Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am happy to tell our colleagues we have also worked this out and can take this by voice vote.

I appreciate the cooperation of the Senator from Oklahoma. We have no objection to providing the reports to the committee which he has requested, reports to Homeland Security. However, many of these reports are expenditure plans, and all we ask is that the Appropriations Committee receive them 2 weeks in advance. The Senator has agreed to that, and we have no objection to taking this by voice vote.

Mr. President, the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship will meet on March 14, 2013, at 10:30 a.m. in room 432 Russell Senate Office building to hold a roundtable discussion entitled ``Helping Small Businesses Weather Economic Challenges & Natural Disasters: Review of Legislative Proposals on Access to Capital and Disaster Recovery.''

Madam President, as we begin our work this afternoon, I wished to come to the floor to make a few comments about the Homeland Security appropriations bill which is now going to be included in the amendment offered by Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby as part of an appropriations bill coming over from the House. This is such an important step forward, not just for the government but for the private sector jobs which depend on reliable, transparent, and appropriate government spending, for the whole country. We have been in gridlock and stopped on our funding bills for months now. We have not been talking about what makes Americans happy and prosperous--smart investments in their future and their interests.

We have been fighting about appropriations bills. That fight, hopefully, is coming to an end because of the extraordinary leadership of the Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, the senior Senator from Maryland, and the newly minted--not new to the committee, a true veteran of the Appropriations Committee--chairwoman of our committee. She is in an able partnership with Senator Shelby of Alabama, a longstanding appropriator who understands practical politics and compromise is necessary to move anything of importance through this body. I can't thank them and their staffs enough for salvaging several of these important bills.

They weren't able to come to an agreement on everything. I and others are still troubled we will not see much progress in the areas of education and health, as much as we would like, but that is for another day. We are going to move forward on the sections we may move forward together. One of those areas is funding for homeland security, which is a pretty big bill by Federal Government standards. It is not the largest, it is not the smallest, it is $42 billion. That is not chump change. It is a significant amount of money the taxpayers provide to us to make decisions about their security. It funds everything from Border Patrol and protection to Customs and Immigration.

It funds the Coast Guard, which is a very important part of our operations. We feel that directly as a coastal State in Louisiana and are very familiar with the needs of coastal communities. The Coast Guard is always there.

It funds a number of other entities. I do not want to fail to mention cyber security, which is one of the newest, most frightening threats to our country. This threat didn't even exist 20 years ago. You may see the ever-evolving capacity of people who would do us harm: not just governments that don't like the United States, not just groups that don't like the United States, but individuals who have some bone, some beef, some anger, and may actually act out in unbelievable ways through the Internet by attacking sensitive material and data.

This is not just an attack to the government functions of our country, but we have seen any number of attacks on our private infrastructure. This is so critical to our existence, whether it is our water systems, our financial systems, our utility systems, our electricity systems. I could go on and on.

This is a very important responsibility for the Federal Government to step up and figure out, working with the Department of Defense, Department of Commerce, and the Department of Homeland Security, which I chair. This is no insignificant matter.

On the contrary, it is not only important for us to have the right money but

invest it in the right places. We are trying very hard to do that. This is why it would have been very dangerous, in my view, to have this bill stuck. We would be funding last year's priorities, not being able to account for all the new intelligence which has come in over the last 12 months. This is an evolving, ever-growing, ever-changing threat. We would have been spending taxpayer money funding last year's threats, not tomorrow's threats.

This is why Barbara Mikulski, the chair of our committee, fought so hard to say we must move some of these appropriations bills forward to ensure appropriate funding and not wasting the taxpayer money. She was right. She was able to negotiate with Senator Shelby a yes--not a no, not a maybe but a yes--for the homeland security bill, and I could not be a happier chairman.

I also want to thank Senator Coats, who is my able ranking member from Indiana. He worked hand-in-glove with me to put this bill together. Our staffs worked very closely together. We had a few minor disagreements and views. We were able to work them out and work through it, obviously. This bill is here with his signature and mine on it. We were able to negotiate in very good faith with our House counterparts, and I want to thank them.

Chairman Mikulski says the four corners have signed off on our appropriations bill, both in the House and the Senate, the Republicans and the Democrats. It took some give and take, but that is what we need to do.

I want to highlight a few areas in the bill people have been very interested in. First, the bill includes total discretionary spending of $39.6 billion. As I said, $42 billion was what it was a few years ago. Like every committee, we have taken a cut, we have taken a reduction. Contrary to what you might hear, we are tightening our belts and we are cutting into some muscle. We are cutting into some bone. It is not easy, but it is necessary.

However, there is a point where you can't keep cutting or you won't be able to provide the security in the phrase homeland security. It will just be homeland. There won't be a big security piece around us because we have chopped it up. When people who want to harm this country discover this, they will find the weakness.

I am not trying to scare up additional funding, but I am speaking the truth. Do you want to secure a border? You may talk about it or you may actually build one. If you want a strong Customs agency, which moves people through quickly but ensures no bad things come into our country, you need to fund it. This does not happen on a wish and a prayer.

We have a flat budget. We have reorganized to accommodate what Senator Coats and I believe are the priorities for the Members here representing the people. The Coast Guard, cyber security, border security, travel facilitation I will return to in a moment.

For the Coast Guard, the bill includes $9 billion in discretionary spending, which is $400 million above the President's request. We have cut out some other things, but those of us on the committee believe the Coast Guard is important. The Coast Guard is on the front line for drug interdiction, which I don't have to explain to people. It is not classified information that now we have drug kingpins owning submarines which bring drugs into the United States. People read about this. It is true. It is not science fiction. We need to make certain the Coast Guard has access to stop drugs from coming into our country in smart, aggressive ways, working in partnership with other governments.

I don't have to remind everyone about the oilspill, the terrible accident. That trial is still going on in New Orleans as I speak, with hundreds of lawyers still debating the worst oilspill in the history of the country. Who showed up? The Coast Guard. They have to have all sorts of equipment to be able to respond for drug interdiction, which is different than an oilspill cleanup; and, of course, people are rescued literally every day by the brave men and women of the Coast Guard who risk their lives to keep our commerce and our recreational boating moving throughout this Nation.

We have $557 million for production of the sixth national security cutter. Let me say something about this that people don't understand. I see my good friend Dick Shelby, and he most certainly understands this as a Senator from Alabama, but I want people who are not on our Appropriations Committee to understand something. When most people in America buy a big item, such as a house or even when they send their kids to college, they finance that. They take that big hit, such as a $40,000 loan to send their child to college for 1 year or $120,000 or $160,000 for 4 years, if they are going to a very fancy, expensive school. Happily, for some of us, at LSU we get a great bargain and a great education for $10,000. But for some families even $10,000 for 4 years is a lot of money. They do not pay cash for that. They finance that. The Senator from Alabama knows this.

Under the rules in Washington, we cannot finance most things. People don't understand this. We have to pay cash. So because we need that national security cutter, I had to find $557 million in our budget to pay for it this year, even though it takes a long time to build it.

I think this should be changed. Senator Snowe, who was the chair of this Committee on Defense, Navy, for many years, thought it needed to be changed, but it has not changed as yet. I want people to know the pressures we are under in this bill, because sometimes when we have to fund these big items in one year, basically, we have to pay cash.

Now, yes, ultimately this money is being borrowed through the general fund--and I don't want to get into a technical argument--but as far as we are concerned, we are paying cash for it in our budget--$557 million this year for the national security cutter.

We are also funding $77 million for long lead time, $335 million for six new fast response cutters, $90 million for a new C-130 J aircraft, and I have invested, at my priority, $10 million for military housing for the Coast Guard.

The Army, the Navy, the Air Force have been upgrading their housing. The poor Coast Guard, because they are smaller and they are more isolated, is not in areas where we can take advantage of that public- private partnership that is working so well. I think our Coast Guard families need some support, and I was able to find some funding there for them.

I don't need to take much more time. I don't know if the Senator from Alabama is here to speak, but I will take 5 more minutes, and if he needs me to cease, I will.

But I want to also point out that we put some investments in the bill to address the cyber threat, which the President has described, and I agree with him, as one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation. This bill includes $757 million, which is $313 million above last year, and I was happy to do that. I think this is a priority. We have moved other items around in the budget because this is a real threat, it is evolving every day, and we have to have the research and technology to address it and work with the private sector to see what we can do to keep their network safe and our government strong.

The bill includes $7 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund. This was also a battle we fought. The money is in there for Sandy, for Isaac, for Irene, for Ike, for Gustav, for Rita and Katrina and there are a few other storms that are, even after 6 or 7 years, still open. So this is money there for them to finish their recovery.

In science and technology, the bill includes $835 million, a 25- percent increase. I want to say one other thing, and I think Senator Shelby will agree with me, that people don't understand how important it is that the Federal Government invests in research and development. Yes, private companies do invest in research and development, but some of the investment we do is truly so farfetched that no one in their right mind would invest in it because there is no immediate return. Yet we have seen, time and time again, when the Federal Government steps up and makes those long-term investments in research, what happens-- something is discovered. The Internet was a good example of research through the Department of Defense, and I could give other examples. But soon enough, the private sector realizes, oh my gosh, this research is breakthrough--such as that which came from our research in health on our DNA and all the new and exciting technologies in health.

