Floor Statements

Madam President, we have spent many days talking about the importance of the bill before us which would reauthorize the Economic Development Administration. The EDA is a proven success. I think it is instructive that no one on the other side is speaking out against it. It is amazing to me they do not speak out against it, but I have a feeling we may not get this cloture vote. I hope I am wrong.

As I look at ways for us to be bipartisan, there are a couple of areas where I think we can come together. One would certainly be deficit reduction. We Democrats know how to do it. We did it under Bill Clinton, and we are the only party in 50 years to pass a budget that actually brought us to a surplus. We can do that with our friends on the other side, and I am glad there are talks going on.

The other area is job creation and job preservation. The other side says they want to do it with us. This is a golden opportunity for them to join with us. We have seen--and Leader Reid knows this because he has selected various jobs bills to bring to the Senate floor. It was not by chance this bill came. He wanted committee chairmen to say which bills had bipartisan support in their committees. We voted this bill out nearly unanimously. We had one objection in a time when things are pretty contentious. Why is it? I will tell you why it is.

One of the best ways to tell you is to quote Senator John Cornyn, who said a $2 million EDA grant for a water tower in Texas will ``pave the way for creation of new jobs and business opportunities.'' That says it all.

We have 27 Republicans who went on the record saying the EDA was a good job creation bill. We know that historically $1 of EDA investment attracts $7 in private sector investment. So while this is a $500 billion bill, if you see that it is $7 for each $1, it is into the millions in terms of the job creation that will follow. As a matter of fact, we know the jobs created will be between about 250,000 and 1 million over the life of the bill. One million jobs. All we need is a cloture vote.

This EDA started in 1965, and it has been supported by Democrats and Republicans. I gave you an example of Senator Cornyn and what he said. These are just some of the people who are supporting us: the Conference of Mayors, the Public Works Association--it goes on into all of our States--the University Economic Development Association--why do they support it? They know this particular program is a spark plug. Put in $1 and attract $7 of private sector investment. People get to work again.

I am just hopeful that we do not see this bill die today. This is a moment in time we can show that we mean what we say. Senator Crapo said the EDA business grant will help ``keep Idaho firms on the cutting edge.''

Senator Lugar said EDA funding is ``essential in our efforts to improve the quality of life and the standard of living for Hoosier families.''

It goes on. Senator Collins has some beautiful statements. Twenty- seven of our colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, have always supported this legislation. The last time it was signed into law was by George W. Bush, yes, and it passed this Senate unanimously. If this bill goes down because our friends on the other side keep wanting to offer--they have offered tens of amendments. It is up to about 100 amendments: one about the prairie chicken, another one about a lizard-- all fine but do not belong on this bill. This bill is about jobs.

I hope our friends will vote with their hearts and will look back on their press releases. I certainly think if they did that, they would cast an ``aye'' vote, and we would pass this bill and do something for jobs in this Nation.

Thank you very much.

I yield back my time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Cloture Motion

Will the Senator yield?

I am very pleased the Senator took to the floor to speak to the American people about what they are going through in his State. I am

not as familiar with the condition of the nuclear powerplant, so I will not go there. I trust my friend's judgment. There are some serious issues raised--a different design of the plant--and the fact that it is close or identical to the design of the plant in Japan that had all the issues. Here is the point. I support the Senator. I was proud of the way he questioned the issues.

I will pose a question to the Senator. Isn't it true that there is a lot of talk around Washington about how States rights should be protected?

Building on that, isn't it true that the NRC--as we have learned by reading their founding documents--is an independent commission; isn't that a fact?

I say to my friend, given those two points, plus the ones my friend made, it seems untenable that the NRC, which is supposed to be an independent agency, would assert itself into a matter between the State of Vermont and a private company. I just say, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, how strongly I support what the Senator is trying to do, which is to allow his State to, frankly, have a say over something as important as the economics surrounding energy. My friend knows we work hard in this day and age to make sure America can leap forward and save energy and lead the world and invent alternatives.

In light of what happened in Japan, this becomes more and more important. I hope my friend will take heart and know that this chairman of the committee stands with him on this battle.

Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Laura Ellen Ziskin, one of Hollywood's most influential film producers, activists, and philanthropists. Laura Ziskin passed away on June 12, 2011, at her home in Santa Monica, CA, after a 7-year battle with cancer. She was 61 years old.

A native of the San Fernando Valley, Laura Ziskin was born on March 3, 1950, to Mae and Jay Ziskin. In 1973, Ziskin graduated from the University of Southern California's School of Cinematic Arts and began working in the entertainment industry first as a game show writer, and then as a personal assistant to producer and director Jon Peters, with whom she would work on the 1976 Barbra Streisand remake of ``A Star Is Born.''

Over the next three decades, Laura Ziskin became one of the world's most successful female producers. Ziskin's fame quickly grew with her production of 1985's ``Murphy's Romance,'' 1988's ``D.O.A.,'' 1990's megahit ``Pretty Woman,'' and 1991's ``What About Bob?'' Ziskins films were both critically acclaimed and well received, with ``As Good As It Gets,'' 1997, ``The Thin Red Line,'' 1998, ``Fight Club,'' 1999, and the recent blockbuster Spider-Man films. In 2002, Laura Ziskin would also become the first woman to ever produce the Academy Awards--again repeating the feat in 2007.

Laura Ziskin devoted her time and celebrity to improving the lives of others. She gave her support by serving on the boards of organizations such as the National Council of Jewish Women and Education First and was honored by many others, such as the Big Sisters of Los Angeles, the Women's Image Network Award, the Producers Guild of America, City of Hope, and her own alma mater, USC's School of Cinematic Arts. I was also proud to present her with a ``Woman Making History'' Award for her wonderful work.

When Ziskin was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2004, she immediately became heavily involved in creating a new model for cancer research. In 2008, she founded the nonprofit Stand Up To Cancer, SU2C, in collaboration with friends and colleagues, Katie Couric and Sherry Lansing and the Entertainment Industry Foundation, among others. Ziskin used her film production skills to be a driving force for raising funds for cancer research and support services, including by producing television specials in 2008 and 2010 that aired on major international networks.

Throughout her illness, Laura never quit either her professional or charitable work. She touched the lives of countless individuals and families who struggle with cancer by giving them hope that one day, there will be a cure. In one of her last blog postings, she urged others to take a stand. She wrote, ``Take a stand--for yourself, for a loved one . . . for anyone in the fight. Let's make everyone diagnosed with cancer a survivor.''

Laura Ziskin is survived by her partner, Alvin Sargent, her daughter, Julia Barry, and her son-in-law, Eli Dansky.

Madam President, I want to thank the Senator from Nevada, my friend, the majority leader, Senator Reid, for his remarks, And I want to thank him for filing cloture on the EDA bill. He said the Economic Development Administration was started by Richard Nixon. Actually it was continued by Richard Nixon. It was started by Lyndon Johnson in 1965 and supported by Presidents whether they were Republican, Democrat, liberal, moderate, or conservative.

Congress has supported this legislation. The last time the EDA was authorized, it was authorized by a voice vote in the Senate when George W. Bush was President and he signed it into law.

So one has to ask one's self: Why do we find ourselves in the middle of a filibuster? Why do we find ourselves with 91 amendments filed to this little bill that takes a $500 million authorization and, because of the effect it has on the private sector, draws in private sector matching funds 7 to 1 and means it is a $3 billion a year, basically, jobs bill? This is a jobs bill. Every Republican and every Democrat I know around here says: jobs, jobs, jobs. But they are killing another jobs bill. I think the American people have to understand, this list of amendments that has been filed--Senator Reid went through a few of them. There is even one that relates to the prairie chicken. With all due respect, there may be a lot of issues surrounding the prairie chicken, but it has nothing to do with an Economic Development Act bill.

It goes on and on. It talks about protecting free choice for workers to refrain from participating in labor unions. This sounds familiar from a Governor from the Midwest. It talks about amending the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Let's face it, we were not born yesterday. I wish I were, but I was not. The fact is--the print on this list is too small to even show up on the screen--we have a three-page list of amendments. We have 91 amendments filed to this bill--which is a jobs bill, which is a simple bill to reauthorize the Economic Development Administration's programs.

EDA is a great job creator. In our committee, every single Democrat and Republican, save one individual, voted for this bill. So it is bipartisan. It has been supported by Presidents since Lyndon Johnson. It has created, over time, millions of jobs. We know this particular bill, at its current funding level, would support up to 200,000 jobs a year or up to a million jobs over 5 years. And they are good jobs.

How does that happen? Because the EDA goes into local communities that have high unemployment rates. They bring together the local governments,

the State government, the private sector, the nonprofits, and they say: What do you want to do here to attract industry, to attract consumers here? What do you want to do to rehabilitate this community?

Sometimes they say: We need a new road. We need a new water project. We want to build an industrial park for new businesses. And this is what EDA does. So they are locally controlled ideas and a coming together of the Federal Government, the local government, the State government, and the nonprofits in a beautiful package that has resulted in millions of jobs over time since it started.

Here is what I want to say today as I go through my statement. The first thing I want to say is, we know what the other side is doing. They are killing these jobs bills by a frivolous list of amendment after amendment after amendment that has nothing to do with the bill.

