On the recordJuly 29, 2010
Well, the Senator is exactly right, but a better question is why would the minority leader insist on voting on an amendment we have already voted on three times. That is even a more interesting question. We have already voted on the Sessions-McCaskill amendment three times. The Senator knows some people work for 10 years on amendments and never get a vote on the floor of the Senate. That amendment has had three chances--not one, not two, but three--and now we have to give them a fourth vote on the floor of the Senate. That is not anything to do with small business; that is a message. It sends a terrible message. It says we are looking for bumper stickers and slogans as opposed to bills. I will say that again. Some people work around here for 10 years and can't get their amendment one vote on the floor of the Senate, and the Sessions-McCaskill amendment, in this case, because the minority leader has thrown it out there, we have voted this year three times already on that amendment. I don't think we need to vote on it again. We surely don't need it for this bill. It has nothing to do with spending caps. It has to do with sending money to community banks because they know the businesses that might be able to hire people, to create jobs, to lead us out of the recession. That is all this bill is mainly about.





