Floor Statements

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I wish to remind the Senators this isn't the only debate on the floor. We are having a cloture vote on SBIR, and we would like some time to close that debate as well. So I am open to work with the other Senators.

I don't know how to do this, but if we could do 3 minutes each and reserve at least 15 minutes for closure.

I have to object to that.

Madam President, I object to any unanimous consent request.

I object.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture on this important bill. It is the Federal Government's largest research program for new technologies and innovation. It is a job creator. It is widely supported by many business organizations in this country. It is a bill that should have passed 6 years ago. It is a bill, a statute, that will expire in less than 30 days from now. If we don't vote favorably on this bill today, there will be virtually no chance of this program being extended under law, and we will either have to eliminate the program entirely or we will revert back to no way to do business, which is a 3-month or 6-month rolling extension.

I wish to answer a few of the charges made by my colleague. First of all, I have the greatest respect for my ranking member, and I can understand her frustration as being the ranking member of the Small Business Committee and not getting her amendment on the Senate floor. I would respectfully remind her that we could have had a vote on her amendment in committee except that her side demanded--and I wish to submit a letter to the effect--that the bill come out of our committee clean; that the SBIR bill not be attached to anything else so we could have an open debate on it because it has been going on for 6 years.

No. 2, an open amendment process, which the majority leader has been more than gracious with, considering

the fact that 150 amendments have been filed on a bill that is only 116 pages long, and 95 percent of these amendments have nothing to do with this bill--the majority leader has been more than patient. But an open debate does not--on the Senate floor, an open and free debate does not mean eliminating the committee process in the Senate that has existed, to my knowledge, as long as this body has existed, and it never will.

We cannot trample on the rights of our committees, whether it be Homeland Security, which has primary jurisdiction over this issue, or the Small Business Committee, which has some jurisdiction over this issue. But because this regulatory reform bill is so far reaching and a necessary debate to have--not here, not now, not on this Senate floor but in the relevant committees. In fact, there are four other bills besides that of my ranking member. Senator Vitter has one bill, and I will submit for the Record other bills that have been filed, in fact, on this exact subject.

The chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, who sits right here at this desk, has already agreed to have a hearing on all of these bills because Senator Snowe, with all due respect, is not the only Member who has an interest in regulatory reform. My committee, which I chair, does not have complete jurisdiction over this issue. Commerce is interested in it. Homeland Security is interested in it.

I can't pull a bill--I don't believe it is right to pull a bill from the floor to have a vote that has not had a hearing in any committee of the Senate. That is not an open process. That is an ask that is impossible to agree to.

No. 3 in my argument: If we vote no on cloture, I wish to remind Senators the amendments of Senator Carper and Senator Vitter will see no light of day. They have good amendments they have been working on for 3 years that have had committee review to help expedite the sale of Federal buildings that could save taxpayers millions of dollars. That amendment will go down.

The Cornyn amendment, which establishes a commission to cut spending which will also save taxpayer money and reduce the burden on taxpayers, that amendment will go down.

Senator Paul's amendment to reduce spending by $200 billion, he will not get the majority of our votes, but there will be an interesting debate on whether we can cut $200 billion out of the Federal Government. We lose that amendment.

Senator Hutchison has an amendment for us to debate all of the regulations in the entire universe on health care. People are complaining about regulations for health care. We are giving a vote on that. That amendment will not be voted on.

Senator Cardin has an amendment to fix surety bonds. We are going to lose that.

Senator Snowe, herself, has an amendment to prevent fraud in contracting. We are going to lose that.

So, evidently, 95 percent of the loaf is not enough. So we either get 60 votes on this bill or we don't.

Mr. President, I wish to give my last minute to Senator Shaheen, and I wish to ask her a question. What actually did the Senator hear in the Armed Services Committee that is relevant to this bill? If I have 2 seconds, go ahead and tell me.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for answering my question.

I would like to submit many more things for the Record. But, again, I wish to close, because we are 10 minutes extended from the vote, by asking the Senate to please consider voting for the SBIR Program. If we don't it will expire on May 31 this year.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I would like to speak for the next few minutes as in morning business about the subject that has been before the Senate now for 5 weeks. In some ways, it is unprecedented that a bill of only 100 pages would actually take up 5 weeks of the Senate's time. And you know as a member of the Small Business Committee, Madam President, how important, although only 100 pages and although only in the law since 1982, this program is not just to the Federal Government but to the taxpayers who are relying on this to spend their money wisely on their behalf, and they are looking to us to promote and extend the life of programs that actually work and return a great investment to them, particularly in these challenging budget times and economic times.

This program, which was created by Senator Warren Rudman for the specific purpose of stimulating technological innovation, encouraging greater utilization of small businesses to meet Federal research and development needs, and to increase private sector commercialization of innovations derived from Federal research and development, is a law that we must find a way to reauthorize. We are well overdue. We have now passed the authorization point by 3 years.

We have been unable to reauthorize this important program. It looks as if we may be stuck again although the major arguments about this bill have been resolved. We are actually not arguing over the nuts and bolts of this bill. Is that not sad, that all of the arguments about what percentage venture capitalists should get, by what amount we should increase the allocation--we have worked through all of those because we have worked in good

faith. We have compromised, Democrats and Republicans.

