Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I forgot to thank my own staff, which would be very important to do. Elizabeth Weiner, Elizabeth Craddock, Jane Campbell, my chief of staff, and my entire staff for their tremendous work--we are all going to get a good rest in the week to come--and other staff, Tanner Johnson in particular, no longer with my staff but who put the original bill together. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU

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

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Rev. Fred Luter, Jr., of New Orleans, LA on being elected to be president of the Southern Baptist Convention and acknowledging Reverend Luter's unique role as the first African- American leader of the Southern Baptist Convention. Rev. Fred Luter, Jr. preached his first church sermon in 1983 at the Law Street Baptist Church in New Orleans, LA. He then became pastor of Franklin Avenue Baptist Church in 1986. Under the leadership of Reverend Luter, the Franklin Avenue Baptist Church community grew from 65 members in 1986 to over 7,000 members in 2005. Thanks to Reverend Luter, the Franklin Avenue Baptist Church grew to be the largest Southern Baptist Church in the State of Louisiana. In 2005, Franklin Avenue Baptist Church was extensively damaged by Hurricane Katrina. Along with the church, Reverend Luter also lost his home to flooding. Displaced members of the church totaled approximately 2,000 people. Reverend Luter, in cooperation with Rev. David Crosby, found a temporary home for Franklin Avenue Baptist Church during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. As well as setting up a temporary church, Reverend Luter continued to minister to his congregation, even holding services in Baton Rouge, LA, and Houston, TX. After tremendous hard work and determination, Reverend Luter reopened the door to Franklin Avenue Baptist Church in April of 2008. In 2011, Reverend Luter became the first African-American to be elected as first vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention. The Southern Baptist Convention is a cooperative of over 45,000 churches they diligently seek to bring about greater racial and ethnic representation at every level of Southern Baptist institutional life. Reverend Luter was then nominated by Rev. David Crosby to become president of the Southern Baptist Convention. On June 19, 2012, Reverend Luter was elected to be the first African-American president of the Southern Baptist Convention. It is with a special measure of commendation and heartfelt congratulations on becoming the first African-American president of the Southern Baptist Convention and for his commitment to ministering to his congregation that I ask my colleagues to join me along with Reverend Luter's family in honoring and celebrating the life of this most extraordinary person.

Ms. LANDRIEU

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, there are so many important issues in Washington today, it is hard to know what to speak on first. But I am going to take this opportunity to talk about flood insurance. One of the reasons is because there are three States in the Union that carry the most policies relative to our population, and it may be the most policies regardless of our population. That would be Florida, No. 1; Texas, No. 2; Louisiana, No. 3; and, of course, California, No. 4. So while this bill affects everyone in the country, the four States that it affects the most and by far are the four States that I mentioned, and Louisiana happens to be one. So the people of my State pay a lot of attention to flood insurance. We always have, and we always will have to. I am sorry to say that just within the last few hours, with so much changing around here at the last minute, I was just given the information that the flood insurance bill--which we have not even debated on the floor of the Senate--is now going to be put into an omnibus package which includes many other important bills: the Transportation bill, the RESTORE Act--which is also important for the gulf coast, parts of it that were accepted by the House, and there were a few important parts that were, unfortunately, left on the cutting room floor over in the House--and now the flood insurance bill. I want to make it clear that if I were called on to vote on the flood insurance bill that is now going to be a part of this package, I would vote no because there are some very important provisions that I was going to offer as amendments to the bill that I think are crucial to not just my State but to the State of Florida, potentially to the State of California, and potentially to Texas as well. I am not sure their Senators are in complete agreement or understand some of the challenges, but I want to point out a few of them. Unfortunately, I am not going to get a chance to vote no because I am going to have to vote for the whole package, which I intend to do, although this flood insurance bill is not in the position I would support. Let me give three reasons. No. 1, there is a provision of the bill that talks about V-Zones; that is, velocity zones. Right now, with FEMA, FEMA basically says if you are in a velocity zone, you cannot rebuild. I have St. Bernard Parish, Plaquemines Parish, Lafourche Parish, Terrebonne Parish, Cameron Parish, and large sections of St. Tammany and St. John the Baptist and Orleans Parish that you can see are designated V-Zones. This means likely to be flooded, not just based on their elevation but the way that the historical patterns of storms coming out of the gulf affect them. I understand that we have to be very careful in these areas so I had an amendment to say: No, you can rebuild but you have to rebuild up to the right elevation or you have to rebuild according to the highest standards. If we do not fix this, and this bill passes--which it looks as though it will--there will be great concerns or questions, if not a downright prohibition, on