Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, September 21; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that following any leader remarks, the Senate proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business until 11 a.m., with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and Republicans controlling the second half; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3454, the Department of Defense authorization bill, as provided under the previous order; and finally, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.

Mr. President, at 2:15 p.m., the Senate will proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the Defense authorization bill. That will be the first vote of the day.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, I will be very brief and save most of the debate for next week, but I do want to respond to a few of the statements my friend from Arizona made.

First of all, in terms of hate crimes amendments, last year when we adopted this, it was not the first time we adopted it on the Defense authorization bill. We at least considered and adopted, in some cases, hate crimes amendments in the fiscal year 2001 authorization bill, the fiscal year 2005 authorization bill, and the fiscal year 2008 authorization bill. I did not hear my friend at that time make suggestions that somehow the committee had lost its way in terms of bipartisanship.

We have not lost our way. The Senate is a body which has a right to offer amendments which are not germane or relevant to the bill in front of us. This is not the first time that someone wants to offer these amendments. It will not be the last time. For it to produce the charge that somehow or another the committee is no longer a bipartisan committee, it seems to me, is unfair, it is inappropriate, and I reject it.

The Senate has considered amendments on the Defense authorization bill in the last 20 years, not just on hate crimes, over and over again--long before I became chairman, by the way--but we have debated amendments on the Defense authorization bill on indecency standards, minimum wage, managed health plans, welfare reform, and the death penalty for drug-related killings. Those are just a few. I didn't hear anybody make the kind of charge at that time that somehow or other-- because the Senate rules were being utilized to bring to the floor of the Senate an amendment which wasn't directly related to the bill in front of us--the committee itself had engaged in some kind of a partisan effort.

The rules of the Senate allow the majority leader to do what he did, and majority leaders have done that in the past. The rules of the Senate allow Senators other than majority leaders to offer amendments which are not relevant to the bill, and Republicans and Democrats have done that before on bill after bill after bill and on Defense bill after Defense bill after Defense bill. I think four times hate crimes has been offered, and I believe adopted, in this body on the Defense bill, but it didn't unleash or produce the kind of charge we have just heard.

The majority leader, a few moments ago, said there is not going to be an effort to limit the consideration of just three amendments, if cloture is invoked. In fact, he is hopeful, and so am I, that numbers of amendments--many amendments--can be considered before the recess. I would like to finish the bill before the recess, if we could. I would like to get time agreements. As a matter of fact, before this last recess, I asked unanimous consent that we move to this bill. I didn't put conditions on it, I just asked unanimous consent that we move to the bill, and I couldn't even get consent to do that.

What is unheard of around here, as far as I know, is what is going on repeatedly now in the Senate--objections, filibusters, and threats of filibusters to move a bill to debate. This threat of a filibuster isn't a filibuster on the bill; it is a threat to filibuster our debating a bill and offering amendments on the bill. That is what is happening. Denying the Senate the opportunity to legislate on a Defense authorization bill is what is being proposed; that we not even be allowed to move to the bill until certain conditions of certain Senators are met.

There is going to be a lot of time to debate this cloture motion--and I will save most of that debate for Monday--but I do think it is inaccurate to suggest that suddenly there is an effort being made to offer a nonrelevant amendment to a bill in the Senate. Many of our bills have been subjected to nonrelevant amendments because the rules allow it. As the manager of this bill, I always try to figure out a way through that thicket. It is never easy. I have managed enough bills to know it is never easy to get through that thicket the rules provide for--that nonrelevant amendments are permitted. But it is not accurate to suggest, as my friend from Arizona has, that somehow or other last year, for the first time, we adopted a nonrelevant amendment when we adopted hate crimes because we adopted that very amendment on this very bill two or three times before that.