The bill passed out of our committee I believe 18 to 1. Authoring this piece of legislation is myself, the chairperson, Senator Snowe, a strong supporter of the underlying bill--let me get the other cosponsors. Senator Levin is a cosponsor. Senator Brown of Massachusetts is a cosponsor. Senator Kerry, the former chair, is a cosponsor. The Presiding Officer is an original cosponsor. I thank you. The new Senator, your junior Senator from New Hampshire, is an original cosponsor. Senator Cardin. Senator Pryor. So we have a good number of Republican and Democratic Senators.

This is the bill. It is 100 pages. The sad thing is that in 5 weeks, we have had over 150 amendments filed on this bill. Very few of them have anything to do with this bill. That is more amendments than there are pages of the original bill. And you can understand why the majority leader, Senator Reid, cannot allow a vote on all 150 amendments. We might be here for another year, which is not fair to the Senate, it is not fair to Congress. There are other important issues we have to get to. So we are trying to compromise. Senator Reid has been extremely patient trying to work with Republicans and Democrats. And I think the last offer that was being considered would have made both sides even-- with 12 amendments, an equal amount, for both sides, most of which have nothing to do with this bill but that we will accept votes on.

Actually, one big amendment, significant amendment that had nothing to do with this bill has already been voted on, agreed to, detached from this bill, and sent to the President, and he has already signed it. And we are still on this bill. That was the repeal of 1099, which was almost unanimously supported to repeal a very onerous provision of paperwork and regulation that was not proper to put on the backs of small businesses. And I am proud that I led, with others, the effort to repeal that. That has been done. Yet we find ourselves still not in complete agreement that it is time to move on.

I just wish to say a few more things. No. 1, every State will benefit when this program is reauthorized. Most important, taxpayers will see significant results. Let me just tell you one that is quite startling but true and I want it to be in the Record.

One company that participated in this program and received a small grant many years ago and then received another grant to help them get started, Qualcomm, is now one of the most successful businesses in the world. That one company pays more taxes to the Federal Government every year than the entire budget of the Small Business Administration. Let me repeat: One company, started in large measure--not solely, but they testified on the record in large measure--because of this program, was created. It grew and grew and grew and now pays more in taxes annually to the Federal Government than the entire budget of the SBA.

You would ask yourself: So what is the problem? Why can't we get this bill passed? I can only say we have Members who think they need to have votes or discussion on 187 amendments that have nothing to do with this bill, and they think the majority leader is being unreasonable when he tries to bring this to an end.

As chair of this committee, I have to say again--and I am going to end with this--this recession we are in will never end--never end--and the budget deficit that is crushing the economic potential of this Nation will never be eliminated if we do not create jobs in America.

This program is a job-creating machine that is being shut down by this inability of us to come to terms over this debate. It is a shame because everyone is counting on us--not just my committee, but the Small Business Committee is one of the important committees here--to put this recession in the rearview mirror. I cannot do it if I cannot pass legislation.

If we want jobs, if we want innovation, if we want to create the kind of jobs the SBIR Program--you can see here: SBIR-awarded firms add five times as many employees. These are kind of our supercompanies. These are companies, the smartest. They are on the edge. They are the best. They have gotten the attention of many smart people in the government. Yes, we do have smart people who work for the Federal Government. These companies and their technology have become known, and they say: Gee, this is the kind of technology that could change this situation, save taxpayer money, and it has such commercial application. Let's give it an award. We might not be able to give it an award because we are stuck talking about 150 amendments that have nothing to do with this program, and the extension to operate this program expires on May 31st.

I am sorry I cannot solve all the problems of the world in the Small Business Committee. I am very sorry. I cannot solve all the health care problems. I cannot resolve the debt situations. I cannot talk about sunset commissions and the Gang of 6 and put every piece of legislation in this bill. We have to stay focused. We have been moving some very good legislation out of this committee, completely with bipartisan support, with a few little bumps here and there.

The small business lending program was not supported by the Republicans. We only had two Senators who crossed the aisle to give us the 60 votes to do it. I understand it is controversial. Not everything here is done in such perfect precision, but we still have high hopes for that program. Six hundred banks have applied. We believe billions of dollars will be lent out and that debate is still going on as the administrators come up. But other than that, everything we have passed in our committee has been with bipartisan support. The same with this bill: It comes out 18 to 1.

I will finally say for the record--and will submit this letter for the Record--I was asked by Senator Coburn, who has been cooperative actually--although he has had quite a few amendments, he has been very open to negotiation--but he sent me a letter on January 26, and it basically says: I would like to help you pass your SBIR bill, but would you please get it out of your committee clean because I do not want other extraneous things attached to it because there are ``lesser'' programs--he said--that I do not support. But I support this one.

He is not a member of the committee. He said: Senator, if you can get it out clean, then maybe I can support it on the floor.

So what do I do? I tell all my Members: I am sorry. You cannot have the amendments in committee. I am sorry. We cannot attach anything to this bill because I am trying to move a clean bill to the floor--only to get to the floor and have more than 150 amendments, most of which have nothing to do with this bill put on this bill under the guise of: Well, we have to do it. We need time on the floor to debate our issue.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I referenced from Senator Coburn be printed in the Record.

