Floor Statements

Mr. President, I appreciate everyone's cooperation in trying to help us move the SBIR bill through the Senate this week. It is a very important bill. Hopefully, we can get back on that bill officially this afternoon as the leaders are negotiating about the amendments that are pending or those amendments filed against the bill. I see, at this time, the Senator from Maryland who is on the floor and wants to speak for just 1 minute about the bill and then Senator Boxer came down to speak about an amendment. Senator Vitter is also here, and I know he would like to be recognized in just a few minutes as well. Then we will alternate back and forth through morning business. There is no consent agreement at this point, but we will try to be fair to the Members, to move back and forth through the afternoon until 3 o'clock.

The Senator would go after Senator Cardin.

Then Senator Vitter, if that is OK.

On March 26, 2011, after 12 years of battling multiple myeloma, our country lost one of history's political trailblazers, the Honorable Geraldine Anne Ferraro. Ferraro served as a Congresswoman for the 9th District of New York from 1979-1985. At a time when less than two dozen women served in Congress, Geraldine Ferraro was a consistent voice for equality and unrelenting advocate for women's rights.

In 1984--64 years after passage of the 19th amendment granted women the right to vote--Ferraro made history as the first female Vice Presidential candidate from a major U.S. political party, running alongside Walter Mondale. I vividly remember her words as I watched her speak during the 1984 Democratic National Convention in San Francisco, ``If we can do this, we can do anything.'' Millions of women and girls watched that speech, inspired by the fact that a woman was one step away from holding the second highest office in America. Although the Mondale-Ferraro ticket did not win the White House, Ferraro's words, leadership and courageous spirit would forever change the way women were viewed in American politics. Her candidacy had successfully shattered the glass ceiling for the office of the Vice Presidency. Two decades later, a Congresswoman from the same city where Ferraro accepted the Vice Presidential nomination would go on to become the first female Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. Geraldine Ferraro's journey to the precipice of the Vice Presidency helped pave the way for Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi's historic achievement. In addition, her nomination would help pave the way for Hillary Clinton's historic bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

Geraldine Ferraro will always be remembered for her passion and dedication to women's issues. The daughter of Italian immigrants, Ferraro began her career as a prosecutor for New York City focusing on sex crimes, child abuse, and domestic violence. Ferraro carried that passion with her to the U.S. House of Representatives, quickly becoming a leader among her congressional colleagues. During her three terms as a Congresswoman, she served on a number of committees including: the Select Committee on Aging, the Public Works and Transportation Committee and eventually the House Budget Committee.

In addition to her work in Congress, Ferraro remained a devoted wife and loving mother to three children. After leaving public office, she remained in the field of public policy serving as a fellow at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University's Institute of Politics from 1988-1992 and as a U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights during the Clinton administration from 1993- 1996. She also authored three autobiographical books about her political career. She once again entered the

world of politics in 2008, serving on Hillary Rodham Clinton's Presidential campaign.

The life and accomplishments of Geraldine Ferraro opened the doors of American politics and the hearts and minds of thousands of women seeking to make a difference. She was an inspiration to me and thousands of women considering the challenge of a future in politics and government. Our country will always be grateful for her leadership. She will surely be remembered for her unique leadership, and her belief that, ``America is the land where dreams can come true for all of us.''

Mr. President, could I ask the Chair--I know we are discussing the bill. But do we have a time constraint? I understand that at 12 o'clock there may be some additional commentary.

Let me try to recap for just a moment because it is my understanding there may be some colleagues coming down to the Senate floor around 12 o'clock to pay tribute to an extraordinary woman and extraordinary American, Geraldine Ferraro, whom we lost this week. I most certainly want to be respectful to the Members who are coming to the floor to pay tribute to our former colleague and an extraordinary leader. But let me remind colleagues we are still trying to get to this bill, an important bill for the country, an important bill to help put this recession in our rearview mirror, an important bill that gives us yet one more very carefully crafted tool to help create jobs on Main Street, in rural areas, in suburban areas, and in urban areas all across this country; that is, the 8-year reauthorization of the Small Business Innovation and Research Program and Small Business Technology Transfer Program.

This program is approximately 20 years old, first passed by Senator Warren Rudman, when a report found its way to Congress that said, alarmingly, agencies of the Federal Government, whether it was the Department of Defense or NASA or NIH, were not accessing the power and the technology of the small business community; that when they went out to do research they were just looking at research offered by either just universities and we are very proud of the work that our universities do, but they were looking at large businesses. What did GE have to offer? What did IBM have to offer?

It occurred to many Members of Congress at that time that there was a tremendous amount of brain power and agility and quickness and cutting- edge, innovative technologies resting in the minds and hearts and dreams of entrepreneurs and small businesses in America the taxpayers were not benefiting from.

As you can imagine, people might think of all this technology coming out of New York or California. They might skip over a place such as Montana where the Presiding Officer is from or Louisiana where this Senator is from. So there were some very wise Members who said: Let's create a program that will direct at least a portion of the research and development funding of these large agencies so small businesses can compete.

Now, these are grants not given out by formula or on a first-come/ first-served basis. These grants and contracts are given out based on merit, about what looks promising, about potential, and about what the taxpayers need in terms of dealing with problems.

One thing that comes immediately to mind is the terrible tragedy unfolding in Japan as we speak with the potential meltdown, the process of a nuclear reactor melting down. Some of the technology being deployed to that situation, which is technology developed in the field of robotics, was developed, a portion of it, through this SBIR Program. So that makes very relevant the debate that we are having on the floor today.

When people go home and now are turning on their televisions or listening to their radios or over the Internet following those unfolding dramatic developments in Japan, they know that one of the companies that has been deployed and some of the material from the United States actually was developed through this program. So that is just one of a thousand examples that Senator Snowe and I have provided in terms of testimony before the Small Business Committee to the Congressional Record, and in our numerous speeches on the floor to talk about the importance of this program.

I would like, as the manager of this bill--I am not sure it is going to be possible, but I would most certainly like to have this bill voted on and passed by the end of this week. I am not sure the leadership has decided that is something that is possible. But I would like to send a strong bill over to the House--hopefully, a bill that does not have amendments on it that would warrant a Presidential threat of a veto-- and get this bill passed through the House and then passed on to the President so he can sign it and send a very positive signal for his agenda and all of our agendas for innovation--having America be the best educated, the best competitors in the world in terms of the economy, and giving our small businesses yet another tool.

We have worked on reducing the abuses in the credit card industry. We have worked on capital access through a new lending program. We have reduced fees, reduced taxes to the tune of $12 billion to our small businesses throughout the country in the last Congress. We want to continue to work on lowering taxes where we can, eliminating regulations and supporting programs like this that work.

Let's eliminate or modify those programs that are not working, and let's step up our support and reauthorize the programs that are. The assessments done and the reviews of this program by the independent researchers have been very positive across the board and outstanding.

Senator Snowe and I have taken into consideration those many reports in the drafting of this bill and made some changes to the program so that as it moves forward for the 8 years it will even be better.

One of my key goals and objectives is to make sure States such as Louisiana or Mississippi or Montana or Wyoming, States that have not previously been awarded many of these grants, know we have stepped up some technical assistance and help so we can find the best technology in this country to apply to some of our most pressing problems, regardless of whether they are in the big cities and big places such as New York, Los Angeles, CA. But we need our entrepreneurs around the country to benefit by a program that they have access to as well.

So I am pleased that we can get back on the small business innovation and research bill and small business technology transfer bill. Senator Snowe and I will be coming to the floor periodically during the day to continue to move this bill along.

I see my colleague, the Senator from Maryland, who is scheduled to speak in just a few minutes. So at this time I will yield the floor. Again, I hope, and I thank our colleagues for their cooperative nature that they have been working in in terms of trying to get our bill passed that will be so important to so many people in all of our States.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 29, 2011, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 29, 2011, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Public Proposals for the Future of the Housing Finance System''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public

Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 29, 2011, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen 406.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 29, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 29, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 29, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Protecting the Civil Rights of American Muslims.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 29, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Tools to Present DOD Cost Overruns.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 29, 2011, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Strengthening the Senior Executive Service: a Review of Challenges Facing the Government's Leadership Corps.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 29, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

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

Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity the leadership has provided for Senator Snowe and me to present S. 493 and continue to discuss this important bill. It is a very important program that has actually existed at the Federal level for 20 years. It is not a household word, but it is known very well in the small business community. It is supported by groups such as the Small Business Association, the Chamber of Commerce, and many high-tech organizations because they know the same thing we know, which is this is a very important Federal program that actually works and is accomplishing its mission.

It is a government/public-private partnership--a government-business partnership--with the largest Federal agencies that actually set aside a small portion of their research and development dollars. The amount is actually relatively small; 2.5 to 3 percent of all of their development and research dollars is set aside, and they aggressively look for small businesses that are able to provide new services, cutting-edge technology, new methodology, new software, to solve problems the government is having.

In the process of these small businesses solving problems for the government--i.e., the taxpayer--the great news is some new businesses are developed, and they can then be commercialized into the private market, which is how this program works, which is why it is so beneficial not only to taxpayers but to the market generally.

I am excited because we have great evidence from the studies and the surveys of this program that it is meeting and exceeding its expectations. It is creating thousands of jobs. It is providing an opportunity for small businesses to compete on a level playing field with large businesses, and it is providing the taxpayer with some cutting-edge technology and innovation.

Let me give one example which is close to my heart because we ran into this problem specifically and directly trying to deal with the aftermath of Katrina. This is just one example of the kinds of new technologies that are being developed through this program. This bill, which we hope will get passed this week if we can negotiate wisely and smartly on the amendments pending, will reauthorize this program for 8 years. This is a long-term reauthorization, and it is important to send a signal out to the market and to small businesses and to these coalitions: We believe in this partnership. We know it can work. We want to give a long lead time and an 8-year runway to lift off some of these businesses and launch them and to create the kind of jobs and entrepreneurial opportunity we know is out there.

This is just one example. A Huntsville, AL, company, GATR Technologies, inflatable antenna--an inflatable antenna provides emergency access, cell phone coverage and phone lines over satellite networks. It was first used by responders in Haiti and Hurricane Ike. It provides communication support to our Special Operations Forces, to U.S. Navy, and U.S. Air Force. It so far has created 30 jobs but has tremendous opportunity; last year, $7 million in sales and this year approximately $10 million. This technology was launched with a $148,000 grant.

What happened to us in the aftermath of Katrina--and the Presiding Officer may remember this--is that even the government's best satellite phones failed to work. So even with a great evacuation plan in place, with a great medical plan in place, with a great response plan in place, it is not worth the paper it is written on if you can't communicate it.

So what we found was when people landed with satellite phones, there wasn't enough reception base on the ground to be able to communicate. The technology has advanced significantly since then, but the same thing happens when you are trying to get communications in a war-torn place or a catastrophically destroyed place. This technology allows basically a balloon to be put down onsite, substantially increasing the communications capabilities.

This is just one example. So an agency had a problem. It couldn't communicate. It didn't have the right kind of communication technology. It puts out a small grant. Small business responds. This technology is created. Potentially, this could go on to develop into quite a large company. It might morph several times before it goes commercial, but that is what this program does.

These jobs are being created in Huntsville, AL. We are thrilled for Alabama. Jobs are created through this program in every State in the Union.

Here is another example. This is a small business from Watertown, MA. It is the A123 lithium-ion battery. The advanced lithium-ion battery is used widely for transportation power grid and commercial and industrial products. It opened the largest lithium-ion battery manufacturing plant in North America, in Michigan, a place where we need to be creating jobs. This program is doing exactly that. It has created more than 400 jobs across the State of Michigan.

I think this grant initially came out of the Energy Department. The technology was initially developed at MIT, but the road to commercial success was paved in 2002 when this company was awarded $100,000 for a small business innovation research grant. So this successfully leveraged this SBIR grant to take this lab and its product to the market. It employs now more than 2,000 people globally and has facilities around the world.

So this is creating jobs for America, new technology for America, but the world is benefiting from this. In fact, Senator Snowe has joined me on the Senate floor, and she will remember when we had testimony from our consultant, Dr. Weissman, who testified that actually as the chief reviewer of this program, he has been asked to speak in many different countries about its success.

So while people are trying to eliminate government programs that aren't working, let's make sure this week in the Senate we take the opportunity to reauthorize programs that are working and that are creating jobs at home and serving as a model for entrepreneurship development all over the world.

