installed in 
places where, in the North in particular, the sun doesn't shine very 
much. So they have an extremely cost-ineffective system put in place 
subsidized by the taxpayer.
  So as we look forward to alternative sources of energy, we have to 
recognize the realities of what we are dealing with here, particularly 
at a time when we are in economic distress and just trying to move into 
a better economic picture for the future. If we are going to impose 
massive taxes on industries that are providing energy to drive our 
factories, run our businesses and heat and cool our homes, it is going 
to add significant costs to employment and all of those who use that 
electric energy.
  So these are issues that need to be debated in this Congress and with 
the American people and in a transparent way, rather than addressed by 
a regulatory agency that has no responsibility to the taxpayer, no 
responsibility to the consumer, and is trying not to have any 
responsibility to the congressional authority that governs this.
  I have yet to hear of a credible alternative that can fully replace 
coal for electric power generation. Most of our States and particularly 
many of our heavy manufacturing States are nearly totally dependent on 
fossil fuels to run their businesses.

[[Page 4263]]

  It seems to me that while technology can help us in the future move 
toward a position of having some additional forms of energy to meet our 
energy needs, today, the reality is we need this source of energy to 
run our economy. If only the EPA could recognize the reality of this 
situation, then maybe we could reach some commonsense agreement on how 
to move forward on climate control and other issues. Instead, it 
appears this agency is determined to shut down coal plants, costing 
thousands of jobs, weakening the economy, and increasing electric bills 
for families who are already struggling to make ends meet. The EPA's 
actions simply are irresponsible and exceed their authority.
  So we come back to the essence of what the McConnell amendment does. 
It returns the responsibility and authority for energy and climate 
policy to the elected Members of the Congress. These are issues that 
impact every American and should not be determined by unelected 
Washington bureaucrats who have made up their minds to regulate 
regardless of the consequences. These decisions belong to the Congress 
and not to the EPA.
  We need to pass the McConnell amendment. I believe it will achieve 
bipartisan support because our Nation's energy policy needs to be 
addressed by this body and not the EPA. So I urge strong support for 
the McConnell amendment when it comes up for passage.
  With that, I yield the floor, and I again thank the Senator from 
Louisiana for the time that was allocated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio). The senior Senator from 
Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleague, the chair of 
the Small Business Committee, to further elaborate on some of the key 
issues regarding the pending legislation before the Senate to 
reauthorize the Small Business Innovation Research and the Small 
Business Technology Transfer Programs for 8 years.
  When we consider what the value is of both of these programs, what it 
will represent to our Nation's economy during these perilous economic 
times is indisputable. It certainly will bolster economic growth. It 
certainly will bolster small businesses and innovation and put America 
at the forefront of new technologies, as we have seen with the examples 
of those who have been recipients of awards from the SBIR Program, most 
notably Qualcomm when they started more than 25 years ago with fewer 
than a dozen employees and $1.5 million in awards from SBIR. Now they 
are, as we know, a Fortune 500 company with more than 17,000 employees, 
just to cite one example. There are numerous examples certainly in my 
State and in the chair's State of Louisiana and all across this 
country, and that is the point.
  This program has an illustrious history. I think it is important to 
note how far back this program goes. It was really inspired as a result 
of a White House small business conference that recommended applying 
the original pilot program at the National Science Foundation to a 
wider range of agencies. In particular, according to the National 
Academy of Sciences' landmark study on the SBIR Program, the 
recommendation was grounded in a number of facts, including evidence 
that a declining share of Federal research and development dollars was 
going to small businesses; difficulty among innovative small businesses 
in raising capital in a period of historically high interest rates; and 
research suggesting small businesses were at the vanguard of job 
creation, which, as we all know today is certainly the truth.
  So the SBIR Program was formally established in law back in 1982, and 
I was a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives and an original 
cosponsor of that legislation. The legislation set out several goals, 
including to stimulate technological innovation, use small businesses 
to meet R&D needs, foster and encourage participation by minority and 
disadvantaged small businesses in technological innovation, and 
increase private sector R&D.
  So all of that has occurred with this legislation over that period of 
time in which it has been part of our Nation's laws. That is why it is 
so important, when we reconvene after this recess, to make sure we have 
the opportunity to move this legislation along. It is critical because 
we are at a point in time in our economy where we need the jobs, we 
need the investments in small business.
  This is not adding additional costs to the Federal budget because it 
is drawing from the already appropriated funds for research and 
development within 11 different Federal agencies that would set aside 
certain amounts in both of these programs for small businesses. It has 
broad support among a variety of organizations that are also crucial 
because they have been at the forefront of benefitting from these 
programs and understand the value of these programs and how they will 
bolster our economy.
  I am pleased to note that we have organizations such as the NFIB, the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Small Business Association, the 
Small Business Technology Council, and the National Venture Capital 
Association which, in a letter, stated that our legislation:

       . . . represents a fair compromise to ensure that America's 
     most innovative small businesses can once again have access 
     to existing government incentives to grow jobs by 
     commercializing new discoveries.