This is not the first time. In this very spot, a few weeks ago, stood another Senator with a southern accent, Mary Landrieu from Louisiana. She is the chairman of the Small Business Committee. She had a fantastic bill called SBIR. It is a small business innovation research program that has been in place since the 1980s, brought to us by a Republican Senator named Warren Rudman.

Again, it is a bill that has always been without controversy. What did they do to that bill, my Republican friends? Death by filibuster, death by amendment, kill that jobs bill right here on the floor.

If you put that in the context of everything the Republicans have done since they picked up more seats around here, and they took over the House, here is the list: They still have not appointed conferees to the FAA, Federal Aviation Administration, bill conference. That bill will create 280,000 jobs. It modernizes our airports. It gets rid of the old ways we track planes and brings our air traffic control system into the 21st century.

Senator Rockefeller has worked so hard. It is sitting over there waiting for conferees. I am a conferee here on this side. I am waiting to go get this bill done. It is essential. It has a passenger bill of rights attached to it, which is so important. It will make sure our systems work properly. It will put in place safety features. Jobs, jobs, and jobs. They have not done a thing.

The patent bill. I had some problems with the patent bill because I did not like one or two provisions. But the bottom line is, the patent bill is expected to create 300,000 jobs. It is sitting over in the House. No action. So since they took over, they have passed a bill to destroy Medicare, destroy education--it is known as their budget. But when it comes to jobs, there is no beef. And we are perplexed.

This bill has attached to it--the EDA bill--now an ending of the ethanol subsidy. I happened to vote for that. The fact of the matter is, whether you supported it or you did not, it is going to save billions. So now the EDA bill is not only a jobs bill that leverages billions of dollars to create jobs from the private sector, but it reduces the deficit because it has this amendment on ethanol.

I would say to my friends who may be listening from their offices, when we come back next week, vote ``yes'' to cut off debate and get this bill done. Get this bill done.

I have talked about the fact that Senate Republicans have supported this program continually. I wish to tell you some of the things they have said about the EDA. Remember, I am quoting Senate Republicans who are trying to kill this bill by loading it up and filibustering it.

Twenty-six of the current Republican Senators have made positive statements about EDA or put out great press releases in their States, and I agree with what they said.

For example, Senator Cochran of Mississippi praised the EDA grant intended to help spur economic development in northeast Mississippi. He said:

This region has suffered during the economic downturn, but

the Three Rivers has been diligent about working to help

create jobs. . . .

This is what he said about an EDA grant.

Senator Cornyn of Texas said a $2 million EDA grant for a water tower will ``pave the way for creation of new jobs and business opportunities'' in Palestine, TX.

But they are filibustering this bill.

Senator Crapo says EDA business grants will help ``keep Idaho firms on the cutting edge in various fields. . . .'' He says:

This can make Idaho firms successful, which translates into

more jobs and revenue in Idaho.

So my Republican friends, while they are trying to kill this bill by filibuster, have said laudatory things about the EDA. You explain it to me. I think I have an answer as to why they are doing it. But I will continue.

Let's see what Senator Wicker said when he got a grant:

These federal dollars will fund rail improvements and help

bring new jobs and economic growth. . . . I am glad the

federal government has taken this step to continue its

investment in South Mississippi's recovery.

These are all the Republicans who are killing this bill with a filibuster.

Senator Collins--a $1.1 million grant to fund renovations at Loring Development Authority. She and Senator Snowe praised the EDA. They said:

This investment by EDA will allow for improvements and

upgrades . . . which in turn, will help encourage further

business growth. Loring will continue to be an economic

driver for the region, creating good jobs in Aroostook

County.

This is just a small sample of more than 26 Republican Senators who have praised the EDA. Yet each one of them seems to be supporting endless debate, amendments that have nothing to do with the bill. But they all have a chance to do the right thing on Tuesday and vote to cut off debate.

We have had some tough amendments to this bill already. It has gone a couple of weeks. It is time we had a clean vote because--guess what-- jobs are what it is all about.

I am going to not go on too much longer, but I felt it is important to explain to the American people--who, by the way, give Congress an 18-percent positive rating. Hello. Is it no wonder? We are doing nothing about jobs. Every time we try to do something, it is stymied.

I laid out what they have done, the Republicans. End Medicare as we know it. By the way, pass a slew of abortion bills. It is unbelievable to me. And these straightforward jobs bills go nowhere. So do not tell me you are for jobs and then come down to this floor and offer amendment after amendment on the prairie chicken, on the border fence, on issue after issue that has nothing to do with this EDA bill.

EDA creates a job for every $3,000 invested. That is incredibly good. We invest $3,000 and a good-paying job comes about. Why? Because the matching funds come in.

This is the time we have a chance to create 200,000 jobs a year over the 5 years of this bill. So here is the thing. Again, we need, in these tough times, as we are going to get our arms around this deficit--and here is the thing I find interesting: There is lots of talk about how to cure the deficit from the other side. But they forget some of the easiest ways to do it. One is, say to billionaires: Thank you very much. You have gotten millions back a year. Let's go back to your rate that you had when Bill Clinton was President. You made a fortune then. You will still make a fortune and help out with this deficit, millionaires and billionaires.

Oh, they do not want to do that, our friends on the other side. They want to destroy the EPA. They want to destroy the Department of Energy. They want to destroy the Department of Education. They want to destroy Medicare. That is their answer. Why? To pay for tax cuts for the richest of the richest of the richest. Explain to me how that helps the middle class in this great Nation.

Another way. You want to cure the deficit and the debt? End the wars. End the combat mission. Bring home the troops. Let's work diplomatically in Iraq and Afghanistan. I met with the Afghanistan women who are struggling there. They do not want combat troops. They want help to get a peace and reconciliation process going. It is time to end the wars.

Our highway trust fund, which is so critical, is short $6 billion. And it is difficult. That is the trust fund that pays for the highways, for the bridges that are falling down, for the infrastructure improvements for our transportation system. And I know it is hard to find $6 billion.

But we are spending $12 billion a month on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bring the money home. It is time we spend it in this country for our people. We are not going to walk away from our responsibility. We are still going to have the counterterrorism going on. We are still going to protect our personnel who are there. We are still going to work for peace and reconciliation.

But you want to talk about the ways to cure this deficit, it is not that hard. We did it before, we can do it again. The Democrats balanced the budget under Bill Clinton--the only time it was done in recent history--and we created 23 million jobs, not by threatening Medicare and Social Security, and the Department of Education, and the EPA, and the Clean Air Act, and all of the things they are going after here, but by doing the right thing by our children and our grandchildren and making the right investment, to become energy independent.

So for me, the argument of not being able to do anything because of the deficit, something is wrong with that. You have to cure the deficit problem and make the investments that make sense. Here is an investment that makes sense. For every dollar of EDA investment, you get $7 in private sector investment. That is what we ought to be doing.

I said this before, I will say it again: For every one job we create, it costs us approximately $3,000 per job. These are good jobs. It is a smart program for us. That is why it has lasted since the 1960s. I said before, up to 200,000 jobs a year could be created here, 1 million jobs over the life of this bill. What are we doing loading down a beautiful bill such as this with all of these extraneous amendments?

We will look at a couple more charts. If you want to know how many jobs were created between 2005 and 2010, 450,000 jobs, and 85,000 jobs were saved. So we are not talking about some ethereal idea of a new jobs bill. This is a jobs bill that has worked, and it is a jobs bill that should not be filibustered. It should not be stalled. It should not be loaded up with things that have nothing to do with it while the American people worry and give us an 18-percent approval rating. I am surprised it is that high at the rate we are going.

Look at some of the folks who support this: the United States Conference of Mayors, the American Public Works Association, the National Association of Counties, the AFL-CIO, the Council on Competitiveness, the Association of University Research Parks, the National Association of Development Organizations, the National Business Incubation Association, the State Science and Technology Institute, and an arm of the Chamber of Commerce has come in with a letter.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

It is a letter from an arm of the Chamber of Commerce. I will tell you, it is rare when you get the AFL-CIO and an arm of the Chamber of Commerce singing from the same book. They do not want to see filibusters. They want to see jobs. They do not want to see filibusters. They want to see progress. They want to see us work across party lines.

So I kept asking during my remarks, why would they do this to us? Why would they do this to the American people? I have an answer. I wish this were not true, but it has been stated by some of the Republican Presidential candidates and it has been stated by the Republican leader here: Their priority is defeating Barack Obama. Their priority is defeating our President. Their priority is not job creation, it is not business creation, it is not fair tax policy, it is defeating this President. When you look as it through that lens, then you say to yourself, wait a minute. If we got something done around here and the President had a signing ceremony--as we used to do in the good old days when we worked together--and he had a Republican here, a Democrat here, and an Independent there, and we all came together as we always have-- unanimous consent. We passed this in 2004 by unanimous consent. They are afraid if we did that, the President would take out his pen and he would sign this bill and we would create jobs. I hate to say it, but I am not making it up. That is what they have said. I hope over this weekend when we go home and we meet with our people, and they say, Senators, you have got to do something about jobs, I hope the public will say to us, be we Democrats or Republicans: Do not filibuster jobs bills. We cannot afford to lose more jobs. We need to create jobs.

