Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

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

Mr. President, we have been bombarded with some pretty big numbers lately. Our total national debt recently topped $13 trillion. In 5 years, it is expected to pass $20 trillion. This fiscal year alone, the Federal Government plans to run a deficit of $1.4 trillion. In other words, we are borrowing 41 cents out of every $1 we spend.

The numbers are mind blowing. We cannot even wrap our heads around the immensity of these numbers that run into the trillions. But they should be a very big red flag indicating that something--something--has gone very wrong here in Washington.

The American people are struggling with high unemployment and a difficult economy, trying to make ends meet. The American Government-- their government--ought to be doing what it can to balance its own budget, not spending like drunken sailors in a way that will put the future of many American families at risk.

I hear it in my State. I know most of my colleagues do. I hear it as I drive around the country. There is a palpable fear that this enormous burden of debt is going to crush us.

The Federal budget for 2010 is already 24 percent higher than it was in 2008. How many families are able to increase their spending by 24 percent over a 2-year period? Congress has to realize what the American people already know: Our current rate of spending is unsustainable. There is an old saying that if the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see everything as a nail. Well, this administration and the Democratic leadership of Congress seem to think the only tool they have is a checkbook and every problem can be solved with more money.

But all of this reckless spending is not solving the problems it was meant to solve. If you recall, the trillion dollar stimulus was supposed to create jobs and get the economy growing again. Unfortunately, it has not worked that way.

Look at the latest jobs report for last month. We actually lost 125,000 total jobs across the country. Where I come from, that is known as heading in the wrong direction. Look as the massive health care law passed earlier this year. When the other side was jamming this bill through the Senate, they said, even though it would cost $2.5 trillion, it would actually bring down--down--our spending on health care and lower the deficit over time.

In the past few weeks, however, we have gotten new estimates that the law will cost billions more than was thought a few months ago. On top of that, health care spending is expected to rise even faster as a result of the law than if we had done nothing at all.

Time after time after time that is what we have seen: more spending, more debt, and a bill we will hand to

our children--all because we cannot live within our means and we refuse to make the tough choices we were elected to make.

The irresponsible spending and borrowing that is making our mountain of debt bigger every day has to stop. Today, I am introducing a bill entitled the Deficit Reduction and Budget Reform Act that will take the first steps toward reining in our spending. It is high time we show the American taxpayers we are responsible stewards not just of their tax dollars but of the future of this country.

The goal here is to reform the budget process and to reduce our structural deficits so we will live within our means. My proposal is a three-legged stool that aims to support our country and economy while reducing the burden our rapidly expanding government places on American families and businesses.

The first proposal is to create a new standing joint committee of Congress for budget deficit reduction. The committee would be required to put forward a plan to cut the deficit by 10 percent every budget cycle, and to do it without raising taxes. This would be Members of Congress--both parties--taking responsibility and not punting the job to outsiders.

This bill would then receive expedited consideration in both Chambers of Congress. We have 26 committees and subcommittees in Congress that are dedicated to spending tax dollars. We should have at least one dedicated to saving tax dollars.

Second, to make sure those changes have a better chance of success in practice, I am proposing additional reforms to the budget process. Crucially, we would reform pay-go rules to prevent the double counting of new revenues or reduced spending in trust funds for the purpose of offsetting other expenditures.

When pay-go rules were set up earlier this year, they allowed for these kinds of gimmicks that have been used over and over to subvert the budget responsibility the rules were meant to impose.

More than $600 billion in trust fund offsets was used to pass the health care reform bill, and an attempt was made to increase the per- barrel tax for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to offset other unrelated measures. By preventing these changes from being used as an offset under pay-go rules, this provision would end the practice of double counting these spending reductions and revenue increases.

Then we would add teeth to the budget by making it a binding joint resolution signed into law by the President. This would force the administration and Congress to work more closely together, and Congress would have less flexibility to violate the nonbinding resolutions we currently use.

My legislation would also establish a biennial budget timeline to give Congress more time for oversight and to determine whether our spending is doing what it is supposed to do.

I will simply point out that it seems to me the way we do the budget process currently is broken. In the last 34 years, I think there have been 4 times when all of the appropriations bills have been passed by the Congress on time, according to schedule. If you look at the number of budgets that have been passed here in the past few years, there have been a lot of years when we have not passed budgets at all.

It seems to me it would make sense--in an even-numbered year, when there is an election going to be held--that we ought to do oversight, that we ought to be looking at ways to save taxpayer money rather than spend taxpayer money. Then we could do the budget in the odd-numbered years, after an election, so we have an opportunity to do the appropriations bills and go through the budget process in the odd- numbered year, so when the even-numbered year comes around again we are not consumed with trying to spend money to attract some constituency to vote for us in an election year, but, rather, we are focused on oversight and on ways we could actually save the taxpayers money as opposed to spending it.

So a biennial budget process, budget timeline, is something this bill would also do. When Congress inevitably resorts to pork-barrel politics that inflates our budgets, we need a legislative line-item veto to allow the President to cut them out and to send a more responsible budget back to Congress for an up-or-down vote. Governors of most States, including my State of South Dakota, have some kind of a line- item veto. The President ought to have that power as well.

Third, on top of these vital systemic changes, we need to take control of the government's outrageous spending. My bill would impose a 10-year spending freeze to cap the Federal Government's discretionary spending at the level it was in fiscal year 2008, adjusted for inflation. I said earlier that between 2008 and 2010, Federal spending had increased 24 percent, at a time when inflation in this country was about 3.5 percent. If we take that baseline back to that 2008 level and index it for inflation every year for the next 10 years, we can save the taxpayers literally hundreds of billions of dollars.

Beyond that freeze, we should end the failed stimulus program and reclaim any money remaining unspent and unobligated and apply it to the Federal debt.

Those are not the only possible answers, and many are not new. Many of these are ideas my Republican colleagues and I have proposed and that we fought for in the past. We will keep fighting for them because they are the kinds of things we need to do to break the back of this budget problem we are fighting.