That doesn't even get to the point of all these other amendments which have been adopted, not just on the Defense authorization bill but on other bills which do not relate to the bill on the floor, and I just gave a few examples. Many of those amendments came from the Republican side. But to start suggesting that somehow or other what is happening is unique or novel, it seems to me, is not accurate and does not contribute to handling in a bipartisan manner--and in this I think I share the hope of the Senator from Arizona--the security of this Nation; that it should continue to be, as it always has been, and God willing always will be, a bipartisan matter handled in a bipartisan way by the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, the bill H.R. 6102 is an important bill. Based on authority provided in two acts, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010, the Navy and contractor team negotiated a multiyear contract for purchasing F/A-18E/F and E-18G aircraft.

The Secretary of Defense approved the Navy's request to sign such a contract. The Secretary also provided the necessary certifications required by title 10, United States Code. The independent cost estimators within the Department of Defense, the office of Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation, or CAPE, agreed with the Navy's estimate that the multiyear contract would save an estimated $590 million. Unfortunately, the Navy and the contractor team were unable to conclude negotiations by the deadlines set forth in the two acts authorizing and appropriating funds for the multiyear contract.

We should not let these savings slip through our fingers just because the Navy and contractors were not as prompt as the Congress envisioned when we passed the two acts last year. This bill would allow the Navy and the taxpayer to achieve those savings by authorizing the Navy to sign a multiyear contract for the F/A-18E/F and E-18G program despite having missed those deadlines.

I urge that the Senate pass this bill immediately.

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

Mr. President, it is very easy to say we need to create more jobs. It has proven much more difficult to get bills passed to accomplish that. On both sides of the aisle we say we are in agreement that small businesses are the engines of job growth. Before us is a bill that would put our words into action by enacting a number of provisions that will help these businesses survive and thrive, keeping current workers on the payroll and creating new jobs. For months this legislation has been bottled up in this Chamber, held up by a filibuster. The filibuster has come despite the fact that business groups have strongly, almost unanimously--in fact, probably unanimously--called for its passage. It promises to help create perhaps half a million jobs that our economy needs so desperately to get moving again.

I am hopeful we will finally end this needless delay and get small businesses the support they need, get capital flowing, and get more Americans back to work. We are on the verge of doing that, and I hope we can do it within the next 24 hours.

This bill is going to do that by addressing a key problem small businesses now face--difficulty in obtaining the capital they need to operate, expand, and grow. One of the most important ways in which this bill will do that is through a State small business credit initiative. I have sought inclusion of this provision along with many Senators, including Sherrod Brown and Senators Stabenow, Warner, Baucus, Shaheen, Begich, McCaskill, and others, in order to provide badly needed assistance to State and local programs across the country that help small businesses grow. Let me explain how this works.

Just as the recession has battered the value of our homes, it has also battered the value of business property such as real estate, factories, and equipment. That has damaged the ability of small businesses to get bank financing because it has lowered the value of property they can offer as collateral. Businesses with plenty of customers and excellent credit histories have been unable to get the financing they have relied on and need, endangering existing jobs and preventing the creation of new jobs. My State and many others have begun programs designed to deal with this problem. Thanks to our collateral support program in Michigan, companies such as Saline Electronics, an electronics manufacturing company, and Display Pack, a packaging company, have been able to expand production and add workers. Just since 2006, with just $3 million in State money, Michigan's capital access program has leveraged nearly $88 million in private lending and saved or created an estimated 13,000 jobs. But the demand for this successful program far exceeds the resources available.

In Michigan and elsewhere, these programs can't help enough of the businesses that could effectively use support. Lack of resources for small businesses is stifling job creation by small business.

The legislation before us includes what we call the State small business credit initiative which will make available $1.5 billion to State and local programs that help small businesses get the loans they need. It will help provide many times that much in private loans to small businesses.

There are other major provisions of this bill that will help small businesses create jobs. This bill contains $12 billion in tax cuts for small businesses, tax cuts that will help them put their money into growing their businesses and creating new jobs. It will more than double the limits for two of the Small Business Administration's most important loan programs and provide other enhancements to the SBA loan programs, enhancements that will increase lending to small business by over $5 billion in the first year.