The EDA bill is a jobs bill. It was created as a jobs bill. It has been a jobs bill since 1965, signed by Presidents, passed by Congress, never loaded down with amendment after amendment that is not germane, that weighs it down. I hope the people at home will pay attention to this.

I will say this: There is a pattern. This is not the first bill. I told you about the small business bill, same thing; FAA bill, sitting over there, no conferees; patent bill, sitting over there, no action. And millions of jobs are at stake.

I just found this out about the small business bill that they killed here a few weeks ago. Each year that bill provides support for 6,000 businesses, and over the lifetime of the program it has provided almost 26,000 awards to firms in California to help them get started. That bill was filibustered to death. I do not get it, except if what I say is true and that is what the motivation is, and

all I can come up with. I have looked into the hearts of my friends and wondered how could they do this. They voted for this bill in committee. Why would they load it up like this and put all of these amendments on it? There is only one reason, to not make progress. And who gets hurt by that? They think the President.

But I have news for them. America is going to wake up, because I am going to be here every day talking about this. I know my colleagues are going to be here talking about it. Jobs, jobs, and jobs. I hope this bill gets cloture and we can move on with it on Tuesday. That would be a wonderful thing, if we do that. That is a change in the atmosphere. Then we can pass this bill and get on with the next jobs bill and pass that bill and get on to the next jobs bill, and the spirits of the people will be lifted. Look, we know government does not create the jobs. The private sector creates most of the jobs. But the beauty of bills such as the SBA bill, that small business bill, is private sector jobs. The beauty of this bill? Private sector jobs. So it would lift the spirits of the people instead of having them watch this, watch me, and think: They will never get together and do anything. Then I will not be shocked if our ratings--the Congress--hit the bottom of the barrel. They are already close. I hope the people will insist on our passing these jobs bills. Things are tough out there. People are unemployed, they are underemployed. Businesses are sitting on mounds of cash. They have learned to be able to be profitable without hiring more people.

Things are shifting. The sands are shifting between the middle class. Thank God this President rescued the auto industry and that we had a majority here to stand with him to do that. Thank goodness we took some of the steps that we took to get banks lending again when credit was frozen. But you know what. Our progress is being stymied because partisanship has taken over the process. Partisanship means when you get bills out of a committee, people who voted for them suddenly disappear. They are nowhere in sight, and they file all of these amendments to bring down the bill.

We can only hope that when we come back next week there will be a change of heart. I certainly hope so. I have been here a long time. I have been in the House 10 years, here a lot of years, since 1993. I have served with Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. But I want to say this. I fought hard when election time came. I just had one. It was tough. You know that, Madam President, 2010 was tough. Every time we have elections they are tough. That is the time that politics is in your blood, it is in your veins. You are out there, you are working hard, you are fighting for your life.

But when we are here, we have to do the people's business. And however we feel about who we want to be President, who we admire, who we did not admire, that ought to be left somewhere else. I hope it will be left somewhere else. I hope that on Tuesday we vote for cloture on this EDA bill. I would hate to see this die. I would hate to see this die. Because when you deal a death blow to the EDA, you deal a death blow to 1 million jobs.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a wonderful member of our Senate family. After 20 years of public service, Gerry Counihan is retiring from his post as Senate elevator operator.

In 1991, shortly after earning a degree from Franciscan University, Gerry began his Capitol Hill journey working in the mailroom for Senator John McCain.

Gerry then moved on to become a Capitol tour guide in 1997, where he distinguished himself with his enthusiasm and strong work ethic. Ted Daniel, former director for the Capitol's visitor services, hired Gerry, and remembers that on Gerry's first day he came to work thoroughly prepared, standing head and shoulders above his peers.

It was this passion and ``can-do'' attitude that led Gerry to become an integral part of the tour guide team that every day bring history to life for visitors. Gerry even made Capitol history himself. He gave the first public tour following the fatal shooting of two U.S. Capitol Police officers in 1998. And when the Capitol reopened to visitors following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Gerry again was chosen to lead the first tour.

Sadly, in 2007 Gerry was a victim of a home invasion as he was getting ready for work one morning. He suffered a near fatal assault and the mailman found him 3 hours later on his neighbor's steps where he had gone for help.

Gerry spent 5 weeks in the hospital relearning basic skills, not certain he would ever walk again. While in the hospital, he met Special Olympics founder Eunice Kennedy Shriver. He describes her as ``marvelous'' during his time of need.

With an abundance of emotional and medical support, Gerry was able to overcome this significant challenge and return to Capitol Hill as an elevator operator. I know I am not alone when I say that this is one of the best hires to date. Gerry's welcoming demeanor and caring and protective character have been appreciated by all Senators. He will certainly be missed.

Gerry's story is one of strength and determination. While his positions on Capitol Hill may have varied, he always strives to be the best at what he does and never lets circumstances bring him down. Having woven his way into all of our hearts, Gerry is an integral piece of the social fabric of Capitol Hill. We will remember him always.

I wish Gerry Counihan nothing but the best as he moves on to his next endeavor at the Department of Health and Human Services. I hope that he knows he is an inspiration to many and will forever be a part of the Senate community and the Senate family.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I yield the floor.

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.

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?

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.

I am not yielding time.

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?

My unanimous consent request is that I have the right to call on Senator Brown. I can yield to Senator Brown is my understanding.

I wish to yield time to Senator Brown.

So then I will yield to him for some questions. I can do that under the rules; is that correct?

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.

Then Senator Thune would be recognized for as much time as he wishes.

Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, could we have some indication of timeframe? It is all fine.

All right. I think I have the time; is that right?

That is correct.

I have one more question. I still have the floor?

I said at the conclusion of my remarks we would turn to Senator Brown. How many minutes remain on each side?

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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

I Object.

Mr. President, let the games begin. That is what is going on here. I have full respect for my colleague, but you can tell from his tone and tenor that Senator Paul finds it amusing he is offering a clean debt ceiling increase that he is voting against. He is offering an amendment he is voting against, when we know we are in discussions with the President, and with the Vice President, and discussions with the Gang of Six to try to figure out a way that we can come together, not have ``gotcha'' votes on the Senate floor. It is outrageous.

I will tell you why it is outrageous. We have an underlying bill here that you have been very helpful with, Mr. President--S. 782--the Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2011, which will reauthorize a very important program that has been in place in this great Nation since 1965. It was last passed when George W. Bush was President. It passed this Senate unanimously, without all these amendments that are going nowhere.

There are 27 amendments as of last night--actually, it is probably many more now. We know this game because we played it before, when Senator Landrieu stood where I am and tried to get a small business bill through here, which would have created thousands of jobs in this Nation.

Well, here we are. We have a bill that came out of the Environment and Public Works Committee with a strong vote. We had one dissent. Senator Inhofe is my primary cosponsor. For 50 years, this EDA program, the Economic Development Administration, has created jobs and spurred growth in economically hard-hit communities.

We know the struggle we are having in coming out of the greatest recession since the Great Depression. I remind the people within the sound of my voice that when President Obama took over, this country was bleeding almost a million jobs a month. We are getting back on our feet. We got the auto industry back on its feet. We are getting manufacturing back on its feet, but it is too slow. We have to do more. Once in a while, we get an opportunity to work with small businesses, the private sector, local government, and attract funds from nonprofit organizations and bring jobs and important work to our communities. This is one way.

An arm of the Chamber of Commerce wrote me a letter yesterday saying how important this work is. The Business Civic Leadership Center said:

EDA has served as a valuable partner in many communities

that we have worked in including San Jose, California;

Seattle, Washington; Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Mobile, Alabama; New

Orleans, Louisiana; Atlanta, Georgia; Boca Raton, Florida;

Minneapolis, Minnesota; Newark, New Jersey, and many others.

It was signed by Stephen Jordan, executive director of the Business Civic Leadership Center of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

This is a bill everybody wants, but games are being played in the Senate--I guess just for the fun of it, to stop us from doing our job. What is our No. 1 job? To create jobs. What does the AFL-CIO say? You have business and labor. They say:

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.

That is signed by William Samuel, director, Government Affairs Department, AFL-CIO, and that is dated yesterday.

Why is business and labor supporting this bill? Why do they want us to stop the games and pass this bill? Because they want jobs for businesses, and businesses want the work.

Now let's take a look at other people who were supportive in addition to the Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO: U.S. Conference of Mayors, American Public Works Association, National Association of Counties--I was a county supervisor and belonged to that organization many years ago. If you want bipartisanship, go to the National Association of Counties. There are Democrats, Republicans, Independents--people of every stripe, liberal, moderate, conservative. They all come together. Why? Because business and labor are together, and everybody wants jobs.

Why do we have to face an amendment by my friend Senator Olympia Snowe on deregulation--a bill that hasn't had one hearing in any committee and will, in many ways, eviscerate the important rules and regulations that protect public health and the environment? We should have a hearing on that bill. I am sure we can work together and make it a wonderful bill. Instead, it is offered on this bill.

Not at this time, but I will yield when I conclude.

