Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am here, like so many of my colleagues today, to talk about the situation in which we find ourselves, where millions of American families and small businesses, on January 1, are going to see a tax increase because the Bush tax cuts are set to expire.

Before I talk on that issue, I heard my colleague from South Dakota speaking. I think it is important to point out the differences of opinion in some of his remarks because he talked about how great things were in the previous decade, in the early years of this decade. But he neglected to point out why we are in the situation with this recession: because of the financial meltdown, the recession that began in 2007 and 2008 as the result of so many of the policies of the previous Bush administration.

Unfortunately, if those tax cuts that everybody is talking about were going to create so many jobs, we have had them for 10 years, and I want to know where the jobs are. I have a lot of people in New Hampshire who are unemployed, and they are not benefiting from those tax cuts because they haven't created the kinds of jobs my colleague from South Dakota is talking about.

I appreciate the frustration that is there because this recession has gone on way too long and been way too deep, and too many people have suffered. But the efforts of this Congress, through the American Recovery Act to try to stimulate our economy and keep people working has been successful. There are construction workers, there are teachers, and there are small businesspeople in New Hampshire who are working because of the dollars spent under that Recovery Act. The estimates are that 3 million people are working now or have been kept working because of the dollars in the Recovery Act.

I just think it is important for us to correct the record a little about why we are where we are today and how best we can get this economy moving again.

Like everybody else here, I think tax increases on struggling small businesses and on families who are just getting by would be devastating to them and to our economy. I understand we have to do something about that. But at the same time, we face another growing problem, and I don't think we can talk about how we are going to deal with these tax cuts without recognizing that we have to look at a long-term plan for how we are going to deal with this other growing problem--the problem of our national debt.

Our national debt is now approaching $14 trillion. It is approaching that number quickly. In an effort to address the growing debt, I joined 12 Democrats and 15 Republicans, including my New Hampshire colleague, Senator Judd Gregg, in cosponsoring legislation earlier in this Congress to establish the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Now, although that legislation failed, earlier this week a similar debt reduction commission, one appointed by President Obama, issued its report. The findings are very sobering. The report indicates that we need to take dramatic action to reduce our debt. We need to develop a plan for how we are going to do that and we need to do that sooner rather than later. This is not a problem we can keep kicking down the road and expect it is going to solve itself. But while we are developing that plan, we need to look at how we can do everything possible to get the economy moving again.

We need to confront an economy that is still recovering from a deep recession. I appreciate, as all my colleagues do, that now is not the time to raise taxes on middle-class Americans. Senator Baucus has proposed a plan that makes sense. It keeps taxes low on middle-class Americans, so it essentially extends middle-class tax cuts, and it also makes some smart, targeted tax cuts--tax cuts that can help us lay a foundation to create good jobs and grow the economy.

For example, I am a strong supporter of the research and development tax credit. When companies invest in developing new technologies, as the R&D tax credit helps them do, they generate

high-paying jobs and solutions that change our world for the better. Investment in R&D plants seeds that will grow our economy and create jobs for decades to come. I believe we should make the tax credit permanent myself, but I am pleased Senator Baucus's plan extends it for at least 2 years.

The Baucus plan also reauthorizes Federal unemployment benefits, and the extension of unemployment benefits is one of the best things we can do to help average Americans and stimulate our economy. This money will not sit quietly in the accounts of millionaires and billionaires. It will get spent immediately at the local grocery store, at the pharmacy, at the gas station, and at other small businesses that need that spending the most. In fact, economist Mark Zandi, who was a former adviser to Senator McCain, has cited unemployment insurance as one of the three most effective uses of Federal funding. According to his analysis, every dollar we invest today will create $1.61 cents in economic growth. That is a good investment in today's economy.

I think it would be great if we could give everybody a tax cut and not worry about the consequences. I would love to do that, but we don't have that luxury. Tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent in this country will cost America $700 billion over the next decade. Let me be clear: I don't think we should heap another $700 billion onto our national debt. That would be irresponsible. It isn't fair to our children and it isn't wise for the economy.

I think we need to move forward and provide certainty for taxpayers-- everybody agrees with that--and to do that we will have to compromise. It takes working together, Democrats and Republicans. So I am also willing to vote for Senator Schumer's plan to extend tax cuts for everyone except those who make over $1 million a year. I think this is important to ensure that we include small businesses that might get hit at some level.

I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will come together; that we can negotiate a package that is responsible with taxpayer dollars, that stimulates our economy, and that protects middle-class Americans. That is what I am hoping to do, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as we try and develop a compromise that can allow us to move forward.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, a number of my colleagues and I are coming to the floor today to discuss a critical national security issue that Senator Kerry has already referenced in his remarks on the Senate floor. It is an issue that requires strong bipartisan action by the Senate; that is, the ratification of the New START treaty.

As we enter into the last weeks of the 111th Congress, there is no doubt we have some significant work remaining on a number of important priorities. But we have come to the Senate floor today to say that national security and the threat posed by nuclear weapons also requires our urgent consideration this year.

After more than 20 Senate hearings, more than 31 witnesses, 900 questions and answers, and nearly 8 months of thorough consideration-- including additional time during the August recess for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to consider the treaty--it is now time to vote on New START.

The treaty is squarely in the national security interests of the United States. It reduces the number of nuclear weapons aimed at American cities and allows for the return of critical onsite inspections lost when the previous START treaty expired. Ratifying the treaty would reestablish American leadership on nuclear security and give the United States increased leverage to curb nuclear proliferation around the globe.

This treaty in no way interferes with our ability to have a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear arsenal. In fact, in response to Senate concerns, the Obama administration has committed unprecedented amounts of money to ensure this modernization piece. Just yesterday, the three directors of America's nuclear labs wrote in a letter that they were ``very pleased'' with the administration's commitment and believe this commitment provides ``adequate support to sustain the safety, security, reliability and effectiveness of America's nuclear deterrent.''