I have tried to be patient. I understand that. But I am asking one last time--I am asking my ranking member, I am asking the other members of my committee, I am asking my Democratic colleagues and Republican colleagues--please, in the next few hours, please, let your voice be heard to your leaders--the minority leader and the majority leader--and please try to come to some reasonable agreement.

I think the cloture motion is quite reasonable, the cloture motion Senator Reid has put down. If we could agree to that, get 60 votes or more, we could move on and pass this reauthorization, which is so important for job creation in America.

We are 3 years behind schedule--not 6 months, not 8 months, but 3 years behind schedule. We have been operating this program--a very good program, one of the best--every 3 months, sometimes one month, sometimes a bit longer, but people have to guess whether we are going to extend it. That is no way to run an airline or a train or a bus or even a two-seated car, for that matter. You have to have a long runway here to get good things done and to stop wasting taxpayer money and their time.

So I am going to ask, please, let's try to get cloture.

Finally, the States that are most affected--the Senators who represent these States might want to be heads up--but Colorado, Maryland, Virginia, California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Florida, Texas and Alabama are among the States that benefit the most from this program. All our States benefit. Companies in my own State of Louisiana have received some of these awards and have gone on to hire hundreds, if not thousands, of people. But these other States have managed to actually get themselves to the front of the line.

I thank Senator Brown for his cosponsorship of this bill. I thank other Senators from these States. But the Texas and Florida and Alabama Senators, the New York Senators, the Senators from Ohio and Pennsylvania, particularly, Massachusetts and California--the top of the list--have a lot to lose if we cannot get this program reauthorized.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for the next 15 minutes so Senator Vitter and I can introduce a very important piece of legislation.

I see other colleagues on the floor, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I understand there are other colleagues on the Senate floor. I want to speak for a few minutes as chair of the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee and express my views about the vote we are going to cast in a few hours relative to that committee.

To Senator Paul, I say respectfully--and it is going to be a lively debate--that to a hungry family, a chicken in the pot looks pretty good every now and then, and there are literally millions of children, sadly, in this country today who go home from school and open the refrigerator or look on the stove, and they can't find a drumstick anywhere. That is what this debate is about.

No. 2, I used to love to hear President Clinton say that one of our jobs here was to create more millionaires. I belong to the DLC, and I am proud of it--the Democratic Leadership Council. We believe in creating opportunity that comes along with responsibility and creating paths forward to prosperity.

Most people I represent--including tea party people--don't believe companies such as GE--one of the biggest companies in the world--should get away with paying no taxes. I guess the Senator from Kentucky thinks that is a good idea. We don't.

I also think most people I represent--including the tea party--think people who make over $1 million a year--not millionaires or people who make $250,000 a year, but people who make over $1 million a year--could pay a little more so that we could afford either early childhood education or early health care in an effective and efficient way because people know--tea party people and others--what a smart investment that is. This is going to be a very interesting debate. I look forward to it.

I rise as chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee to discuss the full-year continuing resolution that the Senate will take up today. For weeks, the press swirled about a possible government shutdown. Almost all of the attention was on who would be blamed if the government shut down. That has been averted for the time being.

However, far too little attention has been focused on the consequences of the funding cuts that were proposed by the House. With some officials in Washington slashing budgets, terrorists continue to seek ways to do harm to this Nation. Terrorists do not care about ``spending top lines'' and ``CHIMPS.'' What the terrorists care about is finding our vulnerabilities and exploiting them to do harm to Americans, to target our military, and to damage our economy.

In the State of the Union earlier this year, the President stated that al-Qaida and its affiliates continue to plan attacks against us. He is stating the truth. He stressed that extremists are trying to inspire acts of violence by those already within our borders. According to the Attorney General, in the last 2 years, 126 individuals have been indicted for terrorist-related activities, including 50 United States citizens. Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano has said that the threat of a terrorist attack is as high as it has been since 9/11.

Recent events have served to highlight the complicated dynamics of this situation. The Fort Hood shooting happened, at the hands of a U.S. citizen. The New York City subway bombing attempt happened, at the hands of a legal resident alien. The Times Square bombing attempt happened, precipitated by a naturalized citizen. But we also continue to face threats from abroad. The 2009 Christmas day bombing attempt and the October 2010 air cargo bombing attempt happened. We face increasingly sophisticated daily cyber attacks from countries and hackers that desire to do us harm. Violence in Mexico is at unprecedented levels and there are concerns that the violence will spread across the border.

In addition to these threats, the Department of Homeland Security also must prepare for and respond to natural disasters. The earthquake and tsunami in Japan and our memories of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita remind us of our need to be prepared for a catastrophic disaster.

The Homeland Security title of the full-year continuing resolution contains a 2-percent cut in funding. I am particularly concerned about the treatment of funding for FEMA disaster recovery efforts. We are currently facing a shortfall of at least $1.2 billion this year and $3 billion next year in the disaster relief fund. These shortfalls are the result of past catastrophic disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike, the Midwest floods of 2008, and the Tennessee floods of 2010. At the insistence of the House, an additional $1 billion was provided on a non-emergency basis to meet the fiscal year 2011 shortfall. As a result of having to absorb the additional $1 billion within the DHS base budget, we were forced to cut necessary investments in our security, cuts of over 4 percent.