I see Senator Snowe is on the floor, so I am going to wrap up my opening remarks soon. I do want to review briefly. As I said, this program was designed in 1982 to harness the innovative capacity of America's small businesses to meet the needs of our Federal agencies. Senator Warren Rudman from New Hampshire had a great part to play as a lead sponsor of this bill.

To date, the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program have produced more than 85,000 patents and have generated tens of thousands of well-paying jobs across all the 50 States, in addition to creating jobs overseas that are a benefit to America as well. This is a good return on the investment we make for our economy. As I said, it has garnered high praise from well- respected sources and governments around the world. It is an 8-year authorization.

In this bill, we update the award sizes, which have not been changed since 1994. Phase I awards will be increased from $100,000 to $150,000; phase II, from $750,000 to $1 million. We adopted the House measure that allows the SBA to update these award guidelines annually instead of every 5 years. We also put certain amounts of caps on some of the awards to make sure as many businesses as possible get access to these awards. This is merit-based. This is not a formula distributed based on applications. These are based on the quality of the application, the promise of the technology, and also on the level of need the agency has for this kind of new technology.

As I said, it creates a Federal-State technology partnership program. It improves the SBA's ability to oversee and coordinate these programs. It provides some administrative funding, which we thought was lacking, to make sure the agencies themselves have the wherewithal and the expertise to really get this program maximized in its job-creation potential. The reason I think this is so important--and Senator Snowe and I have been almost singly focused on doing everything we can, leading this Small Business Committee, across party lines and together, Democrats and Republicans--is to try to put this recession behind us. This is a fight. This is not something that will happen naturally. It is going to be by this government in Washington and at the State and local levels creating atmosphere for businesses to prosper and jobs to be created.

I have to say I was very pleased to get a copy of the ``Kaufman Index on Entrepreneurial Activity,'' which I will submit a portion of for the record. I think people will be pleased to hear its opening paragraph, as follows:

In 2010, .34 percent of the adult population, which is 340

out of 100,000 adults, created a new business each month.

That means that in America, 565,000 new businesses were created each month in 2010, approximately. That is pretty extraordinary. Every month, 565,000 new businesses were launched. We know all of them don't succeed, but some of them do, and some of them grow to be huge, extraordinary companies. QualComm comes to mind, and Microsoft comes to mind. They started as small businesses and grew. The 2010 entrepreneurial activity rate was the same as 2009, but it represents a substantial increase from 2007 and, most significantly, represents the highest level over the past decade and a half.

I wish I could say this particular program was responsible for all of this, but obviously it is not. But it is one of the tools the Federal Government has, along with our contracting and procurement tools, along with our Tax Code, along with our other incentives that we passed in our last small business bill--the new $30 billion lending program, which is leveraged up to 300 and potentially could leverage up to $300 billion in lending to small businesses on Main Street, not Wall Street--getting money to small businesses, these 565,000 small businesses that are started every month by great Americans who are trying to provide a livelihood for themselves, opportunities for their families, and strength for their communities. So for innovation and jobs, fighting hard for them, we are trying to pass this reauthorization that can contribute to this substantial growth. Things are looking better. Trendlines are in a positive direction.

Let me show you some other growth lines that are very important. We had a terribly substantial loss of jobs, as you know, in 2008 and 2009. The President largely inherited this situation. He did not even take office until half of this job loss was completed. But I think we have been working together and the President has been leading a great effort to turn this situation around and start creating jobs as opposed to losing them. You can see this is a pretty dramatic turnaround. After losing 3.6 million in 2008 and 5.5 million in 2009, we have had a net increase of 1.3 million in 2010, with things looking promising in the first quarter of 2011--still moving in a very positive direction. I don't know what these projections are, but I think it will be greater than 1.3 million, which was last year's increase, which would be encouraging.

We have a long way to go to make up for the job loss of the great recession. When Wall Street collapsed, the housing market, the real estate market was terribly wounded. That is a story for another day. But the good news is that it looks as if we are recovering.

The unemployment rate is still too high in too many places in this country. That is why Senator Snowe and I are on the floor again this week. That is why we are asking our colleagues to be as cooperative as possible. We know there are so many issues people want to talk about, and time is limited on the floor. In our minds, we should be almost singularly focused on job creation and reducing the debt and closing this deficit. By creating jobs and building businesses in the private sector--and this is one program that absolutely hits this mark--we can do all three. We can create jobs and expand economic opportunity. We are making a dent in the debt, and we are closing the deficit gap by creating new tax dollars that come in from hard-working Americans in the private sector.

Mr. President, I am excited to present this bill again. We will have a lot more information as the day unfolds. I understand we have a vote on a different matter at around 5 or 5:30 today. Senator Snowe and I will be on the floor to answer any questions Members might have. We are not encouraging additional amendments. We already have 89 that have been filed on this bill. We are hoping to get some of them withdrawn that are not germane to the bill.

We will be working throughout the week, and hopefully together we can give a very strong vote of confidence to entrepreneurs who are taking extraordinary risks in very challenging times. The least we can do is get the government programs that are there for them to support them up and running and as strong as possible to help them in their quest to be successful.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will follow up with a few brief comments. The transition is important and worth noting. I am so glad Ranking Member Snowe made reference to the fact that the two of us are on the floor not just to reauthorize because it is the time for reauthorization but because this program works, because it is cost- effective, and because it actually is a job creator. It creates jobs in the private sector, not necessarily the public sector, although there are some public sector jobs associated with it that are crucial and important--people in the agencies working on identifying this new technology. But the lion's share of these jobs by far is being created in the private sector.

I wish to show what our challenge is.

Here you can see both President Bush and President Obama faced extraordinary challenges. This is the Monthly Changes in Private Payrolls, Seasonally Adjusted from January 2008, when this recession began, until today. You can see it is absolutely a dramatic loss of private payroll, reductions in private payroll. This represents substantial job losses.

But as you can see, it is just now, in April 2010-July 2010, and now to the present, to February of 2011--I know we are into March but this doesn't have the final month or two on here--we are making tremendous progress in turning this around. Again, this is the Monthly Changes in Private Payrolls. This represents the teeth of the great recession that caught so many businesses, large and small, off guard.

There are many reasons why this recession happened, and the collapse of our financial markets, but that is not the subject of this debate. What is the subject of this debate is how we get out of it, how we create jobs in the private sector. Senator Snowe and I are proud to have brought several bills to the floor, this being the latest, that we believe can contribute to the increase in private payroll.

I want to be clear, because many of our colleagues have been challenging, and I think appropriately, why we can't eliminate some government programs; why do we have to keep them all. Senator Snowe and I have jointly recommended the elimination of two, though relatively small, programs within the SBA, and we will be reviewing just this week with the Administrator of the SBA the efficiency of their whole budget. If we can find other places and other programs to eliminate that are not hitting their marks, not meeting their goals, we are committed to working together to do that. But this program we have reshaped, we have modified, we have improved, and we are strongly and passionately recommending its reauthorization for 8 years.

We have together reviewed nine studies of the National Research Council, studies by the Government Accountability Office to help guide our committee in the drafting of this bill. We have included many additional policy goals and some former goals and appropriate interest to balance. We wanted

to improve the diversity of the programs geographically and otherwise so more States and individuals could participate. We also wanted to maintain a fair playing field so true small businesses could continue to compete for this very small but important percentage of overall R&D. We wanted to encourage exploration of high-risk, cutting-edge research.

As Dr. Charles Wessner said--the lead assessment adviser on this program--if every program you give money to is working, or every business you are awarding grants to works, you are not running your program correctly, Senators. Because this is high-risk early funding, where it is the most difficult funding for these businesses to receive. Obviously, once they show promise, there are any number of investors and capital out there looking right now for good investments, particularly right here in the United States. So at a certain point, at a certain level, with certain proven technologies, there is enough venture capital out there to take these programs to the next level. But what is not there right now is that first dollar, that early $150,000 grant that says: We think you have something of promise. Go ahead and try it. They try it for a year or two, they come back, and they can get another $150,000, up to $1.5 million.

Eventually, it may collapse because it wasn't what people thought, and that money is lost. But the great news is that collectively, cumulatively, this program makes money for the taxpayer--it does not lose money--although not every grant is successful. We wouldn't want that. This is a fairly high-risk, early form of capital, but it is a smart use of taxpayer dollars, and that is why Senator Snowe and I enthusiastically recommend it.

This program has been supported by every President. President Reagan was supportive, President Bush was supportive, President Clinton has been supportive, and now President Obama has signaled his support as well. So we are very proud to be able to present this.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record another report regarding the state of small business--not the entire report but some parts of it that are central to this debate, sponsored by Network Solutions, the University of Maryland, Robert H. Smith School of Business.

Mr. President, this portion of the report says, interestingly enough:

After having reached a low point in the summer, technology

investment is on the rise and social media adoption continues

to grow. Despite poor competitive health now, owners are

becoming increasingly optimistic about the economy and their

future business success.

They have been taking this survey of small businesses since the recession started, and the report continues:

Over a quarter plan to add staff in 2011, and if they carry

out their plans, will create 3.8 million jobs.

Again, it is the magic of small business. We have 27 million small businesses in America. If every one of them, obviously, created one additional job, that would be 27 million more jobs. And we could use it. That is not going to happen, but if even a portion of them added one job to their bottom line, we know they could have an impact. It is important for programs such as this and getting capital at their local bank, being able to access credit from credit cards, that have reasonable charges and transparent charges--which I am proud to have been a part of helping on--and it is getting access for new technologies to find a friend at the Federal Government who will step up and help them grow their business. We strongly recommend this program.

I am going to yield the floor at this time, but we do have several amendments that are pending, and we will have to organize those votes sometime this week. We have over 89 amendments that have been filed, but we are hoping some of the Members, if they do not feel they have to offer those amendments, will withdraw them. Some of them are not germane to this bill and we wish to keep this bill very focused on small business.

I do want to join Senator Snowe in support of the repeal of 1099, which is represented by the Johanns amendment, and Senator Menendez may have a perfecting amendment to that, I understand, and I look forward to working with Senators Johanns and Menendez to get that regulatory burden lifted off the back of small business. It doesn't go into effect until 2012, but small businesses around the country are quietly alarmed, as they should be, in my view, regarding that additional paperwork that would be required. There is a fair amount of across-the- board support on both sides of the aisle for that repeal, and I hope we can get that done sometime this week as well, either specifically attached to this bill or parallel to this effort, because it is a very important effort for small businesses to get that new 1099 requirement repealed, as well as getting this bill passed.

Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on an issue that is of great importance to my home State of Louisiana: disaster recovery from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita of 2005; Hurricanes Gustav and Ike of 2008; and the Deepwater Horizon disaster of 2010. Almost 6 years after these first two devastating storms, our eyes are still fixed on our shores during hurricane season as our communities and businesses in the hardest-hit areas continue to rebuild. The region is also still reeling from the oil spill and subsequent Federal deepwater drilling moratorium. As Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I remain focused on their ongoing recovery efforts and am here today to introduce a bill that I believe will help these struggling small businesses become successful once again and hire new workers.

Charles R. ``Ray'' Bergeron and his wife's Fleur de Lis Car Care Center in New Orleans, Louisiana, is one of the businesses that needs this type of assistance. Small Business Administrator Karen Mills and I toured the Bergerons' business back in June 2009. Pre-Katrina, Fleur de Lis, which opened in 1988, had nine employees. After Hurricane Katrina hit, Mr. and Mrs. Bergeron found themselves having to take out two loans, one for their house and another for their small business. As of our visit that June, the Bergerons were down to 2 employees, not including themselves, and their business was back at about 40 percent of pre-Katrina sales, due in large measure to the population not returning. Their neighborhood is mostly empty homes, which Mr. Bergeron attributes in part to high flood insurance premiums, high property taxes and high homeowner's insurance.

When I met with them, the Bergerons had a $225,000 SBA disaster loan with a standard 30-year term, which Mr. Bergeron says he will not pay off until he is 101 years old. And two years ago now, Mrs. Bergeron contacted my office requesting SBA assistance with their loan repayment after work to repair the flood-damaged roads surrounding their gas station had cut access to their business for even their most loyal customers. Since the project began, Fleur de Lis' sales have been cut almost in half. This latest challenge comes on the heels of the economic downturn, which caused the station to lay off two employees in 2009.

The Bergerons' story is one I have heard from countless businesses. Coupled with their recovery from the 2005 and 2008 hurricanes, and more recently, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and Federal deepwater drilling moratorium, these businesses--the ones that took the initiative to quickly reopen after the storms--are today struggling with one challenge after another. Yet these ``pioneer'' businesses are the ones rebuilding communities, they are the businesses communities need the most because they serve as anchors. If residents see the Bergerons' gas station or their favorite restaurant open, they are more likely to come back to rebuild their homes.