building in these areas regardless of whether you pay for insurance. This is not right. The other amendment I was prepared to offer is an affordability amendment. People may not realize this--I hope Members will be listening. Again, this bill affects all the States, but in the underlying bill there is a provision that allows these rates for everyone in the country to be increased by 15 percent a year. People are struggling to pay flood insurance now. I think that is very steep. People who are arguing for the 15-percent a year increase say it is important to get this program actuarially sound, it is currently running a $20 billion deficit. I am well aware of the need to get this program in line. But I was going to offer an amendment that simply created and expanded a short, small, but important affordability provision of $10 million that the Department would have to help people on fixed incomes or lower or middle-income families who of course are working along the gulf coast and in some of these coastal areas. They are not sunbathing, not vacationing. This is not about second homes. This is about primary homes. They have a right to live and have been living for generations near the coast. These are fisherman, et cetera. That was an affordability amendment that I cannot offer or file for the Record. This is a very important issue. Flood insurance is not just about business and commerce; it is about culture; it is about a way of life; it is about preserving coastal communities; it is about being resilient in storms. Yes, Louisiana wants to pay its fair share. Florida must pay its fair share. Texas must pay its fair share. We have no problem with that. We have been for years. Some Members are now waking up and saying: Oh, my goodness, now you are telling us, people in other parts of the country, we have to buy flood insurance? But we have a levee. You are telling us we have to buy flood insurance? Yes. We had levees in Louisiana for 200 years. Unfortunately, they break. Sometimes when the Federal Government doesn't build them correctly, they disintegrate and our people get flooded. Yes, we have levees, we pay to build the levees, and we pay for insurance, and we are still not as protected as we could be. Again, we are not sunbathing down here on this coast. We are producing oil and gas for the Nation. We are running the largest port system in North America, and we drain 40 percent of the continent. Florida has a little different situation. They do a great deal of tourism and they do a great deal of sunbathing and other things. I am happy for Florida and their economy. But the people I represent are not running huge vacation operations. This is not an optional place for us to live. It is not optional for us, it is not optional for the Nation, and it is not optional for the world. We have to find an affordable and safe way to live here. I had an amendment to try to make this more affordable. That amendment is not going to be offered. The only positive thing I can say about the bill-- and there are some positive things, and this is important, I know, to the realtors. I support them almost 100 percent--and the homebuilders. I have a very good record with the realtors and homebuilders. I believe in what they do and they are right when they say: We have to have a permanent extension because we cannot close deals. People cannot sell their homes. We have to have this insurance program. And they are correct. Like a lot of things up here, it is a balance. With the amendments I was going to put on the bill and actually had worked out to do so, on balance the bill would have been better. I was prepared to vote for it on the floor. Now that it is being stuck into this package without the debate on the floor and without the amendments, I must go on record to say that I would vote against the bill in its current form, even though I know we need long-term flood insurance. Because of the increased rates, the lack of the affordability, and the lack of a fix to the V- Zones, I think it tips the balance against the bill generally. There is nothing I can do about it. That is the way it is going to happen. But I wanted to submit my comments for the Record. I can promise the Members of this Senate after this bill goes into effect you are going to hear a lot of complaints from your constituents. I am certain we will be back here within the year, after the elections-- regardless of who wins and who loses--fixing some provisions that should have been fixed, but because there is not going to be a debate on the Senate floor will not be. I know this bill came out of the Banking Committee in the Senate with bipartisan support. I am well aware of that. But I think there were some corrections or some perfections that could have been done on the Senate floor. We are not going to have that opportunity. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Bolanos be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of today's session.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise for a procedural request and a statement on the farm bill. On Rollcall Vote No. 153, yesterday, I voted ``yes.'' It was my intention to vote ``no.'' I therefore ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome of the amendment or the bill.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. I had the Rollcall Vote number wrong. It is not Rollcall Vote No. 153. It is Rollcall Vote No. 143. I voted ``yes.'' I would like to change my vote to ``no.'' I ask unanimous consent that be the order.