We have a bill that will create tens of thousands of jobs, and we have the first amendment offered by my good friend, which has not had one hearing, and it repeals all kinds of protections for the public health.

I don't get it. There is only one thing that I can get, with all these amendments, we have amendments on the debt ceiling that have nothing to do with this bill. This bill will create income for taxpayers, because when jobs are created and people work, they pay their fair share of taxes. This bill does not deserve to be treated this way when it passed almost unanimously out of the committee and it is totally bipartisan and has been in place for almost 50 years. Yet that is where we are.

Every Senator has the right to do what he or she wants. They can play games. They can have fun. But I care about the people I represent, and they need jobs. I care about them whether they are in Kentucky, California, or Maryland--any State in this Union. We are United States Senators. We should care about the people, not get up here and play games.

EDA uses limited Federal dollars to leverage large amounts of private sector investment. It is the little spark that creates economic activity in areas that are distressed, and it creates these jobs all across the country. Every dollar of EDA investment attracts nearly $7.

Let me show some other charts. When we vote for this bill--and this is an authorization, by the way, not an

appropriation. We have authorized it at $500 million. Historically, in the last couple of years, it has been funded at about $300 million, $250 million. But every dollar attracts $7 from the private sector, and that is a fact. It was documented in congressional testimony made on March 3, 2011. So that is the history of this EDA.

People say, well, how much, Senator, do these jobs cost--each job? Well, here is what we know. One job is created for every $2,000 to $4,000 invested. So it is an average of somewhere around $3,000 a job. That is a good return on our investment. We know that between 220 and 500 jobs are created for every $1 million of EDA investment.

Here is what we know. Between 2005 and 2010, 450,000 jobs were created by these investments and 85,000 jobs were saved. Everybody in this Senate, I think--though I could be wrong--if asked what is the most important thing we have to do today, would answer it is to help spur job creation in the private sector. Most of these are in cooperation with the private sector. Sometimes they are sewer projects or water projects that are needed by the private sector.

Let me cite some examples of that. Since we are authorizing this, at this stage, at $500 million, one might ask, how many jobs would be created each year. It looks as if it would create nearly 200,000 jobs per year and between 430,000 and 1 million jobs over the life of the bill.

But let me use some examples, because this isn't rhetoric. This is a program that has been in place since 1965. The city of Dixon, in my home State, got $3 million for a water system that will increase the city's water supply and their storage capacity, which will eliminate a major impediment to planned development and expansion of the city's commercial industrial areas. When you don't have enough water, you can't expand. I learned that when I was a county supervisor. You need to make sure there is adequate water, adequate electricity, and adequate sewerage. You have to make sure there are adequate roads. All these things are necessary for development and job creation.

This project is expected to create 1,000 jobs and leverage $40 million in private investment. So we have a $3 million investment to improve the water system and it is going to leverage $40 million. I call that a good deal for our taxpayers and a great deal for the American people to see jobs created. So we have 1,000 jobs--good jobs-- created. That means 1,000 dads and moms bringing home paychecks for their families.

But what do we have here? The same thing Senator Landrieu had to put up with--amendment after amendment after amendment that has nothing to do with this bill. We even had an amendment from a Republican friend that would do away with this entire agency. Unbelievable.

The city of Shafter in my State, $2 million for sewer and water improvements to serve the East Shafter Logistical Center, which will allow development of an additional 600 acres to enable continued growth of the center and support a multimodal transportation hub. This project is expected to create 1,400 jobs and leverage $200 million in private investment. So that is a $2 million investment that is going to be leveraged, leveraged, leveraged.

We are going through a time when we have to cut spending, and I love when the Republicans lecture Democrats about that. Wait till you hear what goes on here. Guess which party was the only party that balanced the budget and created a surplus in recent memory. The Democrats, with Bill Clinton. So don't lecture us about how to balance budgets. We know how to do it. And guess what. We know how to do it while creating 23 million jobs. So I don't need to hear the lectures, because they are misplaced. Talk to yourself. You are the ones who didn't say a word when George Bush did a tax cut for billionaires and put it all on the credit card. Now you still want to extend those tax cuts and bleed the revenues.

I will not yield. I have stated that before, but thank you for asking.

Here is where we are. I have to reiterate so I don't lose my place. Under Bill Clinton, the Democrats balanced the budget, created surpluses and 23 million jobs. George Bush came in and he held a press conference--I saw a rerun of it last night--and said, we don't need surpluses. This money belongs to the American people. Well, he didn't say what he meant. He meant it belongs to rich people--superrich people who earn over a billion and over a million dollars. He gave away the store. Then he went to war--two wars--and put that on the credit card. My friends on the other side never once said, Gee, I can't raise the debt ceiling to pay the debt. They all voted to pay. Almost to a person, they all voted to raise the debt ceiling, and it was doubled from when Bill Clinton was in office. But now, after George Bush left a mess--a god-awful mess in the debt and the deficit, and he handed President Obama a $1.2 trillion deficit--all of a sudden they blame President Obama for all of this.

The American people get it. They do not buy that. They understand this. They are not happy where we are, and they shouldn't be, but they know where the problem started. You know why. Because you can't rewrite history. You could try, but those deficits and those debts--those numbers--are in the books. Unless you erase them, they will remain in the books. I don't care whether it is talking about Paul Revere's ride or the deficits, that is history.

Let me show the deficits we had when we were in control. We got it down to zero, and we got surpluses and created 23 million jobs. That all was erased when we entered a situation in the last couple of years of the Bush administration, where jobs were bleeding at 800,000 a month, 700,000 a month, credit was frozen, and the automobile industry was in the tank. President Obama took action, but this recovery is tough. It has been the worst recession since the Great Depression.

This is what I know. We can do this if we work together, dare I say it? We can adopt a framework that understands billionaires and millionaires don't need their tax cuts now. We can get some more revenues in here and cut the fat and cut the duplication and go after the people who don't pay the taxes they owe. We can end the war in Afghanistan and save $1 trillion over 10 years. I can come up with $4 trillion easily. Allow Medicare to negotiate with the drug companies for lower prices. How is that--$200 billion?

But, no, instead, there is demagoguery and there are attempts to bring down bills such as this--clean, nice bills that will do everything we know we need to do now--leverage our spare dollars, attract public investment, create jobs and create jobs. But, no, we are facing a host of amendments, and I don't find it funny. I find it sad that we cannot come together.

I have a city in California, a very fast-growing city in the Silicon Valley--San Jose. We got them, through this program, $3 million for the renovation and expansion of the Center for Employment Training. What do they do there? They teach skills so when there are certain job losses going on, we have people with these new skills. We increased that center's capacity by 860 students. We expanded access to a GED, so people who didn't finish high school could get their diploma. We taught them how to speak better, how to read better, and we taught them small business entrepreneurship. This is what we are expanding to new people.

This project is going to create 4,900 jobs and leverage $3 million in private investment. This project was one to one. It was $3 million in public investment, $3 million in private investment, with 4,900 new jobs predicted.

By the way, these are not earmarks. We have six regional offices and there are applications made for these grants. They are made by the EDA and it is under the Commerce Department.

On the west coast, in 2003--to prove some points here--EDA invested $1.8 million in the construction of a water and energy technology incubator in the Central Valley of California. For those who don't know the Central Valley, it is where you get a lot of your fruits and vegetables. They are struggling in this downturn. In 2003, according to EDA, the incubator has housed more than 15 entrepreneurs since it opened, and those entrepreneurs have obtained over $17 million in private capital and created jobs for the Central Valley. So

a $1.8 million investment in the construction of a more than 2,300 square foot incubator for a water and energy technology business, and look what happened. From that small investment, it attracted $17 million. That is a huge leverage--a huge leverage.

You all know Boeing Company. In order to help mitigate the Boeing Company's decision to reduce manufacturing jobs in Renton, WA, EDA invested $2 million in 2006 to help build infrastructure to serve the commercial redevelopment of a 42-acre former aircraft manufacturing site. The redevelopment has created a mixed-use campus used by businesses focusing on commercial services, high-tech and life sciences, and helped create 2,500 jobs.

In the Midwest--I talked about this yesterday--in the city of Duluth, MN, they did something terrific there. They gave a grant of $3.5 million, matched by a city grant of $2.3 million, and they set up this aviation business--the Duluth Aviation Business Incubator at the Duluth Airport. This investment helped a company named Cirrus Aircraft grow from a handful of employees to a thousand employees by 2008. This incubator is now leased to Cirrus Design Corporation, which has the largest share of the worldwide general aviation market.

What we are talking about here is planting a seed of economic development, and that seed attracts more seeds from the private sector, from the local people, from the nonprofits. At the end of the day, what have we done by that little seed? It has grown. And this has been happening since 1965 when this program was created.

By the way, you will be shocked to know it was authorized at the same amount of money in 1965--$500 million. So the fact is this isn't a program that has grown and grown; it has stayed the same. That means, if you put inflation into the equation, it has been dramatically cut to a tiny part of what it once was for the country, but it is a beautiful part of our economic growth.

What do we need today? Jobs. What is the second thing we need? Jobs. And what is the third thing we need? Jobs. I am not amused by 27, 28, 29, 30 amendments, some of which have nothing to do with what we are talking about.

