in the two numbers is what has been added to the unfunded liabilities of the unite. united states. by the way, $17 trillion is 2 1/2 times the unfunded liabilities of social security, which is $7 trillion. so if my colleagues think i'm in error about any of these numbers, i would hope they would correct me. perhaps i am. we work hard to be accurate about them, and i don't believe i am off in any substantial degree. the bottom line is this -- we cannot afford this law. and the additional burden that it places on our finances. we must repeal this health care law in its entirety and replace it with the kind of reforms that improve both our finances and the health care costs of americans, not driving up their

costs. this bill, whether you like it or not, will not be implemented. we don't have the money. at this time of high unemployment, no growth, it will be hard to do the things that are necessary, that we have to do. fix social security. fix medicare. provide for the common defense. those things have got to be done. we have no money to pay for a 2.6 trillion program over a ten-year period. we have got to save these programs that we're committed to first. the medicare program won't be fully implemented until 2014. it's not too laid to stop it now and we're going to have to, madam president, simply because the finances of this country will not allow for it. i thank the chair and would yield the floor.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire is recognized. mrs. shaheen: thank you, madam president. i'm pleased to come to the floor this afternoon to join my colleagues, senator landrieu and senator casey, in talking about the importance of addressing some of the concerns that face small business. and senator casey said something that i think is very important. he said when he goes around pennsylvania, one of the things that he hears from his constituents is that they expect us to work together here in washington, in the senate, in congress to get things done for the people of this country. i hear that from my constituents. i'm sure the presiding officer hears that from her constituents. people throughout the country expect us to work together, and they want to see us address the economic challenges that we're facing in the country.

well, one of the best ways to address the fiscal issues that we're facing is to be able to grow this economy, and nothing is more important to growing the economy, to creating jobs than small businesses. senator casey talked about the recent report that came out from his congressional committee, talking about the importance of small business. the fact is that over the last decade, businesses are fewer than 250 employees accounted for nearly 80% of all new hires. economists tell us that about two-thirds of the jobs that are going to be needed to get us out of this recession are going to come from small businesses, and in new hampshire, small businesses are particularly important. we are a small business state. over 95% of all new hampshire

companies have fewer than 500 employees. about 85% of new hampshire companies have fewer than 20 employees. and one of the things that we have got to look at is how we can help those small businesses continue to grow. yesterday afternoon, i met with a group of small business owners from new hampshire. they were all owners of construction companies. the construction industry in new hampshire has been one of those industries that has been hardest hit in our state, and these businesses still need help. these business owners need help if they're going to be able to keep their businesses prospering and create jobs. the legislation that's before us on the floor, the small business jobs and tax relief act, will help these small businesses. the landrieu amendment that i want to speak specifically to i

think is critical as we look at how we can provide additional help to these small businesses. and i want to talk specifically to two provisions that are in the landrieu amendment, also known as the success act. the first one would deal with export issues. one of the things that i have learned as i have been working with business and looking at how we can improve our economy and help create jobs is that giving those small businesses access to international markets is critical. what we know is that about 95% of export markets are outside of the united states and yet only 1% of our small and medium-sized businesses actually export. and so what we have got to do is help in every way we can through our policies, give them access

to those international markets. senator ayotte and i both serve on the small business committee. we represent new hampshire. last year, we held a field hearing in new hampshire, and we heard from small businesses in our state about what -- what we could do here in washington that might help them export. and as the result of what we heard, we have introduced some stand-alone legislation. but provisions in that stand-alone legislation have been incorporated into the success act, the amendment that senator landrieu is going to be offering, and those provisions would do a couple of things for our small businesses. one, they would improve governmentwide export promotion. right now, we have a lot of independent silos, independent efforts that exist in different agencies to help small business with exporting.

what we want to do is provide more coordination among those independent programs. it would also increase state events that are targeted to help small businesses export. both are provisions that we heard from our small businesses in new hampshire are important to them as they think about what they can do to improve their chances of exporting, getting into those international markets and the jobs that can be created as a result of that. so that's one of the provisions in the landrieu amendment, the success act that i think is very important. and senator ayotte and i and our staffs have worked very hard on this. another provision that again is from stand-alone legislation that was introduced by senator landrieu, senator snowe, senator isakson and myself, so it's also bipartisan legislation, would extend the 504 refinancing program through the small business administration. you know, as i go around new

hampshire, one of the things that i still hear from my -- from the small businesses in my state is that they are still having challenges accessing credit. well, extending the 504 refinancing program is to me a no-brainer as we think about how we can give those small businesses access to credit. what these provisions would do is extend for a year and a half the ability for the small business administration to continue refinancing short-term commercial real estate debt into long-term fixed rate loans, again through the existing 504 loan program, something that makes imminent sense, something that we ought to do. so those are two provisions that i have worked on specifically with other members of this body, the provisions that are bipartisan. i think they have a lot of

support. if we can get this amendment to the floor, i think there will be a lot of support for it and it reflects all of the provisions of the success act that senator landrieu has been putting together. again, i want to end with where i started, and that is that the people of new hampshire and the people of this country expect us to work together to address the issues facing the country. nowhere is that more important than in what we need to do to help create jobs, and helping small businesses to have the support they need so they can create the jobs that are going to get us out of this recession, provide long-term help to those people who are unemployed is absolutely critical. this legislation would help do that. i hope that our colleagues, when it comes to the floor, will decide that this is one more way we can help small businesses create jobs and grow this

economy. i want to thank senator landrieu for her leadership, ranking member snowe on the small business committee for her leadership and hope that we can move this forward this week. ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank our colleague from new hampshire for not only being such a -- an aggressive and fine and thoughtful member of the small business committee but for her constant encouragement to me and to senator snowe to really try to pull together some of the ideas that we all can agree on and move forward. it may not be the most perfect package, it may not be the most extensive package, but as the senator from new hampshire said, it's a package that most all of us can agree to, and it has a price tag of only $4 billion. now, that is a lot of money, but

compared to the republican proposal that has come over here from the house at $40 billion and the schumer proposal which i support because it's much more targeted and much more responsible at $20 billion, this $4 billion amendment could have a tremendous bang, a tremendous leveraging power for its cost, and the two proposals that senator shaheen explained beautifully actually have zero cost, because the 504 program is a program that pays for itself, and all we're doing is extending its authorization so people -- and there are thousands of them in louisiana, in rhode island, in new hampshire and other states that are caught paying higher interest rates on short-term loans for commercial buildings, and i'm sure we all know someone in that category, can now, if this amendment passes, go to their local bank.

it's a government -- it's not a government program. it's a partnership with the local banks. and through the s.b.a. and refinance their building and get a longer term loan. in fact, i'm told, mr. president, that this program, this 504 program, is basically taking up the majority of the space in this lending, that still the lenders are very weak, they are not extending credit out at a long, fixed rate. they are lending short term. they are lending with adjustable rates. as you know and many others, when a person is starting a small business and taking so much risk, one risk that can be eliminated is the cost of their money. and it's very comforting to a small business owner who has to borrow, who doesn't have the savings, who has run through their savings or their equity in their home, and they have got to

extend and take that risk to be able to have a fixed longer term rate. so, again, this proposal came from senator isakson who truly is acknowledged as the expert in this entire chamber on commercial real estate and on residential real estate. he is known and respected on both sides of the aisle. this is his proposal with senator shaheen, and i want to thank him for his leadership. also, the senator spoke about the export coordination, and again, zero cost. just smarter government at no cost. we need more of that around here. smarter government, less spending. and that is what senator shaheen's proposal does, which is a portion of this amendment, the small business export growth act. let me reiterate that 95% of the world's customers are located

outside of the borders of the united states. this might be shocking to people in america to realize this, but we represent only 4% to 5% of the population of the earth. we think of ourselves as the biggest and the best, and we are the best. we're not necessarily the biggest when it comes to population, though. and so there are growing markets all over the world. 95% of our customers and a majority of the market are outside of the boundaries of the united states. and what we are recognizing is right now only 1% of the 28 million small businesses in america export. why would that be? one, it can be intimidating for a small business. even though they have a great product, they have a great idea, they have great technology, and india needs that technology, or africa -- some countries in africa might absolutely want that product or that service. the small businesses are

intimidated, they don't have the accountants, they don't normally have access to high-powered, expensive lawyers and trade executives and experts, so that is what our government and, frankly, state governments are doing. smart governments, smart governments at the state level, whether it's california, oregon, louisiana, all states are now recognizing geez, you know, we really need to get behind our small businesses in our state and help them to export. i was very proud to put a substantial investment in the small business act of 2000, the jobs act of 2010, which gave grants, competitive grants out to states and it's remarkable just a little bit of investment at the federal level is leveraging a tremendous amount of excitement at the state and local level as those governments accept those grants and then put them to work and in louisiana,

our department of economic development has been very aggressive using its step grants. so, again, this is not an additional grant program. this shaheen proposal and ayotte proposal has no cost. it's just perfecting, coordinating these -- this export initiative by establishing an interagency task force between the u.s.d.a. and the export-import bank. it's encouraging cooperation that is not existing at the federal federal level and requires the s.b.a. in coordination with other agencies to conduct one outreach in each state per year which i think would help motivate our state governments and stakeholders at the state level to be helpful. so let me go back to the beginning. we have the success act amendments. i talked earlier, there are

about 16 provisions in this amendment. we talked about the 100% exclusion of capital gains, we've talked about the increased deduction for start-up expenditures which is senator merkley's provision. now i want to talk about the s-corps holding period. this comes out of the finance committee, senator snowe and senator cardin have been strong advocates of this provision. under current law when a corporation becomes s corporation and there are of course benefits for becoming that type of corporation, it's required right now to hold its business assets for ten years or pay punitive taxes. this ten-year holding period in our mind is too long. it ties up assets that could be sold to raise capital. in 2010, in our small business bill, we reduced this holding period to five years. to have businesses better be able to manage their planning cycles. so this proposal is to extend