Another concern that has been raised is the effect the New START treaty may have on some of our closest NATO allies. As chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe, I am intensely focused on meeting our NATO security commitments and defending and protecting our allies in NATO and beyond. I agree we need to remain vigilant in support of our allies, especially those in Central and Eastern Europe that border Russia and have strong, legitimate security concerns. But a failure to ratify this treaty could result in deteriorating U.S.- Russian bilateral relations and adversely affect the security of our partners in Europe.

I was pleased to see, just last week, at the NATO summit in Lisbon that all 28 NATO allies expressed their unanimous support for Senate ratification of the New START treaty. New START is in America's interests, and as our allies in Europe have stated clearly, New START is also in their interests.

Finally, a failure to ratify this treaty could have serious negative effects on our ability to meet the nuclear challenge posed by Iran. The failure to ratify the START treaty would undercut America's ability to marshal international support and exert increasing pressure on Iran. As we heard Senator Kerry reference earlier this morning, just today in the Washington Post five former Secretaries of State of the past five Republican administrations made a compelling case linking this treaty and the threats posed by Iran and North Korea.

The consensus is clear. New START is in our national security interests, and we should not wait any longer to ratify this treaty. Our military and our intelligence communities do not want us to wait. Our allies abroad and countless foreign policy experts, Republican and Democrat, across the political spectrum do not want the Senate to wait. The American people do not want us to wait.

We should follow in the footsteps of the Senate's strong bipartisan arms control history and ratify the New START treaty this year.

Madam President, I yield the floor to my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Casey.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to extend our time until 10:20 and to then allow for 5 minutes for the Republicans at the other side of their time.

Mr. President, today I congratulate Professor John Collier for being recognized as the 2010 New Hampshire Professor of the Year. This prestigious award recognizes Professor Collier's extraordinary dedication to undergraduate teaching and his positive influence on the lives and careers of his students.

Professor Collier is the Myron Tribus Professor of Engineering at Dartmouth, and has been teaching the introductory engineering course at Dartmouth's Thayer School of Engineering since the 1980s. His course is extremely popular among students because of its emphasis on practical, hands-on skills and problem solving. With Professor Collier's expert guidance, students in his introductory engineering course work in teams to solve real-world engineering problems in creative ways. Many former students of Professor Collier's note that the system of thinking they learned in his classes proved to be not only a cornerstone of their undergraduate educations but also their chosen professions.

Professor Collier is an expert on orthopedic implant design and engineering, and one of the world's foremost researchers on how and why implants fail. Failed implants are sent to his lab by the thousands, and his research is often used by implant manufacturers to improve the quality of their products.

The U.S. Professors of the Year program acknowledges the most exceptional undergraduate instructors in the country--those who stand out in their teaching and are a positive influence on the lives and careers of their students. It is important that we recognize the contributions that dedicated professors like John Collier make in educating young people. I am extremely proud that Professor Collier has been recognized with this distinguished honor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 442, H.R. 5481, a bill to give subpoena power to the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oilspill and Offshore Drilling; that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I think we should have as many eyes looking into this issue as possible, and as a member of the Energy Committee I supported the Barrasso amendment. But the issue before us today right now is that we already have a bipartisan commission appointed by the President. The commission is up and running.

The President's commission will issue its report in January, and the President's commission needs subpoena power to do its job right now. This was the largest environmental disaster in our country's history. It is important we get to the bottom of it.

I am disappointed that, once again, we are hearing our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are objecting to giving the President's commission subpoena power.

The BP oilspill was an unprecedented disaster--lives were lost, and the gulf region will suffer the environmental and economic consequences for years to come. We cannot turn back the clock and stop what happened. But we can prevent future disasters by finding out exactly what went wrong. We need to investigate this spill, and we need to make sure it never happens again.

That is why the President appointed a commission to investigate. But without subpoena power the commission cannot do the job they were appointed to do.

Already, we have seen reports that some witnesses are stonewalling the commission. Former Senator Graham and former President Nixon's EPA Administrator, William Reilly, who are cochairing the President's commission, told the press yesterday that investigators have ``encountered resistance to full responses to their questions.'' That is unacceptable. We cannot let BP and Transocean cover up the truth. The American people deserve answers.

This is the fourth time I have asked for unanimous consent on the Senate floor to pass a bill giving the BP Oilspill Commission subpoena power. Unfortunately, as we saw, this is the fourth time the Republicans in the Senate have objected.

This should be noncontroversial. In the House of Representatives, 169 Republicans voted in favor of this bill in June. It is outrageous that this simple bill is being obstructed here in the Senate. A thorough investigation is needed, and it is needed now.

Commission cochairman William Reilly, who used to sit on the board of ConocoPhillips, even said yesterday that it is ``unjustifiable'' for Congress

to not provide the commission with all of the tools they need to resolve this disaster. I could not agree more. I am totally disappointed in what we have heard from the other side.

I yield the floor.

Yes.

Absolutely. I appreciate the Senator from North Dakota pointing this out, and also pointing out what has been a bipartisan history in the past when we have dealt with these kinds of disasters and tragedies in the country, that this used to be a bipartisan effort, and how sad and disappointing that now it has come down to partisanship rather than working together.

Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to pay tribute to the life and sacrifice of MSG Jared Van Aalst, a native of Laconia, NH. Jared was killed on August 4 while stationed in Kunduz Province, Afghanistan. He was serving on his sixth combat deployment as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Jared exemplified the very best in our military's long tradition of selfless service on behalf of this great nation.