The government's current level of borrowing, this out-of-control spending, and this amount of taxation are too much for our economy and our taxpayers to bear. What may be even more troubling is the point that was made by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen. He said the biggest threat to our national security is our debt, not al-Qaida, not Iran's nuclear program, not Russian spies, but the debt Congress itself has created.

It does not have to be this way. My plan is a responsible approach that takes prudent but manageable steps to get our spending under control and to start to draw down our debt. It provides concrete savings of nearly a trillion dollars, and it puts in place a framework to help us save trillions more over time.

It is easy to say: I will be responsible tomorrow, but first I want to spend a little more today. Well, there will always be something that seems important to spend tax dollars on, and if we keep taking that same old approach that the other side has been pushing since they took control of Congress in 2007, we will be waiting for fiscal responsibility forever.

Tackling our outrageous national debt is not a priority we should put off until the long term, after the debt has gone up even higher and higher and higher than it is today. It needs to be a priority now.

I will also note that we cannot afford the old trick where the President calls for spending cuts in theory but then happily signs congressional spending bills that do not save a dime. We have to move beyond the same old political games and the same old phony rhetoric. We need real commitment to making a real difference.

There is another old saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. The President and the Democratic leadership of Congress want to keep doing the same thing over and over: borrowing money, spending too much, and then borrowing even more.

But thinking that somehow with all that borrowing and spending we will buy our way out of the hole we are in, that is insanity. In reality, all we are doing is digging ourselves deeper and deeper into debt.

I am going to conclude by urging my colleagues to take up this legislation I am introducing and to take that first crucial step to fiscal responsibility. The American people expect us to take our debt seriously, and it is high time we lived up to that expectation.

Mr. President, we have been bombarded with some pretty big numbers lately. Our total national debt recently topped $13 trillion. In 5 years, it is expected to pass $20 trillion. This fiscal year alone, the Federal Government plans to run a deficit of $1.4 trillion. In other words, we are borrowing 41 cents out of every $1 we spend.

The numbers are mind blowing. We cannot even wrap our heads around the immensity of these numbers that run into the trillions. But they should be a very big red flag indicating that something--something--has gone very wrong here in Washington.

The American people are struggling with high unemployment and a difficult economy, trying to make ends meet. The American Government-- their government--ought to be doing what it can to balance its own budget, not spending like drunken sailors in a way that will put the future of many American families at risk.

I hear it in my State. I know most of my colleagues do. I hear it as I drive around the country. There is a palpable fear that this enormous burden of debt is going to crush us.

The Federal budget for 2010 is already 24 percent higher than it was in 2008. How many families are able to increase their spending by 24 percent over a 2-year period? Congress has to realize what the American people already know: Our current rate of spending is unsustainable. There is an old saying that if the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see everything as a nail. Well, this administration and the Democratic leadership of Congress seem to think the only tool they have is a checkbook and every problem can be solved with more money.

But all of this reckless spending is not solving the problems it was meant to solve. If you recall, the trillion dollar stimulus was supposed to create jobs and get the economy growing again. Unfortunately, it has not worked that way.

Look at the latest jobs report for last month. We actually lost 125,000 total jobs across the country. Where I come from, that is known as heading in the wrong direction. Look as the massive health care law passed earlier this year. When the other side was jamming this bill through the Senate, they said, even though it would cost $2.5 trillion, it would actually bring down--down--our spending on health care and lower the deficit over time.

In the past few weeks, however, we have gotten new estimates that the law will cost billions more than was thought a few months ago. On top of that, health care spending is expected to rise even faster as a result of the law than if we had done nothing at all.

Time after time after time that is what we have seen: more spending, more debt, and a bill we will hand to

our children--all because we cannot live within our means and we refuse to make the tough choices we were elected to make.

The irresponsible spending and borrowing that is making our mountain of debt bigger every day has to stop. Today, I am introducing a bill entitled the Deficit Reduction and Budget Reform Act that will take the first steps toward reining in our spending. It is high time we show the American taxpayers we are responsible stewards not just of their tax dollars but of the future of this country.

The goal here is to reform the budget process and to reduce our structural deficits so we will live within our means. My proposal is a three-legged stool that aims to support our country and economy while reducing the burden our rapidly expanding government places on American families and businesses.

The first proposal is to create a new standing joint committee of Congress for budget deficit reduction. The committee would be required to put forward a plan to cut the deficit by 10 percent every budget cycle, and to do it without raising taxes. This would be Members of Congress--both parties--taking responsibility and not punting the job to outsiders.

This bill would then receive expedited consideration in both Chambers of Congress. We have 26 committees and subcommittees in Congress that are dedicated to spending tax dollars. We should have at least one dedicated to saving tax dollars.

Second, to make sure those changes have a better chance of success in practice, I am proposing additional reforms to the budget process. Crucially, we would reform pay-go rules to prevent the double counting of new revenues or reduced spending in trust funds for the purpose of offsetting other expenditures.

When pay-go rules were set up earlier this year, they allowed for these kinds of gimmicks that have been used over and over to subvert the budget responsibility the rules were meant to impose.

More than $600 billion in trust fund offsets was used to pass the health care reform bill, and an attempt was made to increase the per- barrel tax for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to offset other unrelated measures. By preventing these changes from being used as an offset under pay-go rules, this provision would end the practice of double counting these spending reductions and revenue increases.

Then we would add teeth to the budget by making it a binding joint resolution signed into law by the President. This would force the administration and Congress to work more closely together, and Congress would have less flexibility to violate the nonbinding resolutions we currently use.

My legislation would also establish a biennial budget timeline to give Congress more time for oversight and to determine whether our spending is doing what it is supposed to do.

I will simply point out that it seems to me the way we do the budget process currently is broken. In the last 34 years, I think there have been 4 times when all of the appropriations bills have been passed by the Congress on time, according to schedule. If you look at the number of budgets that have been passed here in the past few years, there have been a lot of years when we have not passed budgets at all.