  Furthermore, groups that have long been at odds with these small 
business groups on SBIR reauthorization are now solidly behind the 
legislation. This is because we worked over the last 2 years during the 
course of drafting this legislation for reauthorization and built a 
compromise and a consensus on the definition of venture capital and who 
can participate in the program. There had been a ruling within the 
Small Business Administration that said it had to be individuals, which 
excluded a number of different venture capital backed firms from being 
able to participate. So we developed a consensus across the political 
aisle--with broad support--that ultimately brought additional 
organizations on in support of this reauthorization.
  Most notable is the Biotechnology Industry Organization--again, 
talking about bringing drug therapies to market that take 10 to 15 
years. They require millions and millions of dollars to develop a drug 
therapy and bring it to market, and the research and development and 
ultimately to commercialize that drug therapy treatment certainly is 
very costly. So to have the added benefit of venture capital 
investments from research and development funds that are already 
provided within the Federal agency is a long-term benefit for our 
country.
  In its letter, the Biotechnology Industry Organization notes:

       [t]his bill represents a balanced approach to ensure that 
     America's most innovative small businesses can access 
     existing incentives to grow jobs by commercializing new 
     discoveries.

  The group also says it represents a compromise to ensure that 
America's small businesses remain at the forefront of global 
innovation. It also states that SBIR helps small biotechnology 
companies continue lines of medical research that might otherwise go 
unfunded. It will help to increase access to early-stage capital, which 
is a critical source of funding if we are to develop the therapies that 
are so important to advancing our medical systems in this country and 
our health care. It bolsters economic growth, job creation, 
breakthrough drug treatments, and therapies for patients, and it also 
increases America's competitiveness in the global economy.
  That is exactly the intent of this program that was created in 1982, 
and that certainly underscores the value of this program as stated by 
the Biotechnology Industry Organization. I am confident this 
legislation represents an unprecedented compromise that will give us 
the necessary momentum to get this reauthorization over the finish line 
once and for all. This is a welcome change, after 10 temporary short-
term extensions over the past 2\1/2\ years. I think the legacy of this 
program is making significant contributions to America's economy, and 
to the well-being of small businesses, the engine that drives America's 
economy.

[[Page 4264]]