I can tell you our State is benefiting a great deal from the research done 20 years ago on fracking. That wasn't done by Exxon or Mobil, it was done by the Federal labs out West because of research money in one of our bills. I am not sure which bill it was, but potentially in energy, and that is what is leading to the revolution in natural gas. As to this baloney that the Federal Government doesn't have to invest in research and technology, we do it in partnership with the private sector, and it is the best system in the world. We would be shortchanging ourselves and our future economic growth if we didn't continue it.

Finally, just one more word about another priority. I have put some additional funding by moving some things around for Customs and Immigration and for TSA. I am not the only Senator who represents a State that depends, in large part, on the hospitality tourism and trade. I could list many States in our country that do as well, but let me tell you about Louisiana. We believe in hospitality. We believe it is a good business. We enjoy having people come to our State. They come, and we all have a great deal of fun and excitement with our festivals and our fairs. But at the end of the day, we make money and we create jobs and it is an important industry. I am alarmed at the fallout of international travel to the United States since 9/11. It has only increased by about 1 percent.

To put that into perspective--and I believe this number is correct, but I will check it for the record--as the Senator from Alabama knows, international travel in the world has increased by something like 400 percent. So people are going to China, they are going to Korea. There is a growing middle class, and what middle-class people do, besides buy homes and send their kids to school, is travel. It is a middle-class thing. We now have more middle-class people in the world than ever, but they are not coming to the United States because we are not investing in the kinds of infrastructure in our airports and ports that provide a safe but pleasant environment. So I am working very closely with the International Travel Association--and I want to thank them publicly for the work they are doing--because I am one Senator who believes in this. I think the President has also said that international travel means jobs for Americans right here at home. It is something they cannot transport.

For border security, the bill maintains the legislatively mandated staffing floor of 21,370 border patrol agents and provides $76 million above the request for Border Patrol staffing within customs and border protection.

Similarly, the bill provides $240 million above the request for maintaining current staffing levels of frontline CBP officers at our land, air, and sea ports of entry. The fiscal year 2013 budget request for CBP submitted to Congress over 1 year ago resulted in an overall funding shortfall of more than $320 million. This bill fills the vast majority of that shortfall through internal savings and reductions in other, lower priority areas. CBP will continue to face challenges in meeting its staffing requirements and I am committed to helping this important agency fulfill its critical missions.

The bill includes $1.46 billion for first responders grants, an increase of $200 million above fiscal year 2012. These grants ensure our frontline responders are trained and equipped for catastrophic disasters. Recent examples of grant investments that supported disaster response are: communications assets, search and rescue units, generators, and medical equipment used during the 2011 tornadoes in Arkansas, Alabama, and Missouri; joint operations centers, rescue boats, and hazardous materials equipment used during Hurricane Sandy in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut; and cutting-edge mobile vehicle radios and an upgraded 911 call center used during Hurricane Sandy in Maryland.

While the response to more frequent severe disasters has improved, the funding in this bill will help address remaining gaps in preparedness. For instance, the recent National Preparedness Report found that State and local governments are less than halfway to achieving needed recovery capabilities and defending against the growing cybersecurity threat.

Finally, in an effort to maximize resources for frontline missions, the bill approves the request to eliminate $800 million in administrative costs and rescinds $307 million in unobligated balances associated with low-priority programs. The bill also requires 30 expenditure plans to ensure oversight of taxpayer dollars.

I would like to conclude by emphasizing my concern with the impact sequester will have on the Department of Homeland Security. Despite the smart investments that are made in this bill, the problem of sequester remains.

The Secretary of Homeland Security has testified before the Appropriations Committee that these automatic budget reductions will be disruptive and destructive to our Nation's security and economy.

At our busiest airports, peak wait times could grow to over 4 hours or more during the summer travel season. Such delays would affect air travel significantly, potentially causing thousands of passengers to miss flights with economic consequences at the local, national, and international levels. New flights that bring in hundreds of millions of dollars to the U.S. economy would be delayed or potentially denied due to reduced staffing.

Sequestration will also impact our Nation's land borders. For example, daily peak wait times at the El Paso Bridge of the Americas could increase from 1 hour to over 3 hours.

The Coast Guard will have to reduce operations by up to 25 percent impacting drug and migrant interdiction efforts.

The sequester will impact our ability to detect and analyze emerging cyber threats and protect civilian federal computer networks, and

FEMA will delay implementing critical reforms to improve disaster response and recovery.

The Border Patrol workforce could be reduced by 5,000.

I urge Senators to work together on a bipartisan basis to repeal this ill-conceived sequester and approve legislation that includes balanced deficit reduction.

I again want to thank the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Mikulski; the vice chair, Senator Shelby; and the ranking member on the Homeland Security Subcommittee, Senator Coats for their hard work in including the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2013 in this essential legislation to fund the Federal Government.

I am very happy to speak about this bill, but I do see the leaders are on the floor--the chairman and the ranking member--and I want to personally thank them both for bringing our appropriations bills to the floor. I have spoken about homeland security, but there are other bills that need to be talked about this afternoon. I am happy we could work out this agreement with my Republican counterparts, and, again, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their extraordinary leadership.

Mr. President, as Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I remain focused on the needs of small businesses. Much of what we do on the committee involves overseeing the Small Business Administration's contracting, counseling, and capital programs, and we are always looking for ways to improve them. As our country slowly recovers the economic downturn, one of the most pressing issues facing small business owners is access to capital.

In the past two fiscal years alone, the Small Business Administration, SBA, supported over $30 billion in loans to approximately 60,000 small businesses each year through its 7(a) and 504/CDC lending programs. As of September 2012, there were over 2,400 SBA lenders nationwide. While the SBA currently releases some information publicly about SBA lending activity, it is extremely difficult to find and comprehend if you are not an SBA lending professional. If a small business, mayor, or governor wants to determine SBA lending activity in their area, they lack the ability to do so easily.

I come to the floor today to introduce a bill that would increase accountability at the SBA in its lending reporting activity. The Communicating Lender Activity Reports from the Small Business Administration, CLEAR SBA, Act would require the SBA to establish an online database to provide consumers with more transparent, user- friendly data about their local SBA lenders.

More specifically, the CLEAR SBA Act would require the SBA to post a user friendly Lender Activity Index on the SBA website. Users will be able to access the following data for any given bank: name of bank or Certified Development Company, CDC, number of SBA loans each lender made, total dollar amount of SBA loans of each bank or CDC, zip code of lender activity, not where every single loan was made, but a list of every zip code where the bank has made an SBA loan, industries lent to, hospitality, manufacturing, service, software, etc., stage of business cycle, new, or existing business, and business specific information, i.e. Women Owned Businesses, Minority Owned Businesses, or Veteran Owned Businesses. Data will be available for the year to date and users will be able to compare to 3 previous fiscal years. Both quarterly and annual data will be included.

I would like to emphasize that this proposal has already received bipartisan support. In the 112th Congress, the SBA Lender Activity Index was included as a provision in Title II of the SUCCESS Act. On July 12, 2012, the Senate voted on the SUCCESS Act. On July 12, 2012, the Senate voted on the SUCCESS Act as part of Senate Amendment 2521 to S. 2237, the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act of 2012. Although the amendment came up short of the 60 votes needed to end debate, the SUCCESS Act received a strong 57 bipartisan votes, including five of my Republican colleagues. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together in support of this common sense proposal to increase transparency and accountability at the SBA.

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

Mr. President, as Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I remain focused on the needs of small businesses. Much of what we do on the committee involves overseeing the Small Business Administration's contracting, counseling, and capital programs, and we are always looking for ways to improve them. As our country slowly recovers the economic downturn, one of the most pressing issues facing small business owners is access to capital.

In the past two fiscal years alone, the Small Business Administration, SBA, supported over $30 billion in loans to approximately 60,000 small businesses each year through its 7(a) and 504/CDC lending programs. As of September 2012, there were over 2,400 SBA lenders nationwide. While the SBA currently releases some information publicly about SBA lending activity, it is extremely difficult to find and comprehend if you are not an SBA lending professional. If a small business, mayor, or governor wants to determine SBA lending activity in their area, they lack the ability to do so easily.

I come to the floor today to introduce a bill that would increase accountability at the SBA in its lending reporting activity. The Communicating Lender Activity Reports from the Small Business Administration, CLEAR SBA, Act would require the SBA to establish an online database to provide consumers with more transparent, user- friendly data about their local SBA lenders.

More specifically, the CLEAR SBA Act would require the SBA to post a user friendly Lender Activity Index on the SBA website. Users will be able to access the following data for any given bank: name of bank or Certified Development Company, CDC, number of SBA loans each lender made, total dollar amount of SBA loans of each bank or CDC, zip code of lender activity, not where every single loan was made, but a list of every zip code where the bank has made an SBA loan, industries lent to, hospitality, manufacturing, service, software, etc., stage of business cycle, new, or existing business, and business specific information, i.e. Women Owned Businesses, Minority Owned Businesses, or Veteran Owned Businesses. Data will be available for the year to date and users will be able to compare to 3 previous fiscal years. Both quarterly and annual data will be included.