It seems to me it would make sense--in an even-numbered year, when there is an election going to be held--that we ought to do oversight, that we ought to be looking at ways to save taxpayer money rather than spend taxpayer money. Then we could do the budget in the odd-numbered years, after an election, so we have an opportunity to do the appropriations bills and go through the budget process in the odd- numbered year, so when the even-numbered year comes around again we are not consumed with trying to spend money to attract some constituency to vote for us in an election year, but, rather, we are focused on oversight and on ways we could actually save the taxpayers money as opposed to spending it.

So a biennial budget process, budget timeline, is something this bill would also do. When Congress inevitably resorts to pork-barrel politics that inflates our budgets, we need a legislative line-item veto to allow the President to cut them out and to send a more responsible budget back to Congress for an up-or-down vote. Governors of most States, including my State of South Dakota, have some kind of a line- item veto. The President ought to have that power as well.

Third, on top of these vital systemic changes, we need to take control of the government's outrageous spending. My bill would impose a 10-year spending freeze to cap the Federal Government's discretionary spending at the level it was in fiscal year 2008, adjusted for inflation. I said earlier that between 2008 and 2010, Federal spending had increased 24 percent, at a time when inflation in this country was about 3.5 percent. If we take that baseline back to that 2008 level and index it for inflation every year for the next 10 years, we can save the taxpayers literally hundreds of billions of dollars.

Beyond that freeze, we should end the failed stimulus program and reclaim any money remaining unspent and unobligated and apply it to the Federal debt.

Those are not the only possible answers, and many are not new. Many of these are ideas my Republican colleagues and I have proposed and that we fought for in the past. We will keep fighting for them because they are the kinds of things we need to do to break the back of this budget problem we are fighting.

The government's current level of borrowing, this out-of-control spending, and this amount of taxation are too much for our economy and our taxpayers to bear. What may be even more troubling is the point that was made by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen. He said the biggest threat to our national security is our debt, not al-Qaida, not Iran's nuclear program, not Russian spies, but the debt Congress itself has created.

It does not have to be this way. My plan is a responsible approach that takes prudent but manageable steps to get our spending under control and to start to draw down our debt. It provides concrete savings of nearly a trillion dollars, and it puts in place a framework to help us save trillions more over time.

It is easy to say: I will be responsible tomorrow, but first I want to spend a little more today. Well, there will always be something that seems important to spend tax dollars on, and if we keep taking that same old approach that the other side has been pushing since they took control of Congress in 2007, we will be waiting for fiscal responsibility forever.

Tackling our outrageous national debt is not a priority we should put off until the long term, after the debt has gone up even higher and higher and higher than it is today. It needs to be a priority now.

I will also note that we cannot afford the old trick where the President calls for spending cuts in theory but then happily signs congressional spending bills that do not save a dime. We have to move beyond the same old political games and the same old phony rhetoric. We need real commitment to making a real difference.

There is another old saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. The President and the Democratic leadership of Congress want to keep doing the same thing over and over: borrowing money, spending too much, and then borrowing even more.

But thinking that somehow with all that borrowing and spending we will buy our way out of the hole we are in, that is insanity. In reality, all we are doing is digging ourselves deeper and deeper into debt.

I am going to conclude by urging my colleagues to take up this legislation I am introducing and to take that first crucial step to fiscal responsibility. The American people expect us to take our debt seriously, and it is high time we lived up to that expectation.

Well, let me, if I might through the Chair, inquire from the Senator from Louisiana, is there any sort of a time agreement for this discussion?

Well, I do not think--if there is no time agreement, then our side, I presume, would have an opportunity to speak. I do not think there would be any limitation on that.

Mr. President, I object to the yielding of time to another Senator. This Senator has been waiting for 45 minutes to speak.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schumer.) The Senator from Louisiana can only yield for a question. So if the Senator from New Hampshire has a question, she may ask the Chair.

I would say, through the Chair, to the Senator from Louisiana, I do not have an objection to some sort of a time agreement. But the Senator from Louisiana has been speaking now since I have been here, for close to an hour. It would seem to me that if we are going to do this in an equitable way, some speakers on our side would have a comparable amount of time to make our points with regard to the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana.

If I can say through the Chair, to the Senator from Louisiana, I was just conferring to see what speakers we have on our side. I think Senator Shelby is coming down. I do not know long he intends to speak, but I would like to speak for up to 15 minutes or thereabouts. My assumption is that he would want to speak for a good amount of time.

So we might want to expand the amount of time the Senator has suggested in terms of the agreement.

Let me just say, if I could, to the Senator from Louisiana, I do not have any objection, I think, if we got back on a 15-minute--the ping-ponging back and forth one side to the other. I do think, however, the Senator from Louisiana has spent a good amount of time talking for nearly, since I got over here, an hour. If we might have an opportunity to catch up a little bit.

So perhaps we could have a half hour for our side, and then if there are speakers who want to come down after that, they could go 15 and 15.

I do appreciate the effort that is being made by the Senator from Louisiana to assist small businesses around this country. Frankly, there are many provisions in this bill I think people on both sides agree with.

I have, as a member of the Small Business Committee, a number of these provisions that I have supported in the past. I think many of my colleagues probably have as well. So to suggest for a minute that the Republicans are somehow standing in the way of passing this small business bill is just wrong. There is clearly a lot of Republican support for many of the provisions that are included in this bill.

In fact, I will mention the increased loan size and guarantees for SBA (7)(A) and 504 loans; temporary fee reductions for (7)(A) and 504 loans, updates to SBA's outdated size standards, and much needed tax relief through measures such as bonus depreciation, section 179 expensing, and allowing business credits against the alternative minimum tax, those are all things that there will probably be large bipartisan support for in the Senate. The issue we are having a debate about now is whether the Senator from Louisiana should be able to amend the underlying bill with a provision that would create a small business lending fund.

The point has been made by the Senator from Louisiana that somehow it is just Republicans who are opposed. The fact is, there were objections to that provision on both sides. That is the reason it is not in the base bill. It was originally in the base bill. It was dropped from the base bill at the request of the majority leader and the chairman of the Finance Committee, it is my understanding. This particular provision is not only objected to by Republicans; there is Democratic opposition as well, which is why it was once in the base bill and is now no longer in the base bill and is being offered as an amendment to the bill by the Senator from Louisiana.

