i'm aware of two studies that we are assisting with. we're not -- only with data. one study by epa and then a second study that's being conducted by the usgs within the department of interior. our participation, like i said, is fairly limited to providing statistics and data that are then taken into account as part of their analysis. as it relates to the bureau of land management, we are proposing a new rule relative to fracking. the components of that rule is based upon three primary recommendations that came to us from the department of energy task force on fracturing technology. the three components that we're focused on is public disclosure of the chemicals that are being used on drilling operations on public lands. many states have such disclosure policies in place right now, and we want to mic -- make sure that the standards that are going to

apply to public lands are similar to what's being applied on state lands. the second component of our proposed fracking rule will address well bore integrity. to make sure that the casings that are being used during the drilling operation are secured, they're going to protect ground water. and then the third component is water management, both looking into the water being used because there's a incident amount of water -- significant amount of water being used and, second, what occurs with the disposal of that wastewater, making sure that the disposal is consistent with local and state law. not federal law, but local and state law. so those are the three components that we've incorporated into our proposed rule. we anticipate releasing a draft rule pertaining to fracking as early as april. ..

>> i don't know why that is. if it's because of fracking or some other reason, but water is very, very important. and i just wonder, can you give me any idea on its, number one, the aquifers are indeed losing that kind of, that kind of, are they being diminished by one to two feet a year? and secondly, why is that? and thirdly, is there something

we can do about it? >> i would refer you to usgs for the answer to your specific question relative to what's causing that depletion. i do know that many fracking operations require an extensive amount of water. that water has to come from somewhere. and so energy companies are securing water rights were ever there operating in order to have access to such water so that they can continue with the fracking operation. but i will also give acknowledgment to the industry for, they understand the potential impact and certainty the long-term impacts of continuing the operations that are currently taking place with amount of water. they are doing, or proposing to do a better job of reusing water. and actually treating water on site so it can be used there on additional or new fracking operations. >> it is a big issue. i mean, there was an amendment on the floor yesterday that i think phil becomes some people didn't want to encourage more

fracking. we have the ability to fracking we're getting natural gas because we're the ability to strike. we would like to see done. but by the same token 10 years from now we want to look back and say oh, my god, what have we done? so i would hope that the research is being done is being done in a corrugated faction -- fashion and atomic. i want to talk about closure for blm wells, for wells on blm land. could you compare the procedure to what happens on state or private lands in a state like montana when it comes to well closure? >> well again, we take plugging and abandonment quite seriously because it's the last time we actually have an opportunity to look down the hall before the cement is placed. so we get one of the highest priorities as part of our inspection program. winner is going to be a will that will be closed and abandoned have our inspectors after almost 100% of the time to make sure that the process is

completed, based upon the engineering that has gone into that design and approval process. >> can you give me any idea, or maybe you may not have knowledge of what goes on on the state or private lands as far as well closure? >> i really don't. i do know that there should be some similarities but some states do a better job of organizing instructions -- inspections than others. i won't fight any examples who does that better than others, but nonetheless, you know, we are responsible for managing these wells on federal lands, and that's where our focus is right that. >> all right, thank you very much. >> thank you. i have a few more questions, and i recognize my colleagues for their additional questions. mr. beaudreau, i understand that you're going to use a new auction process format for offshore wind, alternate energy, unlike what you do for oil and gas in the gulf, for example.

and raises the question, why do you for an auction procedures, first question. second, we've got to get that information out to potential applicants in a very expeditious way, otherwise they might not be prepared when the auction occurs. and, you know, frankly they also deserve the opportunity to go and evaluate to ensure that they are fair to all potential parties. so, could you comment on the reason for the new procedures, and also the commit to getting the proposed quickly so that relative parties can participate? [inaudible] >> the reason for the new procedures is that strictly speaking, offshore wind energy

development is fundamentally different than oil and gas. you have a finite area that is being made available. you want to make sure that you get as much efficiency out of that area as possible, unlike oil and gas where you purchase a partial, you assume the risk for the parcel, you drill a well. if it's a dry welcome you go someplace else. here we have a number of companies. we have a number of interests that we need to take into account in considering how to lease the finite area. that includes the efficiency of their project, the likelihood that that particular operator can actually bring a viable project online. and the best configuration of multiple projects within the limited area. and so that creates a little bit more complex process.

that said, we're very actively evaluating alternatives or this process, with the idea of, while addressing those multiple factors that distinguish from oil and gas, keeping it as an last possible. there's a number of reasons for that. we have gone through an extensive process to make this area available. we want to encourage the development of offshore wind, and so we want to keep our auction process as simple as possible, while at the same time giving the area into the hands of operators who will be able to stand up real projects. with respect to the auction process and familiarity among operators with that process, you're absolutely right. that is essential. we put out a description, an auction format, information request last fall and had economy created provided to operators from l. got a lot of

useful feedback from operators about the different factors and alternatives we could employ in the auction format. so we been extensively engaged with operators through that process. and we are playing into the run up to lease sales, coordination with operators, to make sure they understand exactly how release process will unfold, exactly what would be expected, because we want an efficient lease sale and we want it to work and we wanted to work right out of the box. >> do you have an idea of when you will be prepared to sort of publish your file, or least final for comment proposal? >> yes. we've done all of the comments, so now we're working on finalizing what the auction format will be. now, each auction will be have to be cared a little bit to the region, but we don't have all that in place for competitive leasing later this year. >> very good.

now, assuming you have got turbines and transmission lines operating in the water, will be oem employees inspect? >> in the near term, part of what we're trying to do with the additional funding that we received his higher structural engineers, who can help us evaluate construction and operation plans, which is a key component down the road to getting steel in the water. eventually when those operations are up, steel isn't water, bsee will have a role with respect to this operation. >> director watson, you're collaborating right now to the hand-off i presume? >> yes, sir. you know, this is just a recently created cube euros, but we have a lot of interdependency, and they're still evolution going on. this is a perfect example of, i think right now our priority is with oil and gas safety, and

establishing our environmental enforcement division but be ready when the time comes to take on the wind work. >> final question is, you know, you don't have the same dangers that we saw with the oil rig exploding, et cetera, but you have the problems of hurricanes damage, et cetera. have we clearly set out the responsibility for the lease holders in terms of their obligation to repair and to remediate, you know, there's no oil fund for this process i presume? >> that's right. there's other mitigation factors around impacts on resources, marine mammals, that is why we're doing these environmental analyses so we can develop mitigation measures and requirements to ensure that one, the operations go up, that can provide energy from renewable

sources here but we're managing the potential impacts. >> thank you very much. senator murkowski. >> i want to add a couple more questions to the inquiry from senator tester on fracking. one of the concerned that i'm hearing from folks is that the concern that these will be overlapping, or duplicative rags that are coming out of blm on top of what they already face within the states, can you speak to that as an issue, give me some assurance there that we're not just adding on an additional federal regulation on top of what the states are doing, and and how you will work to eliminate any such redundancy? >> again, as i mentioned earlier there seem to be three components of our fracking rule. disclosure of chemicals, well

bore integrity's, and water management. the similarities that exist would be in the disclosure of chemicals, many states now are requiring as part of fracking operations, for companies to disclose what chemicals are being used as part of their operations. we will be requiring that, but we also -- >> will that information be shared publicly, or will they be provisions that will allow for protecting any trade secrets that might exist? >> the information would be available publicly, unless there's some rationale, justification that the companies would provide us to keep that trade secret from be made public. >> so that would be considered on a case-by-case basis? >> and we have a process in place to make that type of determination. >> all right. let me ask about on short inspection fees. currently, blm collects over $32 million for the processing

of the apd's, and this fy '13 budget proposes new authority to collect an additional inspection fee that apparently totals $48 million. how did you establish these fees? are the based on actual inspection cost? where did they come from? >> basically, they are based on actual costs, or what our essence of actual cost would be. the tea itself would be, would be implemented in accordance to the number of wells that are on a particular lease. and, for example, if there is alessi with a lot of wells on that particular least they would pay more inspection fee than a smaller operator would be. >> hasn't been any ss on the impact to small businesses that may be on the federal lands? talking offshore, we don't worry about that because we don't have anybody there, but has there

been any kind of an assessment there that looks at what the impact may be on the smaller businesses? >> we have done the analysis and that assessment. quite frankly, they just are not have the capital to do everything that is required to ensure environmental protections for the drilling that is occurring, or the production that is occurring. so there's a necessity for us to get out there on the site to make sure that those operators are comply with all the laws and rules governing their operations. so we can't ignore them, but we have taken the account, or taken into our analysis the economic effects are impacts to our operators. >> as you done the analysis, have you looked at kind of cumulative impact, these additional fees that we're talking about? you've got the existing apd these come you're talking about new inspection these come increasing royalty rates

perhaps. are you concerned that what might result is lower bonus bids coming up, less production on federal lands, which then results in less revenue to the treasury? has that been factored into the analysis as we'll? >> it is, and we understand the cumulative effects on industry itself based on everything that we are doing to ensure environmentally responsible drilling on these lands. and to make sure that we're making appropriate parts of public lands available for such extraction. but at the same time, as we go forward, well, that is a factor we've also taken into account as we review the royalty rate options before us. we are not looking at the cumulative affects the only other action that we're also taken has on the industry. >> one more question, mr. chairman, this is it for me. but the department yesterday had

announced its analysis of this merger, the proposed merger between osm and blm. it generate a fair amount of discussion and controversy within the energy committee when it was announced. i do appreciate what the interior has done to avoid the violation of the statutory responsibilities, but the analysis as i understand it fails to quantify how this merger is actually going to generate any savings or efficiencies. and we had asked for an assessment of the costs and the benefits of the proposal. but from passionate but from what i can tell the department has failed to include any of that. i know the mind the interior department needs to go back and actually calculate whether the consolidation of administration, administrative functions is really worth pursuing. i know that you were involved in this, probably more so than

others out there. what can you tell us about this new proposal versus what was originally laid out there? at about the fact that we haven't been able to demonstrate that we're going to see any cost savings here. >> again, i think the jury is out relatively him which cost savings there actually will be. but -- >> you do agree that is an important part of what this is all about? >> it is. but we also believe that there will be a efficiencies gained based upon the actions that the secretary approved yesterday. and by that, and what you read, is that the bureau of land management will be providing administrative support to the office of service management. where they were required to hire similar skills and positions that we already have in place right now, they would not, no longer need those type of position because those services would be provided by the bureau of land management. some of the revenue collections

function would then be transferred to the office of natural resource revenue. again, getting some efficiency relative to the savings of positions. but the office of service management would remain an independent entity within the department of interior, performed their mandated functions. all we're trying to achieve is some administrative efficiencies, cost savings and to allow the office of service management to focus their limited dollars on the important work that they do they do perform on the half of this nation. >> are you suggesting then that the cost-benefit analysis will still be coming to us that, in fact, there is an ongoing assessment in terms of what cost savings might be achieved that we might be able to learn that there? >> no, that's not what him and employing but basically what i'm saying is we're going to learn how much efficiencies there are,