I would like to emphasize that this proposal has already received bipartisan support. In the 112th Congress, the SBA Lender Activity Index was included as a provision in Title II of the SUCCESS Act. On July 12, 2012, the Senate voted on the SUCCESS Act. On July 12, 2012, the Senate voted on the SUCCESS Act as part of Senate Amendment 2521 to S. 2237, the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act of 2012. Although the amendment came up short of the 60 votes needed to end debate, the SUCCESS Act received a strong 57 bipartisan votes, including five of my Republican colleagues. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together in support of this common sense proposal to increase transparency and accountability at the SBA.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce the Expanding Access to Capital for Entrepreneurial Leaders Act, or the EXCEL Act. This legislation will enhance the already successful Small Business Investment Company, SBIC, program at the Small Business Administration, SBA, that has helped over 100,000 small businesses. The best part of this bill is that the EXCEL Act should not cost the taxpayer anything.

The SBA runs a venture capital program by guaranteeing money borrowed by qualified investment funds who invest in small businesses. The qualified funds, or Small Business Investment Companies, SBICs, are privately owned and operated, but licensed and regulated by the SBA. Using a combination of private investments and the loans guaranteed by the SBA, typically at a ratio of $2 in guaranteed funds for every $1 of private capital, SBICs make longterm investments in American small businesses. In order to participate in the program, funds pay licensing fees which serve to cover all SBIC program costs. As a result, the core SBIC program, Debenture SBICs, not only boasts a strong success rate, but also incurs no cost to the U.S. government. Since the program's inception, over $50 billion has been invested in over 100,000 small businesses.

In the last Congress, the former Ranking Member of the Small Business Committee, Senator Olympia Snowe, and I conducted a roundtable with 14 participants from the SBA, SBICs, SBIC investors, and small businesses to elicit suggestions on enhancing the program. Out of that was born the EXCEL Act.

The EXCEL Act is a bipartisan effort encompassing much-needed changes that will allow the SBIC program to meet growing demand and will make improvements so that more small businesses can access capital.

First, the EXCEL Act raises the SBIC program authorization level from $3 billion to $4 billion and pegs it to inflation. This change is long overdue--the ceiling has been at $3 billion for some time, despite inflation and the impressive growth in the SBIC program. To illustrate: the program grew 50 percent in fiscal year 2011 alone. In order to meet demand, we need to give the program room to grow.

Secondly, the EXCEL Act will encourage successful investors by raising the limit on ``families of funds.'' Family of funds refers to a team of SBIC fund managers who operate several funds. These are currently limited to $225 million of SBA-guaranteed debt. However, SBIC fund managers who manage more than one fund generally see better investment results. The EXCEL Act will encourage that kind of success by giving families of funds a higher limit of $350 million, which will be indexed to inflation.

Next, the EXCEL Act improves transparency and accountability in the program. The legislation requires that the SBA make public how effective individual SBICs are in their small business investments, guaranteeing that SBA-backed money is being used responsibly.

Finally, the EXCEL Act promotes outreach, thereby ensuring that the maximum possible number of small businesses can benefit from the SBIC program. The legislation encourages outreach to community banks and other lenders, states and municipalities, and asks the SBA to make their SBIC website more user-friendly.

The EXCEL Act contains a number of commonsense provisions that have had support across the aisle. It enhances a program with proven success in providing capital to small businesses, and does so with the expectation that it will not add a dime to the deficit. Let us get this bill passed. Let us help small businesses excel.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce the Expanding Access to Capital for Entrepreneurial Leaders Act, or the EXCEL Act. This legislation will enhance the already successful Small Business Investment Company, SBIC, program at the Small Business Administration, SBA, that has helped over 100,000 small businesses. The best part of this bill is that the EXCEL Act should not cost the taxpayer anything.

The SBA runs a venture capital program by guaranteeing money borrowed by qualified investment funds who invest in small businesses. The qualified funds, or Small Business Investment Companies, SBICs, are privately owned and operated, but licensed and regulated by the SBA. Using a combination of private investments and the loans guaranteed by the SBA, typically at a ratio of $2 in guaranteed funds for every $1 of private capital, SBICs make longterm investments in American small businesses. In order to participate in the program, funds pay licensing fees which serve to cover all SBIC program costs. As a result, the core SBIC program, Debenture SBICs, not only boasts a strong success rate, but also incurs no cost to the U.S. government. Since the program's inception, over $50 billion has been invested in over 100,000 small businesses.

In the last Congress, the former Ranking Member of the Small Business Committee, Senator Olympia Snowe, and I conducted a roundtable with 14 participants from the SBA, SBICs, SBIC investors, and small businesses to elicit suggestions on enhancing the program. Out of that was born the EXCEL Act.

The EXCEL Act is a bipartisan effort encompassing much-needed changes that will allow the SBIC program to meet growing demand and will make improvements so that more small businesses can access capital.

First, the EXCEL Act raises the SBIC program authorization level from $3 billion to $4 billion and pegs it to inflation. This change is long overdue--the ceiling has been at $3 billion for some time, despite inflation and the impressive growth in the SBIC program. To illustrate: the program grew 50 percent in fiscal year 2011 alone. In order to meet demand, we need to give the program room to grow.

Secondly, the EXCEL Act will encourage successful investors by raising the limit on ``families of funds.'' Family of funds refers to a team of SBIC fund managers who operate several funds. These are currently limited to $225 million of SBA-guaranteed debt. However, SBIC fund managers who manage more than one fund generally see better investment results. The EXCEL Act will encourage that kind of success by giving families of funds a higher limit of $350 million, which will be indexed to inflation.

Next, the EXCEL Act improves transparency and accountability in the program. The legislation requires that the SBA make public how effective individual SBICs are in their small business investments, guaranteeing that SBA-backed money is being used responsibly.

Finally, the EXCEL Act promotes outreach, thereby ensuring that the maximum possible number of small businesses can benefit from the SBIC program. The legislation encourages outreach to community banks and other lenders, states and municipalities, and asks the SBA to make their SBIC website more user-friendly.

The EXCEL Act contains a number of commonsense provisions that have had support across the aisle. It enhances a program with proven success in providing capital to small businesses, and does so with the expectation that it will not add a dime to the deficit. Let us get this bill passed. Let us help small businesses excel.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Wayne Leonard, who served as Entergy's chief executive officer from 1999 and chairman/CEO from 2006 until January 2013. Over the course of those years, his visionary leadership as Entergy's top executive also encompassed impassioned advocacy for issues such as climate change, poverty and social justice. To a great extent, his compassion for people from all walks of life and his desire to protect the environment for future generations came to define his tenure at Entergy.

When Leonard was named CEO in 1999, he began calling for action by business, community, and political leaders to break the cycle of poverty that has stunted economic growth in the mid-South region for generations. Since that time, Entergy has donated more than $50 million to charitable initiatives and advocacy efforts that successfully helped move low-income residents toward self-sufficiency. Among them were campaigns to improve early childhood education programs and financial support of a matched-savings program that has helped 19,000 people and created an economic impact of $69 million over the last decade.

Leonard pioneered the pursuit of sustainability within his industry. Early on, he recognized the importance to the industry's future of operating in an economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable manner. His achievements include a number of landmarks that set the standard and shaped the future for the energy industry. Under his leadership, in 2001 Entergy became the first utility in the United States to commit to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, work force safety, customer satisfaction, and strong regulatory relationships were always top priorities for Leonard. Entergy has delivered top-quartile shareholder return--the overarching financial goal Leonard set for the company--since he was announced as CEO in 1998.

After the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Leonard led the restoration not just of a company but also a city and its surrounding region. Entergy and its charitable foundation donated more than $20 million to nonprofits working to rebuild the physical, intellectual, and cultural assets of New Orleans. When Katrina's damages prompted Entergy to consider relocating its corporate headquarters, Leonard lobbied to keep Entergy in New Orleans and take a lead role in the city's revitalization and renewal.

Leonard has personally received numerous national honors in recognition of his outstanding leadership, including Platts Global Energy CEO of the Year, the Anti-Defamation League Torch of Liberty Award, and the National Wildlife Federation Achievement Award. During his tenure, Entergy was named to the Dow Jones Sustainability Index for 11 consecutive years for demonstrating strong financial performance and outstanding leadership in environmental and social commitment.

Leonard's passionate commitment to building a strong, sustainable company, community, and energy industry never wavered in 14 years. In honor of his legacy, Entergy endowed a $5 million charitable fund upon his retirement to continue his work on climate change, poverty, and social justice issues. The fund is being endowed through shareholder- funded donations to the Entergy Charitable Foundation, with Leonard serving as an adviser.