The bill also includes a proposal which I suggested for what we call an intermediary lending pilot program which allows the SBA to make loans to intermediary lenders such as business incubators which can then loan that money to growing businesses. The bill also includes the small business lending fund. This provision is very similar to the Bank on Our Communities Act. It will provide capital to local community banks, banks on which small businesses depend, so they in turn can lend that money to small businesses. It does all this in a way which will not add to our budget deficit.

This legislation has the support of nearly 200 business and financial industry groups. If these groups, many of which disagree with one another on many issues, can come together to support this legislation, it speaks volumes about the positive impact this bill is going to have.

I thank our Small Business Committee chairman, Senator Landrieu, for her extraordinary leadership in guiding this bill to the Senate floor. She has shown talent, dedication, a willingness to work with Senators of both parties, and a determination to overcome the obstacles that have threatened to prevent us from providing the support small businesses need. The Senate and the Nation are benefiting greatly from the leadership of Senator Landrieu.

This body should do everything within its power to help the businesses of our Nation put workers back on the job. We cannot afford to miss opportunities to boost employment because the hundreds of thousands of people in my State and the millions across the country who have lost their jobs in this recession deserve our very best efforts.

All of us, Democrats and Republicans, say we support small business. We have an opportunity in the next few hours to back up our words with actions.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, there can be no doubt of the need for this bill, which includes an extension of enhanced Medicaid funding to States and funding to help keep teachers in the classroom and out of the unemployment line. Failure to enact this extension would place services to those most in need at terrible risk, and it would place many States, including my own, in an untenable budget situation.

Failure to enact the continued enhancement of Federal assistance for Medicaid and other health care programs would leave a hole more than $300 million wide in the budget of my State. Other States would face similar shortfalls. Plugging that hole in the current economic environment would almost certainly require service cuts or tax increases above and beyond those suffered already by so many of our States.

There is also little doubt of the need for the funding included in this bill to preserve teaching jobs. In the current climate, we should be looking for ways to preserve jobs. But that is especially true when loss of the jobs at stake would harm not only workers and their families, but students depending on these teachers to help them prepare for the future. Failing to approve this funding would damage our nation now and in the future.

The excuses our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle have used to prevent passage of important legislation in recent weeks do not apply here. This measure is fully paid for. I regret that some of the pay-fors are accomplished by borrowing from other important programs, and efforts are under way to correct that problem.

Mr. President, earlier this week I spoke on the Senate floor, calling for the confirmation of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. I added my voice to a chorus of bipartisan praise for her qualifications and abilities to be a Supreme Court Justice, joining supporters such as Miguel Estrada, Assistant Solicitor General in the George H.W. Bush administration; former Solicitors General Kenneth Starr and Drew S. Days and a number of my Republican colleagues, including Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Judd Gregg. These voices across the political spectrum recognize Elena Kagan's years of practical, pragmatic experience, and value, in the words of Professor Michael McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, her ``fidelity to legal principle even when it means crossing her political and ideological allies.''

Despite her abilities and her tremendous legal career, Solicitor General Kagan continues to be the subject of baseless attacks. For instance, the National Rifle Association, NRA, has taken out full page advertisements in multiple newspapers and has aired national television commercials claiming Elena Kagan is unfit for the Supreme Court because of her supposed opposition to the second amendment rights of Americans. The NRA's charges are unfounded and are refuted by the nominee's own words during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

For example, in regard to the Supreme Court's 2008 Heller decision, which ruled that the second amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private self-defense purposes in a Federal enclave, and the Supreme Court's recent McDonald decision, which applied the Heller holding to the States, the NRA has said that Solicitor General Kagan has left unanswered ``very serious questions of whether she would vote to overturn Heller and McDonald.'' Perhaps the NRA lobbyists were not watching her confirmation hearing when she replied to a question from Senator Tom Coburn saying, ``I very much appreciate how deeply important the right to bear arms is to millions and millions of Americans. And I accept Heller which made clear that the second amendment conferred that right upon individuals, and not simply collectively.'' In addition, in response to a related question from Senator Charles Grassley, Solicitor General Kagan said ``those decisions are settled law . . . I will follow stare decisis with respect to Heller and McDonald as I would with any case.''

