Floor Statements

Mr. President, S. 3657 is at the desk and due for a second reading.

I object to any further proceedings on this bill.

Would the Chair announce morning business.

Mr. President, on Thursday night, we had a successful vote on the small business jobs bill. It was an amendment that had been worked on for more than a week by Senator Landrieu and many others, including Members on the other side of the aisle. We were able to get the votes to pass the amendment--60 votes on it. Now we are back on the bill.

I was told by the Republicans who voted with us on that amendment that it was appropriate before we moved to cloture that there be amendments by the Republicans on the legislation. I conferred with Senator Landrieu and, because Senator Baucus of the Finance Committee had to provide some of the money for some of the things we did, I conferred with him.

We were told that there were three amendments they wanted to have: a Hatch amendment, one by Senator Grassley, and one by the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Johanns. We agreed with those amendments.

As happens around here and has for many years, when someone offers an amendment, it is very traditional to have an amendment opposite that, a so-called side-by-side amendment. I do not know what could be more fair. We have agreed to their amendments, that we would have votes on them. Our amendments are within the same subject matter of their amendments. I cannot understand why we cannot move forward in good faith on this legislation.

Both parties claim they are friends of small business. This bill gives Members of both parties an opportunity to prove that.

This bill expands access to credit for small businesses across our entire

country, cuts taxes for small businesses across our entire country, and expands both domestic and foreign markets for small businesses.

We spent the last several weeks working with Members of both parties to pull this bill together and bring us to the point we are today--on the verge of final passage. My friends on the other side of the aisle said the only thing standing between us and their support for final passage is giving them an opportunity to vote on some of their amendments.

Last week, they requested we give them votes on three amendments. I repeat, a Grassley amendment on a biodiesel tax credit; a Hatch amendment on a research and development tax credit; and a Johanns amendment on repeal of the corporate reporting requirement in the health care bill. I do not know what could be more fair than saying yes.

I am going to propound a unanimous consent request that would give the Republicans votes on all three of their amendments, with a vote on a Democratic alternative on each one of them.

In addition, I will ask for a vote on a Democratic education jobs amendment and, of course, Republicans would have an opportunity to offer an alternative to that amendment. If they truly are friends of small business, if they meant what they said last week, the Republicans should accept this request because we are, in effect, saying yes, and we would then be on a path toward completing this bill.

The only alternative we would have then, which would be disappointing for I think most everyone, is we would have, by virtue of the rules, a cloture vote sometime in the morning. I hope that is not necessary.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending motion to commit be withdrawn; that all pending amendments be withdrawn, except amendment No. 4519; and that the following amendments be the only amendments in order to amendment No. 4519, with no motions to commit or motions to suspend the rules are in order during the pendency of H.R. 5297; that all amendments included in this agreement be subject to an affirmative 60-vote threshold; and that if the amendment achieves that threshold, then it be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table; that if it does not achieve that threshold, then it be withdrawn; that any majority side-by-side amendment be voted on first in any sequence of votes; further, that debate on any amendment included in the agreement be limited to 60 minutes each, with all time divided and controlled in the usual form:

Baucus amendment regarding information reporting provisions health care as a side-by-side to Johanns amendment No. 1099 reporting amendment; Johanns amendment No. 1099 which is on reporting; Murray- Harkin amendment regarding education funding; a Republican side-by-side to the Murray-Harkin amendment regarding education funding; Baucus amendment regarding expiring provisions, as a side-by-side to the Hatch R&D amendment; the Hatch amendment regarding R&D; Reid amendment regarding FMAP/Cobell funding; Grassley amendment regarding biodiesel; that upon disposition of the listed amendments, no further amendments be in order; that the substitute amendment, as amended, if amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, and without further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; finally, that once this agreement is entered, the cloture motions on the substitute bill be withdrawn.

Reserving the right to object.

I am terribly disappointed, Mr. President. We have tried our utmost to be fair and reasonable, but it is obvious there is no effort here to solve the problem with small business across this country.

