Small Business Venture Capital Act of 2007

Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Senate Committee Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today with Senator Kerry to introduce the Small Business Energy Efficiency Act of 2007. The energy debate now underway in this body is a positive initial step for our country, but it is only a first step. Frankly, America must become more innovative and invest in infrastructure that provides a lifetime of savings, both for its citizens and our global neighbors.

This year the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, of which I am the Ranking Member, has paid particular attention to the effects of climate change and escalating fuel costs on small businesses, and the role America's entrepreneurs can play in affecting change in these areas. Chairman Kerry and I have already devoted two hearings during the 110th Congress to these subjects. Clearly, rising gas prices and global warming are having a devastating affect on the health of small business in this country.

As we all know, small business is the backbone of our Nation's economy. As the leading Republican on the Small Business Committee and as a longstanding steward of the environment, I firmly believe that small business has a pivotal role to play in finding a solution to global climate change. According to a recent survey conducted by the National Small Business Association, 75 percent of small businesses believe that energy efficiency can make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And yet, only 33 percent of those had successfully invested in energy efficiency programs for their businesses.

We need to significantly improve energy efficiency investment by small businesses. To that end, our measure will ensure that the SBA completes its requirements under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Within 90 days of enactment, the SBA, through a final rulemaking, would be required to complete all of its requirements under the Energy Policy Act, including setting up a Energy Clearinghouse that builds on the Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star program.

Our bill would also create the position of Assistant Administrator for Small Business Energy Policy within the SBA. The duties of this position include: 1. the oversight and administration the Small Business Energy Clearinghouse Program; and 2. the promotion of energy efficiency efforts and the reduction of energy costs for small businesses.

It would also create a Small Business Energy Efficiency Pilot Grant Program. This pilot, competitive grant program would be administered through the national network of Small Business Development Centers, SBDCs, which would provide ``energy audits'' to small businesses to enhance their energy efficiency practices, as well as providing access to information and resources on energy efficiency practices. These practices would include ``on-bill financing'' options.

Our bill would also encourage innovation in energy efficiency. Federal agencies shall give priority to Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR, and Small Business Technology Transfer, STTR, program solicitations by small businesses that participate in or conduct energy efficiency or renewable energy system research and development. The SBA will issue guidelines to assist Federal agencies and departments in determining whether priority has been given.

Finally, our bill would make the SBA's Express Loan Program available to small businesses who wish to purchase renewable energy systems or make energy efficiency improvements to their existing businesses. I firmly believe that the SBA Express Loan will be an attractive option to small business owners looking to make their businesses more energy efficient and environmentally sound because of the program's quick turnaround time and the ability of participating lenders to use their own forms and procedures for approval. Furthermore, lenders and borrowers can negotiate the interest rate, which can result in more favorable terms for a small business owner. The Express Program is the most widely used of SBA's loan products, representing 69 percent of all loans made. In fact, the SBA Express lender network is made up of almost 2,000 financial institutions nationwide.

Many small businesses are already leading the charge in combating global warming. For instance, in my home state of Maine, Oakhurst Dairy, an 86-year-old business, recently announced that it has converted its fleet of over 100 trucks and trailers to a bio-diesel fuel blend. Oakhurst's President Stanley Bennett sent me a letter stating: ``We firmly believe that doing the right thing environmentally is almost always the right thing to do for your business.'' It is my hope that our bill will spur more small firms to make the same investment in the environment and their businesses.

As we engage in this debate, we must remain mindful that potential solutions must fully consider the economic realities facing small businesses. According to the SBA Office of Advocacy, compliance with environmental regulations costs 364 percent more in small businesses than in larger businesses. So, in developing solutions Senator Kerry and I have worked to ensure that small businesses possess a range of cost-effective alternatives and have avoided a one-sized-fits-all approach.

In conclusion, this bipartisan measure will enable small businesses to play a leading role in combating global climate change. Assisting small firms in this regard will not only help the environment, but will also significantly lower the energy costs for cash-strapped small businesses.

Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today to join with Chairman Kerry in introducing the ``Small Business Venture Capital Act of 2007,'' a bill to reauthorize and improve the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) Program. I am deeply committed to supporting our nation's small businesses by increasing their access to capital. Small businesses employ more than half (57 percent) of the total private-sector workforce and are responsible for the creation of more than two-thirds of all new jobs. Clearly, increasing investments in small businesses is crucial to our on-going economic success.

This bill, a product of genuine bipartisan negotiation, will reform and enhance the SBIC program, which is so

vital to fostering innovation, growth, and job creation in small businesses throughout our country. SBICs are privately owned and managed venture capital investment companies that are licensed and regulated by the SBA. SBICs use their own capital, combined with funds borrowed from other private investors and supported by an SBA guarantee, to make equity and debt investments in qualifying small businesses. The SBA shares in the profits of SBICs. The structure of the program is unique and has been a model for similar public-private partnerships around the world.

The program has been successful in mobilizing private venture capital investment and leveraging private investment with additional funds supported by SBA guarantees. According to the SBA's annual reports to Congress, the SBIC program has provided billions in financing to small businesses since its inception. For example, companies like Staples, FedEx, Outback Steakhouse, America Online, Costco, Apple Computers, and Intel have all received SBIC investments at one time in their history.