It seems pretty clear, contrary to the NRA's claims, that Solicitor Kagan has answered questions concerning her position on the second amendment rights of Americans, and she will defend those rights.

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

Mr. President, it is obvious we are not going to be able to get to the Defense authorization bill this week. However, it is important we get to it as soon as possible after we return. In order to facilitate that, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 414, S. 3454, national defense authorization.

Mr. President, each of the items which the Senator from Arizona mentioned were voted on in committee. These are decisions that were made by the committee, and if we can get this bill to the floor, the decision will not be left up to the Armed Services Committee; it will be left up to the Senate. If anyone wishes to strike a provision that is in this bill--and the provisions which the Senator from Arizona talked about are all relevant provisions. It was a Senate Armed Services Committee bill which put into place don't ask, don't tell. The provision we have in there now which changes that policy makes it conditional upon that survey being completed and a certification from the military leaders that there is no negative impact on morale. So we have taken into consideration that survey.

The main point is that the place to debate these policies is on the floor of the Senate. The Senate will determine, if we can get this bill to the floor, whether we make that conditional change in the don't ask, don't tell policy or whether we do a number of other things, some of which I objected to in committee.

Some of the amendments of the Senator from Arizona that were adopted in committee I objected to and voted against. I am not going to deny the Senate the opportunity to take up a bill which is essential for the men and women in the military because I disagree with some provisions in that bill. I will then move to strike those provisions if I disagree that much, if we can get the bill to the floor. That is what the Senate debate is supposed to be about.

I am sorry there is an objection to this bill coming up. Obviously, we are going to try to get this bill up in September so we can debate the issues which the Senator from Arizona points to. They are legitimate issues for debate. We should debate them, but the only way we can debate them is if we get the bill to the floor.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will be happy to tell the Senator from Arizona what hate crimes has to do with the defense of this country. Men and women who defend this country defend this country for a lot of reasons. One of them is we try to act against hate in this country. That is one of the values we stand for; that we try to defeat hate. That was debated last year. It was voted on last year. The vote maybe did not come out the way the Senator from Arizona wanted.

If we want to debate last year, that is OK. Let's bring the bill to the floor so we can debate it. But the objection now makes it much more difficult to bring a bill to the floor so we can debate the very issues the Senator from Arizona wants to debate.

We should debate the don't ask, don't tell decision we made in the committee. It was debated there; it should be debated on the Senate floor. By the way, it is a conditional change in the don't ask, don't tell policy. The policy was put in place by the Pentagon and by the Armed Services Committee and by the Senate. It is perfectly appropriate that it be considered as part of this bill because it was our committee which put that policy in effect to begin with.

The debate is appropriate. But how do we have that debate unless we can get it to the floor of the Senate? How can we debate the amendments of the Senator from Arizona? There were two or three that he offered in committee that I objected to. How do we get to those debates unless we can get the bill to the floor?

I cannot get a guarantee from everybody that I will prevail in my effort to strike the amendments of the Senator from Arizona. I cannot get that guarantee in advance, nor should the Senator from Arizona seek a guarantee in advance as to what will be in the final bill or will not be in the final bill.

Mr. President, it was the Senate which made a decision last year on hate crimes. It was not the Senator from Michigan, although I very much favored what the Senate of the United States did. But it was the Senate of the United States which acted in a way which the Senator from Arizona does not agree to--I don't know how many amendments we adopted last year, but it was a large number of amendments which were adopted. A large number of amendments were defeated. I don't know if that tree was filled up, as the Senator puts it, last year or not, or when it was filled up. But we had a huge number of amendments that were considered on this bill.

