Mark Udall

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise at this late hour in the afternoon to join many of my colleagues who have come to the floor today to express growing frustration with the politics as usual in the Capitol. I say ``politics'' not ``policy'' because I think we should be focusing on policies that will get our country back on track. I have to say, people who are watching the debate are witnessing potentially an impending government shutdown that I think is needlessly being forced on the American people. That is whom we are, after all, here to serve. I know the Presiding Officer feels that strongly. I am not the first person to highlight how disturbing our long-term fiscal picture has become, but what is equally frustrating is the disservice being done to the American public by this current debate on our budget--a budget, by the way, for the second half of 2011. It is not a budget debate we need to have on 2012 or the longer term challenge the Simpson-Bowles Commission pointed out. We ought to be focusing on supporting economic development and job growth. While we are doing that, I believe the Senate and some Members of the House of Representatives continue to seek sustained confrontation and seem to me to be interested in shutting down the government as a misguided statement that they are serious about debt reduction. It seems they want to pick a fight for a fight's sake while our people, the U.S. citizens, will be left to pick up the pieces from a shutdown. The latest demands have not been about funding the government at all. I think we have common ground on what the number ought to be. The fight now seems to be on controversial abortion and climate change issues. I do not understand it. We have this tentative agreement to cut billions from current spending levels, but the Speaker of the House seems to continue to demand we ought to focus on controversial climate change issues. These are hot-button issues. Why we would insert them in an unrelated budget debate when there is so much at stake is beyond me. I understand we want to show the American people we are serious about deficit reduction. I am. I know the Presiding Officer is. In Colorado, people see straight through this latest ploy. What do abortion and climate change have to do with finding a compromise on keeping our government running? Nothing. They have nothing to do with that. It strikes me the debate has become increasingly ideological and increasingly about sending a partisan political message, one that leaves the American people paying the price. We have had 13 straight months of private sector job growth. We have added 1.8 million jobs in that time. But our economy is still fragile, and way too many Americans, way too many Minnesotans, way too many Coloradans are struggling. I have no doubt a government shutdown at this time would create a counterproductive effect on our economic recovery. Do not just take my word for it. I am a Senator from Colorado. Listen to what top business leaders of all political persuasions are saying. The Business Roundtable president, John Engler, a former Republican Governor of Michigan, said businesses would face the dangerous ``unintended consequences,'' where interest rates could rise because of a shutdown, and there could be turmoil in our financial markets. Forecasters at Goldman Sachs have warned that a shutdown could shave off growth in our GDP every single week. CEOs of all stripes have warned about a shutdown's impact on confidence in the U.S. economic recovery. The Presiding Officer and I know and Senators from across the country know confidence is what we need to build. That is what is lacking in many respects. A setback of this nature, a shutdown would actually prevent the growth we tangibly need to address our long-term growth and fiscal balance--in other words, get the economy growing again. We will have more tax revenues and we will see the gap between what we are spending and bringing in narrow. I cannot help but think, in the context of this debate, about my Uncle Stewart Udall, the father of Senator Udall from New Mexico. He wrote a book called ``The Forgotten Founders'' that focused on the settling of the West. I should add he focused on the people who were there at the time the Europeans arrived. The theme of the book was on how the West was settled, how it was built. It made the strong case that people coming out to the West--I think the Presiding Officer's home State, which is in the near West, might fit this characterization--people coming to the West were not looking to get into gunfights or range wars. They were looking to start their lives over to pursue the American dream. Stewart pointed out that in reality, particularly when we watch those Hollywood movies, people standing on the board sidewalks watching the gunfights were the people who built the West, and they built the West working together, solving problems, looking out for one another. It did not matter what your political party was. It seems to me the American people are standing on one of those board sidewalks watching the same senseless gunfights and range wars right here in Washington, DC. I know I was sent to Washington to work together and solve shared problems. I suggest this spirit I described is in stark contrast to this new kind of divisive politics that is brewing away in America. It is the kind of politics that furthers disagreement. It draws ideological lines in the sand, and it sows disrespect at the expense of shared interest and collective prosperity. The American people are seeing a disappointing example of that this week. While a vocal minority seems to favor acrimony and combativeness which, in the end, will further slow our economy, many of us are doing what we can to do the people's business and try in good faith to prevent a government shutdown. As the American people look on in amazement at this spectacle, I stand with them wondering if Members of Congress will finally settle down, act like adults, and work collaboratively