PPP Extension Act of 2021

Madam President, the crisis on our southern border continues to escalate. CBP is tracking the largest surge in migrant apprehensions in 20 years. Unaccompanied children are literally piling up in close quarters. It turns out when politicians spend a 2-year campaign advertising amnesty, people actually listen. As one senior CBP official said, there is ``no end in sight.'' No end in sight.

The administration still refuses to even admit there is a crisis, much less address it. We keep hearing strange mixed messaging from the White House

podium like ``now is not the time to come,'' as if there will be a good time to break the law and come illegally, and the White House will let us all know when that time is, I assume.

The Washington Post put it gently: ``Administration officials have been plagued by muddled messaging.'' Boy, that is an understatement. But actually, when you look at Democrats' actions, the message isn't mixed at all. That is the problem. For months on the campaign trail, President Biden spoke directly to potential migrants. At one point, he said, ``You want to flee . . . you should come.'' That was President Biden.

President Lopez Obrador of Mexico himself stated this week that President Biden's campaign created expectations that ``caused Central American migrants, and also from our country, wanting to cross the border, thinking that it is easier to do so.'' That was the President of Mexico.

On Inauguration Day, the President followed through--five Executive orders to roll back immigration enforcement and open up the border. The administration wasted no time rolling back the policies from the prior administration that had guarded against this exact outcome. South of the border, message received. Some migrants are arriving with Biden campaign flags and T-shirts. One arriving person said, ``Biden promised us that everything was going to change.''

So what about the Democrats here in Congress? Are the House Democrats rising to the occasion with solutions? Well, not exactly. They prioritized passing another amnesty bill. They doubled down on the wrong direction and the wrong incentives.

The situation is raising eyebrows among Democrats' own rank and file. As one Texas Democrat put it, ``When you create a system that incentivizes people to come across . . . that immediately sends a message.''

Here, in the Senate, our Democratic colleagues decided to go the route of obstruction. Yesterday, Republicans tried to pass serious proposals to help address parts of the immigration system. Democrats rejected every single one of them.

Senator Ernst had a proposal to require detention for migrants charged with violent crimes. It is not exactly a radical idea. Democrats blocked it.

Senator Cruz had legislation to raise the stakes for repeated illegal entry. It is not exactly rocket science. Democrats blocked that one too.

Senator Blackburn and Senator Lee tried to combat child trafficking within the asylum process, and Democrats even blocked that.

The furthest left ideology on these issues is keeping Washington Democrats from upholding the basic responsibility of government: ensuring the integrity of our borders and protecting our national security.

Election Security

Madam President, now, on another matter. Yesterday, the Rules Committee held a hearing on the Democrats' proposal to tilt our entire political system on a partisan basis. It would forcibly rewrite every State's election laws in ways that defy common sense and are deeply unpopular with American voters.

It would mandate nearly unrestricted same-day registration. It would mandate big loopholes that would render voter ID almost meaningless. It would make every State legalize ballot harvesting, where paid operatives can turn up carrying big piles of ballots with other people's names on them, zero chain of custody.

Democrats want to hide behind the mantle of voting rights. What they are really proposing is less security, less integrity, and a grab bag of changes that are deeply, deeply unpopular. Just look at the other changes with zero relationship to voting rights that Democrats want to smuggle in behind that smokescreen.

This bill would take the Federal Election Commission from an evenly split, bipartisan panel to a partisan body so that Democrats could rule unilaterally over politics as well as citizens' speech, turn the neutral judge into a partisan prosecutor, and it would send taxpayers' money to fund political campaigns.

It contains a massive attack on the privacy of citizens who engage in free speech, a massive and intentional gift to cancel culture. That led even the leftwing ACLU to oppose this bill 2 years ago and lead senior ACLU lawyers to torch it again in the Washington Post just recently.

Democrats are desperate to avoid talking about any of these things. They are desperate to convince the media that a partisan takeover at the FEC, socialism for political ad makers, and an assault on free speech and Americans' privacy are just ``voting rights,'' a shameless, shameless bait and switch.

I noticed something funny yesterday. Remember, this is the same bill Democrats were shopping around 2 years ago in response to the 2016 election, which they said was a disaster. Now, 2 years ago, Democrats were marketing this bill as a massive shakeup that our broken elections badly needed.