We depend on small businesses to create most of the jobs in America. We 
need to facilitate that, given the high unemployment rate--when we have 
had 21 consecutive months of an unemployment rate at or above 9 
percent. That is the longest stretch in our Nation's history.
  These two programs collectively and individually will contribute 
significantly to the growth of small businesses and job creation in 
this country. That is why there is a broad array of organizations that 
are supporting this legislation, because it is a testament to its 
history of success.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio). The Senator from Louisiana 
is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I see we have several colleagues on the 
floor, and there is another coming down to speak on an amendment. I 
thank Senator Snowe for her explanation of some of the compromises and 
changes and modifications the two of us worked on with our committee 
members over the last 6 years to bring a bill to the floor that has 
bipartisan support. I thank her.
  One telling chart I want to put up before yielding to the Senator 
from Vermont, who wants to speak on an amendment, is very interesting. 
It talks about job creation and the importance of this program. One 
report that looked into this program between 1985 and 1995 said that 
SBIR-awarded firms added an average five times as many employees as 
comparable firms that did not receive SBIR funding.
  Again, this is the Federal Government's largest program. Amazingly, 
it doesn't cost the Federal Government any more money because it is 
research and development dollars that are already set aside for the 
purpose of research and development. It makes sure that small 
businesses have access to these dollars.
  When we do provide that kind of access, which this bill does, these 
grants and contracts go to companies that not only produce great 
technology but hire workers. I wanted to put that into the Record. I 
have other things to put into the Record as well.
  I see Senator Sanders, the Senator from Vermont, on the floor.
  At this point, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, it was my intention to offer a 
modification of the amendment I offered yesterday on Social Security. 
Given the parliamentary situation right now, I can't do that. I intend 
to do that as soon as I can.
  Mr. President, the original Social Security protection amendment that 
I introduced earlier would have prevented Congress from cutting Social 
Security benefits, raising the retirement age or privatizing Social 
Security without the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Senate and 
the House.
  I introduced this amendment because I strongly believe that Congress 
should not be able to cut the hard-earned Social Security benefits of 
current or future eligible recipients without a super-majority vote in 
both the Senate and the House, and I continue to hold those views.
  I have heard from some of my colleagues--colleagues who strongly 
support protecting Social Security--that adopting this amendment would 
have the effect of changing the rules of the Senate and establishing 
new precedents. While I do not share those views, I have 1istened to my 
colleagues' concerns and worked with the majority leader to modify this 
amendment.
  As a result, Majority Leader Reid is a cosponsor of this modified 
amendment. There is not one Senator or Member of the House who is more 
committed to protecting Social Security than Majority Leader Reid and I 
thank him for his leadership on this issue.
  The Sanders-Reid amendment expresses the Sense of the Senate that, as 
part of any legislation to reduce the Federal deficit, Social Security 
benefits for current and future beneficiaries should not be cut and 
that Social Security should not be privatized.
  The Sanders-Reid amendment makes it clear that Social Security has 
never contributed one dime to the Federal budget deficit or the 
national debt.
  The Sanders-Reid amendment makes it clear that Social Security 
currently has a $2.6 trillion surplus that is projected to grow to $4.2 
trillion in 2023.
  The Sanders-Reid amendment makes it clear that it would be absurd to 
be discussing Social Security within the context of deficit reduction.
  Let me repeat what I said yesterday. Social Security has not 
contributed one nickel to our deficit, and it makes no sense to 
conflate the serious problems of our deficit and national debt with 
Social Security. That is not an accurate projection of reality.
  As I think we all know, in 1983, Social Security did face a crisis. 
Within a 6-month period of that point, it would not have been able to 
pay out benefits it owed to eligible Americans. Today, Social Security 
can pay out all benefits owed to all Americans who are eligible for the 
program for the next 26 years.
  I will speak more about this issue. I wanted to inform my colleagues 
that we intend to modify the amendment we have offered. We will do that 
when the parliamentary situation allows us to do that.
  I thank the Senator from Louisiana for allowing me to say a few 
words.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I want to talk for a while on the 
Hutchison amendment which says that, while the health care reform bill 
President Obama and the majority passed last year is going through the 
courts, any related provisions would be put on hold until the courts 
decide whether the law is constitutional.
  This is an important amendment because States and private companies 
are being forced to spend a lot of money putting programs into place 
that may not have to be put into place if this bill is indeed struck 
down as unconstitutional. During the health care debate last year, I 
raised a constitutional point of order against the individual mandate 
because, frankly, I believe strongly that it is unconstitutional. A few 
of the courts around the country have agreed with me and ruled that it 
is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, that constitutional point of order 
was voted down along party lines. There is still a very good 
possibility--and I am hoping the courts will see it this way--that this 
bill will be struck down as unconstitutional because there are no 
``severability clauses'' in the legislation. In other words, if one 
part is found unconstitutional, the entire bill is unconstitutional.
  The individual mandate is the place most people are focusing on. If 
that is struck down as unconstitutional, the whole bill will come down. 
Yet States, with all of the programs and exchanges they have to set up, 
will literally be spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to 
comply with a law that may be unconstitutional. We should not have them 
go through that. We should actually have an expedited procedure to go 
through the courts and put everything else on hold so we can determine 
whether this law is constitutional.
  Let me talk a little bit about some of the problems we are seeing 
with the health care bill. First of all, we know it is raising 
premiums. It was promised that the average premium in the United States 
would go down by about $2,500 per year.
  I will give you one quick anecdote I heard yesterday. I was on the 
phone with one of Nevada's largest employers, Steve Wynn, of Wynn 
Resorts. He is known to be probably the most union-friendly, the most 
employee-friendly employer in the State of Nevada. He has been for 
years. His employees love him. He pays well and offers good benefits. 
He told me yesterday they did a study from 2005 to 2010 of their health 
care costs. They increased, on average, about 8 percent a year. This 
year, he said that, specifically because of this health care bill, 
their increase was 12 percent. That is a 50-percent increase in the 
rate of growth of their health care costs.
  What did that mean to the average employee who works for Wynn 
Resorts? Wynn Resorts shouldered a lot of the costs, but the economy in 
Nevada is

[[Page 4265]]