It is the intention, I hope and believe, of the leader, and it is surely my intention this year, that we have an amendment process which is traditional for the Defense authorization bill; that it be a very open process for amendments on this bill. That is my intention. It is the intention of the majority leader as well. I want to assure my friend from Arizona that will be the case again this year.

I yield the floor.

Is the Senator from Arizona suggesting we did not have a vote on hate crimes last year?

It is not my recollection, but that is not my question. My question is whether we had a vote on hate crimes.

We did not prevent a vote on hate crimes last year. That is my answer.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

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

Mr. President, I wish to add my support to the many voices calling for the confirmation of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

At a time when the discussion of our legal system is so often dominated by ideological labels, Elena Kagan would bring years of practical, pragmatic experience to our highest Court. She is extraordinarily well qualified and will bring a valuable new perspective to the Court.

The highlights of Solicitor General Kagan's career are well known. Most recently, in 2009, she was the first woman to be nominated by a President and confirmed by the Senate to serve as Solicitor General of the United States. In this position in which she represents the interests of the U.S. Government before the Supreme Court, she has received numerous accolades from a broad range of observers. For example, Professor Michael McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and former circuit court judge nominated by George W. Bush, in urging her confirmation said the following:

Publicly and privately, in her scholarly work and in her

arguments on behalf of the United States, Elena Kagan has

demonstrated a fidelity to legal principle even when it means

crossing her political and ideological allies.

Miguel Estrada, Assistant Solicitor General in the George H.W. Bush administration, said Solicitor General Kagan:

. . . possesses a formidable intellect, an exemplary

temperament and a rare ability to disagree with others

without being disagreeable. She is calm under fire and mature

and deliberate in her judgments . . . If [she] is confirmed,

I would expect her rulings to fall well within the mainstream

of current legal thought. . . .

Ten former Solicitors General, representing both parties, have praised her ``breadth of experience and a history of great accomplishment in the law'' and said further that her ``most recent experience as Solicitor General will serve her well as she wrestles with the difficult questions that come before the Court.''

Among those former Solicitors General were Kenneth Starr and Drew S. Days.

In 2003, Elena Kagan was named dean of the Harvard Law School, the first woman to hold that title. Throughout her distinguished career, she has shown a remarkable knack for reaching out to people across the ideological spectrum. As Harvard Law School's dean, she broadened the school's diversity of legal points of view, strengthened the academic program, and improved quality of life for students and faculty alike.

Elena Kagan will bring a different perspective to the Court, and we should welcome that. Justice Antonin Scalia put it this way:

Currently, there is nobody on the Court who has not served

as a judge--indeed, as a Federal judge--all nine of us. I am

happy to see that this latest nominee is not a Federal

judge--and not a judge at all.

Elena Kagan's sense of fairness, problem-solving ability, and balance is illustrated by one of the episodes in her career that some have inaccurately criticized her for. During her time as dean of Harvard Law School, that school, similar to many around the country, had a policy to not use the campus to promote discriminatory activities, such as don't ask, don't tell.

Some have sought to portray Elena Kagan's actions throughout this episode as antimilitary. I find nothing in her words or actions that constitutes hostility to the military. Quite the opposite. But don't take my word for it. Take the words of former students of hers--for instance, one who when he received his promotion to captain in the Massachusetts National Guard asked Elena Kagan to pin on his captain's bars at his promotion ceremony--hardly an honor for a soldier to bestow on someone who is antimilitary.

CPT Robert Merrill, who wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post, put it this way:

She treated the veterans at Harvard like VIPs, and she was

a fervent advocate of our veterans association. She was

decidedly against ``don't ask, don't tell,'' but that never

affected her treatment of those who had served.