cost savings there are as we go forward and implement the actions that were approved. >> i'm leaving here to go to another appropriations subcommittee when going to the inquiry with the secretary of the air force about where they are going to achieve certain cost savings. second going into the same thing. well, we'll see a book at the cost savings that we are hoping for. my argument to them was, you made that argument to me in 2005. we didn't achieve cossiga and i'm going back and exact same thing. so count me a bit as a skeptic if we're waiting to see whether there's any deficiencies that are again. i think you know that there's a lot of consternation about this specific merger, so i would hope that would be focusing on how we see the savings come how we gain those efficiencies. >> again, i think there will be some savings, i just cannot give you the exact amount of savings at this point in time. there will be less people. that will be employed. the systems would be consistent,

or at least the systems would have in place in the bureau of land management that would allow us to provide the support that always seem would require are already in place so it wouldn't require us to do much of adjustments or to increase that type of capacity. and begin to be benchmarking against what os x is currently doing and improving our own performance and operations within the blm. >> thank you, thank you. >> thank you santa. >> thank you, gentlemen, for testimony. >> just a follow on public senator murkowski was talking about. you said it was going to be less people. is there duplication that would be a limited? >> there is. that's why there will be less people because there will be elimination. >> will to be a higher level of accountability at least four us in order who to look at where the buck stops? >> yack, you have my telephone number. relative to support functions. >> part of the problem that i find when it comes to

accountability, i'm not talking about your agency necessarily, is that there's duplication and work being done, and when it comes to a problem, when it arises, that this well too many cooks in the kitchen, c. can't have anybody down. with this from your perspective with the soap with accountability? >> i do. again, there's lots of opportunities for us to improve our performance. in these lean times that we're all in, we need to be looking at every opportunity that we have to improve our performance, to create the efficiencies that the american taxpayers are demanding, and to reduce costs. because there is no new dollars coming our way. >> thank you. that was just brought up. i'm glad senator murkowski brought it up, because i think of leading indian money is important. but for us was almost equally, well, it is equally important in

my opinion, if something goes upside down, and there's more than one agency dealing with it, people slip through the cracks. that's not what i want to talk about. in your budget this year, $73 million was permitted to construct renewable energy projects on public land to the agency has a goal of 10,000 megawatts at the end of the year. department has sent out a request for information on proposing competitive leasing on public lands for renewable energy. this proposal is similar to build a senator risch and i have, 1775, which directs the agency to pilot competitive leasing for renewable energy on public lands. the blm's request is a bit different. it doesn't accrue revenue sharing for states or ecosystems which are most impacted by the development and has minimal sideboards for mitigation and a voice of natural resource damage, and doesn't return funding to streamline the process as 1775 does. i believe it's because the blm does not have authority to do so today. i am optimistic to see the agency moving forward.

but leasing is only a part of the equation. i would like to have you expand on how your agency plans to address the broader issue of impacts to communities come natural resources if the permitting is expanded. >> well first and foremost were quite intrigued by your legislation. relative to not only encouraging a competitive process but also potentially the return of some of the revenues back to mitigate for the impacts associated with such development. so we look forward to working with you, senator, and others in this congress to pass commonsense legislation that would allow us to meet our common goals. as we go forward with greater emphasis on minolta energy development and using public lands to achieve that goal, we are quite confident that by 2013 we will have approved 11,000 megawatts of renewable energy, generated from public lands. that would include wind, solar

and geothermal primarily. we are also moving forward expeditiously through our process to actually designate in the case of solar, solar energy development zones. we would steer developing commodore best to steer development to areas that have already been screened, analyze, cleared for such development. we would be proposing to do something similar or wind in a very, very near future so that we could steer development of the best places where that the public can go forward and actually achieve our mutual goal of diversifying the nation's energy portfolio. at the same time, we understand that these are large-scale projects. the our large footprint on these public lands, therefore, we need to make sure that there's appropriate medication to offset the plans that are being dedicated for that particular type of use. we work very closely with the

communities. we're working very closely with all public land stakeholders. with the industry itself as was environmental groups to come up with an appropriate mitigation for such large-scale commercial development. and i think we're seeing some successes. >> that's good but i want to flush out geothermal a bit as large a broader do. i think it's got incredible opportunity provide base load power. it is very costly at this point in time. senator murkowski and i have a bill which would expand our knowledge about geothermal energy and its potential. can you speak specifically, you touched on a, but specifically on your efforts to extend you from a production and the various that you are facing at this point in time to deploying this technology? >> well, quite honestly, the footprint associated with geothermal is a lot less, and with wind and solar. and also has probably the highest potential for future development and probably solar

or wind, as it relates to the amount of public lands that would be dedicated or made available for that type of particular use. we are very optimistic about the future of geothermal. you know, the prices are not necessarily competitive when you're looking at are competing against coal and some of the other conventional energy sources at this point in time, but we do believe that geothermal will be a major part of this, our nation's energy portfolio in the years to come. >> are you facing any barriers at this point in time other than money? >> no, we are not. >> okay. thank you, mr. chairman. i think a three-member committee with a three-member board, this works out pretty damn nice. so thank you all very much for your time. >> thank you, senator tester but i want to thank the witnesses for the actual testimony, and for your skillful leadership for your agencies. i want to thank my colleagues for what i can do with senator tester was a very productive and very helpful hearing. there may be additional

questions but i ask all my colleagues to submit them within a week, by march 21, and gentlemen to respond as good as possible to any written questions. if there are any of my colleagues that wish to add statements, spent for the record, they will be without objection, accepted for the record. and with that, again, let me thank you and adjourned the hearing. >> thank you, chairman. >> [inaudible conversations] >> if there's anything that concerns the american family

today, it's this. our government hasn't caught up with the new fags of american family life. families have change, so why can't washington? new facts, moms working. nearly 65% of all mothers are working. part-time, full-time, all of the time it. keeping the family together, making ends meet, making america more prosperous. working mothers need affordable day care. and the payday. too often, they can't get either. >> this saturday maryland senator barbara mikulski will become the longest-serving female member in congressional history with nearly 13,000 days in congress, she will surpass the record held by massachusetts republican representative edith rogers who serve in the house from 1925-1960. watch senator mikulski speeches from the senate floor, and of the seats stand -- c-span

appearances at the c-span video library. >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in to begin the day. general speeches for the first 90 minutes or so, and then at around 11 eastern lawmakers will turn to a bill that aims to reduce legislation for small businesses that want to go public. just before 2 p.m. they will lay that aside in order to consider a pair of judicial nominations. vote scheduled for later this afternoon. and now live to the u.s. senate floor here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order.

today's opening prayer will be offered by the reverend dr. winford l. hen terrorism, senior pastor of ardmore baptist church, winston-salem, north carolina. the guest chaplain: may we pray together. awesome creator, sovereign lord of our great nation, you must have been excited when you first dreamed of creating out of nothing this beautiful, complex world with all its natural resources and beauty: birds of the air, fish of the sea, animals of the earth -- and humans to care for all of this ... and to love you infinitely. and to live out your dream for your world. loving, visionary god, infuse in these women and men known as the united states senate your dream

for our great nation, here and now in the 21st century, and give to them not only a vision of how things can be but also give to them the nitty-gritty know-how to make your dream a reality for every person in this great land. and dare we say it, may they and all of us make you excited yet again as we partner with you to actualize your dream for this nation. we pray in your awesome, loving, creative name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, march 15, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties f the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: we appreciate senator burr allowing and arranging for this good man to offer the prayer this morning. we appreciate that very much. following leader remarks, mr. president, the senate will be in morning business until 11:00 this morning. the majority will control the first 30 minutes, the republicans will control the second 30 minutes. following that morning business, we will begin consideration of the i.p.o. bill, h.r. 3606.

at 2:00 there will be a roll call vote on groh and then followed by one on fitzgerald, the trial judges in our federal court system. additional votes are possible today. i'm told, mr. president, that s. 2191 is due for its second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: s. 2191, a bill to amend the americans are disabilities act of 1990, to prohibit the attorney general from administering or enforcing certain accessibility regulations relating to pools at public accommodations or provided by public entities. mr. reid: mr. president, i would object to any further proceedings regarding this bill. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, the day after tomorrow, saturday, senator barbara mikulski becomes

the longest-serving woman in the history of the united states congress. we'll mark that occasion on saturday with a when her family and friends will be here in the capitol. i thought it was important that we note very briefly here today this milestone in the history of our country. last january barbara mikulski pursurpassed margaret chase smih as the longest-serving woman in the united states senate. this saturday she'll surpass congresswoman rogers from massachusetts as the longest-serving woman in congress. this week the senate has demonstrated that we're capable of achieving significant things for this country. we passed a transportation bill that will create or saving almost 3 million gorks and these are american jobs, rebuild our nation's crumbling infrastructure. yesterday we charted a course to

confirm 14 judges in the short-term. our federal courts are overworked and understaffed. we agreed that congress should continue its work to improve the economy. to that end, the senate will move today to a piece of legislation that will improve innovators' access to capital and give start-ups the flexibility they need to hire and grow. this bill already passed the house by an overwhelming margin. president obama supports this measure and both democrats and republicans are eager to get to work to pass it next week. in addition to the small business capital legislation, the democrats will also advance a proposal to help american businesses sell more of their products overseas. reauthorization of the export-import bank, or ex-im bank, as it's called, will help small business exports globally. it will also help large businesses, not just big

businesses -- i mean, not just small business; also big business. caterpillar, boeing -- these companies really need this to continue the job creation they've been involved in now for the last several years. as an example, last year ex-im bank financed almost 300,000 private-sector jobs and more than 3,600 american companies in more than 2,000 communities throughout america. foreign governments often provide financing for companies that compete with american businesses. we need to be able to do this to be more competitive. the ex-im bank levels the playing field by being available to help american exporters when private lend something not available. unless we reauthorize this, it will hit its lending limit this month eliminating this for american exporters. the export-import bank has always had strong support and democrats reauthorizing this measure has the firm backing baf

the chamber of commerce. this equals jobs. passing these two items -- this ex-im bank and the small business capital bill -- will continue the important bipartisan work we've done this week to get our economy back on track. i'm pleased that democrats and republicans in the senate have been able to find common ground. franklin roosevelt said this. "competition has been shown to be useful up to a certain point and no further. but cooperation, which is the thing we must strive for today, begins where competition leaves off." i think we've shown this week that achievement comes when its members all strive, as president roosevelt said, not to compete but to cooperate. mr. president, would the chair announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, there will now be a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m. with

senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half-hour and the republicans controlling the second half-hour. mr. reid: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut is recognized. mr. blumenthal: thank you. i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. consumer protection has been a priority for me throughout my career, as i know it has been for the presiding officer. both he and i served together as attorneys general and now as a senator, he and i have tworbgd give consumers a -- have worked to give consumers a voice against companies that harm them through deceptive and dangerous or abusive practices. this month, mr. president, we recognize consumers in two ways: national consumer protection week, recognize the week of march 4 through 10, is led by government and nonprofit groups. and its focus is to encourage consumers to take full advantage of their consumer rights and make better-informed decisions

for themselves in the marketplace. this month we also recognize many of the same consumer issues affecting americans every day in their lives, the impact on consumers in every corner of the world. so today we celebrate world consumer rights day. every day ought to be consumer rights day because, as president kennedy once said, we are all consumers. and we are consumers every day of every year. organizations here in america, such as consumers union and other consumer groups around the world celebrate world consumer rights day as members of consumers international, the nonprofit organization representing 220 consumer groups in 115 countries. today also marks the 50th anniversary of a very special day in american history for

american consumers. on march 15, 1962, president kennedy sent a message to congress calling for a national commitment to protecting consumer interests, 50 years ago today president kennedy spoke about the consumer right to safety, to be informed, to choose and to be heard. these rights are the foundation of what we now know as the consumer bill of rights. the consumer bill of rights has grown to include eight specific guarantees: the right to satisfaction of basic needs, the right to safety, the right to be informed, the trite to choose, the right to be heard, the right to redress, the right to consumer education, and the right to a healthy environment. today i'd like to propose another right, a ninth right.