The spending caps in the Sessions amendment we voted on five times, at least. Anyway, we have voted on it quite a few times.

Nuclear loan guarantees. This is an amendment that is suggesting there are not enough loan guarantees for constructing nuclear powerplants. And that is probably true, but that has nothing to do with this bill. That is not small business. We are talking about tens of billions of dollars--tens of billions of dollars for one plant, and we are talking about five or six plants. So we are talking about maybe $50 billion. That has nothing to do with small business.

The McCain amendment on border security. We know that is the place they always go--``they'' meaning my friends on the other side of the aisle--is to border security. It is interesting to note that on the supplemental appropriations bill, that was one of the amendments that was on the bill we got from the House, and we agreed to do that. We said: Let's do that. The money is there. Let's do it. There was an objection from the Republicans.

So I feel so disappointed for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is small businesses in America need this help. The Small Business Administration needs what we are doing here, and community banks need what we are doing here.

I also feel badly for another reason. Senator Landrieu, the chairman of the Small Business Committee, has worked on this matter tirelessly for a couple of weeks. The Landrieu provision was taken out of the bill in an effort to get enough votes to pass this. She was given the assignment of getting some Republican support, and she did that. That is how we got the votes last Thursday evening, because she worked with them and we picked up two Republican votes. So I feel bad that she is not going to see the fruit of her labors unless something changes. She has done remarkably good work.

This legislation is supported by chambers of commerce and all kinds of

organizations. This is not a Democratic bill; this is one that is bipartisan. If there ever were anything that is bipartisan, it is this bill.

The estate tax? Let's be serious. We all know, Mr. President, that this is an effort to stall and not do this bill. There is no suggestion that we don't need to do something with the estate tax before we end this congressional session, but it has nothing to do with this legislation before us. We were told there were three amendments they wanted, and we agreed to take those.

So regretfully, unless someone can come up with a proposal that is something that has reasonableness in it--I can't imagine what is wrong with what we have suggested. We take their three amendments, we have side-by-sides to those and go to cloture in the morning.

I notice the consent agreement they have given us here has no time limit. I know my friend said he would work on time agreements. And even when we finish this, there is nothing that says we would even go to the bill then. This is the proverbial stall we have had all year--an effort to say no to everything we do. So I regretfully have to object.

Mr. President, it appears we have reached an impasse here. I ask unanimous consent that we go into a period of morning business now, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Select Committee on Intelligence has received a request from the Department of Justice for records, created by the committee in the course of its oversight work, pertinent to a pending investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of classified national security information by someone not connected with the committee.

This resolution would authorize the chairman and vice chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, acting jointly, to provide records, created by the committee in the course of oversight, in response to this request from the Department of Justice.

Because the Department of Justice may seek testimony at some point from staff of the committee, the resolution would also authorize former and current employees of the committee to testify in proceedings arising out of this matter, except where a privilege should be asserted, and to he represented by the Senate legal counsel.

Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, there will be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. The time until 12:30 will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. The majority will control the first 30 minutes and the Republicans will control the next 30 minutes.

The Senate will be in recess from 12:30 until 2:15 today for the weekly caucus meetings.

Following the caucus, the time between 2:15 and 2:45 will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the final 15 minutes. At 2:45, the Senate will proceed to a rollcall vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 3628, the DISCLOSE Act.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to H. Con. Res. 304.

I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Would the Chair announce the business for the day.

Mr. President, the majority has 15 minutes, and I yield to Senator Schumer whatever time he may use. I would also alert Members that the vote may be more than 15 minutes from now because I may have to use some of my leader time.

Mr. President, if the time is limited to 15 minutes, I will use leader time to complete my statement.

Mr. President, my friend the Republican leader talked about a number of things in his presentation, all the time making remarks such as ``reading the bill caused unrestrained laughter.'' Well, 85 percent of the American people support this legislation.

