Short Term Accelerated Retirement of Inefficient Vehicles Act of 2009

Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to establish a Cash for Clunkers proposal with my colleagues, Senators Susan Collins, Charles Schumer, and Thomas Carper.

This proposal would establish a Federal incentive program designed to encourage consumers to turn in their gas guzzling vehicles and buy more fuel efficient vehicles.

It would be authorized for 1 year, and provide for one to two million car or truck purchases. It would be funded with up to $4 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, to be identified by the President and approved by Congress under an expedited rescission procedure. There are approximately 47 million vehicles on the road today that could qualify for trade-in under this program.

This proposal will help stimulate auto sales at a time when sales are at historic lows.

U.S. auto sales tumbled by 37 percent from March of last year. Two of the three American auto companies have filed for bankruptcy, GM and Chrysler. Auto dealerships are closing. Tens of thousands of jobs have already been lost--and thousands more hang in the balance.

There is no question that our Nation's auto industry is in trouble, and all of us want to help.

But the whole point of a cash-for-clunkers program is to replace a clunker with a more fuel-efficient vehicle. Otherwise the program replaces a clunker with a guzzler, and destroys a good vehicle for one that is not fuel efficient.

So, the goal of the Feinstein-Collins ``cash for clunkers'' proposal is to require real fuel economy improvements--improvements that are lacking in the Auto Industry proposal.

Unfortunately, the Auto Industry proposal would allow for the scrapping of perfectly adequate vehicles in return for new gas guzzlers, like the 2009 Hummer H3T.

For example: a consumer could trade the 2005 Chevy Silverado 1500 4- wheel drive for a 2009 Hummer 3T 4-wheel drive, even though both vehicles are below size-adjusted CAFE standards for large pick-up trucks.

So this trade would be, in fact, replacing a clunker with a guzzler. The consumer would receive a voucher of $4,500 to make this trade. This is unacceptable.

In contrast, the Feinstein-Collins proposal that I am offering today would save 32 percent more than the Auto Industry proposal in oil use and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

To be specific, it would save 11,451 barrels of oil per day, versus 8,706 barrels in the industry proposal; save 176 gallons of gas per vehicle per year; versus 133 gallons in the industry proposal; and save 1.91 million metric tons of emissions per year; versus 1.45 million metric tons in the industry proposal.

Our proposal is supported by a coalition of those who care about reducing America's consumption of fossil fuels, including: CarMax, one of the Nation's largest car dealers; evironmental groups, including the Sierra Club; efficiency advocates, including the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, ACEEE, the Alliance to Save Energy, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, UCS; and consumer groups, including the Consumer Federation of America.

I believe the Feinstein-Collins bill is a sensible, balanced proposal that achieves better fuel mileage--32 percent more than the Auto Industry proposal--and would result in the rapid exchange of between one to two million vehicles.

Let me take a moment to outline the key differences between our proposal and the other Auto Industry proposal.

First, our bill would require that the newly purchased vehicles under this program have above-average fuel economy for their class.

For newly purchased cars: our proposal requires the vehicle get 24 miles per gallon, the current fleetwide average for cars. Auto proposal requires only 22 mpg.

For midsize SUVs and minivans: our proposal requires 20 mpg, the current fleetwide average for that class of vehicles. Auto proposal requires only 18 mpg.

For large pickups: our proposal requires 17 mpg, the current size adjusted

CAFE standard for this largest class of vehicles. Auto proposal requires only 15 mpg.

So, our bill is 2 miles per gallon better in every category of vehicle.

Second, our proposal targets some of the worst gas guzzling offenders on the road.

Under our proposal, the trade-in vehicle would be required to have a fuel economy of 17 miles per gallon or less--instead of the 18 miles per gallon threshold of the Auto Industry proposal. This would achieve greater oil savings by targeting the least efficient 47 million vehicles on the road today.

Third, our proposal would allow leased vehicles and newer used cars to qualify, in order to encourage greater participation by low-income consumers.

Our program would allow consumers who have signed three to five year leases to qualify for a voucher worth 50 percent of the value of a voucher for a new car. Last year, 18 percent of new vehicles were leased, so this is a sizable part of the auto marketplace and shouldn't be overlooked.