One of my friends on the other side of the aisle has an amendment that is pending to repeal banking reform--everything we did and worked on. I guess he wants to go back to the days when the banks got bigger, bigger, gambled with our money, and we almost lost capitalism in this country. OK, that is his right. Why is he doing it on this bill, without a hearing?

Another colleague has an amendment to end the regulations, I say to my friend, that protect the health and safety of the people. Not one hearing on it.

I think the American people have to wake up, so I am saying: Wake up, America, today. Wake up and pay attention to what is happening.

We have a bill on the Senate floor that is meant to do one thing-- create jobs in areas that have been hard hit by this bad economy. Why are the Republicans stalling it, hurting it, putting forward amendments that have nothing to do with it? We have to ask that question. They voted for it under George Bush unanimously, the same program. They voted for it nearly unanimously out of our committee, I say to my friend who is a senior member and a great chairman of the subcommittee on our committee--they voted for it. Now they are delaying it and offering all these poison pill amendments to it.

This is the second time they have done it. America, you have to wake up. It is the second time they have done it. They did it to the small business bill. They hurt small business. They are doing it to this bill. They are hurting job creation, and they are hurting small business again, and they are hurting big business. I said before, one of the provisions helped Boeing.

Maytag, there is another company you know the name of. In 2007 the Maytag plant, headquartered in Newton, IA, which employed 1,800 factory workers, was closed. By 2008 the city identified two new manufacturing operations that could be located on the old site: TPI Composites, a wind turbine blade manufacturer, and Trinity Structural Towers, a manufacturer of massive steel towers for windmills.

Can I ask my friend if he would like some time on this? I am going to continue telling the Maytag story. When I finish, I am going to turn to a very important member of the committee, Senator Cardin, for some remarks.

EDA invested $580,000 in 2008 for grading, site preparation, and surfacing for a wind tower storage facility that was leased to Trinity. That $580,000 attracted $21 million in public investment. That same year we saw other investments in Iowa.

I am going to stop and yield the floor so my friend can ask unanimous consent that he be recognized.

Right now we are on the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, as the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee who watched with pleasure as we voted this bill out of our committee with total unanimous support--except for one, we almost had everyone--I am delighted that the leader has chosen to go to the reauthorization of the Economic Development Administration.

I will tell you why. There are three reasons: jobs, jobs, jobs. We know when President Obama took over, he faced a situation where we were losing 700,000 to 800,000 jobs a month. Imagine. We were bleeding those jobs. Credit was frozen. We almost lost the auto industry. We had to take tremendous steps to turn this around.

I personally believe, after listening to the experts evaluate what we did, that we did some very important work to stabilize this economy. But clearly this recession we are trying to get out of is the worst since the Great Depression. The job loss has been severe. So it is very difficult. When you lose 7, 8 million jobs in that kind of a downturn, you need robust job creation to get these jobs back.

We had a very important bill on the floor dealing with small business--to help small business. That bill was loaded with a bunch of extraneous amendments and it never got off the floor. Now is our chance. I do not mind it if people attach amendments that they think are very important, and we have some reasonable time set aside for those, we have votes on those. I do not have any problem with that. But we have got to get on with the business of job creation.

Let me tell you a little bit about the EDA. For 50 years, the EDA, the Economic Development Administration, has created jobs and spurred growth in economically hard-hit communities. This bill, S. 782, will ensure that EDA will continue to create employment opportunities, maintain existing jobs, and drive local economic growth.

We know the EDA's authorization expired in 2008. And, by the way, the last time it was voted on it was I believe under George Bush, and it was done by voice vote. Even in the House it was an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. George Bush signed it. Can't we get back to the days of bipartisanship? I say to my colleagues, this is the moment.

A bill that has been voted out of the committee with near unanimous consent, a program that has been in place since 1965, and we know these are tough times. All of our communities are going through tough times-- most of our communities are.

The EDA has worked beautifully with local communities to spur economic development. EDA provides a wide range of assistance to these areas. They fund water and sewer improvements. They help manufacturers and producers become more competitive. And here is the thing about these investments: They attract State dollars, local dollars, nonprofit dollars, private company dollars, so that every dollar we put into this program yields us $7 in private sector investment.

This is the first point I want to make to my colleagues and to the American people. EDA leverages Federal dollars to create jobs. One dollar of Economic Development Administration investment is expected to attract $7 in private sector investment. This comes from congressional testimony in March of 2011. That is why we got such a great vote out of our committee.

You are going to hear from Senator Cardin later, who serves in a very senior position on that committee. It is rare that we have these type of votes. Since January of 2009, even though the EDA was not reauthorized, it still continued to go along under the old program. It continued to go along with appropriations.

Since 2009, public-private projects that grantees have looked at say they have created 161,500 jobs. Let's look at that chart. This is good news. I have good news today. This is a program that is working for the American people. Since January 2009, EDA has funded public-private projects that grantees estimate have created 161,500 jobs.

What we bring to you is a reauthorization of a very popular program that has been in place since 1965, that has always had tremendous bipartisan support, that is working on the ground, that the local people love. Let me tell you who has already endorsed this bill: the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the American Public Works Association, the National Association of Counties, the American Planning Association, the Association of University Research Parks, the Educational Association of University Centers, the International Economic Development Council, the National Association of Development Organizations, the National Business Incubation Association, the State Science and Technology Institute, the University Economic Development Association, the National Association of Regional Councils. These are people on

the ground very close to our constituents. Who could be closer than the mayors and the counties? I started out as a county supervisor in a beautiful county called Marin. I can tell you on the ground, when you see these Federal dollars work it is very exciting because the cities and counties cannot do it alone. With the infusion of Federal funds, that sparks $7 of every $1 from private sector folks, and it makes a difference. I believe this is a win-win situation for our people.

In fiscal year 2010 alone, EDA approved investments of $640 million for 928 projects nationwide that are expected to create 74,000 jobs, save 22,000 jobs, and leverage $10 billion in private investment. So $640 million is expected to leverage $10 billion in private investment. That is a huge leverage.

In my home State of California, we are struggling, as so many parts of the country are, with unemployment rates. In California, EDA approved investments of $24 million in fiscal year 2010 for 27 projects expected to create 11,000 jobs, save 400 jobs, and leverage $400 million in private investment. As I stand here now, because of this program, in 2011, we are going to see jobs saved and created. Imagine, 11,000 new jobs--11,000 families who can breathe easier, pay their mortgage, and maybe go out to a restaurant once a week. That money trickles into the community and helps the small businesses.

We now know that in California, the city of Dixon is working on a $3 million program for water system improvements. That is 1,000 jobs.

There is a project in the city of Shafter for $2 million for sewer and water improvements, which will allow development of an additional 600 acres, and it will create 1,485 jobs and leverage $253 million in private investment. Nationwide, you could look at Boeing. We all know about Boeing. To help to mitigate Boeing's decision to reduce manufacturing jobs in Renton, WA, EDA invested $2 million in 2006 to help build infrastructure to serve the commercial redevelopment of a 42-acre aircraft manufacturing site. This redevelopment has created a mixed-use campus used by businesses focusing on commercial services, high-tech, and life sciences, which has helped create 2,500 jobs.

I say to my friends that right now we are struggling getting to the bill. At this point in time, we have a Republican dissenter who doesn't want us to move forward, and they want to look at this. I hope they look at these numbers. The American people want jobs. This is a bill that is directly related to job creation. This is a bill that leverages the Federal dollar. Why on Earth should there be any objection? This is a bill that passed the Senate unanimously when George W. Bush was President. He signed it and it was law. We should not be struggling over going to this bill. We ought to get on the bill and then get off the bill and send a message to the people that we are serious about job creation.

In Duluth, a $3.5 million grant, matched by $2.3 million from the city, helped build the Duluth Aviation Business Incubator at the Duluth Airport. This investment helped Cirrus Aircraft grow from a handful of employees to 1,012 employees by 2008. The incubator is now leased to Cirrus Design Corporation, which has the largest share of the worldwide general aviation market.

Here is another one on the east coast. In 2002, EDA provided $2 million to help build the Knowledge Works pre-incubator facility as part of the development of the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center in Blacksburg, VA. The center and its Knowledge Works pre-incubator facility have led to the creation of 2,000 high-wage jobs and the inception of 140 high-tech businesses. Repeating, a $2 million infusion from the EDA led to the creation of 2,000 high-wage jobs and the inception of 140 high-tech businesses. They built this corporate research center in Blacksburg, VA.

EDA helps with disaster relief. In addition to helping communities respond to job loss due to the closure of a manufacturing plant or defense facility, for example, EDA helps communities respond to sudden and severe economic dislocations to the natural disaster.

In 2008, Congress provided EDA with a total of $500 million in natural disaster assistance through two supplemental appropriations. With these funds, EDA was able to assume the role of a secondary responder working with affected communities to support long-term, postdisaster economic recovery in response to hurricanes, floods, and other natural disasters. We know how important it is to have a program that can respond and help FEMA.

