Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am going to proceed on my leader time.

Mr. President, 8 years ago, Congress passed and the President signed a bill known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act or BCRA. This bill was the culmination of a long and protracted battle in which I played a major part, as many of my friends on both sides of the aisle will recall. It garnered bipartisan support and bipartisan opposition. Many hearings were held, studies were conducted, and a lengthy record on both sides of the issue was developed.

I strongly opposed that bill. But I commend its authors for one thing: In drafting and passing BCRA, they made every effort to ensure that everybody had to play by the same rules--rules, moreover, that would not take effect in the middle of an election year. They wanted to make sure there was no appearance of giving one party a partisan advantage, and in that they succeeded.

Fast forward to today. Late last week, Democratic leaders decided to take us off of the small business bill to move to the DISCLOSE Act, a bill that is the mirror opposite of BCRA in the partisan way it was drafted and in the partisan way it is being pushed ahead of an election.

Let's be perfectly clear here. This bill is not what its supporters say it is. It is not an effort to promote transparency. It is not a response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United which has now been the law of the land for 7 months and which, contrary to the breathless warnings of some, has not caused the world to stop turning on its axis.

This bill is a partisan effort, pure and simple, drafted behind closed doors by current and former Democratic campaign committee leaders, and it is aimed at one thing and one thing only. This bill is about protecting incumbent Democrats from criticism ahead of this November's election--a transparent attempt to rig the fall election.

The supporters of this bill say it is about transparency. To that, I say it is transparent all right. It is a transparent effort, as I said, to rig the fall elections. They are so intent on their goal that they are willing to launch an all-out assault on the first amendment in order to get there. Democrats achieved something truly remarkable in drafting this bill. They united the ACLU and the Chamber of Commerce-- quite an accomplishment--both, of course, in opposition. Why would they oppose it? Because it is as obvious to these groups as it is to me that the DISCLOSE Act is a clear violation of the right to free speech--a clear violation.

As usual with Democrats in this Congress, the process has not been any better than the substance. Over in the House, the Democratic campaign committee chairman sprung a rewrite of substantial portions that Republicans and even Democrats had not seen shortly before this bill was voted on. Not to be outdone, Democrats here in the Senate introduced a version last week that had been substantially rewritten since it was first introduced in April. In other words, the original Senate version was replaced under a veil of secrecy late last week, and that is the one the Democrats wish for us to proceed to today. A massive rewrite of the laws that govern elections, and Democrats want to give 6 days between introduction and a vote; a massive rewrite of the Nation's campaign finance laws without hearings, without testimony, without studies, and without a markup; another bill produced without a single hearing and placed directly on the calendar to bypass even the Rules Committee, which is supposed to have jurisdiction over this issue; a bill written behind closed doors with the help of lobbyists and special interests--all of this, all of this in the name of transparency. Forget the DISCLOSE Act. What we need is a ``Transparency in Legislating about Elections Act.''

This approach to this bill could not be more different than BCRA. However much I disagreed with that bill, it treated all groups, corporations, unions, parties, and individuals the same. From the ban on party non-Federal dollars to advertisement limitations within proximity of an election, BCRA's restrictions and prohibitions were applied evenly. The DISCLOSE Act is the opposite: 117 pages of stealth negotiations in which Democrats pick winners and losers, either through outright prohibitions or restrictions so complex that they end up achieving the same result.

The unions do not need a carve-out because they got exemptions. The new law applies to government contractors but not to their unions or unions with government contracts. Let me run that by you again. The unions do not need a carve-out because they got exemptions. The new law applies to government contractors, but not their unions or unions with government contracts. It does not apply to government unions. It applies to domestic subsidiaries but not to their unions or international unions. Through threshold and transfer exemptions, unions are the ultimate victors under this bill. I would note that numerous attempts were made to provide parity in the House Administration Committee markup. All were defeated on a partisan basis with no credible explanation. It is hard not to laugh in discussing this monstrosity we will be voting on shortly. And this is what they are calling transparency?

In their efforts to pass this partisan bill ahead of the election, Democrats have been forced to do the same kind of horse trading we saw in the health care debate. Some of the deals they struck were aimed at attracting special interest support, while others were aimed at quelling special interest opposition. In the end, they came up with a bizarre carve-out construct that grants first amendment freedoms to the chosen ones, and the results are not any prettier than the health care bill.

Follow this logic: The exemption applies to 501(c)(4)s, with 500,000 members in all 50 States plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, in existence for 10 years, who receive less than 15 percent of their money from corporations or labor unions. In case you do not know who this provision is aimed at, it is a carve-out for the NRA, as well as the AARP and the Humane Society, among unknown others who may be in this category, but not to groups such as AIPAC or groups formed to advocate for victims of the oilspill or Hurricane Katrina.