Master Sergeant Van Aalst enlisted in the U.S. Army on August 17, 1995. After completing basic training, the signal systems specialist course and basic airborne school, he was assigned to the Headquarters Company. He later completed the Ranger indoctrination program and sniper school, and continued to rise through the ranks as a sniper team leader and squad leader. Master Sergeant Van Aalst was promoted to sniper platoon sergeant, platoon sergeant, and finally served as the noncommissioned officer in charge of Headquarters Company's 3rd Battalion Reconnaissance, Sniper and Technical Surveillance. He saw combat in both Operation Iraqi Freedom and in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.

An exceptional marksman and soldier, in 2005 Master Sergeant Van Aalst defeated 147 of his brothers in arms to take first place at the service-rifle individual championship in the U.S. Army Small Arms Championships. He was later selected as a shooter and instructor for the U.S. Marksmanship Unit at Fort Benning.

Master Sergeant Van Aalst's many awards include the Bronze Star Medal, two Meritorious Service Medals, two Joint Service Commendation Medals, three Army commendation Medals, seven Army Achievement Medals and five Good Conduct Medals, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal with two bronze service stars, the Iraq Campaign Medal with two bronze service stars and the National Defense Service Medal with bronze service star. He was posthumously awarded a second Bronze Star Medal and a third Purple Heart Medal, as well as the Defense Meritorious Service Medal. Our Nation can never adequately thank Jared for his willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice in the defense of American liberties, nor can words diminish the pain of losing this brave American. For his 15 years of service, he has earned our country's enduring gratitude and recognition.

A Laconia native, Jared was a graduate of Plymouth Regional High School in Plymouth, NH, where he was the captain of the high school wrestling team and one of the best wrestlers in the entire state in his weight class. He is remembered for his incredible drive and determination to succeed.

Jared has been laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery. He is survived by his wife Katie Van Aalst, their two daughters Kaylie and Ava, and his parents Neville and Nancy Van Aalst. This brave New Hampshire son will be dearly missed by all.

I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in honoring the life of MSG Jared Van Aalst.

Sergeant andrew Nicol

Mr. President, today it is also my sad duty to pay tribute to the service and sacrifice of SGT Andrew Nicol, a native of Kensington, NH. Andrew, just 23 years old, was killed in action by an improvised explosive device on August 8 in Kandahar, Afghanistan, while supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. He served as an Army Ranger and was a member of the 3rd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, based at Fort Benning in Georgia.

Despite his young age, Sergeant Nicol served five tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and was awarded many medals for his valor. These included the Army Achievement Medal, Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Combat Star, Iraq Campaign Medal with Combat Star, and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal. He was honored for heroic actions during a combat mission in October 2008 and was also awarded the Bronze Star Medal for Valor for heroic actions in northern Iraq. His actions during these missions saved the lives of fellow soldiers and led to the capture of numerous enemy insurgents. Sergeant Nicol was posthumously awarded an additional Bronze Star Medal, a Meritorious Service Medal and a Purple Heart. Unquestionably, he served his country with both honor and distinction.

Andrew was a 2005 graduate of Exeter High School. He was captain of the wrestling team there, and earned the respect and affection of his peers through his leadership and wonderful sense of humor. Andrew looked for challenges, from racing in New Hampshire motocross competitions to serving as a volunteer firefighter and EMT. He was an indispensable member of his community.

Sergeant Nicol exemplified the best in New Hampshire's long tradition of service to this country. Our Nation can never adequately thank this young hero for his willingness to lay down his life in defense of the American people and words cannot fill the void left by his death. I hope that Andrew's family can find solace in knowing that all Americans share a deep appreciation for his service. Daniel Webster's words, first spoken during his eulogy for Presidents Adams and Jefferson in 1826, are fitting: ``Although no sculptured marble should rise to their memory, nor engraved stone bear record of their deeds, yet will their remembrance be as lasting as the land they honored.'' Sergeant Nicol has earned our country's enduring gratitude and recognition.

Andrew has been laid to rest at the New Hampshire State Veterans Cemetary in Boscawen. He is survived by his parents Roland and Patricia Nicol of Kensington, NH, and older brother Roland who lives in Boston. This young patriot will be dearly missed by all.

I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in honoring the life of SGT Andrew Nicol.

Staff Sergeant Kyle Warren

Mr. President, today with a heavy heart, I also wish to pay tribute to the life and service of Army SSG Kyle Warren, who was killed on July 29 in Tsagay, Afghanistan, by an improvised explosive device. Warren, formerly of Manchester, NH, was on his second deployment to Afghanistan. He was a member of the 1st Battalion, 3rd Special Forces Group, Airborne, based at Fort Bragg, NC.

Staff Sergeant Warren joined the military in 2004, entering the Army as a Special Forces trainee. Following Basic and Special Forces training, he completed medical training at the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School. By 2007, Warren had earned a Green Beret and went on to serve as a Special Forces medical sergeant during two tours of duty. His awards include the Bronze Star Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal, NATO Medal, Purple Heart, and Global War on Terrorism Service Medal. Unquestionably, he served our Nation with distinction and honor.

A native of southern California, Kyle moved to New Hampshire in 2003 to be closer to his mother. While in Manchester, Kyle joined the local men's rugby club and quickly made friends with his teammates. He is remembered for his wonderful sense of humor, remarkable physical strength, and exceptional kindness.

SSG Kyle Warren exemplified the best in New Hampshire's long tradition of service to this country. Our Nation can never adequately thank him for his willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice in defense of the American people and words cannot fill the void left by his death. He has earned our Nation's enduring gratitude and recognition.

SSG Kyle Warren is survived by his wife Sandra, whom he met while living in New Hampshire, his mother and stepfather Lynn and Ed Linta, as well as his father and stepmother Del and Hill Warren. This patriot will be dearly missed by all.

I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in honoring the life of SSG Kyle Warren.