I rise in opposition to the amendment. I, in all likelihood, depending on how it plays out, may very well end up supporting the bill. There are many provisions in here with which I agree. This particular provision, however, is going to make a lot of Members uncomfortable. We can say this isn't TARP, but if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it is a duck. This is TARP. Anybody who thinks for a minute they are voting for something that isn't TARP when they vote for this is, again, flat wrong. This is structured precisely the way TARP was structured. It is designed to avoid that label to encourage participation by banks, which I understand. I don't think there are many banks that would want to participate if they knew they were getting into TARP. But this is essentially TARP. It has been relabeled and renamed, but we can't get away from the basic fact that it continues to be an extension of TARP simply to small businesses or to smaller lending institutions, the assumption for which the TARP was made available.

As to the capital purchase program under TARP, reading from the quarterly report of the special inspector general for TARP, it says that of the 707 lending institutions that participated in the original TARP, 625 had assets of less than $100 million. I realize $100 million is still a lot of money. There are a lot of banks in my State that have nowhere close to that amount of assets. But if we take the total number of lending institutions that participated in TARP, which is 707, 625 of those or more than 80 percent were banks with less than $100 million in assets. There was participation by smaller banks. It wasn't only the big multibanks that were participating in the program. It was a lot of these $100 million and smaller banks that were participating originally in TARP.

The other point that has been made is that somehow this is different in the sense that this is going to actually raise revenue for the Federal Government. The TARP, projections are, will cost Federal taxpayers $127 billion when it is all said and done. We hope that is not the case. We hope that number is smaller, but that is what the estimates are with regard to how much TARP will cost Federal taxpayers. This particular $30 billion reincarnation of TARP, created specifically for smaller lending institutions, it has been estimated by the CBO, will actually generate a budget savings of $1 billion. How do they come at that? CBO, at the request in the House of Representatives, where this originally passed, used a different accounting method in determining the cost or the budgetary impact of this version of TARP versus the original version.

The CBO also noted that if the accounting conventions that were used to consider the budgetary impact of the original TARP were applied to this $30 billion TARP carve-out, it would cost Federal taxpayers or would score $6 billion. Again, it is because this scored

differently. If this fund were scored as they scored TARP, which was on a fair market basis adjusted for a market-risk basis, then it would cost $6 billion. This is being scored on a cash basis as raising over $1 billion. That is what the CBO is saying. If they used the same accounting conventions applied to the original TARP, this program would have a budgetary impact of $6 billion, rather than the $1 billion savings being reported by the proponents of the legislation.

I make that observation to point out that when people who are voting for this think there may not be any consequence with regard to the fiscal impact this could have, they are not taking into consideration the full picture. There was a change made in the way CBO scored the original TARP and the way they have scored this particular program. If we use the same convention or the same accounting conventions applied to the original TARP to this TARP, we would be talking about a $6 billion cost to taxpayers as opposed to $1 billion in savings.

It strikes me that there is great effort being made to convince people this is not a TARP program. I wish to point to the White House's talking points that admit that the ``program would be separate and distinct from TARP to encourage participation'' and that ``the Administration's proposal would encourage broader participation by banks, as they would not face TARP restrictions.''

These restrictions include executive compensation rules, warrant requirements, and a variety of other things. But my point is, this is the same flawed structure. This is the same basic mechanism used to create the TARP. Most people here, Members on both sides, have great apprehension about how TARP was used. Again, to Members who will be voting for this particular reincarnation of TARP, if they didn't like voting for TARP the first time, they probably should not be voting for this. We are essentially doing the same thing, but we are purposely removing some of the very safeguards created under the TARP.

There are better ways of helping small businesses. We have 9.5 percent unemployment. We are trying to encourage small businesses to create jobs. Yet here we are talking about going back to the old playbook and trying to somehow make this look better and sound better and put different lipstick on it and say this is a new program, when it is essentially something we are all familiar with. If we want to help small businesses, we should get our foot off their throats. Let's get Washington's foot off the throats of small businesses.

Everything being done here in terms of public policy in the last year or year and a half is going to make it more difficult for small businesses to create jobs. We have passed a $1 trillion expansion of health care which imposes new mandates and taxes on small businesses. We have passed a $1 trillion stimulus bill which has done very little to help small businesses. If we had been having this debate when the stimulus debate occurred, there might have been more support. But at the time, a very small fraction of the total amount, about one-third of 1 percent of the amount that was spent under the stimulus bill to try and grow the economy and create jobs, was actually directed at small businesses. It was a nonfactor in the debate during the stimulus. We spent $1 trillion, most of which has been used to create jobs in Washington, DC, in the Federal bureaucracy. We haven't done anything to provide the incentive for small businesses to create jobs.

It is going to get worse because, as we all know, next year, the 2001 and 2003 income tax cuts expire, at which time, if no steps are taken, the rates are going to go up on small businesses. The other side will argue that we will insulate and protect people under $250,000 from these tax increases, $250,000 for a married couple and $200,000 if one is single. The point Members of this body need to remember is, 50 percent of small business income is taxed at those top two marginal income tax rates. When we raise those top marginal income tax rates-- the 35 percent rate up to 39.6 percent and the 33 percent rate up to 36 percent--we are imposing tax increases on small businesses. That is what small businesses have to look forward to next year. It is no wonder small businesses are not creating jobs. We continue to pile these new mandates, new taxes, new compliance and regulatory burdens on them. We expect them to go out and create jobs.

Look at the proposal for energy, the cap-and-trade proposal. It would put a punishing new energy tax on small businesses. At every turn what we see is Washington, DC, and the Congress taking steps detrimental to job creation and making it more difficult for the very small businesses that are the economic engine of our society to create jobs.

There are some things in this legislation that are good. There are some tax incentives for small businesses. We are talking about a provision now, an amendment that would be added to this bill, a $30 billion mini TARP which we have all seen work in the past. I don't think anybody here would want to go down that path again, if they knew that is what they were voting for. That is why this incredible effort is being made to relabel what this is. That is why they are changing the language in describing this. But the fact is, we are talking about the same thing.