pretty tough right now. It is tough on employers, so they passed some 
of those costs to the employees. It means an additional cost of $900 a 
year to the average employee who works for Wynn Resorts. This is a 
story I have heard repeated across Nevada over and over again.
  Two-thirds of our economy is driven by consumer spending. If you take 
$900 out of the pockets of the average employee in my State--and I am 
sure that is being repeated across the country--that is less money 
people have to spend to encourage economic growth.
  We know that this bill was over 2,000 pages. Very few people, if any, 
have read it. If they did read it, I can guarantee you that almost no 
one understood it, even the people who wrote it. This bill now has over 
6,000 pages of regulations which, once again, are incredibly complex. 
Unless you are a large company that has experts and lawyers who can 
search through this law to figure out what it means to you, it is very 
difficult to understand.
  There was over $500 billion taken out of Medicare. It wasn't taken to 
shore up Medicare; it was actually taken out to create a brand new 
entitlement program. This health reform law takes $500 billion out of 
Medicare and puts it toward a new entitlement program instead of 
shoring up Medicare and making Medicare a better system.
  There were also hundreds of billions of dollars in higher taxes in 
this bill. Sure, the majority passed it. They said it was just the 
health insurance companies they were going to tax, and just medical 
devices were going to be taxed. There were 11 new taxes in this health 
care bill, which is one of the reasons I opposed it.
  Here is a real-life example of what those taxes mean to patients and 
those developing future cures. One company produces an extraordinary 
device for people who have uncontrollable seizures--epilepsy is a 
common name for that condition. One of the treatments developed by this 
company to treat epilepsy is an electronic device that helps reprogram 
the brain. It is implanted in the brain: instead of a pacemaker for the 
heart, it is like a pacemaker for the brain. It is an expensive device, 
which costs over $20,000. The company that makes this device puts most 
of the money they make back into research and development so they can 
make better devices. Because of this new tax, they are not going to 
have nearly the same resources to put back into R&D to develop better 
products and help more patients in the future. If we had not had this 
device in the first place, many people who have completely 
uncontrollable seizures would not have had this help. With this device, 
over half of those people are actually able to control their seizures. 
No other medication works for them. Half of them are able to control 
their seizures because of this device.
  These are the types of things in this bill that are doing damage to 
our health care system, which is by all accounts the finest health care 
system in the world. The biggest problem with this health care bill is 
that it didn't go after the No. 1 problem we have in health care: the 
cost. Health care is too expensive in the United States. Even though it 
is of the finest quality, it is too expensive. We should strike down 
this bill as unconstitutional, or repeal it. Then, we should start with 
a health care reform bill that goes after the true problem in health 
care, and that is the cost.
  What can we do about the cost of health care? We should absolutely do 
something that many States are already doing; the State of Texas is a 
good example of where it has been successful. We should change our 
medical liability laws, to rein in out-of-control trial lawyers across 
the country who are driving up all our health care costs. We know 
doctors prescribe all kinds of unnecessary tests just to cover 
themselves in case of a lawsuit.
  When good medical liability reform bills are put into place, the true 
victims of medical malpractice actually get compensation because there 
are not as many frivolous lawsuits clogging up the courts. The other 
thing that happens is the cost of medical liability insurance and the 
cost to our health care system goes down.
  The Congressional Budget Office reported that there would be 
approximately $70 billion to $80 billion in savings over the next 10 
years if we enacted medical liability reform. I think that estimate is 
very low, but the number is not insignificant.
  There are many other things we can do to create a health care reform 
bill that brings down costs. First of all, we need to put the patient 
back at the center of the health care universe. Today we have what is 
called a third-party payer system. The person receiving the care is not 
the person paying for the care. We need to put the person who is 
receiving care back with, what is known as, skin in the game. Then, 
they will start talking with their doctor and their doctor will talk 
with them. This can be done through health savings accounts.
  Health savings accounts combine a high-deductible policy with a 
health savings account that either an individual's employer contributes 
to or the individual contributes to, and the individual actually 
negotiates with their doctors. The beautiful part about that is that 
they do not have to worry about a gatekeeper. Anybody who belongs to an 
HMO knows they have to go to a gatekeeper before getting to a 
specialist. If it is your money, you can go to any doctor you want, and 
the doctor has to be accountable to you because it is your money.
  If we had over 300 million people in the United States shopping for 
health care, then market forces would drive down the cost of care and 
bring up the quality. Unfortunately, the government already controls 
most health care in the United States. The government pays almost 60 
percent of total bills. When we add it all up, about 60 percent of the 
bills are paid for by the Government of the United States. The 
government already controls health care. That is the reason we continue 
to see costs in health care skyrocketing over many years, until 
recently when the costs are going up even faster.
  This health care reform bill that passed last year--some people call 
it ObamaCare--is actually making the situation worse, not better, for 
the health care system in the United States.
  I believe strongly that the Hutchison amendment, which would freeze 
any implementation of the health care bill until it is decided in the 
courts whether it is constitutional, is a vital amendment. It will make 
sure that States and private sector companies do not waste a lot of 
money complying with a bill that might be struck down as 
unconstitutional. This is money we cannot get back. Once it is spent, 
it is gone. We cannot get that money back.
  We already know how many States are struggling with their budgets 
right now. We see what is happening in Wisconsin, Ohio, and my State of 
Nevada. It is happening all over the country. We need to put this bill 
on hold until we know whether it is going to be ruled constitutional.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Colorado is 
recognized.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise to speak on a matter 
that is a real concern to me and many in this body but, most 
importantly, to the citizens of this country. It has to do with efforts 
to climb out of this long recession. There are still pockets of the 
United States--the Presiding Officer's home State, my State--that feel 
as if we have not made any progress. When I talk with business owners 
in my State, I know they are still weathering the storm, looking to 
invest in a down economy, and they want to start hiring again. That is 
why I am glad we are, once again, debating a small business bill and 
that I have a chance to reintroduce the bipartisan Small Business 
Lending Enhancement Act as an amendment.
  I have to say, this is a little like ``Groundhog Day.'' I am looking 
at my friend from the State of Louisiana. In October of last year, a 
report by the New York Federal Reserve said three-quarters of small 
businesses looking for credit last summer were turned down or received 
only some of the financing they requested.
  In this report from the Federal Reserve, they stated: ``Reports from