To help ongoing recovery efforts in the Gulf Coast, and to give these struggling businesses immediate assistance, I am introducing today the Southeast Hurricanes Small Business Disaster Relief Act of 2011. This legislation would provide targeted assistance to as many as 11,000 businesses in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas. What these particular businesses have in common is that they received SBA disaster loans following the 2005 or 2008 hurricanes. While they have made payments on these loans, I have heard from countless businesses in my State that they could expand operations if they had additional cash flow. This legislation would inject immediate capital into these hardest-hit businesses by giving SBA the authority to waive up to $15,000 of interest payments over three years, helping to create or save up to 40,000 jobs.

Under this program, SBA is required to give priority to applications from businesses with 50 employees or less and businesses that re-opened between September 2005 and October 2006 for the 2005 storms or September and December 2008 for the 2008 hurricanes. This ensures that SBA first helps true small businesses and those ``pioneer'' businesses that were the first to re-open after the disaster. The bill also includes a priority for applications from businesses suffering substantial economic harm from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill last year. The program would end on March 31, 2012.

The Southeast Hurricanes Small Business Disaster Relief Act also includes provisions to help reduce the program's impact on the Federal deficit. First, the bill eliminates a duplicative program at the SBA. This program, the Gulf Coast Disaster Loan Refinancing Program, was created as part of the 2008 Farm Bill. Although it was created almost three years ago, the program has not received any appropriations nor has the SBA utilized the authority to refinance any disaster loans. It is my understanding this is because the program just re-amortizes the same debt of borrowers. Furthermore, any refinancing must not exceed the original loan amount and differ from the original terms of the loan. As a result, this program is not attractive to borrowers, lenders or the SBA. Our bill eliminates this program and creates one that will work better for all stakeholders. Next, the bill allows SBA the authority to get reimbursed by the party responsible for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill for any interest relief provided to businesses impacted by that disaster. This ensures that the taxpayers will be reimbursed for interest relief related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. I also note that this is

consistent with the claims process provided for in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

This program makes a difference because for some businesses, depending on the loan term and loan amount, their total principal/ interest payments could run as high as $1,000 per month. For example, for a $114,000 disaster loan with a 4 percent interest rate and a 25- year term, a business could be paying as much as $400 in monthly interest. In one year, this adds up to $4,800 and almost $14,500 in three years. While this is not a lot of money for Wall Street banks or Fortune 500 companies, $15,000 makes a major impact for a gas station with two employees, like Fleur de Lis, or a neighborhood restaurant with 10 employees. These businesses have seen their bottom lines shrink as others on Wall Street received extravagant bonuses. I, for one, believe it is time to help these Main Street businesses as they are the backbone of our communities.

My legislation also follows legislation approved by a previous Congress. The prior bill came after Hurricane Betsy devastated Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi in September 1965. According to Red Cross reports at the time, between 800,000 and 1 million people were adversely impacted by the hurricane. Before this storm, the only previous disaster of that magnitude was the 1937 Ohio-Mississippi River floods which forced more than a million people from their homes. In total, Betsy destroyed more than 1,500 homes, damaged more than 150,000, and damaged more than 2,000 trailers. Hurricane Betsy also destroyed 1,400 farm buildings and 2,600 small businesses. At the time, the Senate Committee on Public Works noted in Committee Report 89-917 that, ``The overwhelming magnitude of the vicious storm, surprising even to experienced disaster workers, was more apparent every day as storm victims continued to register for long-term recovery help in rebuilding their lives and homes.''

As part of the review to provide Hurricane Betsy victims appropriate assistance, including a field hearing in Louisiana, Congress determined that the massive scale of this disaster required targeted, disaster- specific programs. In particular, Congress approved the Southeast Hurricane Disaster Relief Act of 1965, Public Law 89-339. This bill authorized various business, homeowner, and agricultural disaster assistance, including loans and temporary rental assistance. In its committee report on the legislation, which is referenced above, the Senate Committee on Public Works wrote, ``This bill contains what the committee believes is needed and necessary to give further aid to the disaster-stricken areas . . . including special measures to help these States in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of devastated areas.'' Among other provisions, Section 3 of the bill authorized SBA to waive interest--for loans above $500--due on the loan over a period of three years, but not to exceed $1,800 in interest. The bill was signed into law in November 1965 and Congress later approved $35 million to implement provisions in the Act.

Just as with Hurricane Betsy in 1965, in 2005, Mississippi and Louisiana again saw a catastrophic disaster hit their businesses, farms, and homes. Everyone now knows the impact Hurricanes Katrina and Rita had on the New Orleans area and the southeast part of our state. Images from the devastation following these storms, and the subsequent Federal levee breaks, were transmitted across the country and around the world. Katrina ended up being the deadliest natural disaster in United States history, with 1,800 people killed--1,500 alone in Louisiana. Katrina was also the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history, with more than $81.2 billion reported in damage.

In Louisiana, we had 18,000 businesses catastrophically destroyed and 81,000 businesses economically impacted. I believe that, across the entire Gulf Coast, some estimates ran as high as 125,000 businesses impacted by Katrina and Rita. Many of these businesses, for various reasons, have not returned or re-opened. By mid-2007, Orleans Parish was still down 2,000 employers, or 23 percent of its pre-Katrina business level. Nearby St. Bernard Parish--which had up to 80 percent of its homes damaged--had the largest percentage decline of 48 percent fewer businesses open, according to Louisiana State University and the Louisiana Recovery Authority. These disasters were followed by the 2008 hurricanes that hit the same areas in Texas and Louisiana. With this in mind, on September 25, 2009, I chaired a committee field hearing in Galveston, Texas. At this hearing, we received a progress report from Federal, State and local officials on the recovery from Hurricane Ike in 2008. We also heard from individual business owners in Galveston who were still struggling a year on from the hurricane.

These Galveston business owners, the Bergeron's Fleur de Lis gas station, and many other ``pioneer'' businesses did choose to re-open and are now struggling to stay alive. As is clear from the Bergeron's story, these businesses have suffered from not one disaster, but three: Hurricane Katrina/Rita in 2005, Hurricane Gustav/Ike in 2008, and the Deepwater Horizon disaster. I believe the special program implemented following Hurricane Betsy in 1965 would today greatly benefit businesses in these four states hardest hit by Katrina, Rita, Gustav, Ike, and the Deepwater Horizon. While I recognize that these are the hardest hit states, I am also interested to hear from my other Gulf Coast colleagues on whether this program would benefit their impacted businesses as well.

In closing, I would like to note that Congress has been generous in providing essential recovery funds following the 2005 and 2008 storms. However, as we approach the sixth anniversary of the 2005 disasters, we must now ensure that impacted businesses can make it past this anniversary--preventing thousands more workers from being unemployed or additional defaults on SBA disaster loans. One important way that this Congress can ensure that these workers remain employed and that these businesses survive, and even grow, would be to relieve some of the interest on these SBA disaster loans. For this reason, I urge my Senate colleagues to support this commonsense legislation which would make a difference for up to 11,000 Main Street business owners and their estimated 40,000 employees in the Gulf Coast.

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 speak on an issue that is of great importance to my home State of Louisiana: disaster recovery from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita of 2005; Hurricanes Gustav and Ike of 2008; and the Deepwater Horizon disaster of 2010. Almost 6 years after these first two devastating storms, our eyes are still fixed on our shores during hurricane season as our communities and businesses in the hardest-hit areas continue to rebuild. The region is also still reeling from the oil spill and subsequent Federal deepwater drilling moratorium. As Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I remain focused on their ongoing recovery efforts and am here today to introduce a bill that I believe will help these struggling small businesses become successful once again and hire new workers.

Charles R. ``Ray'' Bergeron and his wife's Fleur de Lis Car Care Center in New Orleans, Louisiana, is one of the businesses that needs this type of assistance. Small Business Administrator Karen Mills and I toured the Bergerons' business back in June 2009. Pre-Katrina, Fleur de Lis, which opened in 1988, had nine employees. After Hurricane Katrina hit, Mr. and Mrs. Bergeron found themselves having to take out two loans, one for their house and another for their small business. As of our visit that June, the Bergerons were down to 2 employees, not including themselves, and their business was back at about 40 percent of pre-Katrina sales, due in large measure to the population not returning. Their neighborhood is mostly empty homes, which Mr. Bergeron attributes in part to high flood insurance premiums, high property taxes and high homeowner's insurance.

When I met with them, the Bergerons had a $225,000 SBA disaster loan with a standard 30-year term, which Mr. Bergeron says he will not pay off until he is 101 years old. And two years ago now, Mrs. Bergeron contacted my office requesting SBA assistance with their loan repayment after work to repair the flood-damaged roads surrounding their gas station had cut access to their business for even their most loyal customers. Since the project began, Fleur de Lis' sales have been cut almost in half. This latest challenge comes on the heels of the economic downturn, which caused the station to lay off two employees in 2009.

The Bergerons' story is one I have heard from countless businesses. Coupled with their recovery from the 2005 and 2008 hurricanes, and more recently, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and Federal deepwater drilling moratorium, these businesses--the ones that took the initiative to quickly reopen after the storms--are today struggling with one challenge after another. Yet these ``pioneer'' businesses are the ones rebuilding communities, they are the businesses communities need the most because they serve as anchors. If residents see the Bergerons' gas station or their favorite restaurant open, they are more likely to come back to rebuild their homes.

To help ongoing recovery efforts in the Gulf Coast, and to give these struggling businesses immediate assistance, I am introducing today the Southeast Hurricanes Small Business Disaster Relief Act of 2011. This legislation would provide targeted assistance to as many as 11,000 businesses in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas. What these particular businesses have in common is that they received SBA disaster loans following the 2005 or 2008 hurricanes. While they have made payments on these loans, I have heard from countless businesses in my State that they could expand operations if they had additional cash flow. This legislation would inject immediate capital into these hardest-hit businesses by giving SBA the authority to waive up to $15,000 of interest payments over three years, helping to create or save up to 40,000 jobs.

Under this program, SBA is required to give priority to applications from businesses with 50 employees or less and businesses that re-opened between September 2005 and October 2006 for the 2005 storms or September and December 2008 for the 2008 hurricanes. This ensures that SBA first helps true small businesses and those ``pioneer'' businesses that were the first to re-open after the disaster. The bill also includes a priority for applications from businesses suffering substantial economic harm from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill last year. The program would end on March 31, 2012.

The Southeast Hurricanes Small Business Disaster Relief Act also includes provisions to help reduce the program's impact on the Federal deficit. First, the bill eliminates a duplicative program at the SBA. This program, the Gulf Coast Disaster Loan Refinancing Program, was created as part of the 2008 Farm Bill. Although it was created almost three years ago, the program has not received any appropriations nor has the SBA utilized the authority to refinance any disaster loans. It is my understanding this is because the program just re-amortizes the same debt of borrowers. Furthermore, any refinancing must not exceed the original loan amount and differ from the original terms of the loan. As a result, this program is not attractive to borrowers, lenders or the SBA. Our bill eliminates this program and creates one that will work better for all stakeholders. Next, the bill allows SBA the authority to get reimbursed by the party responsible for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill for any interest relief provided to businesses impacted by that disaster. This ensures that the taxpayers will be reimbursed for interest relief related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. I also note that this is

consistent with the claims process provided for in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

This program makes a difference because for some businesses, depending on the loan term and loan amount, their total principal/ interest payments could run as high as $1,000 per month. For example, for a $114,000 disaster loan with a 4 percent interest rate and a 25- year term, a business could be paying as much as $400 in monthly interest. In one year, this adds up to $4,800 and almost $14,500 in three years. While this is not a lot of money for Wall Street banks or Fortune 500 companies, $15,000 makes a major impact for a gas station with two employees, like Fleur de Lis, or a neighborhood restaurant with 10 employees. These businesses have seen their bottom lines shrink as others on Wall Street received extravagant bonuses. I, for one, believe it is time to help these Main Street businesses as they are the backbone of our communities.