It makes no sense to cut programs that prepare, prevent, and help us respond to future disasters to pay the costs of past catastrophic disasters. Yet when you compare the full-year continuing resolution to the Omnibus bill that we tried to bring to the floor in December, we lost funding for 175 canine teams for explosives detection. Despite the increasing threat of homegrown terrorism, we lost $810 million to equip and train first responders. We lost funding for 1,300 handheld radiation detectors and funding for five Coast Guard boats and for 140 foot icebreakers. We lost funding for urban search and rescue teams and funds to deploy the latest technology for blocking cyber attacks on sensitive Federal computer systems.

In the past, on a bipartisan basis, we have funded the costs of catastrophic disasters as an emergency. In fact, $110 billion out of $128 billion appropriated for the FEMA disaster relief fund has been appropriated as an emergency. We simply cannot responsibly secure the homeland and prepare for future disasters if we are forced to absorb the costs of past catastrophic disasters.

Mr. President, I am pleased to say that we were successful in negotiations with the House in eliminating some of the most harmful cuts contained in H.R. 1. The bill no longer contains what I considered irresponsible cuts for the Coast Guard, for Customs and Border Protection, for immigration enforcement efforts, for the Transportation Security Administration, and for cyber security. But, the bill that will be put before the Senate today does not provide resources that are commensurate with the threat that we face. I believe this view is shared by a large majority of independent observers. I will vote for this bill but urge caution as we proceed to fiscal year 2012.

I remind my colleagues that it is essential that we make decisions on how to secure the homeland with the latest information on the threats that we face, not based on arbitrary spending top lines that were produced during the campaign. As we look ahead to drafting the Homeland Security appropriations bill for the fiscal year that begins in October, it is time to get off the campaign trail and work together on a path forward for a more secure homeland.

Madam President, I want to highlight an important provision that is included in the Homeland Security division of this bill. It is related to the firefighter hiring program known as SAFER. In 2009 and 2010, Congress approved waivers for several restrictions of the SAFER grant program because in this economic downturn fire departments were struggling to meet those requirements. By adding this flexibility to the program, fire departments were able to make the best use of the funding provided in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. A provision in this bill maintains three of the same waivers for fiscal year 2011 and specifically allows for the grants to be used to retain and/or rehire personnel, to supplant local funds, and a local match is not required. While some might argue that it is a local responsibility to hire firefighters, it has been made clear disaster after disaster--and especially including catastrophic events such as the 9/11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina--that firefighters are the first people we call on from all over the Nation to serve in a national response. Of course, I supported the inclusion of all six waivers contained in the Inouye amendment. Through negotiations we were able to secure the provisions that allow for the retention and/or rehiring of firefighters, the waiver of a cost share, and the ability to supplant local funds.

Mr. President, I am going to speak for 2 or 3 minutes in a brief introduction, and then turn it over to my colleague from Louisiana. We are both very excited and enthusiastic to present to the Senate and to Congress work that has been underway for almost a year.

As you know, next week on April 20, we will be marking the 1-year anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, which killed 11 men-- they are still in our thoughts and prayers, and their families to this day--injured dozens of others and shocked millions with the explosion that occurred a year ago next Wednesday.

There are many steps our Nation has to take and must take to respond to that horrific incident. Senator Vitter and I are on the floor today to introduce the Restore the Gulf Coast Act of 2011, which we believe is one of the most important things that needs to be done in response to this incident.

It was frankly long overdue even before this tragedy happened, and I will briefly explain. This gulf coast is a very important coast of America.

I know all of the people of our coasts believe they are all important--but we who live on the gulf coast are particularly proud of the coast of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida because on this coast not only do we have port and maritime activities, which is true of every coast, we also support the Nation in hosting a very important domestic oil and gas industry, which is primarily offshore, but a great deal on shore, both close and on our marshes.

In addition, we have a very vibrant and robust fishing industry, both commercial and recreational. We have ecotourism and migratory bird routes from the south going north. Obviously this is a flyway for migratory birds and extremely important to wildlife enthusiasts and hunters and fishermen. May I also add--and not let us forget--the tourism industry. So we say proudly in the gulf coast, we are America's working coast. We seek a balance between mining and exploring for and using our natural resources, and balancing that so this coast can be sustainable.

This is a great opportunity for the Nation to do right by the gulf coast. It is a great opportunity for the polluters to step up and do the right thing. It is a great opportunity to give a break to taxpayers because the bill Senator Vitter and I are putting forward--and we hope our other colleagues will join us in--will basically say the fine BP is going to pay--and maybe other contractors as well--that 80 percent of that fine should go to the area where the injury occurred.

I am going to take the next minute to put up this horrifying picture that people will remember because a year ago this is what the site looked like when the Deepwater Horizon exploded and 5 million barrels of oil escaped from this tragedy and marred the beaches and marshes and ocean, and we are still recovering, and will for years.

But because of the 5 million barrels of oil that were spilled, this polluter, BP, and its contractors are going to have to pay a very serious fine to the Federal Government. We believe that fine is best directed to help the environment which was injured and to get the taxpayers off the hook and put the polluters on the hook for picking up this tab, and to do so in a way that is fair to the Gulf Coast States. That is what Senator Vitter will speak about in more detail.