[[Page 4266]]

small-business owners of a credit gap have been both vocal and 
frequent.''
  We in Congress have decided to act on and try to extend additional 
credit to small businesses because more credit means additional growth 
and, therefore, increased job creation.
  Unfortunately--I should say ``fortunately'' we created a $30 billion 
lending fund for banks. The unfortunate part of that is we did not 
simultaneously allow credit unions to do more. Since that time, banks 
have been reducing credit availability. Even after receiving $30 
billion of taxpayers' money in last year's Small Business Jobs Act, 
banks still are not meeting demands for small business loans.
  I am still very committed to taking the commonsense step to allow 
credit unions to increase the amount of money they can lend to small 
businesses. I, once again, introduced the Small Business Lending 
Enhancement Act, which would open additional credit to small businesses 
without costing taxpayers a dime. Let me say this again--without 
spending a dime of taxpayer money.
  We have to acknowledge credit unions know the small businesses in 
their communities that need loans to expand and hire. The credit unions 
have money to lend to those businesses. Right now, Federal law limits 
the amount of small business loans a credit union can extend to 12 
percent of their assets. Nearly 350 credit unions, accounting for 
approximately 60 percent of all business loans subject to the 12 
percent cap, are facing their cap and will have to dramatically slow 
their business lending.
  It is hard for me to believe the government is telling these 
financial institutions they cannot help create jobs in their local 
communities. That is why my amendment would double the amount of money 
credit unions can offer small businesses.
  We all know these small business owners. I wish to touch on two 
stories. I was particularly compelled by a small businesswoman in 
Colorado by the name of Stacy Hamon. She is a small business owner in 
Thornton, CO. She started her own business, 1st Street Salon. She 
initially went to a bank for a loan and was turned down because credit 
was in short supply. To make her dream of owning her small business 
come true, she went to her credit union, and they gave her the loan she 
needed through a second mortgage on her home.
  The success story of Stacy unfolds in pretty dramatic and wonderful 
ways. When I visited her, she had plenty of business and even hired 
more workers. These are real American jobs and a shining example of 
economic expansion that would not have been possible if it were not for 
a credit union stepping up and offering her a loan.
  Another Coloradan, Lisa Herman of Broomfield, e-mailed me her success 
story of securing a credit union loan to expand her business. She is 
co-owner of Happy Cakes Bakeshop in Denver's Highland Square 
neighborhood. She has been in business since 2007. Despite the troubled 
economy, her business blossomed. Her revenues were up 27 percent by the 
summer of 2009. She is booking 20 weddings a month and had to expand 
her retail operations and move into a new shop.
  Same story: When she wanted to secure a loan through a traditional 
bank, it did not happen. It did not pan out. But a local credit union 
was able to provide her with a loan for her to grow her business. That 
meant more business and more jobs for her community. That is the 
American way.
  Banks and credit unions are competitors. They do not always get 
along. But this is not about them. This is about small business. For 
perspective, credit unions today only represent 4.5 percent of all 
business loans at depository institutions. If we take this commonsense 
step I am proposing and double small business lending by credit unions, 
it would still leave 91 percent of the small business market to banking 
institutions. Again, this is a smart, no-cost way of increasing lending 
without drastically changing the composition of the small business 
lending market.
  Since some of my colleagues I know have been visited by folks who do 
not want credit unions to lend more to small businesses, I wish to make 
one thing clear. Credit unions have been making small business loans 
since their inception in the early 1900s. That is 100-plus years ago. 
It was not until 1998 that there were any limits whatsoever on what 
they could loan. That means, for 90 years, credit unions were free to 
help small businesses in their communities without the Federal 
Government necessarily getting in the way. That meant uninhibited small 
business support, growth, and job creation. But right now, the Federal 
law, whether initially intentioned, is keeping these jobs from 
Americans who are out searching for work.
  It is estimated that the average credit union small business loan is 
approximately $220,000 and that each $92,000 in additional lending on 
the part of the Nation's credit unions will create one additional job. 
In the next year, I am going to say when we adopt this concept, credit 
union business lending could increase to over $10 billion, which 
conservatively would create 100,000 new jobs. All we have to do is 
increase the statutory cap on credit union business lending.
  I wish to state again for the record: These small, simple statutory 
changes would not cost taxpayers a cent, but they would dramatically 
increase the capital available to small businesses to help make 
payroll, buy inventory, expand, and innovate.
  Moreover, the proposed statutory changes are safe and fully supported 
by the National Credit Union Administration, which is the credit union 
regulator. They are the product of an agreement reached last year by 
the Senate Banking Committee and the Treasury Department.
  As I begin to close, I wish to note all the organizations that 
support increasing credit union small business loans: Americans for Tax 
Reform, the National Association of Realtors, the National Small 
Business Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the 
Heartland Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the League 
of United Latin American Citizens, the National Cooperative Business 
Association, National Farmers Union, the Hardwood Institute, National 
Council of Textile Organizations, and many others.
  I urge my colleagues to do what is right and let's finally fix this 
unnecessary Federal limit on small business loans and support a small, 
focused, bipartisan amendment to increase job growth and support for 
our local small businesses.
  I believe my amendment is at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that 
the pending amendment be set aside and that the Udall amendment No. 242 
be called up and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes, I object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, if I may ask my colleague, 
through the Chair, the nature of the objection given that this would be 
so important to expanding business opportunities when our economy is in 
a troubled state.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Louisiana is 
recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I am happy to report and respond through the Chair that 
a Member of the Senate has put a hold on parliamentary procedures that 
would allow us to move forward on any amendments, the Senator should be 
aware. So we are unable, at this time, to have his amendment pending. I 
am personally happy he came down to speak on the amendment. There are 
other people who feel strongly about that issue as well. I hope the 
Senator understands we are not able to take up his amendment at this 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I know the Senator from 
Louisiana has an interest in the possibilities of this legislation. I 
also see my colleague from Maine, who has graciously joined me in 
cosponsoring this