Our democracy was in shambles after they lost in 2016. It was broken, they said. It was insecure, they said, and only this sweeping transformation could possibly repair it. Of course, it didn't pass, and the 2020 election came and went without the liberal takeover, and yet Democrats say it was a huge success.

Democrats said the 2020 election was beyond reproach. They said the integrity and security were beyond question. They have said only conspiracy theorists would complain about the last election.

Oh, but curiously enough, they are now still pushing this very same bill. Now, instead of a sweeping transformation, they are trying to say it would just preserve our smoothly functioning system so State legislatures can't mess it up.

So let's get this straight. Two years ago, in 2019, Democrats suggested this bill was a bold, radical overhaul for a broken system. In the meantime, what happened was, they got an election they liked, and now they claim the exact same legislation just does a few modest things to protect our system just the way it is.

What utter nonsense--utter nonsense. This legislation has but one goal, just one. It has only ever had one goal, just one. That goal was the same in 2019 as it is today. And that goal is to let Washington Democrats rig the rules of democracy from top down to hide that partisan project behind the smokescreen, the smokescreen of voting rights.

Business Before the Senate

Madam President, now one final matter. Senators will soon head home for the State work period. We will be seeing an Easter recess of optimism and hope as the tide of the pandemic continues to turn. Thanks to science and fueled by five bipartisan bills we passed last year, vaccines were developed, approved, and preordered in record time. America was delivering more than a million doses per day before the current administration even took office.

And because of last year's bipartisan work, our economy was already poised for a historic comeback. I am also going to be talking with Kentuckians about their confusion and concern surrounding the multitrillion-dollar partisan spending plan that Democrats just rushed through Congress recently, like why teachers unions got huge sums for schools, much of which won't be spent until years, years into the future, without any meaningful requirement to reopen, even though science says it is safe. There are concerns like why Kentucky and other States whose budgets have come through the crisis intact will actually be subsidizing massive bailouts to other States for mismanagement that predates the pandemic, and confusion and concern about the radical, last-minute provision that tries to prevent States from implementing any policy, any policy that might be interpreted as a tax cut.

That one could wreak havoc on the plans of local officials in my State and entire industries as they try to get the Bluegrass growing again. This provision has the potential to shoot down a State law designed to help the Commonwealth's small businesses deduct PPP expenses from their State taxes and unwind planned waivers of hikes on their unemployment taxes.

Secretary Yellen was asked about this huge uncertainty in a hearing yesterday, about how this will be defined or enforced. She essentially had no answers.

So I will be joining Kentuckians to celebrate what has gone well, thanks to our bipartisan work just last year; to hear their concerns about all the

consequences of the Democrats' go-it-alone effort; and to hear what they think about the multimillion-dollar cousin of the Green New Deal that Democrats are reportedly planning for a sequel.

Mr. President, I rise to celebrate Harriet Tubman, one of the most notable individuals in Maryland's history. Congress began officially recognizing March 10th as Harriet Tubman Day in 1990 and I am always grateful to speak to her accomplishments. Throughout her life she served as an abolitionist, soldier, spy and, most famously, as a conductor on the Underground Railroad. I would like to reflect on her contributions to human rights, civil rights, and women's rights in our Nation and to renew my commitment to addressing the shameful legacy of slavery in Maryland and across the U.S.--particularly as it pertains to environmental justice.

Harriet Tubman was born Araminta Ross to enslaved parents in Bucktown, Maryland in 1822. After emancipating herself, she dedicated her life to the advancement of freedom and the fight against slavery. Araminta adopted the name ``Harriet'' at the time of her marriage to John Tubman, a free Black man, around the year 1844. Tubman and her husband continued to live in Dorchester County until her escape from slavery in 1849, at the age of 27. She would courageously return to make over thirteen dangerous trips to lead nearly 70 enslaved people seeking freedom, repeatedly risking her life in pursuit of our Nation's highest aspirational ideal.

