Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader. His day has been much busier than mine, but both of our days have been filled with quite a few matters before us. The vote that will take place in the Senate would not have taken place without my acquiescence. I thought it was important to speak briefly on my hold on Jack Lew. Jack Lew is a terrific nominee, and he has the support of many people in this body for his new position, and we are grateful to him for wanting to be the budget director for a country that has serious economic challenges. We are very grateful. As you know, we have extremely serious economic challenges right now in the Gulf of Mexico. It has been 5 years since Katrina. Three weeks later, we had Rita, and then Gustav and Ike--four of the toughest storms the gulf coast has faced. Then a few years later, we had an oilspill, with more than 5 million barrels of oil spilled in the gulf, which was bad enough. But then this administration placed a hold--or a moratorium, if you will--on an entire industry because of that accident. It was a horrible accident, but I think to place a moratorium on an entire industry because one company and its contractors made some serious and terrible mistakes is really unprecedented, it is unwise, and it is extremely harmful to the gulf coast. I tried many things over the last several months to call attention to this matter. I called several hearings in Louisiana, several hearings here in Washington, and I sent several letters, set up several meetings, and nothing seemed to be getting through to this administration about the catastrophe they were causing along the gulf coast. So I put this hold on a nominee. It was, in many ways, unprecedented. I didn't know that when I did it. I was told later that it had never been done on a budget director. I figured it would get their attention, and I think it has. I have had three meetings in the last 24 hours with the Secretary himself. We have talked through some of these issues in a way that I think we can make progress. In the last week, there have been two permits issued. I am told there will be additional permits issued in the next few days. The Secretary has also committed to me that he himself will be in the gulf coast--in Louisiana, actually--on Monday, expressing his commitment, and in no uncertain terms, to the future robustness of this industry. Mr. President, this isn't just about Louisiana and the importance to Louisiana. I will submit this report for the Record, ``The Economic Impact of the Gulf of Mexico Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Industry and the Role of the Independents,'' released in July of 2010. I will read only one figure, but it is big enough that it should capture people's attention. People are looking for money in this Chamber to solve our budget issues and bring this budget into balance. One figure I will cite from this report is that the independents--not big oil--I am not talking about Chevron, Shell, or BP; I am talking about independent oil and gas operators that are sidelined because of this policy by the administration--independents will bring in more than $147 billion in Federal, State, and local revenue in the next 10 years. So the stakes are very high, which is why I took the action I did and why today I have released the hold, because notable progress has been made, permits have been issued, and the Secretary has committed, on Monday, to be in the State to give a path forward for this industry. I am convinced that, at this moment, that was the right thing to do for the country and the gulf coast. But we have more progress that needs to be made. This industry is a valuable, critical, important industry to this Nation. It has been for over 100 years, and it will be for the next 100 years. We have to realize the importance of producing oil and gas here at home. Yes, it was a terrible accident. Yes, we need to have safety and rules and regulations that are in force. But there has to be a way to accomplish that without shutting down the entire industry and putting hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk. Again, this isn't about big oil specifically; it is about contractors and small businesses all along the gulf coast and throughout the United States. I appreciate the Secretary's commitment, his renewed focus, and his understanding of the urgency of the situation. I thank my colleagues, many of whom were supportive of this action, as we have worked through these last 6 weeks. I appreciate the courtesy of the majority leader. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record ``How Big an Impact?'' from the study ``The Economic Impact of the Gulf of Mexico Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Industry and the Role of the Independents'' done by IHS Global Insight (USA), Inc., dated July 21, 2010.