Each year, financing brought about by the SBIC program allows small businesses to create or retain tens of thousands of jobs. For example, during Fiscal Year 2006, the SBIC program invested $2.987 billion in 2,121 small businesses. Of these, 40 percent were located in government-designated Low and Moderate Income (LMI) areas of the county. Those LMI-district companies received $669 million of the total dollars invested by SBICs in 2006. Since its beginning in 1958, the SBIC program has provided approximately $48 billion of long-term debt and equity capital to more than 100,000 small businesses. In fact, in my home State of Maine, SBICs invested nearly $21 million during FY 2006.

A key proposal in this bill is a technical change made to simplify the maximum leverage limits contained in the current statute. Under current law, the maximum leverage cap or the maximum amount of government-guaranteed capital an SBIC can control for Fiscal Year 2007, is $127.2 million for any one SBIC or for multiple SBICs controlled by the same management team. The cap increases automatically on an annual basis by the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The problem with current law is that because the leverage cap applies to a whole family of SBICs, it is often impossible for a successful SBIC to operate a second or third fund due to a lack of available leverage. Additional leverage would remedy this issue. Accordingly, the bill increases the leverage cap for anyone fund to $150 million, and the cap for multiple funds held under one management team to $225 million.

Furthermore, this bill will increase leverage available for investment in minority- and women-owned businesses, which are having trouble accessing SBIC dollars. In Fiscal Year 2004, minority-owned firms received 5.2 percent of financing dollars. Women-owned businesses obtained just 2.2 percent of financing dollars. To try to increase financing available to such small businesses, the bill increases leverage limits to $175 million for a single fund and $250 million for a group of funds held under an SBIC license if the SBIC certifies that at least 50 percent of its investments are made in companies that are owned by either women or minorities, or are located in a low-income geographic area.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Too much is at stake for small businesses, and the economy as a whole, to allow this critical legislation to languish. Failing to advance this bill would diminish our chances for innovation, and stifle the entrepreneurial opportunities this program has and will continue to produce.

Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today to join with Chairman Kerry in introducing the Securing Equity for the Economic Development of Low Income Areas Act of 2007, a bill to reauthorize the New Markets Venture Capital, NMVC, Program. The NMVC program specializes in providing investment dollars to small businesses in underserved, low-wealth urban and rural communities.

Selected by the SBA through a competitive process, NMVC companies are privately owned and managed for-profit entities. They use their own private capital plus debentures obtained at favorable rates with SBA guarantees for investing. In addition, they provide technical assistance to the low-income enterprises in which they invest or intend to invest, by using private resources matched by the SBA in the form of operational assistance grants. While the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, which established the program, contemplated 15 NMVC companies, unfortunately, only six NMVC companies have received final approval.

Despite the shortfall in the final numbers of approved companies, the NMVC program has achieved some remarkable success since Congress created it in 2000. According to the Community Development Venture Capital Alliance, as of March 31, 2006, the six NMVC companies had invested more than $13.4 million of capital into 29 small businesses. Not only have the NMVC Companies brought investment dollars to underinvested areas, but they have also created or maintained 1,626 jobs in low-income communities.

Although the statistics I have just cited pertain to the entire Nation, I want to share an example of how the NMVC program has been a tremendous benefit to my home State of Maine. In 2003, Mike Cote purchased Look's Canning Company in Whiting, ME, which had become one of the last of what had been dozens of canneries along Maine's coast. After changing the canning company's name to Look's Gourmet Food Company, Mike worked with Wiscasset, Maine, based Coastal Enterprises, Inc., a New Markets Venture Capital Company, to help grow the business. Look's Gourmet Food Company is now thriving by selling all-natural, high-quality, shelf-stable seafood products under the ``Bar Harbor T'' and ``Atlantic T'' brands all over the country. As Look's took off, it was able to create 18 new jobs with benefits in Maine's Washington County. That's no small feat for a company doing business in a county that had a 9.1 percent unemployment rate in February, the highest in Maine and more than double the national average. The bill introduced today will go a long way to assisting many low-income communities across America.

Other than reauthorizing the NMVC Program, this bill will make other changes to ensure the program is given the full opportunity to achieve its full potential. For example, the bill will

conform the definition of ``low-income geographic area'' used in the NMVC program to the definition of a ``low-income community'' as defined by the New Markets Tax Credit, NMTC, program. This amendment is beneficial because many investors participate in both the NMVC and NMTC programs, and a uniform definition between the two programs would improve coordination between the two programs. This change would allow NMVC companies to invest in businesses that benefit a low-income population, as well as businesses located in low-income census tracts. This flexibility to serve low income ``targeted populations'' would be particularly important for NMVC companies operating in states like Maine which have large rural areas with dispersed populations. Additionally, the bill ensures that all existing NMVC companies can take advantage of the amended targeting for investments made with the capital they have already raised.

The entrepreneurial spirit of our 26 million small businesses dates back to our Nation's founding. Small businesses are the cornerstone of economic growth and job creation, and it is critical that we support the NMVC program that enables aspiring entrepreneurs to obtain the crucial financing dollars they need to start and grow their businesses. As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have long fought to ensure the success and vitality of our country's small business sector. An investment in small business is an investment in the long-term economic prosperity of America, and I encourage my colleagues to support this vital legislation.