the right to privacy. there is a growing need to defend individual rights to privacy in a multitude of areas. this country was founded, its basic bedrock is on a desire for personal privacy, on the right to be left alone. it's the reason that people came to this country, avoiding unwanted and unwarranted intrusion on their personal space, on their rights and liberties. they came here out of a desire for religious freedom, economic liberty, and the security of their person and property against intrusion. it is a uniquely bedrock american right, the right to privacy. concerns about governmental invasion of personal privacy go back literally the founding of

our republic in the protections guaranteed under the third amendment, when the british lodged troops without permission in our homes. the fourth amendment, when they searched our homes and seized goods and property from them. i've heard numerous complaints from connecticut residents who were concerned about their privacy. they're concerned about federal and state intrusion into women's health care decisions. they're concerned about government efforts to combat terrorism through tracking of individuals via g.p.s. or cell phone tower location. those potential invasions of privacy are by the government, by official forces. but people today are also understandably and rightly concerned about corporate intrusion into their privacy. they're concerned about companies crawling the web to

collect consumers' personal information and selling it to marketeers. they're concerned about mobile device acts that can access and acquire the device owner's photos and address book without his or her knowledge or consent. they're concerned about credit scores that are created from the use of medications, and those scores are used to set personal health insurance premiums. and they're concerned about companies that are compiling dossiers on the use of social media sites or blogs and selling those reports to prospective employers. they're concerned because they're powerless to prevent the distribution of their contract information to marketers who then deluge them with advertisements in the mail and via e-mail concerned about

companies who don't secure their personal data and the damage that occurs with from improper breaches or disclosure. the constitution was written to protect americans from government intrusions into their privacy. and i understand the difference between government intrusions and private-sector invasions. but if the government were treating its citizens the way some companies are treating their customers, people would be outraged. they would be up in arms. they would be dumping tea into the boston harbor. the supreme court has just ruled that it's not okay for the government to track people via g.p.s. in their car without a warrant. so why would it be okay for a company like onstart, to track drivers who canceled their subscription and sell that information on their movements to marketeers?

americans, many of us, and others were questioning the patriot act and its provisions that allow government to access records of what books citizens borrowed from the library and what web pages they visited while they were there. and yet, companies are tracking consumers' every movement on line through dozens, even hundreds of cookies that are secretly installed on consumers' computers whenever they visit a web site. we'd be horrified if the government as a routine matter monitored pictures that people take and who they interacted with. and yet, according to news reports, mobile devices and apps are doing exactly that. i believe that it's time that we protect america from intrusions into their personal privacy by companies or educational institutions or others who may

not be part of the government. big brother or big sister no longer need wear a police uniform or a badge or a military uniform. it may well be under the guise of a corporate seal or insignia, and i believe that it is time that we protect against those intrusions as well as others. in fact, i think it is a bipartisan concern, one of the few areas where there is agreement in congress is the need for better protection of consumers on online privacy. and we may differ on the substance. we may disagree as to what the contours and the spefbgdz should be, but -- and the specifics should be, but i am concerned about this issue and i'm encouraged by the bipartisan support for attention to it. i was heartened by the

president's recent call for a consumer privacy bill of rights, a great beginning, a very positive step forward. and i believe that our approach to privacy must be comprehensive and robust. as a threshold matter, companies that collect and share information about consumers should be required to get consumers' affirmative opt-in consent for collecting or sharing that data. not an opt-out. an opt-in specific informed consent. and that should apply on line as well as off-line. we've seen a lot of attention paid to internet tracking and behavior advertising. i think we ought to protect consumers from privacy invasions that come from the mail or over the phone as well. they particularly affect our seniors. if a company wants to collect, aggregate, share, sell, share,

by selling or any other means, it should get consumers' permission. otherwise it shouldn't be permitted. and we also need to pay attention to the collection of information for consumers' use of mobile devices. as we've seen recently, some mobile apps or operating systems are capable of tracking not just consumers' web browsing but also their text messages, what they photograph, whom they contact, mobile devices need a systemwide "do not track" option to allow consumers to control the distribution of their information. finally, consumers' right to privacy also must encompass the right to prevent unauthorized distribution of that information. to that end, we need to establish requirements for companies that possess consumers' personal information to ensure they have security features in place to prevent

data breaches. those protections must be accompanied by remedies, by fines and penalties that make those rights and protections real so that consumers as well have a private right of action. congress is working on these issues. there have been numerous hearings and legislation proposed. and having the president add his voice to the call for privacy will only help. as with food safety, product safety, wall street reform, companies themselves are demonstrating the need for legislation, and some of them are joining in this effort very constructively. so, mr. president, as we mark the 50th anniversary of president kennedy's call to action, let us heed the importance of his message to congress. and he said -- i'm quoting -- "as all of us are consumers,

these actions and proposals in the interest of consumers are in the interest of us all." we should be proud in this body of having continued the fight for consumer protection. it should be full-throated and full-hearted. americans went west to the president's -- mr. president, to your state and to others seeking the open spaces, the opportunities, economic but also personal. the privacy of being alone. and that american right, that american spirit is very much with us today. it is 50 years after president kennedy first articulated it, but i believe it is as real and necessary today as ever. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call being dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i'd like to start out this morning by saying that i'm tblad we're turning to the bipartisan jobs bill that passed the house last week by

such a lopsided margin. here's a chance not only to help entrepreneurs build their businesses and create jobs but to show that we can work together around here to get things done on a bipartisan basis. unfortunately, some of our friends on the other side don't seem to like that idea very much. apparently they'd rather spend the time manufacturing fights and 30-second television ads than helping to create jobs. first, they tried to even keep us from bringing this jobs bill up for debate in the senate. now we read they're trying to figure out ways to make this overwhelmingly bill controversial. they want to pick a fight rather than get this bill to the president's desk. then they're going it use the same strategy on a number of other bills. their plan isn't to work together to make it easier to create jobs but to look for ways to make it easier to keep their

own, then use it for campaign ads in the run-up to the november elections. if you're looking for the reason this congress has a 9% approval rating, this is it. a day after we read a headline in the congressional quarterly about democrats moving to slow a jobs bill that got 390 votes, we see a story today about how the number-three democrat in the senate is scheming to spend the rest of the year hitting the other side. it goes ton list all the ways he plans to do it and then it says this: quote -- "none of these campaign-style attacks allow for the policy nuances or reasoning behind the g.o.p. opposition and some of the bills stand no chance of becoming law, but that's really not the point." end quote. so in aempt mo of economic crisis -- so in a moment of economic crisis, the

number-three democrat in the senate, the democrat in charge of strategy over there, is i think ising u-- issitting up ato think up a strategy to help democrats get reelect. so i'd like to enter into the record the ""politico"" story i just referred to entitled "schumer schemes to hit g.o.p." the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: it lays out the democratic strategy. the american people need know what's going on in the democrat-controlled senate and, frankly, so should posterity. 50 years from now i really would like an american doing a research project to look back at what's outlined in this "politico" article today so they can understand what this democratic-controlled senate is like, so they can understand what their priorities are. what did this country's leaders do to make america stronger for

the next generation? well, read the "politico" piece. it provides a unique insight for future generations of americans to understand what this senate has done for the country. they can decide for themselves what they think of it and what it's legacy should be. asand what it's legacy should b. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. warner: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia is recognized. mr. warner: mr. president, i ask that the proceedings of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: mr. president, i rise today to speak on some of the issues that were just addressed by the republican leader, and that's the legislation that we will hopefully turn to next about creating jobs. you know, there's a lot of occasions when legislation comes to the floor of this senate that i, like many members, have a view on and we kind of weigh in on our positions. but this legislation, this legislation as it comes forward is something that i have more than just an intellectual or

political or philosophical viewpoint on. this legislation is actually -- involves the business that i was in for nearly 20 years. i was proud of the fact that starting in the early 1980's up until the time that i was elected as governor of the virginia, i was involved as -- originally as an angel investor and then as a venture capitalist and helping start companies across this country. i'm proud to have been involved as a venture capitalist in funding almost 70 companies, those companies that grew to now employ tens of thousands of americans. as the presiding officer and some of the folks realize, a lost those companies i was -- a lot of those companies i was involved with were involved with

telecommunications. i was at nextel, although i don't seem to be able a to turny cell phone off at times. it gave me an idea of how to find a management team and get a company started, to allow it to grow, create jobs, create economic prosperity. this issue around capital formation, encouraging start-ups, encouraging entrepreneurs is an issue that we ought to be able to come together on. i see my good friend shal -- i y good friend, the senator from kansas, who i know is going to speak after i'm finished. he and i have worked together on legislation called "start up america" that has been endorsed by tech counsels across the

country and endorsed by -- and builds upon the work of the kaufman foundation, and enforced and builds upon the work on the president's council on jobs and economic competitiveness. this ought to be an area where we can find common ground. some of the ideas that we're going to be discussing in this legislation are not only ideas that senator moran and i have worked on, and i know senator coons and senator rubio and senator toomey and senator schumer, senator tester, senator merkley, senator brown -- the list actually in terms of sponsors or cosponsors of a number of these bills number not in the single digits but literally in the dozens, probably in excess of 20. and for the most part almost every one of these pieces of legislation are bipartisan.