toward a real budget solution. Yes, we have to reduce our government deficit and debt. One would be hard-pressed to find a Senator more committed to that cause than I am. Let's reach that goal. Let's reach it in a way that protects our senior citizens, our students, our veterans, our border security--I could go on with a long list. Let's do it in a way that slashes spending but does not harm our fragile economic recovery or divert our attention on divisive social issues. We cannot afford a government shutdown. I will be disappointed, to say the least, if the bipartisan deal that is before us is undercut by contentious, unrelated issues such as abortion and climate change. I wrote a letter 2 days ago to the Speaker of the House, Mr. Boehner, whom I know well, in which a large number of my fellow Senators joined me to suggest to him and urge him to work with us to avoid a Federal Government shutdown. I will stay here all day, all night, whatever it takes. I am here to urge my colleagues in both Chambers--I served in the House and I now have the great privilege of serving in the Senate-- let's sit down together, let's reason together, let's be commonsensical together. Let's find a compromise. That is the American way. I know that is what propelled me to the Senate, my willingness to work across party lines. I think the Senate of the United States could set an example. There are colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have worked together, and we know the stakes are high. That is the reason I came to the floor, to urge Senators of both parties to work together to find a commonsense compromise to keep this government moving forward and make sure our economy is focused upon and we produce as many jobs as possible. That is job one. Mr. President, I thank you for your attention and for your interest. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, the Senator makes important points, and it is a small investment, if you will, the $200,000, in saving the taxpayers significant amounts of money. As the Senator points out, the important outcome is that the integrity of the unemployment insurance system is maintained. I also would note, as the Senator from Oklahoma did, the point that it is $1 million in income or more, not whether an individual has assets or something in that amount--in other words, a rancher who is fortunate enough to have lands valued at significant enough levels but who is illiquid and may be struggling to make ends meet. This applies to people, as the Senator points out, who have incomes of over $1 million annually. That makes sense. This is an important amendment. I urge all our colleagues to support it. We have a chance to vote for it later today. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I was speaking on Senator Coburn's time, and I ask unanimous consent that the agreement reflect such allocation.

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

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Before the Senator from Oklahoma leaves the floor, I wanted to join him in supporting the commonsense amendment he just outlined. The Coburn-Udall amendment would fix what I think most Americans, if not every single American, would be shocked to discover; that is, millionaires and billionaires have been drawing unemployment benefits. Now, unemployment insurance is a critical temporary safety net for Americans who need help to get by when they fall on tough times, but providing unemployment insurance for millionaires, much less billionaires, who do not need it for their basic necessities is fiscally irresponsible, to put it mildly. Frankly, it doesn't make much sense. I think Senator Coburn put it best when he said it is foolish. We all recall that for months last year we struggled to find ways to put unemployment benefits in the hands of Americans who were really struggling in the face of this tough economic downturn. It was controversial and we worked hard on that in the Senate. It was drawn out because unemployment benefits are expensive, but I supported extending those benefits for out-of-work Americans because they help. We found a way, ultimately, to pay for them. But little did we know, in taking care of these good Americans, it was made even harder because literally--and this number astonishes me--thousands of millionaires and billionaires were abusing the system to draw extra payments for themselves. So it increased the price tag for all the rest. In the end, we are talking about values. We are talking about hard work and playing by the rules. That is how most Americans operate. But there are a few folks always looking to game the system, and I can't believe that some of the most well-off among us have been asking for a government paycheck while out-of-work Americans, day in and day out, look for jobs. They want to provide for themselves, and they want to do it in an honest way. They don't want to draw those unemployment benefits. That is a decision and action of last resort. We have had 13 straight months of private sector growth. We have added almost 2 million jobs. But our economy is still fragile, and too many Coloradans and too many Americans are looking for work. Families in my State, and I know in the neighboring State of Oklahoma, are working to balance their budgets and find a way to set aside money for college, taking care of their kids. Asking them to pay for unemployment insurance for millionaires is unbelievable. So I am truly honored to work with my colleague from Oklahoma. This would save $100 million. As the Senator said, every day we wait, we waste money. Every day we don't take an opportunity to save money, we are doing a disservice to the taxpayers. So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. It is a smart change, and it avoids tarnishing an otherwise worthy and critical way to temporarily assist Americans who have fallen on tough times.