Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I see the leader is on the Senate floor, and I will defer to him before making a statement about the legislation.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, which we have passed back to the House, with amendments. Hopefully, they will pass it later this evening, and it will be the first time we have gotten this authorization passed and the work that we have been doing for the last 4 years on reforming the Coast Guard's Deepwater Acquisition Program from the mistakes made in the past and setting on a new course will actually become law. As the Presiding Officer knows, the Coast Guard is a vital agency for us in the Pacific Northwest, everything from maritime safety to protecting our environment to our fisheries and the important missions they carry out. Obviously, making sure the Coast Guard has the tools it needs to get the job done is very important. I thank Senators Snowe, Rockefeller, and Hutchison for their hard work and for Members on both sides of the aisle for working on this legislation. I said it has important acquisition reforms, and I wish to mention a few of those because the Deepwater program, with its acquisitions, ran into many problems. First and foremost, the Coast Guard will return to its appropriate competitive procurement practices. This legislation ends what was an industry self-certification process, and it codifies the very rigorous process that the Coast Guard should have with the Major System Acquisition Manual. It establishes the right leadership and oversight for that and, an important aspect, I think, of all procurements related to acquisitions of this size, analyses of alternatives conducted by an independent third party. This legislation also has other important safeguards for oilspill prevention and for fishing vessel safety, as the Presiding Officer knows, because one of the provisions in this legislation is to require a tug escort of double-hulled tanks in Prince William Sound, something the Presiding Officer, the Senators from Alaska, Mr. Begich and Ms. Murkowski, asked be included in the bill. This is important legislation, as we can see from the gulf incident and from incidents before. We obviously have to have large vessels escorted in and out of sensitive areas. I appreciate the leadership of the Senators from Alaska on this legislation. It also adds new protections to the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary off the State of Washington, making sure it is protected from vessels that pose an oilspill threat. It also extends the important oilspill response assets through Washington's very vulnerable Strait of Juan de Fuca making sure that it, too, is more protected and has more resources to deal with incidents in the case of oilspills. Finally, there is a new requirement for fishing vessel safety designed to protect the life and welfare of those fishermen who risk their lives to bring seafood to our tables. It requires that large fishing vessels get a safety certification from independent third parties, and it mandates that smaller fishing vessels meet the same Coast Guard safety standards as recreation vessels. This is important because we know our fishing vessels take great risk in providing catch to us in the product they bring to market. But it is important we do so in a safe and responsible fashion. Having this type of independent safety requirements will be much needed. It allows the Alaska-Washington pollock fleet to replace their boats to help meet the new safety standards. As the President knows, the fishing fleets for Washington and Alaska are large operations. The pollock fishery alone is over a billion-dollar industry. Making sure these vessels operate in a safe manner is critical for our industries to continue to succeed. I thank the Presiding Officer for his input and for my colleagues on the Coast Guard Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee and the committee at large for their help in getting this legislation passed. As I said, it has been nearly 4 years in the making to get this important legislation through Congress. It comes at a time when we continue to want the Coast Guard to have the best resources to meet the missions and requirements of their job but to do their acquisition in a responsible way, to right the wrongs that has been in the Coast Guard acquisition process at the beginning of the Deepwater program, to make sure there is oversight and third-party evaluation of that, and to make sure, as I said, that this bill establishes new laws on oilspill prevention and on fishing vessel safety so we can continue to operate in these pristine waters in a safe and effective manner. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will unleash a wave of investment in clean renewable energy. The Clean Renewable Energy Investment Act of 2010 will remove the arbitrary cap on the amount of Clean Renewable Energy Bonds that can be issued by our Nation's consumer-owned public power providers and cooperative electric companies. This legislation will generate significant private investment in renewable energy projects that will create thousands of jobs nationwide. Congress first created Clean Renewable Energy Bonds, or ``CREBs'' in 2005 in an attempt to parallel the tax incentive offered by the Section 45 tax credit for electricity produced from renewable resources. However, the incentives for consumer-owned utilities have never been truly comparable to the subsidy we provide to for-profit, investor- owned utilities because unlike the section 45 tax credit, CREBs have always been subject to an overall cap on the amount of bonds that can be issued nationwide. Since consumer-owned utilities operate on a not-for-profit basis and incur no Federal income tax liability, traditional production tax credits otherwise available to for-profit utilities simply do not work--because there is no Federal tax liability to offset with the credit. Yet the nearly 3,000 public power utilities and rural electric cooperatives collectively serve 25 percent of the Nation's electricity customers. These utilities are often ideally situated in terms of both geography and size to integrate clean and renewable technologies into their systems. The original CREB program has been extended twice and was modified in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to make it more workable for public power and more attractive to institutional investors. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided for an additional $2.4 billion in CREB funding split equally between public power providers, rural electric cooperatives, and other governmental bodies. In March 2010, Congress passed another very useful modification to the CREB program by giving issuers of CREBs the option to issue the bonds as ``direct-pay bonds'', similar to the structure of Build America Bonds. In the last round of CREBs, the demand for projects significantly exceeded the availability of the limited $800 million for each category of issuer. Public power and electric cooperative utilities have billions of dollars in projects awaiting these incentives--with some even having the potential to use $800 million for a single project if given the opportunity. This means we have an opportunity to unleash a wave of investments in clean energy. In Washington State, 50 percent of customers are served by public power providers. Nationwide, public power and cooperatives serve one in four electricity customers. Yet, if we look back over the history of the Section 45 tax credit and CREBs, Congress typically shortchanges the consumer-owned sector. Looking at the Joint Committee on Taxations estimates of the cost of all the major energy tax legislation since 2005, the resources allocated to CREBs have been roughly \1/10\ of the cost of extending or expanding, section 45. My legislation would correct this inconsistency in our energy policy by removing the arbitrary cap on the volume of CREBs that can be issued, and would instead sunset the CREB program at the end of 2013, which is consistent with the expiration of most components of the section 45 credit. It would also remove the ``governmental bodies'' category from eligibility for the bonds. The CREB program was originally developed for utility-scale projects and this amendment reflects that intent and puts the program in line with the Production Tax Credit for investor- owned utilities. Since passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Governmental bodies now have their own bond program. They are eligible for the new Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds, QECBs, which is a more suitable program for these entities as they can finance both renewable and energy efficiency projects with QECBs. Under this legislation, Tribal utilities would remain eligible issuers of CREBs. In addition, the bill clarifies that any reimbursement with bond proceeds is governed by the reimbursement rules applicable to tax- exempt bonds. It is widely recognized in the public finance community that the existing wording in Section 54A(d)(2)(D) is at best unclear, and at worst incorrect. State and local government issuers of bonds are familiar with the reimbursement rules applicable to tax-exempt bonds and there is no tax policy reason to have two sets of reimbursement rules. Finally, the bill insures that any new CREBs allocated before the date of enactment of this bill are not affected by any of these amendments. The intent is to ensure that the ``government bodies'' category is still able to issue previously allocated CREBs and will not be retroactively cut out of the program. This bill is good energy policy because it will lead to the development of thousands of megawatts of renewable power. It is good tax policy because it maintains the integrity of the CREBs program, and it is overall good public policy because it provides parity between investor-owned and consumer-owned utilities.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will unleash a wave of investment in clean renewable energy. The Clean Renewable Energy Investment Act of 2010 will remove the arbitrary cap on the amount of Clean Renewable Energy Bonds that can be issued by our Nation's consumer-owned public power providers and cooperative electric companies. This legislation will generate significant private investment in renewable energy projects that will create thousands of jobs nationwide. Congress first created Clean Renewable Energy Bonds, or ``CREBs'' in 2005 in an attempt to parallel the tax incentive offered by the Section 45 tax credit for electricity produced from renewable resources. However, the incentives for consumer-owned utilities have never been truly comparable to the subsidy we provide to for-profit, investor- owned utilities because unlike the section 45 tax credit, CREBs have always been subject to an overall cap on the amount of bonds that can be issued nationwide. Since consumer-owned utilities operate on a not-for-profit basis and incur no Federal income tax liability, traditional production tax credits otherwise available to for-profit utilities simply do not work--because there is no Federal tax liability to offset with the credit. Yet the nearly 3,000 public power utilities and rural electric cooperatives collectively serve 25 percent of the Nation's electricity customers. These utilities are often ideally situated in terms of both geography and size to integrate clean and renewable technologies into their systems. The original CREB program has been extended twice and was modified in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to make it more workable for public power and more attractive to institutional investors. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided for an additional $2.4 billion in CREB funding split equally between public power providers, rural electric cooperatives, and other governmental bodies. In March 2010, Congress passed another very useful modification to the CREB program by giving issuers of CREBs the option to issue the bonds as ``direct-pay bonds'', similar to the structure of Build America Bonds. In the last round of CREBs, the demand for projects significantly exceeded the availability of the limited $800 million for each category of issuer. Public power and electric cooperative utilities have billions of dollars in projects awaiting these incentives--with some even having the potential to use $800 million for a single project if given the opportunity. This means we have an opportunity to unleash a wave of investments in clean energy. In Washington State, 50 percent of customers are served by public power providers. Nationwide, public power and cooperatives serve one in four electricity customers. Yet, if we look back over the history of the Section 45 tax credit and CREBs, Congress typically shortchanges the consumer-owned sector. Looking at the Joint Committee on Taxations estimates of the cost of all the major energy tax legislation since 2005, the resources allocated to CREBs have been roughly \1/10\ of the cost of extending or expanding, section 45. My legislation would correct this inconsistency in our energy policy by removing the arbitrary cap on the volume of CREBs that can be issued, and would instead sunset the CREB program at the end of 2013, which is consistent with the expiration of most components of the section 45 credit. It would also remove the ``governmental bodies'' category from eligibility for the bonds. The CREB program was originally developed for utility-scale projects and this amendment reflects that intent and puts the program in line with the Production Tax Credit for investor- owned utilities. Since passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Governmental bodies now have their own bond program. They are eligible for the new Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds, QECBs, which is a more suitable program for these entities as they can finance both renewable and energy efficiency projects with QECBs. Under this legislation, Tribal utilities would remain eligible issuers of CREBs. In addition, the bill clarifies that any reimbursement with bond proceeds is governed by the reimbursement rules applicable to tax- exempt bonds. It is widely recognized in the public finance community that the existing wording in Section 54A(d)(2)(D) is at best unclear, and at worst incorrect. State and local government issuers of bonds are familiar with the reimbursement rules applicable to tax-exempt bonds and there is no tax policy reason to have two sets of reimbursement rules. Finally, the bill insures that any new CREBs allocated before the date of enactment of this bill are not affected by any of these amendments. The intent is to ensure that the ``government bodies'' category is still able to issue previously allocated CREBs and will not be retroactively cut out of the program. This bill is good energy policy because it will lead to the development of thousands of megawatts of renewable power. It is good tax policy because it maintains the integrity of the CREBs program, and it is overall good public policy because it provides parity between investor-owned and consumer-owned utilities.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I know we will be voting soon on these issues and moving forward on the small business legislation. That is what we are really here to do today, to pass legislation that is going to help Main Street. This is a bill that is long overdue. I know once a train is leaving the station, once legislation has cleared the hurdles and is going to pass, a lot of people want to then add other things onto that legislation. Those are some of the issues being discussed here this morning. But the important thing is not to hold up legislation for small businesses one more day. Let's not delay the need that Main Street has to get access to capital to help small businesses grow our economy. In Washington State, we have lost thousands of jobs. Yet if every small business in Washington State had the ability to hire one person as a result of getting access to capital, we would nearly wipe out our unemployment since this recession. It is critical for us not to delay this legislation any further, to move it ahead, and to make sure we are getting capital into those small businesses. I know some of my colleagues have critiqued this legislation, saying they will not support it. I know we have had at least two Members on the other side who support this legislation moving forward. So, yes, I do call that bipartisan. I appreciate the fact that those two legislators had enough courage to say this was important to their constituents. In the August recess, they listened to small businesses, and they knew this was important to get done. There is a lot of misinformation out there in the eleventh hour about how perhaps certain people weren't supportive of the legislation. My colleague from Oregon has a list that keeps growing every single day. It is now four or five pages of different organizations that support moving forward on this legislation. I haven't heard any of them advocating that we hold it up one more day or send it back to the committee to add more things to it. No doubt the discussion we are having about the extenders package of other policies should happen. If we get more bipartisan support, we will get those things done and we won't have them held up. But if we go back to this basic issue we are trying to address, it is really about the implosion that happened on Wall Street that took Main Street down with it and about correcting that and moving forward today in a way that will help small business help our economy recover. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will look at this bill overall, look at the tax credits given to small businesses, the fact that the depreciation rates in investment in new manufacturing and equipment can help small businesses be competitive, and that they will look at the expansion of the SBA programs that were enthusiastically endorsed by lots of different organizations--by banks, by lenders, by individual businesses--because they know that program that was enhanced in January to help give more flexibility was a huge success. When it expired in June, we saw a falloff in the type of investment and job creation we need to have. This is about a philosophy. If my colleagues think our economy is about helping those huge businesses at the top or from Wall Street and that is somehow going to trickle down, then let's just keep doing business as usual. But if Members believe this is about helping small businesses grow, which is 75 percent of job growth in America, then let's get this bill off the floor today and get this legislation passed. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise to join my colleague, the Senator from Louisiana, the Chair of the Small Business Committee, and my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley, to talk about the very important issue that, frankly, you could say you probably heard a lot about from us before we left. But along with my colleague, Senator Murray, and I am sure others, such as Senator Boxer, we all went home and heard from our constituents about this issue and we heard about how critical it is that we pass this legislation. I find it interesting that the pundits are all debating whether this will have a political effect on the election. I can guarantee you the focus of this legislation has not been, for any of us, about the election but about helping small business. When Wall Street imploded nearly 2 years ago--2 years ago--is when small business needed our help and support, and many of us have been arguing literally this entire legislative calendar year to pass this legislation, only to have hurdle after hurdle put in front of us or naysayers who say it can't be done. So I truly hope we are on the precipice of passing this legislation because it is so critical for job creation in America. I know my colleagues have gone over these numbers, but to be specific about it again one more time, because this is from the Department of Commerce, small businesses account for 60 to 75 percent of new job creation. So we can talk about all the ideas we want to have about how to get out of this economic nightmare, and we can talk about various policies that are going to help us stimulate the economy, but the bottom line is that job growth by the private sector is going to help our economy, and that has to have a focus on small business. What has happened to us instead, as you can see by this chart, which shows small business lending basically from 2008 to 2009, is that we had an economic crisis. We know that lending in general went down, but we see that small business lending went down even more dramatically. The consequence of that has been our engine of economic growth for job creation--small business--has been cut off. We have seen lending from large banks to large institutions, and some of those institutions are doing the hiring, but they are not the basic driver of job growth in America. So this is what we are trying to right. We are trying to correct the fact that these small businesses have not had access to capital. I know my colleague Senator Murray and I went to a restaurant in Seattle, a pizzeria that is very popular, and met with many small business people there. But this particular owner, Joe Fugere, who has a wonderful business, basically had opened four restaurants and then went to get more capital during this downturn and basically was told no, it is too big of a risk. He said: Honestly, I was shocked and deeply offended. I had a healthy profitable business, a blemish-free history of paying all my loans on time, in full. And now I was being told that I was risky. . . . After the decisions that were made on Wall Street and their risky activity. In the end, Joe did everything he could with personal appeals. He worked with community bankers, and finally got his loan and then opened his new restaurant which now employs 75 people. Joe was not the risk. Joe did not participate in risky derivative activities on Wall Street. He did not cook up this scheme. Yet here we are, 2 years later, finally coming to the aid and support of small businesses. I heard many stories of this when I was at home, many small businesses that basically said I hope people on the other side of the aisle can set aside their differences and help get this legislation passed; that we need to do more. I know many of you may have seen today the report that was put out by the Joint Economic Committee, ``Small Business Employment: Bank Lending Restrains Job Creation.'' Basically the summation of this, and I will read from the report, is that it found that as a result of ``tight lending standards facing small businesses, hiring at small firms continued to decline in 2009 and the early part of 2010, while hiring by largest establishments, which had wider access to credit, began to pick up. . . .'' It is clear that small business hiring still remains flat. The question is what are we going to do about it? It is not about November 2, it is about whether you support giving access to capital to small businesses that had capital choked off from them because of the activities of Wall Street. I clearly support and respect the engine of our economy that small businesses represent. I hope people will put their differences aside. I appreciate my colleague from Ohio, Senator Voinovich, for his leadership, for his advocacy, for listening to the facts on this issue and understanding that these are the people who will help us out of this situation and certainly were not the ones who got us into it. I hope we will move forward on this legislation and this week we will pass it. I do not expect things to change overnight but I do expect this: for this Congress--for the Senate, for the House--to say where our priorities are and to say where leveraged access to capital can stimulate job growth in our economy. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I express my strong support for the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be the next Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. A trailblazer in many ways, Solicitor Kagan was the first female to serve as Solicitor General of the United States and the first female Dean of Harvard Law School, one of the most prestigious legal educational institutions in our Nation. Her nomination as Solicitor General garnered the bipartisan support of every Solicitor General who served from 1985 to 2009, including Charles Fried, Ken Starr, Drew Days, Walter Dellinger, Seth Waxman, Ted Olson, Paul Clement, and Greg Garre, a testament to her ability to build bridges across partisan lines and her fidelity to law above politics. Solicitor Kagan brings a wealth of historic legal experience to the position of Associate Justice, including serving as law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American to serve on the Supreme Court, working as an associate at the law firm of Williams & Connolly, teaching as a law professor at the University of Chicago and Harvard University, and acting as policy counsel to President Clinton and special counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee. In these capacities she handled legal and policy issues ranging from public health, to education, to war crimes, to campaign finance and welfare. Solicitor Kagan's experience with different branches of government equips her with a unique perspective on the law and the challenges the Court will face in the coming years. Her confirmation honors the legacy of Justice John Paul Stevens, the outgoing Justice, who was well known for his service of dignity and intellect, without regard for partisan divides. If we confirm her--and I am confident we will--Solicitor Kagan will be only the fourth woman in history to serve on the Supreme Court, and will be the third woman to sit on the current Court, the highest number of female justices to serve at one time. Solicitor Kagan's confirmation will be an inspiration for generations of female lawyers and legal scholars to come, and will make an indelible impression on this country's legal landscape. Today, women comprise only 19.2 percent of federal district court judgeships, and 20 percent of federal appellate judgeships, highlighting the need for increased gender representation on our Nation's highest courts. Solicitor Kagan's confirmation is only a step towards reducing this gender disparity in our Nation's judiciary. I followed closely Solicitor Kagan's hearings, and I am impressed by Solicitor Kagan's commitment to respect the rule of law. The hearings for Solicitor Kagan, who testified for more than 17 hours and answered over 540 questions, were thorough and fair. In her opening statement, Solicitor Kagan observed that, ``the Supreme Court's role in our society is to act as a safeguard to the rule of law by maintaining a commitment to impartiality, principle, and restraint; and the role of a Supreme Court justice is to approach each case with even-handedness and fair-mindedness, to ensure that everyone who comes before the Court receives a fair shake.'' Solicitor Kagan also expressed her admiration for Justice Thurgood Marshal; under whom she clerked, for his view of the Supreme Court as a means of access to justice for those left without redress after unfair treatment. Her expressed judicial philosophy of impartiality and fairness, to individuals of all classes, income levels, and interests, is a critical component to the High Court in a climate where we see increasing judicial activeness and partiality to special interests. Solicitor Kagan's experiences as a scholar and policy advisor unquestionably qualify her for a position on the Supreme Court. I find it disingenuous that several of my conservative colleagues have attacked Solicitor Kagan's lack of judicial experience. The last two of the previous four chief justices of the Supreme Court, William Rehnquist and Earl Warren, had no judicial experience when first nominated to the Court. Nor did, Felix Frankfurter, Louis Brandeis, and John Marshall, known as the ``Great Chief Justice.'' Over one-third of the past 111 Supreme Court justices had no judicial experience when they were first nominated. Rather than being a product of the judicial monastery, Solicitor Kagan brings a real world perspective on the role of a justice, with a view to the practical contexts and implications of the Court's decisions. Solicitor Kagan's two decades of experience working in every branch of government exceptionally qualify her as an Associate Justice, and as one of the top legal thinkers in the country. My conservative colleagues have also criticized Solicitor Kagan's enforcement of Harvard Law School's anti-discrimination policy. Solicitor Kagan did not assert her own personal agenda and oppose military recruitment on campus, as several of my colleagues have alleged. Instead, as Dean, Kagan was charged with enforcing an anti- discrimination policy in effect at Harvard since 1979 that prevented organizations discriminating against selected individuals from recruiting through the school's office of career services. Kagan's enforcement of this policy was consistent with her predecessors, Dean Robert Clark and Harvard President Larry Summers. However, Kagan ensured that military recruiters still had access to students. Kagan noted, ``[M]ilitary recruiters had access to Harvard students every single day I was dean . . . I'm confident that the military had access to our students and our students had access to the military throughout my entire deanship.'' Solicitor Kagan's work to ensure student access demonstrates her support of our military and her encouragement of the brightest students' involvement in our Armed Services. Solicitor's Kagan's widespread support is a testament to her impact on not only her colleagues and peers, but also upon a large number of those in the legal profession. The American Bar Association, after conducting an investigation over several weeks that included peer reviews, concluded that Solicitor Kagan merited its highest rating of unanimously ``well qualified.'' To merit the Committee's rating of ``well qualified,'' a Supreme Court nominee must be a preeminent member of the legal profession, have outstanding legal ability and exceptional breadth of experience, and meet the very highest standards of integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament. In addition, Solicitor Kagan has received support from Democrats and Republicans and a range of civil rights, non-profit, and advocacy organizations, including the National Women's Law Center, the National Partnership for Women and Families, Earthjustice, the American Bar Association, the Alliance for Justice, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Association of Women Judges, the Hispanic Bar Association, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (LCCR). Solicitor Kagan is also endorsed by her colleagues in academia, and a group of over sixty-nine law school deans across the country expressed their written support for her nomination to the Senate Judiciary Committee in a June 15, 2010 letter. Her supporters also include her former students, including one, a former law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, who called Solicitor Kagan, ``a person of utmost integrity, extraordinary legal talent and relentless generosity.'' Solicitor Kagan's intellectual aptitude and commitment to justice was demonstrated early in her life. She was born in New York City, NY, the daughter of a school teacher and a public housing lawyer. She graduated from Princeton University, received a Masters in Philosophy from Worcestor College of Oxford University, and received her law degree magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. She then clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall, was an associate with Williams & Connolly, and then counsel to President Clinton, as Associate Counsel, Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, and Deputy Director for the Domestic Policy Counsel. She led the Clinton administration's inter-agency effort to analyze all legal and regulatory aspects of the Attorney General's tobacco settlement and then participated actively in the development and congressional consideration of tobacco legislation. She also handled legislative issues involving constitutional issues, including separation of powers, governmental privileges, freedom of expression, and church-state relations. As Dean of Harvard Law School, she joined other deans in opposing an amendment to strip the courts of the power to review detention practices, treatment and adjudications of guilt and punishment for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This reflects a fair view, with an eye to checks and balances on different branches of government. In her first case as Solicitor General, Solicitor Kagan argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of the government in the Citizens United v. FEC case. As Solicitor Kagan notes, however, her role as Solicitor General was to argue on behalf of the country, not to advance her personal beliefs. In my meeting with her, Solicitor Kagan confirmed her commitment to protecting the right to privacy enshrined in our Constitution. I believe she will preserve that right. Solicitor Kagan is uniquely qualified to serve as Associate Justice because she not only possesses an impressive intellectual capacity and commitment to fairness, but also because she is committed equal justice. As she remarked in her opening statement, ``Equal Justice under the Law. It means that everyone who comes before the Court-- regardless of wealth or power or station--receives the same process and the same protections . . .'' Solicitor Kagan demonstrates a readiness to serve on our Nation's Highest Court and I am confident that she will make a fine justice who will not only uphold the Constitution and legal precedent of the country, but continue to preserve one of the most treasured tenets of our legal system, equal access to justice for all Americans.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I thank the chair of the Small Business Committee for her continued advocacy on this issue. It is so important for us to help small businesses; that is, if you believe they are the engine of economic growth for our economy, as I do, and as I think the chairwoman of the Small Business Committee does. We know 75 percent of new job creation comes from small business. So we can continue to talk about the economy, we can continue to debate it or we can get down to the business of helping small business, as this bill does by outlining three principal programs: tax credits for small businesses on depreciation to make new investments; an enhancement of the 7(a) and 504 loan programs, which are successful programs for lending to small businesses where their capital has fallen off because the program ended in June, so we basically have a lot less money for small businesses; and a small business lending program that could help small businesses grow and help our economy at this critical point in time. We are here tonight because we only have a few days left, but the chair of the Small Business Committee is not giving up on this issue and neither am I. I am saying it is important enough for us to stay and make sure we get this legislation passed because we want to grow small businesses. I know my newspaper, the Seattle Times, had this to say: ``Nothing should be more nonpartisan than putting people back to work.'' I think that says it all. If you are down to this, a program that could help grow small businesses, why would you be partisan at a time when our economy has huge unemployment and we have had such stagnant growth? Why would you continue being partisan instead of passing this legislation? In fact, I haven't actually heard people on the other side say if we got through the cloture motion that they wouldn't support this