[[Page 4267]]

important bill and, as well, understands the way in which we would 
trigger innovation, lending, and job creation. I thank her.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I might note that Senator Johnson's 
committee has jurisdiction over the amendment Senator Udall spoke 
about. The Banking Committee has the jurisdiction, not the Small 
Business Committee, which is one of the concerns I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I want to rise in support of the comments 
as well as the initiative of the Senator from Colorado, Senator Udall, 
because I think this is a critical way to create jobs in America--by 
lifting the member business lending cap at credit unions. As he 
indicated, there was a historical norm of no cap on small business 
lending--or business lending--that could be done by credit unions in 
this country. I am very pleased to join him in this effort. Hopefully, 
we will have the opportunity to consider this initiative here on the 
floor. It deserves it.
  At a time when government essentially has exhausted all of its 
options to create economic growth and jobs, this is one demonstrable 
way in which we can create jobs in America and also have a massive 
infusion of capital at no cost to the Federal taxpayer, at no cost to 
the Federal Government.
  As the Senator from Colorado indicated, for 90 years there was no 
cap. In 1998 the Congress decided to impose a cap of 12.25 percent on 
business lending that could be done by credit unions. We want to raise 
that cap to 25 percent to inject more than $10 billion of new capital 
in our Nation's economy. It could create, potentially, as the Senator 
indicated, 100,000 new jobs within its first year, including some 1,000 
jobs in my own State. We are a small State--Maine. We have 1.3 million 
people, and more than 600,000 Mainers are members of credit unions.
  Credit unions play a pivotal role in our State and our Nation's 
economy. They are on the front lines each and every day in our small 
communities, serving their members and local businesses. One of the 
greatest handicaps and hardships right now for small businesses, as 
demonstrated by a recent survey by the Federal Reserve, is that three-
quarters of small businesses looking for credit last summer were turned 
down and received only some of the financing they requested.
  Small businesses are on the front lines of our economic recovery. 
They are the innovators and the job creators, the driving engine of the 
Nation's growth and prosperity, yet they are not getting the access to 
capital that is necessary to create jobs and to make the investments in 
their companies and firms that will stabilize the economy. So it is 
indisputable about the value this legislation would represent in terms 
of helping small businesses have access to that capital.
  Credit unions have been making business loans since their inception, 
for more than 100 years. They provide the essential capital in small 
communities. They understand the importance of lending to creditworthy 
customers, they understand the nature of their communities, they know 
their members and can make a difference in so many businesses as well 
as in the local communities. We know that in the past they have 
demonstrated responsible underwriting practices and strong management. 
They have money to lend--at a time when capital is much needed.
  At a time when we are struggling to find ways to create jobs, this is 
one sensible solution to that approach. Frankly, I am very disturbed 
about the inability of our economy to create the kind of jobs Americans 
deserve. As I said earlier, as of January this year, we have 
experienced 21 consecutive months of unemployment at or above 9 
percent, which is the longest stretch in the recorded history. The 
second highest was back in the early 1980s. But if you think about the 
jobs that were created last month--one of only 3 months in the last 2 
years in which 200,000 jobs were created, at that rate it would take 8 
consecutive years to achieve the pre-recession unemployment level of 5 
percent. We would have to create more than 300,000 jobs every month 
over the next 2 years to reach a 7-percent unemployment rate. In the 
month of January only 36,000 jobs were created.
  We have a long way to go. While the net unemployment rate, as it 
stands today, is 8.9 percent, in all reality--as an article indicated 
yesterday in the Washington Post--it is closer to 10.5 percent because 
of so many discouraged workers that have left the workforce. In this 
initiative, we have an important, effective, responsible way of putting 
money into the communities, allowing the credit unions to lend to 
creditworthy customers and businesses, the same entities that will help 
drive this economy into recovery.
  We depend on small businesses. They are the ones that are going to 
make it happen. That is why I want to commend the Senator from Colorado 
for offering this initiative. It is vitally important. I hope we don't 
defer the consideration of this legislation in this Congress, that we 
have the opportunity, when we return from this upcoming recess, to 
consider it and to vote on it.
  I also wish to give a few other facts that I think are important to 
illustrate the value of these loans in the community. The Treasury 
Department found that 25 percent of credit union member business loans 
were made to members with household incomes of less than $30,000 and 
that these loans totaled 13 percent of the outstanding member business 
lending balances. Another 20 percent went to households with incomes 
reported to be $30,000 and $50,000. So we are talking about middle-
class America. We are talking about mom-and-pop operations and 
households that otherwise would be denied access to credit. We know 
that. We have heard it chapter and verse. I have heard it anecdotally 
from so many businesses in my State and across the country. We have 
heard testimony before the committee about the inability of so many 
small businesses to gain access to credit.
  Banks have decreased lending, for all practical purposes, to small 
businesses. That is why we have to do everything we can to enable these 
firms to access credit and loans that will allow them to stay in 
business and to sustain their operations in these very difficult times.
  Again, I want to thank the Senator from Colorado for offering this 
initiative, and hopefully we will have the opportunity to consider it 
and to vote on it because it is one way of stimulating job growth. I 
think that is indisputable based on the track record of the previous 
lending that has been done by the credit unions. This is one 
opportunity we should be able to have in making sure small businesses 
have access to capital that will allow them to continue.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senators for their 
discussion of that amendment. I wish, before Senator Udall leaves, to 
correct one thing for the record.
  As the manager of the Small Business Innovation Jobs bill, which the 
Senator was so helpful to us in passing, we did ask the credit unions 
if they wanted to be a part of that lending program and they declined 
to participate. So I wanted, for the record, for that to be clear.
  I do know--and let me speak for myself--that credit unions serve a 
valuable role in our Nation today, and we want to acknowledge that. But 
I want the Senator from Colorado to know that, according to the 
information I have been given, they were asked if they wanted to 
participate in the Small Business Lending Fund, and they declined. They 
may change their mind later, and we can amend that program later should 
they so decide. But I thank the Senator for his comments.
  I see the Senator from Georgia is on the floor, so I will yield my 
time. I think he wants to speak on a different amendment, but I think 
that is the purpose of this morning's discussion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Georgia.