Mr. President, because of the war in Iraq, more than 2 million Iraqis have been internally displaced in their own country, and 2 million other Iraqis are in neighboring countries throughout the region, primarily Jordan and Syria.

The humanitarian needs of the refugees and internally displaced Iraqis are immense. If their needs are not quickly and adequately met, these populations could become a fertile recruiting ground for terrorists.

Iraqi refugees are also a significant financial burden on countries in the region. As the Iraq Study Group concluded, if the refugee crisis ``is not addressed, Iraq and the region could be further destabilized.''

Many Iraqis who have worked in critical positions in direct support of the U.S. Government in Iraq have been killed or injured in reprisals for their support of our effort. Many more Iraqis associated with the United States have fled their country in fear of being killed or injured.

Clearly, we cannot resettle all of Iraq's refugees in the United States, but we have a fundamental obligation to help the vast number of Iraqis displaced in Iraq and throughout the region by the war and the associated chaos, especially those who have supported America's efforts in Iraq.

In April 2007, Assistant Secretary of State Ellen Sauerbray said the United States ``could resettle up to 25,000 Iraqi refugees this year.'' In May 2007, Under Secretary Paula Dobriansky said, ``We are committed to honoring our moral debt to those Iraqis who have provided assistance to the United States military and embassy.'' On June 8, Secretary Rice said ``the people that I'm most worried about in the near term are the people who've worked with us who might be subject to recrimination and reprisal. And we're trying to step up our efforts on their behalf.''

It is essential for the United States to develop a comprehensive and effective approach to meet the rapidly growing needs of Iraq's refugees and internally displaced persons, especially those who are associated with the United States.

The legislation I am introducing today with Senators Smith, Biden, Hagel, Leahy, Levin, and Lieberman seeks to accomplish these goals.

First, the legislation would create a special category of applicants for refugee status in Iraq. Those eligible for this program, a P-2 category for refugees of special humanitarian concern, would be the Iraqis most closely associated with the United States. Iraqis who qualify would be those, 1. who have been employed by or worked directly with the U.S. Government in Iraq; or, 2. who were employed in Iraq by a media or nongovernmental organization based in the United States or by an organization or entity that has received a grant from, or entered into a cooperative agreement or contract with, the U.S. Government; or, 3. who are spouses, children, sons, daughters, siblings and parents of those who worked for or with us; or, 4. who are members of religious or minority communities and have close family members in the U.S.

Those eligible would not have to be referred to our Government by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees or a U.S. Embassy. All applicants, however, would need to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. Applicants would be required to go through recently approved extensive security screening.

P-2 visas for these refugees would come out of the overall authorized admissions number for the refugee program, currently established at 70,000. That figure is determined every year by the President in close consultation with the Congress.

In addition to the new P-2 category of refugee applications, the legislation would expand the current U.S. Government program which provides special immigrant visas only to Iraqi and Afghan translators and interpreters. Those eligible for the expanded special immigrant visa program are Iraqis who have been employed by or worked directly with the United States for 1 year in the aggregate since 2003, and need not have served as a translator or interpreter for the military or Department of State.

Applicants for SIV visas would not need to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution, but they would need to meet security requirements, demonstrate that they provided faithful service to our Government, and provide a recommendation or evaluation. The Secretary of State would be required to provide applicants with protection or immediate removal from Iraq if they are in immediate danger. Five thousand of these visas would be available yearly for 5 years.

Importantly, our legislation requires the Secretary of State to establish a program for processing P-2 refugees and SIV applicants in Iraq and in countries in the region. The Secretary would be required to report to the Congress within 60 days on plans to establish this program. Currently, there is no mechanism for applying for refugee status in Iraq. Those fleeing persecution and seeking refugee status must find their way to Jordan or Syria, locate an official from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and then be referred to the U.S. Government by the United Nations. Because of the growing violence and risk for those associated with the United States, we need to find a way to address this problem for Iraqis inside Iraq. Our bill does not eliminate the referral system through the United Nations, or any other existing system, but it does create an essential mechanism for direct applications in country.

To oversee the implementation of this new program, the Secretary of State would be required to establish in the Embassy in Baghdad a Minister Counselor for Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons. This senior official would be responsible for overseeing the in-country processing of P-2 refugee and special immigrant visa applicants, and would have authority to refer them directly to the U.S. refugee resettlement program.

A parallel position would be created in the American embassies in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria to oversee the application process of P-2 refugees of special humanitarian concern. SIV applicants would work through regular consular channels in embassies in those countries.

Recognizing that the United States can only resettle a small number of the most vulnerable refugees within our borders, the Secretary of State would be required to consult with other countries about resettlement of refugee populations, develop mechanisms in countries with significant populations of displaced Iraqis to ensure the refugees' well-being and safety, and provide assistance to the countries in doing so.

In addition, the legislation would allow Iraqis denied asylum after March 2003 based on changed conditions to file a new petition with an immigration judge to reopen their cases. Those denied asylum, for example, on the grounds that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power and the United States is committed to building democracy in Iraq should be permitted to make their case again before a judge.