why do we need to do this? because if we look over the last 20 years at where the jobs have been created in america, we find that, for the most part -- unfortunately -- the job growth from companies that are in the fortune 1,000 really have been flat, if not slightly negative. so while we applaud and support america's largest businesses, because of increased productivity, because of globalization, those are not the companies really adding jobs. and while every member of the united states senate when they stand up -- stands up and applauds small business -- and i, and i know my colleagues on the floor, support small businesses -- traditional businesses, the barber shob --

the barbershop, retailers. where do the companies come from? the jobs come from start-up businesses, the kind of businesses where an entrepreneur tries to scare up a little bit of capital and takes an idea to market. nearly 80%, according to the kaufman foundation, have all been businesses created in america coming from these kinds of firms. many of these are technology firms, facebooks and googles. but there are also the companies that span the reach of all kinds of different areas. lululemons in terms of unde acte wear. these are the kinds of companies that need do better in terms of growth, especially with our economy struggling. so what are we trying to do in

this legislation? well, to my mind there's three or four areas that these bills need address. first of all, we need to make it easier for these start-up companies to raise capital. over the last decade, a lot of the traditional sources of capital-raising +sraising have y diminished. the number of venture capital firms have actually decreased. the ability for a company to go public, which perhaps we got a little too excessive in the late-1990's when we saw dotcom companies go public and then they failed, but at that access to the public markets has been seriously constrained, partially because of added regulations, partially because of added reporting requirements, and partially because there's been, i think, a recognition that

going public may not have been the right route for all of these companies. the result has been that many of these -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. worn warn i'mr. warner: i'd askn additional five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: the result is that many of these start-up companies ended up in that -- ended up having to sell to a larger company and many of the ideas and many of the job-creation opportunities are then constrained. so we need to make it easier for these companies to access capital. some of the ideas that are going to be proposed in the legislation will do that. some of the reforms, reg-a, reg-d, trying to look at raising the number of investors -- that a start-up company can have before they have to report. all are, i think, sensible, appropriate incentives to help these start-up companies get going. we also need -- and i understand

the very important requirements put in place by the so-called sarbanes-oxley legislation a few years back. but the cost of going public for start-up companies now, on average, $3 million to $4 million. those costs are not costs that many of these start-up companies can absorb. so some of the sensible reforms that have been proposed by senator toomey, senator schumer, that i've been a proud cosponsor on, a so-called on ramp for start-up companies, i think makes sense as well. there are also other tools we can use to help start-up companies as they try to access capital. we've seen a dramatic transformation of the internet over the last 20 years. every business, every part of our life has been changed. there is now the ability to use the internet as a way for small investors to get the same kind of deals that up to this point only select investors have

gotten that have been customers of some of the best-known investment banking firms. we can now use the power of the internet through a term called crowd funding -- there has to be appropriate investor restraints on this and investor protections. but crowd funding using the internet is another source of capital. i hope that would be included in the legislation that we're looking at. i want to commend senator bennet and senator merkley and senator brown for working hard on that. but there are other pieces of this legislation if we are going to compete and win in this global competition for talent and ideas and have these jobs created in america that we've got to take on. that's why i was so proud to work with senator moran in our start-up legislation that says attracting capital is one part of making a company successful. another part of making a company successful is winning the worldwide competition for

talent. unfortunately, time and again what we are doing in this country is we are losing that competition for the best talent. there are literally tens of thousands of jobs that are going unfilled right now because we do not have enough american-born scientists, engineers, mathematicians with graduate degrees. we in our country, because we have the world's best system of higher education, we train many of the world's best and brightest. but under our current immigration policies, we train those folks at the virginia techs, university of new mexico's, give them that ph.d. in engineering, and then we send them home when they have an opportunity to actually get a job here in this country. you can't talk to a tech company anywhere in america that says we are losing the competition for talent. what does our legislation do? we actually do what tech firms have called for for years, which

is in effect staple that green card to those individuals who did not -- get not a patch lore's degree but -- a bachelor's degree but ph.d. in the stem field if they have a job opportunity in america, allow that intellect and capital to reside and create jobs in this country. what we do as well is we create a new category, visa for, in effect an entrepreneur's visa. we have a narrow category within our immigration policies right now which allows certain immigrants who want to come, invest in companies in this country and hire americans to get access to a visa. we would expand that category so if an individual can demonstrate they've raised capital or are willing to hire a number of americans, why don't we allow them to start that job here in america rather than going somewhere else to do it? so we've put in place, i

believe, reasonable small changes to our immigration policies that will, again, allow us to compete. what our start-up legislation does as well is it looks at how we can encourage our universities because we need capital, we need talent but we also need the intellectual capital, and that cops from ideas. our -- and that comes from ideas. our universities across this country do a good job in basic research. our universities across this country doesn't do as good a job as they could and should in moving those ideas from the laboratory into the marketplace. i know my time is about to expire so i'll wrap this up. what we do in our legislation as well is we don't add additional funding but we take a small sliver, .15% of our additional research dollars and use them to get investment funds out of the laboratory into

commercialization. i know that we're going to move to this legislation shortly. i do believe that there were a number of members, particularly newer members who have been working on this legislation across the aisle. there was an attempt to put together a broad bipartisan bill. i'm not sure that's going to come to pass on the floor, unfortunately, because on this issue i do agree with the republican leader, this should not be a republican or democratic legislation. there should be a bipartisan piece of legislation here that will actually encourage start-ups to get the capital, to get the talent, to get the ideas so that we can tallly make sure that -- so that we can actually make sure we move forward on job creation. the data is clear, the jobs over the last 20 years have come from these start-up companies, the kind i was proud to help fund in my 20 years of identifying, funding and working on these start-up ventures. we need to do all we can to support them. we need to move this legislation as quickly as possible. my hope is that we can move

beyond the rather narrowly drawn capital formation legislation that we're going to look at and look at these other areas around crowd funding, around appropriate visa policies, around commercialization of intellectual capital to move these ideas forward. with that i'm going to yield the floor to my friend and colleague, someone who has been a leader on this issue as well, somebody who i know has been crisscrossing the country over the last couple of days, recently came back from austin, texas, where he was celebrated as a start-up guru. and that is my friend, the senator from kansas. let me also acknowledge the senator from south dakota who has been a leader, particularly on the red-d reform. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota is recognized. mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleague from senator -- my colleague from kansas, senator

moran. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, do i appreciate the opportunity to join with my colleague, senator moran from kansas, to speak in support of the bill before us, h.r. 3606, the jump-start or business start-ups or jobs act. the jobs act is a bipartisan bill. it passed the house of representatives by a vote of 390-23. it has been endorsed by the white house. small businesses are the engines of our economy, but government red tape is currently preventing these businesses from creating even more jobs. this commonsense bill would enable small businesses in south dakota and across the country to better access much-needed capital so that they can make investments and add additional employees. there's no reason why it should not receive similar support here in the united states senate. creating jobs, mr. president, should be one of our top priorities here in the united states senate. we owe it to the american people and to small businesses across this country that are counting on us to do something that will make it easier, less expensive and less difficult to create

jobs. too often, mr. president, what we see coming out of washington, d.c. are policies that put up obstacles, barriers and i am pedestrianments to our -- impediments to our small businesses to create jobs. we see that daily with regulations coming out of washington, d.c. the senator from kansas and i have been on the floor previously talking about regulations proposed by the department of labor. 85 pages worth of regulations that would in a very prescriptive way tell farmers and ranchers how young people can work in their farming and ranching operations. it is amazing to me the level of detail to which those regulations go and how prescriptive they are with regard to something that has historically in this country and trab additionally been very much -- traditionally been a part of our heritage. that is young people being involved in those farming and ranching operations, making them

profitable. we've got a federal agency that thinks they know better. these 85 pages of regulations come out and suggest there are certain things young people on farms and ranches should not do. not only suggest them. say they can't do. can't herd cattle from the back of a horse. can't work around rain bins and stockyards. can't work with animals that are more than six months old. can't work at elevations or heights more than six feet. these are all things that the department of labor in their infinite wisdom has determined that they know better about farming and ranching and operations in this country than do the people who work there. it really would transform the way in which family farm and ranch operations are conducted in this country. it does put additional costs and barriers up to these farmers and ranchers who work so hard to make a living. they really are the quintessential small businesses in our country. they work hard. they've got a tremendous work ethic. they are people who make their living on the land. all they simply ask from their

government is that they not impose these types of barriers and regulations and i am -- impediments, that is to feed the world and create a strong farm environment in this country. the jobs bill that is before us today, mr. president, takes us in a different direction than all the regulations i just referred to, which make it more difficult and more expensive for people in this country to create jobs and to grow their businesses. these -- this package of bills that came over from the house of representatives, which passed by a vote of 390-23 -- there were only 23 dissenting votes in the house. it was an overwhelming bipartisan majority in support of this legislation. it's because these are such common-sensical things. so common-sensical the white house endorsed most of these bills, if not all of these bills. they passed in the house of

representatives individually before they were packaged into this particular piece of legislation that was sent to us here by that 390-23 vote. they were passed individually by huge votes. there's a piece of legislation, a bill that was passed in the house of representatives that senator toomey has the companion bill here in the senate to that passed 421-1. we had one of these bills that passed in the house of representatives by voice vote. the legislation, the bill that i have that's a part of this package passed in the house of representatives by a vote of 413-11 last november. that also is included in this jobs bill that has come over to us now from the house. so, what we want to do is make it easier for the small businesses which literally are the engine and the backbone of our economy, create most of the new jobs in our economy to do that. to create jobs, to invest capital, to put their capital to work, and to make our economy grow. and so i would just say by way

of introduction, mr. president, that i hope that we cannot only get to this bill, get on this bill, but move quickly to pass it through the senate and get it on the president's desk. because we don't have a lot of time to waste. we all know what the statistics are in this country. we know the high unemployment rate, the chronic high unemployment rate that we've seen, the sluggish economic growth. we need to get this economy growing again. we need to make it easier, not harder, for small businesses to create jobs and to get access to capital. and many of these bills in this package, this small business jobs package, really do focus on the issue of capital formation and allowing small businesses in this country to have easier access to the capital that will allow them to grow their companies and to grow jobs. so, mr. president, what i'd like to do is, my colleague from kansas is here, as i said, someone who as a member of the senate banking committee has been a leader on this legislation, on many of these issues, and a leader, as i mentioned earlier, in fighting

regulations coming out of washington, d.c. that make it harder and more difficult and more expensive to create jobs. in particular, as i mentioned earlier, we had this discussion a couple of weeks ago with regard to these department of labor regulations impacting family farms and ranches, just one of many, many regulations, the proliferation of regulations coming out of washington, d.c. that consistently are overreaching in terms of their impact and what they do to create additional burdens for our small businesses. so i'd like to yield to my colleague from kansas for his observations and thoughts with regard to the jobs bill that's before us and what we as the senate ought to be doing to try and create better conditions and a more favorable environment for our small businesses to create jobs. mr. moran: mr. president, i thank the senator from south dakota and pleased we're here on a topic of significance for the country. we've heard about the necessity

of creating jobs, creating an opportunity for americans to succeed. i guess that's the primary motivation for why many of us serve in the united states senate, is so that every generation, those who follow us but those even today, have the opportunity to pursue the american dream. i think our goal here is not to create a circumstance in which there is no one -- in which no one fails, but the goal here is to create a circumstance in which many succeed. and so, while it's been very disappointing that the senate has failed for so long to get to the important topic that we should be addressing -- job creation -- we are finally here today. and i commend the leaders of both parties for reaching an agreement that allows us to begin the discussion and ultimately, hopefully, hopefully we pass the jobs bill in the form just like the house passed a few days ago. i came to this issue of job

creation and innovation and entrepreneurship with the realization that this congress is failing, this administration is failing to address the issue of the deficit and the financial condition of our country. i believe that my kids and those americans who follow us are going to be in much worse shape because the administration and congress have failed to address the issue that we face today, which was our country is broke. we're spending money we don't have and we can't seem to resolve that issue in a way that puts us on a path toward a balanced budget. and i won't ever walk away from my belief that that's necessary and that i will continue to work as a member of the senate appropriations committee in every capacity i have here to see that we get our spending under control and that we're on that path toward balancing the budget. but because of this administration and the leadership of this congress to address -- the senate to address this issue of the deficit, i

sort of am looking for ways in which we could approached the deficit -- approach the deficit in perhaps is a way that is easier for us to grasp, easier for us to deal with. and that is job creation, because the more people that are creating, the more taxes that are collected and the more money comes to the coffers of the united states treasury to pay down this tremendous debt. and these two issues are actually related. i've tried to figure out how to explain this to kansans back home about why the deficit matters and whether or not they have a job or have a good job or can pursue a better job. and the answer is that no business is going to expand, no business is going to grow, no business is going to invest in capital and plant, eequipment, hire no -- equipment, hire new people if they're concerned they may be the next greece.

