Floor Statements

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 16, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 16, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building, to hold a hearing entitled, ``The State of Online Consumer Privacy.''

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 16, 2011, at 10 a.m. in SD-406.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 16, 2011, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Health Reform: Lessons Learned During the First Year.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 16, 2011, at 9 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``Intelligence Update on Libya.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 16, 2011, at 10:15 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 16, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``Afghanistan: Progress and Expectations.''

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 on March 16, 2011.

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 16, 2011, at 10:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on March 16, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 16, 2011. The Committee will meet in room SDG-50 in the Dirksen Senate Office Building beginning at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 16, 2011, from 2-4 p.m. in Hart 216.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that in proceeding to the consideration of S. 493 there be a period of debate until noon.

Madam President, I appreciate the cooperation of both leaders to help us get to the floor this morning for a debate on this very important piece of legislation and one that we have actually and, unfortunately, struggled with for the last two Congresses.

The Acting President pro tempore knows, as a member of the Small Business Committee and as a Senator from New Hampshire, how important this piece of legislation is as we continue to fight--and that is what the word is, ``fight''--to create jobs right here at home in America, not just on Wall Street, not just in the fancy places, but on Main Street in our hometowns all over America.

Senator Snowe and I are on the Senate floor today together, happily, to talk about a bill into which she has put a tremendous amount of time and effort before as the chair of the committee. I serve as the chair of the committee, and she is my very able ranking member. Together our staffs have worked very closely for a long period of time to try to fashion the compromise that is before the Senate today.

I thank the 84, I believe, Members of the Senate who voted for cloture last night. I know the rules of the Senate are strange, still, to many Americans. But we cannot operate without unanimous consent. So it takes an extra special level of cooperation. While we did not get everyone last night to go on the record, we did get the prerequisite number--above 60--to move to this debate. I am hoping our amendment process can be very smooth, that we stay focused on small business- related amendments, that we work in good faith, and, hopefully, in the next couple of days we can get this bill off the floor because this is a job creator.

One of the Senators was here earlier this morning talking about creating an atmosphere for job growth and development. Tax codes do some of that, Federal investments in infrastructure do that, investments in education do that. But one other thing that does it is fashioning Federal programs that work for the job creators of America, and that is what the SBIR Program does and the STTR Program does. It is the Federal Government's largest research and development investment program for small businesses. It was created actually 30 years ago, and the idea developed from one of our outstanding Federal workers.

Roland Tibbetts was a staffer at the National Science Foundation. He took the lead in 1976 in directing a greater and more significant share of the research and development budget of the National Science Foundation and directed it to small business in a new innovation program.

Why did he do this? He did it because from his position, directing a very established and strong research component, he saw the Federal Government giving most of its awards to large businesses. I think-- although I have not spoken to him personally; but I most certainly intend to because he has testified before former committees--I am imagining he probably had a heart for actually wanting to find cures for some diseases and realized that not all of that technology and innovation rested with the large companies; that, in fact, there might be small pharmaceutical companies or brilliant scientists in Maine or in New Hampshire or in Louisiana who had discovered or had the potential to discover something that could be transformative. So this staffer said: Let's set aside or direct a small portion, but an important portion, to small businesses. That is how this program began.

I am so pleased with this funding, which only government can do. Only government can do this. There are certain things the private sector does well. They do venture capital when an idea has been proven or when the potential has clearly been established or when the potential is at least clearly established in the mind of one or two individuals--such as the guy who created Facebook or Bill Gates with Microsoft. But mostly great ideas need early, patient capital--very risky, but when it hits, it hits big.

That is what this program does. It sets aside 2.5 to 3 percent of all the research and development budgets of all the Federal agencies ranging from the Department of Defense, which is about $1 billion that would be contributed to this program, down to the smaller agencies, which have maybe up to a couple million dollars in their research budgets. But out of that very pilot-like initiative back in 1976, that was focused on discovering, funding, and evaluating the initial highest risk, most cost-cutting exploratory research that is necessary to achieve significant technological innovations and breakthroughs, this program was created.

Let me share with you what a gentleman who testified before our committee--we have had several hearings on this particular program, and no program is perfect. Let me begin with this: This program is not perfect. But we are perfecting it as we bring this bill to you. We have looked at its weaknesses. We have tried in our reauthorization to correct those, to firm those up. But the gentleman who is actually probably the leading expert on this program, Dr. Wessner, of the National Research Council, recently testified before our committee. He said:

An important point to keep in mind is [that] you can have

really good ideas that die. They will die because they do not

have funding.

Not because they do not have potential but because they do not have funding. I would add to this, particularly in this time of recession and tightening back on capital and the closing down of credit card lending: If you think it is normally tough for entrepreneurs and innovators and discoverers and inventors to get capital, it has been a very rocky road in the last year or two. So he said these ideas just die.

He said:

SBIR brings capital to transform those ideas into

innovations. You are not done then . . . but that gets you

the innovation and product development and the start of the

uptake. . . . The rest of the world thinks this is the

greatest thing since sliced bread. . . . The rest of the

world is copying it, putting it on steroids, while we are

debating it.

That is the point I want to make. We have debated the reauthorization of this legislation for 6 years. The time has come to stop the debate, pass the bill, and recognize this is a world model. No program is perfect. But the wisdom and the importance of setting aside a small portion of the research and development programs of all the Federal agencies, and then to train our workforce and our managers to look out, seek, and find some of the interesting technologies that could be created and grow into big businesses is very forward thinking, and we should be very grateful to Roland Tibbetts and the Senators and Representatives who started this program.

Senator Warren Rudman took this idea, saw this pilot program, and made it a national program. We have him and others to thank for the jobs, the businesses that have been created.

Let me give you one example. The founder of Qualcomm came and testified before our committee. Qualcomm is a very famous business. It developed a lot of technologies that made wireless communications possible. It started 25 years ago in the den of its founder, Dr. Jacobs. He testified before the committee and said basically Qualcomm was just at one time, 25 years ago, an exciting new idea. It was not a company. It was not a business. He and 35 of his colleagues consulted and talked about the new technologies they were seeing. They got an SBIR grant of $150,000, and then they were subsequently awarded, because they developed the idea, to $1.5 million. They got another grant, which are the limits of the program. This program has limits. You have to test your idea, and then you come back for phase II funding.

Well, Qualcomm now employs 17,500 people. They are operating in 22 countries. They paid more in taxes last year to local, State, and Federal governments than 50 percent of the cost of this entire program. So that is one success story. That is what I mean when I say: When it hits, it hits big.

Now, not every company will turn into Qualcomm. But without programs like this, there is what they call a valley of death. There are ideas that are created out of the minds and hearts of Americans who have been well educated, raised to believe that dreams come true, and are encouraged to risk. We are natural risk takers. We have these ideas and these innovations. But what happens is, if there is not that important, early funding to develop that kind of science and technology, in large measure some of these ideas just fall into the valley of death. We are going to catch them. That is what this bill does. It is what it attempts to do.

So as it has grown and developed--and we have reauthorized it over the years--there have been some important changes and improvements.

I am going to recognize the ranking member, but I want to finish up in just a few minutes.