After 90 days, and annually thereafter, the President would be required to submit an unclassified report to

Congress with a classified annex if necessary, assessing the financial, security, personnel, considerations and resources necessary to establish the programs required in the act. After 90 days, the Secretary of Homeland Security would be required to submit a report to Congress outlining plans to expedite processing of Iraqi refugees, including a temporary expansion of the Refugee Corps, and plans to enhance existing systems for conducting background and security checks for Iraqis applying through the program.

More than 5 years ago, Arthur Helton, perhaps this country's staunchest advocate for the rights of refugees wrote, ``Refugees matter . . . for a wide variety of reasons . . . Refugees are a product of humanity's worst instincts--the willingness of some persons to oppress others--as well as some of its best instincts--the willingness of many to assist and protect the helpless . . . In personal terms, we care about refugees because of the seed of fear that lurks in all of us that can be stated so simply: it could be me.''

A year later, Arthur Helton gave his life for his beliefs. He was killed in Baghdad in 2003 while meeting with U.N. Special Envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello when a bomb destroyed the U.N. headquarters in Iraq.

But his words resonate today, especially when we consider the very human cost of the war in Iraq, and its tragic effect on the millions of Iraqis, men, women, and children, who have fled their homes and their country to escape the violence of a nation at war with itself.

America has a special obligation to keep faith with the Iraqis who now have a bulls-eye on their back because of their association with our Government.

At a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee in January, chilling testimony was presented about the dangers Iraqis face because of their association with America.

One Iraqi, Sami, was a translator for U.S. and Coalition forces and who now lives in the United States. He said, ``I too, have been targeted for my death. My name was listed on the doors of several mosques calling for my death. Supposed friends of mine saw my name on the list and turned on me because they believed I was traitor . . . In June 2006, I learned that I had been granted special status. As a result, today I live free from the fear of persecution and threats to my life that I faced on a daily basis in Iraq. My hope is that all brave Iraqis who worked and braved so much will have the same chance as I have had to live in freedom.''

Another Iraqi, John, worked as a water service man for U.S. troops. He said, ``My wife, my six children and myself fled Iraq after terrorist groups targeted me and my family because I aided the Americans by supplying water to their service camps.''

Ken Bacon, president of Refugees International, summed it up well when he said, ``There is a large group of Iraqis who have risked their lives to support the United States . . . people are sacrificing their lives to help the United States.''

The legislation has been endorsed by organizations including Refugees International, Refugee Council USA which encompasses Amnesty International USA, Arab-American and Chaldean Council, Chaldean Federation of America, Church World Service/Immigration and Refugee Program, Episcopal Migration Ministries, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Human Rights First, International Rescue Committee, Jesuit Refugee Service/USA, Jubilee Campaign USA, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, Migration & Refugee Services/United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children, and WorId Relief, the International Rescue Committee, and the PEN American center.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation in order to keep the faith with those many brave Iraqis whose lives are in jeopardy because of their association with our forces in Iraq.

I ask unanimous consent that the letters of suport be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, last year, the Nation was stunned by the terrible tragedies at the Sago, Alma, and Darby mines. Those disasters exposed the many failures in our laws on mine safety and mine health, and made clear that it is essential to bring these protections into the modern world.

Last year, Congress came together to take a vital step toward protecting the Nation's miners with the passage of the MINER Act, which addressed critical lapses in mine safety and accident response, but advances in scientific research and technological development show us that there is much more to be done. In part through the new scrutiny that is taking place under the MINER Act, we have learned a great deal more about what puts miners in danger and how to prevent it.

We need to begin to address these other pressing safety and health needs. That is why today I am introducing the Miner Health and Safety Enhancement Act of 2007.

There is much we can do in the area of mine safety emergencies to increase miners' chances of survival, and this legislation encourages the development of technologies to do so. It requires stronger seal barriers to protect miners from explosions in hazardous mining areas. It also requires mine companies to adopt more sophisticated communications technology to stay in touch with miners underground, and to install rescue chambers to protect miners in the event of an explosion or fire.

The bill does more to eliminate dangerous conditions in mines before they harm miners, by banning the unsafe practice of ventilating mines in the same passageway as coal-dust laden conveyor belts. This practice, unfortunately, has been approved by the Bush administration, and it contributed to the tragic fire at Alma mine last year.

Other reforms are essential as well. Establishing a national call center can quickly coordinate emergency information and enhance mine rescue and recovery operations. To see that accident investigations are objective and thorough, the legislation requires an independent investigation to be conducted if miners or their families ask for one.

Successful prevention depends also on the willingness of miners to tell the truth about their working conditions. Safeguards are needed to allow them to speak out about on-the-job hazards without fearing for their jobs. The bill establishes an independent ombudsman, so miners' safety complaints can be heard and fully addressed, without jeopardizing miners who blow the whistle on job hazards.

Tragically, we continue to see miners developing symptoms of black lung disease and other deadly respiratory illnesses of the past. To protect them, the bill requires operators to provide miners with personal dust monitors developed and certified by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. To make underground air safer, the bill adopts the Institute's levels for exposure to coal dust, silica dust, and other air contaminants. It also adopts the higher OSHA standard for asbestos. We cannot continue to allow miners to work without the protection of these important health standards.

Mining is an essential industry, and the nation's miners deserve the safest possible working conditions. We have a responsibility to see that our mine safety laws make our mines the safest and healthiest in the world. America's miners deserve no less. I urge my colleagues to support the Mine Health and Safety Enhancement Act of 2007.