so the goal of paying down the debt is certainly worthy in and of itself, but if we can do that we also have the opportunity to create an environment in which business does feel comfortable in hiring more employees, in adding to plant and equipment, investing in their business and growing it. and so today we come to the senate floor in support of the jobs bill as passed by the house of representatives in hopes that the senate will do so in short order. and it is the opportunity we have to make a tremendous difference toward -- so that americans can today and in the future pursue that american dream. we, over a long period of time, have created many impediments towards the success of that job creation. the senator from south dakota talks about the regulatory environment, and we have highlighted here on the senate floor a major overreach that fundamentally alters the way we live our lives back home in

kansas in regard to family farms. farming and ranching in our state is a family operation, and yet the department of labor believes it is their role to tell parents what that relationship should be with their own children and their ability to work on their own family farm. it is just an example of this mind-set in our nation's capital that exists today that says, we know better than the american people, we know better than mom and dad, we know better than the family about what is the role for a young person working on a family farming operation back nome in kansas and -- back home in kansas and across the country. but it is just an example. those regulations are there today. they are being proposed all the time. in my view, if the federal government believes that it has this significant role to play in defining the relationship between mom and dad and working on a farm, what really can't the federal government tell us back home what we can and can't do in if they can go so far as to

define the opportunity that a young pepper be -- an person --s about a parent? who more cares than that parent? this is but one example in which we can decided that the government knows best, the department of labor knows better than mom and dad. and my point is that once we reach that kind of conclusion, then there is really nothing off limits for the federal government to say we know better than the citizens of our country. that is a misguided approach of the federal government to the role that we play. but it is a handicap to the american people, entrepreneurs, innovators, those across the country who believe in pursuing the american dream for themselves and their families, it is an impediment to them ever pursuing that opportunity to create a job and to create an economy that encourages job

creation. i appreciate earlier senator warning thwarner, the senator fm virginia, being on the floor talking about legislation that he and i are working on called the start-up act. we believe there is a great opportunity for entrepreneurs. research knows -- this is from the kaufman foundation -- that start-ups less than five years old accounted for nearly all of the net jobs created in the united states from 1980 to 2005. in fact, start-ups create 3 million new jobs every year. and so what we're about today is a portion of this legislation that senator warner and i have introduced, the start-up act. we're about the capital formation provisions of that bill. we've been working with senator coons and senator rubio and others to blend these provisions in the start-up act, but a portion is now on the senate floor, and i'm certainly going to commend here the opportunity we have here to pursue that

portion of job creation. it is not enough, but it is certainly a great beginning point for us in the united states national to follow the lead of the united states house of representatives and create this opportunity for capital formation. what this legislation does is create tax incentives that will spur start-ups and win the battle for us to see that the united states remains a highly competitive, innovative, entrepreneurial environment in which businesses succeed. i believe when we say about businesses succeeding, it is not about the business's success, it is about what the consequences are when business succeed. and that means that americans have jobs and the opportunity to put food on their family's table and save for their kids' education, cab fo save for retit and meet the responsibilities we have as parents. so i join the senator from south

dakota with my strong appellate court for moving forward -- with my strong support for moving forward. i ask the senate to consider legislative initiatives such as the one that senator warner and i have to make sure that we have that opportunity in america where everyone has the opportunity to succeed and that many will. mr. thune: i ask if the senator would yield for a question on jobs and the economy. ippreciate his legislation. i -- i appreciate his legislation. i hope that that is acted on here in the snavment ie senate. the jobs bill is also supported by the white house. that is a tremendous rarity here and one we ought to take advantage of and hopefully move this jobs package quickly. i hope the senator's bill, which sounds like it enjoys similar bipartisan support, would be something that we could act on as well because these are the types of things that right now i

think the american people -- certainly the people of south dakota and the people of kansas -- want to see us focused on, things that will make it less difficult to create jobs in this country, to put people back to work, to grow thi this economy d provide more opportunity for americans. the question i have for the senator from kansas, and it has to do with regulations and policies coming out of washington, we're tewing about a -- we're talking about a package of legislation that would enable access for job creators, for small businesses to, the capital that they need to invest, to grow their businesses and create jobs. it is enabling in a sense, allowing better conditions for capital formation, especially for small businesses, which is where most of the jobs in this country are created. but there are other things that the federal government is not doing that it should be doing to help the economy grow, to drive down input costs for people in this country. and i want to refer to the issue of fuel prices because the

senator represents a state like mine where you have an agricultural economy that is very dependent upon energy, both in terms of diesel fuel, fertilizer, awful these things are -- all of those things are incredibly dependent on energy. and it is also a rural state with a pretty big geography, and when you see gas approach that $4 range -- and in my state it is not there yet, i know other states where it is -- that is a pretty serious impediment. there are things we ought to be doing to open up more domestic production, to allow people who want to invest in energy in this country to do so. we've got lots of laws and regulations that make it more difficult, that prohibit it. we've had some very low-hanging fruit, some sort of easy opportunities to do that, the keystone pipeline being one which would bring about 800

billion barrels of oil a day. i'm curious how that impacts a state like kansas and how that impacts job creation and small businesses when we talk about federal policies that are -- have a direct correlation, a direct bearing on our economy and people's everyday lives and particularly with regard to today we're talking about small businesses? mr. moran: if the senator would yield, i have no doubt that the ability to have an economic recovery and create jobs in this country is in so many ways determined by what happens with our actions in regard to an energy policy. our development of our own resources and certainly while we're here today to talk about jobs, there is a national security, there is a military stance issue that's related to our strong dependence, our unfortunately strong dependence upon foreign energy supplies. and so this congress, this administration in my view needs to get out of the way and let

the private sector begin the process of meeting our country's energy comes. when we talk about high prices and complain about the price at the pouch pump, what we are complainincomplaining about is y is insufficient to meet the demand. you can remedy that by increasing the supply of energy in this country. we have a vast array of those resources that, because of the regulations, the environment, and the policies of the federal government, we are unable to pursue the market would send the message that we need more supply, but the regulators are in the way of making that happen. and in a state like ours, as the senator from south dakota says, we drive long distances, agriculture is dependent upon natural gas for fertilizer, for fuel, fo for irrigation, diesel fuel matter touses, and we have

many -- matters to us, and we have many industries involved in the creation of manufactured products. every time the price goes up, the ability to create a new job goes down. so this country desperately needs an energy policy that's focused on the production of energy, using the resources we have in our own country to meted meet our own -- to meet our own country's needs. it is a significant and critical component if we're going to get the economy back on track and jobs creates. mr. thune: i would just say to my friend from kansas that i believe, sincerely -- and i think most of us -- i know you do, as i do -- that we need a real all-of-the-above strategy. we need a homegrown energy strategy. i appreciate it when the president of the united states seizes upon that slogan and talks about being in support of an all-of-the-above stravment he has said that but his policies

tell another story. if you look at the things that we know would address the issue that the senator from kansas raised -- that is, increasing domestic supply, increasing homegrown production -- there are a series of things that would do that. approving the keystone pipeline is the first one. it is 20,000 shovel-ready jobs, it is a $7 billion initial investment, it is 800,000 barrels of oil coming to us from canada as opposed to venezuela, from hugo chavez or the middle east. and so it is just a no-brainer hanging out there for us to immediately act on. unfortunately, the administration has said "no" to that. they've also said "no" to development in arks "no alaska,o offshore development, "no" to shale development, "no" to new leases. all these things have been put off limit to energy production in this country, the very thing that would increase the supply and thereby address the issue that the senator from kansas

mentioned, and that is that we've got too much demand chasing too little supply and, therefore, too high of a price, which bears on pocketbooks of every single american, every single small business, every single family. we need a real all-of-the-above strategy and not just lip service to it, which is what we're getting out of this administration. but it is an example -- but it is an example, mr. president -- the presiding officer: the sergeant-at-arms will restore order in the senate. mr. thune: it is an example, mr. president, of where public policy directly influences economic outcomes and economic results in this country. there is no way that you cannot argue that more supply would lead to lower prices at the pump. and, for sure, more domestic supply would lead to more american jobs. that is what we are talking about here today is jobs and the economy. that's why this issue of energy bears so directly on it.

i appreciate my colleague from kansas pointing out the impact it has in his state on small businesses and farmers and ranchers and just people generally who have to drive long distances. i want to wrap up, mr. president, by saying, where we started, that we need to be focused on jobs here. that's why i was pleased we were able to get the majority leader to agree -- after some time -- our leader, to moving to jobs, had distractions tha distractio. but the real issue in terms of getting people back to work in this country is putting policies in place that will naicialg make it easier, less difficult and less costly to create jobs this it country. i want to mention just briefly as we close the bill that the senato--the senator talked abous bill. my piece of legislation did pass the house of representatives by a vote of 413-11.

it makes it easier fo for smalld growing businesses to solicit investors, to raise capital to create jocks and invest in the assets that will help our economy grow. it will remove a regulatory roadblock to potential creditor sr*efrts invests and make -- investors. it is commonsense legislation. it will enable start-ups and small businesses across the country to better access the capital that they need. the provision has a lot of support from the job creators, america's job creators around the country. small business and entrepreneurship council called it -- and i quote -- "a long overdue solution that would widen the pool of potential funders for entrepreneurs to seek and secure the capital they need to compete and grow. our economy will improve once entrepreneurs are provided the tools, opportunities and incentives they need to hire and invest." there were 175 democrats in the house of representatives that

supported this bill as a stand-alone bill. it's been endorsed by the s.e.c.'s advisor committee on small and emerging countries. when it was included in the broader jobs act in the house it passed by a vote of 390-23f. job growth -- if job growth is our priority in the united states senate, we should not delay on moving forward with this important job-creating legislation. i want to thank my colleague from kansas for joining me on the floor today to talk about the need to pass this jobs act, to get it on the president's desk. as he said he wanted to do in his state of the union address in january. it represents exactly what we should be doing here in washington, and that is creating a stable and productive economic environment by easing regulatory burdens and unleashing economic potential without adding to the national debt. the senator from kansas very ably addressed in his remarks earlier the importance of getting spending and debt under control because that does also

create conditions that are favorable to small businesses to invest. if there's uncertainty out there about what the federal government is going to be doing in terms of borrowing and spending, it creates a lot of -- it creates a cloud under which it is very difficult for job creators to create jobs. i hope my colleagues here in the senate will support this important legislation and ensure that job creators across the country have access to the capital that they need to hire and invest and that we will start taking steps to address the impediments in place right now that will ease the price at the pump and make it more affordable for small businesses to invest in this country. mr. moran: mr. president, just to conclude, i want to thank and commend the senator from south darfur his leadership on these issues. again, express my pleasure that we're finally taking up legislation that will make it easier for new businesses to raise capital, creating a

phase-in period for small, growing companies to comply with government regulations that will help young businesses expand and could ease the decision to go public. and finally, to update our securities laws that have been in place since the 1930's and reflect a 21st century marketplace so they can expand access to capital for entrepreneurs to grow their businesses. and all this is done with the goal of creating the circumstance where many will succeed. thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. toomey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware is recognized. -- mr. coons: mr. president, parents work so hard for the future of their children, their health, safety and future. i rise today as the parent of three young children to talk