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you Mr. President. Agriculture Reform Mr. President, I will be brief. I know other Members are on the floor who want to speak on other subjects. First, I want to thank the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Kansas for an extraordinary job on a very difficult bill, a very complicated bill--and difficult because it is not just a Republican- Democratic debate or a Democratic-Republican debate, it is a regional debate that has to take place, and there is a lot of give-and-take. I have been proud to vote for every farm bill that has been before the Senate to my knowledge, but I voted ``no'' today, and I want to say why. Despite the great work of Senator Stabenow and Senator Roberts, there was a weak part of this bill, in my view, related to rice farming, and it is such a significant and important part of our farming structure in Louisiana that I cast a vote against the bill to send a signal that more work needs to be done. This bill passed the Senate with an overwhelming vote. I voted for many of the amendments that I think helped to shape it to be even better than when it came out of committee. We beat back several attacks to uproot, destroy, or significantly modify the U.S. Sugar Program, which has been very important to the State of Louisiana--one of the Nation's great sugar growers. As I have tried to explain to people who continue to attack this program, why would you want to end a program in this bill that does not cost the taxpayers a single dime? There are no direct subsidies for sugar, as there are for all the other crops. The U.S. Sugar Program provides American consumers with low, stable sugar prices and ensures that our sugarcane and sugar beet growers receive a fair price for their crop. I am happy to say that American growers of sugar can provide almost 85 percent of domestic demand. So why not use domestic sugar if we can supply our domestic demand? We only import what we need to import. We do not want to flood the market with cheap imports coming into America and undermining our jobs. I was proud to stand with our sugar industry and beat back those amendments. Louisiana farmers and ranchers make a significant contribution to our State, generating over $10.8 billion in economic activity alone. Agriculture--including fisheries and, of course, forestry--and energy are the backbone of Louisiana's economy. This farm bill is an important bill. As I said, I was happy to vote for literally dozens of amendments that strengthened it. But I held out my final support, hoping that, as it travels to the House and goes through the conference process, the farm provisions related to our rice growers could be perfected. People like to say the United States grows the cheapest, safest, and most abundant food, fiber, and energy supply in the world. They are right. The people in my State who do that day in and day out are proud. They have every reason to be proud because farming is more than a business, it is more than a job; it is a way of life. It is a way of life that is important and precious and should be honored. There are many families--cousins and aunts and uncles and fathers and mothers and children who are involved in farming. In Louisiana, in our forest lands, and along our coastal lands, these families follow a preferred way of life, even though it means hard work, long hours, high risks, and sometimes heart-breakingly limited returns. So from sugar and rice in the south to cotton and poultry in the north, and all the areas in between, Louisiana needs a farm bill that supports all of our farmers. This one failed in one important area, which is why I cast a ``no'' vote. This bill did not support adequately, in my view, the 2,000 rice farmers we have in Louisiana. Our rice industry generates $638 million in our State alone. Along with Arkansas, we are one of the major rice producing states. Nationally, U.S. rice supports about 128,000 jobs. It is $34 billion of economic input each year. This bill did reduce the deficit by $23 billion, and that is something I support. However, it took a larger chunk out of rice than was asked for any other commodity. Rice took a 65% reduction when the other crops, on average, took a 30% reduction. And I know some of the peanut growers in Georgia have some of the same concerns we do. So let me end by saying that I hope the position of our rice farmers and the important industry that rice represents can be strengthened in the House. If so, I will proudly put my name on this bill, because there is some very good that was done to protect our nutrition programs, to help our middle-class families who find themselves in the unusual situation of having to get some food relief in these difficult times. I want to thank Senator Stabenow particularly for her help in that way. But for my rice growers, my rice producers, the important mills we have from Crowley, LA, to other places, for companies such as Kellogg in Battle Creek, MI, that depend on strong rice production from Louisiana, I cast a ``no'' vote. Finally, I will say, I hope we can find a way to open some more markets for our rice growers. We are interested--very interested--in trade with Cuba. And the politics sometimes prevents us from opening more trade relations with a nation that I know has not met our standard of democracy but most certainly would be an open market for many of my farmers. So for my farmers who are looking for markets where we can sell and compete on the world market, if you give us an opportunity to compete and open these markets, then we may be able to adjust our program. But until then, our farmers need the support of other farmers and did not receive it in this bill. I so appreciate my colleague from Rhode Island giving me this opportunity to speak. I thank the chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, first let me say thank you to the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Kansas for conducting another very long session today on agriculture. They did an extraordinary job helping us move through this important bill. I thank them very much, and I know we are going to take that up tomorrow. (The remarks of Ms. Landrieu pertaining to the introduction of S. 3321 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, if I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes to introduce a bill, not anything related to the farm bill, is that appropriate?