In 1980, the White House Conference on Small Business echoed these sentiments, recognized the value of the program. The end result of the recommendation was this program, as I said, first authored by Senator Warren Rudman. It had 84 cosponsors, 8 of whom are still serving in the Senate: Senator Baucus, Senator Cochran, Senator Grassley, Senator Hatch, Senator Inouye, Senator Leahy, Senator Levin, and Senator Lugar. They all were original sponsors of this bill. I hope they are proud. In their careers they have sponsored many bills. I hope they are proud of this one because it has done its job and it has helped America to continue to honor our entrepreneurs and our inventors.

As I mentioned, Senator Rudman, a Republican from New Hampshire, and once a member of our committee, was the Senate champion for the creation of the SBIR and STTR Programs. He was a true statesman--a man of vision with regard to the importance of technology to our economy. I wish to quote him as we begin this debate:

The issue addressed in Senate bill 881--

The bill at the time--

is one which plays an underlying role in the ability of this

Nation to maintain its security to achieve energy

independence, increase productivity, and preserve the quality

of life we all enjoy. Our national strength and confidence in

these areas depend upon maintaining a leading role in

technological superiority.

That is what he said in his opening statement at the Senate Subcommittee on Innovation and Technology on June 30, 1981.

Senator Snowe was in the House at the time. She was a Congresswoman when President Reagan signed this legislation, creating it in 1982. She quoted from President Reagan. I know she will probably remember this and I think it is worth repeating:

Our nation is blessed with two important qualities that are

often missing in other societies, our spirit of

entrepreneurship and our capacity for invention and

innovation. These two elements are combined in the small

businesses that dot our land.

I am proud to bring this bill to the floor. It has had extraordinarily positive and noble champions since its beginning. As I said, no program is perfect, but we have tried in this reauthorization to look at the places where the program is weak and strengthen it. I will go through some of those details in the latter part of the afternoon. But for an overview this morning, I wanted to give more of a historical context of this bill, and to thank the Members for moving so quickly at our request to the bill.

I look forward to the debate. I hope Members will be responsible in offering their amendments. I know the time for debate on the floor is precious. We wish to limit debate to be focused around the principles, at least, and the details of this bill as best we can so we can get this program reauthorized. Then we can continue to be the leaders in cutting-edge innovation, and the Federal Government can do its part--an important part--that venture capitalists can't do, big banks don't want to do, investment bankers aren't made to do, and small community banks don't do in this kind of lending. Only patient, directed capital can give that boost over the valley of death and create that bridge so small businesses and our scientists and engineers can walk over it safely.

I wish to recognize at this time my ranking member and thank her for her support of this legislation from its beginning and her championship to this day.

For clarification purposes, the time until noon will be for debate only and no amendments until after lunch.

I yield to Senator Snowe.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Snowe. I could not have a better partner on this committee. Her expertise is noted and admired among the Members. She has served as a member of this committee-- oftentimes its chair--for many years. I appreciate her help and the help of her staff as well.

In the 10 minutes we have left, I wish to add a couple of specifics of the compromise Senator Snowe has outlined.

It is true that this program has been sputtering along on very uncertain terrain because of every 3-month or 6-month reauthorization hastily put forward because there has been no agreement on a few of the details. We finally reached an agreement on some of those details, the largest of which had to do with the percentage of awards that could be given or funded to companies that are owned by venture capitalists.

This program was started as a small business program. Senator Snowe and I feel very strongly and the same to try to keep it as a small business entrepreneurial program but to obviously recognize the changes and opportunities for capital presented by some venture capitalists. That has been the subject of the largest piece of negotiation. I am happy to say we have letters of support from the Bay Area Innovation Alliance, the BioDistrict from New Orleans, just to name one, the Biotechnology Council. They are all very supportive of this compromise.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these letters of support.

Mr. President, CONNECT, which is out of the University of California, is another important player in this particular field, and Dawnbreaker, a commercialization company. They were part of helping us forge this important compromise.

I also note that the guidelines of the awards have been raised in the first stage from $100,000 to $150,000 and from $750,000 to $1 million for phase II and allows for sequential phase II awards--another important change.

I particularly thank Senator Coburn for agreeing to an 8-year extension. We think, for a program such as this which is dealing with technologies that sometimes take years to develop, that can be very promising, but it takes some planning, it takes patience. This is not a program that lends itself readily to 2- to 4-year reauthorizations. That is too much uncertainty for a program such as this. Maybe other programs in the Federal Government should go through 4-year and 5-year authorizations. Both Senator Snowe and I pressed for a longer time. Senator Coburn is somewhat reluctant, but we are very grateful that he and others stepped up and said 8 years would be a good compromise in that way. We are grateful. This will be a very important authorization because it will set the direction for the next 8 years for our Federal agencies.

We have also made an important change--and I am very pleased about this because I think you can have the greatest programs in the world, but if you are not focused on quality, if you are not focused on exchanging best practices, if you are not focused on good management of those programs, even some of the best intentions fall apart or the taxpayers' money is wasted. We do not want to see that happen here. So we have set aside a small portion for administration, which was recommended by this study of oversight, so that the managers in each of these departments can be better trained to actually identify promising technologies, make sure they are requesting in the right areas the kinds of technologies they are looking for, and receive that information in a more professional way. That is an important component of this compromise--the 3-percent allocation for administration and oversight.

As I said, it reauthorizes it for 8 years, and the arrangement between venture capital and small businesses--that kind of capsulizes the major changes.

I do wish to recognize Senator Rockefeller's amendment that he put on in the 111th Congress which is a policy directive against waste, fraud, and abuse. Senator Rockefeller has been very helpful in this regard. His amendment, along with others, requires inspectors general in participating Federal agencies to establish fraud-detection measures, coordinate fraud information sharing between agencies, and provide fraud prevention related to education and training of the administration.

In addition to all of this, it actually gets even better because Senator Snowe and I have figured out a way to reduce the cost from the last Congress to this Congress from $229 million over 5 years to $150 million. We are being as efficient with taxpayers' dollars as we can, strengthening administration and fraud detection, giving a longer lead time and runway for some of these technologies.

Again, we think this is a model program in the world. We do not think, we know that because of the research and review that has been done of this program and from what we hear from other countries. They wonder: How does your system work? This is one important aspect. The government does have a role to play--not the most significant role potentially but a portion of one of the most significant roles to play in promoting entrepreneurship, creativity, innovations, and expanding the number of patents that are issued in the United States by providing programs that give an open door, access, and level playing field to the smallest businesses in America to give them a chance to compete against some of the big guys. That is really what this is all about.

Mr. President, let me see if the ranking member has anything else to add. We have a few minutes left. She may have one or two points to add as we close out before the lunch period.

Mr. President, I thank Ranking Member Snowe and, according to the previous agreement, I think we are going to move to a quorum call at this point. Within a short period of time, I think the leadership is going to lay down two amendments and then, after lunch, of course, we will be open to consider others. We are hoping they will be limited to the subject matter before us, but it is an open debate on this bill.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The Senator and Senator McConnell have an amendment. There is an amendment pending. We only have a minute and a half. I wish to call to the attention of the Chair, Senator Vitter has an amendment which we will take up to discuss later this afternoon.

Mr. President, according to the agreement, we are going to break now at 12:30 and take up this debate this afternoon and stay on this bill with open debate. Hopefully, it can be productive and cordial and then, hopefully, we can move to pass this important bill, the reauthorization of SBIR.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order with respect to Senator Portman be vitiated.

Mr. President, we will break now and come back and resume our debate at 2:15.