So if you have 400,000 members, sit down and shut up. If you were founded in 2002, nice try, sit down. If you do not have the ability to recruit members in every State, zip it, shut your mouth. These are the contortions--the contortions--the authors of this bill had to go through to get it this far.

Worse still, the DISCLOSE Act mandates that its provisions shall take effect without--again, it is hard to go through this bill without breaking into unrestrained laughter--it mandates that its provisions shall take effect without regard to whether the Federal Election Commission has promulgated regulations to carry out such amendments. This, of course, will have the practical effect of paralyzing those who want to participate in the political process. If they do not know what the rules are, they will take themselves out of the game, which is clearly what the authors of this bill had in mind.

So let me ask a question. All of these new reporting obligations, filing requirements, certification mandates, and transfer burdens are to occur but how? How? Are there magic forms out there we do not know about? Do folks write e-mails to the FEC, the FCC, or the SEC? Maybe we bring back telegrams or use a Harry Potter owl or the Pony Express. Under threat of criminal sanctions, this provision is a clear message from the Justice Department to anyone covered by the new restrictions in this bill: Go ahead and speak. Make my day.

Lastly, recognizing the important constitutional questions at issue with BCRA--and everybody on both sides of that debate knew there were important constitutional questions involved--an expedited judicial review provision was included in that bill and subsequently used. But not so in this one. In order to make sure this bill is not held up by something as inconvenient--as inconvenient--as a challenge on first amendment grounds, its authors have made sure no court action interferes with their new restrictions this election cycle, and maybe even the next one as well. They add multiple layers of review, no provision addressing an appeal to the Supreme Court whatsoever, no time limits for filing, and no congressional direction to the courts to expedite. Again, the goal of the proponents of this speech rights reduction act is abundantly clear: Slow the process and secure new rules that help incumbent Democrats for the upcoming elections and for the foreseeable future.

The one goal here is to get people who would criticize them to stop talking about what Democrats have been doing here in Washington over the last year and a half, a need to shut those people up, a need to shut them up real fast here before the upcoming election.

The authors of the bill labored behind closed doors to decide who would retain the right to speak--in direct defiance of what the Supreme Court made clear this past January, when Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, said:

[W]e find no basis--

``no basis''--

for the proposition that, in the context of political speech,

the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored

speakers.

What could be more clear? ``[W]e find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers.''

Not exactly an ambiguous holding. But that is, of course, precisely-- precisely--what the DISCLOSE Act does. It imposes restrictions on speech. And I would note the one category of speakers upon whom the so- called reformers have bestowed the greatest speech rights in this bill are, of course, the corporations that own media outlets. So a company that owns a TV network, a newspaper, or a blog can say what they want, when they want, as often as they want.

BCRA was debated over the course of many years. Its authors also recognized the importance of not changing the rules on the eve of an election, which is why the legislation went into effect the day after the 2002 midterm elections. The DISCLOSE Act is the opposite. Seeking to achieve exactly what BCRA avoided, this legislation has an effective date of 30 days after enactment. If it were not already obvious that this bill is a totally partisan

exercise, the effective date should be proof positive.

And those, Mr. President, are the facts.

I must admit it has been a few years since I was in law school. So after I learned about all these special deals, I went back to the first amendment to look for an asterisk or something indicating that only large, entrenched, and wealthy special interests get the ``freedom of speech.'' I went and looked at the first amendment again to look for an asterisk or something indicating that only large, entrenched, and wealthy special interests get the ``freedom of speech.''

I could not find it. So I pulled out this Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution, thinking maybe it could be found there. I looked and looked, again, to no avail. Then it occurred to me, perhaps on that winter day in 1791, when the first amendment became effective, these rights were meant to apply to everyone--everyone. Perhaps it is true the first amendment was adopted to protect the people from the Congress, to protect them from laws such as this one, to protect them from a government that picks winners and losers, to protect them from an overreaching government that is supposed to derive its powers from the consent of the governed.

This DISCLOSE Act is not about reform. It is nothing more than Democrats sitting behind closed doors with special interest lobbyists choosing which favored groups they want to speak in the 2010 elections, all in an attempt to protect themselves from criticism of their government takeovers, record deficits, and massive unpaid-for expansions of the Federal Government into the lives of the American people. In other words, this is a bill to shield themselves from average Americans exercising their first amendment rights of freedom of speech.