While I will miss working with Wayne to improve both New Orleans and Louisiana, I applaud the work he has done to leave my city and my State stronger, healthier, and on the path to a brighter future.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on an issue that is of great importance to my home State of Louisiana: Federal disaster assistance. As you know, along the Gulf Coast, we keep an eye trained on the Gulf of Mexico during hurricane season. This is following the devastating one-two punch of Hurricanes

Katrina and Rita of 2005 as well as Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008. Unfortunately, our region also has had to deal with the economic and environmental damage from the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010 and more recently Hurricane Isaac. For this reason, as Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship ensuring Federal disaster programs are effective and responsive to disaster victims is one of my top priorities. While the Gulf Coast is prone to hurricanes, other parts of the country are no strangers to disaster. For example, the Midwest has tornadoes, California experiences earthquakes and wildfires, and the Northeast sees crippling snowstorms. So no part of our country is spared from disasters--disasters which can and will strike at any moment. This certainly hit home when the northeast was struck by Hurricane Sandy in October of last year. With this in mind, we must ensure that the Federal government is better prepared and has the tools necessary to respond quickly, effectively following a disaster.

In order to give the U.S. Small Business Administration, SBA, better tools to respond after a future disaster, I am proud that to file the Small Business Disaster Reform Act of 2013. I want to thank my colleague Senator Thad Cochran for cosponsoring the bill and for helping me to make improvements. I am also appreciative that Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Senator Mark Pryor also have cosponsored the legislation. This bill will make two important improvements to SBA's disaster assistance programs for businesses. The first provision builds off of SBA disaster reforms enacted in 2008 and ensures that SBA is responsive to the needs of small businesses seeking smaller amounts of disaster assistance. These are the businesses that are burdened the most by liens on their primary personal residential homes when they could conceivably provide sufficient business assets as collateral for the loan. The second provision in the bill also authorizes the SBA Administrator to allow out-of-state Small Business Development Centers, SBDCs, to provide assistance in to small businesses located in Presidentially-declared disaster areas. This provision removes a limitation that, for disasters such as Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Sandy, would allow experienced SBDC counselors to come in to a disaster area while local SBDCs are being stood back up following a catastrophic disaster. Lastly, to ensure that out-of-state SBDCs are not left paying out of pocket for assisting in these disaster areas, there also is legislative language in Section 4 encouraging the SBA to ensure it reimburses SBDCs for these disaster-related expenses provided they were legitimate and there are funds available to do so.

In particular, Section 2 of the bill that I am filing today would clarify that, for SBA disaster business loans less than $200,000 that SBA is required to utilize assets other than the primary residence if those assets are available to use as collateral towards the loan. The bill is very clear though that these assets should be of equal or greater value than the amount of the loan. Also, to ensure that this is a targeted improvement, the bill also includes additional language that this bill in no way requires SBA to reduce the amount or quality of collateral it seeks on these types of loans. I want to especially thank my former Ranking Member Olympia Snowe for working with me to improve upon previous legislation on this particular issue. The provision that I am re-introducing, as part of this disaster legislation, is a direct result of discussions with both her and other stakeholders late last year. I believe that this bill is better because of improvements that came out of these productive discussions.

I note that this provision is similar to Section 204 of S. 2731, the Small Business Administration Disaster Recovery and Reform Act of 2009 that Senator Bill Nelson and I introduced during the 111th Congress. A similar provision also passed the House of Representatives twice that Congress. H.R. 3854, which included a modified collateral requirement under Section 801, passed the House on October 29, 2009 by a vote of 389-32. The provision also passed the House again on November 6, 2009 by a voice vote as Section 2 of H.R. 3743. During the 112th Congress, this provision passed the Senate on December 28, 2012 by a vote of 62- 32 as part of H.R. 1, the Senate-passed Disaster Relief Appropriations Act. However, it was not included in H.R. 152, the House-passed Disaster Relief Appropriations Act that subsequently was enacted into law. Despite the setback earlier this year, I remind my colleagues that this provision has a history of bipartisan Congressional support and has previously passed both chambers of Congress.

Section 2 addresses a key issue that is serving as a roadblock to business owners interested in applying for smaller SBA disaster loans. After the multiple disasters that hit the Gulf Coast, my staff has consistently heard from business owners, discouraged from applying for SBA disaster loans. When we have inquired further on the main reasons behind this hesitation, the top concern related to SBA requiring business owners to put up their personal home as collateral for smaller SBA disaster loans for their business. This requirement is understandable for large loans between $750,000 and $2 million. However, business owners complained about this requirement being instituted for loans of $200,000 or less. I can understand their frustration. Business owners, in many cases who have just lost everything, are applying to SBA for a $150,000 loan for their business. SBA then responds by asking them to put up their $400,000 personal home as collateral when the business may have sufficient business assets available to collateralize the loan. While I also understand the need for SBA to secure the loans, make the program cost effective, and minimize risk to the taxpayer, SBA has at its disposal multiple ways to secure loans.

Furthermore, SBA has repeatedly said publicly and in testimony before my committee that it will not decline a borrower for a lack of collateral. According to a July 14, 2010 correspondence between SBA and my office, the agency notes that ``SBA is an aggressive lender and its credit thresholds are well below traditional bank standards . . . SBA does not decline loans for insufficient collateral.'' SBA's current practice of making loans is based upon an individual/business demonstrating the ability to repay and income. The agency declines borrowers for an inability to repay the loan. In regards to collateral, SBA follows traditional lending practices that seek the ``best available collateral.'' Collateral is required for physical loans over $14,000 and Economic Injury Disaster Loans, EIDL, loans over $5,000. SBA takes real estate as collateral when it is available, but as I stated, the agency will not decline a loan for lack of collateral. Instead it requires borrowers to pledge what is available. However, in practice, SBA is requiring borrowers to put up a personal residence worth $300,000 or $400,000 for a business loan of $200,000 or less when there are other assets available for SBA.

This provision does not substantively change SBA's current lending practices and it will not have a significant cost. I believe that this legislation would not trigger direct spending nor would it have a significant impact on the subsidy rate for SBA disaster loans. Currently for every $1 loaned out, it costs approximately 10 cents on the dollar. Most importantly, this bill will greatly improve the SBA disaster loan programs for businesses ahead of future disasters. If a business comes to the SBA for a loan of less than $200,000 to make immediate repairs or secure working capital, they can be assured that they will not have to put up their personal home if SBA determines that the business has other assets to go towards the loan. However, if businesses seek larger loans than $200,000 or if their business assets are not suitable collateral, then the current requirements will still apply. This ensures that very small businesses and businesses seeking smaller amounts of recovery loans are able to secure these loans without significant burdens on their personal property. For the business owners we have spoken to, this provides some badly needed clarity to one of the Federal government's primary tools for responding to disasters.

To be clear though, while I do not want to see SBA tie up too much of a business' collateral, I also believe that if a business is willing and able to put up business assets towards its disaster loan, SBA should consider that first before attempting to bring in personal

residences. It is unreasonable for SBA to ask business owners operating in very different business environments post-disaster to jeopardize not just their business but also their home. Loans of $200,000 or less are also the loans most likely to be repaid by the business so personal homes should be collateral of last resort in instances where a business can demonstrate the ability to repay the loan and that it has other assets.

As previously mentioned, there are also safeguards in the provision that ensures that this provision will not reduce the quality of collateral required by SBA for these disaster loans nor will it reduce the quality of the SBA's general collateral requirements. These changes will assist the SBA in cutting down on waste, fraud and abuse of these legislative reforms. In order to further assist the SBA, I believe it is important to clarify what types of business assets we understand they should review. For example, I understand that SBA's current lending practices consider the following business assets as suitable collateral: commercial real estate; machinery and equipment; business inventory; and furniture and fixtures.

Section 3 of this bill removes an unnecessary prohibition in the Small Business Act that currently prohibits SBDCs from other states to help out in areas impacted by disasters. In particular, this provision authorizes the SBA Administrator to allow out-of-state SBDCs to provide assistance in to small businesses located in Presidentially-declared disaster areas. This is because, as you may know, SBDCs are considered to be the backbone of the SBA's Office of Entrepreneurial Development efforts, and are the largest of the agency's OED programs. SBDCs are the university based resource partners that provide counseling and training needs for more than 600,000 business clients annually. From 2007 to 2008, the counseling and technical assistance services they offered lead to the creation of 58,501 new jobs, at a cost of $3,462 per job. Additionally, they estimate that their counseling services helped to save 88,889 jobs. These centers are even more critical following natural or manmade disasters. That is because SBDCs help impacted businesses in navigating Federal disaster programs, insurance programs, and in creating new business plans following a disaster. For that reason, we must ensure that there is continuity to have SBDC counselors on the ground in disaster areas.

For example, right after Hurricane Katrina our SBDCs in Louisiana were severely limited in what they could do because of the widespread damage to homes and facilities utilized by their counselors. On the other hand, their counterparts at the Florida SBDCs had a wealth of disaster expertise and were willing to assist but were prohibited from providing assistance to small businesses outside their geographic area. In 2012, we experienced similar challenges following Hurricane Sandy but SBDCs in Louisiana, Florida or elsewhere were prohibited from helping their counterparts in the Northeast even if they wanted to help recovery in New York or New Jersey and doing so would not impact their operations back home. For smaller scale disasters, local SBDCs will respond to disasters in their own areas. However, for large scale, catastrophic disasters, this provision could make a significant difference for impacted small businesses.