Mr. President, let me, first of all, take a minute to talk about this bill for which unanimous consent was just requested. I think it is important in light of what the majority leader just said. Here we have a bill for which unanimous consent was requested. The American people need to understand what it means to get unanimous consent. It means all of us agree to it. It does not need to be further amended, it does not need to be changed, and it should be passed without ever having a vote on it.

This bill has a section in it that so far has lost over $3.5 billion of your money doing venture capital investing by the Small Business Administration. The OMB analysis says there is absolutely no need for this venture capital investment, especially because of the fact it has lost such a great amount of money. And venture capital investing itself is a highly risky business that requires tremendously acute knowledge and people of great acumen in terms of investing, and they lose lots of money investing.

The last thing we ought to be doing at the end of a session is passing a bill without vetting it, without debating it, without talking about the problems that are in the bill. This portion of the bill, the portion that is the Small Business Venture Capital Act, if anything, should come out of this bill. We should not reauthorize something that has lost already in excess of $3 billion, and something for which we do not get to look at the results until 10 years after it happens.

The last thing we ought to be doing is investing the American people's money in venture capital when we cannot pay for the things we need to be paying for that the American people are dependent on. I look forward to working with Senator Kerry. I have had a good relationship with him. We will sit down and talk about this bill. But I think it highlights what we need to be doing and not spending time in quorum calls but spending time debating bills.

I also want to spend a minute on this issue. I think the American people ought to be asking us about this. Here we sit, and we have one appropriations bill passed for the year that started October 1. I think I am correct. Other than the THUD bill, there has been no objection raised by the minority to proceeding to any of the appropriations bills. As a matter of fact, the choice was made not to bring up the appropriations bills in a timely manner and debate them because of the choice it was not a priority.

I do recall the tremendous criticism we rightly received for what happened last year in the appropriations process. What is going to happen? I am happy to be here for Christmas to do the business we should have already done. But let me lay out what will happen, and then let me also give a warning. At the end of sessions, what happens is we get the request to pass all sorts of legislation--much like this bill to which I just objected. Committees do good work on legislation. But a bill that has passed committee has to be agreed to by a majority of the Senators to be able to become law.

When we do unanimous consents, that means we are going to let it pass without looking at it, without amending it, and without voting on it. Well, at the end of the year, the time pressure comes. Everybody wants to get something passed. So what happens is we do a poor job of legislating because we do not look at it. We do not amend it. We do not have a debate so the American people can know about it. We just pass it.

I sent a letter to all of my colleagues today outlining and reinforcing four statements I made at the first of this year. I will object to any bill coming forward by unanimous consent at the end of the session unless it meets the requirements I laid out. That means no new authorizations unless you deauthorize something else. We are not going to grow the Government any more when we cannot pay for the Government we have. No. 2, it has to be constitutional. It has to be a true duty of the Federal Government, not an obligation of the State governments that we are going to stand up for, when they have a $6 billion to $7 billion surplus. Easily, when you look at any combination of any 10 States, they have an over $36 billion surplus totally, and we are running, in real numbers--non-Enron accounting but real numbers--a $250 billion surplus.

I am not going to allow--unless we want to put it on the Senate floor, unless we want to debate it--I am not going to allow us to pass bills at the end of the session by unanimous consent. So if you have a bill that you want to try to pass by unanimous consent, I would suggest we sit down and talk about it now, not 2 weeks from tomorrow but now. If they come in the last week, we will not have the time to look at them. So not agreeing to unanimously consider the bill as passed will be the standard fare.

Now, let's talk about the appropriations process. What we have is $23 billion more than what we agreed we are going to pass in total for the appropriations bills, not counting the emergency things we have already done that we have charged to our grandchildren. As the game is played in Washington, what will come is the pressure of chicken. We are going to play chicken because we chose not to do the appropriations bills at the appropriate time, and lots of Members have lots of earmarks in bills.

So they do not want us to continue to fund where we are. They want us to have an omnibus bill where we can have all these earmarks, about $26 billion worth of earmarks, so we can look good at home--not competitively bid, not based on priorities but based on our political priorities individually as Senators. We are going to spend about $23 billion more than what we said we are going to spend. That $23 billion is almost $300 billion over the next 10 years. And we are fighting about $80 billion on an AMT fix for 1 year. But we are not concentrating on the fact we are going to institute $300 billion worth of more spending.

I will remind my colleagues again, we do not have to raise taxes. We can eliminate the AMT. What we do not want to do, and what we fail to do, is get rid of the waste, fraud, abuse, and duplication that numbers in excess of $250 billion every year--every year--because we will not do the hard work of oversight.