Americans want us to focus on jobs, but by taking us off the small business bill and moving to this one, Democrats are proving the jobs they care about the most are their own. By moving off of the small business bill and moving on to this one, our Democratic friends are letting us know the jobs they care about the most are their own. Think about it. Here we are in the middle of the worst recession in memory, and Democratic leaders decided to pull us off a bill that is meant to create jobs in an effort to pass this election-year ploy to hold on to their own jobs. What could be more cynical than that? A ``yes'' vote on this bill will send a clear message to the American people that their jobs aren't as important as the jobs of embattled Democratic politicians.

In closing, let me just note that hundreds of ideologically diverse organizations oppose this bill and have provided us with valuable information on its various absurdities. But I think the ultimate test of this bill's legitimacy is pretty simple. If the Founding Fathers were here, they would remind us. They would hold up the Constitution and remind us of the oath we took to support and defend it.

As Members cast this vote today, they will come to the well and look at the desk to see what the well description says--the sheet of paper that sums up what this vote is about. On the Democratic side, I am sure it will include words such as ``transparency'' and ``disclosure'' and talk about the threats to democracy if the bill isn't passed. On our side, it will be simpler. The copy of the Constitution will serve as our well description, and, more importantly, it will remind us of why we are all here. We are here to protect the Constitution, not our own hides.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would say to my friend, the majority leader, he knows because I believe he has some of our amendments, what we would like to offer, and I think this is a conversation we can have off the floor until we can figure out a way to move forward.

I think that is a correct understanding.

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

Madam President, in our democratic system, protection and preservation of the United States of America, her institutions, and her citizens is based solely on the voluntary risks taken and sacrifices made by ordinary Americans.

Woven into the fabric of this great Nation and within all Americans is the notion that freedom is not free. Time and time again our citizens, members of our Armed Forces, and law enforcement officials, when called upon, have answered the call to defend that freedom.

Twelve years ago this past Saturday, two courageous Capitol police officers answered the call and made the ultimate sacrifice for their country and their fellow countrymen. Today, I wish to honor the sacrifice of Officer Jacob Joseph Chestnut and Detective John Michael Gibson. An American President once noted:

Freedom is never more than one generation away from

extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the

bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected and handed on

for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset

years telling our children and our children's children what

it was once like in the United States where men were free.

People like Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson defended and even gave their lives in the service of this truth that is so vital to our society. That is why we remember them and that is why we will continue to tell their story, so those who follow will never forget the cost of freedom.

Both men served for 18 years on the Capitol police force. Officer Chestnut--or J.J. to his friends--was 58 years old and a father of five. He was a 20-year veteran of the Air Force, serving in Vietnam and Taiwan.

Detective Gibson was 42 years old and a father of three. A Massachusetts native, friends recall his intense love for his Boston sports teams--the Bruins, the Red Sox, and UMass basketball. A friend recalled that just a few days before the shooting, John told him he had never had to draw his weapon on the job. Yet, despite being mortally wounded on the day he died, John did not hesitate to return fire.

This is not only a tribute to Detective Gibson's commitment, it is a testament to the outstanding training and preparation the officers of the Capitol police force receive to handle even the toughest situations. Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson were the first Capitol police officers to die in the line of duty.

In honor of their sacrifice, a plaque has been placed in the Capitol, and their names have been etched upon the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, as well as the headquarters of the U.S. Capitol Police--fitting tributes to honor these good and courageous men.

My friend the majority leader, a former Capitol police officer himself, knows all too well the honor as well as the risks associated with the job. So as we honor Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson today, we also honor all Capitol police who put their lives on the line every single day to protect us and this institution.

To all members of the Capitol police, we thank you for your service and your sacrifice. We are grateful for the heroic sacrifice of these two men. On this day of remembrance, we remember their families as well. May God continue to look after them, and may God continue to protect all those, like Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson, whose daily work is to protect the rest of us from harm.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend rule XXII, Paragraph 2, for the purpose of proposing and considering the following amendment:

SA 4514 can be found in today's Record under ``Text of Amendments.''

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

Madam President, Republicans today will continue to look for a way forward on the small business bill. This is an opportunity to deliver some real relief to small businesses struggling to dig themselves out of the recession.

Ultimately, Democrats seem to have other priorities. In the middle of a debt crisis, Democrats cannot seem to pass trillion-dollar spending bills fast enough. In the middle of a jobs crisis, they continue to push one bill after another containing job-stifling taxes, new rules and regulations, and government intrusion into business.

Their signature piece of jobs legislation appears to be a bill that borrows $34 billion from our grandchildren to help folks who cannot find a job in the environment Democrats have created over the last year and a half.

