[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8885-8919]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REVITALIZATION ACT OF 2011

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

[[Page 8886]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  Pending:

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

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


                           Amendment No. 390

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


                       Commemorating Gaspee Days

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

[[Page 8887]]

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

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

  So what planet are we on? We have a Senator who sends out a press 
release lauding an agency he now wants to eliminate. So you would say, 
well, maybe that was 2005 and he has suddenly changed his mind. No. One 
year ago, Senator DeMint's staff held a workshop in Myrtle Beach to 
highlight competitive funding opportunities available to local 
communities and businesses through EDA and other Federal agencies.

[[Page 8888]]

  June 16, 2010. Here it is:

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

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

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

  This is the chamber of commerce arm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8889]]

 people back to work, and gets the economy growing, and then, with good 
fiscal restraint, will help us get on top of this huge deficit and our 
debt. It is vitally important for us now, and it is vitally important 
for future generations.
  This is an important step in the right direction. I am pleased to 
cosponsor this legislation with the Senator from Maine. I look forward 
to hearing her remarks.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. 
Hoeven, for his excellent remarks. As a former Governor for 10 years, 
he knows the impact of regulations on small businesses and how 
detrimental they can be to job creation, particularly at this time 
where we have a very difficult economy. We have persistent high 
unemployment and subpar economic growth. We are at a consequential 
moment in our economic history, frankly, that deserves the attention of 
the Senate. So, again, I thank the Senator for his comments in 
recognizing the effect regulatory reform will have on the performance 
of small business and, ultimately, job creation in this economy.
  I am very pleased to have many colleagues cosponsoring this 
amendment. I am pleased to have worked with Senator Coburn from 
Oklahoma, and this amendment is also cosponsored by Senators McConnell, 
Ayotte, Barrasso, Brown of Massachusetts, Coats, Enzi, Isakson, Kirk, 
Hoeven, Johnson, Moran, Thune, and Vitter. It is clear to me that many 
of the Senators understand the value and imperative of reforming our 
regulatory system. It is absolutely vital that the Federal Government 
consider the small business economic impact of the rules and 
regulations that agencies promulgate.
  The question might be asked, Why do we need regulatory reform? We had 
a bill on the floor last month, in early May, wherein I was denied a 
vote, which was regrettable because it is clear that many people don't 
understand how important this is and how central it is to small 
business job creation, how vital it is to the survival of small 
businesses and the cost of doing business across America. But I keep 
hearing from certain colleagues, ``Yes, we understand it is important; 
however'' or ``but'' or ``at some point.'' Let's define ``at some 
point.'' When?
  When I was denied a vote on regulatory reform, on May 4 in the 
Senate, I heard that we are going to have hearings on the issue. Well, 
that obviously has not occurred. So it becomes the politics of 
obfuscation, not the reality. As I heard from a small business owner 
yesterday, ``When I come into Washington, it is a walled city--walled 
off from reality, detached from the real world on Main Street.''
  I have been told that a concern with this amendment is that we have 
not had hearings. We had a hearing in the Small Business Committee on 
regulatory reform, but that is not enough for the Senator from 
California, who is saying we have not had hearings. She has offered 
plenty of amendments that haven't had hearings in the Senate. We had a 
major issue yesterday that was very important to small business--the 
interchange fee--which didn't have hearings. It didn't have hearings 
the first time it was offered to the Dodd-Frank legislation last year, 
and yesterday's amendment didn't have a hearing. So is there a new 
standard, in the Senate, when it comes to regulatory reform? Do you 
think there have been any overtures by anybody who opposes my 
legislation to work with us on this right away?
  What is happening on Main Street America is that we are not creating 
jobs. Why? Because of what is failing to happen in Washington, DC, in 
the Senate. There is a clear detachment from the real world. Small 
businesses keep asking me what is going on. I say I can't explain it, 
other than it is clear that people don't understand what is going on 
because if they did, we would be working on it.
  I heard the Senator from California say, ``at some point.'' But tell 
that to the person who is running a small business and trying to keep 
their neck above water and keep their business afloat during these very 
difficult times. What do these small business owners talk about? They 
talk about the regulations that are suffocating their ability to 
survive in a very tough economic climate.
  We are dithering. That is what this is all about. It is all a 
masquerade, a facade, just bringing up bogus arguments. I have been in 
the legislative process for the better part of four decades, and I know 
when there is a serious purpose about working together and solving a 
problem. It appears to me that there is no interest in solving this 
problem here in Washington. Everybody has their own agenda, but people 
are wondering why there is this unemployment rate of 9.1 percent.
  When I raised these concerns to the Secretary of the Treasury back in 
early February in the Finance Committee, when he was testifying--I 
described the concerns about what was happening on Main Street because 
I take Main Street tours, and I invite people to do that and to 
actually listen to what people are saying--he said: ``I think your view 
of the economy is dark and pessimistic.''
  I said: Well, maybe I wasn't hearing it right. Maybe I wasn't hearing 
it right on Main Street. So when I meet with small business owners, I 
mention the Secretary's comments to them, and they cannot believe it. 
They cannot comprehend that the Secretary of the Treasury doesn't 
understand what is going on on Main Street; that the administration 
doesn't, the Senate doesn't, and the Congress doesn't. If they did, we 
would be working here day and night.
  I was told I had to have a vote on this amendment right now. Why? 
Because it is Thursday, and certain members of this body are smelling 
the jet fumes while people are suffering on Main Street. Our fellow 
Americans are losing their jobs. Have my colleagues heard the stories 
about what people are facing? Time and time again I hear the same old 
refrains: ``We don't have time. We have to rush it. It hasn't had 
hearings. We will do it sometime.'' Well, tell that to the average 
American who is struggling to keep a job, to find a job or to keep the 
doors open to their business. That is what this amendment is all about. 
That is the reality.
  We can pretend it is something else, but the macroeconomic numbers 
are demonstrating time and again there is a desperation out there. Yet, 
we take 2-week recesses, then we come back and have morning business 
and chat along, but it does nothing to resolve the consequential issues 
facing this Nation. There was a time when the Senate used to work, 
where we could sit down and solve a problem. Now it is all a facade, a 
few talking points and we move on. In the meantime, people are 
suffering and they are handicapped by our inability to work together. 
Regulatory reform is central to that agenda, make no mistake about it.
  Let's look at what we are talking about and why we need regulatory 
reform. The analysts have lowered their forecast for the second quarter 
growth this year. The first quarter growth was already abysmal at 1.8 
percent of GDP. Manufacturing recovery has slowed. Housing remains in 
shambles. New claims for jobless benefits, as the Senator from North 
Dakota indicated, exceeds 400,000--again. Growth of consumer spending 
is sluggish.
  The President talks about job creation and stimulating the economy, 
but the results speak louder than words. Since the President took 
office, unemployment has dipped below 9 percent for only 5 months. Even 
that data is skewed because it doesn't account for the millions of 
workers who have exited the workforce altogether. Just last week, the 
unemployment rate for May increased to 9.1 percent. We are experiencing 
the longest unemployment period in American history since data 
collection started in 1948, surpassing even the 1982 double-dip 
recession for the length of unemployment.
  Despite the President's promise, and an $800 billion stimulus 
package, a $700 billion TARP program, up to $600 billion in 
quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve, and over $2 trillion in 
overall government spending, we are years away from where we need to be 
in terms of job or economic growth. Mr. President, 40 months after the 
start of the four deepest postwar recessions our economic output 
averaged 7.6

[[Page 8890]]

percent higher than pre-recession levels. Yet since December 2007, when 
the most recent recession commenced, our GDP has only increased 0.1 
percent. That is why we need regulatory reform. We need to bolster job 
creation, and the only place we can do that is through small 
businesses.
  The Senator from California says we need hearings on this amendment. 
Then we should change the rules of the Senate and require that every 
amendment offered on this floor has a hearing, and every bill. That 
must be a new standard, Mr. President. We have had hearings on this 
question in the Small Business Committee, and the focus is that we 
desperately need reform.
  In a small business regulatory reform hearing in November 2010 we 
heard a witness note if there was a 30 percent cut in regulatory costs, 
an average 10-person firm would save nearly $32,000--enough to hire one 
additional person.
  When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much 
worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. I know 
because I served in the House of Representatives at that moment in 
time. With unemployment soaring into double digits, at a peak of 10.8 
percent, huge chunks of industrial America shut down in the recession 
of 1981-1982 and never reopened. Yet once the recovery began in earnest 
in the first quarter of 1983, the economy boomed. It exceeded 7.1 
percent for five consecutive quarters and kept growing at a 4-percent 
pace for another 2 years.
  The contrast in results between the current recovery and the Reagan 
years is instructive because the government's response was so 
different. As a recent Wall Street Journal article reiterated, in the 
1980s the policy goals were to cut tax rates, reduce regulatory costs 
and uncertainty--which is what these regulations are producing day in 
and day out--let the private economy allocate capital free of political 
direction, and focus monetary policy on price stability rather than on 
reducing unemployment. That is the type of policy mix we need to 
rediscover if we are going to climb out of this economic downturn.
  Let's look at the first chart--small business job creators in my 
State and across America because they are the ones that create 70 
percent of all the net new jobs in America. That is why regulation 
reform becomes so essential and imperative. The total cost of 
regulation is at $1.7 trillion--that is with a ``t''--and small firms 
with fewer than 20 employees bear a disproportionate burden in terms of 
those costs. It is $10,585 per employee, which is 36 percent higher 
than the regulatory costs confronting larger firms.
  I know some people like to dispute numbers and say: Oh, no, that is 
not really a true number. Oh, really? Just add them up. There was a 
study that was done by Crain and Crain. They added the estimated cost 
of four categories or types of regulations--economic regulations at 
$1.2 trillion; environmental regulations at $281 billion; task 
compliance, $160 billion; and regulations involving occupational 
safety, health, and homeland security, $75 billion.
  Some studies omit independent agencies. Some even omit the Internal 
Revenue Service from the calculation cost of regulations. Well, ask a 
small business or any business in America about whether IRS regulations 
have a cost for them. Of course they do. We have to include all 
agencies of government that have an impact directly on small business 
or any business in America.
  Even a separate White House finding acknowledges that the estimated 
annual cost of major Federal regulations reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget this past decade cost between $44 billion and $62 
billion.
  The point is, the principal impediment to job creation in this 
country is a broken regulatory system. We have repeatedly talked about 
it. It is a top priority for the small business community across 
America. Every major organization that is a key voice for small 
business echoes this repeatedly: Federal regulations have placed a 
tremendous burden on them.
  I know many of my colleagues and I understand the critical nature of 
all of this. We have heard the message loud and clearly. Even the 
President, interestingly enough, issued an Executive order in January 
to begin the process of reviewing Federal regulations, citing the need 
for ``absurd and unnecessary paperwork requirements that waste time and 
money.'' So in 4 months the administration's preliminarily findings 
uncovered over $1 billion in savings in 30 agencies. They ran the 
gamut. They included even environmental regulations.
  So, obviously, there is some recognition and acknowledgment that 
regulations are a barrier and an impediment. The President is making 
eliminations at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and 
the Environmental Protection Agency. And yet, I don't think anybody 
would suggest he is trying to eradicate all environmental protections 
in America by identifying some that just aren't worthy of support 
because they are onerous. He would eliminate the requirement that 
States install a system to protect against fuel polluting the air at 
gas stations since modern vehicles already have these systems. That 
would save up to $67 million a year. But no one in this Chamber is 
going to accuse the President of saying, well, we are undermining all 
environmental regulations in the country.
  It is as if we can't be discerning and discriminating in evaluating 
what is worthy and what isn't, what is too costly and complex and what 
isn't, what makes sense and what doesn't in this current context of 
this economic environment. Can we spend time doing that, since I was 
denied the time on May 4 and an ability to vote on this amendment? 
Could we have worked that out? Absolutely not. So why can't we become 
involved in this effort?
  It seems we are turning a blind eye to it. There is no recognition 
because I don't think there is a full understanding or an appreciation 
of what is going awry in the economic landscape in every community 
across this country and why there is that despair, that anxiety.
  By the way, about 80 percent of the American people believe we are 
moving in the wrong direction when it comes to our economy. That should 
be a Paul Revere wake-up call. It should be a message on which we might 
want to realign our focus in the Senate.
  Maybe we should spend some time in the Senate working out the issues 
to solve the problems so we can create jobs for Americans who are 
unemployed, because we know that 9.1 percent doesn't capture all 
unemployed Americans. There are many who have dropped out of the 
workforce entirely. You could have, underemployed or unemployed, as 
many as up to 25 million Americans. That is staggering. That is 
breathtaking.
  Since the time I was denied a vote, we could have been moving ahead 
on this legislation, or in the interim from when I was denied that vote 
on May 4, working out a solution, working through these issues. And 
during that time, the chairman of President Obama's own Council on Jobs 
and Competitiveness, General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt, announced the 
top four priorities. This just happened on May 10. Understand, on May 4 
I was prevented from having a vote on regulatory reform. That is 
preposterous. We have not had hearings. Hearings sometimes are a path 
to nowhere; leading to nothing. But since then, have there been 
hearings called for? No, of course not.
  But 6 days later, who is speaking on regulatory reform? The 
President's own Council on Jobs and Competitiveness chairman, that is 
who, and he is noting a number of priorities. Guess what. One of them 
happens to be regulations to support a pro-growth environment and 
strengthen U.S. competitiveness. He listed improving and innovating 
education and bolstering exports to the world's fastest growing markets 
as three of those priorities. Then he called for ``collaboration 
between government and business with regard to regulation'' as a top 
priority, noting that ``Decades of overlapping, uncoordinated 
regulations create unnecessary hurdles and increased burdens for 
entrepreneurs and businesses, large and small, across the country.''
  Let me repeat, this is from the President's hand-selected chairman of 
a

[[Page 8891]]