I can give you example after example of disaster relief. There was one case in Cedar Rapids, IA, where EDA provided funding to construct and install an upgraded, energy-efficient, natural gas-fired boiler system following a 2008 flood that destroyed the boiler that had provided steam heat and hot water to St. Luke's Hospital and Coe College. When the utility that owned the damaged facility decided not to rebuild after the flood, it left the hospital and college without a reliable energy supply. We all know what happens when there is a disaster and our hospitals cannot function. They came in and made a $4.6 million investment, and it was critical in keeping the hospital and college open, saving hundreds of jobs.

I can only say, in closing my opening remarks, let's step back and look at the big picture. I think Dick Durbin spoke to it quite eloquently. Senator Durbin was very clear when he said we are at a time now where we have to create jobs. He gave kind of the overview of what has happened.

When Bill Clinton was President, I was privileged enough to be here, sent by the people of California--my first term here. Bill Clinton faced a deficit, a debt, and a struggling economy. But with very smart plans, we turned it around. What were the smart plans? We reduced the deficit to zero, but we did it in a smart way. How did we do it? We kept on making investments that made sense at that time in energy, high-tech research, biomedical research. We made those investments. We cut the fraud and waste. We said to billionaires: You know what, you can do more for us, please. They are happy to do it, actually. So the millionaires and the billionaires paid their fair share, and we made smart investments and cut the waste, fraud, and abuse. We not only balanced the budget, but we created a surplus.

In comes George W. Bush, and our Republican friends decided that the thing they wanted to do more than anything was give tax breaks to the billionaires and millionaires--to the Warren Buffets, who don't need it, and to the Donald Trumps, who don't need it. They don't need it. The average of these tax cuts to these millionaires and billionaires was hundreds of thousands a year. What that means is, we are short funds here.

What do our Republican friends want to do now? They want to cut Medicare--end it--in order to continue to pay for the tax cuts for the millionaires. It is not necessary to go down that road.

That is not before us today. What is before us today is, in the battle of how to get that deficit under control, what are we going to do about jobs. Today, we are looking at a program that has strong bipartisan support, that leverages the Federal dollars, that gets great reviews, that got out of our committee with only one dissenting vote; that is, the EDA, the Economic Development Administration. They have six regions. They have six regional offices, and each region--including East, West, Midwest, South--gets a fair share of the appropriations. It goes to places that have good ideas on how to attract local and State nonprofit and private sector funding. Every $1 of EDA investment is expected to attract $7 in private sector investment, thereby saving and creating thousands and thousands of good jobs.

I understand my Republican friends are going to have a discussion at lunchtime as to whether to allow this bill to move forward. I hope, from the bottom of my heart, they will do so.

I yield to Senator Cardin.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, earlier today I was on the floor speaking about the importance of a program called the economic development revitalization. It has been in place since 1965. It has run out of its authority. Our committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, in a near unanimous vote--almost unanimous--decided it was really worth making some reforms to the program to make it work even better and to reauthorize it.

I am going to turn the time over to my wonderful friend, Jim Inhofe. He and I, as everybody knows, are good friends. We work very well together. There are issues on which we sharply disagree. I think they would fall on the environmental side. But when it comes to public works, when it comes to building the infrastructure of our country, when it comes to jobs related to the private sector, we are very much joined at the hip. On this particular issue, we are together because we look at this and we say that at a time when there need to be jobs, over a 2-year period beginning in 2009, grantees estimate that EDA-funded projects created over 160,000, and for every $1 invested by the Federal Government $7 came from the private sector.

It is my pleasure to yield to make sure my ranking member has sufficient time for whatever he would like to speak to this issue.

Mr. President, I thank the ranking member. I know he has a series of meetings and he is off to those, but I again thank him. I know he may look at reducing this authority. It is his right to do so. My own opinion is, if there were ever a time to support programs that leverage dollars the way this one does, this is one of them. But I respect whatever he feels he needs to do to feel better about the bill.

He talked about one of the important amendments he wrote which would eliminate duplication. There are other reforms that allow private parties to buy out the Federal Government investment. There is much we have done to update this program, but it is very important today.

The one word I have come to use--perhaps overuse--is ``leverage.'' Leverage is crucial. We know we are facing deficits and debts. We know we have to do something about spending, so we want to be wise, we want to see that when we do spend $1 of Federal money, it really has a punch behind it. This is one example, again, of that occurring. There is $7, on average, for every dollar invested, and in the case of Oklahoma, in this one example, $10. There are others where it is even higher than that.

I think it is very clear. I am not sure this is the up-to-date list, but we have many supporters of EDA. I am going to show some of them here.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors, the American Public Works Association, the National Association of Counties--I mentioned this morning that I started out in my first elected office as a county supervisor. They understand how important the EDA is because they are on the ground in these counties, as are the mayors in the cities. They see the needs in these underserved areas, in these redevelopment areas. They want to attract the private capital, so they really need the help the EDA gives them to do it.

The Association of University Research Parks--let me tell you why they like this. We have seen incubator projects, small business incubator projects that start in these research parks that grow into mature, job-producing businesses. EDA is the spark, EDA is the leverage we need. That is why you see the Association of University Centers, the International Economic Development Council, the National Association of Development Organizations, the National Business Incubation Association.

We know today it is tough for some businesses to get the capital. Some of them are fortunate--they go to Silicon Valley, and they get some dollars there. Some will go to banks, and they will be told it is too risky. The banks are not lending the way they, frankly, should to create the jobs, so the leverage that is gotten for these programs from the Federal Government goes a very long way.

The State Science and Technology Institute, the University Economic Development Association, and the National Association of Regional Councils.

We see we have a record of job creation. We have a lot of support, and in 2009--this really says it all: 160,000 jobs over a 2-year period, in 2009. This is a story that is a success story. It is why Senator Inhofe and I join together on this issue.

I know this is going to be a contentious time in the next few days on this

bill because some contentious amendments that have nothing to do with the underlying bill are going to be offered. All I would say to colleagues is let's not allow these jobs bills to be weighed down so we do nothing. The American people are sick of it.

We have had a small business bill. Mary Landrieu, the chair of the Small Business Committee, stood right here day after day begging colleagues: Don't offer poison pill amendments to that bill. Do you know who lost? Not Mary Landrieu. The American people lost and the small businesses lost because this bill, the small business bill, became the way everybody offered everything they had ever dreamed about and thought about, and a lot of it was controversial.

So I urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if you are going to offer amendments that are not related, please agree to time agreements. Let's get rid of these amendments one way or the other. If they pass, fine; if they don't, that is life. But let's get to the reauthorization of the EDA. It started in 1965. It has saved jobs, it has created jobs, and any problems we have had because of some of the rules, we have addressed in this reauthorization.

I have here a letter, a legislative alert, hot off the press from the AFL-CIO. They support the passage of S. 782, the Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2011. They say it ``has played an often unheralded but important role in creating jobs and spurring economic growth in economically distressed communities.''

The public investments supported by this legislation make a

little funding go a long way by leveraging private dollars in

support of these projects. Resources for technical assistance

and research infrastructure, and assisting in the development

and implementation of economic development strategies helps

revitalize communities. EDA 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.

Today when the lack of jobs and income stagnation are the

primary issues facing this Nation, S. 782 is a bipartisan

bill that can help make a difference. We urge Congress to

pass the Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2011.

I think that really says it.

I have one more letter I just got. We have a letter from the U.S. Chamber, the Business Civic Leadership, saying how much they support the program. They say, ``I am writing to share with you the U.S. Chamber Business Civic Leadership Center's positive experience in working with the EDA. EDA has served as a valuable partner in many communities''--they cite ``San Jose, California; Seattle, Washington; Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Mobile, Alabama; New Orleans, Louisiana; Atlanta, Georgia; Boca Raton, Florida; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Newark, New Jersey'' and many others.

I know some of these programs that went into these cities with this relatively small investment by the Federal Government spurring all this private sector capital and local and State funds. They say they worked with the EDA in ``conducting regional forums to bring corporate contributions professionals together with economic development experts.'' They provide ``opportunities to build up relationships between and among companies and government agencies.''

They developed ``a report that maps how and why companies invest in communities across the U.S.''

They believe that as they work with them on these programs, including ``working with local chambers of commerce in disaster affected regions to provide local recovery grants,'' that that worked very well.

They say they are the ``corporate citizenship arm of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.'' They ``work with thousands of businesses and local chambers of commerce on community development and disaster recovery.''

They are consistently looking for ``best practices, lessons learned, technical assistance, planning and strategy support, and other insights, tools, and techniques to make their communities as economically competitive as possible.''

They say:

In our experience EDA members have displayed a high degree

of professionalism and technical expertise. They have engaged

with us on multiple levels from consultations at the national

level to sharing valuable field experience at the state and

local levels.

They say:

We have canvassed many businesses and local chambers about

their community development needs, and they almost

unanimously tell us that some of their highest priorities

include business recruitment and retention and helping small-

and-medium sized businesses grow. They also tell us that

support for regional economic development planning that

transcends municipal boundaries is an increasing area of

interest, and that this is a unique capability that EDA can

and does support.

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 to provide you with

additional information.

Signed by Stephen Jordan, executive director of the Business Civic Leadership Center of the Chamber of Commerce.