Throughout the American Civil War, Tubman served the Union at various times as a cook, nurse, scout, and even spy. She helped orchestrate the Combahee River raid in South Carolina that freed over 700 enslaved men, women, and children. After the war's end, Harriet focused her efforts on women's suffrage. In 1908, Tubman established the Harriet Tubman Home for the Aged in Auburn, New York. Five years later, she died of pneumonia on March 10, 1913. Although she spent her final decades in New York, the marshes and forests of Maryland's Eastern Shore are where Harriet Tubman first grew spiritually and physically strong.

Harriet Tubman made an indelible impact on my State and our Nation's history and I am proud to have played a role in memorializing her story to future generations. I worked to secure the authorities and funding for the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad Byway, which tells the story of her life in Dorchester and Caroline counties, and for the Harriet Tubman Underground National Historical Park. The National Park Service administers the national historical park Congress created in December 2014 and the national monument authorized by President Obama in 2013 as a single unit. The Park Service works in partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which manages the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, and the State of Maryland, which owns and co- manages the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad Visitor Center, to commemorate and interpret Tubman's remarkable story. Visitors can access the marshlands, largely preserved since her time, at the Visitor Center and nearby Refuge. The Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park centers her life's work not in physical structures, but instead through the landscape in Tubman's native Dorchester County, which we must defend against the social and ecological hazards of climate change.

While climate change is a global issue, it is felt on a local scale. Dorchester County's low-lying landscape of

tidal marshes, narrow peninsulas, and country roads linking isolated communities is threatened by sea level rise and land subsidence. Over one-half of the county lies in the 100-year floodplain, much of it in the tidal floodplain; even minor storms and routine high-tide events can flood vast portions of the county. In addition to flooding, saltwater intrusion threatens the failure of rural septic systems, and damage to roads, bridges, and other critical infrastructure. Climate- driven changes to the coastal ecosystem are also making it harder to earn a living through the primary local sources of income: agriculture, forestry, and the seafood industry.

Local communities are at the frontline of adaptation, and initial social inequality causes the disadvantaged groups in those communities to suffer disproportionately from the adverse effects of climate change, resulting in greater subsequent inequality. Dorchester County is no exception. After the Civil War, freedmen and women settled the land, which was often less arable and therefore more affordable. Today, the county has a population of 32,000, 26 percent of whom are Black. Black individuals are almost twice as likely to be unemployed or live below the federal poverty level as their white neighbors, attributable to systemic racism that has roots in Harriet Tubman's time of enslavement. The Union of Concerned Scientists developed a Climate Equity Tool to identify communities that face conditions that heighten their vulnerability to harm and are therefore high-risk environmental justice areas, including Dorchester County. UCS projects that the county will see a six-inch rise in sea level by 2030 and 13-inch rise by 2045.

Absent national or international climate policy direction under the Trump administration, cities and towns on the Eastern Shore and around the world have been focusing on solving their own climate problems. They are working to build flood defenses, plan for heatwaves and higher temperatures, install water-permeable pavement to better deal with floods and stormwater, and improve water storage and use. Dorchester County has a flood mitigation plan that identifies projects to protect resources at risk of being lost, including historic and cultural sites. However, implementation of such plans requires significant funding. It is essential that Congress enhance the resilience of vulnerable communities in Dorchester County and across the Eastern Shore--and the Nation--whose residents have been forced to manage periodic flooding and other climate impacts in relative social and political isolation. Frontline communities in Dorchester and neighboring Eastern Shore counties with strong historical and cultural ties require sufficient federal financial and technical assistance now to help plan for the future and make choices about how best to protect themselves from tidal flooding, saltwater intrusion, and coastal disasters.

Environmental justice is an essential component to carry on with respect to the anti-racist work that Harriet Tubman pioneered. The American Rescue Plan Act will provide debt relief and assistance to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers who have faced disproportionate impacts from the pandemic as a result of longstanding discrimination, as well as $50 million in funding to reduce the air pollution that is linked with contributing to COVID-19 deaths, targeted to low income communities and communities of color. These provisions present only a small down payment on the types investments needed to address inequality, and have yet to squarely address climate change.