In fact, on December 13, 2012, my committee received excellent testimony from Jim King, Chair of the Association of Small Business Development Centers, ASBDCs, and State Director of New York State Small Business Development Center. Mr. King outlined the symbiotic relationship between different SBDC state chapters and how they currently assist each other after disasters. He specifically noted that, ``I was also privileged to have the opportunity to work with the SBDC in Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and visited New Orleans as one of five State Directors invited to share thoughts with my counterpart there, Mary Lynn Wilkerson, to evolve a strategy for recovery. I should note that Mary Lynn has returned the favor many times over since Hurricane Sandy devastated our area, with materials, information and support, which has been greatly appreciated.'' He also later noted that ``Starting almost immediately after the disaster, staff in other states and programs began reaching out with offers of assistance and words or experiences of support . . . The experiences gained from disasters in Florida, Texas, Colorado, Louisiana and many other places reinforce the value of the SBDC network in meeting the needs of small business in times of disaster.'' I believe that these current relationships will be further strengthened by enacting this legislation. C.E. ``Tee'' Rowe, President/CEO of ASBDC noted this in his February 10, 2013 letter to my office, noting that, ``Allowing SBDCs to share resources across state lines or other boundaries for the purposes of disaster recovery is a common sense proposal, little different from utilities sharing linemen.'' At the same time, however, I encourage SBDC chapters across the country to establish more of these partnerships pre-disaster so that their SBDC counterparts can be there post-disaster. SBDC chapters that are, unfortunately, battle hardened from multiple disasters should not be the only chapters that bear fruit from these partnerships with their counterparts.

Furthermore, I note that Section 3 of the bill has previously been passed out of committee and has been approved by the full Senate during past sessions of Congress. So this provision has a strong record of bipartisan support. During the 110th Congress, this provision was approved unanimously by the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee on May 7, 2007 as Section 104 of S. 163, the ``Small Business Disaster Response and Loan Improvements Act of 2007.'' S. 163 was subsequently passed by the full Senate by unanimous consent on August 3, 2007. Unfortunately, this provision was not enacted into law before the adjournment of the 110th Congress. In the 111th Congress, this provision was again approved unanimously by the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee on July 2, 2009 as Section 607 of S. 1229, the ``Entrepreneurial Development Act of 2009'' but was not enacted into law before the adjournment of that Congress. Lastly, during the 112th Congress, the provision received 57 strong bipartisan votes on July 12, 2012 as Section 433 of Senate Amendment 2521 to S. 2237, the ``Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act of 2012.'' My Republican colleagues Senators Snowe, Collins, Vitter, Scott Brown, and Heller all voted in support of the amendment. Although it was not ultimately enacted into law, the provision was subsequently included in separate pieces of legislation introduced by Senator Olympia Snowe and myself. This provision was included as Section 433 of S. 3442, the ``SUCCESS Act of 2012'' that I introduced on July 25, 2012 as well as Section 433 of S. 3572, the ``Restoring Tax and Regulatory Certainty to Small Business Act of 2012'' that Senator Snowe introduced on September 9, 2012.

Lastly, Section 4 is a new provision that I worked with my colleague Senator Cochran to include in the legislation. This section addresses past instances where SBDCs were not sufficiently reimbursed post- disaster by the SBA for disaster-related expenses. Section 3 provides clear Congressional intent that, in authorizing the SBA to allow out- of-state SBDCs to assist in disaster areas outside their geographic location, the agency must also ensure that out-of-state SBDCs are not left paying out of pocket for assisting in these disaster areas. If the SBA approves for these SBDCs to deploy staff or resources to a disaster area, the agency must in turn ensure that it reimburses SBDCs for these expenses provided they were legitimate and there are funds available to do so. I thank Senator Cochran for bringing this to my attention on behalf of his local SBDCs, and look forward to working closely with him to enact this provision into law.

In closing, I believe that these commonsense disaster reforms will greatly benefit businesses impacted by future disasters. First, the major proposals in this legislation are neither new nor untested. Next, this approach has already received support from the following groups from across the country: the Association of Small Business Development Centers, the International Economic Development Council, the Southwest Louisiana Economic Development Alliance, the St. Tammany Economic Development Foundation, the Northeast Louisiana Economic

Partnership, and the Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership. With that in mind, the Senate should not make the perfect the enemy of the good. If we can make these reforms today and help one business impacted by a disaster tomorrow, we will have done what our constituents sent us here to do: make good laws.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on an issue that is of great importance to my home State of Louisiana: Federal disaster assistance. As you know, along the Gulf Coast, we keep an eye trained on the Gulf of Mexico during hurricane season. This is following the devastating one-two punch of Hurricanes

Katrina and Rita of 2005 as well as Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008. Unfortunately, our region also has had to deal with the economic and environmental damage from the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010 and more recently Hurricane Isaac. For this reason, as Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship ensuring Federal disaster programs are effective and responsive to disaster victims is one of my top priorities. While the Gulf Coast is prone to hurricanes, other parts of the country are no strangers to disaster. For example, the Midwest has tornadoes, California experiences earthquakes and wildfires, and the Northeast sees crippling snowstorms. So no part of our country is spared from disasters--disasters which can and will strike at any moment. This certainly hit home when the northeast was struck by Hurricane Sandy in October of last year. With this in mind, we must ensure that the Federal government is better prepared and has the tools necessary to respond quickly, effectively following a disaster.

In order to give the U.S. Small Business Administration, SBA, better tools to respond after a future disaster, I am proud that to file the Small Business Disaster Reform Act of 2013. I want to thank my colleague Senator Thad Cochran for cosponsoring the bill and for helping me to make improvements. I am also appreciative that Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Senator Mark Pryor also have cosponsored the legislation. This bill will make two important improvements to SBA's disaster assistance programs for businesses. The first provision builds off of SBA disaster reforms enacted in 2008 and ensures that SBA is responsive to the needs of small businesses seeking smaller amounts of disaster assistance. These are the businesses that are burdened the most by liens on their primary personal residential homes when they could conceivably provide sufficient business assets as collateral for the loan. The second provision in the bill also authorizes the SBA Administrator to allow out-of-state Small Business Development Centers, SBDCs, to provide assistance in to small businesses located in Presidentially-declared disaster areas. This provision removes a limitation that, for disasters such as Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Sandy, would allow experienced SBDC counselors to come in to a disaster area while local SBDCs are being stood back up following a catastrophic disaster. Lastly, to ensure that out-of-state SBDCs are not left paying out of pocket for assisting in these disaster areas, there also is legislative language in Section 4 encouraging the SBA to ensure it reimburses SBDCs for these disaster-related expenses provided they were legitimate and there are funds available to do so.

In particular, Section 2 of the bill that I am filing today would clarify that, for SBA disaster business loans less than $200,000 that SBA is required to utilize assets other than the primary residence if those assets are available to use as collateral towards the loan. The bill is very clear though that these assets should be of equal or greater value than the amount of the loan. Also, to ensure that this is a targeted improvement, the bill also includes additional language that this bill in no way requires SBA to reduce the amount or quality of collateral it seeks on these types of loans. I want to especially thank my former Ranking Member Olympia Snowe for working with me to improve upon previous legislation on this particular issue. The provision that I am re-introducing, as part of this disaster legislation, is a direct result of discussions with both her and other stakeholders late last year. I believe that this bill is better because of improvements that came out of these productive discussions.

I note that this provision is similar to Section 204 of S. 2731, the Small Business Administration Disaster Recovery and Reform Act of 2009 that Senator Bill Nelson and I introduced during the 111th Congress. A similar provision also passed the House of Representatives twice that Congress. H.R. 3854, which included a modified collateral requirement under Section 801, passed the House on October 29, 2009 by a vote of 389-32. The provision also passed the House again on November 6, 2009 by a voice vote as Section 2 of H.R. 3743. During the 112th Congress, this provision passed the Senate on December 28, 2012 by a vote of 62- 32 as part of H.R. 1, the Senate-passed Disaster Relief Appropriations Act. However, it was not included in H.R. 152, the House-passed Disaster Relief Appropriations Act that subsequently was enacted into law. Despite the setback earlier this year, I remind my colleagues that this provision has a history of bipartisan Congressional support and has previously passed both chambers of Congress.

Section 2 addresses a key issue that is serving as a roadblock to business owners interested in applying for smaller SBA disaster loans. After the multiple disasters that hit the Gulf Coast, my staff has consistently heard from business owners, discouraged from applying for SBA disaster loans. When we have inquired further on the main reasons behind this hesitation, the top concern related to SBA requiring business owners to put up their personal home as collateral for smaller SBA disaster loans for their business. This requirement is understandable for large loans between $750,000 and $2 million. However, business owners complained about this requirement being instituted for loans of $200,000 or less. I can understand their frustration. Business owners, in many cases who have just lost everything, are applying to SBA for a $150,000 loan for their business. SBA then responds by asking them to put up their $400,000 personal home as collateral when the business may have sufficient business assets available to collateralize the loan. While I also understand the need for SBA to secure the loans, make the program cost effective, and minimize risk to the taxpayer, SBA has at its disposal multiple ways to secure loans.