[[Page 4268]]


  Mr. ISAKSON. I thank the Senator from Louisiana, and I look forward 
to being in New Orleans this weekend, I might add. It is a great State 
and a great city.
  Madam President, there is a pending amendment by Senator Hutchison 
dealing with medical waivers, which prompts me to come to the floor for 
a minute and talk about that issue as it affects Georgia today, and in 
particular to talk about it in the context of what our Governor and 
legislature are having to deal with right now in terms of the mandates 
of the health care bill signed on March 23 of last year by President 
Obama.
  In fact, on the signing of that bill, there were a couple of 
statements made, reflecting back on that long debate, and I want to 
repeat them right now. One was made by Speaker Pelosi, saying about a 
month before the House passed the health care bill, that you had to 
pass it to find out what is in it. That was a funny statement at the 
time, but it became prophetic as we are beginning to discover over and 
over the unintended consequences of the legislation on our States and 
on medicine.
  Secondly, Vice President Biden declared the magnitude of the impact 
of the health care bill. That magnitude is turning out to be higher 
cost, less benefit, and more regulation on our States.
  In particular, I want to bring two points up to talk about why this 
whole issue of medical waivers is so important. Our insurance 
commissioner, Ralph Hudgens, has submitted to CMS for a waiver on the 
medical cost-benefit rule in terms of benefits paid on policies, taking 
it up to 85 percent. That mandate in the health care bill is going to 
force not better coverage but less coverage by our insurance companies 
in Georgia because they will leave when they cannot meet it.
  It is the intention to regulate the amount of benefits paid. But the 
application means companies that can't meet it by the time set in the 
bill will leave the State. So instead, you will have less of what was 
promised rather than more. You will have less available choice and more 
people forced to a single-payer system in the government operated 
through an exchange.
  This prompts me to talk about the second issue going on in Georgia. 
Our newly elected Governor, Governor Nathan Deal, is trying to deal 
with a mandate on setting up the State exchange that will be available 
to operate by 2014, in a period of time where the public wants no part 
of the national health care bill and wants to wait on a Supreme Court 
ruling on June Vinson's opinion from Florida.
  I come to the floor to say these medical waivers are important. 
States are having to ask for them because of the impact of the overall 
health care bill that was signed on March 23 of last year. If some 
relief doesn't come, we are going to have some cataclysmic events. One 
will be the impact on employees and small businesses, which is what 
this bill is all about.
  I ran a small business. I had independent contractors for whom under 
ERISA you could not provide health insurance. I tried my best to get 
this Congress and this President to consider an associated benefit 
program approval so we could have people, such as those in my 
profession, assemble together and form large risk pools so they could 
compete for insurance, the same as major companies and States do. That 
was rejected instead for an exchange and for a simple system that says 
small businesses must provide health insurance to their employees, but 
if they do not provide it, they will pay a modest fine that is much 
less than the cost of the insurance. That one statement and rule alone 
forces people in small business to leave health care coverage from an 
insurance carrier, getting it through their employer, and instead they 
are forced to go to a government exchange where choice is limited and 
mandates are many.
  I want to commend the distinguished chairman and ranking member of 
the Small Business Committee for the effort they are making on this 
bill, but also commend Senator Hutchison on the importance of 
considering the volume of these waivers being filed; why are they being 
filed, and are they an early warning for what will happen to us when 
this bill goes into effect if we don't take the ObamaCare legislation 
and commit drastic surgery or, better yet, start over and build a 
system that works, where we have the private delivery of health care 
and a minimum of government interference.
  I thank very much the chairman for giving me the time to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Georgia for coming to the 
floor to participate in the debate. I have a different view on the 
amendment he spoke on, but we will continue that debate. In fact, we 
have been debating health care policy in this country for the last 2 