Sergeant Marvin Ray Calhoun, Jr.

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

Mr. President, when I was home in New Hampshire over the recess, I had the opportunity, as I am sure the Presiding Officer did, to see all of the television ads that are being run by various candidates and special interest groups. Already--again, I am sure this is true in Minnesota and it is true across the country--because of the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, a decision many of my colleagues talked about earlier today, the airwaves in New Hampshire were flooded with ads from essentially anonymous, unaccountable special interests. I think the question we all should ask and certainly voters across this country should ask is, Who is really paying for these ads? Voters don't know. Sure, the ads give the special interest groups great mom-and-pop, apple pie-sounding names, but voters today have no way of knowing who is funding these groups and who is really putting up the money for these ads.

Personally, I think there is too much money being spent on elections these days. During the 1990s when I first ran for election in New Hampshire for the State senate and then for Governor, in New Hampshire we had a voluntary spending cap law. I think the law worked extremely well in limiting the amount of money candidates could raise and spend. Under our State law, a candidate who didn't want to voluntarily limit campaign spending had to obtain a certain number of signatures from voters or pay a higher fee to get on the ballot. And when that law was in effect, almost every candidate chose to abide by the voluntary spending limit. That had two very positive effects. First, candidates could spend less time raising money and more time talking to voters about the issues they faced. Second, a candidate needed to rely more on volunteers to help get their message out because they didn't have as much money to spend on ads and staff. You also became very efficient at how you spent your money--something that I think is helpful when you get into elective office. Now, unfortunately, New Hampshire's voluntary spending cap law was struck down in a decision very similar to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision.

When I look back at my three campaigns for the State senate in New Hampshire, I spent about $20,000 each time. Fast forward to today and the impacts of repealing that law by the Supreme Court in New Hampshire, and today candidates routinely raise and spend about five times that much. In my campaigns for Governor, I raised and spent about $1.25 million to $1.5 million based on what the campaign spending law was that year. Today, in New Hampshire, serious candidates for Governor raise and spend several times that amount.

Now, because of the Citizens United decision, we can no longer limit the amount of spending by special interests on Federal elections. But what we can still do and what we should do is require these anonymous groups to disclose who is funding their ads. That is exactly what the DISCLOSE Act does. It also prohibits foreign corporations from spending money to influence American elections.

I think unlimited election spending by anonymous groups and potentially foreign corporations poses a real threat to our democracy. This should be a bipartisan issue. For years, it was.

As the Presiding Officer knows, because I have heard him talk about this, back in 1997 the minority leader said--this is back in 1997, so over 10 years ago--that ``public disclosure of campaign contributions and spending should be expedited so voters can judge for themselves what is appropriate.''

Then just this spring, even after the Citizens United decision, Senator Cornyn, the Senator who is leading the Republicans' election efforts, told the Wall Street Journal:

I think the system needs more transparency so people can

more easily reach their own conclusions.

I agree completely. If all the Senators who are on public record supporting disclosure of campaign contributions voted in support of the DISCLOSE Act, we would pass the DISCLOSE Act today by a wide bipartisan margin.

I hope, as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle think about the DISCLOSE Act and about what is happening to manipulate our elections in this country, that they will join me--and all of us who believe that the best way to make sure that our democracy remains strong and that we address how money is being spent in elections--in supporting the transparency and the accountability that is available to voters in the DISCLOSE Act.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President. I rise today to join with my colleague and fellow member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, to introduce the Recovery Through Building Renovation Act of 2010.

There is enormous potential to reduce our nation's energy consumption and create jobs by investing in energy efficiency, especially through renovating existing buildings.

According to the Energy Information Administration, buildings account for more than 48 percent of total energy consumption in the United States. That is more than transportation sector and more than the industrial sector. More than 70 percent of the commercial buildings in this country are older than 20 years and these buildings are significantly less efficient than buildings built today. Improvements to these types of buildings can improve efficiency by 20 to 40 percent using widely available technologies and the payback period can be as little 5 years.

These investments in building efficiency pay for themselves and then some.

Most importantly, Senator Landrieu and I view this legislation as part of our broader effort here to create jobs and contribute to our economic recovery.

Updating buildings with modern energy efficiency technologies not only saves money on energy costs, it also creates jobs. Jobs in the construction industry. Jobs in the manufacturing industry. Jobs in the retail sector of the economy. These jobs can't be outsourced and they are jobs that can serve as an important part of our clean, alternative energy economy.

Yet despite all this potential, there is actually very little of this energy efficient renovation taking place because of financial barriers. Most commercial buildings are leased and investments in energy efficiency by building owners are uncertain because the tenant, not the owner, will capture the energy savings. This is often referred to as a ``split incentive.'' Likewise, lenders typically will not accept projected energy savings--even if guaranteed by an energy services company--as sufficient collateral to finance a building renovation.

Our legislation would use the DOE loan guarantee program to help unlock private capital and encourage investment in building retrofit projects and programs.

The Recovery Through Building Renovation Act expands the existing DOE loan guarantee program to cover buildings in the commercial and industrial sectors, in schools and universities, and hospitals so that they can be renovated to be more energy efficient.

Our legislation also establishes a competitive grant program within DOE to allow states to capitalize revolving loan funds to renovate municipal buildings. This program is modeled after the highly successful Texas LoanSTAR program. Finally, it also establishes a DOE grant program to capitalize loan loss reserve funds for tax-district financing programs, such as property assessed clean energy, or ``PACE'' programs, which a number of states are utilizing.

There is so much potential that exists here and I think we need to put existing programs to work, like the loan guarantee program, to unlock private capital and reap the benefits that will come from making these buildings more energy efficient.

I encourage my colleagues to support our legislation.