the five-year holding period through 2012 and 2013. you know, potentially if we could afford it we'd like to make this proposal permanent but in the landrieu success act amendment, it would extend it through 2012 and 2013. and has a minimal cost. the next provision is the carryback provision up to five years of general business credit card, this is really a proposal that senator snowe feels very strongly about. the proposal would extend the carryback period from one-year to five years for general business credits earned in 2012 and 2013. it would provide tax refunds to businesses that were previously healthy but are currently running losses. the proposal would improve the effectiveness of business credits that are intended to expand investment and employment. the provision would allow

businesses greater immediate benefit from credits designed to encourage specific types of activity, and by providing businesses with greater opportunity to claim business credits, the provision would also give an infusion of cash to businesses which might promote investment. so that is another provision of -- of our success act. the section 179 is probably the most popular part of our amendment, and, again, senator snowe has championed this in the finance committee and many finance members are completely aware of section 179 in the tax code which deals with expensing that many restaurants and retailers and basically it provides a credit for them if a small business buys machinery and equipment or property contained in or attached to a building other than structural components such as

refrigerators, grocery store counters, office equipment, gasoline storage tanks, pumps at retail service stations, even livestock including cattle, horses, sheep and goats, other fur-bearing animals. all of these are equipment or products or purchases that small businesses make to run their businesses. this would allow an immediate write-off up to $500,000 for this kind of property. so, again, it's a $2.3 billion over ten years, it's the most expensive part of this whole amendment, but we think it's $2 billion well invested to encourage those small businesses to make these investments now, to get jobs and expansion opportunities underway. the 26 national business groups such as the nfib, the chamber

of commerce, the national association of home builders, the national association of the self-employed, have endorsed this and have sent a letter to us with very enthusiastic support. the next section is expanding access to capital for entrepreneurs. mr. president, this was actually mentioned in president obama's state of the union message to us when he talked about his small business proposals. he outlined maybe a half a dozen things, a few of which we've implemented and a few of which we have not yet implemented. this was on his bucket list, if you will if you will -- if you will, and i am a strong proponent of this provision. we created a small business investment company in a

bipartisan way decades ago. it's been one of the most successful programs created to spur business development in the country. it basically operates at -- operates on a sustainable level and doesn't cost the federal government anything. it's like a venture capital but not really like venture capital, it's like an investment, not a bank but a nonbank investment company that was created many, many years before i became chair of this committee but it's been something through democratic and republican administrations because it works, we support. all this does is raise the statutory cap from $3 billion to $4 billion and increases the amount of leverage of licensees from $225 million to $350 million. they're bumping up against the $3 billion cap very successful, we'd like to take it to the next level, and of course some of

the most successful funds within sbic are bumping up against their $225 million cap per fund so this was one of the great ideas that came out of our roundtable, and, again, not only does president obama support it, it has my strong support and senator snowe, the ranking member of small business. the next provision would be the s.b.a. 504 refinancing. this extents for a year and a half the ability of the s.b.a. 504 loan program. we talked about this, senator shaheen spoke about this, and i've already explained it so this is really the isakson-shaheen and snowe proposal. the next is a small business lending activity index. this is something i've provided or put forward and we've talked with the banks and s.b.a. they're all on board and accepting of this concept.

it is a way to measure the small business lending activity that is being done at the city-state level through the 7-a and 504 loan lending programs. it was very curious to me, mr. president, when i became chair of this committee that we didn't have the measurements in place to actually judge whether some of our programs were really working or not, or were they working really well, were they working moderately or whether they were very weak. and so i've instructed my staff and we've been working together to see in every way if we can measure and really record the activities of the small business administration. it's only a billion dollars agency, one of the smaller agencies of the governments but that billion dollars comes from taxpayers and we want to make

sure that money is spent well and wisely. so this legislation, again, at no cost, it can be done within the current budget, will be called the lender activity index. it will be posted on the s.b.a. web site. it will have the name of the bank, the number of s.b.a. loans made by each bank, the total dollar amount of s.b.a. loans, the zip code of bank activity, industries lent to so we can sort of see how our banks are lending, into what areas. the stage of the business cycle, and then whether it was a women owned, minority owned or veteran owned business, if that information can be obtained. very simple, we made sure that the language is easy for the banks. they already have to report this data. it's just not in a usable format, and this will require them to put it in a usable format. the next is access to global markets. this is what senator shaheen

spoke about, so we have some -- the major part of this bill are tax cuts to businesses. and then some oversight of the s.b.a., tightening up, you know, coordinating our export strategies and then the next and final part of this -- or next to last part of our amendment is basically access to mentoring education and strategic partnerships. in our roundtable, i'm not going to go into all the details of these -- these items, but the bottom line is that in our round tables, experts, both business owners and the kauffman foundation and others came to us and said senator, you're right, businesses need capital, you're right, we need access to global markets, you're right that we need a fair tax code, but what businesses also need is technical advice

and support and training. and we need more education, entrepreneurship education. now, the small business administration is not the education agency, so we've been very careful not to mission creep. we have designed a couple of proposals that can encourage better activity within the s.b.a. to form partnerships with nonprofits and even for-profits, not for-profits, and schools to promote entrepreneurship appropriately. the federal government can be a model, it's only one model, but we believe that technical training is important. now, we have partners already established, the women's small business centers, and minority business centers, and getting them to be more effective and

providing additional counseling is very important. and so finally on this amendment, access to government contracting is another method for small businesses to be able to grow. governments, whether it's the federal government, state government, or local government, are huge purchasers of goods and services and if our contracting laws are right and if they are enforced, then small businesses in america have an opportunity to get started by competing for government contracts or to grow by receiving government contracts, and they're more likely to grow. if a big business gets a contract from the government, they can sometimes absorb that contract and make, you know, their company more efficient, giving more work to the people that are already there, and there's nothing wrong with that. that's -- you know, that's business. but when a small business gets a government contract, it's --

it most of the time results in additional hiring because small businesses have to be lean and agile so they might have five people but they have a lot of expertise, they land a contract from the government they are certainly qualified to do and then they have to hire up. so they have to hire ten people to carry out that contract, which is why i've been very supportive, senator cardin has been just a champion on this issue, senator levin as well, giving small businesses an opportunity for contracting. and that will really -- really help. so, mr. president, in conclusion on this amendment i see other members coming to the floor, i want to speak just for another five or so minutes, so in conclusion i came to the floor today to support the underlying bill which is the schumer tax cut provision which is targeted tax relief to small businesses in america. i hope that our members will

support that. if for any reason they don't, we don't support that, or even if we do, we'll still have an opportunity, i hope, to vote on the landrieu amendment, and i say that humbly because this amendment really has been put together by senator snowe and her staff with me, members of the small business committee on both sides of the aisle, we've picked up some great ideas, individual legislation that had been filed and had gotten unanimous consent and review, talking to many people. so wedon't believe that it's controversial. we know it doesn't cost that much, $4 billion, and we believe it will have a tremendous and immediate impact on small businesses in america. so i wanted to give that explanation. we've received a tremendous amount of support to date from a variety of organizations. and i see my colleague on the

floor so i'll yield the floor at this time and perhaps be able to speak a few more minutes before 6:00. suggest the absence of a quorum. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: does the senator withhold her request for a quorum call? ms. landrieu: yes. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. alexander: mr. president, i'm awaiting senator durbin and senator enzi. i'll be happy to listen to the senator from louisiana if she'd like to continue for awhile until they come. i plan to speak for a few minutes after they do on a different subject. ms. landrieu: thanks. mr. president, then in that case, i will -- the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i have a few other things i'd like to say but not about this bill. i wanted to take a minute to respond to something that senator rubio said earlier and senator sessions while i was on the floor. and i have great respect for those two members, the

senator -- the junior senator from florida. but he came to the floor to -- in a very critical diatribe, if you will, against some of president obama's policies. and i have not been a great supporter of the president's energy policies and -- and actually appreciate some of the views that senator rubio holds about the fact that we need to drill more in the country. but i want to show you something that i think florida should be mindful of and suggest that the senator from florida could start making that speech at home in florida, because florida is one of the state that virtually produces no energy from any source. and it's been a bone of contention for me for many years that we have senators that come to the floor and talk about what so and so doesn't do and so and so doesn't do. and i just wanted to remine the

senatoremind thesenator from fle gas that keeps the lights on in florida actually comes from the mobile bay. and these are the pipelines that mississippi and alabama and texas, 9,000 miles of pipelines and drilling, that we do off of our shore and onshore to provide gas and lights to florida. and there is a chart that's very interesting. you know, before america can be energy independent or energy secure, each state should be energy secure or each region. the count country is not made uf smoke and mirrors. this country is made up of 50 states. and if every state and every region would do its part, either producing or conserving or a little of both, we actually will get there. but i get a little bit tired of lectures criticizing,

particularly from senators whose states neither conserve or produce. now, california gets a little bit of a break from me even though they consume more energy than any state -- they are a net consumer of energy. we are down here, a net producer. the states that produce more energy than we consume are wyoming, west virginia, louisiana, new mexico, alaska and kentucky. and i bet you north dakota would be on here now. this was some years ago. i am positive that north dakota and probably montana would be on here now. but for the senator from florida to come and lecture everybody about producing and his own state doesn't produce anything, or virtually nothing, and consumes everything, i just wanted to go on record saying i find that, you know, i find that offensive. now, california gets a little bit of a pass from me because if you look at another chart, they do more to sort of consume

energy through government regulation, which i know the other side doesn't like -- they think that we don't need any regulations or very little -- and, you know, that's their vi view. california has a lot of regulations, maybe too much for me as well, but they're doing a lot to consume. florida does neither. so maybe if florida would start to do a little drilling, it would help the united states to be more energy independent. my second point i want to answer something that senator sessions said and i'm going to try to find my document on this in just a minute. but senator sessions came to the floor some few minutes ago and talked about the cost of the health care bill. and the health care bill has some expensive components to it,