I wish to read some quotes from the TARP congressional oversight panel, which is headed by the administration's rumored choice to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, and that is Elizabeth Warren. She has expressed skepticism that it will be effective in increasing small business lending, the fund we are currently debating. She says:

The small business lending fund looks uncomfortably similar

to TARP. Like the capital purchase program under TARP, the

small business lending fund injects capital into banks

assuming that an improved capital position will increase

lending, despite the lack of evidence that the capital

purchase program did.

That is a direct quote from this report by the congressional oversight panel. She goes on to say that ``such a fund runs the risk of creating moral hazard by encouraging banks to make loans to borrowers who are not creditworthy.''

We have a lot of folks who have followed very closely what happened with TARP who are expressing reservations about this particular lending program and how it might impact the Federal budget. If we use the same scoring conventions applied to the original TARP, it comes in at a cost of $6 billion as opposed to a savings of $1 billion. When we completely throw away the accounting manual and use a different accounting convention, we get a different result. But the risk still exists. The CBO has made that clear in their analysis. When we look at what the congressional oversight panel says with regard to how this will resemble TARP, the risk they recognize inherent in that, as well as the limited effectiveness of the original program in encouraging banks to participate, this is a path down which we should not go.

There are things in this bill that are good. There are things that will attract bipartisan support in the Senate that Members on both sides are in favor of. But the reason this provision was stripped out wasn't because Republicans alone objected. There were Democratic objections as well. It was taken out of the base bill. It is now being offered as an amendment for that reason. It is not Republicans who are trying to stop us from doing things that will help small business. The best thing the Senate can do to help small business is to quit putting new mandates, new taxes, and new regulations on them. Then they will see the kind of certainty they need to create jobs and get the economy growing again.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, how much time is left of our allotment?

Thank you, Madam President.

I thank the Senator from Alabama for his eloquent remarks as a key member and the ranking Republican member of the Banking Committee, as someone who is very knowledgeable of the impacts these decisions we make here in Washington have on our financial institutions across this country. I think he is someone who has gone through, as many of us have, this experience with TARP, and his comments are particularly on point. So I thank him for being here and for speaking to this issue.

As my colleague from Maine also noted earlier today, I think there is pretty broad opposition to this particular amendment, notwithstanding the support many of us have for the underlying bill. As I said before, there are tax incentives in the underlying bill, along with some other changes that are being made in some of the Small Business Administration lending programs, that I think will get widespread support in the Senate. But I believe this particular provision, for many of the reasons I have mentioned and others have mentioned on the floor, is going to find a considerable amount of opposition, and I would expect that to be bipartisan opposition.

In the few minutes I have remaining, what I would like to do, if I could, is wrap up with a couple of basic observations.

I know the Senator from Louisiana and others have talked about the discussion they have had with lenders in their States and some of the various associations that represent their States. I also had the opportunity a couple days ago to visit with a number of my bankers in South Dakota, most of whom believe this legislation is unnecessary because they think it is not an issue of having funds to lend, that there are funds to lend out there, and the question really is trying to find the types of deals, the types of borrowers who could make payment in a timely way. Hopefully, there will be more borrowers who are qualified.

One of the reasons I think they do not qualify is because there is so much uncertainty about what the rules of the game are going to be going forward. If you are a small business in America today, you do not know what is going to happen on the estate tax, the death tax. I hear that all the time from farmers and ranchers and small businesses. You do not know what is going to happen with regard to taxes on income, on capital gains, on dividends. All those things are set to go up next year if steps are not taken by Congress to prevent that from happening. You have the new health care mandates which many of the small businesses are still trying to react to and figure out--when this gets implemented, what impact is this going to have on my small business and my cost structure? You have the prospect looming out there of a new energy tax under some sort of cap-and-trade or climate change proposal that continues to be discussed here in Washington, DC. So there is this cloud of uncertainty surrounding businesses in this country and I think also lenders who are looking at businesses in this country and wondering whether these businesses are going to be viable in the future if they are hit with all these new taxes, new regulations, and new mandates.

So I think the better course for us to take is to look at ways we can liberate small businesses from regulations and taxes and mandates and enable them to go out and do what they do best; that is, create jobs. But, frankly, I do not believe, notwithstanding the arguments that are being made by the other side, that going down the path toward another TARP--again, $30 billion is a significant amount of money. It is tax dollars we put at risk.

Again, the reason the CBO scored this at a $1 billion savings is because they did not take into consideration, with the methodology they used in scoring it this time, market risk. They did when they scored the original TARP. If they used the same accounting conventions in making their analysis of the budgetary impact of this particular provision as they did with the original TARP, it would not result in a $1 billion savings; rather, it would result in a $6 billion cost to the Federal taxpayers. I think that is important to point out in this debate going forward.

Let me, I guess just to close, at least temporarily, while other speakers perhaps come down to talk about this, say that the White House's talking points, as I mentioned earlier, make it abundantly clear that this really is a TARP. They are trying to disguise it and call it something else because they want bankers to participate and they know bankers will not participate if they think they are getting into a TARP.

These are the talking points from the White House which admit, again, that the ``program would be separate and distinct from TARP to encourage participation.'' It goes on to say that ``the Administration's proposal would encourage broader participation by banks, as they would not face TARP restrictions.'' Again, as I said, these restrictions the White House is referring to include restrictions on executive compensation and warrant requirements, to name a couple.

So this really is--if you look at the way this breaks down and you compare it side by side with how TARP was structured, it very much is the same thing.

We can call it something different. We can label it something different. We can disguise it. We can try to make people feel better about voting for it. But what you see is what you get, and what you get and what you see here is TARP by another name.

So I do not think it is necessary for us to be going down this path again. We have tried that once. When we did try it the last time, of the total number of banks--707--that participated in the capital purchase program under TARP, 625 had assets of less than $100 million. So this is something that has been tried, and it certainly does not seem, in my view, something we ought to be trying again. There are a lot of other ways to provide incentives for small businesses to create jobs. Some of them are in this bill, and for that I congratulate the Senator from Louisiana. I worked with her as a member of the Small Business Committee on some of those provisions. But this one really is a bridge too far. It is not something we need to be doing. It is not something the taxpayers of America need us to be doing. I would argue, as well--and this is based, again, on conversations I have had with lenders in my State of South Dakota--this is not something they think is necessary when it comes to making more credit available to small businesses in this country.