The local communities on the Eastern Shore that served as Harriet Tubman's training ground in resistance are rarely credited for their outsized influence on Maryland's maritime industry, culture, and environment. We must do better to enshrine their place in our historical consciousness and provide them with the tools necessary to prepare for climate change. I am grateful for the opportunity to showcase the exceptional efforts of one particular Marylander and honor her by pursuing climate and environmental justice policies.

Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Madam President, first, let me thank the Senator from Oklahoma for bringing this to the floor.

Here is our challenge. If it gets onto the bill that we have before us, it will delay the continuation of the Paycheck Protection Program because it terminates on March 31. We are not going to have any program to modify. And the House is not in session until the second week in April so it is not possible to get this done before the program expires.

So, for that reason, we have to oppose any amendment on the underlying bill, which is a clean extension of the PPP.

But I want to thank my friend from Oklahoma for bringing this forward because I agree with you. As chairman of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, I support making the changes that the administration made in regard to the determination for self-employed retroactive. I think that is a fair thing to do. I also support making sure that the business structure that is chosen by a small business also qualifies, whether it be a partnership or a traditional business arrangement.

I think we need to make those changes, and I know our staffs are working on the exact language. There is some challenge on how we draft the language. And you have my commitment that we will work during this recess, and I assure you that I want to see this done. I hope we can do it by UC when we return, when the House is in session, and get this done as quickly as possible.

The point the Senator from Oklahoma raises is very valid, but let me go back to the original bill for the self-employed that used, as you said, a formula that didn't work. In some cases, it was $50 or $80 that they got on the PPP, which was ridiculous because a self-employed person doesn't have the same payroll expenses that a traditional small business has.

We based the PPP calculations on the payroll amount. That didn't apply to the self-employed. So that is why the gross receipts are the right way to make those calculations, and that is what we want to do. That is what this administration did in its recalculation, but it made it prospective only. It needs to be retroactive.

So I agree with the gentleman, but I cannot consent to agree to it today. And it is not going to delay the Senate consideration of it because the House is not in session for the next 2 weeks.

So the first time we can really get this done is the second week in April, and you have my commitment that we will work together to get the provision made retroactive and to cover the legal structures that are used by some of our small businesses that are not currently covered under the current interpretation--I think legal, this is a legal issue that we have to resolve.

For all those reasons, I do object.

Madam President.

I ask unanimous consent that there be two minutes of debate, equally divided, before each vote in today's series.

I rise in opposition to the Kennedy amendment.

Let me be clear. Any amendment that is put on this clean extension will mean that the program will terminate in less than 1 week, and hundreds of thousands of small businesses will not be able to get their PPP loans. These are newly eligible. We changed the calculations on how much you can apply for. Those who have difficulty finding a financial institution to write the forgivable loan, those in hard-to-serve communities, all are going to be denied. The SBA has indicated there are hundreds of thousands of eligible applicants that have not been able to get in by the due date.

Now, in regard to the Kennedy amendment, the SBA COVID-19 relief is for existing businesses and current business owners with proven reentry track records. Anyone who has rebuilt their life after being incarcerated should be celebrated and supported. There is no reason why a business owned by someone with an unrelated criminal record should be treated any differently.

I would urge my colleagues, for the sake of getting this bill to the President and signed so we can help our small businesses, to reject the Kennedy amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds to respond.

The gentleman's amendment goes well beyond that. The gentleman's amendment goes back 2 years. It could have been a civil disturbance on a college campus if someone now has an existing business totally unrelated to any economic crime. It is just something that should not be in this law, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Rubio amendment.

The policy that Senator Rubio is objecting to is implemented by the Small Business Administration to help the underserved communities.

During that 14-day period, 400,000 small businesses with 20 employees or less were able, at long last, to get PPP help. And almost half were first-time borrowers under the PPP program, those that had been shut out in the past.

But, specifically, the Rubio amendment, if it were adopted--and it is wrong policy--would require the House to concur. The House is not in session for 2 weeks. That could take us beyond the 31st of March, and the program would end, costing hundreds of thousands of small businesses the opportunity that--some are now eligible for the first time; some are trying to figure out the calculations.

So for all those reasons--and one last point: The Chamber of Commerce of the United States urges all of us to vote in favor of the underlying bill and oppose any amendment that would derail the expeditious approval of this measure.