but the purpose of the health care bill, remember, mr. president, because you were in the middle of that battle, was designed to reduce the overall cost of health care for the nation because the percentage of the gross national product going to health care was moving up dramatically and frighteningly from 12% a few years ago to 14% to 16% and it was on its way to 19%. it was on its way to 19% before barack obama got sworn in to office. and i am getting tired and the american people are getting tired of the same diatribe coming from the other side of this aisle about how the cost of the affordable care act is putting -- is causing this country to go off the edge. this country was going off the edge before president obama even became president. and they know that. but they're just bound and

determined to keep talking about the same old thing day in and day out, about how the affordable health care act is wrecking america. the only thing wrecking america is their stubbornness. and i want to put this into the record. when president clinton was president, as you know, it was the last time we had a surplus. it was the republican president and the republican leadership that turned that surplus into a deficit. the ship had already hit the iceberg before president obama took his oath of office. and now they want to blame the entire deficit on the affordable care act. when the affordable care act, if they would implement it now that the supreme court has said it is most certainly constitutional, instead of fighting it every step of the way, it would in the long run save money. now, they want to talk about this tax, tax, tax, tax. well, i want to call what they do the no-care tax because

that's what the republican position is. before there was the affordable care act, there was virtually -- people in america were losing care rapidly. small businesses were dropping their insurance. they couldn't afford it anymore. these premiums have been going up for a long, long time. the affordable care act doesn't drive the premiums up. the premiums were going through the ceiling. we had to do something to try to stop it. and so when president obama came into office and we saw that these trends were going up and in our efforts to try to get the budget back in balance, it was obvious had you to do something with health care. but they keep talking about this tax, tax, tax. i want to remind them that before we passed the affordable care act, there is a tax on every insurance policy that people in america have because it's a tax for the uninsured.

and it's about $1,200. that tax was on the backs of the american people before president obama ever became president, before we even began debating the affordable care act. and the other cost that was going on in this country is that people who didn't have medicare, who didn't have medicaid and didn't have insurance -- and it was a rising number of people without insurance -- and as states cut back their medicaid, a rising number of people that didn't have medicaid, where do you think they went? they went to our hospitals, our private hospitals, our private hospitals and our not-for-profit hospitals. and you know what, our republicans want to tell them, just treat those people for free. there's no one to reimburse you for this cost. medicaid is not going to reimburse you because they're not 65. they don't have private insurance. and the governors cut back on medicaid because they can't -- they can't bear to go look for some tax loopholes that people

might not need in order to provide working americans with health care. they're too busy campaigning for their next elections. and so they told all of our hospitals, you all just go ahead and take care of these people for free. so when a paying customer went into a hospital, who do you think picked up the tab for that? the paying customer. so before president obama became the president, before we started trying to figure out a way out of this terrible mess, there was a huge tax on the back of the american people and a huge debt having to be paid every year by every hospital in america. why don't they talk about that? they don't. so i hope the american people get -- i am so tired of that same old speech. i've been hearing it for three years. i heard it before the debate, i heard it during the debate, and i guess we're going to hear it up to the election, and i hope the american people will listen.

go ahead and talk about, you know, the -- the -- you know, the tax, you know, that supposedly this -- this bill -- it's alleviating a tax burden is what the affordable care act does. it alleviates a terrible tax burden, an invisible tax that has been on the american people and a heavy burden on the backs of taxpayers in this country. and immoral in some ways as we well. with working americans working 50 and 60 hours a week and yet when they get sick, they have nowhere to turn. and instead of putting their proposals on the table, they decided they wanted to block and tackle and -- and -- and stop and not -- not contribute anything. well, i think the country's going to make a good decision. i think the country likes the fact that their kids can stay on their health care plan until they're 26. i think the country likes the fact that when they get sick with cancer or diabetes, they can't be kicked off their --

their health insurance. i think the country likes the fact, particularly businesses that think, geez, if the states would step up and cover some of these lower-wage workers, the burden won't fall on us. because for every governor -- and my governor may be one -- that rejects the expansion of medicare, who do you think has to pick this up? small businesses have to pick this up. the burden should be shared for our lower-income workers broad broadly, not on the backs of businesses struggling. and that's the way we designed this program. and the federal government said, we know it's tough, we know it's an expansion but you know what? we'll pick up for three years 100% to give you some time, to help you so you can look at your tax code. you might be able to find out -- and let me just get this one more thing off my chest and then i'll turn it over to the senator. who made up the rule that the federal government is in charge of the health of every american citizen? do governors in this country have any responsibility for health?

or -- or are we supposed to just do everything up here? do mayors and governors have any responsibility for the health and welfare of the people that they serve? so i suggest the governors, some of them get off the campaign trail, get back to their offices and start putting some health care legislation together, particularly some of the republican governors. and i'm glad i said that and i'm happy to turn over the microphone. i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum callquorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i ask consent to vitiate the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: thank you, madam president -- mr. president. i guess i was so taken with the lady's remarks that i was transfixed there for the moment. the -- mr. president, i've come to the floor to -- in support of

senator enzi of wyoming, senator durbin of illinois and a group of other senators and house members who are working on a piece of legislation called the marketplace fairness act. i'm going to let them do their own speaking. i'm their chief self-appointed cheerleader, though. i know senator enzi's been working on this ever since he's been in the united states sena senate. he has a special passion for it as a former othe owner of a shoe store in wyoming. let me see if i can phrase it this way. if i were to ask the question, "what do governor chris christie, governor mitch daniel, governor jeb bush, governor haley barbour, al cardnis, who's chairman of the american conservative union, governor mcdonald of virginia, governor paige of vermont, what do these individuals all have in common?" well, one might say, well, they're all republicans.

that's true. you and might say, they're all conservatives. that's true. but the other thing you could say about those governors and republicans and conservatives is that they all support the enzi-durbin marketplace fairness act. and what is the marketplace fairness act and why do they support it? it is an 11-page bill, about a s an 11-page bill about a two-word issue. in my former life when i was a governor of tennessee, nothing used to make my angrier than washington politicians who tried to tell me what to do about my own business. we have a legislature in tennessee and wyoming and we know what services i would want and we have a range of options to pay for that. we could make our own decisions

about how do that. what senator enzi and others of us are saying is that states have a right to decide what taxes they impose and from whom to collect them. in the state of tennessee or wyoming says we're going to have a sales tax and collect it for half the people. well, it has the right to be wrong. that's what i mean by states' rights. now, if i were in tennessee, i would say, surely you won't have a state sales tax and only collect it from some of the people. you collect it from all of the people who vote. and surely you'll treat all of your businesses who are in a similarly situated situation the same way. that would be my position if i were governor or legislator. but i'll let them decide that. what we have advanced here in the united states senate, which has 10 cosponsors -- the enzi-durbin bill is a piece of legislation that makes it clear

that states ar states are decidr themselves whether to collect state sales taxes from some people who owe it or all the people who owe t i'll give an example and then i will let senator enzi talk. this past weekend i had a birthday and my wife gave m me n ice cream maker from sonoma. there i was. i wanted to get some of the stuff you need to make ice korea. you can buy an ice cream starter from sonoma williams. it makes the process a lot easier. and you can buy chocolate syrup. or i could have driven back to the stored and bought it there. if i had bought it in tennessee, i would have had to pay 9.5% sales tax.

if i bought it online i wouldn't have to pay the tax. so i went onto the internet, putton my credit card. there was the amount of money it cost to buy the stuff for my ice cream maker and right at the end of it it added the tax on, the same sales tax i owed and would have paid if i had been at a store in nashville. pushed the button, off it went. they collected the tax for my credit card, sent it to the state of tennessee and it is done. 20 years ago that wouldn't have happened with an out-of-state seller. it was too cumbersome. the technology wouldn't advanced. the internet wasn't as f the states hadn't gotten their act tax cut. it was all very confusing. the supreme court said you can't impose that on the states, causing an out-of-state seller to collect the sales tax that's owed, though it may be owed. today it's different. it's as easy to figure out the

taxes as toss google the weather in your hometown. in fact it is easier. it is easier to have the tax collected online than it is going in the store and do it. in the state of tennessee, the governor and lieutenant governor, they want the right to decide for themselves. what i know they're going do is they have the right to collect the sales tax from everybody who owes it instead of just some of the people who owe it. they're going to lower the tax rate for everybody. and they might get rid of the only vestige of an income tax we have. so the food tax might go down, they might spend more money for teachers' salaries. but i'm here to say that senator enzi and. mr. durbin: bin and others -- mr. alexander: i'm they're say that senator enzi and senator durbin have solved a big problem for the country.

why i hope it will pass this week or next week or next week and why i believe the house of representatives is going to pass it as well is because it is a simple 11-page bill about a tw two-word issue called straights' rights. that's why many republicans and many conservatives are saying, let's pass it, let's get out of the way, let's let states make their on decisions and then states can decide from whom they want to collect their sales taxes. so, senator enzi, i congratulate you and senator you are bin for your work. i look forward to work wog and i hope this year we can continue to turn this bill that you've worked on for more than a dozen years into a law. i thank the president and yield the floor. mr. enzi: the senator from tennessee, senator alexander, is far too modest. yes, i have been working on this since i got to the senate, but

he's the one that got it shortened down to 11 pages and made it a states' rights bill and the states are realizing their rights anyway and their attempts at making changes in the sales tax law in order to cover this huge loss of revenue they're experiencing. but it doesn't really work unless we do what the supreme court urged us to do when they did the quill decision back in the 1990's and that's to pass a national law that clarifies how this tax would be collected, if the states choose to do it. and i'm very pleased that senator durbin joined news this issue -- joined us in this issue. practically every tate is losing money because of the tax that's only been collected for the people that buy in the state. when they buy out of state they are a used to it being collected and it isn't collected. so half the time the state is not getting its money.