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I bring to the attention of the body a bill called the Protecting Adoption and Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2012. I introduced this bill on behalf of myself and Senator Inhofe, with whom I have worked with so closely on many issues involving adoption and the protection of children who are outside of family care, both here in the United States and abroad. I thank Senator Inhofe, the senior Senator from Oklahoma, for being an original cosponsor of this legislation. I also thank Congresswoman Laura Richardson for introducing a companion piece of this legislation in the House today. We just celebrated Father's Day this past weekend. I know my father and my husband and men all over the country celebrated with their children and their families. We honor the extraordinary fathers in the world. Parenthood is the ultimate gift. It is also an incredible responsibility. Many of us have benefited from really wonderful fathers who care for and support families and support children through their young years, their adult years, and even into their older years. When fathers are absent, when they abandon their responsibility to their children, they can make the mothers of their children and their children more vulnerable. Sometimes women will make a decision to place a child for adoption if they are unmarried, unwilling, unable--just at a vulnerable time in their life and not able to raise a child. Adoption can be a very positive option. There are some Members of our Congress who have adopted children and have adopted grandchildren, so we know the blessings of adoption. This bill will help to facilitate and clear up some legal quagmires that occur until many States clear the way for women of any age to make a decision for adoption. There are many of us, across party lines, who have supported more domestic infant adoption, more domestic adoptions for children of all ages, and particularly adoption of special-needs children. This bill really affects infant adoption. It sets up a voluntary registry that tracks what 38 States have already done. Any person, any male who has the intention of supporting and raising a child can register on this registry, and their will and wishes will be taken into consideration. But in the situation that often happens where this man is not interested in being the kind of responsible father he should be, then this registry helps to expedite, without a lot of legal quagmire but with protection to both the father and the mother, to expedite adoption. It has gone through a vetting process with any number of outside organizations. I thank the American Bar Association. I want to particularly thank the Association of Adoption Attorneys, which helped to draft this important piece of legislation. I wanted to come to the floor to introduce it. We will, of course, bring it up when the leadership allows us that opportunity. It may have to go through a committee process. We may be able to clear it with the support of both Republicans and Democrats, as is shown by the support of Senator Inhofe and myself. Hopefully we can get it done in a short period of time and provide a clear path to promote adoption in the United States.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I bring to the attention of the body a bill called the Protecting Adoption and Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2012. I introduced this bill on behalf of myself and Senator Inhofe, with whom I have worked with so closely on many issues involving adoption and the protection of children who are outside of family care, both here in the United States and abroad. I thank Senator Inhofe, the senior Senator from Oklahoma, for being an original cosponsor of this legislation. I also thank Congresswoman Laura Richardson for introducing a companion piece of this legislation in the House today. We just celebrated Father's Day this past weekend. I know my father and my husband and men all over the country celebrated with their children and their families. We honor the extraordinary fathers in the world. Parenthood is the ultimate gift. It is also an incredible responsibility. Many of us have benefited from really wonderful fathers who care for and support families and support children through their young years, their adult years, and even into their older years. When fathers are absent, when they abandon their responsibility to their children, they can make the mothers of their children and their children more vulnerable. Sometimes women will make a decision to place a child for adoption if they are unmarried, unwilling, unable--just at a vulnerable time in their life and not able to raise a child. Adoption can be a very positive option. There are some Members of our Congress who have adopted children and have adopted grandchildren, so we know the blessings of adoption. This bill will help to facilitate and clear up some legal quagmires that occur until many States clear the way for women of any age to make a decision for adoption. There are many of us, across party lines, who have supported more domestic infant adoption, more domestic adoptions for children of all ages, and particularly adoption of special-needs children. This bill really affects infant adoption. It sets up a voluntary registry that tracks what 38 States have already done. Any person, any male who has the intention of supporting and raising a child can register on this registry, and their will and wishes will be taken into consideration. But in the situation that often happens where this man is not interested in being the kind of responsible father he should be, then this registry helps to expedite, without a lot of legal quagmire but with protection to both the father and the mother, to expedite adoption. It has gone through a vetting process with any number of outside organizations. I thank the American Bar Association. I want to particularly thank the Association of Adoption Attorneys, which helped to draft this important piece of legislation. I wanted to come to the floor to introduce it. We will, of course, bring it up when the leadership allows us that opportunity. It may have to go through a committee process. We may be able to clear it with the support of both Republicans and Democrats, as is shown by the support of Senator Inhofe and myself. Hopefully we can get it done in a short period of time and provide a clear path to promote adoption in the United States.