In contrast, the Auto Industry proposal makes no allowance for leased vehicle participation with typical terms, of 3 to 5 years.

Our proposal would also allow newer used cars like the 2007 Ford Escape Hybrid to be purchased through the program. 40 million used cars were sold in the U.S. last year--so I believe it makes sense to include these used cars and increase the rate of participation.

Our proposal creates a three-tier voucher system to provide the most financial payment to the consumer willing to save the most oil: $2,500 for the minimum fuel economy improvement of 7 mpg for cars and 3 mpg for trucks. $3,500 for a moderate fuel economy improvement of 10 mpg for cars, 6 mpg for mid-size SUVs, and 5 mpg for large trucks. $4,500 for the maximum fuel economy improvement of 13 mpg for cars, 9 mpg for midsize SUVs, and 7 mpg for large trucks.

So, the more you improve fuel efficiency, the more money you get.

In contrast, the Auto Industry proposal would scrap perfectly adequate vehicles in return for a voucher to help put more gas guzzling vehicles on the road.

In the SUV category, the Auto Industry proposal would provide consumers with a voucher of $3,500 to increase fuel economy from the traded-in vehicle to the new vehicle by only 2 mpg. For large pick-up trucks, it requires only a 1 mpg improvement.

Over the last 5 years, fuel economy standards for trucks and SUVs have gone up 2.4 mpg--so in many cases the industry proposal would subsidize people for trading in their old truck or SUV for the exact same model.

Let me discuss some examples: $3,500 to trade in the 2002 Jeep Cherokee for the 2009 Jeep Cherokee. $4,500 to trade in a 2005 four- wheel drive Chevy Silverado for a 2009 four-wheel drive Chevy Silverado. $3,500 to trade in a 2003 four-wheel drive Dodge Ram Pick-up for a four-wheel drive Dodge Ram Pick-up. $3,500 to trade in a 2002 Toyota 4-Runner for a 2009 Toyota 4-Runner SUV.

The examples go on and on.

With respect to fuel economy?

I strongly believe that--merely 2 years after passing the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act--we should not subsidize the purchase of inefficient vehicles.

This could have the effect of bringing down the fleetwide average fuel economy. In other words, it would nullify all we fought for in the passage of the first CAFE bill to improve fuel efficiency in 20 years.

But that is exactly what the Auto proposal would do: 68 percent of all cars sold last year, in 2008, 18 percent of which have below average fuel economy, 24 mpg or less--would qualify for the industry proposal. 28 percent of below-average SUVs and small pick-ups would also qualify for subsidy.

But it is in the large pick up category that the fuel economy threshold--15 miles per gallon--is remarkably weak under the Auto Industry proposal.

Under the other program, 96 percent of all new large pick-ups--not work trucks, but regular large pick-ups--which are the least fuel efficient vehicles on the road today, would qualify for subsidized purchase. More than 90 percent of below average new heavy duty pick-ups would qualify.

Gas guzzlers like these big pick-up trucks simply do not belong in this program.

I recognize that some believe this should be the goal of the program.

But these large pickups make up the least efficient class of all vehicles on the road. So, if there are 1 million more of these vehicles sold through this program--that would not have been sold otherwise--it could dramatically lower the fleetwide average fuel economy for new vehicles sold this year.

That is why I believe these inefficient, big pickup trucks don't belong in the ``cash for clunkers'' proposal.

In contrast, our proposal encourages the purchase of those vehicles that have above average fuel economy for their class.

Finally, I would like to take a few moments to counter one of the arguments from the other side.

There are those who have mistakenly claimed that this bill, which prioritizes fuel efficiency, would give an unfair advantage to foreign automakers.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, the American auto industry has produced some very popular models of more fuel efficient vehicles, and our bill would incentivize their purchase.

Together, these three firms build 44 to 50 percent of all vehicle models that would qualify for our program's proposal in model year 2009.

According to EPA, in 2008, General Motors sold 1.2 million vehicles that would have met the higher fuel economy thresholds in our bill. And Ford and Chrysler sold more than 465,000 and 593,000 vehicles last year, respectively, that could have met the thresholds in our proposal.

That means that there were 2.2 million fuel efficient vehicles sold last year--manufactured by the Big Three Auto companies--and all of them bought without the incentives in place.