Mr. President, 1 ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President. I rise today to join with my colleague and fellow member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, to introduce the Recovery Through Building Renovation Act of 2010.

There is enormous potential to reduce our nation's energy consumption and create jobs by investing in energy efficiency, especially through renovating existing buildings.

According to the Energy Information Administration, buildings account for more than 48 percent of total energy consumption in the United States. That is more than transportation sector and more than the industrial sector. More than 70 percent of the commercial buildings in this country are older than 20 years and these buildings are significantly less efficient than buildings built today. Improvements to these types of buildings can improve efficiency by 20 to 40 percent using widely available technologies and the payback period can be as little 5 years.

These investments in building efficiency pay for themselves and then some.

Most importantly, Senator Landrieu and I view this legislation as part of our broader effort here to create jobs and contribute to our economic recovery.

Updating buildings with modern energy efficiency technologies not only saves money on energy costs, it also creates jobs. Jobs in the construction industry. Jobs in the manufacturing industry. Jobs in the retail sector of the economy. These jobs can't be outsourced and they are jobs that can serve as an important part of our clean, alternative energy economy.

Yet despite all this potential, there is actually very little of this energy efficient renovation taking place because of financial barriers. Most commercial buildings are leased and investments in energy efficiency by building owners are uncertain because the tenant, not the owner, will capture the energy savings. This is often referred to as a ``split incentive.'' Likewise, lenders typically will not accept projected energy savings--even if guaranteed by an energy services company--as sufficient collateral to finance a building renovation.

Our legislation would use the DOE loan guarantee program to help unlock private capital and encourage investment in building retrofit projects and programs.

The Recovery Through Building Renovation Act expands the existing DOE loan guarantee program to cover buildings in the commercial and industrial sectors, in schools and universities, and hospitals so that they can be renovated to be more energy efficient.

Our legislation also establishes a competitive grant program within DOE to allow states to capitalize revolving loan funds to renovate municipal buildings. This program is modeled after the highly successful Texas LoanSTAR program. Finally, it also establishes a DOE grant program to capitalize loan loss reserve funds for tax-district financing programs, such as property assessed clean energy, or ``PACE'' programs, which a number of states are utilizing.

There is so much potential that exists here and I think we need to put existing programs to work, like the loan guarantee program, to unlock private capital and reap the benefits that will come from making these buildings more energy efficient.

I encourage my colleagues to support our legislation.

Mr. President, 1 ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce a bill, the Innovation Inspiration school grant program. This legislation will give high school students in New Hampshire and across the country access to non- traditional science, technology, engineering, and mathematics programs as well as the opportunity to be mentored by professionals in those fields.

I am proud to be joined in introducing this bill today with Senators Reid, Dorgan, Kaufman, Begich, Bingaman and Kerry and thank them for their support.

We hear so often about the importance of STEM fields and our future economy. These fields--commonly defined as the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--are central to U.S. economic competitiveness and growth. In fact, projections by the U.S. Labor Department show that STEM-related fields are expected to be the fastest growing occupations of the next decade.

What is worrisome, though, is that too few students in the United States are pursuing education in these STEM fields to keep up with the increased demand in the workforce. For those students that do embark in STEM education, too often they are being outperformed by international competitors.

Simply put, I believe that in today's global economy American students must have access to better STEM training, have the opportunity to be mentored by professionals in the field and be engaged in the study of these critical fields at deeper, more meaningful levels.

This legislation, the Innovation Inspiration School Grant Program, does that. It will bolster our student's access to quality non- traditional STEM programs. It will grow the STEM pipeline and broaden access to careers in science, technology, engineering and math.

We all recognize that community partnerships and especially mentors for our young people are essential to their success. The Innovation Inspiration School Grant Program will provide states and schools critical resources to engage community members and professional mentors who are working in the STEM fields. I believe that by connecting students with well-trained teachers and community mentors, we can foster innovation at the high school level and inspire young people to graduate high school, enter the workforce, or go onto college to major in science and engineering and pursue careers in these fields.

Students in New Hampshire have been participating in non-traditional STEM opportunities, such as those provided by FIRST Robotics, for over 20 years. And for these students, the experience has been life- changing.

Take, for example, Aletha Evangelou, from Nashua, NH. As a result of her experience in the Nashua High School FIRST Robotics team, a love of engineering grew. She went on to major in mechanical engineering at the University of New Hampshire and is now employed at a defense and aerospace company in our state. She says ``I have been a full time mechanical engineer at BAE Systems for two and a half years now, and I can honestly say that I would not be here if I hadn't joined the FIRST Robotics program. It completely changed my life.''

Aletha is just one example of many students who have benefitted from the type of programs that are supported by this legislation. Every student in every school across the country should have the opportunity to have these sorts of experiences. This legislation does that.

I urge my colleagues to join me to ensure that high school graduates have the skills and knowledge in the STEM fields necessary to succeed in postsecondary education and develop the workforce of the 21st century.

Mr. President, today I introduce a bill, the Innovation Inspiration school grant program. This legislation will give high school students in New Hampshire and across the country access to non- traditional science, technology, engineering, and mathematics programs as well as the opportunity to be mentored by professionals in those fields.

I am proud to be joined in introducing this bill today with Senators Reid, Dorgan, Kaufman, Begich, Bingaman and Kerry and thank them for their support.

We hear so often about the importance of STEM fields and our future economy. These fields--commonly defined as the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--are central to U.S. economic competitiveness and growth. In fact, projections by the U.S. Labor Department show that STEM-related fields are expected to be the fastest growing occupations of the next decade.

What is worrisome, though, is that too few students in the United States are pursuing education in these STEM fields to keep up with the increased demand in the workforce. For those students that do embark in STEM education, too often they are being outperformed by international competitors.