This small business bill gives us an opportunity to have a real jobs debate. But Democrats clearly do not want to have that debate. That is why they have repeatedly pulled this bill from the floor to move on to what they consider more important things or to get together downtown to pat themselves on the back after signing another job-killing bill.

Let's have a real debate about jobs. Let's consider amendments that would help small businesses--amendments like the one Senator Johanns wants to offer to eliminate a burdensome paperwork mandate and that small businesses are pleading with us to approve.

Our leader on the Small Business Committee, Senator Snowe, is fighting to keep a provision out of this bill that amounts to another bailout. Members of both sides oppose it.

There is no evidence this new lending program will work. Even the Congressional Oversight Panel has expressed skepticism it will even be effective in increasing small business lending. The panel's report is skeptical it will improve access to credit. Moreover, the panel says this provision looks uncomfortably similar to the TARP bailout.

The problem banks and small businesses are facing is not that they don't have incentive to lend; it is that the government is threatening them with a 2,300-page bill full of new rules and regulations while their customers--small businesses--are threatened by pending tax hikes and more government intrusion.

For more than a year and a half, the President and his Democratic allies on Capitol Hill have pushed an antibusiness, antijobs agenda on the American people in the form of one massive government intrusion after another. Then there is a celebration. Here is an opportunity to have a real debate about job creation. Here is an opportunity to do something that might actually make a positive difference.

Small business owners are already being hammered by the health care bill. They are about to get hammered by the financial regulatory bill. It is time to do something they actually want for a change.

The American people are connecting the dots. They don't think the financial regulatory bill will solve the problems in the financial sector any more than they think the health care bill will be able to lower costs or lead to better care; any more than the stimulus lowered unemployment.

Republicans had offered amendments that would create the conditions for real private sector job growth. If Democrats shared this priority, this bill would have been law by now. Instead, they seem committed to the same approach that has led to 3 million lost jobs in the past year and a half.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today our colleagues will vote on H.J. Res. 83, which would extend sanctions on the Burma regime for another year. As in years past, I am joined in this effort by my good friend, Senator Dianne Feinstein. Alongside the 2 of us are 66 other cosponsors, including Senators McCain, Durbin, Gregg, and Lieberman.

This overwhelming bipartisan support for sanctioning the junta reflects the clear view of more than two-thirds of the Senate that the generals currently ruling Burma should be denied the legitimacy they are pursuing through this year's sham elections.

Renewing sanctions against the military regime in Burma is as timely and as important as ever. The ruling State Peace and Development Council is continuing its efforts to try to stand up a farcical new Constitution by holding bogus elections. These elections--whenever they take place--will be dubious for a number of reasons. First, the junta continues to imprison Nobel Peace Prize laureate and prodemocracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi. The generals have made it clear they will prevent her from participating in any government under the new Constitution.

Second, the military leadership effectively forced Suu Kyi's party, which overwhelmingly won the last Democratic election way back in 1990, to shutter its operation.

Third, the Burmese electoral watchdog, which is essentially an arm of the SPDC, recently issued rules on campaigning that are ludicrous on their very face. For instance, they prohibit a variety of electioneering activities such as organizing marches, holding flags, and chanting slogans.

As if things in Burma on the election front were not alarming enough, the potential security threat posed by the regime has become increasingly worrisome. The last several months have continued to produce press reports of ties between Burma and North Korea, including particularly alarming indications of alleged weapons transfers from Pyongyang.

I am hopeful the time will soon come when sanctions against the Burmese Government will no longer be needed and that, as did South Africa in the early 1990s, the people of Burma will be able to free themselves from their own government. However, as recent events indicate, the Burmese junta maintains its iron grip on its people and continues to carry out a foreign policy that is inimical to U.S. objectives.

For these reasons, the United States must deny this regime the legitimacy it so craves and await the day when the Burmese people will be permitted to govern their own affairs.

Madam President, I rise for a colloquy with my colleague, the senior Senator from California, to discuss interpretation of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, as amended.

I ask my Democratic colleague, who is the lead cosponsor of this legislation, is it her understanding that the prodemocracy National League for Democracy party has officially decided to boycott the upcoming 2010 Burmese elections.

In light of the NLD's boycott of the elections and its consequent dissolution under Burmese law, is it my friend's understanding that the NLD may be driven underground as a result of its decision or be forced to reconstitute itself in some other capacity?

Is it the understanding of the senior Senator from California that the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, as amended by the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE Act, makes several references to the ``National League for Democracy''?

Is it also the Senator's understanding that references to the ``National League for Democracy'' should be interpreted to include any appropriate successor entity to the NLD, be it a nongovernmental organization or some other comparable group?