So we are going to line up, and we are going to get a package from the House, and we are going to get a chance to vote on it, and the President has already said he is going to veto it if it has this excess number and all these earmarks in it. I would think this would be better than playing chicken: Why don't we live within our means like every family has to? That $250 billion comes to 20 percent of everything we spend in the discretionary budget. If you ask homeowners and families who are having a lot of pressure now, would they dare waste 20 percent of their budget, would they dare not look and reconsider how they are spending their money when it comes to their family budget, they would not. Yet we continuously refuse to do the hard work of oversight. We do not want to offend anybody. In the process we are offending the next two generations. My hope is we don't end up here at Christmas, but I was dead serious when I took my oath. I am going to defend the Constitution and I am going to work to make sure bills that are outside of that Constitution don't pass this body. I am going to defend my obligation to the next two generations and the heritage this country was built on--one generation sacrificing for the next--so future opportunity is there. I am going to do everything in my power to not let $23 billion of extra spending go through this Senate at the end of the year. Now, I may not be successful in that, but at the end of the day, I am going to sleep real well knowing I am fulfilling my oath, knowing that I know what the Constitution says. When we get outside the bounds of the Constitution, in terms of Federal responsibility, what we do is we say in name we are helping somebody and we are charging it to our grandchildren and undermining the very opportunity we all experience.

My hope is we can come together during this season and say: Let's get it right. Let's not spend a bunch of extra money. Let's put it back. We could be facing some pretty severe economic times in this country in terms of how things look, especially people who were sold homes and mortgages they didn't qualify for and now are struggling. How are we going to address that? How are we going to help them through that? How are we going to accomplish that which empowers people, not Government? We need to be working on those things. We do not need to be spending the extra money now that we may, in fact, need to spend later. We may, in fact, need to borrow money later. So we should be doing the job right the first time, staying within our means, doing what is necessary, even though it offends people who might not get something from the Federal Government through an earmark.

I believe the people of the Senate are great people. I believe, ultimately, they want what is great for this country. I know all of those who have children and grandchildren wish and hope for the very best for their lives and to experience the kind of opportunities we have had. But I wish to tell my colleagues it is at risk. It is not a small risk, it is a great risk. Mr. President, 2012 is coming fast; 2012, that day when the baby boomers are taking both Social Security and Medicare, when we start down this road of $79 trillion worth of unfunded mandates. How can we be trusted to fix those problems when we can't even live within our own budget?

I said before, about a year and a half ago on this floor, that there is a rumble in America and it is real. The American people are sick and tired of the partisan games we play. They don't want to see Republicans pointing their fingers at Democrats. They don't want to see Democrats pointing their fingers at Republicans. What they want us to do is the job of governing within our means.

Our problem is we have difficulty identifying what is most important: Our political careers or the future of the country. What gets in front of us too often is how do we look good at home rather than how do we look good in the future so we secure the promise America stands for. My hope is we will work together.

One final comment on the farm bill. We need a farm bill, but we don't need a farm bill that continues to have programs that wealthy people who aren't real farmers take advantage of--people who aren't farmers, yet suck the money out of the farm program. Twenty percent of our farmers produce 80 percent of our goods, but a large portion of the farm program goes to gentlemen farmers--doctors, lawyers, who happen to own a small acreage and then suck the programs dry for their own benefit for things they could very well afford to pay for. So the farm bill isn't going to go forward until we have an open amendment process.

I agree with the majority leader. We shouldn't have all of these votes that aren't necessarily related to the farm bill, but we should certainly fix the crop insurance program. We should certainly mandate that if you are getting a government benefit as a farmer, you ought to be a farmer. You shouldn't be an investor who is investing in making money off the hard-earned tax dollars of middle-class America. That is what too much of the farm program is. We shouldn't be setting about saying that if we are going to incentivize to get greater production, and then all of a sudden if somebody is successful at it, then you can't do it anymore. If an incentive is put in place to work, then let's make it work. We haven't done that with ethanol. We haven't said you can only produce so much ethanol. So if an incentive works, we ought to use it. But we ought to make sure the people getting those incentives are real farmers.

Again, I thank the Chair for his indulgence and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, in March of this year, I convened a hearing in the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship to look at what small businesses can do to confront global warming. In February, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change put forward a report that has been referred to as ``the smoking gun'' on global warming, written by more than 600 scientists, reviewed by another 600 experts, and edited by officials from 154 governments, the report provides indisputable evidence that the ice caps are melting, the sea level is rising, and the earth's surface is heating up at an alarming and potentially catastrophic rate.

Senator Snowe and I have worked together on a number of initiatives to combat global warming, including introducing the Global Warming Reduction Act of 2007, an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 65 percent by the year 2050. Today, we continue this partnership as chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship by introducing the Small Business Energy Efficiency Act of 2007.

There are nearly 26 million small businesses in this country, nearly 26 million business owners that are focused on keeping their doors open and putting food on the table for their families. And while climate change and national energy security sometimes seem like distant threats compared to rising health care costs and staying competitive in an increasingly global economy, small business owners are telling us that energy costs are indeed a concern. The National Small Business Association recently conducted a poll of its members, asking how energy prices affected their business decisions. Seventy-five percent said that energy prices had at least a moderate effect on their businesses, with roughly the same number saying that reducing energy costs would increase their profitability. Despite these numbers, only 33 percent have invested in energy efficient programs.

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that small businesses consume roughly 30 percent of the commercial energy consumed in this country, that is roughly 2 trillion kBtu of

energy per year, and it is costing small business concerns approximately $29 million a year. Through efforts to increase energy efficiency, small businesses can contribute to America's energy security, help to combat global warming, and add to their bottom line all at the same time.