Simply put, I believe that in today's global economy American students must have access to better STEM training, have the opportunity to be mentored by professionals in the field and be engaged in the study of these critical fields at deeper, more meaningful levels.

This legislation, the Innovation Inspiration School Grant Program, does that. It will bolster our student's access to quality non- traditional STEM programs. It will grow the STEM pipeline and broaden access to careers in science, technology, engineering and math.

We all recognize that community partnerships and especially mentors for our young people are essential to their success. The Innovation Inspiration School Grant Program will provide states and schools critical resources to engage community members and professional mentors who are working in the STEM fields. I believe that by connecting students with well-trained teachers and community mentors, we can foster innovation at the high school level and inspire young people to graduate high school, enter the workforce, or go onto college to major in science and engineering and pursue careers in these fields.

Students in New Hampshire have been participating in non-traditional STEM opportunities, such as those provided by FIRST Robotics, for over 20 years. And for these students, the experience has been life- changing.

Take, for example, Aletha Evangelou, from Nashua, NH. As a result of her experience in the Nashua High School FIRST Robotics team, a love of engineering grew. She went on to major in mechanical engineering at the University of New Hampshire and is now employed at a defense and aerospace company in our state. She says ``I have been a full time mechanical engineer at BAE Systems for two and a half years now, and I can honestly say that I would not be here if I hadn't joined the FIRST Robotics program. It completely changed my life.''

Aletha is just one example of many students who have benefitted from the type of programs that are supported by this legislation. Every student in every school across the country should have the opportunity to have these sorts of experiences. This legislation does that.

I urge my colleagues to join me to ensure that high school graduates have the skills and knowledge in the STEM fields necessary to succeed in postsecondary education and develop the workforce of the 21st century.

Thank you very much, to my colleague, Senator Klobuchar, and a special thanks for bringing us together this afternoon to speak on this important nomination.

I am very pleased to once again be able to come to the floor and speak in support of the confirmation of Elena Kagan to be the next Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I am happy to join Senators Klobuchar, Gillibrand, Mikulski, and Hagan to support this excellent candidate for the High Court.

The members of the Senate Judiciary Committee did a thorough job in vetting Ms. Kagan, and I thank them all for their hard work. I think the hearings they held on her nomination revealed three things; first, that Elena Kagan is a person of good character; second, that she is someone who understands and respects the rule of law and the role of courts in our democracy; third, that she is indeed qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. I believe the President chose wisely when he nominated her.

Back in June, after the nomination, I spoke about Ms. Kagan's impressive list of professional accomplishments, so I am not going to repeat them this afternoon. It is clear Elena Kagan has thrived in a number of settings and that she will bring a diverse set of experiences and abilities to the Court. In her rise to the top of the legal profession, Ms. Kagan gained practical experience that forced her to evaluate the impact of laws on people. She also has a track record of building bridges across the ideological spectrum, something I saw firsthand when I was the director of the Institute of Politics at the Kennedy School at Harvard and she was dean of the Harvard Law School. She had that reputation on campus as someone who could work with everyone. These are critical skills for a Justice, and I am glad we have a Supreme Court nominee before us who has a variety of real-world experiences and has not been isolated only within the judicial system.

Perhaps most impressively, in her latest role as Solicitor General, Ms. Kagan has served as the representative of the American people before the Supreme Court. She has represented us forcefully in complex cases, including ones that dealt with major issues, such as our ability to conduct the war on terror and the amount of influence that big businesses should have in our elections. As is the case for every attorney who regularly appears in court, she won some and she lost some.

But above all, Ms. Kagan has shown she is capable of analyzing the law at the level required by the Nation's highest Court. She has the talent and the intellect to join the Court as a Justice. I think that is something on which most of us can agree. Unfortunately, the politics that have come to surround judicial confirmations in modern times mean that Ms. Kagan's qualifications to serve on the Court are just one piece of this debate. I wish this weren't the case.

These proceedings should force us to take a hard look at the role our Founders intended for the Senate in the confirmation process. When we provide advice and consent on judicial nominations, Senators are not supposed to be substituting their individual political judgments for those of the President.

We are collectively supposed to be checking that a nominee is qualified, that a nominee falls somewhere in the mainstream of legal philosophy, and that a nominee respects the rule of law and understands that judges are not meant to be politicians.

A few weeks ago, Senator Lindsey Graham, as my colleague from New York, Senator Gillibrand, alluded to earlier, gave a powerful reminder of this when he spoke at the Judiciary Committee's final hearing on Ms. Kagan. I appreciated especially his reference to Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 76: The Senate should have a ``special and strong reason for the denial of confirmation.'' We should remain focused on that standard, keep politics to a minimum, and really strive to conduct an evenhanded review of nominees.

Prior to joining the Senate, I had the privilege of serving as Governor of the State of New Hampshire. New Hampshire is one of those States where judges are not elected but appointed by the Governor. Once appointed, they can serve until age 70. So having been in the position of appointing judges, I fully understand that making lifetime appointments to our courts is a very solemn responsibility.

Knowing that, I believe the President has made an excellent selection. In Elena Kagan, we have been presented with a nominee who is a loyal American, an upstanding individual, and a supremely talented lawyer. Lawyers are, by definition, legal advocates for others. It is to be expected that, as a lawyer, Elena Kagan may have advocated certain positions with which we may not agree. That, however, does not disqualify her from being a judge. It almost goes without saying that her record presents no ``special and strong reason'' to vote against confirmation. These facts have been recognized by conservatives both in this body and outside of it who are willing to drop political rhetoric and speak candidly. This includes Senator Graham as well as my own senior Senator from New Hampshire, Judd Gregg. I hope more of my colleagues from across the aisle will follow their lead.

I intend to proudly cast my vote in favor of Elena Kagan's confirmation, and I am confident that, as a Justice, she will serve this country with honor and distinction.