So I would, with that, reserve whatever time we have. I guess I yield back the remainder of my time--I assume it is about gone--and will wait for some other speakers to come down.

Would the Senator yield?

I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Tennessee. I couldn't agree with him more that this amendment should not be adopted, should not be added to the small business bill. We have had a number of people coming to the floor to speak on the amendment. The Senator from Louisiana made a couple of observations after I spoke in opposition to the amendment, one of which was that Republicans have evidently some newfound affection for Elizabeth Warren. I don't think that is the case. In fact, she is the rumored choice of the administration to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency. The observation I was making was that she, who most of us perceive to be somewhat more on the liberal side, had made strong statements about this particular small business lending finance program and compared it to TARP. She also pointed out that the capital purchase program under TARP had very mixed results with regard to whether it encouraged banks to participate and lend. It also carries with it, as TARP did, an inherent risk that taxpayers may be left on the hook.

It has been that this will be a revenue raiser, that this, the $30 billion TARP, is going to actually generate a $1 billion budget surplus. The Congressional Budget Office was directed to score this differently than they were the original TARP. If the same accounting conventions were used and applied to this particular program and the calculation including market risk, we would have a $6 billion cost attached to this $30 billion TARP rather than a $1 billion budget savings.

There was the suggestion that there isn't any risk to taxpayers. Anytime we are putting $30 billion out there, granted, it may be well intended, but we all saw what happened with TARP. The expectation with TARP is that it will lose about $127 billion for taxpayers. We hope it is less, but that is the estimate today. It is fair to point out again that people who come into the Chamber and believe they are voting for something other than TARP are misleading themselves. If we line this up with the way the TARP was structured, side by side, it is check, check, check, right down the line. This is the same essential thing. To call it something else is all fine and good, but that is what it is. This is a TARP. It is a reincarnation of TARP, intended for small businesses and smaller banks, which is all fine and good, but make no mistake. If we vote for this, we are voting for a TARP. That poses risk to taxpayers.

There was the suggestion that somehow I don't know what my bankers in South Dakota think. I think most of us who represent our States try to stay informed about the views of our constituents. I sat down with a number of my bankers 2 days ago. They were clear this is not something they are advocating for nor do they need. They had other issues they wanted to talk about. We have not had contacts in our office advocating for this. Most of us represent our States in a way that we have a pretty good idea of what the views of our various constituencies are. At least where South Dakota is concerned, this is not something South Dakota bankers are asking me to do for them. They do have concerns about the financial services reform bill passed last week and signed into law. That is something they have deep concerns about. But this is certainly not something they are advocating for.

Inasmuch as we all want to do the right thing for small businesses, the best thing we can do for them is get off their backs, quit putting taxes and mandates and regulations on them. They are looking at the prospect next year of a huge tax increase, when tax rates go up. They are looking at a potential new energy tax, if a cap-and-trade bill were to pass. They are trying to figure out what is going to happen with the estate tax. They already have a new health care mandate that will put no cost burdens on them and raise the cost of doing business. Those are the types of things that will impact small businesses' ability to create jobs. Those are the things we ought to be focused on. Creating a new TARP is not going to be the answer that many of my colleagues who support this amendment think it is.

I urge colleagues to vote against this. I suggest we look at the things we can do that do impact small businesses.

Most of what we are doing in Washington right now is detrimental to economic growth and job creation.

Certainly.

Mr. President, to the Senator's point about this perhaps acting as an encouragement for lenders to get money out the door quickly, perhaps with assuming more risk than perhaps they should, I wish to point out, again--and because I am quoting Elizabeth Warren, somehow there was an implication earlier that Republicans have a newfound affection for her, but she is someone whom the Democrats look to extensively when it comes to advice on these issues. As the head of the congressional oversight panel, in their assessment of TARP, particularly with regard to this specific program, the small business lending fund, they said it ``runs the risk of creating moral hazard by encouraging banks to make loans to borrowers who are not creditworthy.''

This is not something that many of us are making up. Clearly, there are those who are very concerned that this could become not unlike what we saw with the original TARP, which there are still a lot of concerns about. Many of us who voted for that the first time around thought it was going to end up as something different than it was. I don't think we need to go down that path again.

I hope we will defeat this today because there is moral hazard associated with it. We want to do the right thing by small businesses. I have named several things small businesses are concerned about--cap and trade, more government takeovers, more Federal spending and debt and higher taxes and more mandates through the health care bill passed earlier this year. It is important to keep in mind in this debate the taxpayers. Anytime we talk about a program such as this, there are inherent risks. Again, to use the accounting methodology that CBO used when they scored the original TARP, if they used that accounting convention which takes into consideration market risk, this program would be a $6 billion cost rather than a $1 billion savings, as proponents of the amendment advocate.

This is about taxpayers as well as small businesses and small banks. This is not the correct way to help them. I hope our colleagues in the Senate will reject the amendment.

Mr. President, today I recognize Timber Lake, SD. Founded in 1910, the town of Timber will celebrate its 100th anniversary this year.

Located in Dewey County, Timber Lake possesses the strong sense of community that makes South Dakota

an outstanding place to live and work. Throughout its rich history, Timber Lake has continued to be a strong reflection of South Dakota's greatest values and traditions. The community of Timber Lake has much to be proud of and I am confident that Timber Lake's success will continue well into the future.

The town of Timber Lake will commemorate the 100th anniversary of its founding with a celebration held from July 19 through July 25, featuring events such as a community play, rodeo, demolition derby, parade, and a fireworks display. I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Timber Lake on this milestone anniversary and send my best wishes to them in the years to come.

I would say to my friend from Arizona and to the leader that a cynic might also raise the issue of why it took the President 454 days to nominate Donald Berwick and then have a lot of his surrogates go on in front of the media and say: We had to do this because we needed to get this position filled. Madam President, 454 days--if this position was so critical and so important to this country, you would think they would have moved in a more expeditious fashion to get a nominee out there. They did not even have a hearing in front of the committee.