legislation. No one has come to the floor and said: I will not support this legislation with this language in it. In fact, we have kind of had people indicate the opposite. So if that is the case, let's have the votes. Let's vote on this legislation and let's put people back to work. One of the important things I wish to talk about is this small business bill is a lending program. As somebody said to me today: When you can't figure out how to stop something, then make up something that it isn't and claim that it is. That is exactly what has been going on, on the other side. They can't figure out a reason why they do not like this, but if they can pretend it is TARP-like, then maybe they have a chance of defeating it. Well, this is not TARP-like. This is a small business lending fund, which is a voluntary program for small businesses, and it uses community banks as a conduit. So it is literally, if you will, similar to 7(a) and 504 programs in the sense that they are designed primarily to get capital to small business. Those two programs are direct lending programs that help with the partnership of banks, and this is a program we are creating--the Small Business Lending Fund--that helps, especially given that during this huge economic downturn, two-thirds of job losses in America since 2008, because of the implosion, have impacted small business the most. So when we look at all the job losses from 2008 to 2010, 81 percent of them are from small businesses. So we can either design a program that is about helping to get capital to small businesses and move our economy forward or we can go home for the August recess and say we took partisan votes. I am for trying to solve this problem. What this is not is a TARP bill. I love the comparison people make, because I didn't support the TARP legislation. But just by comparison, TARP was an open-ended bailout of Wall Street firms. It basically was the U.S. Government buying toxic assets. That is what it was. I call it, at times, a blank check, and being able to say no strings attached to firms that were failing and then actually get assistance from the government. In fact, if you look at it more specifically, TARP was an open-ended bailout. It basically said: Here are the resources--targeted at Wall Street. It bought toxic assets. The banks weren't viable. They basically got the revenue because people were concerned they were failing. Today's estimates are--we don't know what tomorrow's estimates will be--that it basically cost the taxpayers $100 billion. So none of these things are what the Small Business Lending Fund is. The Small Business Lending Fund isn't a bailout, it isn't targeted at Wall Street, it doesn't buy toxic assets, it is not for banks that are not viable, and it doesn't cost the taxpayers any money. So the other side is just trying to say this because they do not have anything else to say about this program. What they need to be able to do is to explain to their constituents why we have lost so many jobs with small businesses and we don't have a proposal on the table to help grow small businesses. But I will tell you what this Small Business Lending Fund is: It is a program that is lending to small businesses, it is targeted at Main Street, it increases lending instead of buying toxic assets. TARP was just about buying toxic assets. This is about saying to banks: Show us a plan. If you have a plan on how you are going to increase lending to small businesses, then we will give you access to capital. So nothing could be further from the way TARP worked. TARP bought toxic assets and bailed out banks with no strings attached, and this is a lending program. The banks have to be healthy and viable. Nobody asked AIG or Citigroup or Goldman Sachs if they were viable. They just wrote a check. In fact, here you have to prove you are viable. This actually saves taxpayers money; that is, in essence, the Federal Government is going to be making loans available to small businesses and they will have to pay for that access to capital. That payment back to us is expected to generate over $1 billion. So nothing could be further from the truth in how these two programs work. The bottom line is back to that small business job loss and how we are going to actually increase job growth for the future. I actually think this number is quite significant for our economy and that if we want to help small business, we will get them capital. One banker from my State sent a message to me and said this: We would absolutely use the funds for small business lending. Our bank has a backlog of $50 million to $70 million of loan requests, which is counter to statements of soft loan demand. We have reduced our lending to preserve capital as expected by the regulators. They did that because that is what regulators expected. He went on to say: This legislation would give us the capital to significantly increase lending. That is a banker from my State. So that is what they are up against. They know this program will help them with the backlog of requests they have and the requirements they also have from regulators to keep capital and to have reserves. So this is about getting small business lending flowing. When we think about the fact that this will generate, as some people say, an estimated $300 billion of stimulus to our economy, it is critical we get this program going. We have experienced six straight quarters of decline in overall commercial and industrial lending, and the total cumulative decline in the fourth quarter from 2008 until 2010 of March of this year has been a 20-percent drop--over $315 billion taken out of our economy. So we can do something in the next couple days, if my colleagues will show the dedication of breaking partisan gridlock and also the commitment to stay here to get this legislation done. We can start to give hope to small businesses. My colleague mentioned all the small business organizations that support this legislation. I would like to point out, some people say this might be about banks or it might be about community organizations. It is not. We are working with them because this program is designed to use them as a conduit, but we are tonight talking about this because we are talking about small businesses. We are talking about the gentleman from Mississippi who sent a letter to the chairwoman. We are talking about people who do not have a hired lobbyist back here representing them to go up and down the halls. They are depending on us. We have heard these stories throughout America, of businesses not getting access to capital, of people having performing loans cut right out from under them, of people who had a bank that was basically providing small business capital who cut that access to capital and they had to do all sorts of things to keep their businesses going. We can continue to have job loss in America or we can start creating jobs and do so by investing in small businesses. I hope we will get this legislation moving in the next 2 days; that we will be able to basically overcome the partisan gridlock. As the Seattle Times said, ``There is nothing that should be more nonpartisan than putting people back to work.'' I could not agree more. So I hope we get this legislation passed in the next 2 days. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to end the use of Great Apes in invasive research and urge my Senate colleagues to support the Great Ape Protection Act. The Great Ape Protection Act would prohibit invasive research on all Great Apes, including chimpanzees--the only Great Ape used in invasive research today. The bill would require the retirement of 500 federally- owned chimpanzees to appropriate sanctuaries. Today about 1,000 chimpanzees--half of them federally owned--languish at great taxpayer expense in 6 research laboratories across the nation. These chimpanzees are being held or used for invasive biomedical research, research that may cause death, bodily injury, pain, distress, fear, and trauma. Invasive research practices include techniques such as injecting a chimpanzee with a drug that would be detrimental to its health, infecting a chimp with a disease, cutting a chimp or removing body parts, and isolation or social deprivation. The vast majority of these animals--between 80 and 90 percent--aren't actually being used in research, but instead are warehoused, simply wasting away in these facilities. For example, approximately half of the government-owned chimpanzees have been held for the past 9 years in a facility in New Mexico where no research is being conducted. Some chimpanzees have been in labs for more than 50 years, confined in steel cages for most of their lives and enduring sometimes painful and distressing experimental procedures. The fact that the vast majority of federally-owned chimpanzees are not being used in active research, but instead are warehoused in labs at the taxpayer expense, underlines the futility of their continued confinement. Chimpanzees are poor research models for human illness, and they have been of limited use in the study of human disease. Despite how similar they are to us, significant differences in their immunology and disease progression make them ineffective models for human diseases like HIV, cancer and heart disease research. For example, research published in the Journal of Medical Primatology in 2009 on Hepatitis C indicates that use of chimpanzees has produced poor results. And the National Center for Research Resources under the National Institutes of Health has prohibited breeding of government- owned and supported chimpanzees for research. Significant genetic and physiological differences between nonhuman Great Apes and humans also make chimpanzees a poor research model for human diseases. We have spent millions of dollars over several decades on chimpanzee-based HIV and Hepatitis C research with no resulting vaccines for those diseases. Chimpanzees largely failed as a model for HIV because the virus does not cause illness in chimpanzees as it does to humans. These are very social, highly intelligent animals--with the ability, for example, to learn American Sign Language. Their intelligence and ability to experience emotions so similar to humans underscore how chimpanzees suffer intensely under laboratory conditions. Their psychological suffering in laboratories produces human-like symptoms of stress, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder after decades of living in isolation in small cages. Given their social nature and capacity for suffering and boredom due to lack of stimulation, the 500 privately-owned chimpanzees and 500 federally-owned chimpanzees being held in research laboratories would be significantly better off in sanctuaries. And by doing so we would save more than $170 million taxpayer dollars throughout the chimpanzees' lifetimes. This is because the cost of caring for a chimpanzee in a sanctuary is a fraction of the cost of their housing and maintenance in a laboratory. And many in the scientific community believe this money could be allocated to more effective research. In my home State of Washington, I am proud that we have Chimpanzee Sanctuary Northwest. Chimpanzee-Sanctuary Northwest provides sustainable sanctuary for seven chimpanzees retired in 2008 from decades in research facilities. The United States is currently behind the rest of the world in outlawing this sad practice. Australia, Austria, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom have all banned or severely limited experiments on Great Apes. And several other countries and the European Union are considering similar bans as well. We are the only country--besides Gabon in West Africa--that is still holding or using chimpanzees for invasive research. It's past time for the United States to catch up with the rest of the world by ending this antiquated use of this endangered species. We are lagging behind in action, but the desire to end invasive research on Great Apes has been present for more than a decade. In 1997, the National Research Council concluded that there should be a moratorium on further chimpanzee breeding. And the National Institutes of Health, NIH, has already announced an end to funding for the breeding of federally-owned and supported chimpanzees for research, but this should be codified. Government needs to take action to make invasive research on chimpanzees illegal. That is why today I am introducing the Bipartisan Great Ape Protection Act, along with my colleagues Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont. The Great Ape Protection Act is a common-sense policy reform to protect our closest living relatives in the animal kingdom from physical and psychological harm, and to help reduce government spending and our federal deficit. Specifically, this bill will phase out the use of chimpanzees in invasive research over a three-year period, require permanent retirement to suitable sanctuaries for the 500 federally-owned chimpanzees currently being warehoused in research laboratories, and codifies the current administrative ban on breeding of Government-owned and supported chimpanzees. We have been delaying this action for too long. It is time to get this done and end this type of harmful research and end this wasteful Government spending.