I thank my friend for clarifying this matter. It appears that both cosponsors are in full agreement on the proper means of interpreting this term.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I object to the Lincoln amendment. I object to the Reid amendment, and with regard to the issue of border security, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3170; that all after the enacting clause be stricken, and the substitute amendment at the desk, which is a fully offset border security provision, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I have a further unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4853; that all after the enacting clause be stricken, and the substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Before the Chair rules, I would like to clarify that the amendment includes provisions that do the following:

One, make permanent the $1,000 child tax credit; two, make permanent the deduction for State and local sales tax; three, make permanent the expired research and experimentation credit; four, repeal section 9006 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the small business 1099 paperwork mandate; five, add a sense of the Senate on the recess appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick, based on the Roberts amendment No. 4512; and extend the alternative minimum tax patch for 2009 permanently, adjusted for inflation.

Mr. President, it is my understanding there has been an objection to everything but the cloture vote on the supplemental.

And the small business bill.

There has been an objection to all of the add-ons.

Mr. President, it is my understanding the only thing in order is the vote on cloture on the motion to concur on the supplemental.

Mr. President, today, tomorrow and the next day marines and soldiers will patrol the streets of places like Marja and Garmsir and assist Afghan policemen in the areas around Kandahar.

They are well trained, they are intent on accomplishing the mission they have been given, and they are supported by loving families here at home.

For their sacrifice, they ask little. They ask that they be well led, prepared, and to have clear-cut missions and guidance. They ask that their families be cared for.

We have become so used to their sacrifice in the days, months, and years since September 11, 2001, that it may become easy to take the extraordinary service rendered by this All-Volunteer Force for granted.

So easy, it seems, that the funding request submitted by Secretary Gates in February to fund combat operations has languished here in the Congress for months.

As a Senate, we should not take this sacrifice for granted.

Secretary Gates spoke to my Republican colleagues and me about the need to pass the defense supplemental so the training and pay of our military would not be at risk.

He has also written to the majority leader and asked that we finish this supplemental before the August recess so that he will not be forced to furlough thousands of civilian employees at the Department of Defense.

It has taken until this late date to now vote once again on funding for our All-Volunteer Force. With each passing day we approach the end of the fiscal year and Secretary Gates loses the ability to shift funding from other activities in the Defense Department to the training of our forces scheduled to deploy.

I am afraid we are losing sight of the purpose of these war supplemental bills. These bills are not for forward-funding domestic programs. They are not for funding projects that won't pass elsewhere.

It would be irresponsible to give the House any further reason to shirk the responsibility of getting this funding to our fighting forces.

We need to pass this supplemental tonight, send it back to the House and reject any delaying tactic or additional matters that can wait for future consideration in this session.

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

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

Mr. President, later this morning, the President of the United States will sign a financial regulation bill that was sold to the American people as a way of reining in Wall Street. Anyone who believes that did not read beyond the cover sheet because if they did, they would discover instead a far-reaching government intrusion that was endorsed by Wall Street and opposed by Main Street. Citibank thinks it is great. Your local florist thinks it will undermine their business. When you cut through all the talking points about what financial regulation will do, the practical, real-world effect of this bill in the near term will be job loss. That is the real story.

For more than a year and a half, the President and his Democratic allies on Capitol Hill have pushed an antibusiness, antijobs agenda on the American people in the form of one massive government intrusion after another. And then they celebrate. Well, Americans are not celebrating. Three million of them have lost their jobs since the Democrats launched their stimulus. The folks who lost those jobs certainly are not celebrating. Small business owners are already being hammered by the health care bill. They are not celebrating. And the people who thought this Wall Street bill was supposed to rein in Wall Street? Well, they are not celebrating either. They are upset, and rightly so.

As I stand here this morning, millions of Americans are struggling to find jobs. Yet all they see in Washington is Democrats passing massive bills that at their core seem to have one thing in common: more job loss. It is almost as if it is a prerequisite for any Democratic legislation--if it leads to more job loss, they will pass it. Americans are tired of this kind of ``reform.'' Job-stifling taxes, regulations, government intrusion--these appear to be the three pillars of every Democratic legislative effort. They are also the three things lawmakers can do that are guaranteed to kill more jobs.

That is why it should not be a surprise to anyone that unemployment has been scraping double digits since Democrats started ramming these so-called reform bills through Congress.

As a result of the health care bill, small businesses, student loan centers, tanning salons, medical device manufacturers, hospitals, and major American employers have all either laid off employees or are trying to figure out how not to. Just this week, we read a report that during the process of the auto bailout, this administration decided to shut down auto dealers, without cause, effectively costing thousands of Americans their jobs.