Let me show you one picture, happily. Today, the beaches along the gulf coast--in large measure--look like this, as shown in this picture. This is the way they normally look. Because not only do we drill for oil and gas off of our waters, but our children swim in this water. We recreate and have picnics along the beach. This is the way we would like this beach to look for decades to come.

If we are successful in getting our bill passed through the Congress and signed by the President in the near future, this is possible, along with pictures like this one I show you, which represents a great and proud industry: the shrimping industry on the gulf coast, which supplies fresh seafood for restaurants all over our Nation and, in some cases, the world.

So at this point, let me turn it to Senator Vitter for some more detail. I want to say, it has been a pleasure and I thank the Senator for his support. We want this to be a bipartisan effort. Both the industry and environmental groups are very interested in working with us on this issue. We think it is the right policy for our country.

I yield to Senator Vitter.

Mr. President, I see other colleagues on the floor waiting to speak so I will try to wrap up these remarks in about 5 minutes. But I do want to add a few things and thank my colleague again. He is on the committee that will take this bill into consideration. That committee is chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer. I want to thank her, our colleague from California, the Chair of the EPW Committee, and her staff, who have been working with us very closely over the last year as we fashioned this approach. I think the Senator, of course, will speak for herself, but I think it is in her philosophy that the polluters should pay, not the taxpayer, and that the area that was injured should be the area that receives the response. It is important that the environment that was injured should be first attended to first. That is the essence and nature of our bill.

But to put a couple of other things in the Record, Senator Vitter mentioned this, but it is worth repeating. President Obama has already endorsed this general concept, and I want to thank him for his early leadership on this issue. I had some real reservations early on about the national oilspill commission. I honestly did not think there were enough people representing the industry perspective, only the environmental perspective. But I was happy to see that commission report came out fairly balanced. Both Bob Graham, who is a former colleague of ours from Florida, and Bill Reilly, the former EPA Director under President Bush, came to the same conclusion: that one of the best ways to spend this fine money would be restoring this very important coastal area. This should not just be for the gulf coast but for the Nation. Frankly, the world should take notice and to try to find a path forward for coastal communities to have sustainable economies.

This is an important question, not just for the gulf coast, not just for the east coast, not just for the west coast, but I might say, this might be one of the great questions in the world today. 60 percent or more of the population of the world lives near coastlines. The question of how can people live there productively, safely, and how the environment can sustain them in that growth and development is an important question to get answers to.

Let me say, as a resident of the gulf coast, we do not have enough answers. We do not have enough money to ask questions. That is what this money will go for: some science and technology, some basic research, and, most importantly, some money to restore our coast--to do the right things by this environment.

I want to recognize the entities that support this cause. Secretary Ray Mabus, the Secretary of the Navy added to his portfolio to examine this issue, and he, too, arrived at the same conclusion: that a very excellent and smart way to spend some of these fine moneys would be on these programs.

Just a couple of minutes more to put some facts into the Record; and other Senators from other States--Florida, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama--can enter their own data.

I think it is important for people to understand, when we talk about the coast of Louisiana, just the coast of Louisiana--this is going to be hard for people to believe, but it is actually true--if you count the tidal miles of Louisiana, which is about 7,000 tidal miles from the tip here, as shown on this map, all the way over to Texas from our Mississippi border--7,000 tidal miles--if you stretch that out, it is the same as going from Miami to Seattle. I need people to get that in their mind.

I know this looks like a little shore because it is not a big shore like California or Florida. But the nature of this shore--because it is not just a beach; it is America's greatest wetlands and marshes--if you stretched it out with all of its inlets and bays and estuaries, it would go from Miami to Seattle.

This area is threatened, and has been for years. Yes, the oil and gas industry, unfortunately, has contributed to some of this damage. But it is also because the Mississippi River flows through here, and it has been dammed and tamed as best as men and women can try to tame natural things. The hydraulics have changed. The sea level has risen. This area is under great threat.

Mr. President, 1,500 square miles have been lost since 1930; 25 square miles of wetlands each year, which means a football field every 30 minutes. This is an urgent matter. There is no loss of land anywhere in the continental United States that has as much threat to it as there is to this coast. We have struggled for years to find a revenue stream to help fix it. We understand the rest of the country says: Why should we fix it? It is not our coast. But what we say back is: This coast is important to the whole Nation. It drains 40 percent of the continent. It is the greatest river system in North America. No one can get wheat out of Kansas or Iowa without coming through this Mississippi River. So there is a national interest.

Seventeen percent of GDP is basically supported and created by this gulf coast economy.

We are also willing to pay our own way as well. Our parishes have taxed themselves. The State has set up a constitutional safeguard, a lockbox--if we had only done that with Social Security. We are happy to have a lockbox for the wetlands money that comes in, so it can only be used for that purpose. So we are very proud of the actions our locals have taken. Now it is time for the Federal Government to act.

A few more statistics: 30 percent of the commercial fisheries in the United States come off this coast, and $1.7 billion in economic impact for recreational fishing--again, over 50 percent of the domestic oil and gas, because we drill for oil and gas here, that keep lights on and electricity flowing in Chambers such as this, in rooms and buildings all over our country. So that is why this is so important.