and we need to change that. before states could come to the federal government and say, we need some money. this is a project. and sometimes that got worked into the bill. we're out of money at the federal level. we eliminated earmarks. we can't do what we used to do. and we probably shouldn't have done it then. but at any rate, we're borrowing 40 cents on every dollar we spend. so we don't have any money left. but the state dozen have this authority -- an authority to do a sales tax of course they didn't anticipate that they were just going to tax the businesses that were in their state, that were paying property tax, were hiring local people or participating in all the community events and telling everybody that without a state they didn't have any responsibility in it. there's always been an effort to get their responsibility, too. so i'm glad that we have this opportunity to discuss the small

business jobs and tax bill but this amendment to it that would be known as marketplace fairness act -- we're talking about fairness here. we do expect that everybody will be treated fairly. so let's start with a common-day practice that's happening in our nation's retail markets today. if you buy the book "hunger games" at the local bookshop, you'll pay more for the book at the brick-and-mortar store than if you bought it online. there's nothing different about the book purchased in the store than from the book purchased online september for the sales -- except for the sales tax. if they choose to do so, states should have the ability to fix this inequality. sales taxes go directly to state and local governments, which brings the needed revenue for maintaining our schools, fixing our roads, supporting our law enforcement, and as i like to

add, have you ever tried to flush your toilet on the internet? if sales on the internet continue to go untaxed and electronic commerce continues to soar, revenues to state and local governments will plumb e but if congress fails to authorize states to collect tax on remote sales and electronic commerce continues to negotiation, we're implicitly blessing a situation where states will be forced to raise other taxes, sufficient as income or property taxes to offset the growing loss of sales tax revenue. do we want this to happen? no. we don't. the marketplace fairness act was written in the aftermath of the supreme court's 1992 quill decision. congressional involvement is necessary because the ruling stated that the thousands of different state and local tax rules were too complicated and onerous to require businesses to collect sales tax unless they had a physical presence -- storks warehouse -- in the purchaser's home state. the supreme court stated that congress needs to decide how to

move forward. i strongly believe that now is the time for congress to act. many americans don't realize when they buy something online or order something from a catalog, from a business outside of their own state, that they still owe the sales tax. for over a decade, congress has been debating how to best allow states to collect the sales taxes from online retailers in a way that puts main street businesses on a level playing field, a fair playing field, with the i don'ten line retailers. the marketplace fairness act empowers states to make the decision themselves. if they choose to collect already-existing sales taxes on all purchases, regardless of where the sale was, whether it was online or in a store, they can. if they want to keep things the way they are you the states can do that. i've been wogging on this since joining the senate in 1997. as a former small business orientation it is important to level the playing field for all retailers, in-store, online,

catalog. it does not adversely impact small stores and online retailers. we never passed a law that discriminated against the in-state people. we never put a burden on people who hire locally residents and participate in the community events while telling those who are out of state that we want them to have our money but they don't have do anything in return. we never intended to give the out-of-state businesses a free ride. that's what the local legislators are all concerned about. on november, 2011, senator durbin, senator alex candor, senator tim johnson and i introduced with civics our other colleagues the marketplace fairness act to close this 20-year loophole that distorts the american marketplace by picking winners and losers, by subsidizing some businesses at the expense of other business, and subsidizing taxpayers at the

expense of other taxpayers. all businesses and the retail sales and all consumers and their purchases should be treated equally fairly. i want to provide you some highlights of the marketplace fairness act. the bill gives states the right to decide to collect or not to collect taxes that are already owed. the legislation would streamline the country's more thank,000 diverse sales tax -- 9,000 diverse sales tax jurisdictions. the bill gives states two voluntary options that would allow them to collect the state sales taxes that are already owed if they choose. the first option is the streamline sales and use tax agreement which is supported by 24 states that have already passed laws to simplify their tax collection rules. the second option puts in place basic minimum simplifying

measures states can adopt to make it easier for out-of-state businesses to comply. now, the bill also carves out small businesses. so they aren't adversely affected by the new law. by exempting businesses with less than $500,000 in sales online or out-of-state sales from collection requirements -- it's very important. there is an exemption in there for start-up and small businesses -- when they have less than $500,000 less of sales in a year. once they do reach the $500,000, then the next year they have to start collecting the tax. this will protect small merchants and g.s.e. give new businesses time to get started. don't get the critics get away with saying this kind of simplification cannot be done n recallly 1990's when the quill decision was handed down shall the internet was still in diapers a and cell phones came with bags and looked like bricks. cell phones now have internet capability, software, computers,

technology. they have all advanced. the different rates and jurisdiction problem is no problem for today's programs. as a former mayor and state legislator, i also strongly favor allowing states the authority to require sales and use tax collection from retailers on all sayles sales if they choose to do so. we need to implement a plan that will allow states to generate revenue using mechanisms already approved by their local leaders. we need to allow states the ability to collect the sales taxes they already require if enacted. and this would provide $23 billion in fiscal relief for the states which congress does not have to find an offset. this will give states less of an excuse to come knocking on the federal door for listenedouts and will -- handouts and will reduce the problem of federally attached strings. it will give states the chance to reduce property taxes or other taxes. the marketplace fairness act is

not about new taxes. no one should tax the use of the internet. no one should tax internet services. i do, however, have concerns about using the internet as a sales tax loophole. sales tax collection is already required by my home state of wyoming, no matter how or where we buy something if it's not taxed by the state we get it from, you're supposed to fill out your own form and submit the information. nobody is used to filing that kind of form or doing that kind of tax collection, and they never know whether the tax is owed or not or how much it is, particularly on small, on small purchases. it's always collected at the stores by the stores in state, so we've got to make the system simpler so they don't have to file out that form. under wyoming law, online purchases are already subject to a sales tax. it just can't be collected or given to our state. the situation is very similar to

that of other states. senators durbin, alexander and i worked tirelessly to assist sellers in state and local governments to simplify sales and use tax collection and administration. we've worked with all interested parties to find a mutually agreeable legislative package to introduce. many hours have been dedicated to finding the right solution. i want to commend and thank senators durbin and alexander in taking a leadership role in working on this important policy issue. ten years ago the bills we considered to try to close this loophole were not adequate to solve the problem. marketplace fairness does solve the problem. it's simple. it's about states' rights, it's about fairness. at a time when states' budgets are under increasing pressure, congress should give state and local governments the ability to enforce their own laws. i strongly encourage my colleagues to support amendment 2496 known as the marketplace fairness act, and get it enacted

into public law this year. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i want to thank my colleagues, senator alexander of tennessee and senator enzi of wyoming, cosponsors of this measure and participants in this cole if i on the floor today -- in this colloquy on the floor today. i'm sorry i wasn't here at the outset but i'm grateful for their participation and comments they made and especially for their commitment to this cause. i think senator enzi and i would both give special thanks to senator alexander who stepped in at a very important moment who helped us craft a part of this bill, helped us craft an argument on this bill and really brought some new approaches to it which have been extremely helpful. the notion of offering this as an amendment is a show of good faith on our part, a show of commitment to the seriousness of this issue and the importance of this issue. the fact that a democrat, two republicans and in fact many democrats and republicans can

join together in this bipartisan manner is an indication that this bill really cuts across party lines. i think it gets down to a basic issue, as it says, of fairness. the economy is clearly getting better. there are better days ahead. but jobs are being created and our economy is growing stronger. there may be times when the job numbers are disappointing and the stock market stumbles, and we continue to face challenges in europe and other places. but we are improving. businesses in illinois and across the country are starting to caecus phers come back -- to see customers come back. small retailers in my home state of illinois are pushing the phrase, the slogan "buy local" in their effort to urge consumers to come back to the local stores, the farmers' markets, the shoe stores instead of buying online. these efforts support local brick and mortar sellers who contribute to the community in so many different ways. they sponsor the local baseball teams. they collect sales and taxes

that pay for services like fire, police and trash collection. and they provide good-paying local jobs. while the efforts have been successful, many local retailers share with me just how frustrating it is to lose business because online retailers have a built-in advantage that i've seen firsthand. while local main street businesses collect state and local taxes and use taxes, their online competitors don't. in illinois, this can mean an 8% differential in price. this encourages cuss tphoers buy everything from -- cuss tphoers buy everything from electronics and books online. a couple of examples, bob nokra, owner of the of soccer plus describes how his online competitor can offer a discount because it doesn't to pay sales and use taxes. bob sales to local sports clubs. he can't compete when the

competition has a $10,000 price advantage so he loses the business. matt lamsargiss, owner of the running center, bob thomas, owner of bike tech in springfield, told me when i visited their stores last year, they lose businesses when customers walk into the store, look around, maybe try on the clothing and shoes just to get fitted just right, write down a few numbers and walk out the door and then order the product over the internet at a discount because the internet seller doesn't collect sales tax and these local retailers have to. ironically, some of the customers dissatisfied with their online purchases come back to the same store to complain about a product they didn't even buy there. so we've got to find a way to make this a fairer marketplace. why can't state and local governments just require online retailers to collect sales and use taxes? for 20 years state and local governments have been prohibited

from enforcing their own sales and use tax laws because of a supreme court decision in quill vs. north dakota where the court clearly stated that only congress has the authority to solve this problem. mr. president, i see the majority leader has come to the floor, and i'm going -- he's told me i can continue. when he's ready, i'm going to yield to him and resume my statement. let me continue until he's ready. last year senator enzi, senator alexander and i introduced the marketplace fairness act with additional cosponsors, 13 bipartisan sponsors. this group of senators understands that to truly help small business grow, create jobs, we need to make sure they compete on a level playing field. the marketplace fairness act would do just that. that's why it's being filed as an amendment to the small business jobs tax relief act. our amendment is about saving main street businesses and jobs provided by those businesses. this bill allows states. it does not mandate the states but allows states, if they choose, to require online and brick and mortar retailers to

play by the same sales tax rules. the bill eliminates the building price advantage that has distorted the market for 20 years. it includes, as senator enzi recently said, a small seller exemption for those selling less than $500,000 worth of commodities a year. if grandma bennett's apple butter is being cased up and sold to the tune of $10,000 or $20,000 a year online because her smart son or grandson has given her advice on how she can retail this online, she doesn't have to start collecting sales tax until she's sold $500,000 worth of goods. in the next year she'd collect sales tax. we're trying to be sensitive to smaller businesses, and senator enzi said, start-up businesses. this bill is supported by over 200 organizations. this is an issue where the international association of firefighters, afsme, stands

together with the national retail federation and the consumer electronics association. what an amazing coalition. amazon.com, the largest retailer online in america, supports our bill. yet, the largest online retailer in supporting this bill, still has members of the senate questioning whether or not they're going to react positively. they're online. i mean, they're on the record, i should say, and online in favor like this. it is supported by the u.s. conference of mayors, national association of counties and national council of state legislators. these local units and state governments are losing about $23 billion billion a year in uncollected state tax. in illinois we're losing about $1 billion a year, that's about 15% of our current deficit. it would really make a difference if we could collect this. again, the state would have to make that decision. we don't force it on them.

