Floor Statements

Mr. President, I raise a germaneness point of order against the pending Cantwell-Graham amendment.

Mr. President, I raise a germaneness point of order against the Reed-Landrieu-Levin-Brown of Ohio substitute.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1884, offered by Senators Merkley, Bennet, and others.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.

Mr. President, I call up the second-degree amendment, No. 1931, offered by Senator Reed of Rhode Island.

Mr. President, the bill before this body had broad bipartisan support, bicameral in nature. The bill we are considering today is the IPO bill, of course. The bill passed the House by an overwhelming majority. President Obama supports it.

I want everybody to know that the bill is imperfect, and that perhaps is an understatement. What we are trying to do with amendments offered by Senators Merkley and Reed is to improve this bill, which has a lot of problems. These two amendments would go a long way toward correcting those.

This is an important piece of legislation, and we are confident that it will improve innovators' access to capital and give startups the flexibility they need to hire and grow. But it is not perfect, I repeat. As with any other piece of legislation, there are ways we can improve it. On this bill, there are many ways we can improve it. I am sorry we cannot do more.

To that end, the Senate will consider two germane amendments to this IPO bill that will protect investors and prevent fraud.

The first amendment is sponsored by Senator Merkley and others. It deals with companies that raise capital online from small investors. This amendment will ensure that watchdogs are in place to protect the small investors and their money from fraudulent companies and abuse of the system.

People are lurking out there waiting for ways to cheat. I am sorry, but it is true. These are people who are either amoral or immoral, looking for opportunities to make money. I appreciate very much the work that a number of Senators have put into this amendment. It is an important amendment, and it is so important to improving this bill. You will hear much more this afternoon from the sponsors of the amendment about why it is so important.

The second amendment is sponsored by Senator Reed of Rhode Island. All Senators have stature, but Jack Reed, with his military background, his experience in the House, and his experience in the Senate, is a man we all look to for leadership. His amendment will ensure fair and honest disclosure by companies raising capital. It will stop businesses from gaming the system and avoiding oversight by hiding thousands--or maybe tens of thousands--of investors. This will stop when this amendment passes.

Democrats and Republicans agree that we need to pass the IPO bill and make it easier for American companies to raise capital, to grow operations, and to hire new workers, but we must do so in a way that balances the needs and rights of investors and prevents fraud and abuse.

These two amendments will accomplish that. These two amendments are not going to make the bill perfect, but it will be a lot better.

While the IPO measure before the Senate today is an important piece of legislation, experts agree its impact on job creation will be somewhat limited.

This legislation is something that is before this body. Yesterday, Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would create, in 1 year, as it did this year that we are in, 300,000 jobs. It is hard to comprehend, but people who sponsored the amendment voted against it. But this isn't anything new. I think it is such callous disregard for what is fair and right.

The Republican leader has been talking nonstop about how important it is for Congress to continue to create jobs. So I am disappointed--and that is an understatement--that yesterday Senate Republicans, led by my friend the Republican leader, rejected an opportunity to help American exporters grow and hire.

The Ex-Im Bank helps American exporters compete in a global economy, and it has always enjoyed broad, bipartisan support--until this Republican minority stepped in here. The last time it was offered, in 2006, a Republican offered it. It got unanimous consent to pass. This legislation has been going since the 1930s. It is backed by the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, and labor unions. All my Republican friends can explain to the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Business Roundtable that not only did they kill this bill but they stopped the deficit from going down by $1 billion, because the Ex-Im Bank bill reduces the deficit by $1 billion. Of course, it had Republican cosponsors.

In fact, my Republican colleagues, including many who voted against this amendment yesterday, admitted they support the legislation. I had a number of Senators come to me saying, we like it. As I said yesterday in my remarks, they are voting against a bill they say they like. The Republican leader said a number of things yesterday, but he said he wanted to vote down this worthy proposal because he wants to pass it separately.

We understand what is going on here. The Republican-dominated House of Representatives wants to send over here a hollow shell of the Ex-Im Bank, and they would look to us and say that we now have an Ex-Im Bank bill. What they have come up with is so foolish, and that is a good description of it. Their offer is hollow. They want to appear to support the Ex-Im Bank and at the same time kill it.

Democrats actually do support the Ex-Im Bank, and we made that very clear to everybody and voted accordingly. We want it to become law.