Furthermore, SBA has repeatedly said publicly and in testimony before my committee that it will not decline a borrower for a lack of collateral. According to a July 14, 2010 correspondence between SBA and my office, the agency notes that ``SBA is an aggressive lender and its credit thresholds are well below traditional bank standards . . . SBA does not decline loans for insufficient collateral.'' SBA's current practice of making loans is based upon an individual/business demonstrating the ability to repay and income. The agency declines borrowers for an inability to repay the loan. In regards to collateral, SBA follows traditional lending practices that seek the ``best available collateral.'' Collateral is required for physical loans over $14,000 and Economic Injury Disaster Loans, EIDL, loans over $5,000. SBA takes real estate as collateral when it is available, but as I stated, the agency will not decline a loan for lack of collateral. Instead it requires borrowers to pledge what is available. However, in practice, SBA is requiring borrowers to put up a personal residence worth $300,000 or $400,000 for a business loan of $200,000 or less when there are other assets available for SBA.

This provision does not substantively change SBA's current lending practices and it will not have a significant cost. I believe that this legislation would not trigger direct spending nor would it have a significant impact on the subsidy rate for SBA disaster loans. Currently for every $1 loaned out, it costs approximately 10 cents on the dollar. Most importantly, this bill will greatly improve the SBA disaster loan programs for businesses ahead of future disasters. If a business comes to the SBA for a loan of less than $200,000 to make immediate repairs or secure working capital, they can be assured that they will not have to put up their personal home if SBA determines that the business has other assets to go towards the loan. However, if businesses seek larger loans than $200,000 or if their business assets are not suitable collateral, then the current requirements will still apply. This ensures that very small businesses and businesses seeking smaller amounts of recovery loans are able to secure these loans without significant burdens on their personal property. For the business owners we have spoken to, this provides some badly needed clarity to one of the Federal government's primary tools for responding to disasters.

To be clear though, while I do not want to see SBA tie up too much of a business' collateral, I also believe that if a business is willing and able to put up business assets towards its disaster loan, SBA should consider that first before attempting to bring in personal

residences. It is unreasonable for SBA to ask business owners operating in very different business environments post-disaster to jeopardize not just their business but also their home. Loans of $200,000 or less are also the loans most likely to be repaid by the business so personal homes should be collateral of last resort in instances where a business can demonstrate the ability to repay the loan and that it has other assets.

As previously mentioned, there are also safeguards in the provision that ensures that this provision will not reduce the quality of collateral required by SBA for these disaster loans nor will it reduce the quality of the SBA's general collateral requirements. These changes will assist the SBA in cutting down on waste, fraud and abuse of these legislative reforms. In order to further assist the SBA, I believe it is important to clarify what types of business assets we understand they should review. For example, I understand that SBA's current lending practices consider the following business assets as suitable collateral: commercial real estate; machinery and equipment; business inventory; and furniture and fixtures.

Section 3 of this bill removes an unnecessary prohibition in the Small Business Act that currently prohibits SBDCs from other states to help out in areas impacted by disasters. In particular, this provision authorizes the SBA Administrator to allow out-of-state SBDCs to provide assistance in to small businesses located in Presidentially-declared disaster areas. This is because, as you may know, SBDCs are considered to be the backbone of the SBA's Office of Entrepreneurial Development efforts, and are the largest of the agency's OED programs. SBDCs are the university based resource partners that provide counseling and training needs for more than 600,000 business clients annually. From 2007 to 2008, the counseling and technical assistance services they offered lead to the creation of 58,501 new jobs, at a cost of $3,462 per job. Additionally, they estimate that their counseling services helped to save 88,889 jobs. These centers are even more critical following natural or manmade disasters. That is because SBDCs help impacted businesses in navigating Federal disaster programs, insurance programs, and in creating new business plans following a disaster. For that reason, we must ensure that there is continuity to have SBDC counselors on the ground in disaster areas.

For example, right after Hurricane Katrina our SBDCs in Louisiana were severely limited in what they could do because of the widespread damage to homes and facilities utilized by their counselors. On the other hand, their counterparts at the Florida SBDCs had a wealth of disaster expertise and were willing to assist but were prohibited from providing assistance to small businesses outside their geographic area. In 2012, we experienced similar challenges following Hurricane Sandy but SBDCs in Louisiana, Florida or elsewhere were prohibited from helping their counterparts in the Northeast even if they wanted to help recovery in New York or New Jersey and doing so would not impact their operations back home. For smaller scale disasters, local SBDCs will respond to disasters in their own areas. However, for large scale, catastrophic disasters, this provision could make a significant difference for impacted small businesses.

In fact, on December 13, 2012, my committee received excellent testimony from Jim King, Chair of the Association of Small Business Development Centers, ASBDCs, and State Director of New York State Small Business Development Center. Mr. King outlined the symbiotic relationship between different SBDC state chapters and how they currently assist each other after disasters. He specifically noted that, ``I was also privileged to have the opportunity to work with the SBDC in Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and visited New Orleans as one of five State Directors invited to share thoughts with my counterpart there, Mary Lynn Wilkerson, to evolve a strategy for recovery. I should note that Mary Lynn has returned the favor many times over since Hurricane Sandy devastated our area, with materials, information and support, which has been greatly appreciated.'' He also later noted that ``Starting almost immediately after the disaster, staff in other states and programs began reaching out with offers of assistance and words or experiences of support . . . The experiences gained from disasters in Florida, Texas, Colorado, Louisiana and many other places reinforce the value of the SBDC network in meeting the needs of small business in times of disaster.'' I believe that these current relationships will be further strengthened by enacting this legislation. C.E. ``Tee'' Rowe, President/CEO of ASBDC noted this in his February 10, 2013 letter to my office, noting that, ``Allowing SBDCs to share resources across state lines or other boundaries for the purposes of disaster recovery is a common sense proposal, little different from utilities sharing linemen.'' At the same time, however, I encourage SBDC chapters across the country to establish more of these partnerships pre-disaster so that their SBDC counterparts can be there post-disaster. SBDC chapters that are, unfortunately, battle hardened from multiple disasters should not be the only chapters that bear fruit from these partnerships with their counterparts.

Furthermore, I note that Section 3 of the bill has previously been passed out of committee and has been approved by the full Senate during past sessions of Congress. So this provision has a strong record of bipartisan support. During the 110th Congress, this provision was approved unanimously by the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee on May 7, 2007 as Section 104 of S. 163, the ``Small Business Disaster Response and Loan Improvements Act of 2007.'' S. 163 was subsequently passed by the full Senate by unanimous consent on August 3, 2007. Unfortunately, this provision was not enacted into law before the adjournment of the 110th Congress. In the 111th Congress, this provision was again approved unanimously by the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee on July 2, 2009 as Section 607 of S. 1229, the ``Entrepreneurial Development Act of 2009'' but was not enacted into law before the adjournment of that Congress. Lastly, during the 112th Congress, the provision received 57 strong bipartisan votes on July 12, 2012 as Section 433 of Senate Amendment 2521 to S. 2237, the ``Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act of 2012.'' My Republican colleagues Senators Snowe, Collins, Vitter, Scott Brown, and Heller all voted in support of the amendment. Although it was not ultimately enacted into law, the provision was subsequently included in separate pieces of legislation introduced by Senator Olympia Snowe and myself. This provision was included as Section 433 of S. 3442, the ``SUCCESS Act of 2012'' that I introduced on July 25, 2012 as well as Section 433 of S. 3572, the ``Restoring Tax and Regulatory Certainty to Small Business Act of 2012'' that Senator Snowe introduced on September 9, 2012.

Lastly, Section 4 is a new provision that I worked with my colleague Senator Cochran to include in the legislation. This section addresses past instances where SBDCs were not sufficiently reimbursed post- disaster by the SBA for disaster-related expenses. Section 3 provides clear Congressional intent that, in authorizing the SBA to allow out- of-state SBDCs to assist in disaster areas outside their geographic location, the agency must also ensure that out-of-state SBDCs are not left paying out of pocket for assisting in these disaster areas. If the SBA approves for these SBDCs to deploy staff or resources to a disaster area, the agency must in turn ensure that it reimburses SBDCs for these expenses provided they were legitimate and there are funds available to do so. I thank Senator Cochran for bringing this to my attention on behalf of his local SBDCs, and look forward to working closely with him to enact this provision into law.

In closing, I believe that these commonsense disaster reforms will greatly benefit businesses impacted by future disasters. First, the major proposals in this legislation are neither new nor untested. Next, this approach has already received support from the following groups from across the country: the Association of Small Business Development Centers, the International Economic Development Council, the Southwest Louisiana Economic Development Alliance, the St. Tammany Economic Development Foundation, the Northeast Louisiana Economic

Partnership, and the Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership. With that in mind, the Senate should not make the perfect the enemy of the good. If we can make these reforms today and help one business impacted by a disaster tomorrow, we will have done what our constituents sent us here to do: make good laws.