So here we have an arm of the Chamber of Commerce sending us a letter of praise for the EDA, and we have the AFL-CIO doing the same.

Senator Inhofe referred to the highway bill. That is another example where we have both sides coming together, and what I want to say to colleagues who may be watching in their office or hearing this as they do their other work, please, let's get this done.

Every single person in this Chamber goes home and talks about jobs, jobs, jobs. If we mean it, if we are not just posturing or posing for pictures and we mean it, then let's get it done.

We had a bad experience here with the small business bill. It got loaded up with things that had nothing to do with anything, and we didn't get time agreements and we couldn't get it done. Let's hope that this gets done.

I cannot imagine anybody holding up this bill when we know that in 2009 it funded over a 2-year period 160,000 jobs at a very small cost to Federal taxpayers because that cost is leveraged.

I could go on about EDA, and I will later. I think I have spoken enough at this particular time.

Mr. President, unless there is someone on the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, Senator Inhofe and I have already spoken on the floor. What I would appreciate is just 2 minutes before we turn to Senator Tester just to set the stage.

All right.

Mr. President, I wanted to make sure the Senator from Tennessee knows his amendment is pending. It has already been put into play, and we are on it at this time. I just wanted to be sure he knew that.

Thank you very much. The Senator from Tennessee probably won't agree with my position on his amendment, but I do know my friend has worked long and hard with Senator Tester and others, and I appreciate all the time he has put into trying to come up with what he considers to be a compromise.

I do want to say this. The Senator talks a lot about the Durbin amendment. There is no Durbin amendment. It is the law. The Durbin amendment was included in the bill that is now the law of the land. So it is a question of saying that we should essentially repeal it or delay it, study it, whatever the word is, before it has a chance to actually go forward.

I understand that, and I want to say for the record where I stand on it. I have met with all sides. I have met with the retailers, that are very strongly supportive of the Durbin law. I have met with the banks, and they are fiercely against it. The credit unions are very worried they are going to get hit with a situation where they will not be able to compete with the banks. I have told them all the same thing, which is I think what is important when we pass a reform is to see if it is going to work, and if it doesn't work, I agree with Senator Durbin, we will do everything in our power to work that out.

I understand the Fed says, help me, give me guidance. I think there is a lot of guidance in the law. I think every bureaucracy in the world would rather have the details fall on us. I think the details fall to them. So I am going to be voting no on the amendment. I do appreciate, however, all the work and all the time and effort that went into trying to pull us all together.

I will say the last thing on the swipe fee that I find compelling is the swipe fee reform my friends want to delay--and was signed into law last year--places reasonable constraints on the fees Visa and MasterCard fix on behalf of the Nation's largest banks. But here is the thing. The United States has the highest debit interchange fees in the world, and the rates keep going up. The average debit interchange fee in the U.S. is 1.14 percent. The average debit interchange fee in the European Union is 0.20 percent, and the average debit interchange fee in Canada is zero. So it is not as if the banks are taking it on the chin here.

I feel we should give this a chance to work. I am not saying it is the perfect law. As Senator Durbin said, maybe there was one perfect law--the Ten Commandments--but as far as laws here, they can all be made better. It may well be once the Fed acts, if we are not happy, we can move at that time.

I want to get back to the bill, the underlying bill we are debating, which is the Economic Development Administration reauthorization, and to thank Senator Inhofe for his remarks he made on the floor about it. He pointed out that we have a lot of work to do here to create jobs. When we have a program that takes $1 of Federal funds and it attracts $7 of private investments and many jobs, we ought to come together.

I will go through a couple of charts.

The EDA is an efficient job creator. They just are. In 2009 and 2010, investments by EDA created over 160,000 jobs and saved nearly 45,000. One dollar of EDA investment is expected to attract--and this is a fact--it has attracted nearly $7 in private sector investment on average. Sometimes it is $10, sometimes it is $15, sometimes it is $4, $3, $2, but the average is $7. EDA project funding creates one job for every $2,000 to $4,600 invested. You see the average cost of creating a job is very low in terms of the Federal investment. This is terrific. This program really works.

There are a couple of things we believed we ought to take a look at-- duplication and also a way for the community to buy out the Federal Government share of a project. We put that in the reauthorization. We believe we really strengthened this law, and I again thank the Democrats and Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee.

This morning, I went through some of the programs in California:

The city of Dixon, $3 million for a water system that is expected to create 1,000 jobs and leverage $40 million in private investment--$3 million attracting $40 million in private investment.

The city of Shafter, $2 million for sewer and water. It is going to develop an additional 600 acres to enable continued growth of the East Shafter Logistical Center and is expected to create 1,400 jobs and leverage $250 million in private investment.

San Jose, $3 million for the renovation and expansion of the Center for Employment Training. They can then

expand their capacity by 860 students, expand access to the GED, the literacy, language, and small business entrepreneurship classes to low- income areas. This is absolutely key. It really should bring us together because they are training students so students get out and get their GED, get their literacy, and can really make sure the community is growing and thriving. That particular grant is expected to leverage $3 million in private investment and create 4,900 jobs. So it is a 1- to-1. In that case, it is $3 million of public and $3 million of private.

Nationwide--I talked about this. I talked about other examples, but I didn't mention ones on the west coast. In the Central Valley, there was a 23,000-square-feet water and energy technology incubator, and the incubator has housed more than 15 entrepreneurs since it opened in 2007. They obtained $17 million in private capital and created jobs for Californians, so $1.8 million attracted $17 million.

We have the case of Boeing, and they were able to expand one of their campuses. It created 2,000 jobs.

I talked about Duluth. In 2001, an EDA grant of $3.5 million matched by $2.3 million from the city of Duluth helped build the Duluth Aviation Business Incubator at the Duluth Airport. This investment helped Cirrus Aircraft grow from a handful of employees to 1,012 by 2008. It is now leased to Cirrus Design Corporation, which has the largest share of the worldwide general aviation market.

When we are talking about the EDA and the way it attracts private sector funding and creates jobs, this is not hyperbole, this is not just rhetoric, this is reality. This is a program that has been going on since 1965. Republicans and Democrats have supported it. The last time it was authorized was when George W. Bush was President. It passed unanimously.

So I stand here today on the opening day full of hope, hoping that is not naive, hoping we will see a few amendments--that is all fine. We don't mind amendments. Amendments are fine, but let's have reasonable discussion and reasonable time set aside and move on.

There is the Maytag plant in Newton, IA, which employed 1,800 factory and administrative workers. It was closed. We all know how painful that is. We remember back when we were losing 700,000 to 800,000 jobs a month. It was not that long ago. By 2008, the city identified two new manufacturing operations that could be located at that old plant--TPI Composites, Inc., a wind turbine blade manufacturer, and Trinity Structural Towers, Inc., a manufacturer of massive steel towers for windmills. The EDA invested $580,000 in 2008 for grading, site preparation, and surfacing for a wind tower storage facility that was leased to Trinity and created 140 jobs and generated $21 million in private investment.

That same year, EDA also invested $670,000 in the Central Iowa Water Association in Newton to help build a booster station and storage tank to serve TPI. This project helped create 500 jobs and generate $40 million in private investment.

On the east coast, in 2010 the EDA gave a $750,000 grant to Seedco Financial Services, Inc., a national nonprofit community development financial institution. Seedco used this funding to provide capital to Sub Zero Insulation and Refrigeration Technologies, LLC, which is a family-owned manufacturer of custom, environmentally friendly, energy- efficient insulated commercial truck and van liners--Sub Zero. It is pretty famous. They are located in Brooklyn, NY. They had been denied financing by a major bank.

This is the thing. A lot of our companies--while the banks want to charge very high swipe fees, they are somehow absent when our companies need them. In 2010--that is just last year--Sub Zero was denied financing. EDA provided access to capital, which allowed Sub Zero to fulfill its contract with Edible Arrangement to outfit delivery vehicles and to win contracts from Ford, Chevy, and Dodge. This allowed Sub Zero to hire 15 new staff. They started in 2004 with just 3 employees and producing 75 vehicles a year, and the company now has 20 employees and produces approximately 400 vehicles a year.

It goes on.

EDA provided $2 million to help build the Knowledge Works preincubator facility as part of the development of the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center, and now we have seen 2,000 high-wage jobs created and the inception of 140 high-tech businesses.

The way EDA works is there are regional offices, about six of them, and they get funded through the Appropriations Committee to the Commerce Department, and then each region makes the decision as to which projects really meet the goals of the legislation, which is to bring economic development to distressed areas, create jobs, and leverage the dollars.

In addition to this, EDA--in 2008 we gave them an extra $500 million in disaster assistance to give to areas which were experiencing disaster problems, and they assumed the role of a secondary responder, working with affected communities to support long-term postdisaster rebuilding. As an example of that, again back in Iowa, they provided funding to help construct and install an upgraded, energy-efficient natural gas-fired boiler system in Cedar Rapids, IA, following a flood that destroyed the boiler that had provided steam heat and hot water to Saint Luke's Hospital and Coe College. We all know what happens when a hospital can't count on a backup generator: they can't count on energy. We know what happens when that occurs: everything shuts down, and people are in peril. EDA steps in in these areas, and while FEMA is dealing with the immediate impacts, they are looking a little bit more at the long-term work that could be done so that when and if there is another disaster, the community is ready.