I am going to add some other statistics for the Record about some of the economic impacts of this. Again, this is an important coast to the country and it is an important effort for the world for us in America to get this right. Think about the drilling that is occurring off the coast of Africa or Brazil or Australia or Israel and what happens. Let's prevent any explosions. Let's prevent these disasters. We are struggling to do that, and the record is pretty good, despite the criticism that comes, and that is a speech for another day.

But the question is, When there is an accident, when this happens, how do we take that penalty money and invest it in the coast so it is more resilient and it will benefit people in every way over a long period of time in a very balanced fashion.

I conclude by urging my colleagues along the gulf coast, from Florida to Alabama to Mississippi and Texas, Republicans and Democrats alike, Members of the House as well, to step forward and join me and Senator Vitter. We are open to ideas and thoughts about how the money should be allocated but within general sets of principles we have outlined today. I wish to, again, thank Senator Boxer whose committee will consider this in the very near future. We are hoping for a hearing in the very near future and then a markup on this bill to move it forward to the President's desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record some further statistics about this horrific spill and our valuable coast.

Mr. President, I am going to speak for 2 or 3 minutes in a brief introduction, and then turn it over to my colleague from Louisiana. We are both very excited and enthusiastic to present to the Senate and to Congress work that has been underway for almost a year.

As you know, next week on April 20, we will be marking the 1-year anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, which killed 11 men-- they are still in our thoughts and prayers, and their families to this day--injured dozens of others and shocked millions with the explosion that occurred a year ago next Wednesday.

There are many steps our Nation has to take and must take to respond to that horrific incident. Senator Vitter and I are on the floor today to introduce the Restore the Gulf Coast Act of 2011, which we believe is one of the most important things that needs to be done in response to this incident.

It was frankly long overdue even before this tragedy happened, and I will briefly explain. This gulf coast is a very important coast of America.

I know all of the people of our coasts believe they are all important--but we who live on the gulf coast are particularly proud of the coast of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida because on this coast not only do we have port and maritime activities, which is true of every coast, we also support the Nation in hosting a very important domestic oil and gas industry, which is primarily offshore, but a great deal on shore, both close and on our marshes.

In addition, we have a very vibrant and robust fishing industry, both commercial and recreational. We have ecotourism and migratory bird routes from the south going north. Obviously this is a flyway for migratory birds and extremely important to wildlife enthusiasts and hunters and fishermen. May I also add--and not let us forget--the tourism industry. So we say proudly in the gulf coast, we are America's working coast. We seek a balance between mining and exploring for and using our natural resources, and balancing that so this coast can be sustainable.

This is a great opportunity for the Nation to do right by the gulf coast. It is a great opportunity for the polluters to step up and do the right thing. It is a great opportunity to give a break to taxpayers because the bill Senator Vitter and I are putting forward--and we hope our other colleagues will join us in--will basically say the fine BP is going to pay--and maybe other contractors as well--that 80 percent of that fine should go to the area where the injury occurred.

I am going to take the next minute to put up this horrifying picture that people will remember because a year ago this is what the site looked like when the Deepwater Horizon exploded and 5 million barrels of oil escaped from this tragedy and marred the beaches and marshes and ocean, and we are still recovering, and will for years.

But because of the 5 million barrels of oil that were spilled, this polluter, BP, and its contractors are going to have to pay a very serious fine to the Federal Government. We believe that fine is best directed to help the environment which was injured and to get the taxpayers off the hook and put the polluters on the hook for picking up this tab, and to do so in a way that is fair to the Gulf Coast States. That is what Senator Vitter will speak about in more detail.

Let me show you one picture, happily. Today, the beaches along the gulf coast--in large measure--look like this, as shown in this picture. This is the way they normally look. Because not only do we drill for oil and gas off of our waters, but our children swim in this water. We recreate and have picnics along the beach. This is the way we would like this beach to look for decades to come.

If we are successful in getting our bill passed through the Congress and signed by the President in the near future, this is possible, along with pictures like this one I show you, which represents a great and proud industry: the shrimping industry on the gulf coast, which supplies fresh seafood for restaurants all over our Nation and, in some cases, the world.

So at this point, let me turn it to Senator Vitter for some more detail. I want to say, it has been a pleasure and I thank the Senator for his support. We want this to be a bipartisan effort. Both the industry and environmental groups are very interested in working with us on this issue. We think it is the right policy for our country.

I yield to Senator Vitter.

Mr. President, I see other colleagues on the floor waiting to speak so I will try to wrap up these remarks in about 5 minutes. But I do want to add a few things and thank my colleague again. He is on the committee that will take this bill into consideration. That committee is chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer. I want to thank her, our colleague from California, the Chair of the EPW Committee, and her staff, who have been working with us very closely over the last year as we fashioned this approach. I think the Senator, of course, will speak for herself, but I think it is in her philosophy that the polluters should pay, not the taxpayer, and that the area that was injured should be the area that receives the response. It is important that the environment that was injured should be first attended to first. That is the essence and nature of our bill.