about how we can pull together to provide all the tools and resources that parents, teachers, mentors and students need, to understand, to afford and to connect with college opportunities in this country. why do we need a new solution to this longg standing problem of college access? let's just look at some statistics from this recent tough recession we're still growing our way out of. the unemployment rate amongst high school dropouts was 13%. amongst those who finished high school, 8%. amongst those with a college degree, just 4%. that's an enormous difference. that's millions of people unemployed because they didn't finish their high school education and go on to some higher education. in the new global economy, americans who don't go on after high school have less than $1 million in lifetime earning potential compared to those who do go to college. that million-dollar difference

is something which if parents, students and teach wrers -- teachers were aware of it might drive them to make different choices. i've talked to people who are leaders of companies who say they have opportunities they can't fill because students don't have enough training in engineering, technology and math. i think filling the gap of opportunity by connect connecting students, teachers parents and mentors and creating a new generation of achievers is something we should do to help create a competitive economy and workforce for the future. that's why today i'm introducing the american dream accounts act of 2012. mr. president, this legislation encourages partnerships between schools, colleges, local nonprofits and businesss to develop secure web-based individual portable student accounts that contain information about each student's

academic preparedness, financial literacy, connects them to high-impact mentoring and is tied to a college savings account. instead of having each of these different resources be available to students separately, it connects them across existing silos and across existing education programs at the state and federal level. by connecting across these different silos, deploys a powerful new tool and resource for students, teachers, parents and mentors. this bill is a modest but, i think, powerful step towards helping more students of all income levels and background access, afford and complete a college education. and i'm grateful to senator rubio of florida and to senator bingaman of new mexico in joining me as original cosponsors of this innovative solution. mr. president, too many american kids today are cut off from the enormous potential and value of higher education. today just about one out of ten children from low-income

families will complete a college degree by the time they're 24. and as i've already said, the economic consequences of that are one of the main drivers of unemployment and poverty in our modern economy. but with early action, with early engagement, we can help millions of americans beat those odds. many years ago early in my career, i had the opportunity to work with something called the national "i have a dream" foundation through which my family and i adopt add whole class of elementary schoolkids from the east side of wilmington. and all over this country more than 100 similar groups, motivated individuals and donors, have engaged in sponsoring college education opportunities for kids beginning at a very early age. what i saw firsthand in the dozen years that i was actively engaged with the 50 kids in our aeuf dream program was -- i have a dream program was that young people who come from a community, family or school where there is little to no experience of college education get powerful and negative

messages from an early age that college is not for them that, it's not affordable, that it's not accessible, that it's not part of the plan for their future. similarly, kids who grow up in families where their parents went to school, their teachers went to school, went to college get constant messages, subtle but powerful messages about the value and importance of college. folks who come from those background here, whether it's college sports or pride in their own graduation or constant conversations about one's alma mater or visits to college campuses, from childhood they hear about college as something that is an expected part of life. very few of the 50 dreamers that my family and i worked with had any expectation of a college education. and the most powerful thing we did was to change that, to open the door to college as a possibility from elementary school on. it showed, i think, and this program has showed time and again across the country that exciting and engaging not just young students but their parents and their teachers and an array

of mentors has cumulative, powerful positive impact. the american dream will expand on this idea and use modern social networking technology to bring together existing programs and deliver ideas that will work for more kids. and the good news is that by utilizing existing department of education funds, this legislation comes at no additional cost to taxpayers. what makes the american dream accounts work is their unique ability to honest -- harness the power available to access some of the biggest college access. the journey from elementary school to finishing high school is long. so many students in our public schools all over this country disengage or even drop out along the way because they're not connected. they attend large and sometimes anonymous schools. their parents are stretched too thin in this tough economy trying to hang on to their jobs and their housing, and, frankly, a dedicated cadre of teachers

can only do so much. and these kids as they become less and less connected to a clear vision of their future drop out or make choice that is make it unlikely they'll finish high school and go on to college. american dream accounts take advantage of modern technology. they are a facebook-inspired opportunity to deliver on secure personalized hubs of information that would connect these kids, sustain and support them throughout the entire journey of education. second, it connects them with college savings opportunities. senator roth of delaware long served as the chairman of the finance committee. one of the greatest pieces of his legacy is the roth ira, helping empower working families save for retirement. part of the american dream accounts is the idea of connecting young people to college savings accounts. virtually every state has college staving program yet they are not accessed by the works class of america. connecting students to college

savings accounts has powerful impact. studies show students who know there is a dedicated college savings account in their name are seven times more likely to go to college than their peers without one. this legislation would help open an individual savings account for each enrolled student from the beginnings of elementary school. it matters less how much money is in the account than that students are aware there is one. the third piece of this program is early intervention. state and federal governments already spend billions of dollars, mr. president, on higher education, on pell grants at the federal level in my state of delaware on c grants. we provide this money to afford college but don't tell kid they're there until they're in high school. most kids have already made decisions by then that make them ineligible to finish high school or attend college. so why not tell them earlier, particular tkpwhreufpb the powerful potential -- given the potential impact of this information. we can change outcomes.

last is portability. one of the things i saw in my own experience with my own dreamers in delaware was how often they moved and how often overstretched teachers with full classrooms didn't get any information or background on the student who moved into their classroom halfway through the year. so instead of being welcomed and engaged in a positive way, they became discipline problems or were difficult to teach to. this robust online secure account would empower teachers to connect with parents and mentors and understand the students who are before them. that's why portability and persistence is an essential feature of american dream accounts. this way no matter what disruptions or challenge a student might face as they travel through education, their american dream account would travel with them. in support of thive -- supportive adults would be able to access this information. one of my favorite parts of drafting this legislation was

the meetings we had with those on the front lines of education in delaware. as a community i heard over and over again we're hungry for innovative solutions. one of the many groups i met with was the delaware p.t.a. who said in endorsing the american dream accounts act that it incorporates the school, the parents and students to ensure each child will be closely supported with resources needed to access a postsecondary education. the fact is, mr. president, our nation's long-term economic competitiveness requires a highly trained, highly educated workforce. we can meet that challenge by connecting students with a broad array of higher education options. vocational school, job training, community college or a four-year university. this legislation will help students identify the type of higher education that's best for them, the career they most want and give them the tools to get there. i visited with schools across delaware and one thing is clear, when vision stays with me from the time i have a dream to my service as a senator, when you

ask a room full of elementary schoolkids, what do you dream of being when you grow up, they'll all shoot their hands in the air and they all answer questions in the same way, regardless of the background or income or community you're in. every child begins with dreams of a full, positive educational experience and career. all of our kids start with big dreams. but the numbers show that not all of our kids get there. the american dream accounts act of 2012 is a modest but powerful bill designed to empower students and parents of all backgrounds to achieve those dreams from an early age. mr. president, i welcome support from other of my colleagues to make this bill a reality. thank you. and i yield the floor. mr. reid: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

matt the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the consideration of h.r. 3606 which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 334,

h.r. 3606, an act to increase american job creation and economic growth by improving access to the public capital markets for emerging growth companies. mr. reid: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: on behalf of senator reed of rhode island, brown of ohio and others, i have a substitute amendment which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, for mr. reed of rhode island and others proposes amendment numbered 1333. mr. reid: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. mr. reid: i have a first-degree perfecting amendment that is also at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes amendment numbered 1834 to amendment numbered 1833. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays, mr. president. the presiding officer: is there a second? there appears to be a sufficient second. mr. reid: the yeas and nays have been ordered, is that true,

mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. reid: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes amendment numbered 1835 to amendment numbered 1834. mr. reid: i now, mr. president, have a cloture motion on the substitute amendment that has already been submitted to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the stampeding rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the substitute amendment numbered 1833 to h.r. 3606, an act to increase american job creation and economic growth by improving access to the public capital markets for emerging growth companies, signed by 18 senators as follows -- mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be not necessary, they be waived. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, on behalf of senator cantwell, senator johnson of south dakota, senator graham, shelby and others, i have an amendment at

the desk to the language proposed to be stricken. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, for ms. cantwell and others proposes amendment numbered 1836 to the language proposed to be stricken by amendment numbered 1833. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment. the presiding officer: is there a second? there appears to be. a sufficient second. mr. reid: i have a second-degree amendment that's also at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada proposes amendment numbered 1837 to amendment numbered 1836. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion with regard to the cantwell-shelby motion. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: we the undersigned senators in accordance to rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close on amendment 1836, by improving access to the public capital markets, for emerging

growth companies signed by 18 senators. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on that motion. this is a cloture motion. i'm sorry, mr. president. i'm sorry to have interrupted. i have a motion to commit the bill with instructions which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada mr. reid moves to commit the bill h.r. 3606 to the committee on urban, housing and urban affairs to report back with an amendment numbered 1838. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a second? appears to be a sufficient second. mr. reid: i have an amendment to the instructions at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada mr. reid proposes amendment numbered 1839 to instructions of 1838 to the motion to commit h.r. 3606. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on that. the presiding officer: is there a second? appears to be a sufficient second.

mr. reid: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. clid mr. reid proposes amendment numbered 1840 to amendment numbered 1839. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion on the bill which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in ceerns with rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on h.r. 3606 an act to increase american job creation and economic growth by improving access to the public capital markets signed by 16 senators. mr. reid: i ask for the reading of the names be waived mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask that the minimum quorum call be waived for the cloture motions just find field. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: let me take a moment to review what's transpired here this morning. last week the house passed the pending small business capital formation bill by a vote of

390-23. president obama has endorsed the bill very publicly and thus this is a measure the senate should consider expeditiously and pass in short order. the republican leader and i have had preliminary conversations about how to process this bill. initial indications are that senate would not be aable to agree to a time agreement providing for a limited number of amendments so i proceeded to ensure consideration of at least two amendments and so on tuesday, the senate will vote first on the motion to invoke cloture on the reed of rhode island -- reed of rhode island amendment sponsored other also by landrieu, levin, brown of ohio which is a substitute as i've indicated. after disposition of that amendment the senate will vote on a motion to invoke cloture on the cantwell-johnson-shelby export-import bank an amendment. it's very, very important. i'm sorry, the legislation just last year created 300,000 jobs.