My legislation also follows legislation approved by a previous Congress. The prior bill came after Hurricane Betsy devastated Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi in September 1965. According to Red Cross reports at the time, between 800,000 and 1 million people were adversely impacted by the hurricane. Before this storm, the only previous disaster of that magnitude was the 1937 Ohio-Mississippi River floods which forced more than a million people from their homes. In total, Betsy destroyed more than 1,500 homes, damaged more than 150,000, and damaged more than 2,000 trailers. Hurricane Betsy also destroyed 1,400 farm buildings and 2,600 small businesses. At the time, the Senate Committee on Public Works noted in Committee Report 89-917 that, ``The overwhelming magnitude of the vicious storm, surprising even to experienced disaster workers, was more apparent every day as storm victims continued to register for long-term recovery help in rebuilding their lives and homes.''

As part of the review to provide Hurricane Betsy victims appropriate assistance, including a field hearing in Louisiana, Congress determined that the massive scale of this disaster required targeted, disaster- specific programs. In particular, Congress approved the Southeast Hurricane Disaster Relief Act of 1965, Public Law 89-339. This bill authorized various business, homeowner, and agricultural disaster assistance, including loans and temporary rental assistance. In its committee report on the legislation, which is referenced above, the Senate Committee on Public Works wrote, ``This bill contains what the committee believes is needed and necessary to give further aid to the disaster-stricken areas . . . including special measures to help these States in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of devastated areas.'' Among other provisions, Section 3 of the bill authorized SBA to waive interest--for loans above $500--due on the loan over a period of three years, but not to exceed $1,800 in interest. The bill was signed into law in November 1965 and Congress later approved $35 million to implement provisions in the Act.

Just as with Hurricane Betsy in 1965, in 2005, Mississippi and Louisiana again saw a catastrophic disaster hit their businesses, farms, and homes. Everyone now knows the impact Hurricanes Katrina and Rita had on the New Orleans area and the southeast part of our state. Images from the devastation following these storms, and the subsequent Federal levee breaks, were transmitted across the country and around the world. Katrina ended up being the deadliest natural disaster in United States history, with 1,800 people killed--1,500 alone in Louisiana. Katrina was also the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history, with more than $81.2 billion reported in damage.

In Louisiana, we had 18,000 businesses catastrophically destroyed and 81,000 businesses economically impacted. I believe that, across the entire Gulf Coast, some estimates ran as high as 125,000 businesses impacted by Katrina and Rita. Many of these businesses, for various reasons, have not returned or re-opened. By mid-2007, Orleans Parish was still down 2,000 employers, or 23 percent of its pre-Katrina business level. Nearby St. Bernard Parish--which had up to 80 percent of its homes damaged--had the largest percentage decline of 48 percent fewer businesses open, according to Louisiana State University and the Louisiana Recovery Authority. These disasters were followed by the 2008 hurricanes that hit the same areas in Texas and Louisiana. With this in mind, on September 25, 2009, I chaired a committee field hearing in Galveston, Texas. At this hearing, we received a progress report from Federal, State and local officials on the recovery from Hurricane Ike in 2008. We also heard from individual business owners in Galveston who were still struggling a year on from the hurricane.

These Galveston business owners, the Bergeron's Fleur de Lis gas station, and many other ``pioneer'' businesses did choose to re-open and are now struggling to stay alive. As is clear from the Bergeron's story, these businesses have suffered from not one disaster, but three: Hurricane Katrina/Rita in 2005, Hurricane Gustav/Ike in 2008, and the Deepwater Horizon disaster. I believe the special program implemented following Hurricane Betsy in 1965 would today greatly benefit businesses in these four states hardest hit by Katrina, Rita, Gustav, Ike, and the Deepwater Horizon. While I recognize that these are the hardest hit states, I am also interested to hear from my other Gulf Coast colleagues on whether this program would benefit their impacted businesses as well.

In closing, I would like to note that Congress has been generous in providing essential recovery funds following the 2005 and 2008 storms. However, as we approach the sixth anniversary of the 2005 disasters, we must now ensure that impacted businesses can make it past this anniversary--preventing thousands more workers from being unemployed or additional defaults on SBA disaster loans. One important way that this Congress can ensure that these workers remain employed and that these businesses survive, and even grow, would be to relieve some of the interest on these SBA disaster loans. For this reason, I urge my Senate colleagues to support this commonsense legislation which would make a difference for up to 11,000 Main Street business owners and their estimated 40,000 employees in the Gulf Coast.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back any remaining morning business time, which I think is under 3 minutes.

Mr. President, I call for regular order now with respect to the McConnell amendment, which is the pending amendment on our bill, amendment No. 183, and send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Thank you, Mr. President. That now puts us in order to continue the discussion of our very important bill that Senator Snowe and I have been managing this week on the floor. I appreciate all the Members' cooperation, particularly the members of the Small Business Committee who voted this bill out 17 to 1, because they know, both Republicans and Democrats, the importance of reauthorizing this vital program--one of the Federal programs that works, one of the Federal programs that helps to create private sector jobs, one of the Federal programs that gives the taxpayer a great return on their investment.

One of the gentlemen who testified before our committee last week said for every $1 invested in this program, the taxpayers get a return of $107. That is a pretty good return on investment.

I see two of my colleagues. Senator Cardin is a member of our committee and a very valued member of our committee, I may say. He would like to speak for 5 or 10 minutes about an amendment he thinks is important that we potentially could get included in our bill. I see Senator Coats from Indiana, who is here to speak on the McConnell amendment. I think we do not have a consent, but we will kind of go back and forth as Members come and continue to talk about some important aspects of the bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Cardin for his cooperation. He has been so patient. It is an important amendment. It is an amendment that both Senator Snowe and I support and many other colleagues support it. We hope to get to a time, if not this week, as soon as we get back, to be able to offer and have this amendment pending so it can receive the vote I do think it deserves.

I see the Senator from Indiana, who I think wants to speak on a different amendment, so I will yield the floor.

Mr. President, I see we have several colleagues on the floor, and there is another coming down to speak on an amendment. I thank Senator Snowe for her explanation of some of the compromises and changes and modifications the two of us worked on with our committee members over the last 6 years to bring a bill to the floor that has bipartisan support. I thank her.

One telling chart I want to put up before yielding to the Senator from Vermont, who wants to speak on an amendment, is very interesting. It talks about job creation and the importance of this program. One report that looked into this program between 1985 and 1995 said that SBIR-awarded firms added an average five times as many employees as comparable firms that did not receive SBIR funding.

Again, this is the Federal Government's largest program. Amazingly, it doesn't cost the Federal Government any more money because it is research and development dollars that are already set aside for the purpose of research and development. It makes sure that small businesses have access to these dollars.

When we do provide that kind of access, which this bill does, these grants and contracts go to companies that not only produce great technology but hire workers. I wanted to put that into the Record. I have other things to put into the Record as well.

I see Senator Sanders, the Senator from Vermont, on the floor.

At this point, I yield the floor.

Yes, I object, Mr. President.

I am happy to report and respond through the Chair that a Member of the Senate has put a hold on parliamentary procedures that would allow us to move forward on any amendments, the Senator should be aware. So we are unable, at this time, to have his amendment pending. I am personally happy he came down to speak on the amendment. There are other people who feel strongly about that issue as well. I hope the Senator understands we are not able to take up his amendment at this time.

Mr. President, I might note that Senator Johnson's committee has jurisdiction over the amendment Senator Udall spoke about. The Banking Committee has the jurisdiction, not the Small Business Committee, which is one of the concerns I have.

Mr. President, I thank the Senators for their discussion of that amendment. I wish, before Senator Udall leaves, to correct one thing for the record.

As the manager of the Small Business Innovation Jobs bill, which the Senator was so helpful to us in passing, we did ask the credit unions if they wanted to be a part of that lending program and they declined to participate. So I wanted, for the record, for that to be clear.

I do know--and let me speak for myself--that credit unions serve a valuable role in our Nation today, and we want to acknowledge that. But I want the Senator from Colorado to know that, according to the information I have been given, they were asked if they wanted to participate in the Small Business Lending Fund, and they declined. They may change their mind later, and we can amend that program later should they so decide. But I thank the Senator for his comments.

I see the Senator from Georgia is on the floor, so I will yield my time. I think he wants to speak on a different amendment, but I think that is the purpose of this morning's discussion.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator from Georgia for coming to the floor to participate in the debate. I have a different view on the amendment he spoke on, but we will continue that debate. In fact, we have been debating health care policy in this country for the last 2 years. While I appreciate his views, I am hoping we get to keep the debate very focused and specific, if possible. But I understand the amendment of Senator Hutchison, and the amendment Senator Isakson supports does affect small business, so we look forward to more comments as we go forward.

Madam President, as we wait to move to the CR--which under unanimous consent I think we are moving to in a few moments, so we will be off the debate on this bill--I want to submit for the Record some of the data associated with job creation.

I know Senator Snowe is very sincere in her comments about the lack of job creation in the country, and I want to say I agree with everything she has said in terms of the rates of unemployment being very concerning. That is why she and I have spent so much time in the committee trying to look at the array of bills we have, at least in our jurisdiction, and see what we can do to help change the outlook. I am very proud to say we have, I think, in large measure contributed in a positive way.

But for the record, in terms of job numbers, because I don't think President Obama and his administration get the kind of credit I think they deserve, and frankly, the Democratic leadership doesn't get the credit it deserves for turning around a desperate situation, I am going to submit these numbers for the record, but I will also have a chart later because I think it is important for people to understand. I want to throw a few of these numbers out. I am sorry I do not have this chart clearly reproduced at this point, but I am going to give you a couple of numbers.

In January of 2009, this country lost 820,000 jobs, in that 1 month. In that 1 month, we lost more jobs, according to this document I am looking at, than any month probably in the last 10 or 15 years. I am going to go back and check.

I ask for 1 more minute? I do not see Senator Inouye. I am going to actually ask for 2 or 3 more minutes until he gets to the floor.

That is the highest number of jobs lost in years, and I will tell you exactly how many. The point is, President Obama was not the President in 2009, January of 2009; he was just sworn in in 2009. He was elected in 2008. So the job losses of a year before, which started February of 2008, which was the beginning of the recession, before President Obama was sworn in--we lost 83,000 jobs; in March, 72,000; in April, 185,000; in May, 233,000; in June, 178,000; in July, 231,000; in August, 267,000; in September, 434,000; in October, 509,000; in November, 802,000; in December, 619,000; and then in January, the month he got sworn in, we lost 820,000. I understand people have different views, but to blame a President who was not even in office for this recession is wrong and it is not fair. That often happens. It does not happen from my ranking member, but it does happen from others around here.

In addition, that terrible loss of jobs continued as Wall Street collapsed, fat cats ran off with the money, people's Social Security and 401(k)s--not Social Security, thank goodness, but 401(k)s tanked, public pension funds that people are screaming about, that something is wrong with them--yes, a lot is wrong with them. The Wall Street greed, unparalleled in the history of this Nation, sunk so many of our pension funds--not necessarily the fault of Governors or legislators or employees themselves--and there is some underfunding opportunity, I would say, there. I know something about this. But the big culprit was the collapse of the market which was started before this administration.

These numbers continue: 500; 300. What is happening this year, 2010? It is starting to reverse. Yes, ma'am, it is starting to reverse--in March, a plus of 192,000; in April, a plus of 277,000; in May, a plus of 458,000; in October, a plus of 171,000. I could go on.

The point is, it is not all gloom and doom. There are some things that are working. We need to keep working together. That is why Senator Snowe and I are on the floor.

I see Senator Inouye coming. It is time to go to the CR. But we are working together the way our committee has had a tradition of working to try to take a bill here, a bill there, putting good programs in place, putting new ideas in, thinking outside of the box, because we all have to do the best we can to get this economy moving again.

I wanted to say that for the record, to submit this data.

I see the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and I believe at this time, Madam President, I will yield the floor and we can proceed to the next order of business.

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

Mr. President, I would like to speak for about 10 minutes. I know Senator Bingaman is on the floor, and maybe other Members are coming to the floor to talk on other subjects.

Mr. President, I guess we are technically still talking about our reauthorization of the SBIR and STTR Programs. Senator Snowe and I have been working through the week to manage this bill on the floor, and I wish to again say how pleased I am with the progress we made this week. I know we have had about three or four votes on amendments, and there are others that are pending, but we have made progress. I truly appreciate the cooperation of all the Members.

This is a very important program. We have struggled, as I have said, for 6 years to get this program reauthorized. While everybody is running around fussing about programs that do not work, it is important for us to focus on those programs that do work, particularly those programs that work to create private sector jobs.