this state, fairness, sales tax fairness has the support of eight democrat governors and 13 republican governors, including governor quinn of illinois, o'malley of maryland, mcdonnell of virginia and haely from the state of south carolina. recently governor chris christie from the state of new jersey came out in support. he said i too along with senator daniels and others urge the federal government and congress in particular to get behind legislation to allow states to be able to make these choices for themselves. governor lepage, a republican governor from the state of maine wrote a letter of support saying the marketplace fairness act does not raise taxes. the point he makes and we make in argument here, this is not a new tax. if this bill has such broad bipartisan support, why haven't we passed it? we need 60 senators. the majority leader has said to me and senator enzi, show me the votes. and that's what we're trying to do. bring together a bipartisan group that will support this, that understands it's simple fairness for small businesses to

create jobs and opportunities all across america, and with the sales taxes that they collect, they provide for local police and fire and sewers and streets and the things in life that we come to take for granted in our cities across america. we want to make sure that the online retailers are making the same contribution. so i urge my colleagues when this amendment comes before them to support it on a bipartisan basis. and i yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask consent that all remaining time postcloture be yielded back and the senate adopt the motion to proceed to s. 2237. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report the measure. the clerk: calendar number 34 1, a bill to provide a temporary income tax credit for increased payroll and extend bonus depreciation for an additional year and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, on

behalf of senator landrieu, i have a substitute amendment at the desk i wish to have reported. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, for mrs. landrieu proposes an amendment numbered 2521. mr. reid: on that, mr. president, i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, i now have a first-degree perfecting amendment which is also at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an amendment numbered 2522 to amendment number 2521. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on that. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. 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 an amendment numbered 2523 to amendment number 2522.

mr. reid: i have, mr. president, a cloture petition on the substitute amendment which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the substitute amendment number 2521 to s. 2237, the small business jobs and tax relief act, signed by 17 senators as follows: reid of nevada, landrieu, gillibrand, mikulski, levin, lautenberg, boxer, udall of colorado, begich, whitehouse, blumenthal, franken, leahy, udall of new mexico, baucus, cardin, durbin. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: 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, proposes an

amendment numbered 2524 to the language proposed to be stricken by amendment number 2521. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. 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 an amendment numbered 2525 to amendment number 2524. mr. reid: i have a motion to commit the bill with instructions. the clerk has that, mr. president. mr. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. reid moves to commit the bill to the committee on finance with instructions to report back with an amendment number 2526. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on that motion. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. 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 an

amendment numbered 2527 to the instructions of the motion to commit s. 2237 to the committee on finance. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on that. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, 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 an amendment numbered 2528 to amendment number 2527. mr. reid: finally, mr. president, 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 accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on s. 2237, the small business jobs and tax relief act, signed by 17 senators as follows: mr. reid: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent the names not be read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required under rule 22 be waived for the cloture motions

just filed. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to calendar number number 442 s. 3364. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number number 442, s. 3364, a bill to provide incentive for businesses to bring jobs back to america. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: right now the senate is considering --. the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. mr. reid: i'm so sorry. i ask it be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, right now the senate is consider a small business jobs bill. a very important proposal that was part of president obama's package to increase employment in this country. it will create a million jobs. this legislation will give tax credits to businesses that grow and hire. yet republicans are looking for any excuse to vote down the proposal for two reasons. number one, it has the support of president obama, and democrats in congress. and secondly, it would strengthen the economy which would help president obama. we know republicans won't do anything that helps president obama. even if it's good for the economy. because their number-one goal is to defeat the president. my friend, mitch mcconnell,

has said that. so republicans are hiding behind their usual procedural trick, filibustering with unrelated amendments. if there's any doubt about republicans' motivation to kill this legislation, just, mr. president, take a look with me at the amendment proposed today by senator hatch of utah. the first thing senator hatch's amendment would do is eliminate all the tax cut, every tax cut we have in this proposal. every one of them. the one that's now before the senate. to create jobs, a million jobs. the hatch amendment would literally eliminate every provision in the bill designed to create jobs. senator hatch's amendment eliminates the 10% credit for employers that hire additional workers or increase their payrolls, a provision that would create that part alone half a million jobs. and it strikes another deduction for businesses that invest in machinery and equipment which

would create another half million jobs. but, mr. president, the republicans' amendment doesn't stop there. it goes on to increase taxes for 25 million american families. the republican amendment, i repeat, increases taxes for 25 million american families. senator hatch's amendment would extend tax breaks for the top 2% of americans, but it fails to extend a number of tax cuts that help middle-class families get by in a very tough economy. for example, senator hatch's amendment, the republican amendment, would increase taxes by $1,100 for 11 million families trying to pay for college. 11 million families in effect an increase of their taxes by $1,100. the republican amendment would make it harder for 12 million large families to put food on the table, it would increase taxes by $800 for families that have three children.

or more. and senator hatch's amendment, the republican amendment, fails to extend the full child tax credit for six million families increasing their taxes by $500 each. so no one is fooled by the republicans' amendment. we see it for what it is. more republican obstruction that comes with the added bonus of sticking it to the middle class. if that wasn't enough political theater for one day, my republican colleagues also claim they're anxious to vote on president obama's plan to cut taxes for 98% of american families. once again, mr. president, no one should be fooled. republicans know very well the senate will vote on the president's proposal to give middle-class families the certainty they won't be hit with a tax increase. we'll vote on this, we'll vote on it this work period, i've already said so. they want a vote sooner so let's

lock in an agreement soon permit the president's plan to give 98% of americans certainty their taxes won't go up and the republican plan to raise taxes on 25 million american families. democrats are ready to have those votes right away, and we'll do it with a simple majority. then we can get back to the task at hand, cutting taxes for millions of small businesses that want to expand and put americans bang to work. i have a consent agreement, mr. president, that i'll go through with you. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the cloture be vitiated with respect to the substitute amendment and ask 2237, that the motion to commit be withdrawn and amendments 2525 and 2522 be withdrawn, at 2:00 p.m. tomorrow, thursday, july 12, the senate vote in relation to the following amendments, amendment 2524

which is the cantor language, substitute amendment 2521, that there be no other amendments or motions in order to the amendments of the bill prior to the votes other than motions to waive or motions to table, upon disposition of the two amendments the senate proceed to a vote on passage of s. 2237 as amended if amended. further at a time determined by the majority leader with consultation with the republican leader the senate, extending the 2001, 2003, 2009 tax cuts for 98% of americans and 96% of small businesses as outlined by president obama, that the only amendment in order to the bill be an amendment offered by senator mcconnell or designee, which is identical to the text of amendment numbered 2491 as filed by senator hatch. that the amendment not be divisible, that there be four hours of debate on the amendment and the bill equally divided between the two learts or their designees prior to a vote in relation to the mcconnell or

designee amendment, upon disposition of the amendment the senate senate proceed to vote on passage, there be no motions or points of order to the amendment or to the bill. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i'm glad my friend the majority leader has dropped his earlier opposition and wants to make up an -- an effort to set up these votes on this important issue. on monday the president said if the senate passes this tax hike on small businesses, he would sign it right away. so i'm glad the senate will have a chance to beat the bad idea that raise taxes on nearly one million small businesses. i'll be happy to take look at what my good friend the majority leader is offering, but i cannot at this time agree to lock in a vote on -- at a indetermine national time on a proposal that has not yet been written. my good friend has had all day to come up with a written proposal but i gather that so

far they've been unable to do so. or if they have, we certainly haven't seen it. our proposal is drafted and filed and has been available for all to see. my goal here and it's one that i laid out several weeks ago is we act now to ensure no one's income taxes go up january of next year. the mere threat of this tax increase is already a drag on our economy and i do not plan on standing by and letting that tax increase go into effect. so we'd be happy to set up a vote on this issue, mr. president, just as soon as the majority leader produces a bill to show us what tax increases they have in mind. i want to make sure everyone understands the differences in our positions here. my goal and i hope it's one that is shared by a majority of senators, will be to enact a bill that protects small businesses by extending current income tax rates for one year to ensure that no one in america sees an income tax hike in

january and tasking the finance committee to produce a bill that would enact fundamental pro-growth tax reform. their goal will be the president's proposal to raise taxes on nearly one million business owners in the middle of the worst economic recovery in modern times. the senate ought to make absolutely clear which policy it supports. i look forward to having the chance to do that but until that time, until we've actually got a product we can take a look at, i can't agree to this agreement and therefore i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, i'm going to be very, very brief. my friend frend the republican leader said this morning and i quote directly, i'm trying to get a vote, a vote on what he says he's for and what the president says he's for. and what the republicans say they're for.