So, just imagine how many could be sold this year with the incentives.

That is the point of this ``cash for clunkers'' bill--to encourage the sale of fuel efficient vehicles.

For many models, GM, Ford and Chrysler can scale up production of their most fuel efficient configurations of their current models in their current factories.

They can make more V-6 trucks, instead of V-8 trucks.

They can use 6-speed automatic transmissions instead of 4-speed.

They can make more 2 wheel-drive trucks.

For example, Ford makes a 15 mpg version and a 17 mpg version of its best selling 2009 F-150. It is the same truck, from the same factory.

This is true for all firms.

Chrysler builds a 17 mpg configuration and a 15 mpg configuration of its 2009 Dodge Dakota pick-up in Warren, MI.

GM builds 17 mpg configurations of the 2009 Chevy Silverado and the GMC Sierra pick-ups in Fort Wayne, IN, as well as less efficient configurations.

Ford builds 17 mpg configurations of its 2009 Ford Explorer Sport Trac pick-up in Louisville, KY, and less efficient versions as well.

But the difference is that our proposal would create an incentive for Ford, GM, and Chrysler to manufacture more of the fuel efficient, 17 mpg models.

Also last year, 100 percent of all large pickups and large vans sold that would have met the higher fuel economy thresholds in our bill were either built by the Detroit Three or in an American factory.

So, I think our bill strikes a better balance.

Contrary to what some may think, I do not believe that greater fuel economy and increased auto sales have to be considered as competing goals, but rather can be understood as complementary.

I think it is evident that our bill would achieve better fuel efficiency for the consumer, and would provide a more sound investment for the taxpayer.

Our program would also allow the vouchers to be used to buy used cars or even lease a more fuel efficient vehicle.

These options are important, especially to lower income Americans who need a new car but cannot afford to buy a new vehicle. The other version of this legislation would deprive many Americans of the opportunity to participate in the program.

Bottom line--we have chosen reasonable fuel economy levels that save more oil and help all firms, including the Detroit three, sell cars at a time when sales are desperately needed.

So, I encourage my colleagues to support the Feinstein-Collins- Schumer-Carper proposal, rather than the Auto Industry proposal.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to establish a Cash for Clunkers proposal with my colleagues, Senators Susan Collins, Charles Schumer, and Thomas Carper.

This proposal would establish a Federal incentive program designed to encourage consumers to turn in their gas guzzling vehicles and buy more fuel efficient vehicles.

It would be authorized for 1 year, and provide for one to two million car or truck purchases. It would be funded with up to $4 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, to be identified by the President and approved by Congress under an expedited rescission procedure. There are approximately 47 million vehicles on the road today that could qualify for trade-in under this program.

This proposal will help stimulate auto sales at a time when sales are at historic lows.

U.S. auto sales tumbled by 37 percent from March of last year. Two of the three American auto companies have filed for bankruptcy, GM and Chrysler. Auto dealerships are closing. Tens of thousands of jobs have already been lost--and thousands more hang in the balance.

There is no question that our Nation's auto industry is in trouble, and all of us want to help.

But the whole point of a cash-for-clunkers program is to replace a clunker with a more fuel-efficient vehicle. Otherwise the program replaces a clunker with a guzzler, and destroys a good vehicle for one that is not fuel efficient.

So, the goal of the Feinstein-Collins ``cash for clunkers'' proposal is to require real fuel economy improvements--improvements that are lacking in the Auto Industry proposal.

Unfortunately, the Auto Industry proposal would allow for the scrapping of perfectly adequate vehicles in return for new gas guzzlers, like the 2009 Hummer H3T.

For example: a consumer could trade the 2005 Chevy Silverado 1500 4- wheel drive for a 2009 Hummer 3T 4-wheel drive, even though both vehicles are below size-adjusted CAFE standards for large pick-up trucks.

So this trade would be, in fact, replacing a clunker with a guzzler. The consumer would receive a voucher of $4,500 to make this trade. This is unacceptable.

In contrast, the Feinstein-Collins proposal that I am offering today would save 32 percent more than the Auto Industry proposal in oil use and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

To be specific, it would save 11,451 barrels of oil per day, versus 8,706 barrels in the industry proposal; save 176 gallons of gas per vehicle per year; versus 133 gallons in the industry proposal; and save 1.91 million metric tons of emissions per year; versus 1.45 million metric tons in the industry proposal.