Listen to 1LT David Tressler, who wrote:

During the brief period when recruiters were not given

access to students officially through the law school's Office

of Career Services, they still had access to students on

campus through other means . . . Kagan's positions on the

issue were not antimilitary and did not discriminate against

members or potential recruiters of the military. . . . She

always expressed her support for those who serve in the

military and encouraged students to consider military

service.

Finally, you can take the word of veterans who attended Harvard Law School who said that ``Elena Kagan has created an environment that is highly supportive of students who have served in the military.''

Elena Kagan is smart, she is experienced, she is learned, and she is fair. She has the support of a host of organizations, a broad cross- section of organizations, including the National District Attorneys Association, as well as a broad range of prominent scholars. She will make an excellent Justice of the Supreme Court. I hope she is overwhelmingly confirmed.

I wonder, through the Chair, if I could inquire of the chairman of the Small Business Committee--unless the majority leader is seeking the floor.

I am trying to figure out exactly why it is that the Republicans, who over and over say they understand that small business is the generator of at least two-thirds of jobs and maybe more--in fact, I use a figure that all the new jobs in this country were created by small businesses--but at least two-thirds. The Republicans, I think, believe that small businesses are the creators and generators of these jobs. As I understand it, organizations that represent small business have endorsed this bill. The Senator from Louisiana has done such a great job of putting those together.

But I am trying to figure out exactly how it is that in the situation where the small business organizations--or those purporting to represent small business--have supported this bill and where Republicans say, and I think believe, that small businesses are the great generators of jobs, that we are now in a position where, despite those things being true, the Republicans are not letting us proceed to a bill supported by those organizations. Is that where we are?

I would hope the organizations which purport to support small business--and, by the way, the greatest complaint I get when I go home, just about, other than the general one of where are the jobs, is that credit is not available to small businesses that are creditworthy and have proven it over and over--never missed a payment, have contracts that provide services or goods--yet can't get credit.

This bill has provisions for credit to flow. The community bankers, as I understand it, are supportive of this bill.

I would just hope that between now and the time the majority leader moves to reconsider that vote that we would hear loudly and clearly from those organizations representing community bankers, representing small businesses. Maybe they just have to say more loudly and clearly that this filibuster is wrong--wrong for Main Street, wrong for the organizations they represent, whether it is community banks or small businesses.

If the NFIB has spoken on this already, and if community bankers have spoken on this, I would hope they would speak a lot more loudly and a lot more clearly and a lot more forcefully.

This is the big job creator where I come from. I would just hope we would hear more clearly and forcefully from those organizations between now and the time the majority leader offers a motion to reconsider.

Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Landrieu and thank her. I am on the Small Business Committee. I serve with her on the committee and others. I have watched her extraordinary talent flourish as chair of the Small Business Committee.

The bill before us does something we all say we believe in; that is, support small business. Every Member of this body has pointed out something which the Senator from Louisiana knows and reflects in her work; that is, the engine of jobs is small business. We all say that. Most of us believe it. I hope all of us believe it, if we say it. It is not a partisan comment. This is a jobs bill which should get bipartisan support. Some of the jobs efforts have not. But this bill, because it is focused on small business and because that focus has been supported so regularly by Republicans and Democrats, will pick up some Republican support, I hope. It deserves that support.

Senator Landrieu has reached out to try to obtain that support for this bill. I hope she succeeds. In addition to thanking her for her great work on this bill, I wish to note the work of the Presiding Officer who worked very hard on a provision of this bill. As a matter of fact, he has worked so hard on other provisions on other bills which have recently passed this body and been signed into law. But Senator Merkley is actually the key sponsor of a provision which I will not be focusing on but which I believe has either already been discussed or will be.

I commend Senator Merkley for his great work on this bill with that particular provision.

I wish to begin my description of the part of the bill I have focused on with a thank-you, a thank-you to Senators Sherrod Brown, Stabenow, Warner, Baucus, Shaheen, Begich, McCaskill, and others who have worked so hard with me on a very major provision of this bill which I will now spend a few minutes describing in detail.