that's what this consent agreement does but i'm happy to let the republican leader read the exact language. but let no one be fooled by this. the hatch amendment doesn't do anything to protect small businesses. it does everything to protect grover norquist and his pledge that is, make sure the american people aren't satisfied. they believe, democrats, independents and republicans, that the people -- the top 2% of income earners in this country should contribute to the problems we have with the deficit and the debt in this country. that's what this is all about. i look forward to working with my friend the republican leader to see if we can come to a position here and vote on the bill that's before us. i'm a little concerned because the hatch language eliminates our bill but i'm happy to have

staff during the night look and see if we can arrive at some way to move forward on this but i think i've made my point clear. mr. mcconnell: one other brief observation. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i have already objected but one other brief observation. the consent i objected to also chose for us the amendment we would get to have. and, of course, that's not an agreement that the republican side would feel we'd want to be a part of. mr. reid: mr. president, i'm only trying to do what they said they wanted to do this morning. senator hatch came and gave a big speech on what they want to do. if they have something else they want to propose i'm happy to look at that but i'm only doing what they said they wanted to do this morning. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. unless my friend has more to say. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

is is is

quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. a senator: mr. president, i'd ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of h.r. 3001, which was received from the house and is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3001, an act to award a congressional gold medal to raul wallenberg in recognition of his achievements and heroic actions during the holocaust. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. bennet: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the bill

be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without any intervening action or debate and any related statements be printed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of h.r. 4155, which was received from the house and is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 4155, an act to direct the head of each federal department and agency to treat relevant military training as sufficient to satisfy training or certification requirements for federal licenses. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. bennet: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the bill be read three times pafpbd, the motion to reconsider -- and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate and any related statements be printed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on thursday, july 12, that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. that the majority leader be recognized and the first hour be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: this evening the majority leader filed cloture on the landrieu substitute and the underlying small business jobs and tax relief act. as a result the filing deadline for amendments to the landrieu substitute amendment and to s. 2237 is 1:00 p.m. tomorrow. unless an agreement is reached, the cloture votes will be on friday, but we hope we can come to agreement to have some tomorrow. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask

that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow. adjourn:

i think where we want these $25 million worth of loan guarantees that are in the bill, we need to make sure that we focus on those areas where there is no existing infrastructure,

and i would love to maybe work with some wording between now and when we bring this bill to the floor to strengthen that because i think it is important, but i do know, i have personal knowledge where they went in and made the loan guarantees in areas where we already had broadband service upgraded. that is wonderful, but this program, as you point out, was designed to get in there and focus on communities where there underserved or not serve the ball. >> will the gentleman yield? thank you very much. certainly tracking with those remarks, the priority for the program goes to the unserved areas. i know that in my working with the administration, they have been very sensitive to the feedback that you have given, particularly with an eye toward making sure that they're moving toward unserved areas and also rural areas. if they're is a way that we can refine this, coupled with the acceptance of this amendment, certainly i would look forward to working with my colleague.

>> gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kansas a recognition? >> yes. mr. chairman, strike the last word. >> john and is recognized for five minutes. >> a couple of quick questions if i might of the sponsor of the amendment. it is my understanding and the stimulus package, congress toward the usda to a half billion dollars for rural broadband projects. on trying to understand, 35 million, is that the program -- total? a drop in the bucket based upon what they spend. >> these are two different programs now. what i am dealing with is the are u.s. broadband low-interest loan problems which last year we had finished the stimulus program and had the first year of the new and improved ruf program, the trees that were made to the program. unfortunately the program even though we had authorized and appropriated money, there were

no laws that came out. when i asked why, one of the reasons why was the state of the economy, but another one was just having this at a point that it is attractive to be used. this is not the stimulus program. >> thank you, mr. chairman. appreciate that. i noted in my district there was one entity that receive $100 million in grants and loans it does not seem like $35 million will do much of anything in this area, but i appreciate the clarification. >> well, the thing to know about this is that this is money that is available for loans. you know, what it does is allow for a significant -- for example, the 6 million i sponsored last year was a loan guarantee that allowed for over $200 million worth of loans. that helps answer your question.

>> i yield back, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of this time. an additional request a recognition from the gentleman from new york. >> and move to strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> i very strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of mr. dixon's proposal. undeserved and external world, and it is important for both economic, health, and safety reasons that we have the ability to expand abroad and. i urge you to take that into account, the entire package and how it is pointed impact the constituents and mine. i suspect many others around the united states. thank you, and i yield back. >> additional request. seeing none. all those in favor of amendment

number 12, signify by saying i. all those opposed. request record the vote. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] at one.

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] at : [roll call]

[roll call] >> mr. chairman. [inaudible]

>> mr. chairman, the boat is 20 yea-24 nay. >> any additional amendments. all laydown. the gentleman. >> thank you. the clerk as the amendment, number 99. >> the clerk will distribute the amendment. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes and may begin when ready. >> thank you. actually after the explanation i intend to move for unanimous consent to wch of the amendments. this amendment simply codifies an existing interpretation of what is row of by usda in terms of unincorporated areas. in the northeast unincorporated areas have been traditionally seven units of municipalities such as villages, burroughs,

fire districts, water districts, and it has been the usda interpretation of unincorporated areas that such entities to qualify for various rural development programs. so what this amendment seeks to do is, by that existing interpretation. the reason why this request for this amendment was drawn is that there actually has been some controversy within usda about whether or not such entities should be included as girl. with the senate bill there is no question that they are doing fairly dramatic changes to the definition of rural. i know it is the chairman's hope that we would not go there in terms of really tampering with the existing statute in terms of definition of rural. out of respect for that approach is my intention to withdraw the amendment, but i would note whether at some point later in terms of conference or report

language or other opportunities, this is a big issue in the northeast. i realize my good friend has ranches in his district that are bigger than all of new england, but in terms of rural communities, again, very traditional definitions of municipalities and government units go back to colonial days and have really been the manner in which, again, access to rural development funds and grants have been required. so, again, i would note that this is an issue that is still percolating out there, certainly with an light of what the senate is proposing to do. in terms of some controversy within the usda, but as far as today is concerned it is my request that we hold off any kind of disposition of that request until possibly a later date. >> would the gentleman yield for question. >> certainly. >> i know you are withdrawing the amendment, but this has been a source of consternation for

the subcommittee that mr. johnson shares and then the ranking member. we have since 2008 farm bill for the usda to, but the definition of what role is. and this is not one of their broader moments. they have been flummoxed. i'm not sure what the challenges they have not yet been able to produce a definition of what is world. we know that the country has changed on a regional basis. i have a very rural district. yet, if you have a -- if you have a large urban population, as i do, and a couple of my counties, then the entire county is stricken from the definition of rome as, potentially under the new definition. that could just qualify communities that you're talking about, small towns that i have, three or 5,000 population only because they happen to be in a county in which there is a large

city that has a half a million people even though there is an hour or two hours distance between the city and the small towns. so i know you are withdrawing it . mr. johnson and i have been trying to get the usda to produce this definition. no harm no foul. clearly we, i think, concern about what ultimate definition and wha qualifies and does not qualify for rural funding, development, and grants. i yield back the balance of my time in thank the gentleman for yielding. >> when this issue was being batted around. it obviously is a gray area. as the farm bill process moves forward with the senate proposed changes this issue is going to be back in front of us. with that, again, i request permission to withdraw the amendment. >> the gentleman will yield for the moment.

it is an important issue. by unanimous consent the gentleman withdraws his amendment. >> with that, are there additional amendments to title six. the gentleman from georgia seeks recognition. >> thank you. i will be brief. i would like jet offer an amendment. >> amendment number 18. >> the clerk will distribute amendment number 18. >> specifically addressing the business loan program. to give you some numbers, small business association guarantee just under 11,000 for all small business loans under the b and nine program. made up 26 percent of all lending within the program. it had fallen to 13%. this amendment does two things. first, it includes working

capital working capital which allows for working capitol, allows an existing company to use this for the purpose of maintaining and current operations within their existing communities. the second thing is that it provides an accounts receivable. maybe used as a means to secure adequate collateral these are considered collateral and many other underwriting processes. i think you. i yield the remainder of my time but the gentleman yield the remainder of his time. any additional requests for recognition on this amendment? >> the gentleman from oregon is recognized. moves to strike the last word. recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i just want to lend my support. i think it makes sense. no cost to this amendment. it allows working capital to the part of the definition.

i think many of us know that while this country is struggling to recover it is still recovering. larger businesses are doing just fine, but main street is not doing so well. frankly, over the last 8-10 years we have lost stores, down about 33%. we lost force and a 25%. 23 percent to my nursery garden down 15. not a good picture. this is a good bill. small-business men and women working for us, and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. any other requests for recognition? we will now proceed to vote on amendment. all those in favor, we signify by saying i. opposed. amendment number 18 is adopted. are there additional amendments to title number six?

the gentle lady from maine seeks recognition. >> thank you very much, mr. chair. i have another amendment about the business industry loan program. >> amendment number? >> nineteen. >> the clerk will distribute amendment number 19. the gentle lady is recognized for five minutes. began when you are prepared. >> okay. thank you. this is a relatively simple change to the bill. it originally had 5 percent of the loan program which amounts to the total loan program up to about a billion dollars a potential guarantees and loans. in the it is to cover dump program 5% of the annual appropriation was available to fund local and regional food enterprise loan guarantees. a change in the draft of the farm bill that would cap that at about 17%. i am suggesting that 5% stay as

the number in this bill. at think it should be of floor, not a ceiling, and i don't think there should be a cap on this. this is a very beneficial program for local and regional food enterprises. basically applies to processing and storage facilities in rural areas. these can be dramatically helpful. i will give one example in my district, but there are many from around the country. an apple processing facility was able to borrow 17 million to expand their operation. thirty-eight jobs have been created because of that. so i think this is very beneficial. close to 5% of the loan, the program that is currently used for this. so i think capping it would just be too low. $50 million has been substantial around the country in beneficial, but as i said, these loans have been in places as diverse as indiana, missouri, nebraska, new york and all over the country for things such as

orchards, markets, cheese factories, vegetable processing. i think as this market continues to grow and expand, this is a great use of loan guarantee, and as we are hoping that we can help in many ways to help the economy expand and grow i yield back the balance of my time and encourage everyone support. >> the chair moves to strike the last word. i appreciate the intent behind the gentle lady's amendment. i am afraid it is highly duplicative. additional support for rural enterprises such as the value added produced program and the small and socially disadvantaged producer program. a small program already oversubscribed diminishing the impact. i respect greatly the lady's efforts.