council dedicated to create American jobs and boosting our 
competitiveness. He made this pronouncement less than a week after the 
Senate failed to consider my regulatory reform amendment to the SBIR 
Reauthorization legislation that we were considering for nearly two 
months, with a mere three days of votes over that time.
  You might think that if there were some reasonable concerns about my 
amendment, the other side would try to work with me since then. 
Nothing. Nothing. We might have had a recess or two. We had days 
without votes, days without debating key issues--actually not just 
days, weeks. Nothing. Nothing is connecting.
  What is connecting, though, unfortunately for small businesses and 
people who depend on them for jobs, is that there is a cause and effect 
and that is why you are seeing the deleterious effects of our inability 
to work on the issues that matter, that we have basically relegated all 
of this to the backseat, we have substituted other things without 
purpose. It is truly regrettable because of what it is doing to the 
average American and for those who are struggling. People, rightfully, 
know it. The American people understand what is happening here--or what 
is not happening here, I should say.
  The breadth of regulations is truly punitive on businesses in 
America. The Heritage Foundation reported last year that ``[t]he burden 
of regulation on Americans increased at an alarming rate in fiscal year 
2010,'' with a record 43 major new regulations costing $26.5 billion 
alone, ``far more than any other year for which records are 
available.''
  That is just in 1 year, $26.5 billion. That is on top of the $1.75 
trillion in already existing total regulatory costs. That is just 1 
year, $26.5 billion.
  It is clear the administration and the agencies have gone on a 
regulatory rampage. Again, it is that detachment from the real world. 
What does this mean? What are the real, practical implications for the 
person running a small business and trying to calculate the costs or 
anticipate future costs? Why are they going to hire a new employee and 
take on new costs? Why should they make investments? They don't dare. 
They can't take the risk. They say: We don't know.
  I meet with small businesses regularly and talk to them and they say 
it is the uncertainty with regulations that continues to limit their 
decisions. This demonstrates it.
  The Heritage Foundation reports that ``[r]egulatory costs will rise 
until policymakers appreciate the burdens that regulations are imposing 
on Americans and the economy, and exercise the political will necessary 
to limit--and reduce--those burdens.''
  That is exactly what our amendment will do. This is a clarion call 
for regulatory reform. There should be no political or philosophical 
boundaries. There should not be philosophical differences. You might 
have some arguments about what approach you take, but those things 
could be worked out. In fact, that is exactly what I did with the 
amendment I offered on which I was denied a vote back on May 4.
  From the other side there were some issues. We made five major 
modifications to my proposal because it is important to build 
bipartisan support. I have certainly reached across the aisle on so 
many occasions. I would have thought we could have had a corresponding 
response to work out these issues. That is what I do not understand. I 
cannot understand. There should not be any debate. If they talk to 
their small business community, they will get the same response.
  What can we do to make it better? That is the key. The key is making 
some changes. One, I called for a small business review panel to be 
required for every agency so they can review the regulations before 
they are promulgated, before they are implemented, so we find out 
beforehand what might be of concern to small business, what might have 
potential costs or risks, or will not work out, and know it beforehand. 
I hear from some: Oh, no, we will work it out later, afterward. You ask 
the small business person how you are going to work it out afterward, 
after they paid astronomical costs to comply with that regulation.
  Let's set up the small business review panels. This is not a new 
model. There are such panels for OSHA and EPA. And due to an amendment 
that I offered to the financial regulatory reform bill, one also now 
exists at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and it is part of 
that mechanism now. There was a model that we adopted from OSHA and 
EPA, from 1996, when we had a Democratic administration, and it worked 
exceptionally well. So I thought, Why not apply it to every agency?
  But we heard, absolutely not.
  So I said OK, what can we do to work it out? I talked to those on the 
other side of the aisle and we changed it and said for the 3 years that 
this bill will be authorized we will do it for nine agencies, three a 
year, to see how it works for the nine agencies who's rules have the 
most effect on small businesses. I did that. I made that change to 
address the concerns that were expressed on the other side of the 
aisle.
  Then we said we should start requiring the agencies to do what they 
are supposed to do by law. You think it is a little redundant to ask 
them to do what they are required to do already, which is to review the 
rules? They are supposed to review the rules every 10 years but, guess 
what, they do not. So I said: If they are not reviewing a rule every 10 
years, then that rule cannot be that important. So let's take it off 
the books. That is what I proposed. If an agency cannot be bothered to 
review the regulations as they are required to do under the law every 
10 years, if they are not doing it, then it must not be that important 
so let's take them off.
  There was some resistance on the other side so I made the change in 
response to the concerns. What I incorporated is that they would lose 1 
percent of their operating budget. That is fair. We have to give them 
incentives to do what they should be doing by law but we will now give 
them some greater impetus to comply with the law. It is amazing that we 
are in that position, but that is where it stands. So I made that 
change because I thought it was important.
  We have tasked inspector generals with assuring that these reviews 
are taking place and they can do so in consultation with the chief 
advocacy counsel at the Small Business Administration. It is not 
unusual for an IG to determine that the agency they are overseeing 
complies with existing laws. After all, isn't that what they precisely 
do? Would anybody argue that outdated and ineffective regulations hurt 
the environment or harm small businesses? The administration's own 
preliminary review of regulations at 30 agencies in 4 months identified 
$1 billion worth of savings. Why would we not want to start having 
those reviews become the norm rather than the exception? I do not 
understand it. Are we that busy here that we cannot do it? Maybe we 
could forfeit a few recesses and do some work for America to connect 
what is going on in Main Street--getting back to Main Street because 
that is where the jobs are created.
  Maybe we could spend more time here doing that instead of deferring 
to sometime down the road.
  I made some other key changes in hopes that we could build that 
bridge in response to the concerns that were given by the other side. I 
made five major modifications because I thought it is important to 
build bipartisan support. Again I was denied that opportunity.
  Now we are being told that the main concern is that it has not had a 
hearing. Does that mean that we ought to change the rules of the 
Senate, as I said earlier, to require a hearing for every amendment? 
Perhaps that would slow the train down even more here. Maybe we could 
get back to achieving some results.
  Another provision I have in my Regulatory Reform Act that I have 
introduced with Senator Coburn and so many others here, is a basic 
commonsense approach: incorporating the indirect economic effects of 
regulations on small businesses so we make sure they anticipate the 
foreseeable indirect economic effects in addition to the direct 
effects, because we know there are a multiplicity of effects that 
resonate

[[Page 8892]]

and reverberate with other industries. That needs to be calculated and 
incorporated and factored into the equation in terms of cost. And let's 
be clear. This is not a radical or partisan proposition. In fact, the 
language was taken directly, word for word, from the President's Chief 
small business regulatory watchdog, the head of the SBA Office of 
Advocacy.
  I also recommend that we expand the judicial review requirement so we 
make sure that when an agency proposes a rule, it has complied with its 
existing legal requirements to consider the economic impact of the rule 
on small businesses, that it has contemplated less costly alternative 
ways to make the rule less burdensome.
  That is important because they ought to listen to diverse options, in 
terms of the rule they are proposing, to make sure that they have 
incorporated the views of small businesses in understanding the 
implications, being more exact and precise in the process--not waiting 
until months and years down the road, after you go through a very 
extensive, complicated rulemaking process, to try to make your case. 
Small businesses do not have the resources to do that to begin with, 
let alone the time or employees to do it. That is not a good use of 
their capital, by the way, to be spending their time arguing with a 
government agency time and again.
  For 30 years, small businesses have had the ability to seek judicial 
review of an agency's small business impact statement after the rule 
has been made. In this entire time period, for over 30 years, even with 
the ability to obtain judicial review, we know of only two rules that 
were remanded by the courts. One was a mining regulation that did not 
account for the number of small businesses that had gone bankrupt under 
bonding requirements. The other was fishing restrictions issued without 
realizing the impact on fishermen. This means that waiting until the 
rule is final is simply too late; the damage is done.
  To correct this injustice, our amendment would provide small 
businesses the ability to bring legal action earlier in the process so 
we can avert mistakes at the outset so we do not force small businesses 
to go through this onerous, complicated, costly process, and then find 
out we made a mistake, the agencies made a mistake, and they say: You 
know what. You are going to have to fight it and go through another 
rulemaking process which takes months if not years. It is not going to 
happen. That is why we are not stimulating economic growth; we have 
thousands of regulations.
  As a result, we have provided small businesses the ability to bring 
legal action, to seek judicial review prior to the rule becoming 
finalized, whether an agency failed to comply with its existing small 
business review requirement. This is a commonsense approach, to ensure 
agencies abide by the law prior to a rule being made final. It is not a 
partisan measure. It is just practical sense. If somebody has not run a 
small business, they probably do not understand it, do not appreciate 
what it takes to start or run a small business, the ingenuity and the 
cost involved.
  If you take a small operation with 5 employees, 10 employees, 20 
employees, they are the majority of small businesses in America. And 
small businesses account for up to 70 percent of the net new jobs in 
America. Remember, in the last 2\1/2\ years other than 4 months, we 
have had 9 percent or higher unemployment rates. I mean, that is a dire 
commentary of where we stand today after we have spent $2 trillion, and 
the deficit is growing, the debt is growing. We are facing the 
potential of a debt crisis if we do not deal with this massive 
accumulation of debt. That is why job growth becomes such an 
imperative. This is why regulatory reform is urgent and why we must do 
something about it.
  We could work across the aisle instead of making broad accusations 
that this is going to decimate the environment, and workplace safety, 
that this is going to decimate health care. If that is the case, the 
President must be doing the same thing because he has just proposed 
revoking more than $1 billion worth of regulations from agencies in 4 
months. We cannot even have a hearing in 4 months on the issue if 
hearings are so important to the outcome. I would be more than happy to 
have hearings to get it done, but we cannot even get hearings, cannot 
work it out. It is just talk, talk, talk.
  Many of my proposals have bipartisan support. In fact, interestingly 
enough, this proposal regarding judicial review was a provision that 
actually the Small Business Committee chair, the Senator from 
Louisiana, proposed and Senator Cardin from Maryland, in a nearly 
identical fashion as section 605 of the Small Business Investment and 
Innovation Act of 2010 in the 111th Congress. They obviously agreed 
with the approach. There is nothing partisan about this. We ought to be 
able to work this out. There is nothing complicated about it. There is 
nothing complicated about addressing a fundamental issue facing small 
business.
  I just want to set things straight so it is clear and we are not 
misunderstood. Some are making generalized mischaracterizations. People 
have not read the amendment, or taken the time and effort to understand 
it. Reason it out, and if you disagree, come up with something so we 
can move with urgency, with dispatch because we are losing jobs in 
America. We are losing businesses. This would help enormously.
  That is why the legislation I have introduced, and the Senator from 
Oklahoma and others, has broad support from major small business 
organizations across America. They understand. They are hearing from 
their membership. And speaking of this, Mr. President, I ask unanimous 
consent to have printed in the Record two letters of support, one from 
32 major business organizations and another from the Chamber of 
Commerce.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     June 8, 2011.
     Hon. Olympia Snowe,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Tom Coburn,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Snowe and Coburn: As representatives of small 
     businesses, we are pleased to support Freedom from 
     Restrictive Excessive Executive Demands and Onerous Mandates 
     (FREEDOM) Act of 2011. This legislation puts into place 
     strong protections for small business to help ensure that the 
     federal government fully considers the impact of proposed 
     regulation on small businesses.
       In an economy with high unemployment, and where almost \2/
     3\ of all net new jobs come from the small business sector, 
     we appreciate that your legislation would require regulators 
     to further analyze the impact of certain proposals on job 
     creation. The annual cost of federal regulation per employee 
     is significantly higher for smaller firms than larger firms. 
     Federal regulations--not to mention state and local 
     regulations--add up and increase the cost of labor. If the 
     cost of labor continues to increase, then job creation will 
     be stifled because small businesses will not be able to 
     afford to hire new employees.
       The Small Business Regulatory Freedom Act expands the scope 
     of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) by forcing government 
     regulators to include the indirect impact of their 
     regulations in their assessments of a regulation's impact on 
     small businesses. The bill also provides small business with 
     expanded judicial review protections, which would help to 
     ensure that small businesses have their views heard during 
     the proposed rule stage of federal rulemaking.
       The FREEDOM Act strengthens several other aspects of the 
     RFA--such as clarifying the standard for periodic review of 
     rules by federal agencies; requiring federal agencies to 
     conduct small business economic analyses before publishing 
     informal guidance documents; and requiring federal agencies 
     to review existing penalty structures for their impact on 
     small businesses within a set timeframe after enactment of 
     new legislation. These important protections are needed to 
     prevent duplicative and outdated regulatory burdens as well 
     as to address penalty structures that may be too high for the 
     small business sector.
       The legislation also expands over time the small business 
     advocacy review panel process. Currently, the panels only 
     apply to the Environmental Protection Agency, the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the 
     Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. These panels have 
     proven to be an extremely effective mechanism in helping 
     agencies to understand how their rules will affect small 
     businesses, and help agencies identify less costly 
     alternatives to regulations before proposing new rules.

[[Page 8893]]

       We applaud your efforts to ensure the federal government 
     recognizes the important contributions of job creation by 
     small business, and look forward to working with you on this 
     important legislation.
           Sincerely,
         Air Conditioning Contractors of America; American Bakers 
           Association; American Chemistry Council; American Farm 
           Bureau Federation; American Trucking Associations; 
           Associated Builders and Contractors; Food Marketing 
           Institute; Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association; 
           Hispanic Leadership Fund; Independent Electrical 
           Contractors; Institute for Liberty; International 
           Franchise Association; National Association for the 
           Self-Employed; National Association of Home Builders; 
           National Association of REALTORS; National Association 
           of the Remodeling Industry (NARI); National Automobile 
           Dealers Association (NADA); National Black Chamber of 
           Commerce; National Federation of Independent Business; 
           National Funeral Directors Association.
         National Lumber and Building Material Dealers 
           Association; National Restaurant Association; National 
           Retail Federation; National Roofing Contractors 
           Association; Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors--
           National Association; Printing Industries of America; 
           Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council; Snack Food 
           Association; Society of American Florists; Society of 
           Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates; U.S. Chamber of 
           Commerce; Window and Door Manufacturers Association.
                                  ____

                                        Chamber of Commerce of the


                                     United States of America,

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

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

[[Page 8894]]

way somehow, somewhere. This is a great place to start to make a 
difference.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I appreciate the passion with which my 
colleague spoke, and I could not disagree more with her when she says 
we are masquerading as if we are doing something.
  Were we masquerading when we brought the small business jobs bill to 
the floor, and Senator Landrieu, who chairs the Small Business 
Committee, stood here day after day after day and only faced a 
filibuster from the Republicans? We could not get that bill done, and 
millions of jobs were in the balance. Were we filibustering? No, they 
were. Were we masquerading?
  Were we masquerading when we brought the FAA bill to the floor, in 
which my colleague, Senator Snowe, played a huge role? Thank God, we 
passed it. Were we masquerading? That bill is held up because the House 
Republicans have not chosen conferees, and we are waiting to have a 
21st-century aviation system in this great Nation where we are using 
radar that was used in the last century--practically the century 
before. Come on. We are trying to do our job.
  She talked about the last election. I will talk about the last 
election. I was on the ballot, so I can talk about it. It was about 
jobs. I told my people when I get back here: Jobs, jobs, jobs. I am 
proud to say we have on the floor right now a bill to reauthorize the 
Economic Development Administration, a program that has been around 
since 1965 and one which has a stellar record of attracting $7 of 
private capital for every $1 we spend. The cost of each job created is 
approximately $3,000 per job, and they are good jobs. The Chamber of 
Commerce arm is supporting this and the AFL-CIO.
  We are dealing with amendment after amendment after amendment, and it 
is fine. It is everybody's right, and I appreciate the fact that we 
will be voting on this amendment at 2:15. We even have an amendment to 
do away with the very agency we are trying to reauthorize by Senator 
DeMint, even though in 2005 he had a very big press release lauding the 
EDA and, as recently as last year, his staff attended a workshop where 
they were working with the EDA and praising the EDA for their work to 
reinvigorate jobs.
  I appreciate being lectured--and it is everybody's right to do it--
and I will do anything to defend my colleagues' right to say whatever 
they want. It is just not true. The masquerading here is being done by 
Republicans who filibuster almost every single thing we do.
  I hope we are going to get to the series of amendments. We are being 
very cooperative with our colleagues. We are going to take some of 
these--some of these amendments are for show. Fine. Everyone has that 
right. It is fine. But let's get it done, and let's get going with 
authorization of a bill that is going to create jobs. That is the whole 
idea of it. The last time we voted on it, we had a unanimous vote. 
Since 2004, we had a unanimous vote, and George Bush signed this into 
law.
  I just want folks to know I have another couple minutes of remarks, 
and then I will yield such time as he may require to Senator Brown of 
Ohio.
  Mr. THUNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. What are the rules of discussion or debate right now? When 
the Senator from California wraps up her remarks, would it not be 
appropriate to have someone from the other side speak at that time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no order for speakers. The Senators 
from Maine and California control the time, and they yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am happy to propound a unanimous consent 
request so that at the conclusion of my remarks Senator Brown will 
speak for, say, 10 minutes and then it would go to Senator Thune; is 
that all right?
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. I appreciate that, Mr. President. I don't know if there is 
any time agreement, but I think it is appropriate to go back and forth.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I have said I would offer a unanimous consent agreement. 
We are dividing the time between the two of us. It is my decision to 
yield to Senator Brown because Senator Snowe has spoken for a very long 
time and I want him to have some time and I am wrapping up my comments. 
I would be happy to propound a unanimous consent request that after 
Senator Brown's remarks for 10 minutes, we then turn to Senator Thune 
for 10 or 15 or 20 minutes or whatever it is he wishes.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, point of clarification. My understanding is 
the Senator from California cannot yield time to another Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am not yielding time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator can yield time but not the floor.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you. So is there objection to my unanimous consent 
request that Senator Thune be recognized immediately after Senator 
Brown for as long as he wishes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Reserving the right to object, the Senator from California 
has been addressing the Senate, so wouldn't it be appropriate for the 
Senator from South Dakota to speak?
  Mrs. BOXER. My unanimous consent request is that I have the right to 
call on Senator Brown. I can yield to Senator Brown is my 
understanding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator can yield time but not control of 
the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. I wish to yield time to Senator Brown.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It does not give Senator Brown the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. So then I will yield to him for some questions. I can do 
that under the rules; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. All right. So that is what we will do, unless my 
colleagues would rather do it the way I said before. If not, I will 
just yield for questions. Either way. It is up to my colleagues.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the request was that at the conclusion of 
the remarks of the Senator from California, the Senator from Ohio would 
have how many minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Then Senator Thune would be recognized for as much time 
as he wishes.
  Mr. THUNE. I don't have any objection to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Reserving the right to object, I wish to include the 
Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At the conclusion of Senator Thune?
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, 
could we have some indication of timeframe? It is all fine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Fifteen.
  Mrs. BOXER. All right. I think I have the time; is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let's make sure. Up to 10 minutes for Senator 
Brown of Ohio, then Senator Thune to follow, and then Senator Coburn 
will follow.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I have one more question. I still have the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I said at the conclusion of my remarks we would turn to 
Senator Brown. How many minutes remain on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 68 minutes for the majority and 47 
minutes for the minority.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much. I will wrap up in a couple minutes 
and come back later.
  I think it is very important to reiterate what I said before. I don't 
think