They could have had a hearing. They could have had a vote at the committee level. They could have brought him to the floor. They did not do any of those things that would be called for in the regular order because, as I think the Senator from Kentucky has pointed out, they did not want to take a tough political vote.

When you look at this man's record and the things he has said about the British health care system and some of the other comments he has made--I want to point out something here too which I thought was sort of interesting because he is going to be called upon to implement a 2,700-page bill, which, when the regulations are written, is going to be thousands and thousands of pages, not to mention the fact that as we debated this on the floor of the Senate, it ended up being about $1 trillion, and when fully implemented $2.5 trillion. So he has trillions of dollars under his jurisdiction. He has a 2,700-page bill that he is going to implement. And he came out and said:

I don't feel like a leader, so it's very hard for me to

project myself into that situation. But inattention to detail

is my biggest defect. I'm always leaning forward into

something new. I can create a mess. Luckily, I have people

who are willing to create the detail around the idea or, if

they're really smart, know which ideas to ignore.

He is basically saying he is not a detail guy, and yet this massive new health care program, which is literally going to be thousands of pages, including regulations--and 2,700 pages, as I mentioned, in terms of the legislation itself--he will be called upon to implement it. And he has a vision clearly that the model he supports is the British health care system, the national health care system, which, as we all know, countries in Europe are moving away from. Why we would be moving in that direction, and why they would appoint somebody like this to this important position defies explanation.

But, more importantly, I think, as well, is they could have done this in the regular way. He could have come before the Senate and answered questions as any other nominee would. He should have had a hearing where he was able to respond to some of these statements he has made in the past. Yet they chose to do it in this way, with a recess appointment, notwithstanding the fact that it was 454 days before they put his name forward for nomination, and since that time 79 days, and they are blaming the Congress, and they are blaming the Republicans specifically for not moving this nomination, when, in fact, it was the President and his administration who waited that long to put somebody in this position.

The Senator from Wyoming knows full well how difficult it is to deliver health care in rural areas. Being a physician himself, he knows the challenges we face.

It seems to me that notwithstanding the comments to the contrary, we have to look at what people do. In this case, what the administration has done is appointed somebody to run this massive new health care program who clearly is on the record by his previous statements in favor of redistribution of wealth, in favor of rationing of health care, in favor of government-run health care. He is romantic about the British national health system, which, as the Senator from Wyoming mentioned, is having all kinds of complications and problems, including runaway costs, and now they are trying to figure out how to move away from it. The problem they have is that 1.6 million people are employed by the British national health system, a huge employer in their country, so the economic impact, the political impact of making changes in that system is very difficult. That being said, it doesn't seem as though they have any choice because they are facing such difficult fiscal circumstances in their country and they are seeing these runaway health care costs contributing in a very significant way to that.

So it seems to me, at least, that what we have done here with this massive health care bill passing in the U.S. Congress--$2.5 trillion when it is fully implemented over a 10-year period--what we are already seeing now is the Actuary at CMS coming out and saying it is going to bend the cost curve up and it is going to cost considerably more above and beyond the normal year-over-year inflationary increases in health care Americans have already been seeing. Then we also have the CBO now coming out and saying it is not going to achieve the deficit savings that were advertised here on the floor when we had the debate. There is all this information coming out which validates the argument we were making at the time, and that is that we don't want to move toward the government-run health care system that rations care. Then they put somebody in charge who believes in redistribution of wealth, rationing of health care, government-run health care--all things we argue this would lead us toward. Clearly, the administration really shows their hand when they appoint someone such as this to run this important, comprehensive, wide-reaching, and expensive bureaucratic program that very much will resemble, in terms of the model, what they are doing in Britain, which Britain is moving away from.

Madam President, if the Senator from Arizona will yield, just to put a final point on that, again, 454 days before the administration put forward this nominee, there have been 79 days since, and they are blaming Republicans for holding up this nominee--again, notwithstanding the fact that it was 454 days before they ever put it forward. If we don't have a hearing and he doesn't have to come in and answer questions about these at least what I would characterize as outlandish statements, again, it is an abrogation of the responsibility the administration has of working with the Senate, the Senate's power of advise and consent, to at least have a hearing, to at least have a vote, to at least have some public discussion about this gentleman's qualifications and his attributes with regard to this important position to which they are going to appoint him.

I wish to point out as well that there is one other example of this. The TSA Administrator, which is another very important job, by the time they actually got somebody submitted who could be acted upon here in the Senate, 482 days had lapsed. It was 521 days when the new TSA Administrator was finally approved, but we went 240 days when the post was vacant, from the time the post was vacated in January of 2009 until they appointed their first nominee, who then had to withdraw because of problems. Then they appointed somebody else who withdrew because of problems. They finally submitted somebody who was actually approved, but it took 521 days. That is not us. That is not the Republicans in the Senate holding things up, nor is it the case with Berwick's nomination where 454 days lapsed before the administration put his name forward. Then they just quickly, without giving us an opportunity--the Senate an opportunity--to do our job recess-appointed him to a position where he is going to be responsible for thousands of employees, obviously billions and trillions of dollars when it comes to the health care delivery in this country, and that is very unfortunate.

So, as the Senator from Arizona has pointed out, it is partly about this gentleman and what he stands for and what he intends to do with this position, but it is also the process by which he was actually put into this position and how it completely short-circuited and bypassed what is regular order and what should be under our Constitution the responsibility of the Senate to provide advice and consent.

I say to my neighbor from Wyoming, he understands his constituents very well, and we share a border, but we also share a lot of other things, including a common set of values and a sense of individual responsibility and belief in freedom.

I think what this gentleman represents in terms of his view is completely contradictory to what the majority of my constituents and I am sure the majority of the constituents of the Senator from Wyoming would say with regard to how you ought to approach issues. The American individual, the American consumer is in a much better position to make decisions about their own health care than some government bureaucracy here in Washington, DC.