House Republicans have shown no desire to even consider this important jobs measure--let alone pass it. The only way to ensure the Ex-Im Bank can continue to help American companies grow and create jobs is for the Senate to attach it to this IPO bill, and that failed.

Yesterday, Senate Republicans had an opportunity to join with Democrats to create hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country over the next many years. They passed up that opportunity. Once again, they chose to pick an unnecessary fight instead. They want to fight over even things they agree with. How do you like that one? They love this bill, but they want to fight about it.

Our No. 1 priority is to create jobs, and we have shown that. It is obvious that the Republicans don't have their priorities straight. But this is something we have had to live with.

We are going to work with the minority to come up with a time to have a vote. The time expires around 6 o'clock tonight. Because of a number of things going on here today, I hope we can have a vote earlier than that. We will do our best to work with the Republican leader to try to come up with a vote. There will be three votes: Merkley, Reed, and final passage.

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

Mr. President, the hour of 2:30 having arrived, it is my honor and my pleasure to rise to honor a patriot, a pioneer, and now the longest serving woman in the Congress of the United States ever, and that is the senior Senator from Maryland Barbara Mikulski.

Barbara and I served together in the House, and we came to the Senate together in 1986. I remember that day so well, when we had our first appearance in the Senate as new Senators. It was quite a moving event for me. But one of the events I remember about that day is the presentation of Senator Mikulski.

We all said a word or two, and everything we said will be long forgotten. But what Barbara Mikulski said, in the way she has of saying things, will not be forgotten.

Here is this woman who is not even as tall as my wife, who is 5 feet tall, but she said, ``I slam-dunked Linda Chavez,'' her opponent. That said it all.

That was the beginning of my working closely with this good woman. She has been a friend, an inspiration to me in so many different ways in the time we have served together. When we got on the Environment and Public Works Committee, she was here, and I was here. She was always ahead of me in seniority because of her longer service in the House. On the Appropriations Committee, for more than two decades, I was here, she was here. She was always one ahead of me.

Barbara was the first Democratic woman elected to the Senate in her own right. Last year, she surpassed the legendary Margaret Chase Smith of Maine as the longest serving woman in the history of the Senate. On Saturday, she officially surpassed Congresswoman Edith Nourse Rogers of Massachusetts, who, by the way, served in the House from 1925 to 1960 as the longest serving woman in the history of the Congress.

Senator Mikulski's service--and the service of many female Members of Congress--has paved the way for girls of today to know they can become Senators, they can become professional basketball players, and they can be engineers and doctors. The sky is the place they need to go, and that is where they believe they can go because of the work that has been done by Barbara Mikulski.

When I came to the Senate with her, she was the only woman who served in the Senate as a Democrat. There was one other Republican at the time. Now, since then, Mr. President, I have watched very closely on this side of the aisle. Now we have 12 Democrats, and if the elections turn out the way I hope they do--and I am cautiously optimistic they will--we will have 17 women who are Democrats in the Senate.

She has been truly a trailblazer. We recognize Barbara's achievements today and her outstanding record as a tireless advocate for the State of Maryland. She grew up in the Highlandtown neighborhood of east Baltimore. She learned the value of hard work by working in and watching her dad, especially, open that family grocery store and work from early in the morning until night. He sold lunch to steelworkers and other people who came by that little grocery store.

In high school she was educated by the nuns at the Institute of Notre Dame. She credits the nuns with instilling in her faith and a thirst for justice. She went on to study at Mount Saint Agnes College, which is now part of Loyola College in Maryland. She earned her master's degree in social work from the University of Maryland.

Barbara was a social worker and has always been proud of the fact that she has been a social worker. She was employed by Catholic Charities and the City of Baltimore's Department of Social Services. I can imagine what a dynamo she was--and she still is. There is no work harder than being a social worker. The problems one sees and has to deal with are extremely difficult.

During her years as a social worker, she was a powerful voice for children and seniors in need of an advocate. Barbara Mikulski then and now is an advocate. It was there the spark for service and activism was lit, but it was a plan to build a 16-lane highway that fanned the flames that had been lit by her activism.

The highway would have gutted historic Fells Point, a neighborhood that she believed should have been protected. It would have uprooted homeowners in a majority African-American neighborhood. She organized the residents of Fells Point and Baltimore's Inner Harbor and stopped the construction of that highway.