And now a financial regulatory bill that does nothing to reform the government-sponsored enterprises that many people believe to have been at the root of the financial crisis this bill grew out of, that was meant to rein in Wall Street but now is supported by some of Wall Street's biggest banks, and that is meant to help the economy but which is expected to stifle growth and kill more jobs.

The American people are connecting the dots. They do not think this bill will solve the problems in the financial sector any more than they think the health care bill will lead to lower costs or better care, any more than the stimulus lowered unemployment.

Then there are all the unintended consequences of these bills. Just yesterday, we learned that the financial regulatory bill--a bill that was supposed to put an end to the notion that some institutions are too big to fail--may now have created a new set of institutions that are too big to fail. It was reported yesterday that some of the economists and experts who have studied this bill are worried it could leave taxpayers on the hook in the event a new derivatives clearinghouse takes on too much risk.

So a bill that was originally meant to prevent a situation such as the one we faced in November of 2008 that was meant to prevent bailouts will add to the list of institutions that are counting on getting bailed out.

That is on top of all the new regulations businesses are going to have to deal with as a result of this bill.

All told, this bill would impose 533 new regulations on individuals and small businesses--regulations that will inevitably lead to the kind of confusion and uncertainty that will make it even harder for struggling businesses to dig themselves out of the recession.

It is just this kind of uncertainty that will continue to deter lending and freeze credit as lenders wait to see how they will be affected by the new regulations. And it is just this kind of uncertainty that businesses cite time and again as one of the greatest challenges to our economic recovery.

The White House will declare this bill a victory. But for millions of Americans struggling to find work, for millions of small business owners bracing themselves for all the new regulations they will have to deal with, or ordinary Americans who wanted to see an end to the bailouts, this bill is no victory. When out-of-work Americans see Democrats celebrating today, what they will see are lawmakers who have completely and totally lost touch and who have lost the trust of the American people.

Madam President, later today, the Senate will vote to extend Federal unemployment benefits to millions of Americans who are out of work and struggling to make ends meet in a terrible recession.

Ordinarily, this is not a controversial piece of legislation. Everyone agrees we should help people who are struggling to get back on their feet and keep food on the table. Unfortunately, the President has decided to turn this debate into a political exercise.

In his weekly radio address over the weekend and again yesterday at the White House, the President accused Republicans of doing something we have not done. In doing so, he cheapens political discourse and does a disservice to the people this bill is meant to help.

As a former Senator, the President is well aware of how the Senate works. He knew today's vote to extend these benefits had already been scheduled days before he told the Nation, in two national broadcasts, that Republicans were holding it up. He also knew it would pass. But he intentionally implied otherwise, leaving the public without all the facts.

So here are the facts: Republicans support extending benefits to the unemployed. As the President himself said yesterday, we have repeatedly voted for similar bills in the past, and we are ready to support one now. What we do not support--and we make no apologies for this--is borrowing tens of billions of dollars to pass this bill at a time when the national debt is spinning completely out of control.

That is why Republicans have proposed an alternative bill five times that would enable us to extend these benefits without adding a nickel to the debt--a bill Democrats have repeatedly rejected.

There should be no doubt as to what constitutes fiscal responsibility in this debate. Last November, the President himself described a bill to extend unemployment benefits as fiscally responsible because it did not add to the debt. So according to the President's own logic, Democrats who vote to pass this bill and add nearly $34 billion more

to the national debt will be doing so in a fiscally irresponsible way, and Republicans who insist on passing it without adding to the debt are being responsible.

The fact is, this debate is not about unemployment insurance. There is no debate in the Senate about whether we should pass a bill. Everyone agrees we should. This debate is about whether, in extending those benefits, we should add to the debt.

If Democrats were as concerned about passing this bill as they say they are, they would find a way to do it without adding to the debt. After all, there is no law that says we are required to exacerbate one crisis in an effort to alleviate another. Most Americans I talk to think a $13 trillion debt is one crisis we cannot afford to put off any longer.

If Republicans have done anything wrong in this debate, it was to underestimate how committed Democrats are to spending money we do not have. Given the choice to extend these benefits without adding to the debt or allowing them to expire, Democrats chose the latter on five separate occasions. They do not seem to appreciate the fact that by adding to the national debt, they are increasing the long-term burden on everyone--the unemployed, the employed and our children and grandchildren who will have to pay for it.

The President likes to point out that Congress has added to the debt in years past. What he does not mention is we were not in the middle of a debt crisis then. We were not being lectured by the French about the need to cut back on our spending. People were not rioting in Greece. We did not have a President who came into office with a list of legislative priorities that would double the national debt in 5 years and triple it in 10.