Our proposal is supported by a coalition of those who care about reducing America's consumption of fossil fuels, including: CarMax, one of the Nation's largest car dealers; evironmental groups, including the Sierra Club; efficiency advocates, including the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, ACEEE, the Alliance to Save Energy, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, UCS; and consumer groups, including the Consumer Federation of America.

I believe the Feinstein-Collins bill is a sensible, balanced proposal that achieves better fuel mileage--32 percent more than the Auto Industry proposal--and would result in the rapid exchange of between one to two million vehicles.

Let me take a moment to outline the key differences between our proposal and the other Auto Industry proposal.

First, our bill would require that the newly purchased vehicles under this program have above-average fuel economy for their class.

For newly purchased cars: our proposal requires the vehicle get 24 miles per gallon, the current fleetwide average for cars. Auto proposal requires only 22 mpg.

For midsize SUVs and minivans: our proposal requires 20 mpg, the current fleetwide average for that class of vehicles. Auto proposal requires only 18 mpg.

For large pickups: our proposal requires 17 mpg, the current size adjusted

CAFE standard for this largest class of vehicles. Auto proposal requires only 15 mpg.

So, our bill is 2 miles per gallon better in every category of vehicle.

Second, our proposal targets some of the worst gas guzzling offenders on the road.

Under our proposal, the trade-in vehicle would be required to have a fuel economy of 17 miles per gallon or less--instead of the 18 miles per gallon threshold of the Auto Industry proposal. This would achieve greater oil savings by targeting the least efficient 47 million vehicles on the road today.

Third, our proposal would allow leased vehicles and newer used cars to qualify, in order to encourage greater participation by low-income consumers.

Our program would allow consumers who have signed three to five year leases to qualify for a voucher worth 50 percent of the value of a voucher for a new car. Last year, 18 percent of new vehicles were leased, so this is a sizable part of the auto marketplace and shouldn't be overlooked.

In contrast, the Auto Industry proposal makes no allowance for leased vehicle participation with typical terms, of 3 to 5 years.

Our proposal would also allow newer used cars like the 2007 Ford Escape Hybrid to be purchased through the program. 40 million used cars were sold in the U.S. last year--so I believe it makes sense to include these used cars and increase the rate of participation.

Our proposal creates a three-tier voucher system to provide the most financial payment to the consumer willing to save the most oil: $2,500 for the minimum fuel economy improvement of 7 mpg for cars and 3 mpg for trucks. $3,500 for a moderate fuel economy improvement of 10 mpg for cars, 6 mpg for mid-size SUVs, and 5 mpg for large trucks. $4,500 for the maximum fuel economy improvement of 13 mpg for cars, 9 mpg for midsize SUVs, and 7 mpg for large trucks.

So, the more you improve fuel efficiency, the more money you get.

In contrast, the Auto Industry proposal would scrap perfectly adequate vehicles in return for a voucher to help put more gas guzzling vehicles on the road.

In the SUV category, the Auto Industry proposal would provide consumers with a voucher of $3,500 to increase fuel economy from the traded-in vehicle to the new vehicle by only 2 mpg. For large pick-up trucks, it requires only a 1 mpg improvement.

Over the last 5 years, fuel economy standards for trucks and SUVs have gone up 2.4 mpg--so in many cases the industry proposal would subsidize people for trading in their old truck or SUV for the exact same model.

Let me discuss some examples: $3,500 to trade in the 2002 Jeep Cherokee for the 2009 Jeep Cherokee. $4,500 to trade in a 2005 four- wheel drive Chevy Silverado for a 2009 four-wheel drive Chevy Silverado. $3,500 to trade in a 2003 four-wheel drive Dodge Ram Pick-up for a four-wheel drive Dodge Ram Pick-up. $3,500 to trade in a 2002 Toyota 4-Runner for a 2009 Toyota 4-Runner SUV.

The examples go on and on.

With respect to fuel economy?

I strongly believe that--merely 2 years after passing the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act--we should not subsidize the purchase of inefficient vehicles.

This could have the effect of bringing down the fleetwide average fuel economy. In other words, it would nullify all we fought for in the passage of the first CAFE bill to improve fuel efficiency in 20 years.