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to end the use of Great Apes in invasive research and urge my Senate colleagues to support the Great Ape Protection Act. The Great Ape Protection Act would prohibit invasive research on all Great Apes, including chimpanzees--the only Great Ape used in invasive research today. The bill would require the retirement of 500 federally- owned chimpanzees to appropriate sanctuaries. Today about 1,000 chimpanzees--half of them federally owned--languish at great taxpayer expense in 6 research laboratories across the nation. These chimpanzees are being held or used for invasive biomedical research, research that may cause death, bodily injury, pain, distress, fear, and trauma. Invasive research practices include techniques such as injecting a chimpanzee with a drug that would be detrimental to its health, infecting a chimp with a disease, cutting a chimp or removing body parts, and isolation or social deprivation. The vast majority of these animals--between 80 and 90 percent--aren't actually being used in research, but instead are warehoused, simply wasting away in these facilities. For example, approximately half of the government-owned chimpanzees have been held for the past 9 years in a facility in New Mexico where no research is being conducted. Some chimpanzees have been in labs for more than 50 years, confined in steel cages for most of their lives and enduring sometimes painful and distressing experimental procedures. The fact that the vast majority of federally-owned chimpanzees are not being used in active research, but instead are warehoused in labs at the taxpayer expense, underlines the futility of their continued confinement. Chimpanzees are poor research models for human illness, and they have been of limited use in the study of human disease. Despite how similar they are to us, significant differences in their immunology and disease progression make them ineffective models for human diseases like HIV, cancer and heart disease research. For example, research published in the Journal of Medical Primatology in 2009 on Hepatitis C indicates that use of chimpanzees has produced poor results. And the National Center for Research Resources under the National Institutes of Health has prohibited breeding of government- owned and supported chimpanzees for research. Significant genetic and physiological differences between nonhuman Great Apes and humans also make chimpanzees a poor research model for human diseases. We have spent millions of dollars over several decades on chimpanzee-based HIV and Hepatitis C research with no resulting vaccines for those diseases. Chimpanzees largely failed as a model for HIV because the virus does not cause illness in chimpanzees as it does to humans. These are very social, highly intelligent animals--with the ability, for example, to learn American Sign Language. Their intelligence and ability to experience emotions so similar to humans underscore how chimpanzees suffer intensely under laboratory conditions. Their psychological suffering in laboratories produces human-like symptoms of stress, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder after decades of living in isolation in small cages. Given their social nature and capacity for suffering and boredom due to lack of stimulation, the 500 privately-owned chimpanzees and 500 federally-owned chimpanzees being held in research laboratories would be significantly better off in sanctuaries. And by doing so we would save more than $170 million taxpayer dollars throughout the chimpanzees' lifetimes. This is because the cost of caring for a chimpanzee in a sanctuary is a fraction of the cost of their housing and maintenance in a laboratory. And many in the scientific community believe this money could be allocated to more effective research. In my home State of Washington, I am proud that we have Chimpanzee Sanctuary Northwest. Chimpanzee-Sanctuary Northwest provides sustainable sanctuary for seven chimpanzees retired in 2008 from decades in research facilities. The United States is currently behind the rest of the world in outlawing this sad practice. Australia, Austria, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom have all banned or severely limited experiments on Great Apes. And several other countries and the European Union are considering similar bans as well. We are the only country--besides Gabon in West Africa--that is still holding or using chimpanzees for invasive research. It's past time for the United States to catch up with the rest of the world by ending this antiquated use of this endangered species. We are lagging behind in action, but the desire to end invasive research on Great Apes has been present for more than a decade. In 1997, the National Research Council concluded that there should be a moratorium on further chimpanzee breeding. And the National Institutes of Health, NIH, has already announced an end to funding for the breeding of federally-owned and supported chimpanzees for research, but this should be codified. Government needs to take action to make invasive research on chimpanzees illegal. That is why today I am introducing the Bipartisan Great Ape Protection Act, along with my colleagues Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont. The Great Ape Protection Act is a common-sense policy reform to protect our closest living relatives in the animal kingdom from physical and psychological harm, and to help reduce government spending and our federal deficit. Specifically, this bill will phase out the use of chimpanzees in invasive research over a three-year period, require permanent retirement to suitable sanctuaries for the 500 federally-owned chimpanzees currently being warehoused in research laboratories, and codifies the current administrative ban on breeding of Government-owned and supported chimpanzees. We have been delaying this action for too long. It is time to get this done and end this type of harmful research and end this wasteful Government spending.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Landrieu, for her fight and vigor today, trying to break a logjam here on the Senate floor and to pass important small business legislation. When you think of Louisiana and you think of the Saints, you think of the people there who have such spirit. If there were a time in our country's history when small business ever needed a patron saint, it was at the crisis of 2008. Senator Landrieu and the Small Business Committee have become a leader and voice for small business in America. I thank her for that, for that same fight she put into making sure her constituents received help and support in the post-Katrina catastrophe, the same fight she displays now, making sure the gulf is addressed and that there are resources put in for cleanup. She is putting up that same fight for the millions of Americans who are trying to get access to capital for their small businesses. We are only talking about three basic things in this bill, all to help small business. We are talking about tax credits to make sure that items such as equipment and machinery get some little support so small businesses will make some more investments. We are talking about tried and true programs such as the 7(a) loan program and the 504 loan program and the enhancements of those programs to put more capital out onto the streets. We have already pointed out because we have allowed this enhancement to expire that we have seen a 60-percent reduction in June of the amount of money accessible for small businesses, below 2008 levels. Is that what we want to do, suppress capital to small business by 60 percent below 2008? In the month of August, if we do not get this legislation passed, there will be $760 million less available for small business. I know some of my colleagues are saying let this keep going, Republicans will keep voting against cloture and we will do business in September. It is not acceptable to wait until September to help small businesses that need access to capital today. I wish people would listen to the heartbreak in America of small businesses. When the crisis happened in 2008--many of those people are resourceful people. That is why they start small businesses. So what did they do when the crisis happened? They buckled down; they tried to figure out how to make adjustments in their businesses. They borrowed money from relatives. They borrowed from their 401 programs. They did everything they possibly could to hang on for a year. Contrast that to Wall Street. Wall Street didn't even have to hang on for 1 day before they got help from the Treasury. Not even what Congress did; the Treasury was over there helping people before they even asked for help. Nobody did that for small business in America. So these people have waited over a year to get this help. They hung on with their savings and their investments for 1 year. In January they were ready to go with these programs and these support systems and wanted to see the access to capital, but they did not see that. Not only did they not see these program enhancements like we wanted, such as the recapitalization of community banks, instead, they saw their community bankers tell them: We are canceling your performing line of credit. People did everything to hang on. They did everything they could to hang on. I could tell you stories that are heartbreaking about restaurants, about small businesses that closed their doors after 30 years of being in business--closed their doors because they could not hang on anymore. The question for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is how many more businesses are going to close? How many more people are going to lose their jobs if we do not address this issue and break this deadlock and make sure we are voting on access to capital for small businesses on Main Street? Calculate it. They have already been holding on. They cannot hold on much longer. Every day that goes by that we do not reauthorize this advancement in the 7(a) program, we are costing dollars, we are costing small business access to capital they used to have. It is not even new capital in some cases; it is capital they used to have but it got canceled out from under them because of what happened on Wall Street. It is time for my colleagues to show the same level of urgency for small business, to show we understand that these individuals in America have been hanging on. Listen, they are what makes America a great country because they are such entrepreneurs and they have done everything they can to weather this storm. But it is time to put down the ``no'' votes on moving ahead and move to getting this product, the enhancement of 7(a) and the 504 and the capital and recapitalization of community banks, off the Senate floor and get it signed before the House adjourns. That is what we need to do to create jobs now, in August. If you do not want to do that, you are going to be costing many more Americans their livelihood. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I wish to thank my colleague, the Senator from Delaware, for his remarks on important banking issues and for his diligence in trying to continue to focus on the need for financial regulation. I agree there were definitely winners and losers in the process in 2008. That probably shouldn't have been done that way. So I thank him for his comments on that, and, yes, Congress needs to play a larger oversight role. One thing we need to do now is to make sure we are moving forward on the small business package that is in front of us. We had an important vote last week to make sure we are increasing access to capital for small businesses by helping them recapitalize. I am already receiving calls from small businesses and organizations in my State. One I received is from the central part of our State from a lender who said: We would absolutely use the funds for small business lending. Our bank has a backlog of $50 million to $70 million in loan requests which is counter to statements of soft loan demand. We have reduced our lend to preserve capital as expected by the regulators. This legislation would give us the capital to significantly increase lending. So that is what we are hearing from financial institutions; that this is a critical piece of legislation to move small business lending. Another component of the bill is a provision to enhance the loan guarantee program--the 7(a) and the 504 lending program, the Recovery Act, and subsequent extensions providing funding authority to reduce loan fees from borrowers and to increase the 7(a) guarantees. Just this morning, a constituent of mine called saying he had made some hires in January and was trying to continue to grow his business but wasn't able to get access to capital. So he certainly wants to see this program and its enhancements. These enhancements to the SBA programs expired at the end of May. So this is so timely that we move ahead. In June, approved loans from the SBA fell two-thirds, from $1.9 billion down to just $647 million. So that is a drop of $1.2 billion in loans to small businesses. It was the worst month for SBA lending in a number of years. So that is where we are. We have banks calling in saying they need access to capital, we have a program that can help, and we have an SBA program that has fallen off and needs to be implemented. So we need to pass this small business legislation. The longer we delay, the longer constituents all across the country and small businesses will be starved for the capital they need to grow jobs. I wish to give an example because in my State we have over 140,000 small businesses that have employees; that is, in addition to the owners. Since this recession began in 2008, our State has lost over 142,000 jobs. So if each of those small businesses just hired one more employee, it would more than wipe out the jobs lost in the State. So this kind of job growth--one employee per small business--would be a huge economic boost to our economy. I hope my colleagues will want to move forward on this legislation as soon as possible. There are 27,000 small businesses in America, and small businesses were the hardest hit by the recession. Two-thirds of the job losses we saw came from small businesses. Seventy-five percent of new job creation comes from those small businesses. This bill, besides the SBA program and the Small Business Access to Capital Program, addresses the depreciation rate for capital, another thing that many people say will help investment in small business equipment and manufacturing and help us restore jobs. We know what our opportunities are. We can move ahead on this legislation, with this bill that includes these small business tax cuts and access to capital and expansion of this critical small business program or we can continue to stymie what creates the real economic job growth of our economy--small business. I urge my colleagues to support moving ahead on this legislation. Let's not delay another day. Wall Street certainly got its due. It certainly got help and support from many in the previous administration. Let's make sure that small business and Main Street get the support they deserve to move ahead. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I thank my colleague from Washington. I know she too has been very active in this issue and has spoken on it and has urged our leadership, in signing a letter, I believe probably 6 months ago, that we pass this legislation. I wish to thank again the chair of the Small Business Committee for her advocacy. This literally is an issue about Main Street versus Wall Street. This is about whether we are going to help Main Street in tough economics times, or whether we are going to continue to say that Wall Street gets the ear of Congress. I am someone who didn't vote for either of the TARP pieces of legislation. I know my colleague, Senator Shelby, the ranking member of the Banking Committee, was here speaking about this. I can assure my colleagues that this legislation is focused at the problem that was caused by Wall Street. Many people across America are asking when we are going to stand up for small businesses in America and help Main Street recover from this economic disaster. How did we get into this situation? We got into this situation when large banks failed because of their active participation in things such as credit default swaps and other derivatives that weren't truly backed by financial commitments and basically became a house of cards, and they brought down our entire economic system. So what was our response to that? Our response to that was to bail out the big banks and give them assistance. What happened to the community banks? As deposit insurance basically was paid out in various forms, that said to those community banks: You now have to have higher capital standards. Can my colleagues imagine that? Can my colleagues imagine that? We had big banks such as Goldman Sachs and others that basically had imploded and we gave them taxpayer money and, basically, then said to the community banks: You need to have more capital within your banks. That is what we said. So what did those community banks do when regulators told them they had to have higher capital requirements? They did what many of them only had one choice to do, which was come up with situations to either get more capital or stop their lending. The consequence is that there was a lot of lending that was done to small businesses that suffered as a consequence of those actions. Imagine that. The practices of the larger banks of investing in credit default swaps and derivatives that had no basis ended up costing small businesses their access to capital because capital requirements were put on small businesses through their banks at the same time large banks were given a bailout. So no, no, this is not a bailout. This is about a lending program for small business to save Main Street and save our economy, because this Senator believes that job creation happens from small business. That is a proven fact. Seventy-five percent of the increase in jobs comes from small business, but right now they can't get access to capital. Here is a letter from one of my constituents: In unprecedented times I am writing to you to express and urge relief for small business owners who are struggling to survive and who can be one of the key factors to improving the U.S. economy. We have been a small business for over 9 years and have 5 restaurants in Washington State and we currently employ 150 people between five operations. Until September of 2008, our business was stable and we were expanding and adding jobs and tax dollars to the State and Federal coffers. But then in September of 2008, after signing a 20-year lease for our first Arby's project-- that is a restaurant-- our lender pulled our financing due to economic conditions. This was the same lender that just 3 months earlier had refinanced over $3 million of our business debt. And even though we had excellent personal and business credit, two business properties as collateral, good cash flow, we were forced to take high-interest equipment leases, advances from credit cards, as well as cash advances with an almost, yes, 50 percent interest rate from finance companies with an 18- month term. We tried going directly to the bank to finance the company, but we were told we had no options. Instead, the same bank charged an almost 50 percent interest rate through the finance company. There is nothing worse to an entrepreneur than to have the foundation and determination of their survival caused by this economic calamity and then to feel that State and Federal agencies would rather see your doors shut than work with you. We are honest, hard-working Americans who want to pay all our debt, but these agencies are uncompromising and missing the human factor. Missing the human factor. Why is it that the other side of the aisle thought it was such a priority to bail out Wall Street, but now a well- crafted piece of legislation that is a lending program that is voluntary--banks don't even have to participate in it if they don't want to; it is not like TARP which was mandated on the banks to participate--why is it the other side doesn't want to see the success of these small businesses? As my colleagues have said, this program is a well thought out program to help recapitalize the community banks as more requirements were put on to them as it related to the economic crisis of 2008. Imagine that. No questions asked to the big banks; they were given a bailout. Small banks got new capital requirements. They cut thousands and thousands--probably millions--of lines of credit; that is, performing loans to businesses across America were cut out from under them. The voices are loud and clear across America. They want us to help restore this kind of stability through access to capital for small businesses. This is a program that can generate $1.1 billion to our economy and reduce our Federal deficit. It will help stabilize in a way that these other programs have not been able to do, and it will create the job growth we need to see in America. I hope my colleagues will support this important legislation. I know some on the other side of the aisle want to name this some other legislation. But the truth is that this is about Main Street, whether one's perspective is that Main Street is going to help us. I believe Main Street will be that job creator. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will think about this and the consequence of the votes they have already taken. It is so important for us to say that we understand their plight, just like the gentleman's letter that I read. It is important for us to say we understand the frustration they have been through; that we are on their side in making sure small business gets access to capital; and that we believe our economy isn't about the big banks. It is about those millions and millions and millions of entrepreneurs every day who go out there and are hard working and who have been told no, no, no--told even on their lines of credit, no, you can't have access anymore. We need to right that wrong that happened over the last year and a half and get capital flowing again to small businesses. I thank the Chair, and I thank the chairwoman of the Small Business Committee. I see my colleague from Washington, who has been outspoken about this since January, the importance of getting this done, and has written many letters to try to emphasize how critical it is to our Washington State economy.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I thank the chair of the Small Business Committee. I see my colleague from Washington is already here on the floor. Did she wish to say a few words?