Let's follow the Chamber's advice. Let's vote down the Rubio amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 1405

Mr. President, I have been advised by the administration there is an excess of $50 billion available at the end of this month for the extension. So pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions in section 4(g)(3) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget resolutions for purpose of the pending measure, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, first, I want to thank Senator Collins for her leadership on this issue. I want to thank Senator Shaheen for her help in getting this done.

This bill is widely supported. It passed the House by 415 to 3, supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the NFIB, and numerous other stakeholders in small business.

It will be 1 year since the passage of the CARES Act, and the PPP program has saved millions of small businesses from being shuttered. It has helped save our unemployment insurance system by keeping small- employer employees on the payroll. It has kept workforce together for small businesses, which is critically important to get through this pandemic.

Small businesses need additional time because we have changed the eligibility, we have changed the calculation, and you have to find private banks that are willing to take on this loan. And we are now into a second round. There is over $50 billion available at the end of this month to continue the program.

I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I would yield the remainder of our time to Senator Collins.

Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 1799, the PPP Extension Act of 2021. It is imperative that we act immediately to pass this bill because we are just days away from the PPP being closed to applications for assistance. This bill mirrors legislation I introduced with my colleagues, Senators Cardin and Shaheen, which is cosponsored by Senators Marshall, Sullivan, Rosen, Murkowski, Leahy, Wyden, Tillis, Ossoff, Capito, Merkley, Heinrich, Portman, Klobuchar, and Manchin.

Last March, Senators Rubio, Cardin, Shaheen, and I crafted the Paycheck Protection Program, PPP--a forgivable loan program designed to help keep small employers afloat and their employees paid during the pandemic.

The bipartisan bill we are considering today would simply extend the current application deadline for new PPP loans from March 31 to May 31 of this year and then provide an additional 30-day period during which time the Small Business Administration may continue processing applications received prior to the new May 31 deadline. This bipartisan bill passed the House last week by an overwhelming margin of 415 to 3.

The PPP has been a lifeline for small businesses in Maine and across the country, providing the support they need to survive the pandemic and continue paying their employees. In 2020, more than 5 million small employers received forgivable PPP loans, helping to sustain upwards of 50 million American jobs. This included more than 28,000 Maine small businesses, which received nearly $2.3 billion in forgivable PPP loans. The average loan size in Maine during this time was $80,000.

Recognizing the importance of this program for our Nation's small employers, the bipartisan December 2020 COVID-relief law provided an additional $284.5 billion to reopen the Paycheck Protection Program and allow the hardest hit small employers to receive a second forgivable loan. The December law also made other improvements to the PPP, such as expanding forgivable overhead expenses to include supplier costs and investments in facility modifications and personal protective equipment needed to operate safely.

Since reopening in January, more than 3.1 million additional forgivable loans--totaling nearly $196 billion--have been approved for small businesses across the country. In Maine, more than 12,700 small employers have

been approved for $797 million in forgivable loans since PPP's reopening. In total, Maine small employers have been approved for upwards of $3 billion in forgivable loans since the program was created last year.

I have heard from numerous small employers about the impact this program has had on them and their employees. The PPP has helped the owners of Pottle Transportation in Hermon, Anglers Restaurants in Hampden, and the Harraseeket Inn in Freeport keep their businesses alive and their employees paid. Hodgdon, America's oldest boat builder, was able to keep its family-owned East Boothbay business in operation with the help of two forgivable PPP loans. The owner of Channel X Radio in Aroostook County told me that two forgivable PPP loans kept his business going. The Boys & Girls Clubs of Southern Maine and the Y in Bangor have been able to provide childcare and other services to children due to support from the PPP.

With the ongoing distribution of COVID-19 vaccines and reopening of our Nation's economy, I am hopeful that better times will soon be ahead. We are not there yet, which is why we need to extend the deadline to apply for new PPP loans. Extending the deadline would provide more time for the Small Business Administration to resolve error messages generated by its computer systems that prevented eligible small businesses from receiving approval for a PPP Loan. It would also give us more time to address an inequity facing certain sole proprietors who received their PPP loans before the Biden administration unexpectedly announced a change in the maximum loan amount calculation for these types of businesses.