Mr. President, I understand Senator Inhofe and Senator Vitter are both on the floor to offer amendments to the SBIR and STIR Program. Are we under a consent agreement?

Yes, I yield to Senator Inhofe.

Is that Senator Vitter's amendment? Senator Vitter was here, so I wanted him to have the opportunity to offer his. It doesn't matter to me in what order.

Mr. President, let me just add a word. I see the Senator from Oklahoma. Again, as the managers of this bill, Senator Snowe and I have worked across party lines to bring the SBIR bill to the floor. We want to have as open an amendment process as possible. We think that is fair. We would like to really ask people to focus on amendments specific to this legislation. I know time on the Senate floor is precious, and we don't get as much time as we would like to offer our bills and amendments, but we do ask that of everyone so we can try to get this bill to the House and, hopefully, to the President's desk.

Senator Inhofe is here to offer an amendment. We agreed earlier to allow that to happen, so I will turn the floor over to him.

Mr. President, I sincerely appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Delaware and thank him for his support not only of this program but for his expertise and leadership in the whole area of small business innovation and technological advancements. He was quite a leader in his previous positions in Delaware, and he brings a great deal of expertise to the Senate.

I know the Senator from Alaska is on the floor to speak about an amendment that is pending for debate and consideration. We may have amendments that are called up for votes today--that has not been finally decided--but we can come to the floor, of course, and offer amendments and debate several that are pending.

One thing I want to say before I turn it over to Senator Murkowski is that I think Senator Coons hit the nail on the head when he said a smart budget plan is going to work to meet the challenges of this extraordinary debt we have that has been caused for multiple reasons. It is important we address that correctly and not just one-sided.

This bill addresses a significant aspect of smart budgeting and debt reduction by creating jobs that generate revenues for governments at the local level that are looking for those revenues, at the State level where they are desperate for those revenues, and at the Federal level that could most certainly use some additional tax revenues so we can maintain our leadership in strategic investments.

Now, there were some on the floor this morning and in the Senate who said the only way to get to a balanced budget is by slashing some of the important programs that help create the atmosphere in America for businesses to thrive. Some of that would be strategic investments in infrastructure; some of that would be strategic investments in education. But even the Business Roundtable would say the last programs we should be cutting from the budget are effective job training and education programs. Yet, according to the philosophy of some, those are the first programs that get slashed.

That is not smart budgeting. That is not closing the budget gap. That is not putting your head to the problem. What the Senator from Delaware said is, it is a combination of some strategic cutting and some discretionary budgets. We are going to have to pare down the defense budget appropriately and find some cuts in some savings.

Even Secretary Gates acknowledges there is waste, fraud, and abuse in the Defense bill. But, most importantly, I think Democrats and Republicans are coming together to say we can grow our way out by producing jobs, and this reauthorization bill is one of the bills that can actually do that. So I just wanted to put a little exclamation point on that part.

I see the Senator from Alaska, who is going to be expressing her views on one of the amendments that is pending. Then Senator Boxer is also on the Senate floor, as is Senator Lautenberg from New Jersey. I think Senator Snowe may want to say just one word.

Senator Snowe is here to offer an amendment. So why don't we turn to Senator Murkowski.

Madam President, can I just inquire?

How long does the Senator think the Senator from Washington will proceed and how long will the Senator herself proceed?

OK. Because Senator Snowe has an amendment.

She would like to speak on it.

Do you think Senator Snowe can go after Senator Cantwell?

Let me see what we can do.

I will object. I know the Senator is very interested in offering this amendment, and we are very interested in hearing about it, but we have now six amendments pending. So if the Senator would like to go ahead and speak about the amendment, explain the amendment, and when we can get an agreement about how we should proceed with these amendments, we will move forward.

Will the Senator yield for a clarification?

This most certainly is an open process. What I was trying to explain to the Senator is there have been about a half dozen other Senators who have come to the floor during the day--such as Senator Hutchison, who came down earlier--and we are trying to be accommodating in the order the Senators come. So if the Senator doesn't mind explaining his amendment, I commit to him that Senator Snowe and I will try to get a pending list as soon as we can.

Mr. President, I know Members are following this debate carefully, and their amendments. Let me bring everybody up to date. It is about 5 after 5. We hope to have a vote around 6 o'clock, potentially two

votes. We have about five amendments pending. Senator Cornyn would like his amendment pending, Senator Hutchison is here to speak about I think two amendments she may want to have pending, and Senator Barrasso is on the floor to speak on the underlying McConnell amendment.

I will ask unanimous consent in a few minutes to try to get one or two votes set up for 6 o'clock, potentially get these other amendments pending, and set a time for votes tomorrow so we can move through it. We want to have as open a debate as possible, but we also really want to focus on the bill at hand, which is the Small Business Reauthorization Act and related measures. Many of these are somewhat related to jobs and the economy, so we are trying to be liberal in our views here. But we do want to try to be as orderly and as appropriate, as Members have come down to the floor, in the order they have come.

Why don't we turn now to Senator Hutchison, and Senator Cornyn--we will get back to the Senator as soon as we can about getting his amendment pending, if we can do that before the night ends.

I thank the Senator from Texas. I appreciate the patience of my colleagues who are on the floor. Because we have had two or three colleagues from this side of the aisle speak, I thought it would be appropriate to go to the Senator from Oregon, then recognizing Senator Barrasso to speak on his amendment and Senator Paul to then speak on his amendment.

If no one objects--I do not see anyone on the floor--if we can go in that order, I think everyone can be accommodated before the vote at 6 o'clock.

Is that okay with everyone?

Thank you.

I object to making it pending but not for discussion.

Please let me correct myself. Earlier today I said that Senator Coons is from Connecticut. Clearly he is from Delaware. And Senator Johanns is not on the floor, but Senator Barrasso is. It has been a long day and I apologize to my colleagues. But the Senator from Wyoming is going to speak for a few minutes, and then the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Sanders.

I am still hoping we can have a vote on one or two amendments at 6 o'clock.

Mr. President, I see two Members on the floor. I ask unanimous consent for Senator Johanns to go next and Senator Rockefeller, who wanted to speak, and then we will try to get some sort of consent for one or two votes tonight. We are still hoping to do that around 6. We will try to keep Members posted.

Amendment No. 161

Mr. President, I thank Senator Rockefeller and all of the Members who have come to the floor today debating this important bill and to share their thoughts about other amendments that are--some directly but some indirectly--related to our discussion. It doesn't look as if we are going to vote tonight, but we are going to continue to work throughout the evening as Members want to come to the floor and speak on their amendments, so we can try to work something out for tomorrow.

I thank Senator Snowe and her staff for their good work today. I see Senator Whitehouse on the floor. He may wish to speak about an amendment. But I remind everyone that we are on the SBIR and STTR Reauthorization Act. It is a very important piece of legislation that has been sputtering for a reauthorization now for over 6 years, and there are literally thousands of entities--small businesses, dozens of Federal agencies, many, many organizations from the Chamber of Commerce to the American Small Business Association--that are depending on us to do our work and actually get this program reauthorized. It is important to give consistency and permanency. So we are going to continue to work to do that.

I look forward to speaking in more detail about the bill later tonight and tomorrow. But it looks as though we are not going to have votes tonight;

but, hopefully, we can get some order and some agreement to proceed.

At this time I see Senator Whitehouse on the floor.