it affected 2,000 communities in america. these jobs are all american jobs i'm talking about. after disposition of that amendment then the senate would vote on motion intovoke cloture on the underlying bill. in the meantime i'm always open to unanimous consent agreement to aid in the disposition of the bill. i look forward if there are things that i can help with, i'll be happy to do this. i will say this, mr. president,: i have spoken before this -- my presentation here today to my friend from colorado, senator udall. mr. president, i have worked with him not for days, not weeks, not months, but years on an issue that's extremely important to our country, an issue to help credit unions

which have been so important to our country over the years. during this economic meltdown that we've had, around the country, in nevada, the credit unions have been a life blood for small businesses and individuals. and we have tried and worked to get this matter before the floor. there's always some reason for not doing it. and i understand the anxiousness of my friend from colorado to have it on this bill. i'll be happy to see if there's a way of doing this by consent but there's no other way of doing it except by consent because it's not germane to the bill before us. as i told him today, i'm starting today on my own to begin the procedural efforts to have this brought before the senate. i think we've waited long enough, there's never a good

time. there's always some reason, somebody, we have to do this now. this is a bill, mr. president, that presents problems for people because a number of the banks don't want this to to happen but i do and i'm going to do everything i can to have this brought before the senate. i'll be happy to yield to my friend from colorado if he has any questions. i'll be happy to respond to those. or if he has anything that i can respond to in the way of any consent agreement he wants or whatever. i'm here at his disposal. the presiding officer: the senior senator from colorado is recognized. mr. udall: i'd like to acknowledge the majority leader and the great work he's put forth on this important opportunity we have. i know the majority leader has additional comments he'd like to make, but i tend to stay after the majority leader concludes and make my case once again for for why this is so important. mr. reid: through the chair to my friend from colorado, he's

talked about the work i have done, he has been the leader with this and i've been with him all the way. this is his issue, he's right, i've supported him from the very beginning and i admire his resilience. each time he brings this up he's pushed back for some other reason and personally as i told him today, i'm to the point now where we're going to have a vote on this. there will be people come to me, why are you doing this, we're going to have a vote on this. the democrats and republicans are going to have to make a decision where they stand for american credit unions. the presiding officer: the senior senator from colorado is recognized. mr. udall: if i might, i'm going to expound on what the majority leader just shared with the body. and the whole -- the whole point of what we're going to do on the jobs act is to expand access to

capital for businesses across our great country. but the legislation that i've introduced on a bipartisan basis that also has a bipartisan twin in the house of representatives is really aimed at truly small businesses. i'd like to explain a little bit more about what i mean. and what we would do is in effect lift a regulation. we've talked a lot about deregulation in washington, unleashing the creativity in our business sector. what this legislation would do is deregulate an industry that's really raring to go to help small businesses. before i get into the specifics, i'd like to thank my republican cosponsors, who include senators olympia snowe, rand paul, and susan collins. the legislation in the house has been introduced by republican ed royce with whom i served when i was a member of the house, and he has over 40 republican cosponsors in the effort over on

the other side of the capitol. so in sum, this is a bipartisan commonsense way to create jobs and help our small businesses without costing taxpayers a dime. and when you add up the elements in what we're trying to do there are positives across the board. now, the reason this is so important, there continues to be a phenomenon in this country, our country, where small businesses are starving for credit but the federal government is standing in the way of them procuring that credit. as i said to start my remarks, i'm talking about the smallest of small businesses. these are the men and women who need $50,000, $100 billion, to move from a garage to a retail storefront or to upgrade or purchase equipment. and in the process they'll expand. and they just often, too often, frankly, are too small

to be worth the time of banks or they just don't fit the lending guidelines of a bank's corporate headquarters. but credit unions are standing there ready to lend money to these americans to support their businesses and create jobs. now, the leader just moved to the jump-start our business startups act, the acronym is the jobs act. that's appropriate. the house passed it last week. and this bill is aimed at increasing the availability of startup companies by expanding and easing the process of undergoing on i.p.o. that's an acronym for initial public offering. that's a noble goal. especially as our economy still struggles to create jobs. but the problem is we're still leaving small businesses behind. why is that? the jobs act is aimed at companies with revenue under $1 billion. let me repeat that. billion with a b. these companies may well need

help with an i.p.o., but i'm talking about offering relief to main street, and in light of this, i'm still committed and i appreciate the majority leader's comments, i've been very persistent on this, i'm still committed to allowing credit unions to increase the amount of money they can lend to small businesses. and our bipartisan small business enhand hamilton act was the first amendment filed to this bill and still hold out hope we'll find a way to include it in the bill. we ought to pass it immediately. we would see immediately he immediate results if we did so. let me share a couple of examples of why i think this is so important. and they're colorado-centric. i know the presiding officer makes a point to talk about his home state on an ongoing basis. let me talk about two small business owners in colorado who made a difference with the help of credit unions. stacey hammond owns the first

street saloon -- i should say salon. i'd better get that straight, mr. president. first street salon. and lisa herman owns happy cakes bake shop in highland square. they were turned away from their banks. and in the breach, credit unions arrived and they lent to these two small business women. and they were able to grow their businesses and hire their fellow coloradans to help them. they didn't need a billion-dollar i.p.o. they needed a small bridge loan. and we could be making a huge difference in many, many communities with mere pennies on the dollar of what the jobs act is focused on. yet my amendment were to be considered, in this jobs act, would actually help small businesses directly create jobs. credit unions, mr. president, put simply, specialize in these

small, small business loans. in fact, the federal reserve has told us that many banks have quit considering loans like theirs under $200 because they aren't -- $200,000 because they're not worth the bank's time. credit unions have money to lend to them but, unfortunately, federal law still limits the amount of small business loans a credit union can extend to these businesses to 12% of their assets. over 500 credit unions nationally have had to stop or slow down their business lending because of this -- i can't think of any other word but strange, strange federal limit on helping small businesses. it's hard to believe that. government is telling these financial institutions that they can't help create jobs in their local communities. and that's why my bipartisan amendment would double the amount of money credit unions can offer to small businesses. now, we've heard from the banks over the years they think it's

unfair that they have to compete with credit unions. but the fact is it's not about banks or credit unions. it's about small businesses. and i have to say that these two different kinds of financial institutions serve very different small business populations. credit unions serve the smallest of small businesses who often must resort to their credit cards literally to invest in their businesses, keep their cash flow going but in the process they create jobs. and these have been business owners who, by and large, have been turned away by the banks. i'm not taking it -- talking about taking business away from anyone. i'm suggesting that at the very least we let the credit unions loan to these small business owners that the banks don't want to do business with because they are too small. now, credit unions have been in existence for over a hundred years, and today they only represent about 5% to 6% of all

small business loans. and even if they were to increase their lending, if credit union lending were to increase, the markets -- and their market share were to double as a result, they would still only have 7%, 8%, 9% of market share. banks would have nearly 90% of the markets to themselves. let me rebut another concern that's been -- rebut another concern that's been expressed. the banks say this is an unsound way of increasing small business loans. but, as i said, the credit unions have been making small business loans since the early 1900's. and there weren't any limits on credit unions until 1998, on how much they could lend. the credit union sector has a regulator, the national credit union administration, and it has endorsed lifting or even eliminating the small business lending cap. it just makes sense to do this, mr. president. and i just can't believe we're

going to let these squabbles between the banks and credit unions keep job creators from going to work in the small, small business sector. there's a rush to pass the jobs act, which would help billion-dollar companies with their i.p.o.'s, but how about we take a little bit of time to help small business owners like stacy and lisa by passing our bipartisan amendment? and after all, if we're going to tell the american people that this bill is about increasing access to capital, let's start off by helping the small business owners on main street that really fuel our job engine. this is what we would do in colorado. it's how we would apply our commonsense approach to busine business. and i plead with my colleagues to consider the important effect this would have. so, in sum, our bipartisan amendment is pro-jobs, it's deregulatory, and it wouldn't

cost the taxpayers a dime. it would release $10 billion in capital across our country and conservatively 100,000 new jobs would be the result. let's take this up. let's fuel the economic engine with capital of our small business sector. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i'd ask unanimous consent to speak for -- until 12:00 noon, up to 12:00 noon, probably yield some time back, in a colloquy with the distinguished majority whip and senator ayotte and i know a number of other senators are going to be joining us during this next 30 minutes. but i'd ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy for up t to -- until 12:00 noon. the presiding officer: is there objection? so ordered. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i know that senator durbin and

senator ayotte and others will be coming to the floor, but let me get started. according to the united nations, more than 8,000 syrians have been murdered in attacks by the desperate regime of president bashar al assad of syria. we continue to receive press reports on a daily basis about assad's forces summarily executing, imprisoning and torturing demonstrators who want nothing more than what we take for granted, which is to live in freedom in a democracy. this week -- this week we learned that dozens of syrian women and children, some infants as young as four months old, were stabbed, shot, and burned by government forces in homes in syria. i think it's difficult for most of us to comprehend and most of us would be so revulsed by it we would not want to comprehend the

kind of brutality assad is perpetrating against his own people, yet in the face of these atrocities, russia continues to prop up the assad regime by supplying it with arms that are being used to slaughter these innocent syrian civilians. russia is the top supplier of weapons to syria, reportedly selling up to $1 billion or more worth of arms just last year. western and arab governments have pleaded with russia to stop supplying these weapons to the assad regime but they have refused so far. russia is not just passively supplying weapons to the assad regime, it's also recently admitted to having military weapons instructors on the ground in syria training assad's army on how to use these weapo weapons. russian weapons, including high

explosive mortars, have been found at the site of atrocities in homs. mr. president, this picture, which was taken from "al arabia" and reuters, translates into "russian foreign minister sergei lavrov, why don't you visit viss and see the effectiveness of your weapons on our bodies of children." the russians see their role and current misery as reflected by this picture and by this statement to russian foreign minister sergei ravlov. russell borne export is russia's official arms exporter. this company now handles about 780% of russia's foreign

exports, according to its web site, and it's spearheading russia's continuing effort to arm the assad regime, which, in my mind, makes them an accessory to mass murder. i see the distinguished majority whip has come to the floor and i want to give him a chance to make any appropriate remarks he cares to make and engage in a colloquy with him. but let me just close my comments at this point on -- on this concern that i have. not only is russia selling arms to syria to kill innocent civilians, but you can imagine my shock and dismay when i found out that our own department of defense has a contract, a no-bid contract, with this same russian arms merchant that is helping arm the assad regime. this is a no-bid contract to provide 21 dual-use mi-17 helicopters for the afghan

military. this is, as i said, a no-bid army contract awarded just last summer that's reportedly worth more than $900 million. so the only thing i can conclude is that the united states taxpayer is providing money to a russian arms dealer to purchase russian helicopters for the afghan military from the very same arms merchant that is arming president assad's regime and killing innocent syrians. i think that, along with 16 of my other colleagues, we have sent a letter to secretary panetta expressing our alarm and concern over these arrangements and asking for further information and urging them to reconsider this consider with rosa borne export. but i want to just stop on this point.

we must keep the pressure on the department of defense to reconsider this contract and on the russians to cease all arms sales to the assad regime. i'm hopeful that the upcoming debate on the repeal of jackson-vanik will provide an opportunity for the senate to further examine these serious issues. and let me again close by stating my appreciation to senator durbin, the distinguished majority whip, for his participation in expressing alarm and concern over these circumstances and ask him to make any comments he cares to make. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader is recognized. mr. durbin: it's my honor to join my colleague and friend, senator cornyn of texas. we're on opposite sides of the aisle but we're on the same side on this issue. listen to what america has said about what's happening in syria. almost 8,000 innocent people have been killed in the streets of syria by ba bashar assad, the

dictator. the people who expressed their concern and objections to his policies are mowed down and killed in the streets. their homes are bombed and nothing is being done. sadly, the united states, when it tried to engage the united nations security council to condemn this action, to join the arab league and others condemning what assad is doing to these innocent people, our efforts were stopped by china and russia. the relationship between russia and syria is well documented. they have been close allies for many years. we also know that they are providing about $1 billion in russian military aid to the syrian dictator to kill his own people in the streets. that's part of this. and i have to join senator cornyn in saying how concerned we are when we learned that one of the leading military exporters of russia, this rosa boren export, is doing business

not only in syria but with the united states government. now, i understand the history of this. we're buying russian helicopters to help the afghans defend their country against the taliban. the helicopter of choice in afghanistan today is the old soviet i believe it's m-17, m-18 helicopter. so our government is buying these russian helicopters to give to the afghan government to fight the taliban. we are, in fact, doing business with the very same company and country that is subsidizing the massacre in syria. it is right for us as members of congress to make that point to secretary panetta and the department of defense. i think it is also appropriate for us to ask why we are not converting the afghan defense forces, the security forces, to another helicopter -- can i be so bold as to suggest it be made

in the united states of america, since we're paying for it? why aren't we doing that? why aren't we creating jobs here in america and training these afghans on helicopters that come from our country? that are as good or better than anything the soviets ever put in the air? i don't have a preference on an american helicopter. don't have any producers in my state. so i'm not into that particular bidding war. i wouldn't get into it. but i do believe sending a word to the russians immediately that our relationship of buying these helicopters in afghanistan so that we can subsidize their military sales to syria should come to an end. that's what this letter is about. we cannot pass resolutions on the floor condemning the bloodshed in syria and ignore the obvious connection. russian military arms moving into syria, killing innocent people. let me show, for the record, here, i noticed the senator from texas brought a photograph with him.