The President also says Republicans are playing politics in this debate. But by pointing the finger at Republicans, he is attempting to deflect attention not only from his own party's unwillingness to take the debt seriously, he is attempting to deflect attention from Democrats' own fiscal recklessness and its potential consequences for our future.

None of us likes to see good people struggling to find work. We all empathize with the people the President highlighted yesterday at the White House. But let's not forget the role this administration's own policies have played in all this.

If ever there was an indictment of this administration's economic agenda, it was yesterday's press conference. The administration asked taxpayers to foot the bill on a $1 trillion stimulus that he claimed would create 4 million jobs. A year and a half later, the President is standing with three chronically unemployed Americans, some of the victims of a 9.5-percent unemployment rate, asking taxpayers for another $34 billion in deficit spending to continue paying their unemployment benefits. I think most Americans see the connection here.

The President also tried to score political points yesterday by mischaracterizing the debate over the small business bill. Here is another bill that both parties support. Yet the President would have the American people believe that somehow we are trying to hold it up just because the majority leader would rather move on to some of his other legislative priorities than have a vote on a couple of amendments to this bill that would help to create more jobs.

So either the President is misinformed about what has been going on over here or he is deliberately mischaracterizing the situation. The fact is, the Senate is already on this bill and both sides have offered improvements. If the President wants to criticize someone for slowing it down, he should point the finger at his own party for repeatedly taking it off the floor, which brings me to the supplemental war spending bill.

I will remind my colleagues the Secretary of Defense has indicated that failure to pass this bill before the August recess could actually keep our soldiers and marines from getting paid, a point he reiterated in a letter to the majority leader, sent yesterday.

So what is the holdup?

Some Democrats in the House do not want to pass this funding for our troops unless the Senate agrees to tack on billions in unrelated domestic spending. It is time for House Democrats to get serious and stop holding our troops hostage. Let's strip this unrelated funding and pass this war funding bill.

Yesterday, the Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee made it clear that he recognizes the need for the Senate to pass the troop funding bill quickly and get it to the President's desk.

Every Member of this Chamber should unite behind this goal. The Defense Department finds itself in the last weeks of the fiscal year with little flexibility to meeting funding shortfalls of the operations and pay for our forces in the field. That leaves it to us to act, and I suggest we do so this week.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, I know my good friend from Tennessee is interested in this nomination. There were, however, some no-votes on the nominee in committee. We will be running the traps on our side and seeing if we can work out

both the debate time and a time to take up this nominee in the not too distant future. But for the short term, I must object.

Madam President, about 10 years ago, one of our dear friends, the Senator from Georgia, Paul Coverdell, was unexpectedly taken from us. He became ill and passed away. Here we are 10 years later, and we wish to commemorate his life and service. His good friends, the Senators from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss and Mr. Isakson, are both here. We all want to say a few words about our departed friend Paul Coverdell.

Paul was a patriot. I admired him a great deal. Nobody worked harder than Paul Coverdell, and nobody wanted less credit for it. We were talking on the floor a few moments ago. Senator Lott, who was the Republican leader at the time, used to call him Mikey. What he meant by that was some character we believe was in a commercial named Mikey who always got the job done and didn't care where the credit ended up. That is exactly how Paul was. No matter how tough the task, no matter how thankless the job, Paul was ready to pitch in with good humor and credible persistence and see it through to completion.

He had a distinguished career in the private sector before he entered public life. He spent a long time toiling in the Georgia State Senate before he came here. In fact, he used to joke that he knew all too well what it was like to be an underdog because he spent 15 years representing all five Republicans in the Georgia State Senate against 51 Democrats. That gives one a certain humility, shall I say.

Paul's deep understanding of the power of freedom is well known, and his efforts to promote and spread freedom are a big part of his legacy. As Director of the Peace Corps in the late 1980s, Paul sent the first Peace Corps volunteers into Eastern Europe to work with nations about to experience freedom for the very first time.

In a speech he delivered shortly before his death, Paul said:

I believe that in the 20th century, America has helped

plant the seeds of democracy and freedom around the world. I

hope that when the stories are written at the end of this new

century, it is said of this nation that we tended to liberty,

nurtured it around the world, and sustained freedom and

prosperity here in this Hemisphere.

That was Paul shortly before his death.

He served in this Chamber for nearly a decade, and those of us who served alongside him know he never, ever sought the spotlight. He was a decent hard-working guy who was dedicated to his wife Nancy, the people of Georgia, the American people, and to promoting what he called the three pillars of freedom: economic liberty, security for persons and property, and a well-educated citizenry. Paul often said that an uneducated mind can never truly be free. It is an idea he shared with the men who founded our Nation. As Washington put it in his first annual address to Congress:

Knowledge is, in every country, the surest basis of public

happiness.