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2321.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I don't believe there is any opposition to this amendment, but I would like a minute to explain. Under current law, any rural development project is automatically excluded from even applying for a loan under current law. That was not the intention of the farm bill, but it was put in the farm bill, the last one. I would like to remove that language so small rural communities of 20,000 or less can apply to build a hospital, fire station, et cetera. They do not have to be given the permit. They still need to get the wetland permit from the Corps of Engineers, but this removes an automatic prohibition. The agriculture department supports it. I do not believe there is any opposition, and I thank the Chair and ranking member.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I wish to ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Mr. Angelo Roppolo and extending my appreciation for his extraordinary accomplishments and dedication to the city of Shreveport and the State of Louisiana. Mr. Roppolo is a modest man who seldom takes credit for his achievements and is known throughout his community as someone who avoids the spotlight. He has an unwavering loyalty to his family and friends and has never been known to abandon his core beliefs and principles. Mr. Roppolo stands for righteousness and justice, and he has never hesitated to support a candidate who has challenged the norm. Mr. Roppolo has played integral roles in many landmark political events in Louisiana. He was involved in organizing and planning the campaigns of the first African American judge to be elected in Shreveport and in Caddo Parish, along with the campaigns of the first female judge in Caddo Parish and the first female judge on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Roppolo also served as the north Louisiana campaign chairman for Governor Kathleen Blanco, who was the first female to be elected as Governor of Louisiana. Along with his love for the political process, Mr. Roppolo is also a strong supporter of entrepreneurs in Shreveport. He was a founder of the South Shreveport Business Association, an organization dedicated to the success of businesses within the rapidly growing area of his community. He has also helped many individuals gain financing for their endeavors and has seen many of these ventures grow and prosper into successful businesses. Mr. Roppolo is a kind and caring man who has always given praise and gratitude to the men and women in the armed services who serve and protect this country. Mr. Roppolo is a source of inspiration for all who know him. He is beloved throughout his community and the city of Shreveport, where his family and friends alike respect and admire all he has done for those around him. It is with a special measure of sincerity and heartfelt commendation for the mark he has left of the State of Louisiana that I ask my colleagues to join me along with Mr. Roppolo's family in honoring and celebrating the life of this most extraordinary person.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as cochair of both the Congressional Coalition on Adoption and the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth, I wish to congratulate the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption on the occasion of its 20th anniversary. The foundation was established in 1992 by Dave Thomas as a public charity with one primary goal: to help every child in foster care find a loving, permanent family. Throughout its history, the foundation has set forth on a mission of dramatically increasing the number of adoptions of waiting children. For 20 years, the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption has committed itself to finding permanent families for the more than 100,000 children waiting in the United States foster care system. The Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption awards grants to public and private adoption agencies all across the country. Last year, these grants totaled more than $8 million and focused on supporting adoption professionals who implement proactive, child-focused recruitment programs targeted exclusively on moving the longest waiting children from foster care into adoptive families. This signature program is called Wendy's Wonderful Kids, WWK, and today exists in all 50 States, DC, and four Canadian provinces. The results from an empirical 5-year case study on WWK were released in October 2011. The research showed that children in the program are up to three times more likely to be adopted. The foundation also supports employers through the Adoption-Friendly Workplace Program, is a founding member of National Adoption Day, and is a proud partner of the annual television special, ``A Home for the Holidays.'' The foundation is an accredited charity of the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance, Standards for Excellence certified, and has received the highest possible rating on Charity Navigator. The foundation has helped more than 3,000 children find their forever families and provided information and support to tens of thousands of potential adoptive families. For these reasons, I am proud to applaud the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption and its dedicated staff for their extraordinary contributions to the people of my district and throughout the United States for the last 20 years.