All I can tell you is nothing is perfect. I am sure there are examples we have that are not as good as the ones I mentioned. I am sure there are because nothing is perfect and nobody is perfect. But this is a very good program. It is time-tested, signed into law by Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents. The last time, it passed here by unanimous consent, was voted out of the committee which I am privileged to chair with almost unanimous consent. We had one dissent, and that is fine. We hope we will win over that dissenter. But here is where we are. We have a chance to reauthorize this program.

There are reforms we have made. I want to share some of the reforms we have made. This can go on without an authorization and stumble around. But what is important at this particular time, when the main three issues on people's minds are jobs, jobs, and jobs, is we have to do a jobs bill. This is a jobs bill. This creates jobs at very low cost to the Federal Government. This creates jobs in the private sector in some of our cities and public works areas.

This is what we did in order to help people understand why we think it is important to reauthorize this. Working with my ranking member, Senator Inhofe, we came up with some good reforms.

We changed the current cost-share requirements, so we increased the Federal share for areas in which unemployment is especially high and per capital income is especially low because we want to make sure that when we go into an area that is deeply in need, we do a little more for them.

We require additional planning assistance if overall funding levels increase. In other words, we want to keep our eye on these projects. We want to make sure they are meeting their goals.

We modified the existing Revolving Loan Fund Program to allow recipients to convert an existing revolving loan fund to carry out another EDA-eligible project. So we take the bureaucracy and say: Look, if they have a better idea, let's go forward and let them use those funds in that way.

We modify rules to allow recipients of grants that are more than 10 years old to buy out the Federal Government's interest at a depreciated rate. In other words, if a State, city, county or participant says: You know what, we want to do this on our own, this is an older grant and we believe we want to take it over, they can buy out the Federal Government's interests.

We emphasize that EDA should work with Federal, State, and local agency partners to support economic and workforce development strategies.

Senator Inhofe mentioned his reform that he made sure happened, which is

that we are not duplicating other programs. That is important. We don't want to be duplicative. We want to be sure that what we are doing is not being done elsewhere.

We walk in and we do something, frankly, that people need now: We create jobs and we leverage. That word ``leverage'' has become the first thing out of my mouth when I talk about things I support now. That is why we support the highway bill that we hope is going to come here in a bipartisan way. We leverage dollars. Anytime you can leverage dollars--you put $1 down for something good, and people come to the table from local government, the nonprofit sector, the profit sector, State, all the different agencies, all the different parties come together and say: This is a great idea. If we all kick in just a little, we are going to do something big. That is the idea behind the

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the endota High School chess team on winning the 2011 CalChess Premier Division State Championship in Santa Clara this April. The Mendota High School chess team worked tirelessly to become State champions and a source of great joy and pride to the people of Mendota and Fresno County.

Mendota High School chess team coach, Vanness French, has been working with most of the members of the championship chess team since they were in the third grade. It was Coach French who gave the team its unique nickname, Knucklehead, a reference to the long-lasting cylinders on vintage Harley-Davidson motorcycles. The 2011 Mendota chess team certainly lived up to their expectations, never giving up as they defeated several higher rated opponents en route to claiming the State title.

The members of the 2011 Mendota High School CalChess Premier Division State Championship include: Eduardo Alonso, Edwin Brioso, Joel Montalvo, Chrispen Reyes, Milton Arroyo, Luis Castillo, Julian Estrada, Lizzy Gonzales, Charle Ledesua, Sergio Mayares, Kevin Romero, Jessi Mendez, and Felipe Beltran.

It is with great pride that I congratulate these students on an extraordinary accomplishment, and the hard work, dedication, and perseverance they showed in achieving it.

As the Mendota chess team celebrates the 2011 CalChess Premier Division State Championship, I commend them a remarkable and memorable year and wish them continued success in their future endeavorse.

Mr. President, as we recognize Older Americans Month this May it is important that we commit to meeting the needs of older Americans to live longer and healthier lives.

Our aging population is expected to almost double in number, from 37 million people in 2009 to about 72 million by 2030. We must start now if we are going to adequately train the health care workforce to meet the needs of an aging America. If we fail to prepare, our Nation will face a crisis in providing care to these older Americans.

Health care providers with the necessary training to give older Americans the best care are in critically short supply. In its landmark report, Retooling for an Aging America, the Institute of Medicine concluded that action must be taken immediately to address the severe workforce shortages in the care of older adults.

According to the Institute of Medicine, in 2009 only about 7,100 U.S. physicians were certified geriatricians; 36,000 are needed by 2030. In addition, just 4 percent of social workers and only 3 percent of advanced practice nurses specialized in geriatrics in 2009. Recruitment and retention of direct care workers is also a looming crisis due to low wages and few benefits, lack of career advancement, and inadequate training.

Preparing our workforce for the job of caring for older Americans is an essential part of ensuring the future health of our nation. Right now, there is a critical shortage of health care providers with the necessary training and skills to provide our seniors with the best possible care. This is a tremendously important issue for American families who are concerned about quality of care and quality of life for their older relatives and friends.

It is clear that there is a need for federal action to address these issues, and that is why I am joined today by Senators Collins, Kohl and Sanders in reintroducing the Caring for an Aging America Act. This legislation would help attract and retain trained health care professionals and direct care workers dedicated to providing quality care to the growing population of older Americans by providing them with loan forgiveness and career advancement opportunities through the National Health Service Corps.

Specifically, for health professionals with training in geriatrics or gerontology--including physicians, physician assistants, advance practice nurses, social workers, and psychologists--the legislation would link educational loan repayment to a commitment to serve in areas with a shortage of these important health professionals.

Ensuring we have a well-trained health care workforce with the skills to care for our aging population is a critical investment in America's future. This legislation offers a modest but important step toward creating the future health care workforce that our Nation so urgently needs.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that we meet our obligations to the seniors of our Nation to improve their care.

Mr. President, as we recognize Older Americans Month this May it is important that we commit to meeting the needs of older Americans to live longer and healthier lives.

Our aging population is expected to almost double in number, from 37 million people in 2009 to about 72 million by 2030. We must start now if we are going to adequately train the health care workforce to meet the needs of an aging America. If we fail to prepare, our Nation will face a crisis in providing care to these older Americans.

Health care providers with the necessary training to give older Americans the best care are in critically short supply. In its landmark report, Retooling for an Aging America, the Institute of Medicine concluded that action must be taken immediately to address the severe workforce shortages in the care of older adults.

According to the Institute of Medicine, in 2009 only about 7,100 U.S. physicians were certified geriatricians; 36,000 are needed by 2030. In addition, just 4 percent of social workers and only 3 percent of advanced practice nurses specialized in geriatrics in 2009. Recruitment and retention of direct care workers is also a looming crisis due to low wages and few benefits, lack of career advancement, and inadequate training.

Preparing our workforce for the job of caring for older Americans is an essential part of ensuring the future health of our nation. Right now, there is a critical shortage of health care providers with the necessary training and skills to provide our seniors with the best possible care. This is a tremendously important issue for American families who are concerned about quality of care and quality of life for their older relatives and friends.

It is clear that there is a need for federal action to address these issues, and that is why I am joined today by Senators Collins, Kohl and Sanders in reintroducing the Caring for an Aging America Act. This legislation would help attract and retain trained health care professionals and direct care workers dedicated to providing quality care to the growing population of older Americans by providing them with loan forgiveness and career advancement opportunities through the National Health Service Corps.

Specifically, for health professionals with training in geriatrics or gerontology--including physicians, physician assistants, advance practice nurses, social workers, and psychologists--the legislation would link educational loan repayment to a commitment to serve in areas with a shortage of these important health professionals.

Ensuring we have a well-trained health care workforce with the skills to care for our aging population is a critical investment in America's future. This legislation offers a modest but important step toward creating the future health care workforce that our Nation so urgently needs.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that we meet our obligations to the seniors of our Nation to improve their care.

Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I honor students, teachers, administrators, librarians, and parents from Saul Martinez Elementary School in Mecca, CA, for taking a stand to resolve a serious pollution problem the community was facing. Together, they have demonstrated how important it is to speak up and be heard to make government officials aware of vital issues that affect their community.

Like all Americans, the residents of Mecca, CA, have the right to expect that the air they breathe is clean, and that the Federal and State government will enforce the Nation's environmental laws to protect them from dangerous pollution. Unfortunately, some residents in Mecca became sick from overpowering air pollution coming from a nearby waste recycling facility. The noxious odors posed a public health risk to the two schools located near the site, Saul Martinez Elementary School and Mecca Elementary School.

I became involved because local citizens, including teachers and students at the two schools, spoke out about the public health threat in Mecca that needed to be addressed immediately. I am so pleased that the Environmental Protection Agency stepped up its efforts to clean up the air pollution in and around the community of Mecca.

I give special thanks to the residents of Mecca, including the students at Saul Martinez Elementary School, for speaking up and telling the truth about the troubling conditions nearby. It is an example to all Americans that we have a stake in our communities and that by fighting for what is right, we can make our country a better, safer and healthier nation.