As with all the lessons Paul liked to share, he delivered it with a smile.

Paul is deeply missed by all of us in this room, but his contributions are lasting. Ten years after his sudden passing, we continue to learn from the life and example of Paul Coverdell.

Madam President, later today, we will have a decisive vote on the financial regulatory bill that does nothing to reform the government-sponsored enterprises that many people believe to have been at the root of the financial crisis this bill grew out of--a bill that was meant to rein in Wall Street but which is now supported by some of Wall Street's biggest banks and opposed by small community banks in my State; a bill that is meant to help the economy but which is widely expected to stifle growth and kill more jobs in the middle of a deep recession; and a bill that, according to the papers, the vast majority of Americans simply don't think will work.

As it turns out, the American people don't seem to like this government-driven solution to the financial crisis any more than they liked the Democrats government-driven solution to the Nation's health care crisis. They do not think this bill will solve the problems in the financial sector any more than they think the health care bill will lead to lower costs or better care. One survey this week indicates that 7 in 10 Democrats have little confidence the proposals in this bill will avert or lessen the impact of another financial catastrophe, and nearly 70 percent of them doubt it will make their savings more secure.

It is easy to see why. The Wall Street Journal calls this bill's 2,300 pages ``the biggest wave of new Federal financial rulemaking in three generations.'' The chairman of the Banking Committee has famously said last month we would not know how this bill works until it is in place. But here are some initial indicators about its scope according to a study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on the new bureaucratic landscape under this bill: 70 new Federal regulations through the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 54 new Federal regulations through the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 11 new Federal regulations through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 30 new Federal regulations through the Federal Reserve, and 205 new regulations through the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Those are just some of them. All told, this bill would impose 533 new regulations on individuals and small businesses, regulations that will inevitably lead to the kind of confusion and uncertainty that will make it even harder for struggling businesses to dig themselves out of the recession. It is just this kind of uncertainty that will deter lending and freeze up credit as lenders wait to see how they will be affected by the new regulations. It is just this kind of uncertainty that businesses cite time and time again as one of the greatest challenges to our economic recovery.

So here is a bill that fails to address the root causes of the kind of crisis it is meant to prevent, that creates a vast new unaccountable bureaucracy, that--if past experience is any guide--will lead to countless burdensome, unintended consequences for individuals and small businesses; a bill that constricts credit and stifles growth in the middle of the worst economic period in memory; and perhaps most distressing of all, a bill that punishes farmers, florists, doctors, retailers, and countless others across the country and far away from Wall Street who had absolutely nothing to do with the panic of 2008.

In other words, once again, the administration and its Democratic allies in Congress have taken a crisis and used it rather than solving it. How else can you explain the fact a bill that was meant to address the excesses on Wall Street is expected to hit individuals and industries that had nothing to do with the crisis it was meant to prevent?

Did anybody think when this bill was first proposed that it would end up hurting storefront check cashers, city governments, small manufacturers, home buyers, credit bureaus, and farmers in places such as Kansas and Kentucky?

This is precisely the kind of thing Americans are tired of--a government simply out of control. Only in Washington would you create a commission aimed at looking into the causes of a crisis, then put together and pass a 2,300-page bill in response to that crisis before the commission even has a chance to report its findings and issue recommendations. The White House will call this a victory. But as credit tightens, regulations multiply, and job creation slows even further as a result of this bill, they will have a hard time convincing the American people this is a victory for them.

Obviously, I will be opposing this bill, and I would encourage my colleagues to oppose it as well.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, my friend the majority leader mentioned the small business jobs bill. I recently had an opportunity to talk to Senator Snowe, who is the author of that legislation. I assured her we are anxious to move forward. I appreciate his bringing up the discussion we have been having about reaching a consent agreement that would allow us to expedite the bill. I know my friend from Nevada shares my view that small business is an area that needs attention. We are going to continue to try to come to agreement to move forward with that very important piece of legislation which I support and I believe most Members of my conference do as well.

The majority leader is entirely correct about the importance of small business. We know it creates the vast majority of jobs. There is no question that small business at this particular point is kind of frozen with concern about the economy, about increased regulation, the potential for increased taxation as well. Senator Snowe has certainly been the leader on our side on focusing on small business and small business job development. I am hoping we can work out a way to go forward on a bipartisan basis. It sounds to me as though both sides agree on the premise. Now if we can get a procedure for moving forward, hopefully we can address this most important subject.