The Small Business Energy Efficiency Act of 2007 seeks to assist small business owners in doing all of these things. First, the bill requires the Small Business Administration, SBA, to implement an energy efficiency program that was mandated in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. To date, the SBA has dragged its feet in implementing a program that could help small business owners to become more energy efficient. Administrator Preston should implement this important program today, and this bill directs him to do so.

Second, the bill establishes a program to increase energy efficiency through energy audits at Small Business Development Centers, SBDCs. The Pennsylvania SBDC currently operates a similar program, and has successfully assisted hundreds of businesses to become more energy efficient. As a result of the program, six of the eight winners of the 2006 ENERGY STAR Small Business Awards given by the EPA went to Pennsylvania businesses. This program should be replicated so that small businesses across the country have the same opportunity to cut energy costs through the efficiency measures.

In addition, this bill authorizes the Administrator to guarantee on- bill financing agreements between businesses and utility companies, to cover a utility company's risk in entering into such an agreement. The federal government should encourage utility companies to pursue these agreements with businesses, where an electric utility will cover the up-front costs of implementing energy efficiency measures, and a business will repay these costs through the savings realized in their energy bill.

This bill also encourages telecommuting through a pilot program at SBA. The Administrator is authorized to establish a program that produces educational materials and performs outreach to small businesses on the benefits of telecommuting.

Finally, the bill encourages increased innovation by providing a priority status within the SBIR and STTR programs that ensures high priority be given to small business concerns participating in energy efficiency or renewable energy system research and development projects.

As a Nation, we have much to do to secure our future energy supply and to solve the international crisis that is global warming. This bill represents one step in that process--to engage our small business owners in this effort, and to assist them in becoming more aware of what is possible. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I thank Senator Snowe for her work in this area.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with my colleague, Senator Snowe, to increase access to venture capital for small businesses. This type of financing is essential to grow a company, but it's hard to come by, particularly for start-up firms. The Small Business Administration, SBA, has played an important role in filling this gap for almost 50 years with the Small Business Investment Company, SBIC, program.

Since the SBIC program's inception in 1958, SBIC firms have invested $48 billion in more than 100,000 small businesses. For fiscal year 2006 alone, 30 percent of all SBIC investment dollars went to companies that had been in business for two years or less. Overall in that year, SBIC financing supported more than 2,000 small businesses which employed a total of 286,000 Americans.

Many extremely successful companies that received their start from SBIC financing are now household names: Intel, Federal Express, Jenny Craig, and Outback Steakhouse are all SBIC success stories. Companies receiving SBIC financing have also consistently appeared on a variety of prominent business lists, including Inc. 500, BusinessWeek's ``Hot Growth Companies'' and ``Hot Growth Hall of Fame,'' Fortune magazine's ``Best Companies to Work For'' and ``Most Admired Companies,'' and the

Mr. President, in addition to introducing a bill to reauthorize the Small Business Investment Company, SBIC, program, Senator Snowe and I are introducing a bill to extend the New Markets Venture Capital, NMVC, program. The Securing Equity for the Economic Development of Low Income Areas Act of 2007, or the SEED Act, is important to states like Massachusetts and Maine.

Both of our States are home to pioneers in the field of development venture capital, which uses the discipline of traditional venture investing to focus on economic development in low-income areas. We know the benefits of this type of investment and believe the model should be expanded to other parts of the country.

Our support is not new. In my case, I was the sponsor of the Community Development and Venture Capital Act of 1999, which created the New Markets Venture Capital program. Its purpose was to stimulate economic development through public-private partnerships that invest venture capital in smaller businesses located in impoverished rural and urban areas or that employ low-income people.

Both innovative and fiscally sound, this program was built on two of the Small Business Administration's most popular programs. It developed a financial structure similar to that of the successful Small Business Investment Company, SBIC, program, mentioned earlier, while also incorporating a technical assistance component similar to that of SBA's microloan program.

However, unlike the SBIC program, which focuses on small businesses with high-growth potential, the New Markets Venture Capital program focuses on small businesses that show promise of both financial and social returns--what is referred to as a ``double bottom line.'' These businesses have special needs, and they tend to want intensive, ongoing financial, management and marketing assistance, be higher risk, and need longer periods to pay back money than SBIC investments. However, they more than balance out the equation by providing good, stable jobs and creating wealth in our neediest communities.

Unfortunately, the program expired in 2006, and it has been operating under temporary authority since then. The SEED Act seeks to reauthorize, expand, and improve this important program.

First, the bill will reauthorize the program for the next 3 years until 2010, making it possible for the SBA to license up to 20 more New Markets Venture Capital funds. Those funds will have the potential to invest $250 million in small businesses in low-income areas, by leveraging $150 million in debentures. Building on experiences with this program and the Rural Business Investment Company Program, which proved the matching requirement unreasonable and inefficient, the bill changes the operational assistance grants so that firms can get up to $1 million in funding in order to provide the companies they invest in with management assistance services. This support is absolutely necessary to make their business a success. Also important to making future funds successful, we have clarified that new markets venture capital companies have two years to raise their private capital. The committee has been troubled by the Agency's interpretation of the NMVC statute, which they viewed as giving SBA the authority to choose how much time it can give conditionally approved NMVCs to raise private- sector matching money. The chosen time frames were unreasonable and not what Congress intended. This bill clarifies that they get the full 2 years to raise the money. The bill also establishes an office of new markets venture capital so that there are resources devoted to its management and oversight, something lacking in past years. And to try to expand the reach of development capital in other parts of the country, the bill requires the SBA, to the extent practicable, to try and license funds in each of the Agency's ten regions, so that there is diversity. And it requires the SBA, to the extent practicable, to try and license a fund that focuses on investments in small manufacturers, as a way to help stem the loss of manufacturing in this country.