Madam President, this has actually been a very invigorating debate on the bill that is pending before the Senate. We have heard a few amendments that have been filed that are directly related to the reauthorization of this important program, and there are others who have an arguably indirect impact on small business jobs and the creation of opportunity for research and technology investments for small business in America. But we are unable to vote tonight and to come to any consensus about the order of votes. Hopefully, we can do that sometime this evening.

Let me take this moment to again thank the 84 Members of the Senate who voted yesterday to give us an opportunity to get to this important bill. As people have watched this debate throughout the day and continue to watch this evening, one of the reasons the leadership likes to sometimes put appropriate limits on the debate is to keep people focused on the underlying issue. But Senator Snowe and I decided to urge our leaders to have a really open debate because we understand there are Members who feel very strongly about the EPA issues and the climate change rules and regulations and about the 1099 provision. Senator Nelson feels strongly about reducing legislative spending. Senator Hutchison and I in particular have strong feelings about the LEASE Act. So we are going to be as inclusive and incorporate as many of these ideas as we can.

But I really want to ask, since we have looked at the amendment list just within the hour and we have 48 amendments pending on this bill-- and some people have half a dozen--if Members and their staffs will please look and see what is absolutely essential for them to offer as an amendment on this bill so that we don't miss this opportunity. That is really what I want to express right now, that this will be a missed opportunity to reauthorize one of the best programs at the Federal level.

We have heard a lot of talk about programs that don't work, about programs that are wasteful, programs that are full of fraud and abuse. This is not one of them. This is the Federal Government's largest investment program in research and development. This gives small businesses in America--businesses we all represent on main streets everywhere, whether North Carolina, Louisiana, California, or Massachusetts, small businesses with cutting-edge technology and new and exciting science, with very bright people who have graduated from some of the finest universities in the world--this gives them an opportunity to put their technology and their know-how in front of Federal agencies for the sole purpose of saving taxpayer money, creating jobs, and increasing the revenues paid to governments at the local, State, and Federal level to solve our deficit problem.

We are not going to solve our debt and deficit problem by cutting, slashing recklessly, domestic discretionary spending alone. No one in America believes that. I don't know why people come to the floor to continue to promote that idea. It is not going to happen. We are going to get to a balanced budget when we bring our revenues and our spending, in appropriate order, in line and when we pass bills such as this that literally help create thousands of jobs in America. That is what is going

to end the recession. That is what is going to close this budget gap. And that is why I will stay on the floor all week with Senator Snowe, who has been wonderfully helpful today, and we will continue until we can get this bill passed.

I don't want us to miss this opportunity because it has been three Congresses--not one, not two, but three Congresses--that have tried and failed. We are not going to fail this week. We are going to pass this bill this week in the Senate. We are going to get a bill out of here and over to the House. It is very likely that the House will take up our bill as it is generally written.

Why do I say that? Because we have already incorporated so many of the House views and thoughts over the last several years. This is not new language to them. We have a new chairman--Chairman Graves--and he understands perfectly that we are working hard in the Senate to get this bill over to him and to his good committee.

We have literally thousands of businesses kind of on hold because they do not know whether this program is going to be here from week to week. We have agencies that don't know if they should put out solicitations for new technologies. Why wouldn't we want to take this opportunity when we clearly know this is one of the most effective programs? Let me give a specific example. We have used it before, but it is worth using again, although we have hundreds.

Qualcomm is a company that is very well known. It developed the software primarily that allows wireless communication. Twenty years ago, nobody ever heard of Qualcomm, and very few people had cell phones that weighed less than 3 pounds each, as I remember. But 25 to 30 people came together with Dr. Jacobs. They sat in his den, as he testified before our committee just last week. He said that through the SBIR Program, their initial idea got a couple hundred dollars. In phase II, they got $1.5 million.

That is what this program does--incentivizes or gives grants or contracts to emerging technologies well before a bank would take a look, well before a venture capital fund would even look in their direction. You have to develop the technology to a point and then have it launched. This is where there is what he described as the valley of death--great ideas, but there is just not a lot of venture capital out there and particularly in this recessionary period. So he says we helped, that without this program, it would have been very difficult to grow their company.

Today, that company employs 17,500 people in about 22 countries in the world, including right here in the United States, and it pays in taxes, in 1 year, $1 billion. That is 50 percent of the cost of this entire program. So one company--Qualcomm--in its 25-year life, has grown so much that it pays enough taxes that it supports 50 percent of the cost of this program annually.

I can give dozens of examples of other companies that have been launched through this program.

Let me say that our Federal departments are getting better at this. It was a little touch-and-go at first. The Federal agencies weren't quite used to it. Senator Rudman helped to create this program. He was very passionate about it, as were others, so we sort of pushed the Federal agencies to do this. They were more comfortable doing research and development with the big companies. They felt more comfortable. They felt they weren't taking as much risk. No one likes to fail. So they thought: Well, I have this project, and I am going to give it to IBM. If it doesn't work, nobody can blame me. The problem was that IBM didn't have all the answers. We have come to find out that sometimes they had very few during parts of their career as a company.

Not to be disrespectful to that company, but right down the road there were 10 small businesses, but nobody ever heard of them; scientists nobody ever heard of. Senator Rudman knew this, so he said: We are going to mandate a certain percentage of your research and development money, you have to push it out to small business. And some of them, yes, failed. But as the folks testified, if they are not failing, this program isn't working. I want to repeat. If they are not failing, this program isn't working because this program is front-end, high-risk, but with great returns for the American taxpayer and great returns for small businesses.

I might say, as I said earlier today, it is the envy of many other countries in the world. The gentleman who has done the most research and looking over at this program testified before our committee that he travels around the world, and he is called by other nations that ask: How is it that the Federal Government sets up programs that allow the small businesses to enter into research and development?

So Senator Snowe and I have taken this on as our first priority for this year and for this Congress. We know there are many important bills pending before our committee, but we believe this is the right bill to present to the Congress in the right order. The Chair is on the committee, so she knows this very well. But we are trying to think of what we could get out of our committee to the floor, to the President's desk, that has the most immediate impact, creates the most jobs, and this is the program.

This program extends the authorization for 8 years. It updates the award sizes for the program from $100,000 to $150,000. It takes the phase II awards from $750,000 to $1 million. It increases investment in small businesses by increasing the percentage from 2.5 to 3.5 percent of the research and development monies at all agencies over 10 years, including NIH and the Department of Defense.

These are very significant numbers for the Department of Defense. It is $1 billion. It is $1 billion this bill will sort of set aside and say: Defense Department, if you are looking for that new radiator for that tank, if you are looking at ways to cool or looking at ways to sort your ammo more efficiently or looking at ways to come up with new software to help that warfighter, here is $1 billion of research money, and we want you to ask not just the big companies in America and around the world but the small companies, the innovators out there. Give them a chance to show you what they have. That is what this program does, and we have reams and reams of data supporting its effectiveness.

It also includes this compromise between the biotech, the venture capital industry, and the small business community. We had a big fight over the last several years, but we have come to a compromise. Neither side is ecstatic, which means it is a good compromise. They are all sort of just understanding that without this compromise, this bill could fall apart, and they know how important it is. So they have come to terms on the basic portion that can be invested by venture capital funds, leaving the integrity of this program as a small business program, which is the way it was created, but allowing an appropriate level of involvement with the venture capital industry.