Senator Landrieu made reference to a significant fact in this recession; that is, the value of real property has gone down. Almost all of our houses are assessed at less now than they were a few years ago. I don't know if that is 70 percent or 80 percent, but it is a high percentage of homes that have lost value because of the recession. The home is exactly the same home, it is either maintained well or not, the way it was before the recession. This is true with businesses.

In all of our States, when we go home the thing we hear about more than anything else is jobs--get credit flowing to small businesses that, through no fault of their own, are unable to obtain credit; not because they are not creditworthy, not because they don't have customers, but because the collateral for their line of credit has gone down in value because of the recession. It hasn't gone down in value because it isn't maintained. It has gone down in value like most other businesses and industries on the same block or in the same community because the recession has reduced the value of these real assets.

The part of the legislation I have focused on is called a State small business credit initiative. It provides crucial funding to State and local programs that expand capital access for small businesses. We have lots of companies in all of our States that have stayed open. They have customers, they have business. Indeed, in many instances, they have more customers than they are able to handle and want to expand. I will give a few examples of how that has happened in my home State of Michigan, and I believe it is true in other States. The customers are there; the creditworthiness is there. We have many examples of businesses that have never missed a payment on money they owed to the bank down the street or in their community. They are creditworthy.

The problem is, because the banks require a certain ratio of collateral to the amount of the loan, that ratio cannot be met because of the collateral's loss of some value in the recession.

A couple success stories are a powerful argument for expanding these programs which are in 30 of our States, and other States will be able to follow these programs and pursue these programs as well when this bill passes.

In Saline, MI, a company called Saline Electronics makes electric circuit boards. They are good at it, and they are so good that in 2009 the company began to plan for an extension of their facility because it was too small to handle increased production. However, it hit a roadblock when the recession came.

Just as the company was exploring their expansion possibilities, the recession battered down the value of their real estate. Their building fell in value. So, again, they had good credit and great demand for their product, so much so that they wanted to expand, but the value of the collateral it could offer in applying for a loan had shrunk. That logjam carried a real threat that good-paying jobs for American workers would be going overseas instead.

We have a collateral support program in Michigan. It stepped in to end that threat. The program is designed exactly for situations such as this, where the value of equipment or the real estate has fallen because of the recession and, therefore, the collateral amount is not there as it was previous to the recession and would not support the loan because of the ratio between collateral and the amount of the loan required by local banks. But the State has this collateral support program. With that support, Saline Electronics was able to add 32,000 feet of production space and hired 30 new workers. There are similar examples across my State, across the country and, again, in the 30 other States that have a similar program.

Another example from Michigan: In Grand Rapids a company called Display Pack, a packaging company, got more than $1 million in financing through Michigan's capital access program which uses, again, very small public investments to leverage larger commercial loans for small businesses. That particular funding created 20 new jobs and saved another 125 that may have been at risk.

Driesenga & Associates, a small statewide engineering firm, used the same program to get loans for operating capital expansion. They added 11 new jobs, protecting 120 existing jobs.

This program in Michigan has used only $24 million in State government commitments to generate over $600 million in private financing. That is a hugely smart investment, and especially so when small businesses are so starved for capital.

As Senator Landrieu pointed out, this is not big government. This is not small government. This is plenty smart government. If you can leverage $1 of Federal funds and get, in this case, $30 of private funds as a result, that kind of leverage of public funding to private funding is a particularly smart investment.

But as the State budgets have been stretched and more and more businesses have sought access to these programs, there is an inability to meet rising demand. So the need for Federal support is great.

The State Small Business Credit Initiative in the legislation before us would provide support for States such as Michigan and the roughly 30 other States that now have them. Again, States that do not have these programs would have access to that Federal support and could start these programs. The House has approved a larger amount than is in our bill. On the other hand, we have a significant amount in this bill, and I thank Senator Baucus--that even though it was not to the amount the House put in for their bill, it is a significant portion of that, and we are appreciative of his support for this provision.