[[Page 8895]]

we are masquerading around here; I think we are trying to do our work. 
The bill before us was voted out of the committee. It had hearings. It 
had a vote. It was bipartisan, unlike the amendment offered by my 
friend who never had a hearing. Let's be clear. We are not 
masquerading; we are doing our work.
  I only hope this bill gets better treatment than the small business 
bill. My friend is speaking for small business. We all know small 
business is the engine of jobs, and that is why it was shocking to me 
that the Republicans filibustered the last small business bill that was 
on this floor. It is outrageous, when we say we want jobs.
  The reason I am going to vote to table the Snowe amendment or against 
the Snowe amendment--there are many, but one is process. We haven't had 
a hearing. It is very far-reaching. But I also wish to speak as 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. One of our 
biggest laws and regulations that stem from it has to do with the Clean 
Air Act. The way my friend has put forward her amendment, there would 
be no benefit put into a regulation because of its impact on the health 
of us and our families.
  The Clean Air Act has been attacked by those who want to say let's 
not have regulations for this segment of business and that segment. We 
just had a vote in California and 60 percent of the people--
Republicans, Democrats, Independents--more than 60 percent said we want 
to see our health protected.
  Here is what has happened. In 2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 
160,000 cases of premature deaths--premature deaths. Now we are going 
to come in with some regulation that has never had a hearing, never had 
a vote, that is not going to take into account the benefit of a health 
regulation such as that. By 2020, that number is projected to rise to 
230,000 cases of premature deaths.
  In 2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 1.7 million asthma attacks--1.7 
million fewer attacks. We want jobs. We want people healthy. They can't 
go to work if they can't breathe, because if you can't breathe, you 
can't work. So let's not get up here and pass something that hasn't had 
a hearing, hasn't had a vote, and suddenly say we are no longer going 
to take into account the benefits of some of the regulations we have.
  In 2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 130,000 acute heart attacks. In 
2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 3.2 million lost days at school.
  So my point is, yes, we want regulations to be sensible; yes, we want 
them to be flexible; yes, we should work together to make sure our 
businesses aren't facing undue delays and all the rest and I am very 
willing to do that. But what I am not willing to do is pass something 
that has far-reaching impacts. We don't even know what it would mean to 
the health and safety of our families, and it would absolutely ignore 
the benefits of regulations that protect our children's health, their 
safety, their well-being and our working families because a lot of 
these regulations are meant to protect them.
  I hope we will vote down the Snowe amendment. I appreciate the 
passion on all sides. I truly believe we are not masquerading. We have 
a bill with real impacts, a bill that I have shown has made a major 
difference in job creation, in business creation, and in bringing hope 
to our most ravaged communities. It is such a good program that even 
Senator DeMint, who says he doesn't like this program, certainly 
throughout his career has praised the progress it has made in his 
State.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I thank the Senator from 
California, and I thank the Senator from South Dakota also for his 
indulgence. I will be no more than 10 minutes.
  I listened to Senator Boxer. This EDA issue is important for job 
creation. I know when it comes to something such as this, there is a 
whole array of issues that EDA is involved with in job creation. Just 
one of them is what EDA does with incubators and accelerators.
  Last week, I was in Shaker Heights, OH, at a place called the 
LaunchHouse. It used to be an auto dealership, and there are now 40 
entrepreneurs working there. We know EDA investment, public dollar 
investment, in these incubators pays real dividends. The EDA estimates 
a $10,000 investment creates 50 or more jobs. We are seeing that in 
places such as Shaker Heights and Youngstown, one of the best 
incubators in the country. Athens, OH, is the home of the National 
Association of Incubators, and they know what that means.
  Before the Senator from Alaska was presiding, I was in the chair 
presiding and listening to some of this debate. I am a bit amazed by 
it. First of all, let's remember a little bit of history. I hear the 
talking points, apparently distributed to all 47 of the Republican 
Senators, all coming to the floor and blaming government regulation for 
every problem known to humankind. They are forgetting government 
regulation is seat belts, airbags, safe drinking water, prohibition on 
child labor, the Food and Drug Administration so our food is pure and 
our pharmaceuticals are safe. But they lump it all together and say get 
rid of all this government regulation. I think the history they need to 
think about is the last time they preached on the Senate floor about 
deregulation, they were successful in deregulating Wall Street, and 
look what happened to that.
  When I hear this sort of preachy: ``We have to get rid of government 
regulation,'' let's be a little more specific. There are some 
regulations, to be sure, that we should do away with. But when I hear 
them talk about trillions of dollars of regulation, a lot of that is 
what keeps our food pure, our drinking water safe, our workplaces safe, 
our quality of life better for the broad middle class. Let's not forget 
that.
  I wish to speak for the last 5 or 6 minutes about something my 
colleagues and I will be debating fairly soon; that is, the pending 
trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. It is a bit of 
deja vu--as Yogi Berra said, deja vu all over again. The promise of 
jobs is an echo we hear about every 3 or 4 years: Time to do a new 
free-trade agreement; time to promise lots and lots of new job 
creation; promise more exports for the United States. We heard it with 
NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, almost 20 years ago. We 
heard it with PNTR with China in the late 1990s. We heard it with the 
Central American Free Trade Agreement in the last decade--2003, 2004, 
2005, 2006--and now we are hearing it again with Colombia and South 
Korea and Panama.
  I recall both Republican and Democratic administrations saying 
200,000 new jobs created by NAFTA. I heard proponents of PNTR promise a 
more balanced trade relationship with China, and new, increased 
exports. We have seen increased exports to China but nothing like the 
number of--there were jobs created because of that, I acknowledge that, 
but nothing like the export of goods from China to the United States, 
which, in essence, is outsourcing jobs in the United States.
  There is a company in Bryan, OH, called the Ohio Art Company. They 
make something we are all familiar with, and that is the Etch A Sketch. 
We all played with it as kids. Walmart went to that company--the 
biggest retailer in the history of the world--and said: We want to sell 
your product for less than $10 at Walmart. Do my colleagues know what 
they did? They basically shut down production in the United States and 
moved to China so they could sell it for $10, costing hundreds of jobs 
in that northwest Ohio community.
  Before PNTR, before these promises about increased jobs, we had a $68 
billion trade deficit in goods with China. Last year, it was $273 
billion. About $600 million or $700 million every single day we bring 
in--we buy from China, then we sell to China. I hear this word 
``unsustainable'' in this body all the time about Medicare, whatever 
they are talking about. But this is what is unsustainable. We can't 
keep adding to that trade deficit and think we are going to have good 
jobs.
  In April alone, our trade deficit with China was $21 billion--in 1 
month, $21

[[Page 8896]]

billion. So when I hear, this year, the Korean Free Trade Agreement--
and the President of the United States is going to submit it to 
Congress fairly soon, I assume, depending on what happens with the 
trade adjustment assistance; and this President has made this agreement 
with Korea, significantly better than the last President's trade 
agreement with Korea but not all that good yet--the Congressional 
Budget Office estimates this agreement will cost--in addition to the 
jobs issue, but hold on to that for a second--about $7 billion over the 
next 10 years--$7 billion.
  My conservative friends on the other side of the aisle are going to 
say: How are we going to pay for $7 billion? They want to offset cuts, 
they want to offset any other kind of spending, but they do not seem to 
want to offset spending on this trade agreement. So this trade 
agreement is costing us $7 billion. So free trade simply is not free.
  The administration says this agreement is expected to support--not 
create--70,000 jobs. Do the math. It is about $100,000 for every job 
supported. But do another piece of math, if I could ask the indulgence 
of the Presiding Officer. George Bush the first said for every $1 
billion trade deficit or surplus, that translates--these are his 
numbers--into about 13,000 jobs. So when I mentioned that trade deficit 
with China a minute ago--$21 billion in just April alone--for every $1 
billion, 13,000 jobs are either gained or lost. If it is a trade 
deficit of $21 billion, that means 13,000 jobs for every $1 billion of 
loss. So you can see, without belaboring this point or putting too fine 
a point on it, there is significant job loss from these trade 
agreements.
  The Obama administration sought to address the Bush administration's 
neglect of American automakers, which the free-trade agreement the Bush 
administration negotiated with Korea did. But I fear we have not gone 
far enough. Korea is the most closed automotive market in the world to 
America and other foreign autos. No manufacturer can export vehicles in 
significant volumes into Korea--not Toyota, not Volkswagen, not Ford, 
not Fiat. U.S. vehicle exports to Korea in 2010 were 7,500 units. In a 
country approaching perhaps 90 million people in Korea--80, 90, 95 
million people--we sell them 7,500 cars? Imports currently make up 
about 6 percent of the Korean auto market. Six percent of the cars 
driven around in South Korea are made somewhere other than South Korea. 
That is not quite fair trade.
  This bill, this Korean Free Trade Agreement, does not get us there. 
The Obama administration approved it, but nothing like it needs to be. 
So I just caution my colleagues, the Korea Free Trade Agreement is a 
permanent agreement. If we pass this agreement in a couple months, what 
we pass in establishing that formalized trade agreement with that major 
industrial country in East Asia is a permanent relationship.
  It does not sunset like a so-called authorization. It does not sunset 
the way many of my colleagues have recently let the trade adjustment 
assistance lapse for service workers and for workers who lose their 
jobs to countries we do not have a free-trade agreement with. Some of 
my colleagues insist trade adjustment assistance needs to be 
reauthorized in the short-term, little baby steps, year-by-year 
intervals, while they press for more permanent trade agreements.
  Here is the deal. Madam President, I know you in North Carolina have 
shown real leadership on these trade relationships. Here is the deal 
conservative politicians in the Senate and in the House of 
Representatives want. They want us to pass permanent trade agreements, 
but then they may want to take care of workers for just 1 year at a 
time, 6 months at time--6 weeks at a time the last time they 
reauthorized this.
  This does not make sense. The trade agreement with Korea is a 
significant problem for job growth in our country and for protecting 
jobs in our country. There is nothing wrong with the word 
``protecting'' jobs in our country. But at the same time, before we 
even consider that, we need to make sure we pass the trade adjustment 
assistance. We should have learned our lessons from NAFTA, from NPTR 
with China, from CAFTA, and from these other trade agreements that the 
promises coming from an administration on job creation, when it comes 
to trade agreements, are mostly empty promises.
  I yield the floor.
  I thank Senator Thune from South Dakota for his indulgence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment that 
has been proposed by my colleagues from Maine and Oklahoma, Senators 
Snowe and Coburn, the Freedom from Restrictive Excessive Executive 
Demands and Onerous Mandates Act of 2011. This is a very commonsensical 
piece of legislation. It is something that certainly responds to a 
concern I hear from small businesses all across this country about the 
need for relief from burdensome, one-size-fits-all Federal regulations.
  We hear a lot of discussion--in the Senate and around this town and 
around the country, for that matter, because that is where it truly 
matters--about creating jobs. Yet for all the rhetoric about job 
creation, it seems there is very little that is actually being done 
with regard to the substance of putting the right kind of policies in 
place that will make it cheaper and easier for small businesses to 
create jobs. It seems as if everything we do makes it harder, more 
difficult, and more expensive for our small businesses to create jobs.
  As the Senator from Maine very correctly pointed out, 70 percent of 
the jobs in our economy are created by small businesses. I think there 
are a whole range of issues that impact small businesses in this 
country and their ability to create jobs.
  My colleague from Ohio just talked about trade. I happen to have a 
view on trade that you ought to have trade agreements that are fair, 
that are enforceable, obviously, but that we are a country that 
benefits enormously from the opportunity to export the products we grow 
and make to other countries around the world.
  To just give you an example of one particular country, one of the 
bilateral trade agreements that is under consideration--or at least I 
wish was under consideration; it has been negotiated and has not been 
submitted by the White House yet to the Congress for consideration--is 
the one with Colombia. I mentioned this earlier today in some remarks 
on the floor, if you look at it and its impact on agriculture in this 
country: In 2008, in the commodities of corn, wheat, and soybeans, our 
country had 81 percent of the Colombian market when it comes to those 
three agricultural commodities. In 2010, that was down to 27 percent. 
Why? Because a lot of other countries that had negotiated free-trade 
agreements with Colombia have stepped in to fill the void because we do 
not have that kind of agreement.
  This has very direct and profound impacts on the American economy. 
Because when you lose that kind of market share--81 percent in 2008, 
down to 27 percent in 2010--that is a significant number of jobs that 
are impacted in industries in this country. The same would be true with 
Panama and South Korea, all of which would be trade agreements that are 
teed up that have been sitting and languishing for 3 or 4 years now 
without action in the Senate. It is absolutely insane for us not to be 
moving trade agreements that could benefit our economy and create jobs 
at a time when job creation--certainly, at least rhetorically around 
here--is stated to be the No. 1 priority we deal with.
  When it comes to jobs and the economy--and I think there are a number 
of things, as I said, that impact that, trade being one--there are a 
number of policies coming out of Washington that impact small 
businesses and their ability to create jobs. Clearly, tax policy is 
one. Tax policy is something I think needs to be reviewed. We need tax 
reform. It is long overdue. It is making us noncompetitive with other 
countries around the world because our tax laws are outdated relative 
to other countries, our takes rates are higher relative to every other 
industrialized

[[Page 8897]]

country in the world, with the exception, perhaps, of Japan. That is 
something we need to be looking at. If we are serious about being 
competitive and about growing our economy and in the global marketplace 
creating the kind of jobs we need here at home, we have to have trade 
policies, tax policies that are conducive to economic growth and job 
creation.
  The other area, however, on which we can be impacted by what happens 
in Washington is regulation. That is what this particular amendment is 
all about. It is about making regulation coming out of Washington, DC, 
reasonable, making it based upon common sense, making it based upon 
science, making it where any objective bystander or person out there--
an observer who looks at these regulations--would say: They are trying 
very hard not to make it more difficult for small businesses to create 
jobs in this country.
  But I think what happens too often is the exact opposite. It looks 
like what is coming out of Washington are heavyhanded, burdensome 
requirements, mandates, and regulations which drive up the cost of 
doing business in this country. Frankly, I do not disagree with what 
some of my colleagues on the other side have said about regulations 
that are important to public health and safety. What I am talking about 
are excessive, overreaching regulations, which in some cases go beyond 
the congressional intent, the statutory purpose that Congress, when 
they enacted the laws, wanted to see take place. So you have regulatory 
agencies that go way beyond the congressional intent and the statutory 
purpose with regard to many of these policies that are being put in 
place.
  I have to say that when I travel in my State of South Dakota--and, 
for that matter, outside the State of South Dakota--and I talk to small 
businesses, I talk to agricultural producers, the overriding theme, the 
consistent theme I hear over and over and over again is: You have to 
get these out-of-control regulatory agencies under control. They keep 
spinning and kicking out more and more regulations that are making it 
more difficult for us to grow our businesses and to create jobs.
  Maybe that is a function of the fact that we have a government that 
has gotten too big and out of control. If you look at government today 
relative to historical standards, we are looking at government, as a 
percentage of our entire economy today, of being somewhere in the 24- 
to 25-percent range. I mentioned earlier this morning in some remarks 
on the floor that back in the year 1800, the government was actually 2 
percent of our entire economy. For our entire economic output at that 
time, 2 percent represented what we spent on the Federal Government. 
Today we are spending one-quarter--one-quarter--of every dollar of our 
entire economic output in just the Federal Government. That does not 
include State and local governments. When you add those in, you get up 
over 40 percent. The trajectory we are on today will take us up to 40 
percent of spending on the Federal Government to GDP in the not-too-
distant future. If you look at 2035, 2040, that is where we are headed 
if we stay on our current path.
  So it necessarily follows, I suppose, that when government keeps 
getting bigger and more expansive, more government regulations, more 
government redtape, more bureaucracy is a natural outgrowth of a 
growing government. What I think makes the most sense is for us to be 
creating jobs in the private economy. What we have seen here in just 
the last few years is that the government economy is growing relative 
to the total economy. The private economy, thereby, is shrinking. We 
have seen, over the last 40 years, the average of the Federal 
Government, as a percentage of our entire economy, being 20.6 percent. 
So 20.6 percent of our entire economy spending has been by the Federal 
Government. As I said, now it is 24 to 25 percent.
  So we are on a path where we are rapidly ramping up, we are rapidly 
growing the size of government relative to our entire economy. That is 
not where we want to go if we are serious about creating good-paying, 
permanent jobs for people in this country. Those jobs originate and 
come from the private sector. They come from small businesses. That is 
where we want to create the jobs.
  So I would say the amendment that is being proposed by the Senator 
from Maine and the Senator from Oklahoma is a very reasonable one 
because all it is simply saying is, before these new regulations go 
into place, the small businesses ought to have access to some review 
and perhaps even, if necessary, to the court system, to make sure those 
regulations are consistent with the legislative intent and not overly 
burdensome and putting an unnecessary and excessive burden on our small 
businesses.
  I think it is common sense. If we are serious about job creation, if 
we are serious about economic growth, getting the economy back on 
track, this is the very type of legislation we ought to be supporting. 
Too often around here we end up off on these tangents, working on 
things that do not have an impact on job creation. I will say that one 
of the things we should be working on--and that we are not--it has now 
been 771 days since Congress passed a budget. Think about that: $3.8 
trillion, $3.7 trillion, $3.8 trillion in annual spending, and it has 
been 771 days now since Congress passed a budget.
  It strikes me, at least, that if we are serious about getting our 
fiscal house in order and sending signals to the economy and to the 
market that we want to create jobs, the first thing we could do is get 
the fiscal house in Washington, DC, in order. Yet we have had 771 days 
now without a budget.
  If you are really serious about getting the economy back on track, 
you have to also restrain spending. You have to grow the economy, you 
have to restrain Federal spending, because when you have a government 
that is growing at the rate ours is, it does crowd out private 
investment. It makes it more difficult for small businesses to get 
access to capital and create jobs because they are competing with the 
government.
  Back to the issue at hand here--that is regulations--I think that 
whether it is a farmer or rancher in South Dakota--by the way, I spoke 
yesterday with someone who is in town representing a livestock 
organization in my State--the No. 1 issue is overreaching government 
regulation driving up the cost of doing business.
  You look at some of the proposals and suggestions that are out there, 
and sometimes they fall into the category of ``you can't make this kind 
of stuff up.''
  There was a proposal under consideration here recently at the EPA--
which they have not, to be fair, promulgated regulations on yet or 
proposed regulations on yet--that would regulate fugitive dust. I mean, 
imagine and think about what that means in an agricultural. What it 
essentially means is you could not have dust from your property drift 
over onto someone else's property.
  Some of this stuff borders on insanity. I think that is the point 
that is being made by the amendment of the Senator from Maine. Let's 
use some common sense. Let's use some reason. If we are going to have 
these regulations, let's at least put them forward in a way that does 
not disproportionately adversely affect small businesses and make it 
more difficult for them to create jobs.
  Here is another example. Just last month, the DOT started seeking 
comment on the need for commercial driver's licenses for individuals 
who are driving off-road farm equipment such as tractors. Well, where I 
come from, that is a pretty important part of our economy. You have a 
lot of young people working in farm operations, a lot of people, 
period, who are out there who grow up learning or knowing how to drive 
tractors, how to handle farm equipment, and this particular requirement 
would force them to get a commercial driver's license.
  I mean, some of this stuff, as I said, falls into the category of 
``you can't make these kinds of things up.''
  The EPA recently threatened ranchers in the Flint Hills region of 
Kansas to stop or limit the controlled burn of their prairie pastures, 
which is a practice that allows for the new growth of