But to put a couple of other things in the Record, Senator Vitter mentioned this, but it is worth repeating. President Obama has already endorsed this general concept, and I want to thank him for his early leadership on this issue. I had some real reservations early on about the national oilspill commission. I honestly did not think there were enough people representing the industry perspective, only the environmental perspective. But I was happy to see that commission report came out fairly balanced. Both Bob Graham, who is a former colleague of ours from Florida, and Bill Reilly, the former EPA Director under President Bush, came to the same conclusion: that one of the best ways to spend this fine money would be restoring this very important coastal area. This should not just be for the gulf coast but for the Nation. Frankly, the world should take notice and to try to find a path forward for coastal communities to have sustainable economies.

This is an important question, not just for the gulf coast, not just for the east coast, not just for the west coast, but I might say, this might be one of the great questions in the world today. 60 percent or more of the population of the world lives near coastlines. The question of how can people live there productively, safely, and how the environment can sustain them in that growth and development is an important question to get answers to.

Let me say, as a resident of the gulf coast, we do not have enough answers. We do not have enough money to ask questions. That is what this money will go for: some science and technology, some basic research, and, most importantly, some money to restore our coast--to do the right things by this environment.

I want to recognize the entities that support this cause. Secretary Ray Mabus, the Secretary of the Navy added to his portfolio to examine this issue, and he, too, arrived at the same conclusion: that a very excellent and smart way to spend some of these fine moneys would be on these programs.

Just a couple of minutes more to put some facts into the Record; and other Senators from other States--Florida, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama--can enter their own data.

I think it is important for people to understand, when we talk about the coast of Louisiana, just the coast of Louisiana--this is going to be hard for people to believe, but it is actually true--if you count the tidal miles of Louisiana, which is about 7,000 tidal miles from the tip here, as shown on this map, all the way over to Texas from our Mississippi border--7,000 tidal miles--if you stretch that out, it is the same as going from Miami to Seattle. I need people to get that in their mind.

I know this looks like a little shore because it is not a big shore like California or Florida. But the nature of this shore--because it is not just a beach; it is America's greatest wetlands and marshes--if you stretched it out with all of its inlets and bays and estuaries, it would go from Miami to Seattle.

This area is threatened, and has been for years. Yes, the oil and gas industry, unfortunately, has contributed to some of this damage. But it is also because the Mississippi River flows through here, and it has been dammed and tamed as best as men and women can try to tame natural things. The hydraulics have changed. The sea level has risen. This area is under great threat.

Mr. President, 1,500 square miles have been lost since 1930; 25 square miles of wetlands each year, which means a football field every 30 minutes. This is an urgent matter. There is no loss of land anywhere in the continental United States that has as much threat to it as there is to this coast. We have struggled for years to find a revenue stream to help fix it. We understand the rest of the country says: Why should we fix it? It is not our coast. But what we say back is: This coast is important to the whole Nation. It drains 40 percent of the continent. It is the greatest river system in North America. No one can get wheat out of Kansas or Iowa without coming through this Mississippi River. So there is a national interest.

Seventeen percent of GDP is basically supported and created by this gulf coast economy.

We are also willing to pay our own way as well. Our parishes have taxed themselves. The State has set up a constitutional safeguard, a lockbox--if we had only done that with Social Security. We are happy to have a lockbox for the wetlands money that comes in, so it can only be used for that purpose. So we are very proud of the actions our locals have taken. Now it is time for the Federal Government to act.

A few more statistics: 30 percent of the commercial fisheries in the United States come off this coast, and $1.7 billion in economic impact for recreational fishing--again, over 50 percent of the domestic oil and gas, because we drill for oil and gas here, that keep lights on and electricity flowing in Chambers such as this, in rooms and buildings all over our country. So that is why this is so important.

I am going to add some other statistics for the Record about some of the economic impacts of this. Again, this is an important coast to the country and it is an important effort for the world for us in America to get this right. Think about the drilling that is occurring off the coast of Africa or Brazil or Australia or Israel and what happens. Let's prevent any explosions. Let's prevent these disasters. We are struggling to do that, and the record is pretty good, despite the criticism that comes, and that is a speech for another day.

But the question is, When there is an accident, when this happens, how do we take that penalty money and invest it in the coast so it is more resilient and it will benefit people in every way over a long period of time in a very balanced fashion.

I conclude by urging my colleagues along the gulf coast, from Florida to Alabama to Mississippi and Texas, Republicans and Democrats alike, Members of the House as well, to step forward and join me and Senator Vitter. We are open to ideas and thoughts about how the money should be allocated but within general sets of principles we have outlined today. I wish to, again, thank Senator Boxer whose committee will consider this in the very near future. We are hoping for a hearing in the very near future and then a markup on this bill to move it forward to the President's desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record some further statistics about this horrific spill and our valuable coast.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Coburn amendment No. 281 replace amendment No. 223 in the agreement we reached last evening. This is an updated version of Senator Coburn's amendment.

Madam President, under the previous agreement that was reached last evening--and I want to thank both leaders, Senators Reid and McConnell, for working so hard with Senator Snowe and me to try to bring our caucuses to conclusion points on this very important bill, the small business innovation bill, that we have been negotiating now for almost 2 weeks. It is a very important program that deserves to be reauthorized.