It is important for us to stay focused on reducing and, hopefully, eliminating our Federal debt and reducing annual deficits. That is going to be done when we do a couple of things all at one time. It is not going to be done by standing on the sidelines, slashing and burning discretionary domestic spending only, particularly some of the best programs in America. It is going to be done by thoughtful cuts and eliminations of some programs that don't work, some thoughtful eliminations and cuts to the Defense budget. It is going to be done by raising revenues where appropriate to close some of the gaps and taking back some of the excessive grants to high-end taxpayers, particularly those making over $1 million a year, in the view of this Senator. It is going to take some investments that can actually save taxpayer money in the long run, and cutting some mandatory programs.

We know--and I think it is becoming very clear to the American people--as this debate over the House CR and the debate over deficits and debt goes on, people are understanding this better and better. So one of the reasons I am personally happy to be on the floor this week is because I know the bill I am supporting and offering here to the Senate--hopefully getting to the House and then eventually to the President's desk--will create private sector jobs and close this deficit gap and begin to chip away, in a substantial way, at the debt. We need to grow our economy.

I have a chart I will put up in just a minute, but before I do that, I wish to show again a specific example of a program I am talking about so people will be very clear. Projects such as this were won by iRobot. This is just one example of the hundreds and thousands of small businesses that received either a contract or an award through this very important program.

DOD has the largest--over $1 billion--portion of their research and development budget. Prior to this program, almost 100 percent of that money went to big businesses or to universities and big businesses. Small businesses were summarily overlooked. Regardless of whether they had good technology, they really weren't let in the front door. This program we are talking about reauthorizing for 8 years creates that door and opens it for the small businesses in Louisiana, in Colorado, in New Mexico, in New York, and that is why we are going to fight hard for this program, to get it reauthorized and to the President's desk.

Let me give one example. The DOD needed more reliable, cost-effective robotic devices for going into caves, checking and diffusing IEDs.

I don't think I have to explain to anyone listening or any Member of this Senate the challenges our soldiers face in Afghanistan. I have been to Afghanistan. I have not been in caves in Afghanistan, but I have visited our troops there. I have heard their stories. I have seen pictures and read enough books to know the frightening thousands of miles of caves and crevices our soldiers are having to go into to hunt down Osama bin Laden, who still has not been found and captured, and to protect our forces overseas.

We have been in some ways as a nation kind of caught off guard about the

terrorist attacks and military strategies using explosive devices. I guess we knew this could be a tactic, but, honestly, we did not have what we needed to protect our troops to win the battles.

So this program steps up and says: OK, this is what we need. Let's go out and see who has the best technology. Instead of spending billions and billions and millions and millions of dollars giving a contract to a big company and getting them to go through all the rigmarole to develop it--it is kind of an off-the-shelf technology almost, except that we develop the idea and give a small business the opportunity.

Unlike large businesses, these small firms approach the project unencumbered by past research and approaches. They start with a clean slate. They often have innovative approaches that would be challenged by conventional large businesses. They often attract researchers fresh out of a university, such as iRobot, which started with two MIT students and their professors. Ideas that started just off the MIT campus have turned into a company with a market cap of now $400 million, with strong military and private sector sales.

My colleagues have probably heard of the private sector spinoff of the military robot, the Roomba, a product that vacuums while one is at work and has now sold over 5 million units in the United States. This is a different product than the IED robot I will speak about in a minute, but it is an example of one of these programs.

When our forces needed to go into caves and find IEDs, there was some technology that was developed in order to do that. The Navy has many examples. The Army has many examples. I am encouraged to see these outstanding opportunities.

This was in Bedford, MA. This is the iRobot I mentioned. I will get the chart for the IED explosive in just a moment. This is an example of some of the projects that have been funded. This is not just good for our soldiers, but obviously this company then became a company that went on to sell other products in the conventional market and created jobs along the way.

I know Senator Bingaman wants to speak on energy, and I am going to yield the floor and then come back later and put a few more things into the Record before this week ends so that when we come back in a couple of weeks, we will have built the strongest record possible for a vote as soon as possible on a program that works, that is cost-effective, that really creates some new technologies that help our soldiers overseas and help us vacuum our floors here at home and create American jobs in the process and help us to close this deficit and debt gap.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2011, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2011, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``TARP Oversight: Evaluating Returns on Taxpayer Investments.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during

the session of the Senate on March 17, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the sessions of the Senate on March 17, 2011, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Popular Uprisings in the Middle East: The implications for U.S. Policy.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Health Insurance Exchanges and Ongoing State Implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act'' on March 17, 2011, at 10 a.m., in 430 Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2011, 3:15 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Catastrophic Preparedness: How Ready Is FEMA for the Next Big Disaster?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on March 17, 2011, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery and Intergovernmental Affairs of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2011, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Preventing Improperly Paid Federal Assistance in the Aftermath of Disasters.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2011 at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety and the Subcommittee on Green Jobs and the New Economy of the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2011, at 10 a.m. in SD-406.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science and Space of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2011, at 10:30 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Is there any time remaining?

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I will speak for just a moment, if I could.

I know people in Washington and people in America do not believe we can actually eliminate a program. We are getting ready to eliminate one now in a bipartisan fashion to cut funding and to cut a program that has not worked. I just want to underline that we most certainly can do that in a bipartisan way. That is what this vote is about.

I do not believe there is any opposition, so I yield back the remaining time.

Madam President, before I get into the business before us, which is SBIR and STTR reauthorization, a very important small business program, let me just add a few thoughts to the colloquy of the Senator from Arizona and the minority leader. I would most certainly support that view, and there may be others on the Democratic side who feel that way as well. As chair of the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee, let me be very clear that I don't think we should go to another short-term CR without a full-year appropriation of Homeland Security. Not only is the Defense Department appropriations bill absolutely essential to the well-being of this Nation, but so is the Homeland Security budget. They have complete jurisdiction over Customs and Immigration, over safety and security at our ports and our airports and train stations. We most certainly can't let our guard down as it pertains to our overseas operations, but we absolutely cannot let our guard down as it pertains to our safety here at home.

I hope both Republican and Democratic leadership, as we find our way through this complicated and difficult appropriations process, will remember Defense and Homeland Security.

I see Senator Cornyn on the floor. I know he is going to call up, with no objection from me, his amendment.

Amendment No. 216

Before that, I ask unanimous consent to call up Casey amendment No. 216 to be put in the pending column. Senator Casey will be here shortly to discuss his amendment, and then we will go in just a minute to Senator Cornyn.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Our intention is for Senator Casey to have an opportunity when he comes to the floor.

Before Senator Cornyn speaks, for just one moment I wish to add a few comments about what happened this morning. We did get two amendment votes on the bill. Those were the first two amendments, the Nelson of Nebraska amendment, and then Senator Snowe and I offered an amendment. We have approximately six other amendments pending not yet scheduled for a vote. Most of them were discussed at some length yesterday on the floor, the most notable Senator McConnell's amendment, which Senator Boxer and others strongly opposed.

I wish to say one thing, as respectfully as I can, in response to a comment Senator Wicker made regarding the Nelson amendment. He said something along the lines that Senator Nelson had found some new--how did he say it--new-found enthusiasm for cutting the budget. In defense of Senator Nelson, I wish to say his enthusiasm is most certainly not new found. He has been a leader on our side in cutting the agencies and departments respectfully and appropriately under his jurisdiction. He has been the lead sponsor of legislation for a long time that has cut legislative spending. I might say it is very difficult with his bill because he also has had to absorb $22 million in additional expenses related to the operation of the Visitor Center which all of our constituents enjoy and support. So he has absorbed that into his operating budget and still managed to cut.

I know Senator Wicker is relatively new to the Senate, but I do wish to remind him and others that Senator Nelson has been a leader in that field.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question on his amendment?

Most of the programs I am familiar with at the Federal level have built-in sunsets, because they have limited authorization.

How does the Senator's amendment either override that or undercut that? Why is his amendment necessary?

I thank the Senator. I will comment, and I know the Senator wants to genuinely root out the waste and duplication. I only say that for programs that are operating under appropriations only. The Senator will know that that authorization is only intact for 1 year under the general rules. When you appropriate money, it is only for 1 year at a time. It can only be extended by an act of this body every year. On the authorizing programs, to my knowledge--and I will get the committee to check on that--Homeland Security has jurisdiction over government operations. It is my understanding that every authorized program has a length of time and that each committee here is responsible for their own oversight.

If the Senator is suggesting that committees either can't, or don't, do their work and we need an extra commission, we will consider that. I understand what the Senator is trying to do. I will have the Homeland Security team look at it on our side and we will respond.

I thank the Senator from Texas.

Hopefully, as we go through the day, we will have a discussion on that amendment and others. I will try to give a recap. My ranking member is on the floor, and we wish to proceed today as we did yesterday, fairly orderly. We have made progress. We got two amendments voted on already. There are now several amendments pending. I want to ask this for clarification. We have Johanns 161, Vitter 178, McConnell 183, Casey 216, and Cornyn 186. Those are all pending, but no time has been established for a vote. Can I ask the Chair to confirm that?

Can I also ask the Chair this: We have filed and discussed Hutchison 197, Paul 199, and Sanders 207, which are not pending but have been discussed on the floor. Does that list exist at the desk?

Let me say again how pleased I am that only a handful of amendments out of the 68 that are pending actually pertain directly to the programs we are getting ready, hopefully, to authorize. Actually, out of the 68 amendments pending, only 14 are related to this particular program, and 3 others to the Small Business Administration itself. I want to believe that is because Senator Snowe and I have tried hard to take all Members' views into consideration as we have moved the bill through the process. As I said, yesterday, we worked on reauthorization of this important program--the largest Federal research program for small business in the country, the largest program--we have worked on this reauthorization for 6 years. So in the last three Congresses this bill has been debated, both in committee and on the floor, in the House and in the Senate. It has been modified many different times to accommodate different views.

The great news is that the bill is still strong, very focused. It provides an additional percentage of funding for small business so they can actually have access to the research and development dollars like big businesses, which often have better access. It gives an open door and an opportunity for small businesses--for some of our best patents, our best inventors, our strongest risk takers, which are often very small startups. We want to encourage that, because the country is fighting its way--and I mean that--out of this recession. It is not easy, and it will not happen automatically. It will happen by what actions the Federal Government takes, State governments, and local governments, creating atmospheres so the private sector can grow. This bill helps to improve that atmosphere. That is why we are talking about this.

Many people have come to the floor and said: Why aren't we talking about closing the deficit? We are talking about reducing the deficit and debt, because one of the ways we do that is by creating private- sector jobs. This bill is one of the bills filed in this Congress--I am not saying it is the top or the absolute best, but I can promise you that it is one of the best bills that is filed that will have a direct and immediate impact on job creation in America. That is why Senator Snowe and I are spending our time talking about it because it is a jobs bill. It is also a deficit closing bill. It is also a debt reduction bill. It is also a great bill that is going to help level the playing field between large and small companies and say to some of those risk takers out there who look at Washington and shake their head and say, What is going on, doesn't anyone pay attention to us, yes, we are paying attention, we know you are out there. We know if we can provide open-door access to Federal Government research and development dollars, we can have literally hundreds of companies grow and expand.

One example I gave yesterday--and I will give many more today--is Qualcomm, unknown 35 years ago. It started in Dr. Jacobs' den. It received early funding through this program, SBIR. They received multiple grants. You can get multiple grants as your technology improves and it shows promise. Of course, it showed promise. At a point, they were recognized by the venture capital community and investors came in. History has shown now that company employs 17,500 people and last year their local San Diego-based company paid taxes to local governments in California and around the country of $1 billion. That covers half the cost of this entire program--one company.

That is why Senator Snowe and I have spent so much time on this reauthorization and why she has been fighting for this program for actually almost 20 years, since she was a Member of Congress. This program is one that works. We have tweaked it. We have improved it. We are extending our authorizations from 4 years to 8 years to give certainty.

Those are some of the comments I wanted to make about the bill. We have, as I said, 68 amendments that have been filed. I ask Members, if they are interested in getting their amendments pending, to come to the floor to see what we can do to work that out. I

am not sure we will get to final passage of the bill this week, but we want to do as much work on the bill as we can so when we get back, it will hopefully be the first order of business. We will see. Maybe there will be a breakthrough in the next 2 or 3 days and we can get it done before we leave. That would send a positive signal. We are working with the leadership to see if that can be done. If not, we will continue to work this week to get as many amendments offered and pending and some votes today and tomorrow.

I see the ranking member on the floor. I wish to turn the time over to her now.

Mr. President, at this time, Senator Casey, whose amendment is pending, wishes to speak a few minutes. I know at 12 o'clock, under a unanimous consent agreement, we will have a speech from the Senator from Connecticut.