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on an issue that is of great importance to my home State of Louisiana: Federal disaster assistance. As you know, along the gulf coast, we keep an eye trained on the Gulf of Mexico during hurricane season. This is following the devastating one-two punch of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita of 2005 as well as Hurricanes Gustav and Ike last year. Our communities and businesses are still recovering from these disasters--some from a disaster that devastated the gulf coast almost 5 years ago. We are now also dealing with the economic and environmental damage from the Deepwater Horizon disaster which occurred this April. For this reason, as chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship ensuring effective Federal disaster coordination is one of my top priorities. While the gulf coast is prone to hurricanes, other parts of the country are no strangers to disaster. For example, the Midwest has tornadoes, California experiences earthquakes and wildfires, and the Northeast sees crippling snowstorms. So no part of our country is spared from disasters--disasters which can and will strike at any moment. With this in mind, we must ensure that the Federal Government is better prepared and has the tools necessary to respond quickly, effectively following a disaster. In order to help ongoing recovery efforts in the gulf coast, and to give the U.S. Small Business Administration, SBA, more tools to respond after a future disaster, I am proud that the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5297, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. I have spoken at length on the Senate floor about the huge impact this legislation will have for small business owners. Today I also note that this legislation includes an important provision improving SBA disaster assistance. This provision builds off of SBA disaster reforms enacted in 2008 and ensures that small businesses in the aquaculture sector will not be left without disaster assistance following future disasters. In particular, the provision is section 1501 of H.R. 5297. I note that this provision is similar to section 205 of legislation I introduced last year, the Small Business Administration Disaster Recovery and Reform Act of 2009. This section amends the Small Business Act to make aquaculture businesses eligible for SBA economic injury disaster loans. Currently, the SBA determines that aquaculture includes any industry where an individual farms aquatic organisms, farming means intervention in the rearing process to enhance production--regular stocking, feeding, protection from predators. These include farmers of: algae, alligators, frogs, turtles, seaweed, clams, crawfish, pearls, fish farms/hatcheries, mussels, and oysters. Under current provisions of the Small Business Act, SBA is prohibited from providing assistance to these industries as it was wrongly assumed that they would be covered by other Federal agencies. This is because, when Congress repealed SBA disaster assistance for agricultural businesses in the 1980s, they mistakenly assumed that all of these businesses, including aquaculture businesses, would be helped by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA. For example, oystermen who seed private grounds which they own or rent are engaged in aquaculture and are currently ineligible. Public ground oystermen, however, who do not have exclusive use of any area, do not farm and are eligible for SBA economic injury disaster loans. In Louisiana, our aquaculture businesses in the southern part of the State were hit hard by both Hurricane Katrina and Rita. These businesses, many crawfish farmers or those with fish farms, were ineligible for U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, disaster assistance, but were also ineligible for SBA disaster loans. We also learned that similar problems followed Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008. A more recent example of the huge problem this causes is that the SBA is currently offering $2 million economic injury disaster loans, EIDLs, to businesses impacted by the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Since the Small Business Act currently prohibits aquaculture businesses from receiving EIDLs, they were ineligible. However, no other Federal agency, including USDA was providing assistance for this disaster. So small businesses impacted by a disaster were told. We cannot help you, even though no other Federal agency was there to fill in the gap. In closing, I believe that the commonsense fix sent to the President today will give these businesses they help they need to recover from future disasters. Businesses involved in the farming of the following stand to benefit greatly from this new legislation: algae, alligators, frogs, turtles, seaweed, clams, crawfish, pearls, fish farms/ hatcheries, mussels, and oysters. I thank the chair and ask that my entire statement and a copy of this particular provision appear in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak, as many of my colleagues have today, on the DISCLOSE Act, which is being sponsored by Senator Schumer, primarily, and other Members of the Senate, to try to fix and make significant adjustments to an area of law that is very important to many Americans and actually is at the basis of the operation of our democracy. Many of my colleagues have come to the floor to express their concern about the importance of fixing this, and the DISCLOSE Act is how many of us intend to try to get something fixed that needs to be fixed. No matter if you are a Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, or if you are a progressive or a centrist, I think you think it is right to be honest. I think that is a principle everybody can agree to, to be honest and to be forthright and to be truthful and to have been aboveboard. The problem, as you know, with the outcome of