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, let me begin by acknowledging the leadership of the Senator from Maryland and the other Senators who have come to the floor this morning to speak on behalf of a bill whose time has come and, some might say, a bill whose time has passed. It has been almost 50 years since the original gender equity in the workplace bill was passed, and it has not been modernized in over five decades. So, in large measure, this is really a bill whose time has come, and we hope to make that law happen in the next few weeks. With support from both Democrats and Republicans and by putting common sense and heart and compassion and good business sense, might I say, before political talking points, this, in fact, could be done. The reason this bill is so important is because 50 years ago women were not major breadwinners in families. As the Presiding Officer knows, there was tremendous hiring discrimination against women and minorities. Happily, that seems to be passing and fading. There are women now at the highest ranks of corporate America. We have had women serving in the highest positions here in Washington, DC, and around our country. While there still is a gap that can be recognized both in the private and public sector, the ability for women, with the right credentials and the right background, to get hired is easier today and is happening more than ever before. The problem is that when we look at the wage gap, unfortunately, it still persists. With women now in many instances being the major breadwinners in their families, this is really a family issue. It is paying some families much less than others based on the fact that there is a woman as the breadwinner instead of a man. That is hurting families throughout America. It is not fair, and it should not be tolerated. That is why this bill, introduced by Senator Mikulski and cosponsored by many of us, is important. Wage discrimination is against the law and it has been for 50 years, but the consequences and the actions individuals can take if they feel as though they are being discriminated against are, in effect, different and not where they need to be. So this law updates the Equal Pay Act that was passed in 1963 to basically put the final nail in the coffin of wage discrimination. In 1967 women only earned 58 cents to every dollar a man earned in an equal--in an exact--position. That was grossly unfair, but it is still unfair today that women in the same job are still making only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. It is not right, and it must be corrected. We can correct it by passing this law that gives people who believe they are being discriminated against better access to the court and, might I say, it also gives businesses that potentially are the ones being sued--even small companies or large companies--more protections in this bill than other businesses have in similar discrimination cases. In other words, frivolous lawsuits will not be allowed, and if a case is not strong, there is a screen that is tighter in this bill than in other pieces of legislation. I realize there is some opposition from the business community that contends that this bill will simply usher in more controversy or more courtroom time. But the fact is that is exactly the way our system was created. Congress passes laws and enforces equal pay for equal work. If people feel as though they are not being treated fairly under the law, they are supposed to try to modify that behavior out of court, and if they can't, then we ask them--we, in fact, want them--to go to court to try to get it settled. That is the American system. We don't want people to overuse courts or to abuse courts, but we most certainly want people who feel as though they are not being treated fairly under the law to have access to a court system. Might I say that despite the fact that our court system is regularly criticized, I would much prefer to show up in a court here than in Iraq or in Egypt or in Afghanistan or even in some places in Europe or most certainly some countries in Africa. America has a very transparent, fairly sophisticated and modern judiciary system, and it really is a model for the world. Sometimes I think we overlitigate in some areas, but where are these women supposed to go? What are they supposed to do--have an appointment with their Congressman, show the Congressman their paycheck? No. Congressmen don't do that. Judges do. And when they get their day in court, they can show their pay stubs, and they can then demonstrate that they have been doing the same job as the man next door but they have been getting paid 77 cents on the man's dollar. That is why this bill is important. I don't know for the life of me why the chamber of commerce is opposed. I think there are a lot of women in the chamber of commerce as business owners and as women who used to work for other businesses before they owned their own. I had hoped they would stand and speak for women everywhere, that when a woman shows up early in the morning and works until late at night, they deserve to be paid the same as a man doing that exact job. According to the American Bar Association, in the 50 years since its passage, the Equal Pay Act has become outdated, ineffective, and wage discrimination remains persistent, widespread and pernicious.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds.