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider that vote and lay that motion upon the table. The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the chair of the Small Business Committee, Senator Landrieu, does such a fabulous job standing up for small business. She is making sure in this battle that someone is standing up for individual business owners all across America who have had a horrible time getting access to capital. I thank her for her leadership, for making sure the voice of Americans, who have been talking to their Senators for months and months and months about the problem with access to capital, are heard. I thank Senators Merkley and Boxer for originally sponsoring this legislation and this amendment to improve access to capital for small businesses. They both have been listening to their constituents in California and Oregon and know how critically important it is to pass this legislation. I ask my colleagues who haven't made up their minds about this proposal to check with their offices in their States to find out if they have heard from small businesses expressing their frustration about the lack of access to capital. If they actually listen to what people are saying in their States, they will find story after story of people who are frustrated, angry, and questioning how it is that Wall Street could get a bailout that was without any specifics about when the Treasury was going to get paid back, yet Main Street is being denied access to capital right and left. I know my colleague has traveled his State. I know the chairman of the committee has traveled her State. I know my colleague from California has been all over her State. We have heard about more and more companies. I had a Washington company in Vancouver that basically, when the Bank of Clark County was taken over by the FDIC--and even though the bank that took them over was getting TARP funds, this business had its performing lines of credit cut right out from under them. That just happened overnight. Another business in the same area immediately had their line of credit cut. Another company, Vancouver Iron and Steel, had never missed a payment on its loans, but it lost its line of credit. Another high-tech company that had international contracts was doing everything. Their line of credit was pulled right out from under them. They are still having challenges. Another company in Richland, WA, that was a biofuels company and had fuel cell technology had their lines of credit reduced. This made them stop taking advantage of increasing their payroll and their access and the demand for new alternative energy technology. I had another small business in the Spokane Valley that had been wanting to hire additional staff and to get a new business location so she could improve things. Obviously, she had an existing business. She was not given access to credit. Another enterprise back in the Tri-Cities was forced to withdraw their funding, and a project is on hold until they get another line of credit. These are all businesses that are operating, that had relationships with their banks, had performing lines of credit, and have had that credit cut right out from under them. I ask my colleagues, when are we going to stand up for small businesses that have had trouble getting access to capital, that have been penalized? I don't think any of these community banks about which we have been talking were doing derivatives. I don't think they were doing the incredible types of activity that got us and our economy into this mess. What they want to know is, if they didn't cause this mess, how is it that when it came to the big banks, everybody said: Yes, here is the opportunity for you; here are the keys to the Treasury; here is all the money, but now, when it comes to making sure community banks are loaning to small businesses, people are saying: No, Main Street doesn't have the same priority as Wall Street. I hope America is listening tonight. I have never asked, but I hope Americans will call their Senators tomorrow and make them understand that they have been put in a precarious position. They have struggled through this economic crisis without access to capital, without help and support, without the bailout Wall Street was given. They want to know, are their Senators going to stand up for them and help them with a program, as my colleague from Oregon said, that basically is paid for and is budget neutral. In fact, the terms of these agreements will generate $1.1 billion and help us reduce the deficit. Small business is asking for an effective lending program through the community banks. That is all they are asking for. We gave Wall Street a bailout without any terms and conditions on repayment. Main Street wants to know if their Senators are going to stand up for them and get an access to capital program small businesses can take advantage of. The chairman knows these numbers well, but 75 percent of new job growth in America comes from small businesses. But they are not going to be able to grow and expand and innovate if they don't have access to capital. Right now, they are not getting access to capital because of the new requirements that were put on after this financial crisis that they were asked to adhere to. We didn't ask Wall Street to adhere to that; we basically said: Here is your bailout. Please, call your Senators. Make sure they hear your individual story about your business, how you didn't get access to capital, why it is important to get this program. If Americans call their Senators and discuss this program with them, we will get the votes we need to secure this legislation and empower Americans who are really going to restore the economy.

