Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. 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.

Ms. LANDRIEU. 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.''

Ms. LANDRIEU. 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.''

Ms. LANDRIEU. 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.

Ms. LANDRIEU. 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.

Ms. LANDRIEU. 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.''

Ms. LANDRIEU

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. 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?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes, I yield to Senator Inhofe.

Ms. LANDRIEU. 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.

Ms. LANDRIEU. 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.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, can I just inquire?

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. OK. Because Senator Snowe has an amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU. She would like to speak on it.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Do you think Senator Snowe can go after Senator Cantwell?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Let me see what we can do.

Ms. LANDRIEU. 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.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. 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.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. 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.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. 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.''

Ms. LANDRIEU. 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.

Ms. LANDRIEU. 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.''

Ms. LANDRIEU

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. 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.