[[Page 8898]]

grass to feed cattle, or to be faced with EPA-mandated regulations.
  The list goes on and on.
  It strikes me again that when you have as many of these studies that 
are out there, and a lot of data supports these arguments, we ought to 
be responding in a way that recognizes that science, data, and input 
from people who are impacted by these regulations ought to have more of 
an influence on the regulations that are imposed by these agencies. 
What this does is it simply puts in place a way in which small 
businesses can get access to that kind of a review.
  I hope my colleagues in the Senate will support the Snowe-Coburn 
amendment and move us in a direction where we are dealing fundamentally 
with the issues that are important to our economy right now because, 
for all of the rhetoric, as I said earlier, about wanting to grow the 
economy and create jobs, it seems as though every policy coming out of 
Washington, DC, is contrary to that objective, whether that is tax 
policy, trade policy, energy policy, but perhaps more important now 
than ever, regulatory action coming out of the executive branch of the 
government and running amok by creating all kinds of roadblocks and 
hurdles and impediments to job creation in this country.
  Again, when you are at 9.1 percent unemployment, when you have as 
many people out of work as we have and who have been out of work for as 
long as they have, you would think that, first and foremost, we would 
be looking at policies that make it easier and less expensive to create 
jobs in this country. And what is happening is we are making it more 
difficult and more expensive to create jobs by these excessive, 
overreaching, runaway regulations that are coming out of Federal 
agencies every single day.
  It is hands down the thing I hear more than anything else from people 
in my State of South Dakota. As I said, whether that is the Farm Bureau 
or a livestock group or a small business organization, right now 
government regulation is the thing they state most often as the biggest 
impediment to them going out there and creating jobs.
  So this is a very commonsense amendment. It is something our small 
businesses are all supporting. We saw the list of small business 
organizations the Senator from Maine put up earlier. This is something 
this Senate ought to act on and act on today. I hope we will get a 
strong affirmative vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Would the Senator yield for a question? Is the Senator 
aware that there are at least four other bills--Senator Vitter, Senator 
Roberts, Senator Collins, and Senator Portman--and, in addition, that 
Senator Lieberman is developing a comprehensive bill on reg reform? Is 
the Senator aware of those other bills?
  Mr. THUNE. Well, I would say through the Chair that there may be many 
efforts, as there typically are here in the Senate, to address some of 
the issues, and a lot of our Members have different ideas about how 
best to do that. I happen to believe the proposal put forward by the 
Senator from Maine is, as I said, a very reasonable, commonsense 
approach to this.
  The Regulatory Flexibility Act is something that is in need of some 
revisions, particularly in light of the fact that we have so many 
regulations coming out of these agencies that are so costly, so 
difficult, and so burdensome for small businesses in this country. I 
think we ought to be, at every opportunity, looking for ways to lessen 
the cost and the difficulty for our small businesses to create jobs.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Through the Chair, I understand Senator Coburn, under 
the UC, has the next 15 minutes. But, through the Chair, I would end my 
question by saying that I think the Senator is right. There are some 
regulations that are coming fairly fast and furiously. But I think the 
Senator would also understand that the normal process is reviewing the 
bills at the committee level, comparing and contrasting, and then 
bringing the best approach to the floor. And that is what some of us 
are objecting to. It is not the goal of reducing regulations; it is the 
process.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have listened to this debate all 
morning, as an original cosponsor with Senator Snowe on her bill. I 
wish to talk about the EDA first, and then I will talk about what most 
of us do not realize because most of us have not taken the time to 
look.
  There are 80 economic development programs in the Federal Government 
through 4 agencies that spend $6.6 billion a year. Not one of them has 
a metric on it to see if it is successful.
  We have heard all morning about $3,000 per job. That is all self-
reported stuff. No oversight on it. No committee oversight on it. No 
hard work to see--there is not a metric on one of these programs to see 
if it is working. Now we have a bill on the floor to spend another $500 
million a year on something we have no idea what--we have anecdotal 
evidence, but what does the OIG say? The OIG says, first of all, this 
program has been used as a congressional slush fund to direct money to 
friends of Members of Congress. That is what they say. Fully one-third 
of the projects never come to completion. So the money that was spent 
on it ends up being totally wasted. We are reauthorizing a bill that 
nobody can show the statistics that it is, in fact, effective. It is 
not just that we are reauthorizing this bill, we have 79 other 
programs.
  Ask yourself a question. We are $14 trillion in debt. We are nearly 
bankrupt. We are running a $1.5 trillion deficit. And we have a bill on 
the floor to spend $500 million, and we do not know whether it works. 
We claim, anecdotally, we see positive things every now and then. Well, 
you know, there are positive outcomes to illness too. But the fact is, 
we do not know what we are doing.
  What the Congress ought to be doing is saying: If, in fact, it is a 
role for the Federal Government to have economic development 
activities, then we ought to center it in 1 area, and we ought to have 
1 or 2 programs, not 80 with 80 sets of administrators, 80 sets of 
commissions, and $6.6 billion a year, with half of it not accomplishing 
any purpose for the American people other than make the Senators and 
Congressmen feel good because they think they may have done something.
  So the whole idea that we would put forward a bill that has never 
truly been oversighted in terms of the way everybody else would 
oversight the way they spend their money to see if it is effective in 
the whole, not anecdotal evidence of one company or one benefit--put it 
all together, and if we have a role, let's put together a program that 
will work, No. 1; No. 2, that has metrics on it so we can measures 
whether it is effective when we are actually borrowing the money to do 
this. By the way, if we actually pass this bill and $500 million gets 
spent, we are going to borrow $200 million from the international 
financial community to do it. When we know one-third of it is wasted, 
that just does not make any sense.
  So the whole idea of Congress passing this EDA bill, in light of not 
doing oversight on the other 79 economic development programs under the 
other 4 agencies, is the definition of insanity. We don't know what we 
are doing.
  Now, let's talk about regulation for a minute. There is well over $2 
trillion in the United States sitting in small, medium, and large 
businesses right now that is not invested for jobs. Why is that? Why 
are people afraid to go out and invest and get a return on capital? It 
is because they do not see any clarity in the future. The 
administration we have today has issued 40 percent more regulations--40 
percent more regulations--than any administration in history in the 
first 2 years. One of the reasons people do not have confidence is they 
cannot handle the regulatory framework that is coming at them so fast.
  The other thing I have observed is that when regulations are written, 
they are oftentimes written without people with the real knowledge of 
what they are writing the regulations for.

[[Page 8899]]

Eighty percent of the regulations written in this country are written 
by lawyers within the agency in which they are doing it. Now, I like 
lawyers. That is good enough. But how about having someone who has real 
experience in the area in which they are writing the regulation rather 
than a lawyer write a regulation for it?
  A great example is that one of the good things about the new health 
care bill was going to be where we combine things into accountable care 
organizations, where we end up putting hospitals and doctors and 
physical therapists and mental health workers all together, and then we 
work as a team so we can cut the costs and not have duplication and get 
better outcomes. The regulations on that were 220 pages long, with 65 
things you have to do every day on every patient to report back to the 
Federal Government. Well, that is just idiotic. It is asinine. Yet that 
is the regulation that came out on what I view as one of the few 
positive things about the affordable care act.
  The Senator from Maine outlined the cost of business regulation to 
small businesses and large businesses. It is $1.7 trillion a year; that 
is, fully 12 percent of our GDP is the cost of regulations that are 
coming from the Federal Government.
  All this bill says is--it is a way to force the administration and 
the agency--it does not matter if it is a Republican or Democratic 
administration. They are both the same. It does not have anything to do 
with what party is in power in the administration, but to hold the 
agencies accountable, that they will look at the impact of the 
regulations they write so they are not counterproductive to our 
country.
  We are at a time period where we are at great risk as a nation--great 
risk--because we are so overly exposed on our debt and our deficit. For 
every 1 percent increase of interest rates that we are going to see 
next year, it is going to cost us, the taxpayers of America, $150 
billion additional. And there is no question we are going to see 
interest rates rise in this country. So we do not create the confidence 
of the small and medium businesses to go out and build that next 
production line or build a way to produce this next new idea, because 
what they are seeing is so much blowback from an unaccountable, 
misdirected Federal Government.
  So what Senator Snowe wants to do is totally connected with common 
sense. But you know what, we don't want to do that. We don't want to do 
that. And the excuse is that we have not been through committee. Well, 
let me tell you, one-third of the bills that come to the floor of the 
Senate have never been through the committee, and now we are saying an 
amendment has to come through the committee. It is ludicrous. It is 
also false. It is that we really don't trust the American people. That 
is what it really says, we really don't trust the American people to 
use common sense. The reason we don't is because we have no connection 
with common sense whatsoever in this body, and because we can't figure 
it out, we don't think they can. So Big Brother has to tell you every 
time, every location, at every situation what you can do.
  The thing that has changed in my adult lifetime is when I was a 
medical device manufacturer in the seventies, the presumption was on 
the government to prove that I was doing something wrong.
  With our regulatory framework now, the presumption is on you, the 
American citizen, to prove you didn't do something wrong. That is why 
this overregulation, this attendance to detail matters to nothing, 
except a gnat on the top of a pin. It is out there and is so costly, in 
terms of the cost of compliance, it makes no difference in terms of 
somebody's outcome. But, mainly, it is costing us jobs. It is costing 
us the very thing that built this country--the premise that you can put 
together an idea and build on that idea with hard work and minimal 
capital and make it a success.
  The thing that is blocking that is the regulation coming from the 
Federal Government. This is a straightforward bill. Let's hold the 
bureaucrats accountable. If they will not be held accountable, you will 
have a way to hold them accountable.
  I don't get it. I don't get why anybody would object to this because 
it is not stopping regulation; it is saying you have to figure out 
whether it is prudent. If you are not following the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, then we are going to make you do it because, we will 
give you a basis in a court of law to be able to do that.
  What is wrong with that? Nobody has addressed what is wrong with 
that. They have just said, no, we don't like it, we don't want it. So 
we are going to do everything we can to make sure an amendment, which 
will fix the problems in this country and start creating jobs, and will 
actually move money into investment to create new opportunities for 
jobs for Americans, when we have 17 million Americans who want to work 
but can't, we are going to defeat it. We are so disconnected with what 
is important in this country, and it is so frustrating. I am surprised 
I still have hair on my head.
  Senator Snowe knows more about small business in this Senate than any 
other Senator. She has worked on it for years. She knows the problem. 
She has offered a solution that is common sense, that will work, that 
won't cost a lot of money, but will rein in the bureaucracy when they 
do the wrong thing or they don't follow the law.
  For us to say, no, we are not going to do it because there may be a 
small amount of risk that something might go wrong, that is exactly the 
same way the bureaucracies work. Let me tell you how they work. They 
never do what is best for the country, they do what is safe for the 
bureaucracy. That is why we have so much regulation, because they don't 
want to be criticized. You can't walk through life without being 
criticized. Nobody is perfect. No action is perfect. So let's hold them 
accountable and help them be better. Let's be uplifters to them and put 
some tools there that will enable us to have a good regulatory 
framework that actually accomplishes the purpose of the regulations but 
doesn't destroy what small amount of manufacturing business we have 
left.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understand our side has about 50 
minutes left in this debate on the Snowe amendment and we will vote at 
2:15. I will speak for the next 15 or 20 minutes. There is nobody else 
on the floor on our side. I will continue to try to answer some of the 
issues raised in the last few minutes about this particular amendment.
  First of all, I have a great deal of respect for the Senator from 
Oklahoma, and nobody has worked harder on trying to bring more 
efficiency to the Federal Government. He has spent hours and hours and 
hours in meetings, official meetings, informal meetings, on budgets, 
efficiencies, and regulations. I have a great deal of respect for the 
Senator from Oklahoma personally. But I do take offense at some of 
the--not just the suggestions but accusations and specific attacks made 
on the floor against the government. Two or three were issued in the 
speech he just gave--statements like this: ``The bureaucracy never 
takes risks.''
  I wish to ask him, what bureaucracy did he think supported the 
elimination of Osama bin Laden? Does the Senator from Oklahoma believe 
there were no risks taken by this bureaucracy that he so routinely 
wants to degrade--to no good end? I would ask him, if he were still on 
the floor, were no risks taken by anyone when they launched the strike 
against Osama bin Laden that eventually killed him?
  Would the Senator from Oklahoma suggest we have no regulations on 
Wall Street; that we should trust the big international bankers of the 
world to do what is right every day for the people of Oklahoma? I know 
the people on Wall Street wake up every morning and think to themselves 
while they are eating breakfast: What can I do today to help the people 
in Oklahoma or in Louisiana?
  Of course, that is absurd. There is a place for appropriate 
regulation, and bureaucracies aren't always bad. When George Washington 
led the creation of