But that is exactly what the Auto proposal would do: 68 percent of all cars sold last year, in 2008, 18 percent of which have below average fuel economy, 24 mpg or less--would qualify for the industry proposal. 28 percent of below-average SUVs and small pick-ups would also qualify for subsidy.

But it is in the large pick up category that the fuel economy threshold--15 miles per gallon--is remarkably weak under the Auto Industry proposal.

Under the other program, 96 percent of all new large pick-ups--not work trucks, but regular large pick-ups--which are the least fuel efficient vehicles on the road today, would qualify for subsidized purchase. More than 90 percent of below average new heavy duty pick-ups would qualify.

Gas guzzlers like these big pick-up trucks simply do not belong in this program.

I recognize that some believe this should be the goal of the program.

But these large pickups make up the least efficient class of all vehicles on the road. So, if there are 1 million more of these vehicles sold through this program--that would not have been sold otherwise--it could dramatically lower the fleetwide average fuel economy for new vehicles sold this year.

That is why I believe these inefficient, big pickup trucks don't belong in the ``cash for clunkers'' proposal.

In contrast, our proposal encourages the purchase of those vehicles that have above average fuel economy for their class.

Finally, I would like to take a few moments to counter one of the arguments from the other side.

There are those who have mistakenly claimed that this bill, which prioritizes fuel efficiency, would give an unfair advantage to foreign automakers.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, the American auto industry has produced some very popular models of more fuel efficient vehicles, and our bill would incentivize their purchase.

Together, these three firms build 44 to 50 percent of all vehicle models that would qualify for our program's proposal in model year 2009.

According to EPA, in 2008, General Motors sold 1.2 million vehicles that would have met the higher fuel economy thresholds in our bill. And Ford and Chrysler sold more than 465,000 and 593,000 vehicles last year, respectively, that could have met the thresholds in our proposal.

That means that there were 2.2 million fuel efficient vehicles sold last year--manufactured by the Big Three Auto companies--and all of them bought without the incentives in place.

So, just imagine how many could be sold this year with the incentives.

That is the point of this ``cash for clunkers'' bill--to encourage the sale of fuel efficient vehicles.

For many models, GM, Ford and Chrysler can scale up production of their most fuel efficient configurations of their current models in their current factories.

They can make more V-6 trucks, instead of V-8 trucks.

They can use 6-speed automatic transmissions instead of 4-speed.

They can make more 2 wheel-drive trucks.

For example, Ford makes a 15 mpg version and a 17 mpg version of its best selling 2009 F-150. It is the same truck, from the same factory.

This is true for all firms.

Chrysler builds a 17 mpg configuration and a 15 mpg configuration of its 2009 Dodge Dakota pick-up in Warren, MI.

GM builds 17 mpg configurations of the 2009 Chevy Silverado and the GMC Sierra pick-ups in Fort Wayne, IN, as well as less efficient configurations.

Ford builds 17 mpg configurations of its 2009 Ford Explorer Sport Trac pick-up in Louisville, KY, and less efficient versions as well.

But the difference is that our proposal would create an incentive for Ford, GM, and Chrysler to manufacture more of the fuel efficient, 17 mpg models.

Also last year, 100 percent of all large pickups and large vans sold that would have met the higher fuel economy thresholds in our bill were either built by the Detroit Three or in an American factory.

So, I think our bill strikes a better balance.

Contrary to what some may think, I do not believe that greater fuel economy and increased auto sales have to be considered as competing goals, but rather can be understood as complementary.

I think it is evident that our bill would achieve better fuel efficiency for the consumer, and would provide a more sound investment for the taxpayer.

Our program would also allow the vouchers to be used to buy used cars or even lease a more fuel efficient vehicle.

These options are important, especially to lower income Americans who need a new car but cannot afford to buy a new vehicle. The other version of this legislation would deprive many Americans of the opportunity to participate in the program.

Bottom line--we have chosen reasonable fuel economy levels that save more oil and help all firms, including the Detroit three, sell cars at a time when sales are desperately needed.

So, I encourage my colleagues to support the Feinstein-Collins- Schumer-Carper proposal, rather than the Auto Industry proposal.