I ask unanimous consent that at 2:30 p.m., Senator Portman be recognized for up to 20 minutes as in morning business for the purpose of giving his maiden speech.

I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. I do intend to support his amendment. It is an excellent one. Hopefully, we can get a vote on it sometime today or tomorrow.

At this time, pursuant to a unanimous consent agreement, we will hear a speech from the Senator from Connecticut.

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

Mr. President, while we are waiting for Senators to come to the floor, I would like to put a couple other quotes or comments from very well-respected organizations about the importance of this bill into the record. I, again, appreciate the 84 Members of the Senate who voted yes to bring this bill to the floor because those 84 Members of the Senate understand we cannot close budget gaps and reduce deficits without growing the economy. Those 84 Members understand that in order to grow the economy, helping government create the atmosphere for the private sector to grow is absolutely imperative. If we would spend a little less hot air time around here and a little more on illuminating discussion, the benefits of programs such as this would be clear. It is actually a Federal program, but it is a Federal program that establishes a partnership with the private sector that is exciting and that works and that helps to create jobs.

The Biodistrict in New Orleans, which was newly formed after Katrina, sent a document to the office that said, in reference to the temporary extensions of this program:

These repeated, temporary extensions have wreaked havoc on

agencies' ability to make strategic decisions in regard to

the programs.

The Small Business Technology Council says:

Not only does this program spur technological innovation

and entrepreneurship, it helps create high-tech jobs, and

does so without increasing Federal spending.

The National Small Business Association, another strong supporter, said:

The uncertain future of the program has deterred potential

participants and investors.

We do not want to deter anyone. We do not want to discourage anyone from making that investment or taking that step to create the next business that could create not just a handful of jobs but dozens, hundreds, and potentially thousands. That is why President Obama is talking about--and I support his efforts--the need to outinnovate and outcompete, to fight our way out of this recession.

This bill of Senator Snowe and mine might be a relatively small bill from a small agency, but it packs a lot of power and potential to create the jobs that people--in your home State of Minnesota, in my home State of Louisiana, in Maine, and other places--want to see us creating, with virtually no additional cost to the Federal Government. We are simply setting aside a slightly larger portion of research and development moneys already budgeted for cutting-edge research and development and targeting those to small businesses that have proven themselves to produce excellent innovations, technology, and in fact have a disproportionate share of high-impact patents.

The National Venture Capital Association says:

At a time when our country needs to build new businesses,

the venture capital industry believes the best use of

government dollars is to leverage public/private

partnerships. . . .

That is what this does. I know there are a few people around this place who do not think the Federal Government can do anything right. I am not one of them. I actually think the Federal Government can do lots of things right. Yes, we make mistakes; yes, there is money wasted; yes, there is duplication; and, yes, sometimes there is even fraud. But programs such as this need to be reauthorized. We have been debating now for 6 years whether this program should be authorized.

If it takes us 6 years to reauthorize one of the best programs in the Federal Government, I wonder how long it is going to take us to reauthorize some of those that are not as well run and to give us the opportunity to make them run better instead of just running around, throwing up our hands, saying nothing works, nothing ever works, everything in Washington is broken. This program is not broken, and it deserves to be reauthorized.

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce:

The SBIR program serves as an important avenue by which

agencies harness the creativity and ingenuity of small

business to meet specific research and development needs of

the Federal Government.

Might I say, they may be the today needs of the Federal Government; such as we need a way to cool our tanks in Afghanistan and Iraq because our tanks are operating in temperatures that are excessive. That was a real need of the Defense Department. They sent out, basically, an SOS: Can anybody come up with a better way?

Not only did we come up with a better way in a radiator out of technology we actually developed in Louisiana, but as you know, these technologies do not stay in the Department of Defense. Once they go out to be used in our tanks, helping keep our war fighters safe and helping win the wars we send them to fight, this technology can now be deployed, potentially, in the racing car industry or in Detroit or some of our other car manufacturing. While it is launched by Federal scientists and inventors and people who are good employees and good, solid Americans who are looking for a better way, it finds its way out into the general public for all of our benefit.

Let me give two more quotes. I see the Senator from Kentucky. The BioTechnology Industry Organization says:

This bill represents a balanced approach to ensure that

America's most innovative small businesses can access

existing incentives to grow jobs by commercializing new

discoveries.

Finally, from the University of California, the CONNECT group says:

Because acquiring funding through traditional lending

sources continues to prove difficult in today's tight credit

market, SBIR/STTR grants provide tech start-up companies

another viable chance to compete for early-stage funding.

Yes, there are many venture capitalists out there. There are always very savvy inventors looking for the next best thing. But before the next best things are invented, there has to be somebody betting on the human capital in our Federal agencies, the human capital in our academic institutions, and the human capital in small businesses that take the risks and believe they can invent that next best thing.

This financing is early. It is high risk. Not every SBIR grant works. But according to the man who gave us the review of this program, if every one of these inventions works, we are not running the program correctly. This program is early, before it is clear whether it is going to work, a chance to get it to work. But the upside is so great when one or more does work, and we have hundreds of companies that have sort of broken out.

I see the Senator from Kentucky. I will rest my discussion. I do want to put some other things in the Record, but to keep the debate moving forward, this would be a good time for him to proceed.

Would the Senator yield for a question?

Would the Senator explain--I think he knows because he is quite an expert on this program. I agree 100 percent with the views he just expressed. What is the basic average Social Security income that a person might receive? I understand it is somewhere between $7,000 and $10,000.

The reason I ask the Senator that is because it is striking to me that some Members from the other side of the aisle will come and argue that programs like this should be slated for cuts and reductions, and yet failed to vote favorably to raise slightly the income tax on families making over $1 million a year in annual income. I, frankly, Senator, do not understand that. I am not sure people listening to this understand it.

Could you enlighten us?

I thank the Senator from Vermont for that eloquent and very accurate description of the situation we are in. I see the Senator from Oklahoma here for an amendment. We want to keep these amendments being discussed. So I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for joining us.

Mr. President, this has been a very interesting debate. It really gets to the heart of the larger amendment on Capitol Hill and in the minds of all Americans. How are we going to close this budget deficit, annual deficit, and how are we going to substantially reduce the national debt?

I am pleased this discussion is taking place on this bill because the intention of this legislation is to close that gap by creating jobs. Some Senators actually believe we can accomplish that by cutting discretionary spending alone.

The Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Paul, was arguing along that line, that if we just accept his amendment, which I will strongly object to, and cut $200 billion out of the discretionary side of the budget, that will get us in the direction we need to go. All that will do is eat the seed corn this country needs to invest in important things such as infrastructure and education to secure the future for our children and grandchildren.

I remind Senators that since 1982, military discretionary spending has never dropped below 5.5 percent in any given year. The Paul amendment, if adopted--and I doubt it will be--would propose a 50- percent reduction in the discretionary funding of Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development. It is a drastic cut that would not support a foundation for growth and expansion.

Having said that, the other offensive thing to that approach is that there never seems to be a discussion of a reduction of the military budget when it comes to waste, fraud, and abuse. There are billions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars documented in the Defense Department by the Secretary of Defense himself that people object to in trying to get to a balanced budget. Then we have Members who are trying to use the Social Security situation to argue for their point that the roof is falling in, the world is collapsing, and we have to cut back on Social Security.

I wish to add to what Senator Sanders said and clarify something. I respect Senator Coburn. No Member has worked harder on the issue of deficits and debt reduction. I do not agree with all the things he suggests, but I most certainly recognize effort when I see it. Senator Coburn has most certainly put in the effort. When he says the Social Security Program is running a deficit in terms of money in and money out, he is correct. But, as Senator Sanders pointed out, the reason is because the Federal Government used the surplus over the last 15 or 20 years to fund other operations of government. But the Social Security Program itself is intact. When that money is paid back, it will have a surplus. Using the fact that it is running an annual deficit to argue for either cutting benefits to Social Security or cutting benefits from education or from health to pay for Social Security is not a legitimate argument. Again, Social Security is intact. It is actually running a surplus. They would have a surplus right now in the account if the money had been left there.

It continues to amaze me that even in this discussion, we never, ever hear from the other side a willingness to raise $50 billion, if we are trying to get to $100 billion in cuts--and some people want to get to 200, but we would like to close the gap by anywhere from $10 to $100 billion--if we want to get 50 of that billion by raising the income tax on people who make over $1 million, we could get halfway to $100 billion by doing that. But we never hear that. We just hear: Cut Social Security benefits, cut education, cut health care, cut Pell grants, cut homeland security.

I know we have to cut back on spending. I know we have to get our deficit under control. I know our debt is too high. But we are not going to achieve the goal of fiscal responsibility by cutting discretionary spending on the domestic side, which means cutting Head Start, Pell grants, and education, and adamantly refusing to raise the income tax for people who make over $1 million.

This is going to be a very interesting debate over the next couple of weeks. It will not be settled on the SBIR bill, but it will be settled sometime in the next couple of weeks in this Congress. I, for one, look forward to the debate. I believe the American people need to have an open and honest debate about what is actually going on.

I yield the floor.

No objection, Mr. President, but may I ask--I see Senator Murray on the floor and Senator Stabenow is on the floor, so I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Hutchison from Texas, we recognize Senator Murray for 7 minutes and Senator Stabenow for 7 minutes.

I know Senator Portman is here on the floor, and under a previous order will be recognized in a few minutes. But before that, for clarification purposes on the previous agreement, I want to state that the next first-degree amendment in order after Senator Hutchison, who spoke a minute ago, will be from the Democratic side.

As a recap, there are, I think, seven amendments pending. We are hoping to get some votes on those amendments that are pending later this afternoon, potentially in the morning. If there are other amendments Senators have to offer, come down to floor. We want to limit, of course, what we can. It is very important for us to move this bill forward.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I wish to thank all of my colleagues for really helping us to focus on this debate yesterday and today. We started discussing the reauthorization of the SBIR and STTR Programs within the Small Business Administration. Senator Snowe has been on the floor most of the day yesterday and part of the day today as we have managed this bill.

As I have said many times, this particular program is the Federal Government's largest research program for small business. It was started in 1982 by a bipartisan group of Senators and House Members who believed small businesses in America had something to contribute in the technological and scientific advances in this country, and they were right. They said the Federal Government spends billions of dollars every year on research and development, and yet some of our most promising small businesses--maybe independent scientists or researchers or engineers or inventors of all different backgrounds and persuasions--could not really get in the front door of the Department of Defense or NIH. In those days, people only wanted to see people from big companies.

Well, not only was that not allowing small business an opportunity, but it was shortchanging the taxpayers because what taxpayers want is the best technology. It does not matter to them whether it comes from a small shop down the street operating on the second floor above a doughnut shop--like my father got started many years ago--or whether it comes from the back office of IBM. They just want the best, and they deserve it. This program delivers it. So this is about innovation and jobs.

One thing I want to stress again: Several people have come down to the floor and said, why aren't we--I guess meaning Democrats--focused like a laser on closing the budget gap?

Let me say that this is an effort to close the budget gap and to reduce the debt and to close the annual deficit because that can be done by cutting discretionary spending, cutting defense spending, where it is wasteful and not effective, raising revenues where it is appropriate--particularly for those making over $1 million a year would be a good place to start--and most importantly or equally important to all of the above is creating an atmosphere so the private sector can get about the business of creating jobs. That is what this program does. That is why Senator Snowe and I are on the floor. That is why our committee voted this bill out 18 to 1. We know it is important. Innovation creates jobs.

I want to show you just three examples, as we are waiting for Senators to come to the floor to talk about their amendments. I want to share one story. This is from Connecticut.

Might I say that over the 20-plus years of this program, there have been small businesses in every State that have benefited either through grants or through contracts. The Department of Defense has about $1 billion of their research and development set aside for this purpose. Other departments call them grants. The Department of Defense actually enters into contracts with small businesses.

I am not sure if this example came out of the Department of Defense. It is not noted on the chart. But one of our agencies thought it might be important to create a device to safely transport toxic chemicals.

I am from Louisiana. We have a tremendous and are proud of our industrial base in petrochemicals. Some things we produce are really safe. Some things we produce are quite dangerous but necessary to undergird our economy. So the transport of these toxic

chemicals--to do it safely--is important.

So one of the agencies--and I do not have exactly which one-- identified a company in Connecticut that might be able to come up with some such device. They did. That particular company, which is now ATMI, paid more than 10 times in taxes now that that invention has been commercialized, as we can see here on this chart. But what people really need to know is that this company paid more than 10 times in taxes than what they received from the program. This is just one example.