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend from Oklahoma in supporting this amendment. He laid out the case in the strongest terms possible. We are spending $100 million a year providing unemployment insurance for people who make over 1 million a year. It doesn't make any sense. It undercuts the integrity of the unemployment insurance program and it would save $100 million, as I mentioned. I ask all of you to join us in supporting this amendment. Let's save the taxpayers some money. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 p.m. the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senator Coburn being recognized for up to 20 minutes; that following Senator Coburn, Senator Mikulski be recognized for up to 15 minutes; and that following Senator Mikulski's remarks, the majority leader be recognized.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I urge the Senate to free up capital for small businesses to allow them to grow, expand, and begin hiring again. Unfortunately, there is a burdensome Federal regulation that currently limits the number of small business loans credit unions can make to family entrepreneurs. Credit unions have money to lend, and they know small businesses in their communities. They know these businesses desperately wanted to jump-start the economy by taking out new loans to grow their companies and hire more workers. Two weeks ago I came to the floor to ask consideration of a bipartisan amendment, No. 242, which I offered to the underlying bill to raise this cap I have alluded to on small business loans. The amendment would simply get government out of the way and allow credit unions to increase small business lending in their communities without costing American taxpayers a dime. I wish to repeat that. It would not cost American taxpayers a single dime. When I spoke previously in support of this amendment and asked for the amendment to be considered, the chairman of the Small Business Committee, Senator Landrieu, objected to my request and indicated that Senator Johnson, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, opposed the amendment. I wish to clear up some misinformation the American people may have heard at that time and thank Senator Landrieu for removing from the Congressional Record her assertion that Chairman Johnson opposed my amendment. I understand that as new chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Johnson has an interest in revisiting this legislation which I negotiated with the Treasury Department, the National Credit Union Administration, and the previous chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Chris Dodd. But I wish to make it clear in the Congressional Record that Chairman Johnson does not in fact oppose the amendment. I also wish to clear up some confusion related to the $30 billion small business lending fund established as a part of the Small Business Jobs Act which arose when I tried to call up my amendment 2 weeks ago. As I pointed out in my original remarks, banks were given access to the small business lending fund, but credit unions have not been allowed to expand their small business lending because of the very cap on loans my amendment addresses. In our discussion on the Senate floor, it was pointed out to me that credit unions had been asked if they wanted to participate in the small business lending fund, but the credit union industry had turned down the invitation. I was unaware of such an offer; I appreciate being told of it. But unlike many banks, most credit unions do not need extra capital in order to make loans, which is what the small business lending fund intended to provide. Rather, as I have said, most credit unions currently have capital to lend to small businesses, but, unfortunately, they are being prevented from making those loans due to the arbitrary cap limiting their small business lending to no more than 12.25 percent of their assets. It is no wonder credit unions didn't have an interest in the $30 billion bank fund because they don't need the money and couldn't use it anyway because of this burdensome cap that is put on small business loans. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the confusion about amendment No. 242. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their great work on the underlying bill which is important to my home State of Colorado. I wish my amendment would get a vote today, but regardless of what happens I will continue to work with Chairman Landrieu, Ranking Member Snowe, and the rest of my colleagues to find innovative means to free up credit for small businesses in a responsible way. On a final note, the Presiding Officer hails from a great State that has significant banking and credit union sectors. We know they don't always see eye to eye, which is the root of the objection to my amendment. Yet they still manage to operate side by side to serve the community's credit needs. They both make up the fabric of America and continue to grow our economy. It is simply the way we do business in the United States. I wish to highlight that spirit, which is in stark contrast to the kind of divisive politics that have been brewing in America; one that furthers disagreements and draws ideological lines in the sand and, frankly, sows disrespect at the expense of shared interests and collective prosperity. The American people are seeing a disappointing example of that today. There is a vocal minority outside this very Capitol demanding acrimony and a combative approach for Members of Congress which I believe--and many of us believe--in the end will further disable our capacity to get the economy back on its feet. While this is happening outside, many of us are inside doing the people's business. We treat each other with respect, and we are working on a bill to help small businesses invest in R&D. We are also negotiating a compromise to keep our government running. That is the American way I have always known. I applaud my colleagues who remain committed to working together. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1079, which is at the desk.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