this photo that i'm going to show here is one of a russian warship, an aircraft carrier docked at the syrian port of tartus on january 8 of this ye year. what we couldn't turn into a poster is the video clip showing the russian war ship captains being greeted like royalty by the syrian minister of defense, who went out to welcome the ship. this soviet -- pardon me, this russian aircraft carrier was launched from a port used by the same export company. i can't go any further in saying that the particular company involved sent goods on this particular ship, but the fact of the matter is obvious -- syria has become a major supplier of military arms to the syrian dictator who is killing innocent penapeople. we are doing business with that same military company, rosa beron export. it is time for to us step back

and say to the rugs, we can no longer continue this -- russians, we can no longer continue this relationship f. you are going to subsidize the killing of innocent people, we cannot afford it do business with you. america, we have to acknowledge the obvious. no matter what they are paying, it isn't worth the loss of innocent life in syria. i thank the senator from texas for joining me. i think we have another 16 or 17 colleagues who are joining us in this effort, bipartisan effort, to raise this issue. and i hope that the russians will understand once and for all they can't play both sides of the street. and we in the united states should draw the line. i thank the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: would the senator yield for a question? is the senator aware that the very same arms export -- arms merchant, rosa beron export, i think is the way it's pronounced, or something close to that, has also been documented selling weapons to iran and venezuela? mask, according to one published

report, as late as 2005, rosa boren export sold iran tor m-1 antiair missile systems worth $700 million. and iran's revolutionary guard corps successfully tested this antiair missile system in 2007. it's also reported that in 2012, russia will deliver t-72 tanks, bmp-3 infantry fighting vehicl vehicles, and btr-80 armored personnel carriers to venezuela, just on our back door in south america. and that in -- in the last five years alone, hugo chavez, a dictator with strong ties to cuba and fidel castro, that venezuela bought $11 billion worth of republicans through rosa boren export in the last five years.

i wonder, do you find that surprising or alarming? mr. durbin: i would say to the senator from texas, a point which you made earlier and i think bears repeating. rosa baron is the russian state-controlled arms export firm. there is no so-called private company. this is a firm run by the russian government. as you go through the litany of countries that they are supplying, you are going through a litany of countries that have never in recent times had the best interests of the united states at heart. if the russians through their government company want to supply iran which we know is an exporter of terrorism, not only in the middle east but around the world and in the united states, if we want to supply them, if they want to supply sniper rifles and arms to the syrians to kill their own people, why in the world are we doing business with them? there ought to be a line that we draw at some point.

we have no obligation, moral obligation to do business with a firm that is in fact supplying those that are killing innocent people and our enemies around the world. i thank the senator from texas for raising those points. mr. cornyn: i would also ask the distinguished majority whip whether he was aware of the testimony within the last couple of weeks before the armed services committee, secretary panetta, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, with a lot of attention being placed on iran, the principal state sponsor of international terrorism in america -- in the world today, and a destabilizing influence in the middle east, seeking as they are a nuclear weapon which would create at the very least a nuclear arms race in the middle east and a consequential destabilizing area of that region. i know the senator is aware that syria is one of the principal

proxies for iran, and general dempsey and secretary panetta both said that if syria were to go by the wayside as various other countries have in the arab spring, that it would be a serious blow to iran's aspirations for hedge -- hedge emmy in the middle east and something that is important for the peace and stability in that region. i know the senator is aware of the close relationship between syria and iran, but i wonder if you would care to comment on that connection. mr. durbin: i would say to the senator from texas -- and i am sure he has studied this as i have -- it's hard to parse out the elements in the middle east and decide who is fighting for which team, but when it comes to syria consistently, they have allied themselves with iran and in that alliance, iran has been very supportive of syria and hezbollah and another group,

terrorist group that is operating primarily through syria. so that close connection there is a matter of concern to me. our goal in the middle east is to create stability and to stop the march of these dictators in the middle east who are killing innocent people and denying them their most basic rights. we have tried everything short of military intervention, which i do not call for in the syrian situation, but we have tried everything else diplomatic and economic to put pressure on syria. we should continue to, and we should join with other nations to continue the efforts of the united nations, but we can't get this job done when russia plays the role of outliar, -- outlier, supplying both syria and iran with military arms and support. if they want to truly join us in a stable situation in the middle east, they should tell assad it's over, and it clearly is over. this man would never legitimately govern syria from this point forward after killing so many innocent people.

and i hope what we are doing today is suggesting to this administration and secretary panetta another avenue to let the russians know that we find it unacceptable for them to be supplying arms to what is a destabilizing influence in that part of the world. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i can't recall whether i asked unanimous consent, but if i haven't done it to this point, i'd ask unanimous consent that the letter that we're referring to that 17 senators sent to secretary panetta be included in the record at the close of this colloquy. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. cornyn: well, i know, mr. president, there are other senators who are signatories of this letter who may well be coming to the floor to talk more about this issue, but i want to express my gratitude to senator durbin. it's important that the united states speak out on behalf of people who have no real voice in defense of their most basic human rights and point out that

president assad and his regime not only are killing innocent civilians but also being supplied by russia who also maybe not coincidentally, senator durbin, also vetoed the sanctions that the u.n. was considering with regard to iran. so it's very important that not only we speak up on behalf of the people who have no voice and no defense but we also make sure that the united states government at a very minimum isn't doing business with the very same arms merchants that are supplying weapons to president assad with which to kill innocent syrians. i thank the -- i thank the chair. i'm advised that senator ayotte was planning on coming. she is a signator to this letter, a member of the armed services committee, who shares many of these same concerns, but she is not going to be able to come at this time.

i am sure shell be commenting on this later. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor and thank my colleague. the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader is recognized. mr. durbin: i thank my colleague from texas for speaking with me on this issue that we are working on together. mr. president, i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: mr. president, i'd like to ask consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: mr. president, i have been in the house and senate for a number of years, and after a while, you detect certain trends, and one of the things which i am wary of, having seen over the years the abuses associated with it, are these freight train bills that just seem like they are moving so fast with big majority support, bills that oftentimes will pass one chamber or the other and come roaring into the

other chamber and maybe pass too quickly and usually with regret. at a later point, someone stops, reflects and says we went too far. we didn't read into this all the things that could occur. we should have taken a little more time because at the end of the day, a lot of innocent people suffered. the senate historically has been the chamber -- i served in the house, but the senate historically has been the chamber that has, as george washington characterized it, been the saucer that cooled the tea. i served in the house of representatives, and with elections every two years, the presiding officer knows many members of the house kind of move quickly on issues because here comes another election campaign and you don't want to miss an opportunity. the senate with longer terms and a different set of rules tries to be more deliberate. sometimes too deliberate, i might add, but at least has that charge under our constitution. the reason i'm raising this point is we have a bill that is coming over from the house, and

the republicans' leader has been frantic to bring this bill to the floor. it is characterized by the republicans as a house jobs bill. it is, in fact, a bill which relates to start-ups, new businesses and the regulatory requirements of these businesses, and what the bill basically does is exempt a large number of new start-up companies from basic regulation. i have a letter, mr. president, that i would ask unanimous consent be entered in the record, a letter of march 13 of this year by mary shapiro who is the chairman of the securities and exchange commission. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: thank you, mr. president. the securities and exchange commission is a federal agency created under the administration of franklin delano roosevelt after the great depression. what happened when the stock market cratered in the great

depression was that franklin roosevelt stepped up and said we need to have an agency that will oversee and regulate wall street so that people who would care to invest in american companies have confidence that they are investing in a company and a process that follows a rule of law. there will be transparency, disclosure by these companies on a regular basis by formula as to what they are earning, what they are losing, what their assets may be. that has continued for almost 80 years. and the securities and exchange commission has created in the process a credible market in the united states of america for the sale of equities and securities. now comes this bill from the house of representatives, this so-called jobs bill, that wants to change that, and what they are suggesting is that when

certain companies get started, start-up companies, that they be excused from requirements under the law from the securities and exchange commission. the argument that was made was there is just too much paperwork, too many regulations, and smaller start-up companies can't get started because there are too many legal requirements. well, first you take a look at what they consider to be smaller companies getting started, and they define them as companies with $1 billion a year in annual revenue. $1 billion. unfortunately, those who make over a billion dollars in revenue in a year comprise only about 10% of american businesses. that means that by definition, they are characterizing 90% of american businesses and start-ups as smaller businesses that need a special break when

it comes to regulation. so over the years we get into a debate, whether it's the regulation of banks or the regulation of these start-up companies or those that are going public selling securities, over the years we get into a debate about whether the government has gone too far. are there too many rules? and i'm open to that suggestion. i think that we should be open to it. if there is a way to protect the public and investors and still create businesses in this country that generate jobs, i want to hear about it and i want to support it. but too often, we go too far, and when we go too far and are not careful, some terrible things have occurred. a letter that i have now entered into the record from mary shapiro with the securities and exchange commission addresses this bill, and she says, and i quote -- "while i recognize that h.r. 3606 is the product of bipartisan effort designed to facilitate capital formation and includes certain promising

approaches," she says -- "i believe there are provisions that should be added or modified to improve investor protection that are worthy of the senate's consideration." the administration has said that they are open to the idea of changing some of these laws. what mary shapiro, the chair of the securities and exchange commission, has suggested is that we put provisions in the bill here in the senate which will protect investors. yesterday, i spoke about testimony before the committee. i'm going to ask so that it is a matter of record for consent that the statement of professor john coffey, adolf burrow, professor of law from columbia university law school at a hearing before the senate banking committee on december 1, 2011, be made a part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: thank you, mr. president. i want my colleagues, many of whom have just read a few press accounts of this bill, to consider carefully the statement made by professor coffey. he has analyzed this bill and

raised some important questions about whether it goes too far. now, i will be joining some of my colleagues here in offering a substitute which improves the law for start-up companies but also makes certain that we protect investors and make certain as well that at the end of the day we don't end up with egg on our face. how many times has congress been called on when the private sector runs amok, goes too far and starts failing in every direction to bail them out? we saw it most graphically with the bailout of the major banks not that many years ago. we have seen it in the past with the bailout of the savings and loan industry. we have seen it happen time and time again. who ends upholding the bag when government regulation is not adequate to make sure that people don't go overboard? the american taxpayers. they end up holding the bag. not to mention innocent victims along the way. i would say -- ier