i will yield back the balance of my time. >> will the chair yield? >> before i yield back absolutely will yield to the lady. >> i appreciate some of the concerns you have raised. given that, i ask permission to withdraw this amendment and continue for the discussion of how to support these types of processing facilities in rural areas. >> is a brilliant policy move by the lady. >> thank you very much. >> the objection, the lady with draws her amendment. we now proceed to the next amendment for title number six. the gentleman from colorado. >> what purpose? >> thank you. amendment at the desk designating number eight. >> will the clerk distribute amendment number eight? the gentleman is recognized for five matt to explain his amendment and may proceed when ready. >> current deficit situation dictates we reduce government

spending and make it necessary to attract private sources of capital to help finance agricultural infrastructure needs. the budget deficit is limited to usda ability to be able to up need many of the direct loan and grant requests received from rural water and waste management projects. resulting in backlog more than $3 billion in applications from the rural communities waiting to move forward with needed development. additionally, the epa, environmental protection agency estimates that in order to modernize broader infrastructure and to be in compliance with clean drinking water standards pro communities would need an additional $80 billion. however, the need for rural communities for these types of projects far exceeds the usda annual budget of 794 million in direct loans and $432 million in grants making the expansion of private financing options through loan guarantees necessary. this amendment, rather than asking for increased government spending, direct the usda to encourage to the maximum extent

practical private or corroborative lenders to finance rural water and waste disposal facilities utilizing loan guarantees. amendments also encourage the usda to focus on its own resources on the immediate -- the neediest communities will more closely partner with private lenders whenever possible to responsibly leverage private sector lending, to increase available resources and better needs water supply needs of rural communities. in a time when many rural water systems are waiting for years to be able to receive government funding, this amendment provides a private financing option that will allow rural communities to be able to speed up the process of improving the water systems, creating local construction jobs and improving the safety of drinking water for rural families. ..

i urge that we had unanimously support the amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. >> anyone else seeking recognition plaques the gentleman from texas seeks recognition. >> strike the last word? skilling from the author of this is just does this give us the

flexibility are you asking for the flexibility for example i know you mentioned communities over 5500 encouraging them to use private capital. can the secretary negotiate in other words may be on some of these taking the top 5% or 10% in other words without having to guarantee the whole thing and the leveraging the ability for them to come to a financing agreement rather was a certain amount of government guarantee where the private capital will be does your amendment to that? islamic its my understanding that they will have that flexibility to be able to make that determination to be able to provide some latitude that primarily to be able to try to address the more private sector financing as opposed to government financing. >> i agree with that. a lot of times we use of the

authority by guaranteeing a larger portion that's needed to attract that capital, so i think the gentleman has a good amendment. >> seeking any further recognition from any further requests? we now proceed to vote on amendment number eight. all those in favor of amendment number eight will signify by saying aye. all those opposed, signify no. thus be a factor to have it. the sba to do have in amendment number eight is adopted. are there additional amendments to title six? the gentleman from vermont seeks recognition. >> thank you. i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will distribute amendment 106 and the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. >> this would reauthorize the development council. we have them about 28 states set to expire in 2012. they would be extended in 2017.

it doesn't require an appropriation. many states of the end of counsel. vermont has one and it's been a tremendous resource. it's worked with state and federal authorities but local communities and local community type projects in vermont it's worked with communities on broadband coverage and rolling belt it's helped develop practical policies to expand with production in vermont for. it's promoted regional energy initiatives and it's helped many towns that wanted to design and carry out community development projects that didn't have the resources within the small towns to get that done alone. the reauthorization is important because it will continue to permit federal officials working in and out of states to fully participate as members of the state councils. so this is a tool with the states have chosen to jews have found to be very helpful. it allows essentially for the collaboration.

it's not a big brother kind of deal. it's about a situation of cooperation among folks who think that by working together they have the better chance mr. churn and i yield back. >> are there any additional requests for recognition on this amendment any additional requests scene on we will proceed to vote on the amendment number 106 signify by saying aye all those opposed signify by saying no mac. the ayes appear to have it and do indeed have an amendment number 106 is adopted. are there additional amendments to title six according to the gentleman from new york for what purpose does the seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. number 13.

the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment when he is prepared. it has to do with the community facilities program and the threshold population for eligibility, and in 2002 that threshold was made to be 20,000 in this amendment we move to make it 30,000. the purpose of this is that for upstate new york a good number of our rural counties, the county seat actually is between 20 and 30,000 now and not eligible to be part of this program. so you know, it is certainly all part of an integrated economic system that supports our culture in many of your -- you have the

selling of all these goods of the farmers' market that comes to the county seat, so it seems to make sense to me that we would change that the technician to appreciate the changing population so i would ask why colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. does anyone seek recognition on this question. >> the gentleman from west virginia is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. i must oppose this amendment as does the ranking member. this last year the programs of larger communities we have limited resources available under the program and we must ensure the most remote in the rural areas that receive the attention we are in a very limited situation as far as the resources go commesso unfortunately i will oppose the amendment. estimate will the gentleman yield before he yields back? >> i think the gentleman and the ranking member of our very to the point on this and very

accurate. i think perhaps this time for more discussion but at the present time i don't uncomfortable with this amendment and i would encourage my colleagues not accepting it. >> any additional comments request for recognition from the members? the gentleman from new york is recognized. what purpose does the gentleman -- >> to strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> and growing metropolis that we have in the rural upstate new york of 20 to 30 feet to 30,000 people this becomes extremely important. what we have, and mr. gibson mentioned this yesterday in a conversation we were having as a kind of spokes arrangement and these communities although not large in contrast are clearly the places where people come for this kind of activity. that is what we need to do is to encourage that because we need it in our rural communities. thank you and i yield back.

>> the gentleman yields back. the journal man from georgia seeks recognition. >> the gentleman strikes the last word. >> i represent many communities that look the same way but also communities that are much smaller and every time we expand the population no. we make it less likely one of those communities the needs it, one of the truly rural small list in the country actually receives the funds so i respectfully object to my good friends legislation and yield of the remainder of my time. >> the gentleman yields back to anyone else seeking recognition cno their request for recognition we will proceed to vote on amendment number 13. all of those in favor of number 13 will signify by saying ayes. all of those opposed will signify by saying no.

the noes appear to have it and do indeed have it. amendment number 13 is not adopted. are there additional amendments to the title six? the gentleman seeks recognition. >> mr. chairman i have an amendment at the desk number 47. >> with the clerk distribute number 47 and the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment and began when he is prepared. >> this amendment does clarification and gets to the heart of sometimes how we in the federal government get swallowed up and take things away from each other. this deals with transportation and it's the role of the secretary of agriculture to advocate the needs especially agricultural because we all know that is a key piece of the puzzle moving products and bringing in those inputs that need to go so what this is asking for is to make sure, and i'm not looking to overturn the surface transportation board or anything. it's simply looking to reinstate a practice that began in 1929

the agricultural marketing act which has been allowed to lapse be paid before the deregulation of the railroad industry in the 1970's and in recognition of the crucial role that it plays for utter culture the secretary had a legal responsibility to represent the interest of america and the interstate commerce commission. the interest commerce commission was a regulatory body charged with ensuring fair reach and practices and freight rail and others have trucking would be another example. the icc was abolished in 1905 and things were shifted to the std but its responsibilities when the transfer of the provision wasn't changed, and is still prefers in that provision to the now defunct icc. my amendment updates the provision to remove the role of secretary of agriculture advocating for the fair rates and services for agricultural and rural america. it doesn't change the competition of the process it decides the case is on. it simply calls on the secretary

to be a voice for america and ensure a fair deal on one, transport and agriculture and industrial inputs into their areas, nor were to bring the product to market and abroad, and number three moving coal from the mines to electrical generating sites to power the homes and businesses to read the language was included in the senate farm belt with strong bipartisan support. it is being backed by the producer groups in the national electric cooperative. so i would ask my colleagues to support this. just making sure we love our railroads and transportation, but making sure that secretary of the agriculture is having an input in how that is being done so that we can move our products in a fair manner. >> with the gentleman yield back? >> the gentleman yields. agriculture is dependent on a reliable transportation system remaining competitive in the export market. i think the gentleman is on the right track so to speak. i support his amendment and encourage my colleagues to accept it and yelled back. >> would you yield?