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

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the provisions of S. Res. 114 as a further mark of respect to the memory of Congresswoman Geraldine A. Ferraro.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 114, submitted earlier today.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, rollcall votes in relation to amendments to the small business jobs bill are expected during tomorrow's session. Senators will be notified when votes are scheduled.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 30; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, there be a period for the transaction of morning business for 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided or controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half; further, that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 493, the small business jobs bill.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Louisiana has an interest in the possibilities of this legislation. I also see my colleague from Maine, who has graciously joined me in cosponsoring this important bill and, as well, understands the way in which we would trigger innovation, lending, and job creation. I thank her. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, if I may ask my colleague, through the Chair, the nature of the objection given that this would be so important to expanding business opportunities when our economy is in a troubled state.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise to speak on a matter that is a real concern to me and many in this body but, most importantly, to the citizens of this country. It has to do with efforts to climb out of this long recession. There are still pockets of the United States--the Presiding Officer's home State, my State--that feel as if we have not made any progress. When I talk with business owners in my State, I know they are still weathering the storm, looking to invest in a down economy, and they want to start hiring again. That is why I am glad we are, once again, debating a small business bill and that I have a chance to reintroduce the bipartisan Small Business Lending Enhancement Act as an amendment. I have to say, this is a little like ``Groundhog Day.'' I am looking at my friend from the State of Louisiana. In October of last year, a report by the New York Federal Reserve said three-quarters of small businesses looking for credit last summer were turned down or received only some of the financing they requested. In this report from the Federal Reserve, they stated: ``Reports from small-business owners of a credit gap have been both vocal and frequent.'' We in Congress have decided to act on and try to extend additional credit to small businesses because more credit means additional growth and, therefore, increased job creation. Unfortunately--I should say ``fortunately'' we created a $30 billion lending fund for banks. The unfortunate part of that is we did not simultaneously allow credit unions to do more. Since that time, banks have been reducing credit availability. Even after receiving $30 billion of taxpayers' money in last year's Small Business Jobs Act, banks still are not meeting demands for small business loans. I am still very committed to taking the commonsense step to allow credit unions to increase the amount of money they can lend to small businesses. I, once again, introduced the Small Business Lending Enhancement Act, which would open additional credit to small businesses without costing taxpayers a dime. Let me say this again--without spending a dime of taxpayer money. We have to acknowledge credit unions know the small businesses in their communities that need loans to expand and hire. The credit unions have money to lend to those businesses. Right now, Federal law limits the amount of small business loans a credit union can extend to 12 percent of their assets. Nearly 350 credit unions, accounting for approximately 60 percent of all business loans subject to the 12 percent cap, are facing their cap and will have to dramatically slow their business lending. It is hard for me to believe the government is telling these financial institutions they cannot help create jobs in their local communities. That is why my amendment would double the amount of money credit unions can offer small businesses. We all know these small business owners. I wish to touch on two stories. I was particularly compelled by a small businesswoman in Colorado by the name of Stacy Hamon. She is a small business owner in Thornton, CO. She started her own business, 1st Street Salon. She initially went to a bank for a loan and was turned down because credit was in short supply. To make her dream of owning her small business come true, she went to her credit union, and they gave her the loan she needed through a second mortgage on her home. The success story of Stacy unfolds in pretty dramatic and wonderful ways. When I visited her, she had plenty of business and even hired more workers. These are real American jobs and a shining example of economic expansion that would not have been possible if it were not for a credit union stepping up and offering her a loan. Another Coloradan, Lisa Herman of Broomfield, e-mailed me her success story of securing a credit union loan to expand her business. She is co-owner of Happy Cakes Bakeshop in Denver's Highland Square neighborhood. She has been in business since 2007. Despite the troubled economy, her business blossomed. Her revenues were up 27 percent by the summer of 2009. She is booking 20 weddings a month and had to expand her retail operations and move into a new shop. Same story: When she wanted to secure a loan through a traditional bank, it did not happen. It did not pan out. But a local credit union was able to provide her with a loan for her to grow her business. That meant more business and more jobs for her community. That is the American way. Banks and credit unions are competitors. They do not always get along. But this is not about them. This