ATMI went from 40 employees to employing 800 people worldwide. I am hoping their company is still located in Danbury, CT, and I am hoping most of these 800 people are working in America. There is no requirement in this particular program for that to occur, and we would not want to have that requirement because we are producing technology and innovation for America and for the world, and our people will benefit from it. But let's hope that is the case. That is just one example.

A second example comes from Ann Arbor, MI. Senator Stabenow was on the floor earlier today, and I thank her so very much. She was a very strong supporter of our very important small business jobs and innovation bill in the last Congress. I am pleased the leadership has given our committee an opportunity to be on the floor with another important bill so early in this Congress.

I think Leader Reid knows and feels strongly--as strongly as I do-- that there are more ways to cut a deficit than the one being trumpeted on the other side of this Capitol, and it is not even a way because it will not work. All we hear from the other Chamber is cut discretionary spending and you will get there. A, we will not get there, and B, we are going to shoot off both feet in the process of trying to go down that road because it is a road to a dead end.

You cannot get to where we want to go the way some people are arguing. We can get to reducing our deficit, eliminating our debt, by doing all four of the things I mentioned, and one of them is creating jobs and doing it in the private sector.

This is a Cybernet ammo sorter, as shown on this chart. This did come from the Defense Department. When people ask, how can you save millions of dollars, well, this particular invention has saved the government hundreds of millions of dollars in defense costs over 5 years. It started in Michigan. Now it is expanding to Florida. That will make Senator Nelson very happy. It was initially implemented at one of our camps in Kuwait. It was in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. It is now also in use at Fort Irwin, the National Training Center in the Mojave Desert, where troops train before deployment. It sorts ammunition in a way that saves our troops many manhours and hundreds of millions of dollars.

So there is another way to cut spending besides just slashing and burning some of the best programs in the world, literally. Some of the best programs in the world have been left on the chopping block--not just in America, in the world, have been left on the chopping block--on the House of Representatives floor.

I might suggest that they think outside the box and they think of other ways to reduce spending, which is investing in smart investments that streamline operations, that create efficiencies and save taxpayers money and create jobs at the same time; thus, companies can pay in more taxes at the local, State, and Federal levels, and we continue to get spending under control and reduce our deficit.

So that is Cybernet's Automated Tactical Ammunition Classification System. Leave it to the Department of Defense to make up such a name.

As shown on this chart, this is Beacon Interactive Systems' TurboWork out of Cambridge, MA. This company created technology to help sailors keep the fleet safe through streamlined and uniformed maintenance. It will be going now into all 250 ships in the Navy, and 460,000 sailors will use this technology developed out of the SBIR Program every day to protect and preserve our warships. In its first full year of implementation, the software should give a 300-percent return on the initial SBIR investment.

The Presiding Officer knows this because he has been a very strong advocate nationally--not just in the State of Oregon--for small business. The Presiding Officer knows that with a little investment at the right time, there can be a tremendous upside, and that is what we are seeing here with this program.

Our initial grants are only $150,000. People might say, geez, what can you do with $150,000? Well, $150,000 given to the scientist or the engineer or the inventor at the right time can help provide that half- year or year of research and development necessary to grow and to mobilize the technologies to develop it into something that could work. Then phase II comes in with the potential: If it looks inviting and exciting and interesting to the agency, they might award such a grantee another $150,000 for phase II, and then it can go up to $1.5 million. That is the way these companies or these ideas grow.

At some point, this program ceases to be necessary because what happens is it either becomes clear to the people managing it that this idea has failed, the technology is not going to work and the grant is simply shut down or the contract comes to end, then, yes, that money will be lost. But what often happens, although not in every case, is that technology goes to such a phase that it becomes so promising that venture capitalists step in, as they should, and other investors step in and take that company way up. That is what happened to Qualcomm. Twenty years ago nobody ever heard of them. They got a small grant from this program and they were one of the winners. We were winners too, not just the company, because now they employ 17,800 people operating in more than 30 countries worldwide. They paid in taxes in 1 year half of the cost of this entire program.

As the doctor who researched this program said to us in our hearing-- we have five new members of our committee from the Republican side and Senator Snowe and I wanted to give them a chance to understand this bill. I am proud to say all but one supported it coming out of committee when they understood--of course, some of them had served in the House before and were familiar with this. But when they understood that this has been one of the most successful programs, and when it was reviewed by--I think it was Dr. Wessner who gave us a review of the program, he said, Let me tell you, Senator: If every single grant produces a company, you are running the wrong kind of program. Because this is a high-risk effort, but it is a risk that over time has paid off tremendously to the taxpayer and will continue if it continues to run in that fashion.

We have tightened up fraud and abuse statutes in this bill. We have put in more oversight, which Senator Snowe and I thought was important, not to heavily burden the program but to make sure the people in our Departments, whether it is in Defense or NIH or the NASA program, are utilizing this program to the extent and with the spirit Congress intends. So we have made some adjustments, some perfections through some adjustments and modifications, and we think we have made this program hopefully even stronger.

Not every grant that is given will result in jobs, and it will be folded. But when it works, it works, and we are so benefited as a nation. In fact, there was also testimony given before our committee that countries all over the world are trying to model some of their programs after this one. They keep asking: How is it in America you have such an innovative spirit? How is it you start so many small businesses, and many of them--not all--succeed? What is it?

It is a number of things. It is our own nature and spirit. It is also because people have traditionally had a variety of accesses to capital, whether it is equity in their homes or a savings account or a banking system that is for the most part very honest and transparent. We have had some difficulties in the past few years with some of the antics on Wall Street that caused people to catch their breath. Generally, compared to many other countries in the world, our people have access to those things--private property they own. In many countries people can't even own private property. They can't even get a clear title to property, so how can they borrow against it to start a business? They don't.

There are many things that go into this miracle we call the American economy, and this is a big part of it. The Federal Government doesn't do it all. But I am hoping, as people consider this debate, every State in the Union will create a similar program. Some of them already have. I will try to provide to all the Members here a list of what their individual States have done. Because if we think about it, the large cities, whether it be New York or San Francisco or Detroit or Chicago-- if every city government would think about setting aside a small portion of some of their research and development money to push out the small businesses that aren't obvious sometimes to Wall Street and New York or they are not obvious to Pennsylvania Avenue and Washington or they are not exactly located in the Silicon Valley in California, but there are budding entrepreneurs and Americans with great ideas and great drive and great determination--I am hoping our government can be smarter. I would like the Federal Government to be as smart as it can possibly be, and I am hoping our State governments will look at this program as a model and, potentially, cities.

I can tell my colleagues one thing I am very excited about. I haven't talked with them about it specifically, but I have spoken at some length to the Goldman Sachs executives, and I wish to speak for a minute about a program I am very impressed with. It is not something we are doing. It is something they are doing, but I think it is worth mentioning here.

Goldman Sachs has decided to try to create 10,000 new small businesses in America--not new small businesses. They are trying to grow 10,000 small businesses in America. They have a very strategic plan and one I am watching very closely for a number of reasons. One, their model is scaleable and other companies could potentially do it and maybe we could model some kind of Federal program, if theirs is successful.

Secondly, I am watching it closely because one of the cities they chose for their pilot is the City of New Orleans, the city I represent. My brother serves as mayor there now. He is very engaged with the leadership there, because New Orleans has become a hotbed of innovation. When I hear President Obama talking about out-competing and out-innovating, that is not going to happen on Pennsylvania Avenue or right down on the intersection of M and Wisconsin in Georgetown. It is going to happen on Canal Street and in the lower ninth ward in New Orleans east, in Gentilly, and places all over the world.

Goldman Sachs is saying, All right, Mr. Mayor, you get the city leadership and one of the community colleges to get the training. We jointly choose these entrepreneurs that have promise--they are already established and they have proven they can run a business and they can turn a profit, but they are stagnating. They are smaller. They have the potential to be larger, but they are not. What is it that is causing this? Maybe lack of knowledge, lack of capital. Our Delgado Community College--and I am very proud of Delgado. It is one of the finest community colleges in the country. Delgado stepped up and said, Let us put them through the training. When they succeed and successfully exit the training--and I believe it is a 6-month to 9-month program--at the other end, Goldman Sachs gives them a check for X amount of money. I am not sure if it is $25,000 or $100,000 or $200,000. I will get that into the Record so we can be clear. But they give them a check so they have the capital and know-how and then they have the support of some of the nonprofits in the area to help them grow.

Think about that. If that is something only one company is doing, think about what companies such as Chevron--and I see them advertising--what they are doing to help small business. I think about other companies. American Express with their Plum card, if I am correct, talks about what they are doing. I am not promoting these companies, but they are examples of programs that are out there supporting small business. The Federal Government can do its part as well, and we have an obligation. We can't do everything, but we most certainly can do our part, as many large companies around the country and the world are also thinking about what they can do to help grow small businesses in their area. That is just one example.

We are going to watch the success of some of these programs in the private sector, and then we will get some of their best ideas and potentially even strengthen our partnership. But this is a partnership between the Federal Government and private small businesses throughout our country.

Let me switch for a minute to mention a couple of the organizations that are supporting this program. I don't see anyone on the floor at this time to speak, so let me read into the Record again some of the comments we have received from very strong organizations.

The Small Business Technology Council says:

Not only does this SBIR program spur technological

innovation and entrepreneurship, it helps create high-tech

jobs and does so without increasing the Federal deficit.

The National Small Business Association says:

The uncertain future of this program--

and as I said, for 6 years it has been operating on short-term arrangements: 3 months here, 2 months there. For 6 years, nobody has had any idea, either from the private sector, from some of the best labs, from our agencies, whether this program would be there next week. That is unconscionable. That is why Senator Snowe and I have fought so hard to get this program authorized.

I see Senator Coburn on the floor, the Senator from Oklahoma, and I wish to thank him, because as a result of his good compromising efforts with us last Congress we will be able to authorize this program for 8 years, as the Senator will know, because he has been a strong advocate for good management and streamlining. Programs such as this need certainty. The labs, our agencies need to know. We are looking out 2 years or 3 years for this new technology, but if there is a company out here we think could provide it to us, we need to know. So this 8-year authorization is important. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma, because some programs are only authorized for 4 years or 5 years. But we feel because we have been in limbo for 6 years, it would be a good idea to get an 8-year authorization.

One more comment for 30 seconds and I will yield the floor. I wish to read into the Record the letters of support from a short list of companies, and as additional ones come in we will read into the Record their support:

The Bay Area Innovation Alliance has sent their support. The Bio District of New Orleans, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, Connect of California, the National Defense Industrial Association, the New England Innovation Alliance, the National Small Business Association, the National Venture Capital Association, the Small Business Association of New England--and I wish to thank Senator Shaheen particularly for her support--Small Businesses of California, Small Business Technology Council, V-Labs, Inc./American Chemical Society, and the United States Chamber of Commerce, to name a few.

Let's keep this debate moving forward. We have had a number of amendments today. I see Senator Coburn on the floor.

I yield the floor at this time.

There is no objection. But before we do that, I ask the Senator a question. I actually like this amendment, No. 184. The Senator spoke with me about this previously. It has some merit. I thank the Senator for being cooperative.

If he could identify his other number, I would like to suggest that if we can get a Democratic amendment slid in between these, we might call up his two and the Democratic one.

Would the Senator mind explaining that amendment, and I will make sure it is cleared on our side and we will see what we can do.

I may not have an objection. We are trying to get it cleared on our side. If the Senator will explain it, we can get back to him in short order.

Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation of the Senator from Oklahoma. We have been able to

get his amendment No. 184 pending in the list of seven others, which gives us eight pending but not yet set for a vote. If he would allow me to get back to him about whether I will be able to clear that, I would appreciate it. Senator Snowe is not on the floor, and we need to consult with her.

The number of the Senator's other amendment is 220. I will let him know within the hour about that.

Senator Shaheen is here. I appreciate her letting me say--and she will ask to be recognized--that she has been an outstanding member of our Small Business Committee. She most certainly was the job creator in chief in New Hampshire and has brought a tremendous amount of expertise to the Senate. I am very pleased to have her input on many of these bills that come out of our committee.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we are waiting 10 or 15 minutes for Senators to come to the floor to speak

about the bill. Senator Snowe, myself, and others have fairly described it for hours today and yesterday. I thought I would take a minute to pay honor to a gentleman, the last U.S. veteran of World War I, who was laid to rest in Arlington Cemetery just yesterday and to put into the Congressional Record an article. I would like to read as much of it as I am able before the other Members come because it struck me as something important. It is a beautifully written article in the Post this morning. I hope many people got to see it. I am hoping many of our Members are able to read it. I learned some things I had actually no idea about, which will become apparent as I read this short article. It was beautifully written by Paul Duggan.