That is a testament to the power of democracy that she believes in with all her soul. Looking back on that triumph, Senator Mikulski said:

I got into politics fighting a highway. In other countries,

they take dissidents and put them in jail. In the United

States of America, because of the First Amendment, they put

you in the United States Senate. God bless America.

She has always been an advocate for the disenfranchised and disadvantaged in this country, but she has also been an advocate for dissidents in other countries, of whom she has spoken so eloquently on so many occasions. Her family was Polish. She has heard all the Polish jokes, and she has withstood a little of the ``barbs'' when neighborhoods were different than they are now. But she took special pleasure and was so proud of her heritage.

Barbara took a special interest in the plight of Polish people oppressed under communism. We know in 1980 the people of Poland started a fledgling little group called Solidarity--a movement to engage in nonviolent resistance against communism and in support of social change.

Senator Mikulski and I had the wonderful pleasure of traveling under the guidance of a trip led by John Glenn--a world famous man then and now. It was a wonderful trip for a couple of new Senators. The Iron Curtain was down, and it was down hard, but we went to Poland on a codel. I can remember we had the opportunity to meet with members of the Solidarity movement. We met in secret with them, in a secret location, and Senator Glenn talked, Senator Stevens, then a senior member of the Senate at the time spoke, and I said I would like to hear from Senator Mikulski.

Now, Mr. President, I am not articulate enough to explain the presentation she made extemporaneously, but this powerful woman stood and talked about her heritage and her religion and what that meant to the people of America and what it should mean to the people of Poland. It was truly--and I have told her this personally over the years on several occasions to remind her--one of the most heart-warming, stirring speeches I have ever been present to listen to. She spoke to the people assembled there--there weren't many of them--as a fellow activist. She spoke as an American of Polish descent and a fellow Catholic. She spoke as one of them. When that presentation was completed, everyone knew she was one of them.

It took almost a decade for the Solidarity movement to strike victory in Poland, and I know Senator Mikulski's speech was not the reason, but I guarantee you it was one of the reasons they had the audacity and the courage to proceed as they did.

Remember, Poland was an interesting country. It was the only country behind the Iron Curtain where the Communists could not destroy their educational system, and that was because of the strength of the Catholic Church in Poland at that time. Solidarity's victory in Poland inspired a stream of peaceful anti-Communist revolutions that eventually caused the fall of communism entirely all over Eastern Europe.

Barbara's Polish ancestry and the Polish community in which she grew up in Baltimore were very important to her, but I never knew it until that moment in Warsaw with those few members of Solidarity who were assembled to honor us.

Her great-grandmother had come here from Poland with just a few pennies in her pocket--literally--but she had a dream of a better life for her and her family. This is what Barbara Mikulski said about her great-grandmother.

She didn't even have the right to vote, and in this great

country of ours, in three generations, I joined the United

States Senate.

It was a remarkable feat for her. But, more importantly, it was a confirmation of the American dream. For Barbara, what began as community activism, a fight against a highway, grew into a successful career in public service.

I just want to add a side note, Mr. President, and talk about something very personal to me. When Senator David Pryor got sick, he was the Democratic conference secretary in the Senate. That opened up a spot in the Senate leadership. That was something I thought would be interesting to me. It was known who was interested in filling that spot, and I knew Barbara was interested.

I went to Barbara and said: Barbara, if you want it, it is yours. Two years later, Wendell Ford decided he was going to retire. He was the whip. I can still remember that morning walking from the Hart Building over to the Russell Building, in that long walkway there, and I saw Barbara Mikulski. I didn't say a word to her.

She said: I want to talk to you. She said: You supported me when I wanted to be the conference secretary. You

want to be the whip, I am supporting you. But for Barbara Mikulski, I would not have had that leadership position. Once the Democratic caucus knew Barbara Mikulski supported me, it was all over. I won. And I won because she came to me, as she did that morning.

So, Mr. President, my respect, admiration, and love for this woman is difficult for me to describe, but it is there. Barbara Mikulski ran for Congress and won after serving on the city council of Baltimore for 5 years. She represented Maryland's Third District for 10 years before winning the seat in the Senate she now holds.

Again, I appreciate all she has done for me--so many different things she has done for me. As a very able member of the Appropriations Committee and somebody who loves this institution, I am in awe of the legislative record of this amazing woman.