[[Page 8900]]

this country, he most certainly had in his mind a government that 
worked for the people, by the people.
  Let's fix the government. Let's not tear it down by statements that 
have no basis in fact, that do not uplift people, do not encourage 
people. They numb people. They make people angry. They make people 
think there is no hope, when there is. There are thousands of people 
who put on a uniform every day and go to work for this country. They 
are mothers, fathers, grandparents, aunts, and uncles. They work hard 
and they do not deserve the disparaging remarks that come too often 
from the other side of the aisle.
  If you don't like government--you have made it plain--then fix it. 
One of the ways to fix it is to take a bill--and this is not an 
amendment that Senator Snowe has, it is a bill. I have seen it. She 
asked me to cosponsor it, and I have declined. It is a bill--a major 
bill--that has jurisdiction that will find its jurisdiction not in one 
committee--the Small Business Committee--but in five committees that 
have jurisdiction over the aspects of Senator Snowe's bill. One of the 
reasons we should not vote favorably is not because we are not for 
regulatory reform but because this bill has ramifications that go far 
beyond the Small Business Committee, which I chair, and five or six 
other committees need to look at the provisions in her bill. That is 
one reason we have asked to go through the committee process.
  No. 2, there are, at least to my knowledge, four other bills that 
attempt to fix this overregulatory reach which, I agree with Senator 
Thune, with Senator Coburn, and I agree with Senator Snowe, needs to be 
tapped down and harnessed--not eliminated--and made less onerous for 
all business, not just small business. There are at least four other 
bills I know of that are attempting to do that. One is by Senator 
Vitter, one by Senator Roberts, one by Senator Collins, and one by 
Senator Portman. I have not had the opportunity to review in detail all 
of these other bills, but I am sure they have some very excellent 
points to them.
  The committee process allows a chairman such as Senator Lieberman, 
who is not here today, whose committee would have primary jurisdiction 
over this, to bring all five bills before his committee, hear the best 
aspects of each, potentially combine them into a bill, and bring them 
to the floor. Do you know what. Senator Lieberman, I know, has offered 
to do that in his committee. That bill could potentially come out of 
committee--potentially with Senator Snowe as lead author, with other 
cosponsors--a bill that both Democrats and Republicans can agree to, 
which could give relief to reg reform.
  This is not about finding a solution. This is about public relations, 
campaigns, and Republican rhetoric about the election. That is what I 
object to. If this were about regulatory reform and finding a solution, 
the five Senators who have bills, and other Senators--Senator 
McCaskill, for one, who is here today, is developing a bill, and 
Senator Carper, who has spent years on this subject and is quite the 
expert--they would all come before the Homeland Security Committee, on 
which I have the privilege of serving, and in a short amount of time--
just a few weeks--figure out something the majority could support.
  This is not about fixing the problem. This is about bumper stickers 
for elections, and I am very tired of it. I am not the only one. As 
chair of the Small Business Committee, I can promise you that our 
committee, with Senator Snowe as ranking member, has worked every day 
very hard through this recession to put forward bills on this floor 
that could help create jobs, bring relief. In fact, regarding one of 
the most burdensome regulations that the business community was 
screaming about, our committee was very aggressive in helping to 
eliminate that. That was section 1099, which would have required every 
business to report to the IRS any purchase they made for goods over 
$600. It would have brought many businesses to their knees, buried in 
paperwork.
  Did our committee sit around and twiddle its thumb? No. We worked 
hard. We had, I think, the only hearing in Congress on 1099, and we 
repealed it. It took us a while to find the right offset. The minute 
the business groups brought it to our attention, we said we made a 
mistake and it will take us a while to find the $20 billion to offset 
it, but we will look at it before it goes into effect and repeal it. We 
did that.
  When Republicans say Democrats don't care about regulatory burdens, I 
find that offensive. It is not helpful. This bill is not on the floor 
on regulatory relief. This bill is on a small but effective economic 
development program that has worked beautifully in my State. Contrary 
to what the Senator from Oklahoma and others have said, this program--
in Louisiana, as far as Louisiana is concerned--actually works. One of 
the reasons it works so well is because many of the decisions about the 
grants are not done in Washington but at the regional level. Our office 
happens to be in Austin, TX. When the Chamber of Commerce comes to 
visit me--and they are not always huge supporters of the Democratic 
caucus--they say to me: Senator, one of the best programs that our 
members like and feel the Federal Government does a very good job with 
is the EDA grants, because they are not that bureaucratic. They make 
quick decisions and help us fill gap financing in programs that make a 
meaningful difference to people in our communities. I didn't raise this 
subject to the Chamber of Commerce; they raised this subject to me.
  Maybe the Senator from Oklahoma is correct that some of these moneys 
were earmarked. But we don't allow earmarks anymore. So this program is 
going to go on without earmarks directed by Members. It is going to be 
done on a regional basis, and these programs have been--at least in 
Louisiana's experience--quite effective. Louisiana Tech, one of my 
universities, received a $2 million EDA grant. I will submit this for 
the Record: Our ongoing partnership with EDA has greatly enhanced the 
university's overall economic development efforts. We are creating the 
EDA University Center.
  This is from the mayors of both cities. You know, I do trust my local 
elected officials. I do trust the people I represent. When they say a 
program works, I like to believe them.
  There is a list of projects and recent investments in Louisiana--$1.2 
million to Tulane University.
  Can I tell you one thing about Tulane University, since it was 
damaged significantly after Hurricane Katrina? We have over 45,000 
applicants to this school. Why do people want to come to Tulane? They 
want to come because not only is it a great school, but it is in a 
great city that is rebuilding itself. An EDA grant--that some people 
wish to eliminate--is helping to rebuild our city. So $1.2 million to 
Tulane University. It is a microloan program.
  I believe the people at Tulane University. I have a great respect for 
Scott Cowen and their board. Everywhere I travel around the United 
States as a Senator I could not be more proud when people come up to me 
and comment what a great university Tulane is. I don't need somebody in 
Washington telling me how good this program is. I have the people I 
represent at home telling me.
  We have $75,000 given to the downtown development district which was 
underwater after Katrina for the Idea Village. You know where the Idea 
Village was recently advertised? Maybe on the front page of Enterprise 
Magazine; maybe in Time magazine. This Idea Village is one of the best 
ideas in the whole country. You know who funded it? The program Senator 
Boxer is trying to reauthorize.
  We have $400,000 for a startup fund for the creation and development 
of stimulus funds to support fledgling enterprises in the greater New 
Orleans region. Our seafood industry went completely--no pun intended--
underwater after the BP oilspill. This agency stood up, when no one 
else would--BP wouldn't give them a penny, Ken Feinberg wouldn't give 
them any money--and gave them $350,000 to keep their head above water--
the Seafood Promotion Board. That is why, in large measure, people are 
eating gulf coast shrimp today.
  So I don't know what report Senator Coburn is looking at, but the May 
19

[[Page 8901]]

GAO report states they have not concluded that duplication exists among 
programs, and plans to address these issues in their future work on 
overlap and duplication.
  I don't know if the Senator has asked his Chamber of Commerce from 
Oklahoma, but I am going back to my office and I am going to call them 
myself, because I wish to find out. Maybe their program works 
differently in Oklahoma than it works in Louisiana. But when I call my 
people at home--and they will tell me: Senator, some of these programs 
aren't worth a hill of beans and you should eliminate them; these 
programs are too difficult. I have that all the time about some 
programs. Not all the time, but some programs. This isn't one of them.
  The reason I am a little exercised is because this is like deja vu. I 
came to this floor 4 weeks ago to try to get a similar program in 
size--a $1.2 billion program that has worked so well. Senator Warren 
Rudman had created it. It is a great program. It is the country's best 
venture capital program for all small business. It makes money. It 
doesn't lose money. We got the same thing done to us by the other side 
of this aisle that says we don't care about small business over here 
because we have to talk about X, Y, and Z.
  So this is the second time for one of our chairmen. I was the first, 
and now Senator Boxer is trying to bring to the floor a program that is 
not that complicated. It is a little program but it has big bang for 
the buck. It gets rave reviews from the people in my State--Republicans 
mainly but Democrats as well--and we can't seem to get this program 
approved until we take bills that Members want to put on this bill that 
have nothing to do with it and that haven't gone through committee.
  I am going to be voting against Senator Snowe's bill. But to make 
clear, I support Senator Snowe's efforts to reduce regulation. My 
people in Louisiana are screaming about this. I have tried to 
communicate this to the administration in many ways, whether it is EPA 
or the Corps of Engineers, or the more recent one coming out of one 
agency that wants all my oilfield workers to put on HAZMAT suits to go 
to work. If you put on a HAZMAT suit in Louisiana when it is 100 
degrees, you won't get to the oil rig because you will faint before you 
get there.
  I am not unaware--I want the Senator from Oklahoma to understand--of 
some ridiculous rules and regulations that come flying out of some of 
our agencies. But the way to fix them is not to bring a bill to the 
floor that has not had a hearing when six different committees have 
jurisdiction, when Senator Lieberman, who has the lead jurisdiction as 
chair of Homeland Security has indicated a complete willingness to take 
this on.
  There are enough bumper sticker printing operations in America today. 
There is only one U.S. Senate. I suggest we start acting like the U.S. 
Senate and stop acting like a bumper sticker operation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I want to make a couple of comments. I 
said in my earlier comments there are some good things about the EDA. 
But the fact is, they are all self-reported. There is no data. There 
are no methods. Any time you send money to the State of Oklahoma, I 
guarantee you the people who are going to get the money are going to 
like it. But there isn't one metric, one set of metrics that measures 
the effectiveness of the money that has been spent through EDA in terms 
of job creation. Fully one-third of the dollars don't get through to 
completion over the history of the program.
  The very idea we would defend the bureaucracy--the bureaucracy didn't 
help us on 9/11 because they were stovepiped and they didn't 
communicate. The bureaucracy failed to ensure the safety of the levees 
in New Orleans--this same bureaucracy that doesn't need to be 
controlled. The bureaucracy didn't protect us from the financial crisis 
of 2008 because we didn't do the oversight. The bureaucracy didn't 
protect the gulf from the Deepwater Horizon. We had a bureaucracy that 
was supposed to be in charge of that, but they didn't do their job.
  The SBIR--you had my full support on SBIR; the Senator from Louisiana 
knows that. She had my support on that because that is one of the 
proven programs inside the SBA that actually has metrics on it that 
works. So the debate is whether we hold back the regulatory framework.
  I find it ironic that you agree with us in principle but won't vote 
with us on this amendment because it didn't go through a committee. It 
is amazing.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. COBURN. I want to finish my points and then leave the floor 
because I have something else I have to do.
  It is amazing the negative effects we all are hearing from all across 
the country. Every Senator is hearing how regulation is drowning out 
opportunity for investment that creates jobs in this country. Every 
program has some positive aspects to it. The question isn't whether 
they have positive aspects, it is what is our priority now that we are 
bankrupted. Where should we be spending the money so we get the best 
bang for the buck. How do we pull back the regulatory framework so that 
it is common-sense oriented rather than bureaucratic oriented? That is 
what Senator Snowe is trying to do and to give some type of power to 
the very people who are being regulated. Because we certainly won't do 
the oversight. We haven't done the oversight.
  It is interesting that when the GAO put out this last report on 
duplication, they are right, they didn't say in these particular 
programs. But I put out a report 9 months before that detailed the 
duplication in these programs, and it was published, so you can find 
the duplication.
  The important point is we are strangling business and job 
development--small and medium. The big guys can take all this 
regulation, and they are already staffed up. The small- and medium-
sized businesses can't. We have to give them a way to force common 
sense onto the bureaucracy. That is all this does. Everybody hears it 
from all of their constituents, that regulation is killing business 
formation and job creation. Why would we not want to put in some 
balance? I don't understand it.
  The real problem with the regulatory agencies is us, because we won't 
oversight them. There was no oversight hearing on the EDA. Nobody ever 
asked the question: Where are the metrics? We hear all this anecdotal 
evidence about how great it is when we give money to the States that 
they can do things, but where are the numbers that show the job 
creation for every thousand dollars that gets spent? It is self-
reported, but there is nothing that looks at it that says statistically 
here is the proof.
  If the EDA is the best way to create jobs in this country, I am all 
for it. But I want to see some data that says that right now. We have 
job training programs, 47 of them in this country, and we spend $18 
billion a year on them. We have 104 science, technology, engineering, 
and math programs across nine different agencies we are spending $16 
billion on a year. We have no data on any of those programs anywhere, 
but we have it out there. We have no idea what we are doing because we 
won't ask the hard questions and we won't study it. Nobody would have 
104 science, technology, engineering, and math programs. We have 64 
programs--and 20-some of them are outside the Department of Education--
to improve teacher training quality.
  The reason we are in trouble is because we haven't done our job on 
oversight. So anyone can claim anecdotal evidence that something is 
good, but you should know that when we spend $1,000 of the taxpayers' 
money--money we don't have today because we are borrowing it from 
China--we ought to be certain that it is actually going to create 
something because our kids are paying the bill. The next generation is 
going to pay the bill, and they will pay that bill through a markedly 
lower standard of living.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, how much time remains on the Republican 
side?

[[Page 8902]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirteen minutes.
  Ms. SNOWE. Thirteen minutes. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I want to make a few points. It is about solving problems. That is 
what this is all about. It truly amazes me that we have an amendment 
here on regulatory reform that everybody agrees with in principle and 
everything else, that goes to the heart of the issues concerning the 
economic well-being of small business and, hence, America's well-being 
in these desperate times, yet we can't manage to get it together and to 
work on these issues.
  I made a number of good-faith changes in my legislation, and I would 
have done more if I had heard any response from the other side to 
working those out. I made five major changes to the proposition back in 
April to respond to this. But there is no response. Then I hear about 
these hearings. Can somebody please tell me where it is in the rules of 
the Senate that every amendment has to have a hearing?
  We had a major vote yesterday on interchange for the second time. 
That is important to small business. But even the committee of 
jurisdiction didn't have a hearing. So this is, again--as I describe 
it--the politics of obfuscation. Let's get to the heart of the matter 
and solve the problems for America. It isn't about who authors it and 
who is doing it. Let's do it. That is the point: We are not doing it. 
We are just sitting here talking, recessing, going home today, going to 
do something else, going to have recesses.
  We have five committees that have jurisdiction over this issue. We 
are going to need a roadmap pretty soon. I don't want to go home and 
tell my constituents this is what happened on regulatory reform. So let 
me get this straight. Let me get this straight. We have five 
committees, there are a number of bills, time is running out, people 
have to leave, and we can't have enough time to debate this.
  That is what I was told this morning. All of a sudden I was given a 
call saying: Sorry, you have to do it right now. I said: Well, is the 
bill over? We just started. There are a number of pending amendments 
that haven't even been addressed yet. Let's vote on those. This is an 
important issue. Let's give this the equivalency of the interchange 
amendment. Let's do something that is important for small business. 
Absolutely not.
  This is about jobs at a very difficult time in America.
  Let me repeat, 40 months after the start of the four deepest postwar 
recessions, our economic output averaged 7.6 percent. Here we are, our 
GDP has only increased .1 percent. Those are terrible numbers. But 
behind those numbers are people and human beings because it means we 
are not creating jobs.
  We heard here today that sometimes bureaucracy is good. Well, 
bureaucracies, by definition, and I read, mean ``excessive 
multiplication of, and concentration of power in administrative bureaus 
or administrators'' Absolutely. They are unelected. We are elected. We 
understand the problems. Even the President--let's read this headline, 
``Obama to scale back regulations in an effort to spur economic 
growth.''
  What is interesting about all this--nobody is accusing the President 
of decimating the environment or workplace or health care. 
Understanding that, 6 days after I was denied a vote on this very 
amendment where I made five different adjustments to respond to the 
other side, you have the President's Economic Competitiveness Council 
coming out with four major priorities, one of which is a need to 
improve the regulatory process because there are decades of overlapping 
and uncoordinated regulations.
  Even by the administration's estimate, this White House's own 
estimate, that regulations last decade cost anywhere from $44 to $62 
billion, last year's alone with a $26 billion. This is a serious issue.
  Can we work it out? Can we do it? Do we have the capacity to work on 
issues anymore, thoroughly and deliberatively? It has been almost 2 
months and we have not gotten any further. We haven't even had a 
hearing. Somewhere, somebody has bills. Great. Bring them up. Let's 
debate them. Let's compare them. Let's do something. Let's do something 
for small business. They desperately need it. Now I will be glad to 
yield to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I would like in this context to focus on the 
economic policy, to look at where we are right now, the state of the 
economic union and the State of Illinois.
  If we look at basic numbers we see we will take in about $2.1 
trillion in tax revenue, but our government is currently projected to 
spend $3.4 trillion in tax revenue, yielding a deficit of approximately 
$1.3 trillion. We will have to borrow from the American people, from 
China, and other foreign powers.
  Total unfunded liabilities of the Federal Government are $61 
trillion, yielding a debt of $196,000 per American, currently. When we 
look at economic growth and the way to expand the available pie for the 
United States, our economy last year grew at a 2.8-percent rate. China, 
on the other hand, grew at 10.3 percent, and Libya--currently under 
attack by NATO--grew at 4.2 percent. In fact, quiz question: Which 
economy grew more last year, the United States or Iran? The answer: The 
Iranian economy grew at a faster rate than the United States.
  The situation probably is even more bleak in the State of Illinois. 
For the State of Illinois, we are going to take in about $27 billion in 
revenue, spending $33 billion, for a $5.8 billion gap. This is for a 
State whose credit rating is deteriorating quite rapidly, having not 
funded its pensions to a greater degree than almost any other State, 
the unfunded liability of the State of Illinois of $62 billion for a 
per-citizen debt on top of the Federal debt of $4,800.
  When we look at our State and its economic growth, the State of 
Illinois is at just 1.9 percent growth. Other States, Wisconsin, even 
with its highly controversial Governor now rapidly improving its 
business climate at 2.5 percent; the State rated No. 1 for creating 
jobs in America, 2.8 percent, and the State that is on fire, the State 
of Indiana at 4.6 percent. This is clearly a sign that things are going 
well in Indiana, things are going well in China, things are even going 
better in Libya than in the United States, and it shows that we need to 
change course for our country economically, to back the amendment of 
the Senator that she has here, and to make sure we can lay out better, 
more pro-productive policies like the small business bill of rights 
that represents 10 new policies to accelerate economic growth.
  On behalf of that entity, which represents half of all the jobs in 
the United States, and my own State--these are private sector jobs. 
They are sustainable. They do not depend on a failed stimulus which is 
now running out of gas--given the records, I think we can see it is 
clear we ought to go back to economic fundamentals to correct the 
system and look clearly at the state of economics where we are now.
  With that, I yield to the Senator from Maine and thank her for the 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. I now yield to the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Brown.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 4 minutes, and the 
remaining time for the Democratic side is 35 minutes.
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for additional time 
on the bill, since the vote is not going to occur until 2:15, and that 
time be equally divided.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. I yield the remainder of the time to Senator Brown. It is 
regrettable, since this is an important issue, that we couldn't have 
more time on this key issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I want to begin by 
expressing my support for what Senator Snowe has been doing and for the 
EDA