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

Mr. President, I appreciate--and we all do--all the Senators, even Senators on the other side of the aisle I think admire her tenacity and her leadership and, most importantly, her knowledge and understanding of the importance of the Federal budget on the private sector economy. Obviously, the Senator from Maryland understands its impacts on Maryland, but she also understands the impacts to our Nation.

No one speaks more passionately and more knowledgeably about the challenges before families than Senator Barbara Mikulski from Maryland, from a working-class family herself. Her parents and grandparents, immigrants to this country, operating a small business, a bakery--a wonderful business--not only understanding how to run their own business themselves but for all the neighbors who came in every day to talk about their problems.

When the Senator says she knows what families do in tight budget times, she is correct. Families do cut back, but they plan their reductions. They don't pull the rug out from underneath the college tuition for their kids. They don't kick grandma out on the street and put her in a homeless shelter. They make smart decisions about budgets. Let me say to my colleagues on the other side who fail to understand the other part of the equation, they also try to bring in more revenue to the family base. Either the wife gets a job or the husband gets a job or the wife goes back to school to get a nursing degree so instead of making $6 an hour, she can bring in $16 or $18 an hour.

Families work on both sides of the equation. But for some reason, we have half this Chamber that only wants to work on one side of the equation. It is only about cuts, cuts, and more cuts, even though they are senseless, they are dangerous, they do not make sense for our country, and they most certainly don't just impact the government--of course, which is the enemy of the other side--they impact our economy. They impact our ability to grow this economy. Every cut that comes down in a senseless way, and even cuts that are planned, are harmful to the private sector.

I know this not only as a Senator from Louisiana and chair of the Homeland Security Committee but particularly as chair of the Small Business Committee. Our phone has been ringing off the hook with small businesses--not government workers but private sector workers and contractors--that are afraid, and have every reason to be, about the results of this sequester to their bottom line because they are providing the government a good service or a product the government needs, whether it is in health care, whether it is in education or whether it is in homeland security. But I digress a little bit. So let me get back to the central message as chair of Homeland Security.

I rise to speak in opposition to the damaging sequester that is scheduled to take effect this Friday. There is no question Congress must act to reduce our annual deficits--must continue to act. Let me underline ``continue.'' We have been reducing spending. We have set targets of spending lower than what would have normally been set because we are tightening our belts. We were trying to tighten our belts even at a time when the economy was shrinking. Most economists will tell us that in times of economic constriction, governments need to spend more money to try to prime the pump to get the country moving in the right direction. The President has led in this direction. We have helped to follow his lead; therefore, avoiding the worsening of a depression and a recession.

But contrary to the evidence all over the place that this is working, the other side is going to ratchet it down with these senseless reductions--and even well-planned reductions at this point are very difficult--and rejecting a balanced approach which Democrats have called for. Most independent observers understand we have to have an increase of revenues coming in because we are at the lowest level to the GDP since Eisenhower was President and some continued reductions. But they are rejecting that and going cuts only, cuts only. They said: We raised revenues. That is it. We raised $600 billion. We can't go any more. I am here to tell you, we have to go a little bit more, and the sooner we do that, the better we are going to be.

There are people who make over $1 million in this country or companies that are enjoying loopholes they shouldn't be enjoying at the expense of the middle class and at the expense of the economic growth potential of this country, which is substantial, contrary to the laments on the other side of this aisle that the sky is falling.

Every businessperson I talk to says: You know what, Senator. There is such promise out there. This energy industry is getting ready to boom. Natural gas is a great blessing to our Nation. But we may not experience any of that because we can't get 5 cents to invest in an airport or dredge one of the bayous or rivers in my State because of the tightening down of these spending cuts.

The other side of the aisle, despite the mounting evidence, continues to argue against any revenues. Their cuts-only approach, cut it all, cut it now; don't worry about what you cut, just cut it, is not going to lead this country to economic prosperity.

The reality is our deficit reduction so far has been completely lopsided: 72 percent has come from spending cuts, only 28 percent from revenues. It is not balanced, and we have to find a balance. We have already cut $1.5 trillion from discretionary spending over 10 years. In recent years, revenues coming in to the Federal Government as a percentage of GDP were at the lowest levels since Eisenhower. I said 16 percent. My notes say 15.1 percent. So let me correct myself. I didn't realize it was that low. I thought it was 16.7.

So while I support cuts--and have supported them in the past and continue to try to find them in my own budget, $42 billion for Homeland Security--we must have a balance.

This sequester that is going to go into effect in Louisiana will cost us $15.8 million in funding for primary and secondary education. Early Head Start services will be cut to over 1,400 children who desperately need a better start in life. Our ability to develop oil and gas will slow down due to Interior Department cuts. Louisiana's Department of Defense civilian employees--over 7,000--will be furloughed, costing Louisiana residents $36 million in gross pay.

As chairman of the committee, I am asking for the Senate to consider the impacts of these cuts on securing our homeland. We have made a tremendous amount of progress. We have avoided attacks, and some have been very close calls. This is not done because of a wish and a prayer. This is done because of smart research, investing in border security, investing in cybersecurity, investing in training of local police officers who can identify threats on the ground, whether it is in New York or Baton Rouge or New Orleans. We have avoided some attacks. As the Senator from Washington State knows, this does not just happen by magic. This happens because we are making investments in people, in their training. This is at risk today.

The sequester would effectively decrease the number of Border Patrol agents by 5,000.

I wish to make a statement and ask for 2 more minutes. I understand the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and the Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, met with the President to talk about immigration reform. I am very glad we may make some progress on bipartisan support for immigration reform. Clearly, the country is asking for it, the business community needs it, our agricultural sector needs it, and the Latino population deserves it. But are we going to try to do education reform on a reduced budget in Homeland Security? What do they expect us to do in a Homeland Security budget without giving us some additional resources to hire the additional judges who are going to be needed, the additional patrols, et cetera? So I ask Senator McCain, how are we going to afford this in the Homeland Security budget? I look forward to having that discussion with him. On cyber security, the sequester would delay for a year the ability of the Department of Homeland Security to deploy technology to protect our Federal computer systems from attack.

In the last minute I have, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter we received this morning from Secretary Napolitano, who is preparing her agency for difficult tasks.

I ask for 30 seconds to complete my remarks.

One of the issues I have been very focused on is international travel. I do not have the time to go into the details. It is an important industry for our country, not just for Louisiana and New Orleans, which are way up on the list of places people want to come. The travel industry is important.

Last week Roger Dow said:

Travel has led the nation's economic recovery--generating

more than 50 percent of all jobs created since the beginning

of the recession. The indiscriminate sequester cuts threaten

to derail travel-led recovery. These across-the-board cuts

may punish travelers with flight delays, long security lines

at [TSA] checkpoints and multi-hour waits to clear Customs

and Border Protection.

This is not a time to cut back on investments we have made in increasing travel, 10 years after 9/11 ground this industry to a halt. Now is not the time to put up a yellow light or a red light, and that is what the sequester is going to do--it is going to be blinking yellow at a time when we need green all the way.

We need to find a way to break through. This Senator is willing to compromise.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship today adopted rules governing its procedures for the 113th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying rules adopted by the U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I am very proud to join in this colloquy with over eight Members of the Senate this afternoon. We are here to talk about this important issue and share ideas with our colleagues and with those who are listening to this debate. This pipeline is important so we can get a reliable, steady stream of oil and gas as we move to cleaner fuels in the future for our country.

I say to my good friend, the Senator from North Dakota, how important it is for drilling, particularly for natural gas, using the breathtakingly new technology that is allowing us to find both wet and dry gas, which is very valuable to our country. This is happening in many places in the country. It will help to fuel a renaissance in manufacturing.

This is not just going to help traditional oil- and gas-producing States such as Louisiana and Texas, this breakthrough in technology enables us to retrieve gas not only in an economically efficient way but in an environmentally sensitive way. It is going to be very important and impactful to many States in the Union.

We are already seeing companies coming back to the United States. They are relocating from Chile, places in Europe, places in Asia, and coming back to the United States primarily because of this resurgence of gas.

But here we are talking about a pipeline that is primarily for oil that comes out of sand. This is not the traditional deep wells where there are large deposits of oil that are drilled. This is a technology that is allowing the separation of these sands to get the carbon or oil out of them.

Now, yes, we want to move as quickly as we can away from carbon--or to lessen carbon because of its damaging impacts--but there is a transition period we have to go through. There is no waving of a magic wand; there is no snapping of a finger; there is no jumping from this generation of energy production to the next overnight.

Even President Clinton--even Al Gore when he was Vice President-- talked about the transition we have to go through. I see this pipeline as a transition. It is giving us oil from one of our closest, most dependable, and friendliest of all allies, Canada, as opposed to pushing over the next 5 or 10 years to continuing to do business with countries that do not share our values, such as the leadership in Venezuela today or the problems with countries in the Middle East. Even the Saudis, whom we respect in some ways, do not have the same value system as the United States. We would much rather--at least my constituents would much rather--deal with Canada and Mexico. Not only are they better allies, but for Louisiana, we like working in Canada. It is a little closer to home. We like working in Mexico.