She has been a dedicated representative not only for the State of Maryland but the State of Nevada. One thing she did for me--and there have been a lot of them--when we were new Senators and she was on one of the subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee concerning veterans benefits and affairs, as a favor to me she traveled to Reno, NV, to look at an old veterans hospital. She went through it and said: This is not the way a veterans hospital should be, and I, Barbara Mikulski, am going to change it. And she did.

Through the appropriations process we renovated and improved that hospital so it was one of the better hospitals at the time. So I am grateful for this good woman, an advocate for parity for women on everything from salary to health care access. But for Barbara Mikulski the National Institutes of Health would not have a center for women. She got a little upset when she learned they had done a study of the effect of aspirin on people's hearts and she realized they had tested 10,000 people and they were all men.

I had a situation that arose in Nevada about at the same time where three women came to me who had something called interstitial cystitis, a devastating, debilitating, painful disease that is described as running slivers of glass up and down your bladder. It was said to be a psychosomatic disease. These women had nowhere to go. I talked to Barbara Mikulski about this, and now 40 percent of these women have medicine that takes away their symptoms totally.

I could go on here a long time, as everyone can see. But I do it because I congratulate Barbara on this milestone, which is so important to me and the Senate, and to tell her how much Nevada appreciates her. It is not just for Maryland. She has done things for the entire country.

I wish her well for years to come.

Madam President, Senator McConnell and I have tentatively worked out something so we will have votes tomorrow, not today. That being the case, we are not under a crunch for time here today.

We have a number of Senators here who wish to say something regarding Senator Mikulski, and I wish to set up an orderly time to do that. So I ask that Senator Mikulski be recognized. Following that, we have Senator Cardin to be recognized for 10 minutes; Senator Boxer, 10 minutes. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has been here since before anybody else. So following Senator Boxer, I ask that she be recognized. And Senator Gillibrand?

Yes.

Mr. President, this resolution concerns testimony, document production, and representation in a criminal matter pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. In this post-conviction proceeding, the defendant, Richard F. ``Dickie'' Scruggs, is seeking to have his honest-services fraud conviction vacated based on the Supreme Court's intervening decision in the case of United States v. Skilling.

The criminal conviction, which resulted from a guilty plea, involved the defendant's scheme to bribe a State judge by agreeing to ask Senator Lott to consider the State judge's application to fill a federal judicial vacancy. The defense is seeking testimony from a former staffer of Senator Lott about a brief phone conversation between the Senator and the State judge. Neither Senator Lott nor anyone on his staff was aware of the defendant's scheme.

The defense is also seeking testimony and document production from a staffer of Senator Cochran about contacts with Senator Cochran's office by or on behalf of the State judge in his efforts to obtain a federal judgeship.

Both Senators Lott and Cochran would like to assist by providing relevant evidence from their staff in this proceeding. This resolution would accordingly authorize Senator Lott's and Cochran's employees, and any other Senate employee from whom evidence may be necessary, to provide evidence in this action, with representation by the Senate Legal Counsel.

Mr. President, every morning I go out to do my exercise. This morning I started out the door and there was a crash of thunder and lightning, so I decided to do my exercise inside. When I got into the gym, I could watch TV and I could see these storms in another part of the country--really violent storms. When I got back to my house, my wife indicated that Senator Schumer called. They were stuck on the tarmac in New York, so I knew at that time we were going to have some problems here with scheduling.

Following leader remarks this morning, there will be a period of morning business for 1 hour, with Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. Following morning business, the Senate will begin consideration of H.R. 3606, the capital formation bill. The filing deadline for all second-degree amendments to the Reid substitute and the Cantwell amendment is 11 o'clock today.

Order of Procedure

The reason I am mentioning the storm situation is the votes we had scheduled for 11:30 today are going to have to be moved to this afternoon, because we have a number of people who can't be here, through no fault of their own. So I ask unanimous consent that the cloture votes that are currently scheduled to occur at 11:30 now begin at 4 p.m. this afternoon; that if cloture is invoked on an amendment or the bill, postcloture time be counted as if cloture were invoked at 12 noon today; and that the recess at 12:30 be until 2:15 to accommodate the weekly caucus meetings.

The official photograph was expected to be today. We will try to do it later this afternoon. We will put everybody on notice about that, and I will consult with the Republican leader about the votes and about the other matters we are going to have to reschedule.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a second reading of S. 2204.

Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings on this bill at this time.

Mr. President, for many years now the Ex-Im Bank, which is referred to as the Export-Import Bank, has helped American companies grow

and sell their products overseas. For those same years the Ex-Im Bank has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. It was a good idea when it started and it is still a good idea.

When it was last authorized in 2006, the Ex-Im Bank passed the House by voice vote and the Senate by unanimous consent. The unanimous consent request was offered by a Republican Senator. So when Senate Democrats brought the reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank before the Senate last week, we hoped the legislation would proceed with bipartisan, bicameral support as it did in 2006. After all, the measure will support about 300,000 jobs annually and help American exports continue to compete in the global economy. It passed the Banking Committee here in the Senate unanimously. It had three Republican cosponsors and is backed by the National Association of Manufacturers, the Business Round Table, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and various labor unions, including Machinists. It will actually reduce the deficit by $1 billion.

The Ex-Im Bank is one of the proposals we shouldn't have to argue over. This isn't something that deserves a fight. We should reauthorize it and move on quickly. But I am sorry to say, true to form, the Republican leadership--I am directing that to the House Republican leadership--this morning is once again spoiling for a fight where there shouldn't be a fight. Yesterday House Majority Leader Cantor called this bill that we are dealing with here to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank a ``partisan amendment.''

This bill is cosponsored by the ranking member of the Banking Committee, Richard Shelby. Senator Shelby has been the chairman of that committee; he is now the ranking member. It is tough to call anything Senator Shelby puts his name on with a Democrat as partisan.

Cantor claimed this noncontroversial, commonsense measure is derailing efforts to pass the IPO bill that will expand innovators' access to capital. It is simply not true. Leader Cantor should check with his Senate colleagues. Many of them understand American exporters need access to Federal financing to stay on a level playing field with global competitors.

Yesterday the senior Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, said without the Ex-Im Bank, ``Our ability to grow in South Carolina is nonexistent.'' In 2011, South Carolina exporters sold more than $130 million worth of goods abroad, thanks to Ex-Im Bank financing.

South Carolina is not the only State relying on the bank to keep business thriving. Nevada companies exported $33 million of their products last year, thanks to financing from the Export-Import Bank. In 2011, in the Presiding Officer's State of Delaware, the Ex-Im Bank made it possible for firms to sell more than $39 million worth of goods overseas.

Last year, the Ex-Im Bank supported 300,000 jobs across 49 States and 2,000 cities in America.

China already provides more investment capital to its exporters than the United States, Canada, Germany, and Great Britain combined, as Senator Graham said during his call yesterday. We had a conference call with people concerned about this legislation. So we cannot allow that gulf to widen.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says: ``Failure to reauthorize Ex-Im would amount to America's unilateral disarmament in the face of other nations' aggressive trade finance programs.''

I don't know if Eric Cantor has looked at this legislation. What is he talking about? Why does he want to fight about this? Can't we do anything with the Republican-dominated House of Representatives, working together?

The Chamber of Commerce said we do have a choice: We can compete or we can cooperate. We can engage in yet another unnecessary, unproductive battle--and Cantor is picking a fight, but we are not going to. He has challenged us to a fight. We are not going to fight because this is bipartisan legislation--or we can work together to help American businesses grow and hire. That is what we are going to do. The choice should not be difficult. We do not want a fight.

The Senate will vote on this reasonable proposal today. Almost 300,000 Americans had jobs last year--I repeat--because of this important legislation. I hope those workers come first as Republican colleagues cast their votes today.

Mr. President, will the Chair announce the business of the day?

Mr. President, as the Senate is aware, there are differences between the Senate and the House work product on the STOCK Act. This legislation limits insider trading by Members of Congress. It certainly would have been my preference to work out these differences between the two Houses through a conference committee. I know that is the preference of the Republican leader. That is the usual practice.

But we have been advised there would be objection to going to conference by consent. I have tried it and tried it and we cannot break through that. That means it would take filing and adopting three separate cloture motions over the course of weeks to get to conference; that is, if we can be successful on the first two. So we need to address this issue more quickly because otherwise we do not address it at all, and we need to address it.

As a consequence, I am going to file cloture in the motion to concur with the House bill on the STOCK Act. It is my hope we can resolve this matter expeditiously, and I hope we can thereby make clear Congress's intent to prohibit insider trading by Members of Congress.