On behalf of the Nation's small businesses and entrepreneurs, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this is National Small Business Week. This country has nearly 27 million small businesses in total, and their contributions to the country are remarkable. They create the majority-- the vast majority--of jobs, they drive the economy, and they are part of the solution to lead us out of economic downturns. But if we are going to really pay appropriate tribute to small business during Small Business Week, we frankly need to do more than simply provide lip service; we need to promote policies that work for small businesses, not policies that favor large businesses under the guise of helping small ones.

In the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, we have worked on behalf of small business on a bipartisan basis. Senator Snowe, the ranking member, and I and the entire committee passed unanimously three bills to improve small business services that help America's job creators expand their payrolls. Unfortunately, these bills have been blocked for a full year by some in the Senate: S. 1256, the Small Business Lending Reauthorization and Improvements Act of 2007; S. 1662, the Small Business Venture Capital Act of 2007; and S. 1671, the Entrepreneurial Development Act.

S. 1256, the Small Business Lending Reauthorization Improvements Act, passed the Small Business Committee 19 to 0 on May 16, 2007, almost a year ago. This legislation authorizes the Small Business Administration's major lending programs which are the largest source of long-term capital for small businesses in the country. The bill also strengthens the microloan program, a concept that has proven unbelievably effective around the world in helping men and women lift themselves and their families out of poverty by accumulating assets, building wealth, and creating jobs. That is very important because the income gap, the economic gap, is growing year by year. When an

average White family's net worth is $67,000 but an average African- American family's income is only $6,100, we have a long way to go in terms of creating wealth and fairness. The SBA loans fill a gap left by traditional bankers and play a significant role in meeting the capital needs of business owners in underserved areas. If S. 1256 is enacted, we will be able to leverage $87 billion in loans to more than 100,000 small businesses and reduce redtape for borrowers and lenders.

S. 1662, the Small Business Venture Capital Act of 2007, passed the Small Business Committee 19 to 0 on June 26, 2007, 10 months ago. This bill would simplify the Small Business Investment Company Debenture Program so it is more attractive to investors and allow the SBA to stabilize losses in the SBIC Participating Securities Program. The version of the bill we are trying to pass does not reauthorize the SBIC Participating Securities Program, as some in the past have suggested in public debate. They used that as one of the justifications for opposing efforts to pass the bill last December. The bill focuses on improving the SBIC debenture program, which is an initiative that has actually given us extraordinary job creators, such as FedEx, Intel, Calaway Golf. They have more than repaid the cost of anything to the Federal Government through taxes paid and jobs created.

In addition, S. 1662 reauthorizes the New Markets Venture Capital Program. This program addresses the market gap in venture capital for companies located in low- and moderate-income, rural, and urban areas-- i.e., high unemployment areas--as well as the need for smaller deals that neither traditional venture funds nor the SBIC Program will make. It has proven successful so far, and we need more community development venture capital to create sustainable, high-quality, local jobs. This bill would allow the SBA to start anywhere from 10 to 20 more funds. Without this Government partnership, these investments are not going to be done. So at a time when our economy is pressured and hurting, when we need to create jobs, it doesn't make sense for the Senate to be blocking something that came out of committee 19 to 0, in a totally bipartisan effort. The bill also aligns the New Markets Venture Capital Program with the New Markets Tax Credit Program, which is exactly what Congress intended.

S. 1671, the Entrepreneurial Development Act, passed the Small Business Committee 19 to 0 on June 26, 2007, also 10 months ago. This act reauthorizes and improves the Small Business Administration's entrepreneurial development programs such as small business development centers, women's business centers, and SCORE. Poor management decisions are the No. 1 reason businesses declare bankruptcy. In a shaky economy, the topnotch counseling provided by these services is critical to ensuring that small businesses survive the economic downturn and continue to provide jobs and income to families and communities.

This bill also increases assistance for small businesses wishing to conduct trade. Small businesses are 97 percent of all exporters, and for each additional $70,000 in exports generated, one additional U.S. job is created. These jobs pay 18 percent more on average than nontrade-related jobs. So small business success helps the economy and creates jobs.

Lastly, this bill creates a number of pilot programs to help small businesses deal with rising health care costs and regulatory burdens, all of which hinder small business success. It creates new programs in support of Native American entrepreneurship and takes steps to improve small business ownership by minorities in highly skilled fields such as engineering, manufacturing, science, and technology, and it guides them toward entrepreneurship as a career option.

These bills I have described have the ability to help more than 1 million small businesses. They would help with credit, with venture capital or with counseling. It makes no sense at all to have one or two folks in the Senate holding up the ability to move forward on these when our economy needs innovation and, frankly, the job creation these businesses create. With 80,000 jobs lost in March alone and almost 300,000 jobs lost since January, there is no time to waste.

I hope we can get these bills done and do so shortly.

I yield the floor.