>> absolutely. >> over here. >> yes, mr. boswell. >> thank you. as a senior member of the transportation committee i would highly support for proposal and who better to advocate for agriculture in those rural areas of and the secretary. so i would support it and encourage the adoption. >> i yield some time. >> i would just like to thank you for bringing this amendment up. it's fairly straightforward and fairly basic. i can tell you in northeast wisconsin - a lot of conversation with some of the electric bill cooperatives and their support of it and it's a very straightforward calling on the secretary of agriculture and suffocating the areas of transportation as a member of the transportation committee. i want to endorse this amendment and encourage my colleagues and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. any request for recognition plaques request being on we will proceed to vote on amendment

number 47. all those in favor of amendment number 47 will signify by saying aye to read all those opposed will signify by saying no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes appear to have it. ayes does indeed have it and amendment 47 is about it. are there additional amendments to title six? the gentleman from kansas seeks recognition. >> thank you mr. treen. i have an amendment at the desk, and amendment number 41. islamic the court will distribute amendment number 41 at the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment and may begin when he is ready. >> thank you. i want to appreciate the work of your staff to make certain that we could actually offer this amendment to remain in the jurisdiction of the farm bill also think you for that. this deals with an issue in the regional issue that has national the implications in my area of the nation is a growing area. new businesses or relocating as

additional electricity demands on the arena and the rural electric co-op is reaching its capacity and ability to deliver in the area. and for the last number of years the power plant in the areas operated by the rural electric co what have been attempting to meet the growing demand and trying to expand the existing facilities and continue to encounter one regulatory and judicial hurdle after another. this amendment would deal with a recent turtle that came out of the january 2012 u.s. district court ruling that i believe set a dangerous precedent for 600 plus beneficiaries of our u.s. loans many of which the electric co-ops. the ruling by the court in parts from a long practice at the u.s. dea and redefines any privately funded project by a cooperative and also has an hour u.s. loan as a major federal action as the result of it objective to many additional regulatory and time consuming and expensive requirements on the private

project in the entirety of the entity. even though our u.s. is not finding the expansion. it's at the usda my amendment would clarify existing law to insure any privately funded project undertaken by the co-op is not considered a major federal action. the impact locally on this is the 2 billion-dollar economic in touch by the way is roughly the equivalent of the entire production and the chairman's district. but this would impact not only my plant, but many others in the u.s. entities and so with all that i will stand for questions on my amendment mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. seeing know what their request for recognition, seeing no their request we will proceed to vote on amendment number 47. all those in favor of amendment number 47 will signify by saying

aye. all of those opposed will say no. >> the ayes appear to have it. the speed of to to have it. the ayes did indeed have an amendment number 41 is about it. are there additional amendments to title number six? additional amendments? additional amendments? cno additional amendments, title number six is closed. we now proceed to title -- i need the assistance of my good friend the ranking member. we will brief for one moment. >> sometimes we can surprise people by the efficiency of how we move through this process.

>> i would ask by unanimous consent that we waive the reading of title seven. without seeing objection or no objection to the weaving of the reading seeing no objection, so ordered with that i now recognize the ranking member. >> without objection the gentleman is recognized. in the research of all of the provision related to the research matching funds matching funds are those coverage of federal resources with commitments from those benefiting from agriculture resource. as an am i dva information

circulated there have been concerns raised related to this provision. i just want to express my interest in continuing to work with you, the usda as well as the research and extension community to work through their concerns to clarify the goals of the committee i'm particularly interested in ensuring that we continue to make certain that nonprofit groups that have been helping to fill the need and begin the training and education are able to continue to access the farms under the ranger development program. what we conclude it is meant to be a starting point. i elma aware that the conclusion of the proposal was already initiated a lively discussion during the 2008 farm bill conference we have harmonized the matching requirements due to the complexity of the tax the lack of time the leverett was dropped in exchange for the

request for usda to initiate a stakeholder to provide recommendations to the congress in advance of this farm bill. despite repeated reminders of the request the usda never followed through, the house and culture committee has maintained an interesting and engaging stakeholders in the discussion about how to harmonize policies to improve consistency and transparency in their application. several requests have been made for suggestions on how to best to approach this issue and the consensus that the committee should propose a discussion draft. as we have worked to assemble the research title of the 2012 farm bill the bills were to improve the program delivery and effectiveness we believe we have done this all the we acknowledge additional improvements can be made. the committee will continue to seek and receive technical assistance from the usda. we will continue to work with the statistical terse and we will seek to include in the final conference report a consensus package that and here's to our goals of the overall research title of this

farm bill. >> i thank the german for the commitment to work across party lines and to seek the input and support of the research stakeholders and i yield back. >> i thank the ranking member and believe the gentlelady from alabama seeks recognition. thank you mr. chairman and ranking member peter some degree by a member of the desk that has a colloquy. the amendment number is 28. amendment 28. >> would it would distribute amendment 28 and the gentlelady has recognized for five minutes to explain and began when she prepared. >> thank you mr. tremendous would reverse the provision which adds a new section requires any recipient as a competitive grant and the state specific point research head extension to raise a one-to-one match the funds.

we have a higher education system that is a diverse as the nation and in the one-size-fits-all approach to matching fund requirements we will have a sevier on intended consequences. if this provision makes it into law, it will have a negative and lasting impact on the very institution that we are starting to support. in particular this provision would impact the ability of the small and minority serving institutions from being able to compete on an even playing field. these institutions include many land grant that are historically black colleges and universities such as tuskegee university of alabama a&m and other tribal colleges and universities. all of us represent at least one of these types of schools. for example in my state of alabama, tuskegee university of alabama a&m our institutions the would be adversely affected by the provision. as it stands many small colleges and universities find it challenging to come up with

matching funds or competitive grants went on the already tight budget environment having a goal provisions which provide small and minority serving institutions from fully participating in this process. furthermore, this provision would have a chilling effect on the institutional partnerships between smaller institutions and larger ones. this provision would discourage larger institutions from collaborating with smaller institutions that would be able to be considered as a burden if this provision were able to come into effect because the matching funds would be one to one. finally, given that nearly one-third of all 60 or so competitive grant programs would be affected under this provision including an entity and ash on

agriculture research extension education and economic advisory board to adjudicate the waiver process and all the involved process. mr. chairman, while my amendment is a simple one, i am encouraged by the colloquy that even the ranking member peterson engaged in moments ago. on an ongoing basis we continue to work together to find a fair and workable solution to this issue. i will withdraw my amendment and work with the chairman and the ranking member on a solution to this otherwise an unfair process. thanks. islamic of the gentlelady by unanimous consent revision to the controls the amendment. seeing no objection is withdrawn and the chair would not to the gentlelady we would work together. are there additional amendments on the title number seven? >> the gentleman is recognized

trade estimates put the clerk distribute amendment number 97? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes and may begin the explanation when he is ready. >> thank you again mr. chairman. while the agricultural sector as we all those generally driving i believe we must continue to address one of the long-term challenges its demographics quite simply we need to ensure there are enough young people that are ready to step in when the farmers retire. the average age of the farmer is now 57-years-old and only six to 10% of the farmers are under the age of 35. i am pleased that the underlying legislation takes a number of positive steps to modify and build on existing programs to help overcome the steep financial burdens of setting up an agricultural business to the amendment i am offering to bases to be to offer small but important provisions to the section regarding the beginning farmer and rancher development programs specifically the amendment would maintain the

current 25% matching requirements in the program are concerned that i have been concerned doubling the matching requirement would make it more difficult for governing party and organizations that help directly with farmers and ranchers on the ground to produce a beta program. the amendment, and this is the key, because i have engaged in the further discussion about that problematic portion momentarily the the other portions of the amendment include changes to the grant purposes the draft bill removes. the amendment restores the existing priority to insist in getting in acquiring the land from the retiring farmers and ranchers called land linking. this has been an enjoyable component of many projects funded under this program. i tested land is available for sale or rent is one of the biggest barriers beginning of farmers to be successful projects that have been funded involve partnerships between the state department of agriculture, colleges and universities and other organizations.

these partners collaborate on maintaining the inventory of available land of conducting outreach strategies to the farmers seeking land. also believe that it's important to maintain the grand purpose involving the acquisition and management of agricultural credit. while that is similar to the newly created purpose of financial risk management training, the current purpose should be retained to state explicitly how vitally important it is. many new farmers shays a daunting challenge when it comes to financing the operation and what is required to add to successfully obtained a loan. while general financial and business management strategies are very important to any startup and access to credit is an especially critical factor. the amendment also adds a new grand purpose on agricultural training and rehabilitation programs that benefit and support the returning military veterans that wish to pursue a career. finally mr. sherman the amendment realizes the program

for five years which is a technical problem in the underlying bill. i listened mr. chairman carefully to you and the ranking members colloquy in life and an extensive discussions with your policy. i understand that plucking out and defining 25 matching requirement in one program quite possibly upset all of the deliberate delegations going on in this regard. so i would suggest that awfully am going to ask unanimous consent that i would advise my amendment and a strike the first three lines which would remove the 25% matching requirement from the amendment coming and i would suggest i would hope that he would accept the rest of the amendment. some will the gentleman yield? >> i very much appreciate the sincere efforts and not only crafting language that moves the important goals forward but its willingness to understand the inter complexities of the farm bill. as i am to stand unanimous consent request which would be

to strike the three lines of the beginning of the first page that began with page 380 and once i was stunned and will also be very supportive of the underlying language so as the gentleman have unanimous consent request for me? >> iso unanimous consent that by revising my amendment by striking the first three lines to the estimate is their opposition to this unanimous consent request? >> opposed, no the request is so ordered. >> thank you for the time. >> the gentleman yields back end of the vote is now on the tour improved amendment number -- >> mr. chairman i move to strike the last word to begin on the spirit >> the gentleman's tracks the last word and as recognized. estimate what thank the gentleman from nebraska he's been a long-term support of this, and the more recent members of this committee this is a burden that originated in the last farm bill this

beginning farm in the undermining peace. it has been a highly successful program. it's been both i know myself and mr. fortenberry have kept an eye on this to look at it. it's about this idea not just providing resources to folks making sure they are well trained to do it and follow-up to make sure they understand risk-management. it seems like a kind of pipe to try to get new people on the land because there are a lot of barriers if you are not inheriting or whatever but it is working. we are making some of these available the capitol peace is working the trying on this and actually i have a lot of young folks in our district to have taken advantage of this training and so i'm very appreciative of that. i too understand the difficulty of this but i can't stress enough, and i know you understand mr. chairman and the ranking member i have some very successful organizations channing on risk management land practices that simply are not granted able to hit those people because of that 50%. >>