So there are a lot of other provisions in the bill that are worth commenting on, and, obviously, we are supporting, including the Small Business Job Creation and Access to Capital Act, which raises Small Business Administration loan limits. It includes a proposal I offered for an Intermediary Lending Pilot Program, which allows the SBA to make loans to intermediary lenders, such as business incubators, which can then loan that money to growing businesses.

The Small Business Lending Fund, which is included in this bill, which is the provision I referred to, which Senator Merkley, Senator Landrieu, our chairwoman, and Senator LeMieux and others have worked so hard on, is very similar to the Bank on Our Communities Act, which I previously had cosponsored.

So this bill is the right approach because it supports the engine of job growth. It is a small business bill.

It deserves the support of Senators of both parties. I hope, given the job situation we find ourselves in and the support that has been proclaimed for small business across the aisle and on this side of the aisle, we can find some good, bipartisan support for this tremendous initiative.

(Ms. LANDRIEU assumed the chair.)

Again, I commend our chairwoman, Senator Landrieu, who I now see is the Presiding Officer, and all those who have worked with her to bring us to this point.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will support the motion to proceed to debate on the DISCLOSE Act because I strongly believe that the voice of the people needs to be restored in our elections.

In January of this year, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed long-standing precedent when it held government restrictions on corporate independent expenditures in elections to be unconstitutional in violation of the first amendment. This decision ignored precedent in order to reject laws that have limited the role of corporate money in Federal elections for decades. I believe this decision could severely damage public confidence in our campaign finance system.

For years I have worked to maintain the integrity of our elections. I was a cosponsor of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, BCRA, which was a major step toward taking the unseemly race for big bucks out of the campaign system and preserving the American public's right to truth in advertising. However, the decision in Citizens United took us backwards. Before Citizens United, the Federal Election Campaign Act-- FECA--generally prohibited corporations and unions from using their treasury funds to influence federal elections--including political advertising known as express advocacy, which explicitly calls for election or defeat of Federal candidates. To be clear: Corporations were still able to engage in political activities through political action committees, or PACS. This process ensured that shareholders were part of the process. After Citizens United, however, corporations can use unlimited amounts of money from their general treasuries for this purpose.

That is why I am an original cosponsor of the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections, or the DISCLOSE Act. The DISCLOSE Act requires corporations, unions, or advocacy organizations to stand by their advertisements and inform their members about their election-related spending. It imposes transparency requirements, requires spending amounts to be posted online, and prevents government contractors, corporations controlled by foreigners, and corporate beneficiaries of TARP funds from spending money on elections.

Since the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, our elections are vulnerable to the influence of corporate power, which threatens to drown out the voices of individual Americans. The DISCLOSE Act will restore the public trust in both the election process and government itself. In our Federal elections, all voices must be heard, not just those with the deepest pockets. The DISCLOSE Act will help restore the people's voice, and I urge my colleagues to support the motion to proceed.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has rescheduled its July 27th hearing entitled, ``Social Security Disability Fraud: Case Studies in Federal Employees and Commercial Driver's Licenses'' for Wednesday, August 4th. The Subcommittee hearing will focus on the findings of a Government Accountability Office Report, ``Social Security Administration: Cases of Federal Employees and Transportation Driver's and Owners Who Fraudulently and/or Improperly Received SSA Disability Payments.'' Witnesses for the hearing will include The Honorable Michael J. Astrue, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, and Mr. Gregory D. Kutz, Managing Director of Forensic Audits and Special Investigations at the Government Accountability Office.

The Subcommittee hearing has been rescheduled for Wednesday, August 4, 2010, at 2:30 p.m., in Room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Elise Bean of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations at 224-9505.

committee on indian affairs