Essentially what Mr. Berwick has concluded over time--and he has had a long career analyzing and studying many of these issues--is that a government-run system where some government bureaucrat is in a position of making these decisions that are important to an individual--in this case, his health care or her health care--that is clearly a model he endorses and supports.

It is very contradictory, I would say, to what I think is the view of a majority of Americans. Frankly, one of the reasons I think many of us opposed the health care bill when it was under consideration in the Senate--and the Senator from Wyoming made some excellent comments during the course of that debate about his experience with health care as a practicing physician--is that clearly the American model is one that is very different from the European model.

What we have with Mr. Berwick is somebody who wants to remake the American health care system in the image of the model that we see in places such as Europe. His example of the British health care system, about which he is romantic, is a good example of how he intends to implement the health care bill passed in the Senate.

We have argued all along that the intention of those behind it is to move us in the direction of a more single-payer, European-type system as opposed to what we have experienced in this country and have enjoyed for such a long time, and that is one that has its basis at least in the market where we have individuals who are in charge of making many of the decisions, as opposed to some government bureaucrat.

This is very unfortunate in terms of the fact that this was an appointment that was made in the recess without the normal process being adhered to, with this gentleman coming in front of the Senate to answer questions and actually having a vote in the Senate.

For our colleagues on the other side to argue that the reason they had to do this was because Republicans were slowing or somehow delaying this process is completely inconsistent with any of the facts. As I said before, 454 days before the President put his nomination forward. Certainly, it is not the Republicans' fault they did not have a nominee up here. Then the fact that they did not have a hearing and there has not been a vote in the committee and now not a vote on the floor of the Senate is unfortunate, given the consequences and the impact the person who occupies this position is going to have with regard to delivery of this new health care reform legislation.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 90th birthday of Alice Kundert, a valued public servant in my home State of South Dakota.

Alice's public service career began when she was appointed as the deputy superintendent of schools in Campbell County. She served on the town board, school board, and later took on the roles as Campbell County's clerk of courts and registrar of deeds.

She was convinced by a group of teenagers that she counseled to run for political office at the State level. The first governmental office Alice held was as State Auditor for three 2-year terms followed by two 4-year terms as Secretary of State. She was appointed by Governor Mickelson to the Department of Education and Cultural Affairs which allowed her to travel the state teaching children about the history of South Dakota. The last political office Alice held was her 1990 election as a State representative which she served for two 2-year terms.

I would like to send my heartfelt congratulations to Alice on her 90th birthday and to thank her for her years of dedicated public service to the State of South Dakota.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Patricia Lutz, who has been named the 2010 South Dakota School Bus Driver of the Year. The award is selected annually by the South Dakota School Transportation Association. I commend Patty for her commitment to providing a safe and nurturing environment for the young people of South Dakota.

Patty and her husband Loren live near Webster. She is employed by Harlow's School Bus Sales and Services and currently drives a route for the Webster School District. Patty recently completed her 30th year of driving a school bus. Along with Webster, she has also driven for the Conde, Gettysburg, and Bristol School Districts. In addition to her school bus responsibilities, she has also served as a school librarian, substitute teacher, and cheerleading advisor.

Patty serves as a shining example of the outstanding faculty and staff members that serve school districts across South Dakota. Always willing to go above and beyond, Patty is committed

to making a difference in the lives of her students and is a tremendous asset to the Webster community and to our state.

On behalf of the State of South Dakota, I am pleased to say congratulations to Patty on a very deserving award.

Mr. President, today I recognize Big Stone City, SD. Founded in 1885, Big Stone City celebrates its 125th anniversary this year.

Located in Grant County, Big Stone City possesses the strong sense of community that makes South Dakota an outstanding place to live and work. Big Stone City is the home of Big Stone Lake, which is known for its excellent fishing. The city has continued to be a strong reflection of South Dakota's greatest values and traditions. The community of Big Stone City has much to be proud of and I am confident that Big Stone City's success will continue well into the future.

Big Stone City commemorated the 125th anniversary of its founding with celebrations held July 9 through July 11. I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Big Stone City on this milestone anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Dupree, SD. Founded in 1910, the town of Dupree celebrated its 100th anniversary this year.

Located in Ziebach County, Dupree possesses the strong sense of community that makes South Dakota an outstanding place to live and work. Throughout its rich history, Dupree has continued to be a strong reflection of South Dakota's greatest values and traditions. The community of Dupree has much to be proud of and I am confident that Dupree's success will continue well into the future.

The town of Dupree commemorated its 100th anniversary July 6 through 11 with a variety of events such as a Centennial Wagon/Trail Ride, a rodeo and a fireworks display. I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Dupree on this milestone anniversary and send best wishes to them in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Eagle Butte, SD. Founded in 1910, the town of Eagle Butte will celebrate its 100th anniversary this year.

Located in Dewey and Ziebach Counties, Eagle Butte possesses the strong sense of community that makes South Dakota an outstanding place to live and work. Eagle Butte began 100 years ago as a railroad town; and throughout its rich history, Eagle Butte has continued to be a strong reflection of South Dakota's greatest values and traditions. The community of Eagle Butte has much to be proud of and I am confident that Eagle Butte's success will continue well into the future.

The town of Eagle Butte will commemorate the 100th anniversary of its founding with celebrations held on July 15 through July 18. I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Eagle Butte on this milestone anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Lydia Sand, an intern in my Sioux Falls, SD, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks.

Lydia is a graduate of Washington High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently, she is attending Bethel University, where she is majoring in international relations. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Lydia for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Sarah Margaret Aker, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks.

Sarah is a graduate of Sturgis Brown High School, Sturgis, SD. Currently, she is attending the University of South Dakota, where she is majoring in chemistry and political science. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Sarah for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Keaton Jace Bauman, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks.

Keaton is a graduate of Huron High School in Huron, SD. Currently, he is attending the University of South Dakota, where he is majoring in history and political science. He is a hard

worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Keaton for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Abiane Campbell, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks.

Abiane is a graduate of Yankton High School in Yankton, SD. Currently, she is attending the Winona State University, where she is majoring in business administration and paralegal studies. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Abiane for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.