[[Page 8903]]

Reauthorization Act. I applaud the committee for producing a good, 
comprehensive bill. These EDA grant programs provide vital resources, 
not only for Massachusetts economic development and its businesses, but 
also other States throughout the country to help communities get back 
on their feet in this tough economic climate. For that reason, the 
reauthorization of this bill is incredibly important, and I encourage 
that it be done.
  I rise to speak about two amendments to this bill that affect the 
stability of our small businesses. Senator Snowe and Senator Coburn's 
FREEDOM Act, to reform the small business regulatory system, is one 
that I have consistently supported because it is a commonsense 
solution. When I am traveling around my State, no matter where I go and 
no matter with whom I speak, from CEOs all the way down to the worker 
who is just doing the everyday work, one thing I hear over and over is 
a plea to get rid of the one-size-fits-all Federal regulations that are 
limiting businesses.
  Businesses need certainty and stability in order to create an 
economic climate for jobs not only to be created but to be retained, 
not only in Massachusetts but throughout the country.
  This amendment would require that Federal agencies conduct 
comprehensive analysis on the potential impact of regulations on small 
businesses. It has the support of the NFIB and the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce. Simply put, burdensome regulations are hurting our small 
businesses and job creators and are preventing them from growing and 
hiring. It is a shame this amendment got caught up in partisan 
volleying in the SBIR reauthorization. I am happy to have an 
opportunity to speak about it today.
  I also want to turn the Senate's attention to amendment No. 405 to 
repeal the 3 percent withholding tax, a malignant and business-
threatening provision. It is based on S. 164, the Withholding Tax 
Relief Act, which enjoys bipartisan support and is critically needed 
now. Senator Snowe is a cosponsor, as well as 14 of my colleagues.
  We need to repeal once and for all this onerous and costly unfunded 
mandate. This is a jobs amendment, plain and simple. It would repeal a 
part of our Tax Code that promises to kill jobs.
  As you know, Mr. President, we have had many comments about how this 
bill would, in fact, cost potentially as high as $75 billion to 
actually implement. The moneys received back to the Federal Government 
would be about $8 billion over that same period. It is absurd. Any 
program that costs more to implement than it brings in revenues should 
be repealed immediately.
  Two months ago I received a letter from the Massachusetts State 
secretary of finance, Jay Gonzalez, warning Congress of the inevitable 
threat to the ability of small businesses to survive in this economic 
climate if we allow the continuation of this stealth tax.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. I encourage colleagues to also adopt that 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Senator from California was on the 
Senate floor this morning, Mrs. Boxer, advocating passage of this bill 
and urging colleagues to vote against the Snowe amendment. I am here to 
support that position.
  I would like to respond briefly to Senator Coburn's last couple of 
statements about where the bureaucracy failed. He didn't have to remind 
me, of course, the bureaucracy failed to respond to Katrina and Rita, 
the largest disasters by far in the history of the country. But we have 
spent 6 years fixing that bureaucracy, not printing bumper stickers for 
reelection campaigns. You know what. It has worked because our efforts 
to fix the bureaucracy have helped the people of Missouri and Arkansas 
and Tennessee and Montana and Indiana who are currently experiencing 
terrible disasters as we speak.
  The bureaucracy that showed up at the Superdome is a lot better today 
in many ways--it is better today than the bureaucracy that showed up at 
the Superdome. That is because we had hundreds of hours of committee 
meetings, where this hard work is done, to bring significant and 
important bills and changes that take debate, not on the Senate floor 
but take debate in the work of the committee. When you are working on 
major pieces of legislation that have major impacts, that is where it 
is done.
  Besides the FREEDOM Act that is on the floor today, there is the 
Regulatory Responsibility For Our Economy Act, sponsored by Senator 
Roberts with 46 cosponsors. I am assuming--I don't have the list, but I 
am assuming they are Democratic and Republican cosponsors. That is a 
major regulatory relief bill.
  There is a bill by Senator Collins called the CURB Act, Clearing 
Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens. The CURB Act has two cosponsors.
  Then there is a smaller bill by Senator Portman that has no 
cosponsors, but he is the lead sponsor. That looks to me like it is a 
smaller bill and has limited scope but nonetheless on regulatory 
reform.
  There could be 12 other bills filed in the Senate--I don't know--and 
hundreds of other bills filed in the House. Forget the House bills. 
When bills like this are filed in the Senate, the usual route and the 
most effective route is to go through the committee of jurisdiction. 
You can understand in this topic, which is so broad--regulatory 
reform--it is regulatory reform in the Department of Commerce and 
regulatory reform in the Department of EPW, Environmental and Public 
Works, regulatory reform for the Department of Homeland Security, 
regulatory reform in the Department of Defense. There are many 
committees of jurisdiction.
  What everyone has agreed to is to have the hearing in the Homeland 
Security Committee, which has broad jurisdiction, and get the work 
done. Senator Lieberman is not here today because he is on Jewish 
holiday. He has said time and time again he will have this hearing in 
the committee and that is the appropriate place so we can come forward 
with a bill on regulatory relief.
  There are a couple of reasons why this particular approach is flawed. 
I would like to read the comments from the administration. I would like 
to read three specific reasons why this particular FREEDOM Act is not 
in the proper position it should be. But the way to fix it is not 
debating on the floor of the Senate on a bill that is not really 
germane to the bill that we are debating, that we are trying to pass. 
It is to have this kind of debate in committee so we can work out these 
details. Senator Snowe has shown herself to be in the past, and still 
today, willing to work in a very cooperative manner, and the place to 
do this is in committee.

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

  not easier, harder--

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

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

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

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

       Finally, the amendment inappropriately links regulatory 
     decisions to budget cuts. Decisions about regulation should 
     be based

[[Page 8904]]

     on sound economic science and not on the threat of budget 
     cuts.

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

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

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


                              The Deficit

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, there are a number of huge issues facing 
our country. Our middle class is collapsing. Poverty is increasing. We 
are in two wars. We are concerned about global warming, the quality of 
our education, and massive unemployment. So this country today has its 
share of serious problems we have to address.
  Right now, a whole lot of attention, not inappropriately, is on our 
very large deficit and a $14 trillion-plus national debt. This is an 
issue which is perhaps going to come to a head over the next few months 
as it becomes tied to whether we raise the debt ceiling. I wish to say 
a few words on this issue.
  No. 1, when we talk about deficit reduction, it is important for us 
to understand how we got to where we are today. How did it happen? How 
do we have a $1.5 trillion deficit this year, and a $14 trillion-plus 
national debt? Let's remember that not so many years ago, at the end of 
President Clinton's tenure, this country had a significant budget 
surplus and the expectation was that surplus was going to grow in the 
years to come.
  But then a number of things happened during the Bush years. No. 1, we 
became engaged in two wars. No. 2, we passed a Medicare Part D 
prescription drug program. No. 3, we bailed out Wall Street. And No. 4, 
we gave huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country. Then, 
as a result of the Wall Street-caused recession, revenue dropped, and 
the result was that we now have a very high deficit and a very large 
national debt. But it is important to remember how we got to where we 
are today.
  It is also important when we talk about deficit reduction to take a 
look at American society today in order to determine what is a fair 
way--a fair way--to address deficit reduction. When we look at American 
society today, the trends are very clear. The middle class is, in many 
ways, disappearing as a result of stagnant or, in fact, lowered wages 
for millions and millions of American workers. Median family income 
over the last 10 years has gone down by about $2,500. The middle class 
is hurting. Many millions of Americans, in fact, have left the middle 
class and entered the ranks of the poor. Poverty is increasing. But at 
the same time as the middle class is shrinking and poverty is 
increasing, there is another reality we cannot ignore--or I am afraid 
many of my colleagues choose to ignore it--and that is that the people 
on top are doing phenomenally well. Over a recent 25-year period, 80 
percent of all new income went to the top 1 percent. The top 1 percent 
now earns more income than the bottom 50 percent. When we talk about 
distribution of wealth, we have the top 400 Americans--the 400 
wealthiest Americans--owning more wealth than the bottom 150 million 
Americans.
  That gap between the very rich and everybody else is growing wider. 
It is important to discuss that issue about what is happening to the 
middle class, to lower income people, and the growing gap between the 
wealthy and everybody else when we address the issue of deficit 
reduction.
  My Republican colleagues in the House came up with an idea that I 
think most people almost can't even believe they would pass; it seems 
so incomprehensible. At a time when the middle class is hurting and 
things are getting worse as a result of a recession, our Republican 
colleagues say, Well, what we want to do is move toward deficit 
reduction by making savage cuts in Medicaid, in education, in 
infrastructure, in nutrition, in virtually every program that low- and 
moderate-income Americans depend upon. Furthermore, what we want to do 
in the House--what they have done--is to end Medicare as we know it, 
convert it into a voucher program, giving seniors a check for $8,000 
and have them go out and get a plan from a private insurance company 
which clearly will be totally inadequate for most seniors and end up 
raising their out-of-pocket expenses.
  Then when it comes to the wealthiest people who are doing 
phenomenally

[[Page 8905]]

well, not only do our Republican colleagues not ask the wealthiest 
people or the largest corporations to pay one nickel more in taxes to 
help us with deficit reduction, they come up with this brilliant idea 
that we are going to give $1 trillion in tax breaks over a 10-year 
period to the wealthiest people in America. So the rich are getting 
richer, and they get tax breaks. The middle class is shrinking, and 
what they are asked to do is to assume huge cuts in programming which 
will impact them very strongly.
  This is clearly the Robin Hood proposal in reverse. We are taking 
from working families who are hurting and giving it to the wealthiest 
people who are doing phenomenally well. The Republican plan is clearly 
absurd, and I think most Americans understand that.
  The question is, What will the President do? What will the Democrats 
do? It is my very strong hope Democrats will be strong on this issue. 
The President has to be strong on this issue. The President has to go 
out to the American people and win the support that is there for a 
deficit reduction package of shared sacrifice. We need to say very 
clearly to the American people: No, we are not going to move toward 
deficit reduction solely on the backs of the most vulnerable people in 
this country. No, we are not going to decimate Medicare so elderly 
people will not be able to get the health care they need when they are 
old and sick. No, we are not going to throw millions and millions of 
people off of Medicaid and endanger families who have their parents in 
nursing homes. We must have shared sacrifice. The wealthy and large 
corporations must be involved and contribute toward deficit reduction.
  There is a lot of responsibility on the President, but let me make it 
very clear. I, personally, as a member of the Budget Committee and as a 
Senator from Vermont, will not be supporting any package that does not 
call for shared sacrifice.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President I have supported regulatory reform since 
before my election to the Senate in 1978, to make regulations more 
sensible and efficient while protecting the public's health and well-
being. The Snowe regulatory reform amendment would amend the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, RFA, to require that Federal agencies consider all 
potential direct and ``indirect economic impacts'' of proposed 
regulations. I will vote against this amendment because it is so broad 
and undefined. Also, the Snowe amendment would give standing to seek 
judicial review and seek injunction of a rulemaking while the rule is 
still in its draft form and still receiving public comment. I am 
concerned that such a change could paralyze the regulatory process, not 
reform it.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as cosponsor of the Freedom Act, I 
would like to add my voice to those who have spoken in its support.
  But first I would like to thank Senator Snowe for her dedication and 
hard work in support of the many small business owners across her state 
and across the country who would benefit from this legislation.
  As we all know, America's job creators are suffocating under 
regulations and redtape.
  The administration doesn't seem to realize that all its interference 
has a human cost.
  Businesses want to create jobs and help communities recover, but they 
can't.
  Whether it is new financial requirements, health care mandates, 
energy mandates, onerous new fees, burdensome tax filing requirements, 
or threats of higher taxes, businesses today are faced with so many new 
rules and requirements from Washington that they can hardly see 
straight.
  The Freedom Act says enough is enough.
  This regulatory reform amendment would help give small businesses 
much-needed relief from the Federal government and its one-size-fits-
all approach.
  Specifically, it would modernize the Regulatory Flexibility Act to 
require that from now on, Federal agencies conduct a comprehensive and 
careful analysis of the potential impacts--both direct and indirect--of 
regulations on small businesses. It would make sure that the voices of 
small business owners are heard in government agencies that frankly 
don't seem to be listening to them.
  This amendment has broad support from the small business community.
  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of 
Independent Businesses have issued strong letters of support.
  At a time when nearly 14 million Americans are looking for work, this 
is exactly the kind of legislation that would help America's job 
creators.
  When I ask business owners what they want us to do to help them 
create jobs, they usually have a simple five-word response: get out of 
the way. That is what we are doing with this legislation.
  And the only people who could possibly oppose it are those who think 
the needs of bureaucrats in Washington are more important than the 
needs of job creators everywhere else.
  I thank Senator Snowe and Senator Coburn for their strong advocacy on 
behalf of small businesses.
  I intend to vote for this important amendment. I urge my colleagues 
to do the same.


                           Amendment No. 390

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are working on a bill that is a jobs 
bill, plain and simple. It does not have any fancy parts to it. It is a 
reauthorization of a program that was set up in 1965. The purpose was 
very clear: to go into areas in our States where the communities are 
hurting for jobs, where the communities are hurting for business. It 
works in a way that every $1 we put into the program attracts $7 of 
private investment.
  I will show you the job creation on some of these charts that we see. 
At the $500 million funding level that is authorized in the bill, the 
EDA is projected to create up to 200,000 jobs a year and over the life 
of the bill up to 1 million jobs. It is done at a very low cost per 
job. Mr. President, $3,000 per job is what it costs the Federal 
taxpayers because of all the leverage that comes in as cities join in, 
counties join in, and so on.
  I have a list of projects we can talk about today. I have talked 
about a number of projects that have been funded through the EDA over 
the course of this debate in the last few days. I have talked about 
them in California and Minnesota and I wish to add just a couple other 
recent projects from across the country.
  In California, EDA awarded $3 million to the Inland Valley 
Development Agency in a county that is going through some tough times, 
San Bernardino, to support the renovation of an existing building at 
the former Norton Air Force Base. This project is going to help the 
conversion of that base into a commercial and light industrial area, 
attracting new companies that are interested in locating there.
  This investment, funded by the Department of Defense Office of 
Economic Adjustment and administered by EDA, is part of a $3.6 million 
project that will create 100 jobs and generate $20 million in private 
investment.
  So here you have a $3 million investment that is going to be 
leveraged to $20 million. It is pretty extraordinary, and this is the 
bill we are talking about.
  In Florida, the EDA awarded nearly $4 million to construct a new 
wastewater system for western Palm Beach County. The region suffered 
flooding in 2008 from Tropical Storms Hanna and Fay, which caused 
environmental damage. It closed local businesses.
  The construction is going to support three city industrial parks and 
a general aviation airport, as well as a major inland port and 
intermodal center that are being developed. That investment is part of 
a $5.3 million project that will create 240 jobs, save 270 jobs, and 
generate $48 million in private investment.
  So a $4 million investment attracting $48 million in private 
investment.
  In Idaho, we have a very good example of a $4.4 million grant to the 
College of Southern Idaho in Twin Falls to fund the construction of the 
Applied Technology and Innovation Center. This new LEED-certified 
facility will