By extending the PPP for another 2 months and then providing an additional 30 days after that time for the SBA to process applications that are still pending, the bill before us today would help our Nation's small employers retain access to forgivable PPP loans.

This bill has been endorsed by more than 90 organizations, including the National Federation of Independent Business, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Hotel & Lodging Association, International Franchise Association, National Restaurant Association, the U.S. Travel Association, and the Independent Community Bankers of America. I would ask unanimous consent that these letters of support be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

I would like to once again thank my colleagues, Senators Cardin and Shaheen, for partnering with me on this legislation, and Senator Rubio for working to craft the PPP and oversee its implementation. I look forward to working with them and the new administrator of the Small Business Administration to ensure that the PPP is implemented according to Congressional intent.

I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill.

Mr. President, I urge all of our colleagues to vote yes on this bill, which will provide a crucial 2-month extension for the Paycheck Protection Program.

This program has been a lifeline to countless small businesses and has saved more than 50 million jobs in this country.

I salute my colleagues Senator Cardin and Senator Shaheen for their work on this extension, which was overwhelmingly passed by the House.

Let's talk about briefly what would happen if we do not act. If we do not act, there are approximately 190,000 loans still under review, which prevents any of these businesses from receiving a second PPP loan. These small businesses need this assistance now in order to pay their employees and stay afloat during this pandemic.

We cannot wait. The House has gone home. We cannot allow an interruption of this vital program that has made such a difference to our small businesses and their employees.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this 2-month extension, with an additional month for SBA to review the applications.

Vote on H.R. 1799

Madam President, there is a problem with the Paycheck Protection Program. It passed with overwhelming bipartisan support last December, but the implementation has been botched.

Let me explain what I mean. If you are a small business owner, if you are an individual that is a sole proprietor of what is called a schedule C, if you had major issues in trying to be able to cover your employment last year, you would turn in--make a request for the Paycheck Protection Program. It was extended in December of last year for only the hardest hit businesses, those that had a 25-percent loss or more. Those businesses could not survive into the next year.

So we extended it out and allowed them to be able to get additional time and an additional couple of months of payroll to be able to make sure they make it. Now, for these extremely small businesses, these sole proprietors, and these individuals who are out there, this means just them or sometimes them and one other person whom they are actually covering the expenses for. These are not our megabusinesses. These are our backbone small businesses. This is the truckdriver in Oklahoma. This is the piano teacher in Oklahoma. These are folks who are actually trying to be able to make a living the best way they know how.

When it was passed in December, the Small Business Administration interpreted that rule to say you can only use your net expenses for that--your net expenses. Then, in March, the Small Business Administration reinterpreted that and said: No, you could use your gross expenses on that.

Now, for a lot of folks, they would say: What is the difference on that?

Well, the difference is usually about $5,000 or $10,000. That is an enormous difference. And for some folks in this room, $5,000 or $10,000 may not be very much, but it is a lot more for that truck driver and that piano teacher.

So the logical thing for the Small Business Administration to do would be to say: OK. We changed the rule in March from what it was earlier so let's make it retroactive. Then folks who apply early, the most desperate folks, could actually still get the difference.

But that is not what happened. The Small Business Administration said: No, if you received the loan earlier, you received the smaller amount. If you waited and applied later, you get the larger amount.

It is the exact same type of business, exact same situation, but basically the Small Business Administration said: This is too complicated to go back and redo this. So we will just allow folks who applied early, the most desperate, to get the least, and folks who applied later to get more.

We are bringing an amendment that would just fix that and would allow the folks who applied early, the most desperate folks, to be able to get the same level of help as the folks that applied later.

So, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer my Amendment 1402.

Madam President, I do want to thank my friend from Maryland. This is an important issue. It does need to be resolved. It has not had enough attention on this. As he and I talked about it the last several days, and several others joined in, this deals with partnerships, whether it be ag. This deals with individuals.

So my friend from Kansas, he and I worked together on this to be able to combine a piece of legislation to make sure we are dealing with all types of businesses that will be affected, and I do hope to be able to get this through by unanimous consent in the days ahead to get this resolved as quickly as possible as well as continue to reach out to the Small Business Administration and to see what they can to do to be able to communicate with those folks.