Many of the workers on these rigs and in this business come from Louisiana and Texas. Let me be crystal clear: My colleagues who are helping on this issue are absolutely right, the people of Louisiana wish to work in Canada where there are environmental protections, where the wages are good, where there are not a lot of pirates floating around, and where workers are much less likely to be kidnapped. I mean, these are serious issues for the oil and gas industry. That is one of the reasons I have been urging President Obama, along with many of my colleagues, to rethink his position on this pipeline.

I guess this has been said by my colleagues--I see the Senator from West Virginia is here, and I am sure he has said this on the floor before--Canada is going to produce this oil one way or another. The question is: Who are they going to send it to? Are they going to send it to their good friend the United States and our refineries in Texas and Louisiana or are they going to ship it somewhere else in the world? I would like--and the Senator from North Dakota knows this--to form a stronger partnership with Canada and Mexico so we can have security in North America. This will help the Canadian economy and it will help the Mexican economy, which immediately and directly affects our whole Nation. These are our border countries. We are doing a lot of work. I don't know if the Senator knows this, but down in Mexico, in the Gulf of Mexico--I literally--and this is a little bit afield--was recently in Israel and had the great opportunity to go offshore to visit a field, the Leviathan field, which is one of the largest fields in the world. It was discovered in a remarkably new place, which gives Israel a great opportunity to think about being energy independent or energy self-sufficient, which is quite exciting.

When I went offshore in Israel, I met my own workers from Morgan City, Thibodeaux, and Lafourche. They said: Why are you here? I said: The same reason you are. The Louisiana workers go everywhere. We are proud to do it. We would love to be close to home in Canada, Mexico, and our refineries, which are expanding for the first time in many years. Our manufacturing base is expanding.

Finally, I would say in this colloquy, I ask the Senator from North Dakota: Has he had a conversation with the oil minister from Canada--I think it is Minister Oliver--and talked to him at all recently? I had a conversation with him yesterday, and I wanted to maybe share that with the Senator from North Dakota.

Through the Chair, I wanted to say I had a very good conversation with the Canadian Minister of Natural Resources. We had a long conversation, about 10 or 15 minutes, and he explained to me the importance of this development for Canada. He also said to me what I just shared with my colleagues. He said: Senator, Canada is going to develop this resource. It is just a question of whom we send it to or with whom we share these benefits.

So for those who are opposed to the pipeline because they don't like the direction it is going or they think there is something America can do to prevent this resource from being developed, that is simply not true.

I see the Senator from West Virginia. I wanted to get that in the Record. I thank the Senator for his leadership and for allowing me to join this colloquy because the people of Louisiana strongly support the development of this pipeline. We are proud of the oil and gas industry, but we also recognize we need to make a transition to cleaner fuels and we want to do our part and are happy about the natural gas that is being discovered in this Nation.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of S.47, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. This legislation provides much needed funding and support for law enforcement in our fight against domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking.

This bill has enjoyed wide bipartisan support over the years. Crimes against women and children will not be tolerated. Tuesday, the Senate once again approved VAWA with a 78-22 overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. I was proud to cosponsor the Violence Against Women Act and I urge my colleagues in the House to stand with America's women and children and quickly pass this critical legislation.

We have an obligation to do our part and protect women and children on the streets and in their homes. And this legislation provides the resources needed to further this very important effort. Reauthorizing this funding is particularly important for my home State of Louisiana, which unfortunately ranks among the top five States in incidences of domestic violence homicides in the Nation.

Last year, Louisiana received $4.9 million in Violence Against Women Act grants. These dollars helped fund critical programs through organizations like Wellspring Alliance for Family, which provides domestic violence and sexual assault services in Monroe, LA, and the Crescent House program in New Orleans. And these funds don't just supplement established programs. In fact, the vast majority wouldn't be possible in the first place without VAWA grants because many service providers count on more than 90 percent of their funding from the Federal Government.

Last year, Louisiana's 18 shelters provided more than 90,000 shelter nights, answered more than 38,000 crisis calls and despite serving 17,000 clients, the shelters had to turn away almost 2,000 people for lack of resources. In one national survey, 60 percent of the shelters in Louisiana reported that they lacked funding and 25 percent reported that they lacked shelter beds or housing for victims of domestic violence and their children.

These statistics are troubling. And I think they are an important part of why VAWA is so critical to women and children in communities across Louisiana and throughout our country. But numbers don't tell the whole story. You have to talk to the people on the ground, to the people who have dedicated their lives and careers to helping women and children in need, to truly appreciate the impact of this legislation.

For example, Beth Meeks, executive director of the Louisiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence, visited a program in New Orleans. While visiting that program, Beth spoke with a young mother with her baby, only to discover that the baby was 6 days old. The young mother had been at the program for a few weeks and had been terribly abused when she was nearly 9 months pregnant. She and her baby survived but her child was born in shelter care. What would have been the outcome if a shelter had not been available?

The program that Beth visited, like every domestic violence program in Louisiana, was heavily supported by Violence Against Women Act dollars. Additionally, law enforcement officers, advocates, and prosecutors are all supported by funds available under the act. Louisiana's current budget challenges have serious implications for these vital services. In December 2012, Louisiana cut $1 million from the budget for these programs, jeopardizing their very existence.

Louisiana is not alone. Programs all over the Nation have experienced reductions in grants and losses in donations during the recent economic downturn. That is why we must reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. We have made significant progress in the last 20 years. We must continue to provide support to State and local government and the nonprofit entities that provide critical services.

I congratulate the people who are committed to providing important services to those who need them most. We owe a great deal of gratitude to leaders like Beth Meeks of the Louisiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence, leaders like Mary Claire Landry of the Family Justice Center in New Orleans, and like Valerie Bowman of the Family Justice Center in Monroe, and leaders in the law enforcement community like Tommy Clark, chair of the Louisiana Chiefs of Police Association Domestic Violence Committee.

I am proud that the Senate has taken action on this important piece of legislation and I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to do the same.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation entitled the Lower Mississippi River National Historic Site Study Act. This bill will direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating sites in Plaquemines Parish along the Lower Mississippi River Area as units of the National Park System. I know there are several of my colleagues across the aisle that do not want to authorize such studies because they only target one area, or because it potentially will cost the Federal Government a modest amount to conduct such a study. I can appreciate those sentiments, but the good news with this particular study, is that the local government feels this is so important to get done, they are willing to pay for all or some of the study if necessary, because they know these sites deserve Federal recognition as a unit of the National Park Service.

This area in Southeastern Louisiana has contributed much to our Nation's history, and there are many stories that have yet to be preserved for future generations. Unless Congress acts to preserve these historical assets, they will be lost forever. That is why I am again for the fourth time, introducing this legislation. It is important that this legislation become law and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact it.

In order to be designated as a unit in the National Park System, the Department of the Interior must first conduct a special resources study to determine whether an area possesses nationally significant natural, cultural or recreational resources to be eligible for favorable consideration.

This is exactly what my bill does--it asks the Department of the Interior to take the first step in determining what I already know-- that the Lower Mississippi River Area would be a suitable and feasible asset to the National Park Service.

As many from Louisiana are already aware, this area has vast historical significance with cultural history. In the 1500s, Spanish explorers traveled along the banks of the river. In 1682, Robert de LaSalle claimed all the land drained by the area. In 1699, the site of the first fortification on the Lower Mississippi river, known as Fort Mississippi. Since then, it has been home to ten different fortifications, including Fort St. Phillip and Fort Jackson.

Fort St. Philip, which was originally built in 1749, played a key role during the Battle of New Orleans when American soldiers blocked the British Navy from going upriver. Fort Jackson was built at the request of General Andrew Jackson and partially constructed by famous local Civil War General, P.G.T. Beauregard. This fort was the site of the famous Civil War battle known as the ``Battle of Forts'' which is also referred to as the ``night the war was lost.'' As you can see, from a historical perspective, this area has many treasures that provide a glimpse into our past. These are treasures that have national significance and they should be maintained and preserved.

In addition, there are many other important and unique attributes to this area. This area is home to the longest continuous river road and levee system in the U.S. It is also home to the ancient Head of Passes site, to the Plaquemines Bend, and to two National Wildlife Refuges.

Finally, this area has a rich cultural heritage. Over the years, many different cultures have made this area home, including Creoles, Europeans, Indians, Yugoslavs, African-Americans and Vietnamese. These cultures have worked together to create the infrastructure for the transport of our Nation's energy, which is being produced by these same people off our shores in the Gulf of Mexico. They have also created a vibrant fishing industry that contributes to Louisiana's economy.

I think it is easy to see why this area would make an excellent addition to the National Park Service. However, the longer Congress takes to act, the greater the opportunity for these treasures and their rich history to erode away. Unfortunately, this area has weathered the passing of several hurricanes, including Katrina and most recently Isaac, and is now suffering from the impacts of the BP oil spill. All of these events threaten to destroy these historical assets, but this need not be the case. These assets need protection and this is the first step in securing it. That is why I am re-introducing this bill-- to conduct a study to determine the suitability and feasibility of including this area in the system and ultimately to begin the process of adding this area as a unit of the National Park Service. I look forward to working with my colleagues to quickly enact this bill.