I yield back to my colleague from Minnesota.

That is correct. Like the Senator from Minnesota, I am certainly pleased to see people who have been willing to come out and take a leadership position and say: Even though we understand the nominee may not be one who is supported by all of the Members of our party, we still believe she is qualified, and we will support her.

Mr. President, I am here to join my colleagues to again talk about why it is so important that we pass this small business jobs bill that is before us.

I so much appreciate the leadership of Senator Landrieu to try to get this bill through. She has stated so eloquently why it is important for us to pass this legislation. It has been pointed out that this is a bill that has significant input from our Republican colleagues. It has been pointed out that this is a bill that will go a long way toward addressing the jobs we need to create if we are going to bring this economy back. She has stated so eloquently why it is going to be there to help so many small businesses.

Everywhere I go in New Hampshire, what I hear from the small business owners I talk to is that their No. 1 challenge is adequate access to credit. This bill addresses that. It sets up a fund to help community banks so they can lend to small businesses. It sets up a fund to help States so they can go through their programs to lend to small businesses. It expands the SBA loan programs, which have been so important to keep small businesses afloat. It helps with export assistance for our small businesses--something they have had trouble doing because they do not have the resources to be able to access international markets on their own. It provides $12 billion in tax breaks for small businesses.

Right now, the only thing standing in the way of this bill being passed to help the tens of thousands of small businesses across this country is our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. It is unconscionable that we can't get the votes to pass this bill and to do what we need to do to help small businesses grow and create the jobs that are going to help lead us out of this recession.

So I congratulate Senator Landrieu and all of my colleagues who are here or who have spoken on this bill and who have worked so hard to try to get it done, and the people on the other side of the aisle who have been courageous enough to support aspects of this bill and to provide amendments to it. I hope over the weekend they will hear from their constituents about why this is important to get done so that when we come back next week we will see a change in the perspective and we will see the 60 votes that we need in this body to pass this bill.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Burris, from Illinois, and the other Senators who have been on the floor this afternoon to speak to the Small Business Jobs Act that is pending before us today.

For weeks now, the Senate has been considering the Small Business Jobs Act. Today, I hope we will finally be able to pass this commonsense legislation that will help small employers and entrepreneurs to grow their businesses and to hire new workers.

While we have seen some signs that our economy is beginning to recover in New Hampshire, too many workers still cannot find the jobs they need to put food on the table and pay the mortgage. The best way to create those jobs is to invest in our small businesses.

Over the past 15 years, small businesses have created almost two- thirds of the new jobs in America. Small businesses are the cornerstone of New Hampshire's economy. Over 96 percent of businesses in the Granite State are small businesses with fewer than 50 employees.

But small businesses, as we all have heard, continue to feel the effects of a recession they had no hand in creating. That is why we need to pass the Small Business Jobs Act today.

This bipartisan legislation will dramatically increase lending to small businesses. It will enhance the ability of small companies to export. It will provide tax relief to so many small firms.

I am proud, as a member of the Small Business Committee, I worked with my chair, Mary Landrieu, who has done a terrific job on this bill, and ranking member Olympia Snowe, on provisions to enhance critical SBA programs. I am pleased to report this was a bipartisan effort.

I have come to the floor several times over the past few weeks to talk about the many important provisions in this bill--provisions that will get capital moving to small businesses again, and to provide them with some tax relief. But today I want to come to the floor to discuss another critical component of this bill, one that every Senator in this Chamber should support; that is, helping our small businesses sell their products overseas.

Exports are a great opportunity for small businesses that are looking to grow. Growing a small business is often about finding new markets for your products. Selling into foreign markets is especially important for businesses in my home State of New Hampshire.

Even in the difficult economic climate last year, one of the real bright spots in New Hampshire's economy has been exports. In 2009, New Hampshire had its second highest export year ever. But there is still a huge potential to continue to increase exporting by America's small businesses.

This chart I have in the Chamber shows the opportunity that exists for our small businesses. Only 5 percent of the world's customers live in the United States. We can see on the chart that is that very small blue portion of this pie chart. So that means 95 percent of the world's markets are outside of the United States.

But, of course, there are still significant barriers to small businesses as they try to access that remaining 95 percent of the world's population. For a small business, starting to export can be challenging. Unlike big firms, they do not have the technical capacity to identify new markets. They do not have the resources to go on trade missions, and they do not have the marketing expertise to promote their products to foreign buyers.

We can see the challenge small businesses face versus the challenge large businesses face on this pie chart. For large businesses, 42 percent of them export. For small businesses, only 1 percent of them in the country export. So 99 percent of small businesses still have the opportunity to access those international markets.

A vote for this bill is a vote to help small businesses in New Hampshire and across the country--businesses that are looking to export but do not have the resources or the expertise to do so. It is a vote to help small businesses create the jobs that will help us emerge from this recession.

I want to talk a little bit about one New Hampshire business that has been able to benefit from the kind of export assistance this bill will offer. The company is called Dartware. It is a high-tech company in West Lebanon, NH, over in the western part of our State, right across the river from Vermont. It is a pretty sophisticated business. It builds software to help improve professional networks. But even though they

are sophisticated, they still had a tough time navigating the international terrain. So Dartware went to New Hampshire's International Trade Resource Center where they found a U.S. Foreign Commercial Service specialist who could help them, along with the folks at the Trade Resource Center. The center provided Dartware with a customized international market assessment and connected the business to international buyers for their services.

As a result, Dartware now has developed partner relationships in countries such as Brazil, China, South Africa, Egypt, and Argentina-- countries that are emerging markets that offer opportunities for New Hampshire and America's small businesses.

The bill that is pending before us would give more small businesses such as Dartware the opportunity to succeed in exporting.