is about small business. For perspective, credit unions today only represent 4.5 percent of all business loans at depository institutions. If we take this commonsense step I am proposing and double small business lending by credit unions, it would still leave 91 percent of the small business market to banking institutions. Again, this is a smart, no-cost way of increasing lending without drastically changing the composition of the small business lending market. Since some of my colleagues I know have been visited by folks who do not want credit unions to lend more to small businesses, I wish to make one thing clear. Credit unions have been making small business loans since their inception in the early 1900s. That is 100-plus years ago. It was not until 1998 that there were any limits whatsoever on what they could loan. That means, for 90 years, credit unions were free to help small businesses in their communities without the Federal Government necessarily getting in the way. That meant uninhibited small business support, growth, and job creation. But right now, the Federal law, whether initially intentioned, is keeping these jobs from Americans who are out searching for work. It is estimated that the average credit union small business loan is approximately $220,000 and that each $92,000 in additional lending on the part of the Nation's credit unions will create one additional job. In the next year, I am going to say when we adopt this concept, credit union business lending could increase to over $10 billion, which conservatively would create 100,000 new jobs. All we have to do is increase the statutory cap on credit union business lending. I wish to state again for the record: These small, simple statutory changes would not cost taxpayers a cent, but they would dramatically increase the capital available to small businesses to help make payroll, buy inventory, expand, and innovate. Moreover, the proposed statutory changes are safe and fully supported by the National Credit Union Administration, which is the credit union regulator. They are the product of an agreement reached last year by the Senate Banking Committee and the Treasury Department. As I begin to close, I wish to note all the organizations that support increasing credit union small business loans: Americans for Tax Reform, the National Association of Realtors, the National Small Business Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Heartland Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the National Cooperative Business Association, National Farmers Union, the Hardwood Institute, National Council of Textile Organizations, and many others. I urge my colleagues to do what is right and let's finally fix this unnecessary Federal limit on small business loans and support a small, focused, bipartisan amendment to increase job growth and support for our local small businesses. I believe my amendment is at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that the Udall amendment No. 242 be called up and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I rise today to recognize the life and achievements of Cesar Estrada Chavez, a man who led our nation in the struggle for civil rights and whose efforts helped create a better future for all Americans. On March 31, 2011, we will celebrate Cesar Chavez Day to remember his courageous fight for justice and the lessons he taught us about the power people have when they join together to face the challenges before them. Colorado's Hispanic community heard that message loud and clear during the days of the civil rights movement. Our State was an important stage for engaging Mexican-Americans in that time. Not only did Chavez-led efforts bring better living and working conditions to farm workers of all backgrounds in Colorado, from the Eastern Plains to the San Luis Valley and the Western Slope, but this movement also ignited service veterans, students and community leaders in Colorado to champion a cause that promoted equality, justice and empowerment. Leaders like Colorado's own Rodolfo ``Corky'' Gonzales, who as a young student labored in the beet fields and later became a respected poet and leader in the civil rights movement, joined an effort to speak for those who felt they had no voice and empowered those who felt helpless. Gonzales found strength in youth empowerment, and he dedicated his life to helping Hispanic youth in Colorado and the Southwest realize their value in their communities. The legacy of these leaders can be seen today in the many organizations that grew from this movement and which continue to inspire youth and veterans of all backgrounds to develop their talents and skills for a brighter future. Our Western heritage is richer for the hard fought contributions of Rodolfo Gonzalez, Cesar Chavez and others. These figures drew on their determination and hard work to cultivate a more informed youth and sow the seeds of civil justice in the West. Chavez embodied an unparalleled commitment to millions who worked the land to provide for their families and for a growing country. With his father unable to work, Chavez himself labored in the fields to support his family and provide a better life for them. He worked under poor conditions and earned low wages, facing the same struggles as so many migrant workers. Chavez's story serves as a testament to a community searching for justice. It was his resolute leadership that brought national attention to the unacceptable working conditions and unfair pay faced by farm workers in the West and across America. Through nonviolent protest, Chavez mobilized and improved the lives of millions, and he is a role model for Coloradans, and all Americans. This March, communities throughout Colorado will once again come together to honor his legacy and the continued fight for justice. Today, I am proud to rise on behalf of Coloradans, to honor those continuing his work and to acknowledge Chavez and the vision captured in his own uniting words, ``We have seen the future, and the future is ours.''