the Court case has to do with the way we run our elections. If we do not fix this, we are going to be in a situation in this democracy where people can spend unlimited amounts of money in a secret way. That is the problem. It is not that corporations can do it or labor unions can do it or conservatives or liberals, it is that it can be done at all in secret. I do not think Americans want this. I know the people I represent do not want this. They want to have an honest debate. They want to have an open debate. They want people to stand and say: Hi. My name is Joe. My name is Jane. This is my position. This is my position. Debate it. Then people can vote. The problem, if we do not fix this Court case, is that you will never know who is saying what, and that is not right. That is akin to walking out into the school yard and getting hit from behind and you do not even know who hit you and no one will tell you. How can you fight someone you do not know? How can you participate in something like that? So this loophole has to be closed. I think, and most people in my State believe, that elections should be open, should be honest, should be transparent. Corporations can participate, labor unions can participate, big companies, small businesses. But you do need to disclose who you are in a report. I have an article from the Washington Post. I wanted to have it blown up, but we had difficulty. I will try to explain it, and I will hold it up so maybe the cameras can see it. This says in the last cycle in 2008, 117 entities reported donations, and there were 372 that didn't. That ratio is about one-third reported, and the other two-thirds did not. The trend is going in the wrong direction. More people are participating but not saying who they are so nobody knows. The report for this year, 2010, is already a ratio of 1 to 6. So we are not even into the end of this election cycle. We are getting close to it. The ratio is 15 have been reporting, 85 haven't, which means about only 1 in 6. It is all becoming secret. I don't think that is right for our people. I think our people should know who is saying what, what money is behind what ad so it helps them understand better the arguments and why they might be seeing such ads. I have a real problem, and I will give an example. The Presiding Officer may have this problem in Minnesota. We have a big problem in Louisiana and Florida with Chinese drywall. This product came in from China, and it is rotten. When people put it in their house, they get sick. Their kids get sick. Their copper piping starts rotting. It is horrible. Our people had their homes flooded, and we had to gut their homes. We didn't have enough drywall in the United States so we started needing it so much, it came from lots of other places. Some of it is really bad. So a couple of us have a bill that says: Don't send us any more rotten Chinese drywall. We are going to try to pass that bill. I think my constituents would like to know, if they see an ad on television saying how great drywall is, these ads that say this is a fabulous product, tell Senator Landrieu to support this product, I think my constituents would like to know if that is actually the Chinese drywall company that is behind that product telling them not to vote for me because I am trying to protect them from this company. That is one example, but I could give 100 examples. I am not saying the Chinese drywall company that sent us rotten drywall should not advertise, although I don't think foreign companies should be advertising in elections in America. But let's say it was an American company that sent us this bad drywall. If they want to argue against a bill, fine. But at least let people know that is what they are doing. If it is a labor union advocating for something, let people know. That is why I support the Schumer bill. That is why I support the DISCLOSE Act. That is why I think most people in Louisiana support it. They might make up their minds, but they would like to know who is paying for the ad. That is all this bill does. I know there have been some friends from the other side who have come down and tried to convince the Senate that we don't have to tell people, that we should have all of our elections in secret. I think democracy is best served when people are educated, intelligent, and informed about all aspects. Let them make their own judgments. We live or die by that; we are either in office or we are not. I wished to express my support. I hope we vote on it tomorrow. I wish we could get 60 votes in the Senate. It is mind numbing to me and mind boggling that we couldn't have a handful of Republicans stand and say they too believe we should have honest and open elections. It is not about corporate money or union money. It is not about trying to block corporate money or increase union money or block union money and increase corporate money. It is just about disclosing the money from wherever it comes and having reasonable limits that are fair to everyone. I don't think that is too much to ask. That is basically all this bill does. I support cloture and ending the debate on something we don't have to take that long to understand. It is pretty clear. One is either for transparency or not, for disclosure or not, and we fought fairly for everyone. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded, and I ask unanimous consent for up to 5 minutes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I know we are getting ready to vote on a very important piece of legislation--the Small Business Job Creation Act--that we have actually been working on now for a year and a half. It is hard to believe that a year and a half has gone by, but it has, despite the extraordinary work that has been done on this bill from the Democratic leadership, from a handful of Republican Senators who stepped up to make this a possibility, and from the administration and Treasury and literally hundreds of organizations that have brought this vote to the floor today. I wish it could have been 6 months ago. I wish it could have been 8 months ago. Every day, every week we have waited to pass this bill has been another tough week for small businesses throughout our country. But this week is a good week for them. They have a bill that they can be proud of, that I believe we can be proud of, and it is overdue that we pass this bill today. I know Members understand the significance of the three major parts of the bill: $12 billion in directed tax cuts; an infusion of resources and strength to the core small business programs in the SBA that we know are effective in stimulating loans to Main Street, that create the jobs that will put this recession in the rearview mirror; and we know the third part of this bill is a very significant and new strategic lending partnership we are establishing with healthy community banks, the 7,000 community banks in every neighborhood--in rural areas, in suburban areas, in all of our States, and in almost every single one of those communities in those States. I thank Chairman Baucus particularly for his help and Senator Reid particularly for his help. I thank Senator Boxer and Senator Cantwell and Senator Merkley. But I also thank Senator Levin, Senator Warner, Senator Stabenow, many members of my Small Business Committee, Senator Shaheen, Senator Murray, Senator Schumer, Senator Lincoln, Senator Hagan, Senator Cardin, Senator Burris, and many others--Senator Sherrod Brown has been down to the floor time and time again. I also thank two colleagues particularly from the other side of the aisle, Senator Voinovich and Senator LeMieux, who listened to their Florida bankers, who listened to their Ohio bankers, who listened to their small businesses in Florida and Ohio and said that this is the kind of bill we need--tax cuts, strengthening of SBA programs, and a smart strategic lending program. I thank Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Gene Sperling and Don Graves, and of course I thank the staff of the Small Business Committee and my staff in particular who did so much work. In addition, I thank the National Small Business Association, Independent Community Bankers, the American Bankers Association, the National Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders, and the hundreds of organizations that helped push and pull this Senate to this vote today. In the last minute I have, I wish to submit two things for the Record that I think need clearing up and amplification. One is a letter from the Chief Economist of the SBA that answers directly a criticism that was published in the Washington Post yesterday about the ``myth'' that small business is not the business that grows jobs in America. The economist was misquoted. This is a letter for the Record specifically outlining that. I think it is worth review today. Second, and more important, a banker from California--and I thank Senator Boxer. I met with a banker from California and from Florida. I am from Louisiana, but they wanted to see me, I wanted to see them, and I met with them. Got a standing ovation. I am very proud, of course, because they said to me: Senator, this may be one of the most significant bills to help get our banks where we need to be to start lending. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator. With access to Tier 1 capital, I believe that the community banks that participate in this program will be able to provide small businesses with the credit they need to grow and hire. Deduction for Health Insurance Coverage

Ms. LANDRIEU. Seacoast is a small bank. It only has $130 million in assets. According to this banker's testimony to me yesterday, he is going to take this bill and all of its provisions, and he believes he can leverage $180 million in SBA loans to small businesses. Based on their record and based on the average SBA loan size of $650,000, this one bank in southern California believes it can make 275 business loans. If this one small bank in South Carolina can take this bill and its provisions and leverage it to 275 good-quality loans in South Carolina, there is hope on the way. This is a real step to putting this recession behind us. I thank the Democratic leadership for making it a possibility. I hope next time a bill like this is brought to the floor of the Senate, it will not take so long; we will not have to jump over the barriers and barricades that were put in front of this bill. So I hope Members on the other side of the aisle will lower those barriers next time because our small businesses cannot wait. Tier 1 Capital Madam President, as one of the two lead sponsors of the Small Business Lending Fund, I am deeply convinced of the ability of this program to provide small businesses with the credit they need to grow and create jobs. As you know, the purpose of this fund is to provide community banks with Tier 1 capital to increase their lending to small businesses, along with incentives for doing so. With up to $30 billion in capital, community banks that participate in the Small Business Lending Fund will be able to support many multiples of that amount in new lending. To allow that to occur, it has always been our intent and our understanding that the bank regulators should treat these investments as Tier 1 capital, in a manner consistent with that accorded to other capital securities issued to Treasury by eligible institutions and in consideration of the strong public interest in promoting lending to small businesses.