I now ask the Chair to lay before the Senate a message from the House with respect to S. 2038.

Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment to

I have a cloture motion at the desk.

Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment to S. 2038, with an amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my motion.

Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.

Mr. President, I have a motion to refer the House message to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs with instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have an amendment to my instructions which has also been filed at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment to my instructions which is also at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived with respect to the cloture motion I have just filed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reed be recognized for 2 minutes and Senator Landrieu for 2 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that those two Senators be recognized.

Madam President, we need order in the Senate. People should take their seats. The Republican leader has some words he wants to share with the Senate.

Madam President, at a meeting very recently with people from the Pentagon, their No. 1 issue is not Afghanistan, it is not Iraq, it is not Pakistan, it is not North Korea, it is not Iran, it is cybersecurity. We have to move to that legislation. The post office is going broke as we speak. We have to move to that bill as quickly as we can. The Violence Against Women Act has expired. We have to move forward on that. We have so much to do in such a short period of time.

The Export-Import Bank is a powerful piece of legislation--300,000 jobs this year alone. It saves $1 billion. And my Republican colleagues, as has been standard procedure around here, even on a bill that is as supported as this by the country, want to have a fight. The fight is on a procedural matter, that they want offered amendments-- plural.

As my friend the Republican leader said, we could pass this bill in a relatively short period of time. Think about that. Right now, we could pass that, it would be part of this IPO bill we got from the House, and we could go on about our business. So I think this is a huge mistake by my Republican colleagues.

Everyone, listen. Ex-Im is, for the foreseeable future, not going to be able to be moved forward. I cannot move it to the front of everything else when we have all these things due. I have only talked about a few of the things we have to do, and we have to do them very soon.

So go ahead, my friends. You picked a fight where it is not a necessary fight, but you may be surprised how this winds up. I will say no more. I know what the rules of the Senate are, and I am going to follow them. So have at it, vote no on the Ex-Im Bank.

Madam President, I say go ahead and vote against a bill you favor. It is very clear. The only way to ensure that this program, the Ex-Im Bank, advances is to see that it is attached to the House measure. Clearly, that is it.

I am very, very tired of this bill, the IPO bill, being referred to as a jobs bill. That takes a lot of gall, to talk about that as a jobs bill. We have a jobs bill that we, on a bipartisan basis, passed after 5 weeks on the Senate floor. Have I heard one word from my Republican colleagues about a real jobs bill, saying, why is the Speaker driving a nail in this bill that we worked on for 5 weeks?

Understand that the surface transportation bill is a jobs bill. The IPO bill is a nice thing to do, if it were done in the right manner and we had some amendments that got rid of some of the bad provisions. Before this is all over, that may be just what happens.

Madam President, remember, anyone who can read--we can all do that--the morning press accounts. Cantor of the House leadership has said he doesn't support the Ex-Im Bank; that my amendment--my amendment, sponsored by Democrats and Republicans--was a partisan maneuver. They are not about to take the Ex-Im Bank unless it is part of the overall package, and that is why we are doing it this way.

Madam President, as my friend the Republican leader said so clearly, he is not the leader. I am. We have a number of very important issues we have to deal with. Even though I believe in the Ex-Im program, it is going to drop to the bottom of the calendar because we have things we have to do.

Cloture Motion

Madam President, for my Members, we are going to have a conference at 5:15 in the LBJ Room. I have spoken to the Republican leader. We will have no more votes tonight. We will determine a time in the morning to have the next vote or votes. We will move on from there. So, again, I say to my Senators, 5:15 in the LBJ Room.

I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, Dr. Keith Rheault has dedicated his entire career to education, including serving in the Nevada education system for more than 26 years. At the end of this month, Dr. Rheault is retiring from his current position as the Nevada Superintendent of Public Instruction. Today, I am proud to recognize him for his service and his commitment to improving the lives of Nevada's children through education.

As superintendent, Dr. Rheault has been responsible for a school system that educates more than 400,000 students in some of the most diverse school districts in the country. In this capacity, Dr. Rheault has developed a unique understanding of the challenges facing Nevada's districts and schools. Over his 8 years as superintendent, he has helped lead several statewide educational initiatives and has worked hard to ensure that Nevada students are prepared to compete in the global economy.