The Small Business Jobs Act includes two bipartisan bills I cosponsored that will help more companies access critical export resources. For the past few years, Federal and State resources have dwindled, while companies such as Dartware have clamored for more of these services to help them know how to export.

The Foreign Commercial Service has not been able to replace many of their retiring officials and, as a result, the service has been severely understaffed. This legislation, the small business jobs bill, restores staffing at the Commerce Department to 2004 levels and creates a competitive grant program so that strapped State export assistance centers will have that ability to provide grants to companies. This bill passed out of the Senate Commerce Committee with broad bipartisan support.

The Small Business Jobs Act also includes bipartisan legislation which will strengthen SBA export assistance programs. These programs help small businesses get the loans they need to finance their export growth and will provide export expertise. This part of the bill passed out of the Small Business Committee by a vote of 18 to 0.

So two more provisions in the legislation pending before us that have broad bipartisan support. These commonsense measures that had strong bipartisan support in committee deserve support on the floor when we vote on this legislation. There is no reason we should not have a strong bipartisan vote today when the full Senate takes up this legislation.

I hope all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in voting for this bill because it is going to make a difference to our small businesses, and it is going to mean they can grow, they can add jobs, and we can put people back to work in this country. I urge my colleagues to join us in voting for this legislation.

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

I would like to begin by thanking the Senator who is chair of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee for her leadership and her work to put together, with Senator LeMieux, this $30 billion small business lending fund. I know the Senator made some reference to this, but I just wanted to point out and ask her because there has been a lot of criticism about this fund as being so-called, the son of TARP.

I voted against TARP because I did not think we ought to be doing that. I think this is not another Wall Street bailout, that this is an effort to help small businesses. I would just like to ask Senator Landrieu whether she agrees with me that this is not a bailout; that, in fact, this is an effort to help Main Street not Wall Street; and that we need to do this so we can make sure our small businesses get the credit and the capital they need to operate?

Madam President, I am pleased to be on the floor this afternoon to join the Senator from Louisiana, who has been such a champion for small business in America, to join my colleagues from the State of Washington who were here earlier, to support the proposal that is before to address an issue that I have been hearing about in New Hampshire for months now. This is something that all Senators have been hearing about in their home States for the last 18 months if they are willing to be honest about it.

That issue is that creditworthy businesses, small businesses are frustrated because they cannot access the capital they need to expand their businesses and hire new workers.

Wherever I go in New Hampshire, small businesses tell me they are having trouble accessing the credit they need to either stay afloat or to expand their businesses. While the community banks have increased their lending in New Hampshire, they can only do so much.

As my colleagues have outlined so eloquently, they have been affected by the financial crisis that struck this country. We have an opportunity to address this issue with the Landrieu-LeMieux amendment that will create a Small Business Lending Fund to put capital into the hands of small businesses.

This $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund will help our community banks put over $300 billion of capital into the real drivers of our economic recovery and give to the small businesses that will make that happen.

I wished to be on the floor today, as we discussed earlier, because I have heard some of my colleagues--and we heard it earlier this afternoon from the Senators from South Dakota and Alabama--criticize this fund as being like TARP. It has been called the son of TARP. I voted against TARP. Let me say this as clearly as I can, something the Presiding Officer has said in her remarks, something we heard Senators Cantwell and Murray say: This program is not TARP. This is not another Wall Street bailout.

I am going to support this fund because it is about helping Main Street, not Wall Street. Small banks and businesses in our communities did not cause the financial crisis in this country, but they have too often suffered the terrible consequences of the reckless behavior of Wall Street. Credit on Main Street has been extremely tight since the financial collapse, and that has devastated too many small businesses across this country.

One of the reasons our economy has not been able to emerge from the recession fully is that larger banks that benefited from TARP have decreased their lending. I heard from one small business owner in New Hampshire. He owns a sheet metal manufacturing company. The company had its line of credit pulled by a large national bank that had been a TARP recipient. This sheet metal company was a creditworthy business. It had never missed a payment. It had never defaulted on its mortgage. Losing that credit line was devastating for this business.

Similar to so many small businesses, it needed a line of credit to buy new equipment so it could make a transition and increase its productivity. But with the credit line gone, this business had nowhere to turn. It is companies such as the sheet metal manufacturing business in New Hampshire that this bill will address.

This proposal provides community banks, which have stepped up their lending but can only go so far, with the support they need to increase lending to small businesses.

Unlike TARP, this program has strong taxpayer protections to ensure the fund serves its purpose. The very structure of the program ensures that community banks that participate in this program will use the capital for small business lending. Only banks that do a vast majority of their lending to small businesses are eligible for this program, and unlike TARP, there will be terms and conditions for repayment. Taxpayers will not be on the hook.

This fund will not add to the Federal deficit. In fact, it is estimated to raise $1 billion over 10 years. The terms of the program will ensure that taxpayers will not be put at risk.

Let me say this one more time because there has been a lot of misinformation thrown out on the floor: The terms of this program will ensure that taxpayers will not be put at risk.

At the end of the day, this proposal is about standing for small businesses in this country. We have all heard from small businesses in our home States that have suffered from a recession they had no part in creating. This is our chance to stick up for the millions of creditworthy small businesses across this country that need capital to operate or grow but that have been shut out.

It is also about turning our economy around. Over 75 percent of new jobs in America are created by small businesses, and since the financial collapse, the majority of jobs lost have been with those small businesses.

If there is one place we should be able to agree to invest, it is our small businesses. If we do not extend credit to them, they will not be able to get the capital they need to expand and create the jobs that will finally get us out of this recession.

This is not TARP. Saying this program is like TARP is just a red herring. This fund is what we should have been doing in the first place--providing capital to community banks so they can extend credit to the small businesses that need this capital to create jobs on Main Street.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Landrieu amendment to include this critical investment.

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