Ms. LANDRIEU. In my home State of Louisiana, wage discrimination based on gender is particularly problematic. According to the Joint Economic Committee Report, women in Louisiana do not earn 77 cents, they earn 69 cents for every $1 paid to men, which is significantly less than the national average. At the same time, women make up almost half--48 percent--of the Louisiana workforce, and 24 percent of married, employed mothers in Louisiana are their family's primary wage earners. This bill is the next step. It is the right step. It is the commonsense step to fight against wage discrimination, and I am proud to join my colleague from Baltimore, from the State of Maryland, in championing this particular bill. Again, I thank the Senator from Maryland and I look forward to working with her and my colleagues to try to get this bill to the President's desk in the next few weeks. This is an economic development issue, as the Senator from Maryland knows. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes, I will.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Absolutely. And it is not. That is why I stressed, I say to the Senator from Maryland, that in this bill, which the Senator has so ably sponsored and written, the screen to get into court is tighter than in other wage discrimination laws on the books. That is for the protection of all businesses, small and large, so they are not clobbered with frivolous lawsuits. But as the Presiding Officer knows, many women are employed in small businesses--I mean between 1 and 5 employees or 1 and 10 employees. They need to be protected in the workplace. Hopefully, we have created a balance between the owners of the business and their employees, whether they are union or not.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as National Small Business Week is coming to a close, I come to the floor today to make a strong commitment that the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship will not lose momentum on our relentless push to help America's small businesses grow, thrive, and excel. So today, along with the senior senator from Maine, I am introducing the Expanding Access to Capital for Entrepreneurial Leaders Act, or the EXCEL Act. This legislation will enhance the already successful Small Business Investment Company, SBIC, program at the Small Business Administration, SBA, that has helped over 100,000 small businesses. The best part of our bill is that the EXCEL Act should not cost the taxpayer anything. The SBA runs a venture capital program by guaranteeing money borrowed by qualified investment funds who invest in small businesses. The qualified funds, or Small Business Investment Companies, SBICs, are privately owned and operated, but licensed and regulated by the SBA. Using a combination of private investments and the loans guaranteed by the SBA, typically at a ratio of $2 in guaranteed funds for every $1 of private capital, SBICs make long-term investments in American small businesses. In order to participate in the program, funds pay licensing fees which serve to cover all SBIC program costs. As a result, the core SBIC program, Debenture SBICs, not only boasts a strong success rate, but also incurs no cost to the U.S. government. Since the program's inception, over $50 billion has been invested in over 100,000 small businesses. The Ranking Member of the Small Business Committee and I conducted a roundtable with 14 participants from the SBA, SBICs, investors in SBICs, and small businesses to elicit suggestions on enhancing the program. Out of that was born the EXCEL Act. The EXCEL Act is a bipartisan effort encompassing much-needed changes that will allow the SBIC program to meet growing demand and will make improvements so that more small businesses can access capital. The first thing the EXCEL Act does is raises the SBIC program authorization level from $3 billion to $4 billion and pegs it to inflation. This change is long overdue--the ceiling has been at $3 for some time, despite inflation and the impressive growth in the SBIC program. To illustrate: the program grew 50 percent in FY2011 alone. In order to meet demand, we need to give the program room to grow. Secondly, the EXCEL Act will encourage successful investors by raising the limit on ``families of funds.'' Family of funds refers to a team of SBIC fund managers who operate several funds. These are currently limited to $225 million of SBA-guaranteed debt. However, SBIC fund managers who manage more than one fund generally see better investment results. The EXCEL Act will encourage that kind of success by giving families of funds a higher limit of $350 million, which will be indexed to inflation. Next, the EXCEL Act improves transparency and accountability in the program. The legislation requires that the SBA make public how effective individual SBICs are in their small business investments, guaranteeing that SBA-backed money is being used responsibly. Finally, the EXCEL Act promotes outreach, thereby ensuring that the maximum possible number of small businesses can benefit from the SBIC program. The legislation encourages outreach to community banks and other lenders, states and municipalities, and asks the SBA to make their SBIC website more user-friendly. The EXCEL Act contains a number of common sense provisions supported across the aisle, and is sponsored by the Chair and Ranking Member of the Small Business Committee. It enhances a program with proven success in providing capital to small businesses, and does so with the expectation that it will not add a dime to the deficit. Let us get this bill passed. Let us help small businesses excel.