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

Mr. President, as I come to the floor today, America's Main Street businesses are suffering. With cash registers not ringing like they used to, exporting has become a practical solution for entrepreneurs looking to survive and grow.

What helps our entrepreneurs helps our entire economy. Every $1 billion of exports creates more than 14,000 high-paying American jobs. By creating jobs, as well as lessening the trade deficit, an increase in small business exporting will lead us out of this recession and make our Nation better able to compete in the global marketplace.

Small businesses already play a vital role in America's trade and commerce,

representing 97 percent of all exporters. Yet, with only one percent of small firms exporting their goods--making up slightly more than a quarter of the country's export volume--trade remains dominated by larger businesses.

A December 2008 report released by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis noted that U.S. exports of goods and services grew by 12 percent in 2008 to $1.84 trillion. However, this same data showed that during the same time period imports increased 7.4 percent to $2.52 trillion. More involvement of our small businesses in exporting would be an enormous catalyst in reducing the country's trade deficit.

As Chair of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have heard from small exporters across the country. They have told me that the programs and services we have now at the Small Business Administration, SBA, are just adequate, but improvements are needed. With a few key changes to some of the export assistance and trade programs offered by the SBA, as well as a higher level of advocacy, I believe we can dramatically improve the tools available to small exporters while simultaneously increasing exporting opportunities for all entrepreneurs.

That is why today I am introducing the Small Business International Trade Enhancements Act of 2009. With this important legislation, small firms will have more opportunities to grow their businesses by expanding into international markets, creating jobs and strengthening our economy.

Like many small businesses, one of the biggest hurdles faced by small exporters is access to capital. The current economic conditions exacerbate this problem for small firms. The SBA offers several loan programs to help small exporters, but years of neglect under the previous administration have sometimes rendered these valuable tools both unattractive and impractical for borrowers and lenders alike.

One of the SBA's signature trade assistance products, the International Trade Loan, ITL, program, is a perfect example of this. This program allows exporters to borrow up to $2 million with $1,750,000 guaranteed by the SBA. Exporters can then use this money to help develop and expand overseas markets, upgrade equipment and facilities, or provide an infusion of capital if they are being hurt by import competition.

While the original goal of this program is still very much on target with the needs of larger exporters, it has not evolved to meet the financing needs of small exporters in an ever-changing global economy. The volume of loans made through this program has dropped by more than 63 percent since 2003. The SBA's other signature trade financing products--the Export Working Capital Program and the Export Express program--have also seen significant drop-offs in their loan volume, 26 percent and 23 percent respectively.

With a few small but significant changes to these programs, the SBA will be able to once again provide a user-friendly and attractive financing option that makes sense for both borrowers and lenders. One of the biggest problems with the ITL program, for example, is that a discrepancy between the loan cap and the guarantee often forces borrowers to take out a second loan to take full advantage of the guarantee. Additionally, ITL's can only be used to acquire fixed assets, rather than working capital, a common need for exporters. ITL's also do not have the same collateral or refinancing terms as SBA 7(a) loans.

The provisions in this legislation create a more commonsense product by addressing these concerns. The bill raises the loan guarantee to $2,750,000 and the loan cap to $3,670,000, to make it consistent with the 7(a) loan program. Further, it makes the ITL program more flexible by allowing working capital to become an eligible use for loan proceeds and extends the same terms for collateral and refinancing as with the 7(a) loan program. The end result is a relevant and more practical tool for small exporters.

Making these simple changes to this program will go a long way towards helping small businesses find adequate export financing. The SBA International Trade Loan and other export financing programs, however, leave borrowers without any assistance in identifying which loans are right for them. Local lenders that specialize in export financing can help get these products into the hands of the small exporters that need them the most, but they are not always the most effective means of doing so.

The SBA currently has 17 financial specialists posted throughout the country at one-stop assistance centers operated by the Department of Commerce. These specialists, at a minimal cost to the taxpayer, have facilitated well over $10 billion in exports in the last 10 years, helping to create 140,000 new and higher-paying jobs. Unfortunately, under the previous administration, this program suffered as well. My legislation would restore the staffing levels to what they were in 2002, establishing a floor of 22 financial specialists with priority staffing going to those centers--including one in my home, New Orleans--who have been without a finance specialist since 2003.