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis offered disclosure and transparency as the antidote to swollen corporate influence. Sunlight, he said, is ``the best of disinfectants.'' The man who would replace him on the Supreme Court shed light on the importance of the individual's vote, the voice that anchors our democracy. William O. Douglas, who served on the bench longer than any other Justice, said that the right to vote means more than simply the right to pull a lever on election day. He said it also means ``the right to have the vote counted at full value, without dilution or discount.'' Both Brandeis and Douglas were right. These two Justices' observations should guide us as we correct an error made by today's Supreme Court--the Roberts Court--when it wrongly ruled in January that corporations, special interests, and foreign governments can flood America's political system with contributions in unlimited amounts and in secrecy. That decision was wrong.

The campaign advertisements at issue in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and in the bill before us, the DISCLOSE Act, are presumably about giving the electorate the information it needs to make an informed choice. But that information must also include its source because an open political process demands the disclosure of who is paying the bills. We are all agreed that voters can believe, criticize, or support any ad they wish, but a citizen cannot responsibly do any of that if he doesn't know how the ad found its way into his living room.

Our votes are the most precious part of our democracy. If someone is going to such great lengths to convince us how to use it, should we not at least know their names? Put differently, why would we let those who go to such great lengths to conceal their names--and those who try to protect them by blocking this bill--dilute or manipulate our voices?

The principle behind the bill is a simple belief that neither the American voter at home nor the democratic process at large benefits from campaigns funded by secret sponsors who are hidden from public view. Quite the opposite, in fact; such secrecy is harmful because it deliberately keeps from voters the identity of those trying to influence their choices and sway our elections.

This is also about trust and confidence in our democracy. Whenever the voice of the corporation is the loudest, the voice of the citizen is harder to hear. If citizens don't have reason to trust the electoral process, voters have little reason to trust the outcome of the election, and constituents ultimately have no reason to trust their elected government.

This Supreme Court case and this piece of legislation are not only about campaign checks; it is also about checks and balances. The Senate is not reversing or circumventing the Court's ruling; we are only bringing back transparency, accountability, and fairness to the system so it can work best for the people it serves. We are doing that in three ways.

First, this bill says that if you are a foreign corporation or a foreign Government, you can't spend money in American elections.

Second, it says if you are a company that benefited from TARP--the emergency program that kept our largest institutions and our economy afloat--you can't turn around and give those taxpayer dollars to a political candidate.

Third, to prevent both the possibility and the perception of a pay- to-play scheme, it says that if you are a government contractor, you cannot contribute to campaigns either.

These three elements are written primarily to protect voters, but voters are not the only ones who will benefit. If you are a shareholder of a company rich enough to put a campaign ad on television, wouldn't you want to know how it is using your investment and spending your money? Of course.

CEOs and special interests can run all the ads they want today, and after the DISCLOSE Act is law they will still be able to do that. That is their right. The difference is that our bill says you just can't pay for an ad; they have to stand by that ad also. This new law will not stifle anybody's speech or their ability to advertise; it merely requires them to do so in the open.

What could be more patriotic and less partisan than protecting a person's vote and all the information that goes into that decision?

The desire for greater real-time disclosure of election spending was not long ago a bipartisan concept. It is incredible that we now have to struggle to find a supermajority--60 Senators--even just to debate a bill the principles of which both parties once supported and that 9 in 10 Americans want us to pass.

What else is new?

When we fought to protect every American's right to afford good health, the other side jumped to the defense of corporate America and the special interests in the insurance racket.

When we fought to protect Americans from the unchecked greed in the financial industry--recklessness--that cost 8 million Americans jobs and nearly collapsed our economy, the other side jumped to the defense of corporate America and special interests--this time, those on Wall Street.

When we fought to hold BP accountable for its negligence, the other side jumped to the defense of the corporation responsible for the greatest manmade environmental disaster in history, going so far as to apologize to its now-ousted CEO.

When we ran to the side of millions who lost their jobs in the recession and exhausted their unemployment insurance, while they searched for hard-to-find jobs, the other side argued that what our economy needed was more tax breaks for multimillionaires.