[[Page 8906]]

help the college meet the region's needs for a higher skilled 
workforce. They will learn to operate computer-driven manufacturing 
equipment, maintain alternative energy systems, and to use 
environmentally sound construction processes for these green buildings. 
This investment is part of a $6.9 million project that will create 486 
jobs.
  In Indiana, EDA provided $2.4 million; in Kansas, $1.4 million to the 
city of Hutchinson. I will go on with this in my remaining time that I 
will have later.
  But the point is, this is a jobs bill, and it is being hijacked by a 
slew of amendments, and I see the handwriting on the wall. I have been 
here long enough to know what is going on. There is no cooperation. We 
have everything from the Snowe amendment to endangered species, dealing 
with a chicken that somebody wants to take off the endangered species 
list. I mean, I was not born yesterday, as you can tell. I know what is 
happening. This is a dance. It is a slow dance. It, unfortunately, 
signals to me maybe the slow death of this bill. I think that is very 
sad, when you have a bill that has been supported by Republican 
Presidents, Democratic Presidents over the years, and the last vote on 
this floor was unanimous, in 2004--by unanimous consent--and George W. 
Bush signed it. I have fought George W. Bush in a number of areas. He 
and I saw eye to eye on this one. This is not controversial.
  I hope we can dispose of this amendment. I will have more to say on 
the amendment in a couple minutes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Maine has the next 5 minutes.
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is about 
jobs. It is about small businesses. It is about the well-being of 
American families. Just remember this: the stark numbers. The 
unemployment rate is at 9.1 percent; the average over the last 2\1/2\ 
years, 9.4 percent. For 23 out of the last 28 months, unemployment has 
been at 9 percent or higher. Housing prices are at the lowest level 
since mid-2002. This is the longest recession since modern record-
keeping.
  These are stark, grim numbers. What I am hearing here today is a 
bureaucratic process and response, exactly what we are trying to 
attack. This is not indiscriminate, as some have described on the other 
side of the aisle about this regulatory reform measure. It is very 
consistent.
  I know the Senator from Louisiana was talking about several of the 
issues. I would like to go through them.
  First of all, she mentioned about the concerns of the judicial 
review. But this provision is nearly identical to one that she and 
Senator Cardin introduced in their own legislation in the 111th 
Congress.
  The Senator also was concerned with our tying budget cuts to the SBA 
to this amendment as a way of paying for some of the costs of it. But, 
to avoid controversy, we specifically selected as offsets, cuts in the 
SBA that had been proposed by the Agency's Inspector General, and in 
the President's very own budget.
  The Senator from Louisiana talked about the problems associated with 
considering indirect economic effects on small businesses when issuing 
rules. But, for that provision we used the exact same language 
suggested by the President's chief small business regulatory appointee, 
the chief advocate at the Small Business Administration.
  So this is not indiscriminate and some are mischaracterizing the 
provisions in this legislation because they have not bothered to read 
the amendment. I made a number of changes in order to address the 
concerns on the other side. If there were further concerns, that we 
could work through, I would have addressed those as well. So I think we 
better make sure we get our facts straight because it is about small 
businesses and jobs. That is what it is about. We are just stalling, 
deferring, delaying.
  We heard concerns that we did not have a hearing on my specific 
amendment. Well, the Senate did not hold a hearing on it since I was 
denied a vote on it on May 4. And the President came out a few days 
later and said regulatory reform was one of the top four issues for 
American economic growth and job creation.
  Then we hear a bureaucratic conversation about hearings and multiple 
jurisdictions and committees and committees. I have to say, I have 
never known amendments to require hearings before they are considered 
on the floor. In fact, I believe the Senator from California had 19 
amendments in the last Congress--19 amendments--8 of which were 
accepted and none had hearings. Yesterday we had a major amendment on 
interchange. We did not have a hearing on that major issue.
  I am just making a point. This is just bringing up issues to 
obfuscate and obscure. I do not know exactly what the concern is, to be 
honest with you. If there are some issues to address, then let's 
address them. But to just postpone in conversation, debating--the talk 
goes nowhere. There are no hearings. There is nothing.
  The President scaled back regulations, as I said earlier in an effort 
to spur economic growth, including some in the Environmental Protection 
Agency. He did not undercut the Endangered Species Act. Nobody is 
accusing him of scaling back every environmental law that has ever been 
on the books.
  I think we ought to get away from extreme mischaracterizations, 
inaccuracies and untruths. Let's talk about the facts. Let's read the 
bill. Let's know what we are talking about and get our facts straight. 
This goes to the heart of economic growth. It goes to jobs.
  It goes to the American people's well-being.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in my 5 minutes, here is what I wish to 
say: Yes, I have offered many amendments on this floor, as have all my 
colleagues. But if I see an amendment and colleagues see an amendment 
that could hurt, we believe, the health of people, I am going to say, 
yes, let's have a hearing.
  I wish to show you a picture of a child with asthma. She is 
beautiful. This is not a pretty picture.
  I will show you another picture of a little boy with asthma. This is 
also a beautiful child and a terrible picture.
  Let me tell you, we are trying to protect these children. We are 
trying to protect our families. We are trying to stop premature deaths. 
How do we do it? Yes, we have regulations. Have they worked? You bet 
they have. That is why I say, if you are going to change them, yes, I 
hope we would look at--you know, everybody is motivated in the right 
direction. Jobs? Absolutely. But I have to tell you, when you are sick, 
you cannot go to work. If a breadwinner dies prematurely, the family is 
destitute.
  Let me show you just one act that would be impacted by this Snowe 
amendment and why I think we ought to have an alternative amendment. If 
you look at the study that was required by Congress, you find out that 
in just 2010 alone, the Clean Air Act prevented 160,000 cases of 
premature death; if you look at 2010 alone, 1.7 million fewer asthma 
attacks; if you look at acute heart attacks prevented, 130,000.
  What happens in the Snowe amendment: All you are going to look at is 
the economic benefits, not the health benefits. It flies in the face of 
common sense and our moral responsibility.
  Here is what I see wrong with this amendment: It hurts protection for 
families and communities. It stops or delays important protections for 
those people. It ignores public health and safety benefits. It only 
looks at the benefits of economics. Yes, we have to do that. But we 
also need a balanced approach. As I said, if someone is sick and they 
cannot go to work, they cannot keep a job.
  It would also create additional, expensive litigation. The amendment 
allows polluters to sue Federal agencies during the public comment 
period on a proposed Federal safeguard that allows

[[Page 8907]]

one polluter to hold up an important, let's say, drinking water or 
clean air protection standard for months, maybe years.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Let's get together and 
come up with something that balances economic growth with the 
protection of the health of our families.
  I yield the floor and hope we would now go to a vote under the 
previous order.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 390.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 87 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

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

                                NAYS--46

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

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


                           Amendment No. 389

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

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

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

(Purpose: To amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting 
                            cartels illegal)

       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. NOPEC.

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

     ``SEC. 7A. OIL PRODUCING CARTELS.

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

     when such action, combination, or collective action has a 
     direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the 
     market, supply, price, or distribution of oil, natural gas, 
     or other petroleum product in the United States.
       ``(b) Sovereign Immunity.--A foreign state engaged in 
     conduct in violation of subsection (a) shall not be immune 
     under the doctrine of sovereign immunity from the 
     jurisdiction or judgments of the courts of the United States 
     in any action brought to enforce this section.
       ``(c) Inapplicability of Act of State Doctrine.--No court 
     of the United States shall decline, based on the act of state 
     doctrine, to make a determination on the merits in an action 
     brought under this section.
       ``(d) Enforcement.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Attorney General of the United 
     States may bring an action to enforce this section in any 
     district court of the United States as provided under the 
     antitrust laws.
       ``(2) No private right of action.--No private right of 
     action is authorized under this section.''.
       (c) Sovereign Immunity.--Section 1605(a) of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) in which the action is brought under section 7A of 
     the Sherman Act.''.

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


                           Amendment No. 423

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

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

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows.

 (Purpose: To delay the implementation of the health reform law in the 
   United States until there is final resolution in pending lawsuits)

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

     SEC. __. EFFECTIVE DATE OF PPACA.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
     Care Act (Public Law 111-148) and the Health Care and 
     Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), 
     including the amendments made by such Acts, that are not in 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act shall not be in 
     effect until the date on which final judgment is entered in 
     all cases challenging the constitutionality of the 
     requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage under 
     section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that are 
     pending before a Federal court on the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (b) Promulgation of Regulations.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Federal Government shall not promulgate 
     regulations under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
     Act (Public Law 111-148) or the Health Care and Education 
     Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), including 
     the amendments made by such Acts, or

[[Page 8908]]

     otherwise prepare to implement such Acts (or amendments made 
     by such Acts), until the date on which final judgment is 
     entered in all cases challenging the constitutionality of the 
     requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage under 
     section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that are 
     pending before a Federal court on the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

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


                  Amendments Nos. 417 and 418 En Bloc

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

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

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


                           Amendment No. 417

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

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

     ``SEC. 6. EXEMPTION FOR MONETARY POLICY.

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


                           Amendment No. 418

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM.

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

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

       (B) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections 
     (d) and (e), respectively;
       (C) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `cost' means 
     the cost of compliance and any reasonably foreseeable 
     indirect costs, including revenues lost as a result of an 
     agency rule subject to this section.
       ``(b) In General.--Before promulgating any proposed or 
     final rule that may have an annual effect on the economy of 
     $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation), or that may 
     result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal 
     governments, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more 
     (adjusted for inflation) in any 1 year, each agency shall 
     prepare and publish in the Federal Register an initial and 
     final regulatory impact analysis. The initial regulatory 
     impact analysis shall accompany the agency's notice of 
     proposed rulemaking and shall be open to public comment. The 
     final regulatory impact analysis shall accompany the final 
     rule.
       ``(c) Content.--The initial and final regulatory impact 
     analysis under subsection (b) shall include--
       ``(1)(A) an analysis of the anticipated benefits and costs 
     of the rule, which shall be quantified to the extent 
     feasible;

[[Page 8909]]

       ``(B) an analysis of the benefits and costs of a reasonable 
     number of regulatory alternatives within the range of the 
     agency's discretion under the statute authorizing the rule, 
     including alternatives that--
       ``(i) require no action by the Federal Government; and
       ``(ii) use incentives and market-based means to encourage 
     the desired behavior, provide information upon which choices 
     can be made by the public, or employ other flexible 
     regulatory options that permit the greatest flexibility in 
     achieving the objectives of the statutory provision 
     authorizing the rule; and
       ``(C) an explanation that the rule meets the requirements 
     of section 205;
       ``(2) an assessment of the extent to which--
       ``(A) the costs to State, local and tribal governments may 
     be paid with Federal financial assistance (or otherwise paid 
     for by the Federal Government); and
       ``(B) there are available Federal resources to carry out 
     the rule;
       ``(3) estimates of--
       ``(A) any disproportionate budgetary effects of the rule 
     upon any particular regions of the Nation or particular 
     State, local, or tribal governments, urban or rural or other 
     types of communities, or particular segments of the private 
     sector; and
       ``(B) the effect of the rule on job creation or job loss, 
     which shall be quantified to the extent feasible; and
       ``(4)(A) a description of the extent of the agency's prior 
     consultation with elected representatives (under section 204) 
     of the affected State, local, and tribal governments;
       ``(B) a summary of the comments and concerns that were 
     presented by State, local, or tribal governments either 
     orally or in writing to the agency; and
       ``(C) a summary of the agency's evaluation of those 
     comments and concerns.'';
       (D) in subsection (d) (as redesignated by paragraph (2) of 
     this subsection), by striking ``subsection (a)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (b)''; and
       (E) in subsection (e) (as redesignated by paragraph (2) of 
     this subsection), by striking ``subsection (a)'' each place 
     that term appears and inserting ``subsection (b)''.
       (2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of 
     sections for the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 202 and 
     inserting the following:

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

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

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

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

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, today we are considering a bill intended 
to promote economic development, and I think it is only appropriate we 
also talk about regulations, because, unfortunately, regulatory 
mandates are stifling economic growth today and keeping us from 
creating the jobs we so badly need.
  I hear it all over my State, and I am sure my colleagues do as well. 
Companies are saying they want to expand. They say: We have a good 
idea, we have a business plan that works, but we are deterred by the 
cost of complying with regulations. It is the redtape and also the 
uncertainty. It is not just the bureaucracy and redtape, it is the 
uncertainty about future regulations.
  This regulatory burden on employers, by the way, is growing, and it 
is already a mess. There is a recent study commissioned by the Small 
Business Administration and the Obama administration which estimates 
the annual toll now of Federal regulations on the American economy is 
$1.75 trillion. That is more than the IRS collects in income taxes in a 
year. With the unemployment rate now at 9.1 percent, we can't continue 
to ask businesses to spend more on redtape. Instead, we want them to 
invest in job creation.
  The current administration, unfortunately, I believe, is moving in 
the wrong direction on this score. We have seen a sharp increase over 
the past couple of years in new ``major'' or ``economically 
significant'' rules. These are regulations that impose a cost on the 
economy of $100 million or more.
  According to the Office of Management and Budget, the Obama 
administration has been regulating at a pace of 84 of these new 
``major'' or ``economically significant'' rules--costing the economy 
over $100 million--per year, including rules issued by independent 
agencies. By the way, that is about a 50-percent increase over the 
regulatory output during the Clinton administration, which was about 56 
major rules per year.
  I was very encouraged by the words of President Obama as he 
introduced his January Executive order on improving regulation and 
regulatory review, but now we need action. We need to be sure the 
agencies are actually taking the measures necessary to provide 
regulatory relief for job creators and reducing this drag on our 
economy.
  One commonsense step we can take now is to strengthen a piece of 
legislation that is already in place. It is called the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act. It was passed by Congress and signed into law by 
President Clinton in 1995. It was bipartisan legislation. I was one of 
the authors of this legislation in the House of Representatives. UMRA, 
as it is called--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act--was a bipartisan effort 
basically to say that regulators had to evaluate a rule's cost and find 
less costly alternatives before adopting one of these so-called 
``major'' rules.
  The two amendments I am offering today would improve UMRA in a way 
that is entirely consistent with the principles President Obama himself 
laid out in his January Executive order on regulatory review. The first 
amendment, 418, would require agencies specifically to assess the 
potential effects of new regulations on job creation and to consider 
market-based and nongovernmental alternatives to the regulation. It 
would also broaden the scope of UMRA to require cost-benefit analysis 
of rules that impose direct or indirect economic costs of $100 million 
or more. It would require agencies to adopt the least costly or least 
burdensome regulatory option that achieves the policy goal set out by 
this Congress. A commonsense idea.
  The second amendment, 417, would extend UMRA to independent agencies. 
In 1995, it was imposed upon the executive agencies but not on 
independent agencies. Those independent agencies have grown, and so 
have their regulations. This would be an agency such as the SEC--the 
Securities and Exchange Commission--or the CFTC or even the new 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has gotten a lot of 
attention here in the Senate in the debate over the Dodd-Frank Act. 
Right now they are exempted from the cost-benefit rules that govern all 
these other Federal agencies.
  Major rules issued by what is called the ``headless fourth branch'' 
of government are not even reviewed for cost-benefit justification by 
OIRA, which is the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB 
which reviews regulations from all the other agencies.
  Based on information from the GAO, it now appears that between 1996 
and this year independent agencies issued nearly 200 regulations that 
had an impact of $100 million or more on the economy. So again, over 
200 regulations were not subject to review under UMRA because they were 
from independent agencies. There is a clear need to extend UMRA to 
these independent agencies. Closing this loophole is a sensible reform.
  By the way, this reform was endorsed by the President's own 
regulatory czar, Professor Cass Sunstein, who wrote in a 2002 law 
review article that it only made sense to require independent agencies 
to undertake the same cost-benefit analysis that we require of 
executive agencies.
  No major regulation, whatever its source, should be imposed on 
American employees or on State and local governments without serious 
consideration of what the costs are, what the benefits are, and whether 
there is available a less burdensome alternative. That is what these 
amendments are all about. Both would move us further toward that goal, 
and I urge my colleagues to support them both.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.

[[Page 8910]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 428

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

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

  Mr. Colette shared his story with Oregon lawmakers in a recent 
hearing on foreclosure reform, and I thank him for sharing his story. 
For Tim and countless others, it did not need to be this bad. We have a 
program in America called the Mortgage Modification Program, or HAMP, 
Housing Affordable Modification Program. That program has not worked 
very well. Indeed, it is a voluntary program. It has been more or less 
a nightmare for the families who have been applying.
  Often a servicer will encourage families to apply because they make 
more money when a family is behind on their payments than when they are 
current on their payments. So often the servicer will say: You know, 
you probably qualify. What you need to do is stop making your payments 
for a period of 3 months or maybe 6 months or what you need to do is 
cut your payments in half and that will show financial distress and you 
will qualify for this program.
  So the family follows those directions, understands they are in the 
process of getting a modification, and then it turns out the servicer 
has a different story to tell, often saying: You know what. Your credit 
score is not very good because you have only been making half payments 
for 6 months. So, you know what, you don't qualify after all, and you 
owe us a lot of money. If you do not pay us, we are foreclosing.
  That is the nightmare of a program that was supposed to help families 
but has often hurt families. Mr. Colette's story is one of these 
stories of going through the difficulty of this program. He bought his 
home in 2006. At the time it seemed like a great investment for him and 
his son, especially considering that he was in a position to put down 
more than $100,000 as a downpayment. It is a situation that very few 
families can emulate. He was able to afford his mortgage payments quite 
easily within his income.
  But when Wall Street's bad bets sparked the national recession, 
everything changed. He lives in one of the hardest hit areas of the 
State of Oregon, Deschutes County, and the construction industry dried 
up overnight and therefore his business, his construction business, 
dried up overnight. He called his mortgage servicer to begin the 
mortgage modification process, and he did what the bank asked him to.
  At the time the bank extracted partial payments, actually for years, 
on the false hope that Tim could receive a long-term fix. So month 
after month his equity, that original $100,000 downpayment, was 
siphoned away. It was siphoned away through bank fees, it was siphoned 
away through declining property values, until there was nothing left.
  Had his request for a modification been processed promptly, either he 
would have been approved or denied. If he would have been approved, it 
would have been great. It would have locked in his payments, and he 
could have continued with that fine financial foundation. If he had 
been denied, he would have had the ability to say: I have to make a 
decision then. Do I put this home up for a short sale? Do I put it up 
on the market and try to sell it for what is owed to the bank? He would 
have had some savings left over to pick up and start over.
  Tim did all that was right and he played by the rules, but he is in a 
precarious position today. In just 9 weeks, his son, serving our 
country overseas, will come home. Let's hope it is a homecoming with a 
home, not a homecoming without a home.
  This amendment does three important things: The first is, it 
establishes a single point of contact so when a family talks to their 
servicer they do not have to start from scratch every single time, 
explaining their story.