It also creates Federal, State, and technical partnerships. It improves the SBA's ability to oversee and coordinate this program. It adds some metrics and measurements so we can really get some good data about how it is working and where it is not working. And as we authorize it for 8 years, we will be able to really say that we got down to business and we got serious about reauthorizing this important program, while leaving this debate open and flexible and allowing the Members to have an opportunity to speak about things they feel strongly about.

I am hoping that sometime tomorrow we can vote on some of the amendments we discussed today--the McConnell amendment, the Johanns amendment, potentially, the Vitter amendment, and the Nelson amendment. Senator Cornyn, Senator Hutchison, and others were down here to speak. We hope to get their amendments in the queue. But again, if the Members would just be cooperative and let Senator Snowe and me know whether you could choose one or two and not offer six or seven amendments, that would be extremely helpful to us. Just let us know and our staffs know, and we will work as hard as we can to have the votes that are necessary to move this bill off the floor and get it to the President's desk.

For those who say, why aren't we talking about the budget and debt, my answer is, we are talking about the budget and debt. This is part of closing the budget gap. This is about creating jobs that generate revenue that closes

that gap. It is not just about discretionary domestic spending cuts. We will never get where we need to be going down that road. We are going to get to it by a combination of things, and that is why Senator Snowe and I feel very strongly about bringing this bill to the floor to talk about growing and encouraging job creation, particularly by small businesses, innovators, entrepreneurs, inventors, and risk takers who need and rely on this program to launch new and exciting businesses that benefit us all.

Whether it is in the State of Oregon, the State of Louisiana, or, as I said, Massachusetts, New York, or California, we have literally thousands of companies that have used this program successfully to grow. Our people are employed, and America is continuing to lead in many areas. Unfortunately, we don't lead in every area, but in many areas in new emerging technology, depending on the field, of course, we are very proud of this Federal program, and it is an example of a program that works.

If we could work as well as this program does in doing our work this week and getting this bill actually off the floor intact--with some amendments, of course, that will be voted on--and get it over to the House, let them do their work, and get this bill to the President's desk, we will have done some good work this week.

Mr. President, I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum. I don't see anyone else on the floor. There may be Members who will want to come to talk about amendments. There will be nothing that will be pending for the next few hours, and hopefully we can get an agreement later on tonight.

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

Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor many times before to speak about the important role that Louisiana sheriffs play in our State. Our sheriffs are unique among their nationwide counterparts in three distinct ways: in that they serve as the chief law enforcement officer of the parish, the chief executive officer of the parish court, and the official tax collector for their parishes. This position, established in our State Constitution, gives our sheriffs a highly influential and distinct position of power and responsibility.

Today I have come to commemorate one of our State's most distinguished sheriffs, and a true leader within our law enforcement committee, Hal Turner. Late last week, I learned that Hal, the executive director of the Louisiana Sheriffs' Association, LSA, will be retiring at the end of March. He has served in this important role since 2004, and is only the third individual to do so since the LSA's inception in 1938. While I am sad to see him leave, I would like to take a moment to honor Hal, his over 30 years of public service, and the many contributions he made to Louisiana.

Hal began his law enforcement career in 1980 and rose through the ranks of the Allen Parish Sheriff's Office from patrol deputy to criminal investigator. From the beginning he knew that law enforcement was something he ``wanted to do,'' but later in life he would

learn that it was something he ``had to do.'' For Hal, law enforcement was about more than solving crimes; he recognized the role of the community in deterring criminal activity. To foster that engagement, Hal began mentoring youth as one of Louisiana's first Drug Abuse Resistance Education--DARE--officers. To this day, that post remains a source of great pride for him.

Hal's passion for law enforcement and service fueled participation on numerous LSA boards as well as the Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Criminal Justice. In 2001, Hal achieved the highest honor awarded to a Louisiana sheriff--president of the LSA. Because of his effectiveness as a leader and continued advocacy for the sheriffs, this part-time role soon became a full-time position. Hal took the helm as executive director in 2004.

As executive director, Hal ensured that the LSA was prepared for the challenges of the 21st century. Some of his initiatives included the promotion of the Sex Offenders Tracking Web-Site, establishing Louisiana as one of the first States to take advantage of this National Precursor Log Exchange, NPLEx, and launching the Louisiana Methamphetamine Task Force, a project I was proud to help Hal accomplish.

During his tenure Hal and his sheriffs were tested in unprecedented ways, but his dedication to agency coordination allowed the sheriffs to utilize their unique role as both law enforcement and first responders throughout the State. This role was particular clear during both hurricanes Katrina and Rita. As my colleagues know, August 2005 saw the worst natural disaster in the gulf coast's history. For me, the response to these disasters revealed the depth of Hal's character. Even under the most difficult of circumstances, he responded calmly, and continued to work for the people of Louisiana. Hal's unfailing support during these disasters, and his efforts to coordinate with State and local law enforcement made our State's response measures as effective as those circumstances would permit.

I could go on and on about Hal: from his efforts during other hurricanes to his work during catastrophic oilspills in the Gulf of Mexico. However, I know that I could never fully express what Hal has done for the people of Louisiana. Hal will always be remembered as the reliable voice of fortitude for and on the behalf of the Louisiana sheriffs. We will surely miss him but can take great comfort knowing that his wonderful wife Kathy and five grandchildren will be spending more time with their ``Paw Paw.'' I wish my friend all the best in his retirement and thank him for his steadfast duty to our great State.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 15, 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 15, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 15, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 15, 2011, at 10 a.m. in Room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 15, 2011, at 10:15 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Freedom of Information Act: Ensuring Transparency and Accountability in the Digital Age.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 15, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

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 15, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Enhancing the President's Authority to Eliminate Wasteful Spending and Reduce the Budget Deficit.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff of the Finance Committee be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate: Andrew Fishburn, Eric Roberts, and Cindy Yang.

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

Mr. President, I would like to speak for up to 15 minutes. I understand Senator Kyl will be joining us shortly.

I come to the floor to urge my colleagues to consider voting yes on cloture this afternoon at

5:30, to proceed to a debate on two very important Federal programs that come under the jurisdiction of the Small Business Committee. I know the Presiding Officer has been a leader in his State on this general subject matter. Our committee has worked very hard in the Senate, and in the House I might add, to get these programs ready for reauthorization. They are the Federal Government's largest research and development programs for small business.

As you know, I have said many times on the floor, as chair of the Small Business Committee I want and hope the Federal Government itself would be a better partner with small businesses in America to encourage innovation, to encourage appropriate risk-taking. We can do that in a variety of different ways.

Of course, we have authority over banking systems and capital systems and financial systems. We sometimes do that with just big business in mind. We need to think about giving the 27 million small businesses in America opportunities for capital through the banking system and through nonbank lenders. Our committee has been very busy trying to do our part helping our country out of this recession by continuing to focus on capital access for small business.

We also keep a close eye on regulations that might be dampening small businesses from growing and accelerating. Whether those financial regulations come out of the financial sector or health or EPA, et cetera, we try to keep an eye, in the Small Business Administration itself--in fact, an independent agency inside it, the SBA's Office of Advocacy--to look at rules and regulations. Our committee is going to take a hard look at any rule or regulation coming out of any Federal agencies that miss the mark or that fail to recognize the impact some of those regulations may have on small business. If it is too onerous, we are going to comment and push back.