With more than 19 Federal agencies involved in export and trade promotion, small exporters often do not know where to turn for help. My legislation would help bring small business trade to the forefront in two ways.

First, it gives the SBA's Office of International Trade, OIT, more resources and a higher profile within the Agency, making it directly accountable to the Administrator instead of part of the Office of Capital Access, OCA, where it is currently held. OIT is doing an adequate job now, but with my proposed changes, the office would have the potential to become a much more valuable partner and visible advocate for small exporters.

In addition to raising the level of advocacy within the SBA, my legislation reasserts the call for a special small business advocate within the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative USTR. The USTR plays an important role in every aspect of trade in this country. While the Office claims to make small businesses a central focus, I believe more can be done to address the needs of our entrepreneurs during trade negotiations. I, along with my Ranking Member on the Small Business Committee, Senator Snowe, and Senator Schumer, reached out to Ambassador Kirk earlier this year asking him to create an Assistant Trade Representative focused on small exporters. Such a move would not be unprecedented. In fact, this very chamber called on the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to create such a position more than 20 years ago.

The Small Business International Trade Enhancements Act of 2009 is an important first step towards ensuring that small firms will have more opportunities to grow. By increasing exporting opportunities for small businesses, we will help them expand into international markets, create new and higher-paying jobs and strengthen the economy. I have heard from some of the members of my Committee, and I know how important this issue is to many of them, including Ranking Member Snowe.

The 111th Congress will be the third consecutive Congress that I have introduced this particular legislation. I introduced it in the 109th Congress as S. 3663 and in the 110th Congress as S. 738. In these previous Congresses we have had some success in moving the bill through committee--a similar version of this bill passed the Senate Small Business Committee twice in the last two Congresses. However, as with other SBA reauthorization legislation, it stalled in the full Senate. As the new Chair of the Small Business Committee this Congress, I have made increasing small business export opportunities one of my top priorities. With this in mind, I will work closely with Ranking Member Snowe and the other Committee members in the coming months to get this legislation to the President's desk.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Export Opportunity Act of 2009, a measure that would provide improved and expanded support for small businesses, through critical programs and reforms, to help them compete globally and export their goods and services to foreign markets.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and as a senior member of both the Senate Finance and Commerce Committees, one of my top priorities is to ensure that small businesses get the promised benefits of our international trade relationships and are able to compete in the world economy.

While globalization has created opportunities for small businesses to sell their goods and services in new markets, not enough small businesses are taking advantage of these international opportunities. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce, only 266,457 of the approximately 27 million small businesses, or less than 1 percent, currently sell their products to foreign buyers. Small businesses are a vital source of economic growth and job creation, generating approximately 75 percent of net new jobs each year. Small businesses are essential to our economic recovery, and we must help them take advantage of all potential opportunities, including those in foreign markets.

Small businesses face particular challenges in exporting. It can be difficult for small exporting firms to secure the working capital needed to fulfill foreign purchase orders, for instance, because many lenders will not lend against export orders or export receivables. Small business owners may not know how to connect with foreign buyers, or may not have the time or resources necessary to understand other countries' rules and regulations.

Currently, Federal programs are grossly inadequate at helping small businesses overcome the challenges of exporting. This legislation gives small businesses the resources and assistance needed to explore potential export opportunities, or to expand their current export business.

The bill includes provisions I have supported for many years, during my tenure as both Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Small Business Committee. For instance, I first introduced legislation in 2001, in the 107th Congress, to establish a U.S. Trade Representative for Small Business, in order to ensure that small business interests are reflected in U.S. trade policy and trade agreement negotiations. The legislation I am introducing today includes this vital provision.

The legislation also includes provisions from bills I have introduced in past Congresses, since the 109th, to elevate the head of the Small Business Administration, SBA, office responsible for trade and export programs to the Associate administrator-level, reporting directly to the administrator. It also includes provisions requiring that the SBA immediately fill its trade specialist positions that have been vacant for years.

The Small Business Export Opportunity Act of 2009 would also bolster the SBA's technical assistance programs, and will improve export financing programs so that small businesses have access to capital needed to support export sales. Furthermore, the legislation increases the coordination among other federal agencies--the Department of Commerce, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Export- Import Bank--to ensure that small businesses benefit from all the export assistance the Federal Government offers.