years. While I appreciate his views, I am hoping we get to keep the 
debate very focused and specific, if possible. But I understand the 
amendment of Senator Hutchison, and the amendment Senator Isakson 
supports does affect small business, so we look forward to more 
comments as we go forward.
  Madam President, as we wait to move to the CR--which under unanimous 
consent I think we are moving to in a few moments, so we will be off 
the debate on this bill--I want to submit for the Record some of the 
data associated with job creation.
  I know Senator Snowe is very sincere in her comments about the lack 
of job creation in the country, and I want to say I agree with 
everything she has said in terms of the rates of unemployment being 
very concerning. That is why she and I have spent so much time in the 
committee trying to look at the array of bills we have, at least in our 
jurisdiction, and see what we can do to help change the outlook. I am 
very proud to say we have, I think, in large measure contributed in a 
positive way.
  But for the record, in terms of job numbers, because I don't think 
President Obama and his administration get the kind of credit I think 
they deserve, and frankly, the Democratic leadership doesn't get the 
credit it deserves for turning around a desperate situation, I am going 
to submit these numbers for the record, but I will also have a chart 
later because I think it is important for people to understand. I want 
to throw a few of these numbers out. I am sorry I do not have this 
chart clearly reproduced at this point, but I am going to give you a 
couple of numbers.
  In January of 2009, this country lost 820,000 jobs, in that 1 month. 
In that 1 month, we lost more jobs, according to this document I am 
looking at, than any month probably in the last 10 or 15 years. I am 
going to go back and check.
  I ask for 1 more minute? I do not see Senator Inouye. I am going to 
actually ask for 2 or 3 more minutes until he gets to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. That is the highest number of jobs lost in years, and I 
will tell you exactly how many. The point is, President Obama was not 
the President in 2009, January of 2009; he was just sworn in in 2009. 
He was elected in 2008. So the job losses of a year before, which 
started February of 2008, which was the beginning of the recession, 
before President Obama was sworn in--we lost 83,000 jobs; in March, 
72,000; in April, 185,000; in May, 233,000; in June, 178,000; in July, 
231,000; in August, 267,000; in September, 434,000; in October, 
509,000; in November, 802,000; in December, 619,000; and then in 
January, the month he got sworn in, we lost 820,000. I understand 
people have different views, but to blame a President who was not even 
in office for this recession is wrong and it is not fair. That often 
happens. It does not happen from my ranking member, but it does happen 
from others around here.
  In addition, that terrible loss of jobs continued as Wall Street 
collapsed, fat cats ran off with the money, people's Social Security 
and 401(k)s--not Social Security, thank goodness, but 401(k)s tanked, 
public pension funds that people are screaming about, that something is 
wrong with them--yes, a lot is wrong with them. The Wall Street greed, 
unparalleled in the history of this Nation, sunk so many of our pension 
funds--not necessarily the fault of Governors or legislators or 
employees

[[Page 4269]]

themselves--and there is some underfunding opportunity, I would say, 
there. I know something about this. But the big culprit was the 
collapse of the market which was started before this administration.
  These numbers continue: 500; 300. What is happening this year, 2010? 
It is starting to reverse. Yes, ma'am, it is starting to reverse--in 
March, a plus of 192,000; in April, a plus of 277,000; in May, a plus 
of 458,000; in October, a plus of 171,000. I could go on.
  The point is, it is not all gloom and doom. There are some things 
that are working. We need to keep working together. That is why Senator 
Snowe and I are on the floor.
  I see Senator Inouye coming. It is time to go to the CR. But we are 
working together the way our committee has had a tradition of working 
to try to take a bill here, a bill there, putting good programs in 
place, putting new ideas in, thinking outside of the box, because we 
all have to do the best we can to get this economy moving again.
  I wanted to say that for the record, to submit this data.
  I see the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and I believe at 
this time, Madam President, I will yield the floor and we can proceed 
to the next order of business.

                          ____________________