I thought I would take a minute to read it into the Record. This is the last U.S. veteran of World War I so, of course, it was not just any ordinary funeral--not that any funeral is ordinary. It was extremely special to our country and to the world. President Obama was in attendance. Vice President Joe Biden was in attendance. I would like to read as much of it as I can:

A lowly corporal of long ago was buried Tuesday at

Arlington National Cemetery, ushered to his grave with all

the Army's Old Guard solemn pomp.

Frank Woodruff Buckles lived to be 110, the last of nearly

5 million U.S. veterans of a dimly remembered war--a

generation now laid to rest.

In a late-day chill, after hundreds of strangers had paid

their respects in public viewings since the weekend, soldiers

carried the former doughboy's flag-draped coffin partway up a

knoll and set it on polished rails above his plot, a stone's

toss from the grave of his old supreme commander, Gen. John

J. ``Blackjack'' Pershing.

A chaplain commended his soul to God; rifle volleys

cracked; a bugler sounded taps below the gentle rise. With

flags at half-staff throughout the U.S. military and

government, it was a fine send-off for the country's last

known veteran of World War I, who died peacefully Feb. 27 in

his West Virginia farmhouse.

Yet the hallowed ritual at grave No. 34-581 was not a

farewell to one man alone. A reverent crowd of the powerful

and the ordinary--President Obama and Vice President Biden,

laborers and store clerks, heads bowed--came to salute

Buckles's deceased generation, the vanished millions soldiers

and sailors he came to symbolize in the end.

Who were they? Not the troops of ``the Greatest

Generation,'' so celebrated these days, but the unheralded

ones of 1917 and 1918, who came home to pats on the back and

little else in an era before the country embraced and

rewarded its veterans. Their 20th-century narrative, poignant

and meaningful, is seldom recalled.

``I know my father would want me to be here,'' said Mike

Oliver, 73, a retiree from Alexandria, leaning on a cane near

the cemetery's amphitheater hours before the burial. Inside,

a hushed procession of visitors filed past Buckles's closed

coffin in the chapel.

``I'm here for Mr. Buckles, and I'm here for what he

represents,'' Oliver said. On his left lapel, he wore a tiny

gold pin, the insignia of his long-dead father's infantry

division in World War I, the Army's 80th. ``I'm here to say

goodbye to my dad,'' he said.

Buckles, who fibbed his way into the Army at 16, was a

rear-echelon ambulance driver in war-ravaged France, miles

behind the battlefront. More than 116,000 Americans died,

about half in the fighting, most of the rest from illnesses,

in the nation's 19-month long engagement in a conflict that

scorched Europe for four years.

Now the veterans who survived are all gone. What's left is

remembrance--the collective story of 4.7 million lives, an

obituary for a generation.

Arriving stateside in 1918 and 1919, many of them, scarred

in mind and limb, they were met by postwar recession and

joblessness.

A lot of veterans thought that they were owed a boost, that

they ought to be compensated for the good civilian wages they

had missed. But--

Unfortunately, my words--

lawmakers, year after year, said no.

``Oh, the YMCA did give me a one-month free membership,''

Buckles recalled when he was a very old fellow. Except for

the $60 most veterans got from the government when they

mustered out, the YMCA gift was ``the only consideration I

ever saw given to a soldier after the war,'' the last

doughboy said.

What he and other veterans finally received, in 1924, were

bonus certificates redeemable for cash in 1945. And Congress

had to override a veto to secure even that.

With the 1920s roaring by then, the young veterans tucked

away their certificates and went about their lives. Buckles

became a purser on merchant ships, traveling the globe.

Then the Depression hit, and their generation's legacy took

on another aspect, one of activism that helped propel a

reshaping of the nation's social landscape.

Thousands of ruined veterans were left with nothing of

value but the promise of eventual bonuses. In 1932, while

Buckles was at sea, a ragtag army of ex-servicemen descended

on Washington with their wives and kids to lobby for early

redemption of the certificates, and a disaster ensued that

would long reverberate.

This is the part I had no idea about, and I think it is important to recall it, to remember it:

Living for weeks in a sprawling shantytown on mud flats in

the Anacostia and in tents and hovels near the U.S. Capitol,

the dirt poor ``Bonus Army,'' numbering more than 20,000,

defied orders to disperse. So the White House unleashed the

military.

Infantrymen, saber-wielding cavalry troops and a half-dozen

tanks swept along the avenues below the Capitol, routing the

veterans and their families in a melee of blood and tear gas.

Then soldiers cleared out the Anacostia shacks and set them

ablaze.

Two veterans died, and hundreds were injured. Four years

later, after a Florida hurricane killed 259 destitute

veterans at a makeshift federal work camp, political support

finally tipped for the bonuses, and the generation that

fought World War I finally got a substantial benefit.

``I think mine was $800,'' Buckles said of his bonus, equal

of $12,000 today. He said he gave it to his father, an

Oklahoma Dust Bowl farmer barely hanging on.

The Bonus Army debacle weighed on Congress and the

Roosevelt administration during World War II. With 16 million

Americans in uniform--more than three times the World War I

total--policymakers feared massive unrest if the new veterans

got the same shabby treatment that Buckles' generation had

received.

The result, in 1944, was the GI Bill, widely viewed as the

most far-reaching social program in U.S. history.

I underscore that to say widely viewed as the most far-reaching social program in world history.

It made college and homeownership possible for the great

wave of returning World War II veterans, when such

opportunities were considered luxuries, and spurred a vast,

decades-long expansion of America's middle class.

Unfortunately for the veterans of Buckles's era, the bill

wasn't retroactive.

Tuesday's hours-long viewing in the amphitheater chapel was

a consolation. Buckles's family and members of West

Virginia's congressional delegation had wanted him to lie in

honor in the Capitol Rotunda.

They wanted him to lie in honor here, but it was not to be permissible.

So the people of Arlington came to say goodbye.

The article continues:

A generation's end.

When Murial Sue Kerr met Buckles--

This was his wife--

in the 1970s, she was a secretary at the Alexandria

headquarters of Veterans of World War I of the USA, which had

a large office staff at the time, scores of chapters across

the country and a quarter-million members out of 750,000

surviving veterans of the war.

``The commander,'' Kerr calls Buckles, who got that title

in 2008 when the only other living member, a Florida man,

passed away.

The group was formed in 1948 after millions of World War II

veterans swelled the ranks of the American Legion and similar

organizations.

It goes on to quote Kerr:

``The World War II guys had business loans, home loans,

education, all kinds of things,'' she said. ``My World War I

guys? Nothing. So they said, `Okay . . . we'll go start our

own bunch.' ''

Which included Buckles, who had been captured by the

Japanese while working in Manila at the outbreak of

hostilities in the Pacific. Although he spent World War II in

an enemy prison camp, he was a civilian, so the GI Bill

didn't extend to him.

In 1974, when Kerr was hired, most of the men were

retirees.

She said:

``Every year they'd come to Washington, bus loads of them,

and testify before Congress,'' she recalled. They wanted

money for eyeglasses, hearing aids, dentures. ``And a little

pension,'' she said. ``Good ol' H.R. 1918--it was a bill they

were always putting in to give them $50 a month. But, of

course, it never, ever passed.''

Just lot of memoirs now--the lobbying, the quarterly

magazine, the big annual conventions in Hot Springs and

Daytona Beach. Time ran out for all but the heartiest of the

Veterans of World War I of the USA, and they died fast. By

1993, when the office shut for good, Kerr, then in her 40s,

was the only staff member left.

And occasionally she got phone calls from some of the few

remaining members, whose frail voices broke her heart.

``The typical sad things you'll hear from the elderly,''

she said. ``I had one of my guys, he was absolutely in tears.

He was from Nevada, and his new nurse wouldn't cut the crust

off of his sandwich.''

They were buried with honors Tuesday as scores of somber

onlookers crowded the hillside, a distant generation borne to

the grave with the last old veteran, who was cared for

lovingly by his family to the end.

In the waning afternoon, the soldiers of the burial detail

strode in formation up the avenue from the grand marble

amphitheater to Section 34 of the cemetery, escorting the

horse-drawn caisson with Buckles's metal coffin, the

procession slow and deliberate, like the march of time.

After the prayer and the echoes of the bugle and the rifles

had faded, the Army's vice chief of staff, Gen. Peter W.

Chiarelli, knelt before Buckles's daughter, seated by the

grave, and handed her a tri-folded American flag. He

whispered words of comfort, then stood and walked away.

No more doughboys now.

So long. Rest in peace.

Madam President, I thought this was an article worth entering into the Record. I am pleased I had the time today, before Senators came to the floor, to actually read it into the Record so that we could pause to remember this week the burial of the last veteran of World War I and what an obligation we have to our veterans today and the kind of determination that we must continue to foster to honor them for the sacrifices they make, whether it was this generation, which we in large measure failed to do, the veterans of World War II, the veterans of Vietnam and Korea, of course, Desert Storm, our veterans from Iraq and from Afghanistan who are currently fighting those battles. It helps us to remember that the important work we do here--the bills passing, particularly bills that provide these kinds of fair and equitable benefits--is most certainly something the Federal Government must continue to keep as one of its highest priorities.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I really appreciate the Senator coming to the floor, and I thank him for his help in advancing this bill and supporting many of the proposals.

The ranking member is not on the floor, so until we run this through the other side for review, I am not sure we will be able to support it. But we are looking at it now, and I thank the Senator for offering it.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Pennsylvania being so supportive and so helpful. I think this is an amendment we can support. I am hoping to get clarification to actually go to a vote on this amendment sometime in the next 20 minutes or so. We do not have that cleared at this point, but we are hoping to be able to vote on this amendment.

I would like to ask the Presiding Officer, though, to read the pending amendments just by number and name because I think we have seven or eight pending amendments. Could the Presiding Officer clarify what amendments are currently pending?

Thank you, Mr. President. That is what our records show.

I appreciate all these Members being very patient. We have their amendments pending. We are going to try to line up votes for them, hopefully, sometime either later tonight or tomorrow.

We also have a few other Members who have said they would like to have their amendments considered. I would simply ask if they can come down to the floor. Tonight would be a good time because we have had a very good, open, encompassing debate on a variety of different issues. Of course, the underlying bill before us is the reauthorization of the SBIR and STTR Programs that have been operating on a very short term with very ineffectual authorizations that do not allow these programs to have the benefit for taxpayers they deserve. So we have struggled now for 6 years, three Congresses. It is time to get this done.

So while we have many, many amendments that have been filed, I am happy to report that there are probably just a few more Members who want to actually come and speak on their amendments. Some have said: We will take up our amendments on a later day. Many of the Members who have filed five and six amendments have said: I am only going to go with one, Senator Landrieu and Senator Snowe.

We are very grateful for everyone's cooperation.

So, hopefully, we can vote on the Casey amendment tonight, and then have a queue of other amendments potentially in this order or some revision of this order. But all those pending will be, of course, provided an opportunity for a vote. We do have some outstanding questions about one of the Coburn amendments we have not cleared on either side.

So I am hoping we can have that vote tonight, and we will know something in a few minutes.

I yield the floor.

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 we resume consideration of the Casey amendment No. 216; that there be 2 minutes equally divided before we proceed to a vote in relation to the amendment; that there be no amendments in order to the Casey amendment prior to the vote; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that the vote occur at 5:25.

Mr. President, as we are waiting for Senator Casey, I don't think there is any opposition to this amendment. I see the ranking member on the floor and I am wondering if she has anything she wishes to add at this point.

I said earlier Members have been very cooperative in trying to minimize--still have an open debate but nevertheless minimize--the issues and the amendments so we can pass this important bill and get it over to the House and onto the President's desk.

Mr. President, how much time remains before the vote?

Let me use the 45 seconds to ask unanimous consent to be listed as a cosponsor of the Casey amendment.

I wish to join Senator Snowe in supporting this amendment. We have received actually many complaints from small businesses at any number of the roundtables we have held in our committee about the old bait and switch that is going on, where their names are used by large contractors to actually succeed in receiving the bid or winning the bid, and then, as Senator Snowe stated, their companies are switched out and they don't even know it. This also puts an enforcement mechanism in place and actually mandates the SBA to come up with an enforcement mechanism so we can have more honesty and transparency.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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