The legislation also provides small businesses with matching grants, of up to $5,000, for expenses relating to activities that help them start or expand export activity. It creates a new Office of Small Business Development and Promotion at the SBA, and it improves the SBA's network of international trade counselors. This legislation increases the maximum size of SBA-guaranteed export working capital and international trade loans, and it establishes a permanent Export Express program. It also establishes a program to provide support for small businesses related to trade disputes and unfair international trade practices.

Small businesses can survive, diversify, and compete effectively in the international marketplace by developing an export business. But, as I mentioned, too few small businesses are expanding into international markets. This legislation will help small business owners take the crucial steps of finding international buyers for their goods and services and will enable small business owners to secure the financing needed to fill orders from foreign buyers.

This investment could yield tremendous returns for our economy. The U.S. spends just \1/6\ of the international average among developed countries in promoting small businesses exports. Every additional dollar spent on export promotion results in a 40-fold increase in exports, according to a World Bank study.

We cannot overlook the impact of trade on small businesses. An investment in small business exporting assistance is an investment in our economy. This legislation will help small businesses stay competitive, help them grow, and speed the recovery of our economy as a whole. I ask all of my Senate colleagues to support this vital legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing with Senator Brown, the STEM Education Coordination Act of 2009. This bill addresses what we call STEM education--science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--which is critical for our competitiveness in the years and generations to come.

This bill is nearly identical to the version of H.R. 1709 reported by the House Committees on Science and Technology and on Education and Labor and which may be approved by the House of Representatives as early as today. It is quite a simple proposal. It would require coordination of Federal STEM education activities.

We can all agree that STEM education is crucial to our future. Technological innovation accounts for more than half of the growth of our economy since the Second World War. The discoveries and innovations of our STEM professionals create whole new opportunities, new industries, new companies, new products and services, and

new ways of delivering old products and services efficiently. To build a clean energy economy, to stay competitive in a globalizing world, to drive the health and science research that will improve our quality of life, we need more people trained in these skills. All too often, though, we are lagging behind other nations in producing these scientists and engineers.

Our ability to keep our lead in technology, which has defined American economic strength for generations, is deteriorating. The need for more STEM education and also particularly to reach women and underrepresented minorities is well recognized. The Congress has acted in recent years to support legislation such as the America COMPETES Act that broadens our competitiveness efforts beyond simply STEM education.

But there is also a concern that we are not using our current STEM education resources as efficiently and effectively as we could. As noted in the House Science Committee report:

For the most part, agencies have developed their programs

independently rather than sharing ``best practices'' and

collaborating across agencies. Each program has also

developed its own methods and criteria for evaluation, making

a comparison of effectiveness across the programs impossible.

To get the most out of our efforts, this bill would require coordination of Federal STEM education activities. It would direct the Office of Science and Technology Policy to establish a committee under the National Science and Technology Council that is responsible for coordinating Federal science, technology, engineering, and math education programs and activities. These include Federal programs of the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Education, and others. This newly formed committee will have three main responsibilities.

First, the committee will coordinate the Federal STEM education activities and programs.

Second, the committee will develop, implement, and update a 5-year STEM education achievement plan, including objectives and metrics so we can assess how well we are doing.

Third, the committee will maintain an inventory of federally sponsored STEM education programs and activities, including rates of participation by underrepresented minorities.

So that the Congress can make use of this information to advance our STEM education efforts, this bill will require an annual report that includes: One, a description of STEM education programs and activities; two, the level of funding for the programs and activities for each participating Federal agency; three, a description of the progress made in carrying out the implementation of the plan; and, four, a description of how participating Federal agencies disseminate information about available STEM education resources to States and practitioners.

This coordination is among the ideas suggested by then-Senator Obama in a bill he offered in the 110th Congress, S. 3047.

In sum, this bill will do just what its title suggests: coordinate our STEM educational activities. We not only have a duty to this Nation to make sure Federal dollars are spent as efficiently and effectively as possible, but it is also critical to our economy that we succeed in fostering a workforce that can out-discover, out-think, out-innovate, and out-produce our worldwide competition.

This legislation will help us reach these goals. In a world increasingly dominated by technology, I believe our economy, our environment, and our future depend on improving STEM education.

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