On the stimulus bill, 93 percent of the Republicans voted against it in the Senate. On the unemployment insurance extension, 88 percent of the Republicans voted against that. On Americans' jobs and closing tax loopholes, 86 percent of the Republicans voted against that. On the health care bill, 100 percent of the Republicans voted against it. On the HIRE Act, 68 percent of Republicans voted against. Even on cash for clunkers--which was, by all estimates, a great success--82 percent of the Republicans voted against it.

This issue is no different than those I went through. The bill asks us to put the people before the special interests. It asks us to ensure that an individual's vote speaks louder than the deep pockets of the powerful.

It asks us this so the next time a health insurance company or a big Wall Street bank or a major oil company or any other special interest puts a campaign ad on the air, everyone will know who did it. It will make sure viewers can consider the source as they consider their vote.

Americans have fought so hard and at so great a price to ensure the voting rights of every individual. We have removed obstacles between people and the ballot box, removed corruption from the campaign process, and gone to great lengths to encourage everyone to participate on election day.

Why would we diminish a right that was so hard won? Why would we go backward?

This new law will return our popular elections to the people by limiting anyone's ability to dilute a citizen's power and by letting in the sunlight that disinfects our democracy.

Who could oppose that? The only ones fearful of transparency are those with something to hide. That is what this legislation is all about.

It is my understanding we are ready for a vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call be waived.

Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked.

Mr. President, for the information of the Members of the Senate, we are going to move to the small business jobs bill. I have spoken with the Republican leader, and staff is aware, that we are going to have the same vote we had on Thursday night--that will be the amendment--with the exception that we are going to place in that bill the agricultural disaster relief that has been around for a long time. That will be added to this small jobs bill.

I have spoken with Senator Landrieu, and she has indicated to me that she has had conversations with Members of the minority, and they would like an amendment or two or three. I think that will be about the limit that we should do. We will be happy to have side-by-sides or have something that would give us the opportunity to see what those amendments are going to be.

So in short, we are going to work and start legislating as early as we can in the morning. I don't think we will be able to do much tonight. We will consider that. But everyone should be ready tomorrow. We are going to do our utmost to finish this bill tomorrow.

Everyone should understand that we are going to do our best to get out of here a week from Friday, but we will need the cooperation of Senators on a number of things. We have a fairly long list of things we need to do before we leave.

There will be no further rollcall votes today. The tree we talked about we have to tear down, but it is my understanding that we shouldn't have a problem doing that.

My only purpose here is that we can go through the program of tearing the tree down, but those votes are somewhat inconsequential. I don't think we need to do that this afternoon. It is my understanding, after having spoken to Senator McConnell, that everyone knows what the amendment is going to be. I have agreed there can be amendments offered by the Republicans, and it is only a question of what they are going to be.

So I have designated Mary Landrieu.

The amendment is just as I have outlined, and we should have it in 5 minutes.

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all pending amendments be withdrawn on the bill that is now before the Senate.

I ask unanimous consent the cloture motions be withdrawn.

Madam President, Senators Baucus and Landrieu have a substitute amendment at the desk. I ask for its consideration.

I ask further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I have a first-degree perfecting amendment that is now at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I have an amendment at the desk to the language proposed to be stricken. I ask for its consideration.

I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be waived.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I have a second-degree amendment now at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I have two cloture motions at the desk to the substitute and the bill, and I ask they be stated.

I ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorums required under the rule be waived.

I have a motion now at the desk to commit with instructions. I ask it be stated.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I have an amendment to the instructions at the desk.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.

Madam President, I am told that S. 3643 is at the desk and is due for a second reading.

Madam President, I object to any further proceedings with respect to this bill.

Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following leader remarks--and it doesn't appear there will be any--there be a period of morning business for 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3628, the DISCLOSE Act. There will be no rollcall votes today. Senators should expect the next vote to occur at 2:45 p.m. tomorrow, July 27. That vote will be on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the DISCLOSE Act.

This week, the Senate will consider the DISCLOSE Act, the small business jobs bill, the Energy bill, and any other items on the Legislative or Executive Calendars that have been cleared for action.

Would the Chair announce morning business.

Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.

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