Ms. CANTWELL. I am sure some people will give us the details about what they believe the terms of the deal for Wall Street were. But it is safe to say there was no specific date that Wall Street had to pay back the money. No one ever asked them if they would be viable with or without the money. They were--in the blink of an eye, in some cases-- given access to Treasury funds. This is a program that has been done in a transparent process, with the input of lots of Members, input from both bodies, discussed by the Treasury Secretary in many public forums. It was in the President's State of the Union Address as a priority to get access to capital, the requirements and specificity of banks that want to apply. This isn't picking winners and losers such as what was done in the haste of October, 2 years ago. This is about a bill that is an open process for banks that want to participate. These are the terms the Federal Government is setting up for participation, a very open and transparent process. The main difference is one was a bailout, and this is a lending program. I want to know why my colleagues don't support it, if they don't, because I think America supports making sure there is access to capital. They want to know why is it that the CEO of an AIG or another company can get access to all the capital they need from the Federal Government, but when it comes to a small business, they can't go to their community banks and get access to capital at this critical moment. I hope we can resolve this issue and move forward. I hope Americans will call and speak up about this. Maybe there are some States that have not been rocked as hard. Maybe there are States that were not in the same situation as some of the ones we have heard from tonight. But it is safe to say that Americans have been squeezed by what has happened by this implosion of the economy. They know that their ingenuity can help restore the economy, that they need access to capital.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for yielding time. I thank the Senator for his diligence, particularly in the area of the derivatives market and the fact that this legislation will be the first time--the first time--the over-the-counter derivatives market in this country will be regulated. The fact that Congress made a mistake and said hands off to derivatives in 2000, and then an $80 trillion market exploded into what is today a $600 trillion dark market--the chairman has now made sure that for the first time ever, over-the-counter derivatives will be regulated. That means for the first time over-the-counter derivatives will have to be exchange-traded, which means there will be transparency. It is the first time over-the-counter derivatives will have to be cleared, which means a third party will have to validate whether there is real money behind these transactions. It is the first time the CFTC will be able to enforce aggregate position limits across all exchanges, which means you cannot hide this dark market derivative money on some exchange that is not properly regulated or try to make the market across all exchanges. It is the first time things like the London Loophole will be closed so we cannot have markets and exchanges that are not regulated. So the American people will know something as dangerous as credit default swaps--which brought down our economy--that now for the first time we will have regulation of these over-the-counter derivatives. I thank the chairman for his efforts in that area. A $600 trillion market, which is greater than 10 times the size of world GDP, is a danger to our economy if it is not regulated. Thank God we are going to be regulating it for the first time. I would encourage all my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who at one point in time said these are too complicated to understand--understand, they brought down our economy and understand we are going to, for the first time, regulate over-the-counter derivatives. I thank the chairman for his leadership.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I thank Senator Boxer for her passionate leadership in defense of the Clean Air Act and the pollution protections this bedrock law provides every American. I appreciate her yielding me time to speak in opposition to the Resolution of Disapproval introduced by Senator Murkowski. Madam President, I don't think any of my colleagues would disagree that the Clean Air Act has been one of the most effective environmental laws ever passed in our Nation. It has literally saved the lives of thousands of children who would otherwise have suffered terribly from the effects of air pollution. The economic benefits of the Clean Air Act are immense, and it has been credited with turning around a dire acid rain problem that was threatening the natural heritage of all of New England. The critically important 1970 amendments to the Act were a bipartisan bill. Those improvements--really called the Muskie Act, in honor of the key role played by the former Senator from Maine, Ed Muskie--were, of course, signed into law by a Republican President, Richard Nixon. The next major revisions came 20 years later, in 1990, and those improvements cracked down on acid rain and lead in our gasoline supply. But today we are talking about a Resolution that would undermine the Clean Air Act, rather than strengthen it. We are actually debating whether to overturn the science-based determination that greenhouse gases pose a threat to the public health and welfare to the current and future generations of Americans. Madam President, the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases are pollutants and are covered by the Clean Air Act. Consequently, the court held that the Environmental Protection Agency must make a determination, based on the available science, about whether greenhouse gases pose a threat to the public. EPA engaged in a thorough public process, assessed the available scientific evidence, and ultimately determined that greenhouse gases do pose a threat to public health and welfare. The reason I recount all this history, Madam President, is to show that these findings are not the casual or capricious action of a small group of bureaucrats. Rather, they are the result of a long and transparent process prescribed by statute and the highest court in the land. In announcing her resolution last January, my colleague, Senator Murkowski, said: We should continue our work to pass meaningful energy and climate legislation, but in the meantime, we cannot turn a blind eye to the EPA's efforts to impose back-door climate regulations. While I fully agree with my colleague on the first point--we do need to work together on meaningful energy and climate legislation--I have to say I disagree on the second point, about the back-door regulations. Though Congress may not have specifically anticipated greenhouse gas emissions when the Clean Air Act was originally passed, the same can be said of many pollutants. Indeed, when the 1970 law passed, only five pollutants were initially listed. Since then, dozens of additional pollutants have been listed and the air we breathe is better for it. This is not an example of an agency overreaching, it is the way the Clean Air Act was designed to work. The drafters of the Clean Air Act never claimed they could predict all of the pollutants that might someday fall under its jurisdiction. That is why they established a framework and a public process that could be used to regulate any pollutant that science--science-- ultimately identified as a threat to public health and welfare. Today, 40 years later, we have come to the point where thousands of scientists, working throughout the Federal Government and around the world over the course of decades, have identified a serious risk associated with the emissions of greenhouse gases. Given these scientific findings, the legal mandate from the United States Supreme Court, and the statutory requirements spelled out in the Clean Air Act, the EPA has a responsibility to act. For Congress now to undermine this process would be----

Ms. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 15 seconds.

Ms. CANTWELL. For Congress now to undermine that process would be to undermine the Clean Air Act itself and the sanctity of science-based policymaking. It would be a very bad precedent, and it would be a threat to our children and to the environment in which we want them to grow up.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I wish to spend a few minutes talking about our previous vote this evening. I know many of my colleagues worked hard on regulatory reform legislation, but I also think it is important that we keep our eye on a very critical part of solving this problem. I know many of my colleagues, particularly on the Banking Committee, have had a long history with banking issues and may see things a little differently from the context of the issues they have been dealing with in the committee. It has been clear to me for a long time that the deregulation of the derivatives market in 2000 led to a very unfortunate situation. Before deregulation, we actually had transparent trades in reporting to the CFTC. We had capital requirements. We had speculation limits. We had antifraud and antimanipulation. We had trader licensing and registration. And we had public exchange trading. The reason I bring that up is because to me, if the derivative crisis brought on basically a world economic implosion, then the principles of this underlying bill ought to adhere to the principles that have been laid out by the White House and others on what would help us fix this problem. We know it was deregulated, and we know these things were eliminated. But I take the Treasury Secretary at his word when he wrote earlier this year: To contain systemic risks, the CEA and the securities laws should be amended to require clearing of all standardized derivatives through regulated central counterparties. The reason I bring that up is because the underlying bill before us-- even though the Agriculture Committee corrected this--the language coming from the Banking Committee created a loophole and basically says that if you go to a clearinghouse and they say you do not need to be cleared, don't worry about it, you don't need to be cleared. It should be no surprise to anybody that the swaps dealers are the people who own the clearinghouses. In that context, a fundamental tenet of derivative regulatory reform, exchange trading, clearing, aggregate position limits, and transparency, one of those pillars is missing from this bill. Look at what happened because of this deregulation in 1999. There was less than $100 billion in the derivatives market, and today we are at a $600 trillion derivatives market--$600 trillion. Before deregulation it was a very small amount of money, and now we have this incredible market. The question is whether we are going to regulate it to have the basic tenets of true competition, which means there is some oversight and some transparency to make sure that there are not manipulative devices or contrivances in this legislation. The good news is we have tried to say that of these principal tenets of exchange trading, we have to have transparency, real-time monitoring--all these things should be in there. But you also have to have capital behind the trades. That means we have to have a clearinghouse to make sure this type of activity is being cleared. There were many times before the Senate Finance Committee where the Treasury Secretary said: I'm fully supportive of moving the standard part of those markets onto central clearinghouses and exchanges . . . We want to make sure that the standardized part of those markets moves into central clearinghouses and onto exchanges as quickly as possible . . . That was in January. We had another time where the administration said: . . . we need to establish a comprehensive framework of oversight, protections and disclosure for the OTC derivatives market, moving the standardized parts of those markets to central clearinghouses, and encouraging further use of exchange-traded instruments. That was in March. I don't know why we are still having this debate as to whether we are going to have clearing of these derivatives. To me it is critical. I know there are other good parts of this legislation about which people care deeply. But if we have this $600 trillion market and we are not truly going to have exchange trading and clearing and aggregate position limits across all exchanges, we are not going to rein in the derivatives problem. We are not. I hope my colleagues will take these words from the Treasury Secretary and from the White House and hopefully get a piece of legislation on this floor that will take care of this clearinghouse loophole. I know my colleagues think we can talk about building a dam against this wall of dark derivatives. But even something such as Hoover Dam, with all the great concrete and all the great engineering and all the great things that make that structure work, still has a problem if somebody drills a hole in the bottom of it. Over time, that is where all the water will flow, and that is where this derivative market is, too. If we do not have a regime of exchange trading and clearing, we will have money seeping into a continuation of a dark market. Would I like other amendments, would I like a vote on an amendment by my colleague from Arizona and me that is the reinstatement of Glass- Steagall? Sure, I would. Sure, I would like to have many other amendments that my colleagues have been talking about, and hopefully they will get votes on them, whether it is Merkley-Levin or other pieces of legislation people have been offering. But this issue is a fundamental one. We will not have reform if we do not have exchange trading and clearing, if we do not bring derivatives onto the same kind of mechanisms we have for other products in the financial markets. If we do not do that, then I don't know what we are doing out here in the context of what brought us to this crisis. Trading of dark market derivatives is what has brought this challenge to our U.S. economy. Let's bring some transparency into that market. Let's adhere to these words and actually implement this so we can move on with this legislation. I yield the floor.