Another way our Federal Government can be a better partner to small business is to make sure they have access to some of the Federal Government's research and development and technology funds. From the Department of Defense, to the Department of Health and Human Services to the Department of Commerce, and others, the Federal Government spends literally billions of dollars in research and development. That is good. It is only a small portion of our budget.

Some people argue the research and development dollars are too low because the Federal Government, by investing in research and development wisely, generates and promotes patents, inventions, discoveries, expansion of business, large and small. In fact, America does this probably better than any country in the world and we are proud of it. The Federal Government has a role to play.

This particular program I will focus on today--the Small Business Innovation Research program--was started by Senator Rudman over 25-- actually almost 30 years ago now. Senator Rudman was a Senator from New Hampshire. As a Senator from a small State such as New Hampshire, he was, of course, very familiar with the great universities and the great small businesses there. He was actually shocked, and I think dismayed and saddened, to find out that small businesses in his own State had, even if they were inventing some of the best products, and had some of the best technology, couldn't get their foot in the front door to an agency such as the NIH. They didn't want to talk to a small business. They wanted to talk to the universities. They wanted to talk to the big companies. I think Senator Rudman got a little frustrated. He said: I think we need to have not a ceiling but a floor for amount of research agencies do with the small businesses in all of our communities, on Main Streets all over America, and say: What do you have to offer, and we will give you an opportunity.

This works two ways. It is good for small businesses to have access to some of these research and development dollars. It is also important for the taxpayer to get the best bang for their buck they are paying in taxes, and they want the best technology--not just the easiest to access, they want the best technology.

Having invested in this program now over almost 30 years, we have evidence to suggest the taxpayer has, in fact, gotten the best bang for its buck. In fact, these companies I am going to show you will prove, beyond a doubt, what I am saying.

This company, Qualcomm, is a very famous company now, but 25 years ago or so, no one had ever heard of it. Qualcomm is a company based in San Diego, CA. It is publicly owned now, but its founder--Dr. Irwin Jacobs--testified before our Small Business Committee a couple of weeks ago on this program, urging us to do this reauthorization, which is going to take the bulk of the debate on the floor this week--this particular program. He said: Absolutely, positively, Qualcomm would not have been able to launch as a small business that started in his den with about 35 of his friends and associates--not 35 in the beginning, even a smaller number than that--who had come up with the initial technology that made wireless communication possible. They did that, in part, with a couple of SBIR grants, about $1.5 million in total. Without that patient capital invested in a very timely way in this particular company, they would probably not have been able to make it to become what that eventually did become, which is a company that contributes approximately $5.5 billion to San Diego's economy every year and pays in taxes over $1 billion every year to the local, State, and Federal Government. That is half the cost of this program. So one success story out of this program generates enough tax dollars to pay for almost half every year.

This program doesn't cost the Federal Government anything because we are already investing in research and development. What this program does is say you are going allocate 2.5 percent of your research dollars for competition among small businesses--to invest in small businesses just like Qualcomm once was--in the hopes that they will develop into large businesses--or, even more important, that they will develop something that improves the quality of life for Americans and for people of the world.

Most certainly, now that everyone is walking around with wireless technology, using it for any number of things--staying in touch with spouses, kids, from tracking threats to general business use--we know this technology has become a part of everyone's life. Qualcomm is only one example of the return on investment with the SBIR program.

Another involved the pilot alert system for the B-52 bomber. That technology again came out of the SBIR Program. Reauthorizing this program is something we know is important to do to create jobs, to begin to create the kind of jobs that will lead us out of this recession. Innovation equals jobs, technology equals jobs.

There is another success story I would like to share. This is actually from Louisiana. There are actually success stories from every State in the Union. Mezzo Technologies was created with the help of LSU and SBIR. Dr. Kevin Kelly started with two employees. Now his payroll exceeds $1.2 million.

We ran into problems when we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan trying to run our tanks in places that were extremely hot. The radiators we had designed were not sufficient. We were running into serious equipment challenges.

It was this small business, with the help of LSU, that began to develop new kinds of technologies that now can be used for our military, in this case in the Bradley tank. But it also has potential for significant commercial application, potentially in the race car industry. That is an example of how technology needed for a specific problem the Federal Government is having, responded to by small business--not a big company, a small company--new technologies can create the radiators of the future.

Small businesses are the key to putting Americans back to work. They are the innovators. In fact, small businesses account for 13 times more patents than large businesses. Small businesses employ almost 40 percent of American scientists and engineers. Studies show SBIR-backed firms have been responsible for roughly 25 percent of the Nation's most crucial innovations over the past decade.

Unfortunately, and this is why I am on the floor today, this important program that does so much to give taxpayers the full measure and worth of their tax dollar, that gives small businesses the opportunity to grow, to create jobs right here in America--not in China, not in France or in Spain but right here in America--these programs have been sputtering. This particular program has been sputtering on short-term extensions. Every 3 months we reauthorize it-- or every 6 months. We need to move forward and provide a longer term extension. The bill we are going to be debating this week provides an 8-year authorization, which gives some certainty. It gives some stability to the 11 Federal agencies that use SBIR to help meet its research and development needs, to help the 300 labs in the United States of America that do primarily research and development for the Federal Government. It sends out a clear signal to innovators: The Federal Government has challenges, the Federal Government has problems, and now we are putting some money behind these challenges and problems and we want you to be part of the solution.

We believe in this program. I wish to thank particularly Senator Tom Coburn for negotiating this 8-year extension, a little bit longer than a normal 5 but less than what some of us wanted initially, permanency and then the 14-year authorization--because we think long-term stability is so important for these programs.

The agencies have to do some more work--our Federal agencies do--to step up their administration of this program, to get even better at putting out the needs of their agencies, identifying small businesses, so we want to give them the confidence this program is actually going to last for more than a few months, 2 years or 3 years or even 4. So this 8-year authorization is important.

I am proud, under my leadership, and also previously under the leadership of Senator Snowe and Senator Kerry, we have worked very hard together to get this bill into its current form. In the very last hours of the last Congress, we were actually able to negotiate a landmark compromise with the Biotechnology Industry Organization--formally known as the BIO--and the Small Business Technology Coalition. They had been basically at odds over some aspects of this reauthorization. Because we worked very hard and in good faith, both sides came together, we have now achieved a compromise which has the support of the National Small Business Administration, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the NFIB, the National Venture Capital Association, local technology groups, many universities throughout the country, including my alma mater, Louisiana State University, Louisiana Tech, the University of Akron, in Ohio-- just to name a few.

I wish to make sure people understand, not only from examples, what this program will fund; in terms of Qualcomm, which was an earlier example, wireless technology, or whether it is a radiator used in military equipment, both in our tanks and sometimes used in other platforms, but also this technology can be used potentially in the racing car industry.

No other SBIR and STTR reauthorization bill has had this much support of this many organizations, and this compromise is represented in the bill we have laid down or we will be passing forward today.

The agencies have been particularly cooperative, particularly Department of Defense, USDA, and the Department of Energy. Along with Health and Human Services, they have the lion's share of these research budgets. DOD, it is not an insignificant amount, it is over $1 billion. The Department of Defense will invest in small businesses to get the best technologies available, such as the radiator technology they need for our tanks.