Most recently, Nevada was one of only six States to be awarded a $71 million, 5-year competitive grant through the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy Program to improve the literacy skills of Nevada students, including students with disabilities and limited English proficiency. In addition, Dr. Rheault oversaw the Nevada Pathway to 21st Century Learning, a statewide professional development program dedicated to helping Nevada teachers successfully integrate and utilize technology in their classrooms.

Nevadans are fortunate to have had the educational leadership of Dr. Rheault. I join with students, teachers, and administrators from across the State in thanking him for his dedication and service. It has been a pleasure to work with Dr. Rheault over the years, and I wish him and his family the best as he begins this next phase of his life.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until tomorrow, March 21 at 9:30 a.m.; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business for an hour; that during that period of time, Senators be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the final half, the majority the first half; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 3606; finally, that the time from 2:30 p.m. until 3 p.m. be as in morning business to acknowledge the milestone reached by Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland as the longest serving woman in Congress in the history of our country.

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, following any leader remarks the Senate will be in morning business until 4:30 this afternoon. The filing deadline for all first-degree amendments to the substitute amendment to H.R. 3606 is 4 o'clock this afternoon.

Following morning business, the Senate will begin consideration of H.R. 3606, the capital formation/IPO bill.

There will be no votes today. We will have a couple of votes in the morning.

Mr. President, this week the Senate resumes debate on a measure to improve innovators' access to capital. This bill passed the House on a bipartisan vote and has President Obama's support. We could make this legislation even better by passing the modest consumer protections included in the substitute amendment we will consider tomorrow. But Members of both parties agree we should pass it quickly. We will finish work on this legislation this week.

It is nice to see Democrats and Republicans standing on common ground for a change. But while this IPO proposal will be good for business-- helping to give startups the flexibility they need to hire and grow-- experts agree its impact on job creation will be limited. The IPO bill is a good bill, but we all recognize its job creation impact will be fairly limited.

We want to do something with this legislation to increase the amount of jobs that will be forthcoming soon, which we have done. So as part of this IPO bill, it is important Congress also reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank, and do it now.

Reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank will help American exporters compete in a global economy and sell more of their products overseas. Last year, Ex-Im Bank financing helped 3,600 private companies and almost 300,000 jobs were added in more than 2,000 communities. That is why the Ex-Im Bank has always enjoyed broad bipartisan support.

The last time this measure came before the body, it was offered by a Republican Senator and was passed by unanimous consent. The reauthorization legislation we will vote on tomorrow is also bipartisan. It passed the Banking Committee unanimously. It has three Republican cosponsors and the strong backing of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Yet I read that some of my Republican colleagues don't want to advance this bipartisan measure.

Remember, it does not increase the debt whatsoever. Instead, I have been told that some Republicans want to start another drawn-out, knockdown fight over a proposal that passed unanimously the last time the Senate considered it. It doesn't make sense.

So let's review what is at stake. Unless Congress acts, Ex-Im Bank may hit its lending limit this month. American exporters could no longer rely on an even playing field with global competitors.

The Ex-Im Bank loans money to American businesses when private lending is not available. Its investments made $41 billion in U.S. exports possible last year alone. That is why Ex-Im Bank Chairman Fred Hochberg says our competitors abroad ``are licking their chops'' at the idea that America would stop backing businesses that sell their products overseas.

Many of the businesses that are growing and hiring because of Export- Import Bank financing are small businesses. But the men and women who

run large outfits such as Boeing, American Express, Johnson & Johnson, Caterpillar, GE, and Motorola are also on record in supporting the Ex- Im Bank.

American entrepreneurs can't afford Congress to give up on them now. China already provides three to four times as much financing as we do to help Chinese exporters. So we must help American exporters. We must continue to give American businesses a fair shot to compete in a global market. Since Ex-Im Bank doesn't add a penny to the deficit, there is no excuse for Republicans not to support it. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says this commonsense legislation will actually reduce the deficit by about $1 billion.

It is critical we pass the IPO bill to help businesses access capital, but it is even more important we reauthorize the job-creating Export-Import Bank which helps those companies compete abroad. This proposal will support hundreds of thousands of more jobs in the small business capital bill. Together it will be a real knockout. It will be great for America.

Democrats brought this measure to the floor in an effort to find more common ground, and passing it would be another major accomplishment of which both parties can be proud.

Will the Chair announce the business of the day.

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