This bill will reauthorize this important program for 8 years. We have been operating the last 4 years with 3 months at a time and 6 months at a time. Madam President, representing New York, you know that many of your small businesses have accessed this program, many of your universities, to acquire or to reach cutting-edge technologies that not only our

Federal agencies need but taxpayers benefit from directly.

This program is a job creator. It is an innovative program, and it is a job creator. So I appreciate the work our two leaders have done with Senator Snowe and myself to get us to this agreement.

We will be having seven votes this afternoon. Just to recap, they will be Baucus No. 236, Stabenow No. 277, Rockefeller No. 215, Coburn No. 217, Coburn No. 281, Coburn No. 273, which is a side-by-side, I think, and Inouye No. 286. Those have already been agreed to, but, Madam President, our challenge is that we have 124 additional amendments that have been filed, most of which have nothing to do with either the Small Business Administration or this program. We understand Senators are frustrated and want floor time for their issues, but taxpayers need this program that works.

We are eliminating some programs at the Federal level that don't work, but this one does. So we need to try to find a way to get it authorized and continue the good economic numbers we are hearing coming out of Treasury and other independent think tanks that are saying jobs are being created.

The recession looks as though it is potentially coming to an end. We are creating net new jobs every month. This is a program that supports that. It is a great foundation program based on cutting-edge research and innovation that helps small businesses in the country who are the job creators.

So I ask Members on both sides to work cooperatively throughout the day today. We are going to have a vote on these seven amendments this afternoon, as previously agreed to, and we will be considering and trying to work with Members on some of their other issues. If we could get a good, strong small business bill agreed to this week and sent over to the House as we resolve these very tough negotiations on the budget, we can be proud to, at some point very soon, send this bill with a few attached amendments, hopefully--not many but a few--to the President's desk for signature.

So, again, I thank the Members for their cooperation, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I am sorry, Madam President. Let me take back that request.

Amendments Nos. 236, 277, 215, 217, 281, 273, and 286

Madam President, under the previous agreement we were able to get to last evening, I call up the amendments I previously cited.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Sanders' amendment No. 207 now be modified with the changes at the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that any time spent in a quorum call prior to the votes at 4 p.m. be equally divided.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of S. 493 and set aside the pending amendments so that I may call up the following two amendments en bloc. They are Cardin amendment No. 240 and Snowe amendment No. 253.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Cardin for his patience and Senator Snowe as we have worked up through the last hour or two on their two proposals. Both have to do with perfecting our contracting programs. While not specific to the SBIR Program and STTR Program, they are very relevant to the work we do on the Small Business Committee.

I appreciate all the Members who allowed these two amendments to go forward. They are pending and hopefully tomorrow we can get some agreement on some additional votes. We have had a very busy day today on the underlying bill, the SBIR bill. We voted on seven amendments. We had heated discussions on issues that are not related to this bill but are very important to this body.

I thank the Senators for working in good faith as we try to move through the many amendments that have been filed, most of which are not germane to the issue at hand but are important to be discussed on the floor of the Senate and in Congress.

I thank particularly Senator Cardin. I notice he is on the floor. He may want to say a word now about his amendment briefly. I commit to the Senator that we will discuss his amendment and Senator Snowe's amendment as soon as we can tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to speak for 2 minutes in general wrapup. There may be other Senators coming to the floor. I am hopeful we can lock in a time to vote on Cardin amendment No. 240 and the Snowe amendment No. 253. There are other amendments, a few amendments that are pending. Many others have been filed. The Senators are working together to see what kind of accommodations we can make.

Again I remind everyone, while we are working hard behind the scenes in many rooms and meetings today to try to keep our government open and operating while reducing spending where we can in an effective and a smart and constructive way, I remind our Senators how important this bill is because it will be reauthorizing a program that actually creates jobs in America by the small businesses that are represented on all of our Main Streets in our States and our communities.

This is the Federal Government's largest program for research and development. We do not believe that only big business, only international corporations have the best technology, the best approaches, or the best methods. We actually believe there are small businesses, some quite tiny, just one scientist and an assistant who can come up with cutting-edge technology, an engineer or an assistant, or a doctor and an assistant, who can come up with cutting-edge technologies that can cure a disease of the time or create a new mechanical system or technology system that helps not only our Federal agencies to cut spending, operate more efficiently, but can be commercialized in a way that creates manufacturing jobs and service jobs in America.

There are many ways to get to a balanced budget. We have heard a lot about cutting spending. Yes, we need to do that. But we also need to create jobs which generate income to close that budget gap. If we can get a more robust economy underway, this program most certainly is one of the ones.

I am proud of the new economic data that has come out. We are not where we need to be. Unemployment is still too high, but it is coming down. We are not creating enough jobs, but we are creating more and more every month. In large measure, it is because of some of the work our Committee on Small Business has done, both in the stimulus package and in our last small business bill opening up lending, getting credit lines started in partnership with community banks. Part of it is smart programs such as this. There are some government programs that do not work. This is not one of them.

I thank our Members for being patient. We now have the Cardin-Snowe amendments pending. We will hopefully lock in a time to vote on those and a few others we are considering as well.

Tomorrow, hopefully, we will start at an early hour and will continue to work on this important bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the period of morning business to be extended until 3 p.m., with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.