HHS has $615 million. It is a very small part of their total research budget but an important part, so when they put out the challenge to small businesses in America to come up with the next newest vaccine or the next medical technology or information technology that saves taxpayer money and helps provide better quality of life for all Americans, that word will go out from HHS.

DOE has $150 million available to invest in small business; NASA $125 million, just to name a few.

So not only will the taxpayers benefit, but small businesses and the people they hire as well. Many of these advanced technologies, developed by businesses that could have started in your garage or your den, such as Qualcomm, could not have existed without those programs. They are the brainchild of a scientist who took his idea to the next level, and had this program to get that first $150,000, and then that first $1 million.

I am urging all of my colleagues to support moving to this bill this afternoon. It passed out of the Small Business Committee last week nearly unanimously, and has continued to gain large bipartisan support publicly and privately. The CBO estimates a very modest cost of $150 million over 5 years. We have made changes that have decreased the estimate from last year's cost of $229 million.

We believe this $150 million is a fantastic investment for the Federal Government to place research dollars in the hands of some of the best, most dynamic, most innovative entrepreneurs on the face of the Earth today. We want to give them an opportunity, particularly in tight credit and capital markets, to access these funds at the Federal level to produce the kind of goods and services and, most importantly, jobs for the future.

I see my time has expired. Again, I look forward to coming down with my members of the Small Business Committee to talk more about this bill as the week unfolds. I urge my colleagues today at 5:30 to vote yes for cloture on this important bill so we can pass it out of the Senate today, get it over to the House as quickly as we can, and to the President's desk for signature.

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

Mr. President, I wish to follow the remarks of the Senator from Arizona and associate myself with part of his remarks that have to do with the energy policy of our country.

I am disappointed in the administration's reluctance to get the Gulf of Mexico back to work. We did have a terrible tragedy in April, almost a year ago, April 20, the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe. For 40 years or longer, 40,000 wells have been drilled safely in the gulf, in shallow water and in deep, since 1940, deep water coming into play in about 1985. Up until the Deepwater Horizon accident, this industry had acted responsibly in large measure with cutting-edge technologies. Yes, we have to continue to investigate what happened, but shutting down so much of our domestic drilling with the unrest in other parts of the world is not the right policy.

I associate myself with the remarks of the Senator on energy as well as tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is not a crisis of supply; it is a crisis of pricing. SPR should only be tapped when there is a supply issue. We can get back to drilling more at home and be efficient in other places.

What I really wish to talk about is to give my heartfelt condolences to the people of Japan. We have watched all weekend, my family and I, in horror, watching the scene unfold with the terrible catastrophe that struck Japan on Friday afternoon, following the earthquake, 9.0 on the Richter scale, followed by a terrible tsunami, a wave of water in some places 30 feet high that devastated coastal communities. Some of the pictures are reminiscent of what happened to us on the gulf coast about 5\1/2\ years ago when a 30-foot wave came ashore right into Gulfport and Biloxi and the catastrophe of manmade proportion, in our case, when the Federal levy system broke and 1,800 people lost their lives. But this situation in Japan is the worst crisis, according to their Prime Minister, since the Second World War.

It is going to take all of our best efforts, governments around the world, individuals, corporations, and businesses, to be generous. I hope the people of Louisiana and our cities and communities will be generous because we were so benefited by the warm generosity of the people of Japan and many volunteers who came from all over the country and the world.

I hope, as this week of search and rescue comes to a close, there will be time for debris cleanup and rebuilding and mental health counseling--all of the things that go into helping an area of the country survive and grow back. I know the people of Japan were as prepared as any country could be for a situation such as this, but the events of that day have overwhelmed one of the best and most organized governments in the world.

I am heartbroken to hear that thousands of people are yet unaccounted for. Our hearts go out to them. I hope our Nation will be generous in this time, not only from a charitable and

moral standpoint, but Japan is one of the strongest economies in the world.

From the State I represent, Louisiana, we are their second largest trading partner as a State. The people of Louisiana and all of our States have a vested interest in Japan getting back on its feet, getting better and stronger. We are still in the process of rebuilding New Orleans and the Lower Ninth Ward. New Orleans East, Gulfport, and Waveland are still struggling to come back--an important economic center for the country. But most certainly this coastal and industrial community around Sendai and other coastal communities are very important, not just to Japan but to the world.

I hope, with this 9.0 earthquake that hit, I hope people know this is 1,000 times worse than an 8 point on the Richter scale. It is not slightly worse; it is 1,000 times worse. This is a huge earthquake and shift in the Earth's plates--and then the subsequent tsunami.

On behalf of the people of Louisiana, we send special condolences and best wishes to the people of Japan as they recover and bury their dead, heal their injured, and begin to rebuild their cities and communities stronger than they were before. I hope we will all be as generous as we can.

One final point. This is a wake-up call to our country. As chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, this is a wake-up call because we have not funded adequately our disaster response fund, the DRF. We are actually about $1.6 billion below where we should be. This is not a wise policy given what happened over the weekend. Catastrophes can strike without warning at any time. If we leave just the amount of money that is in the DRF and something like Katrina or this event were to happen, that money would be used up in 3 days. We have not replenished that fund.

I have called on the President to send a supplemental emergency bill. We can't pay for current disasters out of future preparedness money. That is what the continuing resolution in the House basically does. I strongly object to taking money we have set aside in the event that catastrophes happen to pay for past disasters. That is another reason I voted against the House concurrent resolution.

Now with the visual of this horrific tragedy unfolding in Japan, with the tsunami, the destruction of the cities, the two nuclear powerplants under extraordinary pressure, it does no good to take money out of paying for current disasters, paying for the past damage.

I have sent a letter to the President asking him to send up an emergency bill. It would be wise for us to pay for past emergencies off-budget and then to use our homeland security bill to budget as effectively and as appropriately as we can for disasters that may occur.

I am proud to say that the Democratic leadership has doubled the amount of money we are setting aside in case these things happen. It used to be only $800 million a year. Now we are budgeting close to 1.8 or 1.9, thinking that in the event that something happens, we want to be prepared.

In 48 States, disasters have been declared in the last 2 years, not just along the gulf coast. We have had flooding up in the Northeast. We have had flooding in the Midwest. We could potentially have--we had some flooding this weekend. I am not sure how widespread it was, but in New Jersey, there were scenes throughout the weekend about rivers overflowing as the spring approaches.

So let us, as we mourn for Japan and are in solidarity with them through this crisis, use this as a reminder to get our business straight, to get our budget straight and not mess around with our disaster relief fund. Let's pay for past disasters we owe the communities--we have pledged to help them rebuild--and set aside the appropriate money in the regular budget to take care of things that might happen this year as we advance.

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

Thank you, Mr. President.

I wish to follow up on the comments of the Senators from Montana and Maryland who spoke so eloquently and clearly about the consequences of adopting the House resolution which sets spending levels for the next year.

In my view, a vote for H.R. 1 would be, indeed, a reckless vote because the consequences of such severe cuts in some areas, as outlined particularly by the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Montana, would be, in fact, reckless, and also, as it relates to my subcommittee, which I want to speak about for a moment, the Subcommittee on Homeland Security--not an inconsequential area of our responsibility: protecting the 350-plus million Americans who live in the United States and trust that we are doing our jobs well enough to keep them safe every day from rising threat levels from a variety of different sources. That is what our job is on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, and I am going to be voting against H.R. 1 because, in my view, it goes too far, and it puts our homeland in jeopardy.