[[Page 8911]]

With that single point of contact there will be somebody who has a 
coherent file. So often, each time a family talked to a different 
person at the servicer, that person had lost the file or lost key 
papers in the file or was sent additional information that had been 
requested but did not put it into the file. So a single coherent point 
of contact.
  Second, this amendment ends the dual track on which servicers proceed 
to pursue foreclosure at the same time they are talking to the customer 
about a modification. Very simply, this amendment would set aside that 
dual track, that foreclosure track, until they make a decision. They 
can make it over a longer period of time, over a shorter period of 
time, but until they make the decision and tell the customer, they set 
aside the foreclosure track. That would reduce a lot of the stress, a 
lot of the confusion, a lot of the enormous frustration that families 
face.
  The third point in this amendment is that it requires a third-party 
review before a servicer sends a home into foreclosure. That simply 
guarantees that the law has been followed, that there was a coherent 
examination of the paperwork and a foreclosure is in order at the same 
time a modification has been approved or a foreclosure is in order at 
the same time a modification is on the verge of being approved or that 
a foreclosure doesn't proceed because a document is missing from the 
file. Connecticut and Maine have such a program, and it has kept 60 
percent of the families who would otherwise be out of their houses in 
their houses. So three basic, fundamental reforms.
  I wish to thank my Republican cosponsor, Olympia Snowe, who stepped 
forward on behalf of homeowners across this Nation to say yes to 
fairness. I also thank the other dozen or so Senators who in the last 
day have signed up as cosponsors. Many of them have been real champions 
in their States, and some of them have worked very hard on these 
issues, including Senator Reid and Senator Whitehouse. In fact, I would 
note that Senators Akaka, Blumenthal, Durbin, Inouye, Levin, McCaskill, 
Sanders, Shaheen, Whitehouse, and Wyden, and I imagine many more will 
join us.
  I encourage my colleagues to support fundamental fairness: single 
point of contact and a foreclosure dual track and have a third-party 
review so that homeowners get a chance, like Mr. Colette, to stay in 
their homes.
  Thank you, Madam President.


                  Amendments Nos. 411 and 412 En Bloc

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

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

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

                           Amendment No. 411

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

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

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

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


                           Amendment No. 412

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

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

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

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I will be brief in discussing both of 
the amendments.
  The first amendment, amendment No. 411, is a simple amendment that 
would prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture from funding the 
construction of ethanol blender pumps or ethanol storage facilities, 
which is the latest effort on the part of the ethanol lobby to take 
more and more of U.S. taxpayers' dollars.
  I would remind my colleagues that taxpayers have already provided 
billions of dollars to ethanol producers over the last 30 years. Last 
year alone, the ethanol tax credit cost the taxpayers $6 billion. In 
the final hours of the last Congress, the ethanol tax credit was 
extended for an additional year and will likely cost taxpayers an 
additional $5 billion to $6 billion this year. Seeking to double-dip in 
the Federal Treasury, advocates for the ethanol industry are seeking 
taxpayer support for infrastructure for ethanol such as blender pumps 
and storage facilities.
  The Department of Agriculture was happy to comply with the industry's 
request to fund infrastructure construction. On April 8, 2001, the 
Secretary of Agriculture issued a rule that--get this--would classify 
blender pumps as a renewable energy system. In other words, pumps are 
now a renewable energy system, which would qualify it for funding under 
the Rural Energy Assistance Program.
  There is no one--no one--who believed the Rural Energy Assistance 
Program would apply to putting ethanol pumps and storage facilities in 
gas stations. When Congress created the Rural Energy Assistance 
Program, it didn't have any intention of paying gas station owners to 
upgrade their infrastructure and further subsidize the ethanol 
industry.
  According to the USDA, an ethanol blender pump and tank could cost an 
average of $100,000 to $120,000 to install. With over 200,000 fuel 
pumps currently operating in the United States, it would cost over $20 
billion to convert them all--a corporate welfare project of significant 
proportions.
  I might point out that an amendment similar to this was 
overwhelmingly supported in the other body during the consideration of 
H.R. 1 by a vote of 261 to 158.
  It is time we stop this. I am a well-known opponent of ethanol 
subsidies to start with because it has never been of any value. It has 
distorted the market, and it has been an incredible waste of taxpayers' 
dollars. But now they want to go further by having us pay as much as 
$20 billion so they can install, under the Rural Energy Assistance 
Program, blender pumps and storage facilities.
  So the ethanol advocates today have issued a release opposing this 
amendment because it would enforce the foreign oil mandate over our 
transportation fuels marketplace by blocking a job-creating effort to 
promote the installation of flex pumps. So now this is all about jobs. 
We want to create jobs by spending taxpayers' dollars to build pumps.
  I hope my colleagues will take a look at this and support this 
amendment.

[[Page 8912]]

  The other amendment, amendment No. 412, basically eliminates Davis-
Bacon requirements from this legislation. The issue of Davis-Bacon is 
well known. All it would do is, in my view, reduce costs by some 60 
percent from market rates if we are indeed not imposing Davis-Bacon Act 
requirements.
  While I am on the floor, I wish to mention to my colleagues that as 
we face increasing costs at the gas pump of $4 or more--there are 
predictions that the cost of gasoline and a barrel of oil will continue 
to increase--this administration continues to reject nuclear power in 
every possible way.
  Yesterday, a House committee released the latest evidence detailing 
the administration's mishandling of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste 
repository, providing further examples of this administration's 
blatantly political decision to terminate the Yucca Mountain project 
and close the facility.
  I quote from the committee report:

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

  This coincides with an April 2011 GAO study that reported:

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

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

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

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


                           Amendment No. 440

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

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

  Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

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

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. __. LOW-COST ENERGY EFFICIENCY LOANS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Eligible participant.--The term ``eligible 
     participant'' means a homeowner who receives financial 
     assistance from a qualified financing entity to carry out 
     energy efficiency or renewable energy improvements to an 
     existing home or other residential building of the homeowner 
     listed under subsection (d).
       (2) Program.--The term ``program'' means the Energy 
     Efficiency Loan Program established under subsection (b).
       (3) Qualified financing entity.--The term ``qualified 
     financing entity'' means a State, political subdivision of a 
     State, tribal government, electric utility, natural gas 
     utility, nonprofit or community-based organization, energy 
     service company, retailer, or any other qualified entity 
     that--
       (A) meets the eligibility requirements of this section; and
       (B) is designated by the Governor of a State.
       (4) Qualified loan program mechanism.--The term ``qualified 
     loan program mechanism'' means a loan program that is--
       (A) administered by a qualified financing entity; and
       (B) principally funded--
       (i) by funds provided by or overseen by a State; or
       (ii) through the energy loan program of the Federal 
     National Mortgage Association.
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Energy.
       (b) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish an Energy 
     Efficiency Loan Program under which the Secretary shall make 
     funds available to States to support financial assistance 
     provided by qualified financing entities for making qualified 
     energy efficiency or renewable efficiency improvements listed 
     under subsection (d).
       (c) Eligibility of Qualified Financing Entities.--To be 
     eligible to participate in the program, a qualified financing 
     entity shall--
       (1) offer a financing product under which eligible 
     participants may pay over time for

[[Page 8913]]

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

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


                           Amendment No. 436

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

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

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

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


                     Amendment No. 436, as Modified

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

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

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. ___. REPEAL OF VEETC.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act''.
       (b) Repeal of VEETC.--
       (1) Elimination of excise tax credit or payment.--
       (A) Section 6426(b)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     is amended by striking ``December 31, 2011'' and inserting 
     ``the later

[[Page 8914]]

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

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

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

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

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


                             Cloture Motion

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

                             Cloture Motion

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

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

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

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


                           Amendment No. 405

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

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

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

 (Purpose: To repeal the imposition of withholding on certain payments 
    made to vendors by government entities, and for other purposes)

       At the end, add the following:

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

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

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


                     Amendment No. 436, as Modified

  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I want to discuss for a minute the 
modification to my amendment.
  Corn prices today are at their highest level since 1974. Corn supply 
is at its lowest level since 1974. We have tremendous problems with 
food inflation in this country. What we put forward this afternoon is a 
modification to the blending tax credit, as well as the import tax fee 
on ethanol, and we look forward to that debate as we go forward.
  The Federal Government now spends $6 billion a year paying over 40 
cents a gallon to have ethanol blended, which is already mandated by 
law that they have to blend it anyway. So this, in essence, will save 
$3 billion this year for the Federal Government.
  No. 2 is, it will take significant pressure off corn prices, which 
will lower food prices both here and abroad.
  With that, I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma, who wishes to speak 
as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

[[Page 8915]]


  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment for consideration of the following three amendments: 
Nos. 429, 430, and 438.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I reserve the right to object.
  I ask the Senator if he can hold off for a moment. We wish to consult 
with the chairwoman.
  Mr. INHOFE. All right. While I am holding off, it is my understanding 
that some of the rest of them are getting in the queue, and I am trying 
to get these three in with the same treatment that has been afforded 
those before me.


                      Amendments Nos. 430 and 438

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

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

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

       (Purpose: To reduce amounts authorized to be appropriated)

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

  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest read as follows:

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

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


                             Cote d'Ivoire

  Madam President, I am going to take a little time on something else 
that has to be said, and that is what I have been on the floor six 
times already talking about. The only reason I am continuing to do this 
is because somehow the State Department, the French, the United 
Nations, and all of them seem to be laboring under this misconception 
that I will go away and I will not talk about it anymore.
  I am not going to go away. I am going to keep talking about it. The 
problem we have right now started some time ago. I will share with you 
some of the new developments today.
  We are talking about the rigged election that took place in Cote 
d'Ivoire and the fact that someone whose name is Alassane Ouattara--we 
have demonstrated very clearly--won the election by fraudulent means.
  The President of that country is Laurent Gbagbo. He has been 
President now for a number of years. His wife, Simone Gbagbo, has been 
a gracious and great First Lady.
  What I wish to do--this is the seventh time I have been on the floor 
talking about this--is give you the latest on this grave situation in 
Cote d'Ivoire. I can only say it continues to be a targeted genocide 
against supporters and perceived supporters of the deposed President of 
Laurent Gbagbo.
  This will be, as I said, my seventh time speaking about this on the 
floor. The last time we talked about it was on April 4. When we first 
started talking about this, we were hoping we would be able to stop 
this, the State Department and others from going along with what is 
going on now in Cote d'Ivoire. I know it is complicated.

[[Page 8916]]

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

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

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

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

  The legitimate President--

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

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

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

  Quoting a woman who was watching her husband--

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

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

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

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

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

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

       Most killings were point-blank executions--

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

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

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

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

  And was murdered.

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

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

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

[[Page 8917]]

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

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

       In addition to the killings--

  I am reading now--

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

  Those were the young people surrounding the palace.

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

  Human Rights Watch reports ``witnesses consistently identified the 
killers and abusers as the Republican Forces'' of Ouattara, and they 
were ``overseen'' by Ouattara and Soros. Soros is a general of 
Ouattara. He is the one who is responsible for going into Duekoue. That 
is where they murdered all the people. The Soros they speak of is the 
one who was responsible for that under the supervision and direction of 
Ouattara.
  So the Human Rights Report calls on Ouattara ``to immediately ensure 
the humane treatment of anyone detained'' by his forces. This is 
something I have been demanding for 7 weeks. I hope now this report is 
going to draw attention so at least the State Department knows what is 
going on because our State Department is going along with all of this. 
They had an opportunity to voice their opinions and come up with a 
solution. The solution is to offer amnesty or to send him to a country 
where he will be able to live.
  I have been very critical of the State Department's handling of the 
situation in Cote d'Ivoire. I sent them evidence months ago that showed 
Alassane Ouattara engaged in massive election fraud during last year's 
Presidential election. I called for an election and then a new 
election. Of course, it was met with deaf ears. I called on the State 
Department to inquire as to the health and safety of President Gbagbo 
and his wife Simone. To date, we have heard nothing.
  Last year, I urged the State Department to use its power and 
influence and allow the reconciliation process in Cote d'Ivoire by 
allowing Gbagbo to go into exile. I pointed out that at least half of 
the population of Cote d'Ivoire supports Gbagbo. I acknowledged one 
African leader who is willing to accept Gbagbo in his country--a Sub-
Saharan African country. The State Department has been aware of this 
for over a month.
  I strongly suggest that is a solution. It has been done before. It 
was done in Haiti with ``Baby Doc'' Duvalier. I know people are tired 
of hearing me talk about Cote d'Ivoire.
  I had a pleasant experience yesterday. I met the nominee for the 
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Bill Burns. I had a 
chance to visit with him about this and other problems. I found him to 
be very receptive. I am convinced he embodies the high traditions of 
the foreign service--selfless, nonpartisan diplomatic service. He 
indicated to me he will follow through with my requests of the State 
Department regarding the health and well-being of the Gbagbos. I 
appreciate that.
  I will finish by letting you see a photo of the two Gbagbos. Here is 
the President, Laurent Gbagbo, who I believe should be the legitimate 
President of Cote d'Ivoire. The first photo was a happy guy I knew. 
This next photo was him right after they took him. This side of his 
face is bashed in. His wife is a beautiful lady, Simone. Here is a 
picture of her. I have known her for over 15 years. She is a gracious 
lady and everybody loves her. After Alassane Ouattara took her, here is 
what she looked like. They ripped her hair out by the roots and went 
dancing up and down the streets of Abidjan with the hair. You have to 
use your imagination.
  This is what is going on today in Cote d'Ivoire. There they are, the 
death squad, and there is the First Lady, Simone.
  The last thing is that I hope somebody in the State Department cares 
enough to intervene and allow that party to go into exile. There is 
already an operation for that. Almost every President of every African 
country who called me is in agreement to what we are trying to do.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 427

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

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

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

  (Purpose: To make a technical correction to the HUBZone designation 
                                process)

       At the end, add the following:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

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

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Illinois for 
allowing me to do that. I appreciate it and yield the floor.

[[Page 8918]]


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

[[Page 8919]]

were not monitoring contracts for compliance with rules.'' The report 
exposes a glaring deficiency in contract oversight. Moreover, an SBA 
spokesperson is quoted as saying the SBA ``long ago transferred that 
authority to the Pentagon and other agencies.'' This hands-off attitude 
is unacceptable, and as I told the SBA Deputy Administrator at a recent 
Small Business Committee hearing, the ultimate authority for monitoring 
fraud lies with the SBA.
  This amendment contains recommendations both from the SBA inspector 
general and the GAO for combating these reports of fraud and addresses 
vulnerabilities in the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned small business 
program, the HUBZone program, and the 8(a) program. Additionally, the 
bill will work to change the culture at SBA to make the process of 
suspensions and debarments more transparent.
  In order to effectively execute the small business contracting 
programs, the SBA needs a comprehensive framework to provide effective 
certification, continued surveillance and monitoring, and robust 
enforcement throughout the SBA's contracting portfolio. This bill aims 
to increase criminal prosecutions as well as suspension and debarments 
for businesses found to have attained contracts through fraudulent 
means, and requires the SBA to submit a report to Congress annually 
detailing the specific data on all suspensions, debarments, and cases 
referred to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecutions.
  My amendment provides the SBA more stringent oversight capacity 
across all the SBA contracting programs. It is SBA's duty to utilize 
every fraud prevention measure at its disposal and this amendment puts 
the tools in place to punish the bad actors that have infiltrated the 
SBA contracting programs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

                          ____________________