Let me be clear. In the State of the Union, the President stated that al-Qaida and its affiliates continue to plan attacks against our Nation. He stressed that extremists are trying to inspire acts of violence by those within our borders. According to the Attorney General, in the last 2 years, 126 individuals have been indicted for terrorist-related activities, including 50 of our own citizens.

The Homeland Security Secretary appeared before my subcommittee last week and said that the threat of terrorist attacks is as high as it has been since 9/11. And what do the Republican leaders, just newly minted and elected, come to Washington to do? Slash the homeland security budget. I am not going to do that, and I urge my colleagues not to do that.

In view of these threats, we cannot reduce the homeland security budget to levels that preceded the Christmas Day bombing attempt, the Times Square bombing attempt, the air cargo bombing attempt, and the Fort Hood shooting and before the escalation of violence and drugs along the Mexican border. We had one of our agents gunned down just 3 weeks ago. What does this budget do that they are recommending? Slash border security. We literally spilled blood on this floor, almost, building that fence along the border and adding border security. Now they want to dismantle it? I do not think so.

The bill makes deep cuts in State and local grants to train and equip first responders. Do they think it is going to be the FBI agents who are walking around Times Square every day looking for a smoking car? No. It is going to likely be a local New York firefighter or police officer or a citizen walking by noticing something and calling the police. We have very small--really, relatively small--training grants available. They cut that by over 50 percent. Is that smart? I do not think so.

The House bill cuts border security infrastructure programs when violence in Mexico is at an unprecedented level.

The House bill will cut Coast Guard acquisitions despite a need to recapitalize its aging fleet and when the Coast Guard mission continues to expand, as was so clear not even a year ago, on April 20, when the Deep Horizon exploded. Whom did you call when you went to 911 and said there is a rig on fire? Whom did we call? The Coast Guard. How did they get to the rig? On cutters and boats that we built. What did they do with the Coast Guard budget? They cut it almost below maintenance levels for situations such as this.

The House bill cuts port security and transit security when the Mumbai, London, and Madrid terrorist attacks proved that those sectors are vulnerable. How many more terrorists have to attack trains before we realize there is a level you cannot go beneath without putting our citizens at risk? And we are perilously close to that level.

The House bill reduces Transportation Security Administration procurement for its explosive-detection technologies that TSA needs to respond, as we have developed since the attempted bombing at Christmastime.

Cyber security--I have not even spoken about this. It is very difficult, and some of this is classified information, and it is not something people can really grasp as well as they can understand explosives on trains and airplanes, which is, I guess, easier to visualize.

These attacks through our Internet and through the new interconnecting technologies now that our electric grid and all of our companies depend on need to be countered as well.

Amendment No. 149 addresses these cuts while making responsible cuts in lower priority programs.

The House bill cuts port security grants by 66 percent despite the fact that our ports produce over $3 trillion of economic activity and jobs for 13 million American workers and the Mumbai attacks proved the vulnerability of ports. The Senate bill would maintain the fiscal year 2010 level of $300 million.

H.R. 1 would cut transit security grants by 66 percent, despite the fact that there have been over 1,300 attacks, killing or injuring over 18,000 people worldwide on trains and subways over the last 7 years. The Senate amendment would maintain the fiscal year 2010 level of $300 million.

I say to all of my friends who get on a plane and expect it to be safe that H.R. 1 would cut $562 million from the President's request for the Transportation Security Administration to provide our airports with scanners, screeners, and K-9 teams. Under H.R. 1, funding for the Transportation Security Administration would be below the operating level on December 25, 2009, when a Nigerian terrorist tried to blow up Northwest flight 253 over the United States. As a result, TSA would only be able to purchase 250 additional advanced imaging technology body scanners, instead of the 500 requested, and 415 additional portable explosives trace detection units, instead of the 800 units requested. The Senate Democratic alternative restores these cuts.

H.R. 1 would cut the precise agencies--FEMA, the Coast Guard, and State and local first responders--that are supposed to help us prevent or respond to future disasters. The Senate version restores these cuts.

Under H.R. 1, the Coast Guard would not be able to award production of the fifth National Security Cutter, NSC, delaying the project by a year and driving up costs by $45 to $60 million. The Senate amendment fully funds the $692 million necessary to complete NSC, No. 5. National Security Cutters are replacing the Coast Guard's 40-year-old

fleet of high endurance cutters, which are increasingly unavailable due to equipment breakdowns. The Senate amendment also includes funds to hire 55 additional Coast Guard personnel to improve their capacity to respond to oilspills.

The Senate amendment provides $189 million more than the House bill for the border security agencies--Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Within that amount, the Senate bill provides $150 million more than the House bill for border security infrastructure and technology, providing our Border Patrol agents with the assets they need to help secure the northern and southern borders. Cuts to border technology made by the House bill would postpone for at least 1 year the procurement, construction, and deployment of new remote video surveillance systems in Arizona and reduce by 50 percent funds available for tactical communications modernization along the Southwest border.

H.R. 1 provides no funding to continue construction of the DHS Headquarters at the St. Elizabeths campus in Washington, DC. Congress has appropriated $1.1 billion for the project, but the House action would leave a half-built building, sitting in the mud. This decision will delay completion of the Coast Guard headquarters by at least 1 year and increase costs by $69 million. The Senate amendment provides $91.4 million to complete the Coast Guard headquarters.

The House bill cuts emergency management performance grants by 12 percent. The events surrounding Hurricanes Katrina and Rita highlighted the critical importance of effective catastrophic all-hazards planning. The Senate amendment maintains the $340 million fiscal year 2010 level.

H.R. 1 would reduce science and technology research and development funding by 69 percent, forgoing critical investments in the next generation of explosives detection systems, chemical and biological weapons detection systems, radiological and nuclear detection systems, as well as sensors and other technologies to help secure the borders. The Senate version reduces funding by only 19 percent, a difficult but responsible reduction.

The House bill makes deep cuts to cyber security, which is unconscionable, since the President has said, ``the cyber threat is one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face''. The House cuts would delay deployment of the Einstein program-- our network intrusion detection and protection program--reducing protection coverage of Federal agency networks by 12 percent, reduce cyber attack response efforts by 25 percent, reduce international collaboration, and reduce our development of advanced tools needed to keep pace with new and evolving cyber threats.

In order to make these restorations, the Senate amendment rescinds over $545 million of low priority unobligated balances and reduces lower priority programs by over $900 million below fiscal year 2010 levels.

My goal is to produce a fiscally responsible Homeland Security bill that provides the Department with the resources it needs to prepare for, respond to, and recover from all threats, both manmade and natural. It is essential that we provide the Department with the resources that it needs to be nimble in preparing for and responding to an evolving threat.

I urge Members to support amendment No. 149 to H.R. 1.

As I said, the House bill, H.R. 1, cuts port security grants by 66 percent, transportation security grants by 66 percent. It cuts FEMA, and it cuts the Coast Guard below levels that are safe.

Homeland Security is the newest agency. I realize we have to make cuts and bring our budget into balance. If this were a plan to get us to a balanced budget, I would support it. But it is not. It is just a plan that jeopardizes our homeland security and does not do very much at all to close that deficit gap. When a real plan is present, I will vote for it. Until then, I am voting no.

Mr. President, the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship today adopted rules

governing its procedures for the 112th Congress. Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the rules adopted by the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.