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, could you acknowledge the vote we are about ready to take?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Parliamentary inquiry: If we get 60 votes, we move forward with the bill; is that correct?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the leader for his kind words, but the fact is we would not have gotten to this point this morning where 61 Senators raised their hands or their voices to vote yes for this important and substantial piece of legislation had it not been for the leadership of Harry Reid. The majority leader knows not only what Nevada needs but what America needs. What America and Nevada both need right now is to get back to work. The entities that are going to put Americans back to work are not found on Wall Street; they are found on Main Street. They are not big businesses; they are small businesses. They are not the businesses that have been around for 50 or 100 or 200 years; they are the businesses that started up last year or that want to start up today. Majority Leader Reid knows and understands that. We would not be here this morning without his leadership. He is right to acknowledge Chairman Baucus. I said he is a long-suffering chairman of the Finance Committee and has also the patience of Job to put up with all he puts up with. Trying to pay for every idea that comes from all 100 of these desks ends up on his desk. They say: You have a great idea, Senator; now we need to pay for it. That is what Max Baucus does every day. I hope people appreciate it, not only in Montana but around the country. He found a way not only to pay for this bill but for it to generate for the taxpayer earnings of $1.1 billion. That is good work. It does not happen here every day, and it would not have happened without Senator Baucus and the many cosponsors Senator Reid pointed out: Senator Boxer, Senator Merkley, Senator Cantwell, Senator Warner, Senator Levin, Senator Lincoln--particularly helpful and supportive. I also want to say this vote today to end debate was the vote on this bill. Make no mistake about it, if 60 or 61 Senators had not said yes this morning, this bill would have gone into this trash can right here not to be seen again. The $12 billion in tax cuts would not be a reality. The substantial improvement of the core small business programs would not be a reality, and the $30 billion lending fund that is going to leverage $300 billion in lending would not be a reality. It would be in the trash can right now. But it is not. It is alive. It is a living bill we are going to pass later today because 61 Senators in this Chamber said yes to the country and no to party politics. Particularly, I wish to point out Senator Voinovich. His statement was so poignant in the paper today or yesterday when he said, or it was reported: I have run across small businesspeople in Ohio who went to 40 banks to try to get a loan, he said, and were turned down every time. This is happening all over America today. Senator Voinovich is a Senator who governs with his heart as well as his head, and he is not led around by the nose like some people here, by their party politics. He said: No, the debate has to come to an end. If you want to debate the George Bush tax cuts, do it on somebody else's back, not on the backs of small businesses in Ohio or Louisiana or Virginia. They have taken too much weight. When Wall Street collapsed because of the their greed and their recklessness and because of our failure to regulate them, do you know who got hurt? Small businesses that did not have anything to do with derivatives or international investment. All these people do every day is wake up before the Sun comes up and they stay up when it is dark and they work hard, sometimes by themselves once they send their workers home, and keep that business going. They did nothing and they deserve help and they are getting it this morning. One more word before I turn it over to my colleague from Virginia. This whole debate this morning was a joke on Johanns. I want to talk about that. If the Republicans were serious about repealing something that needs to be repealed, they would have put an offset on this floor that we could vote for. They knew very few Democrats would vote for a provision that would harm one of the underlying principles of health care reform. So that was all theater--all theater. I have had about enough of it, and I think many Americans have had enough of it as well. Senator Johanns is right that the 1099 section needs to be repealed. He is absolutely correct. It was the wrong thing to do. Even our side acknowledges that. I am going to file a bill right now to take care of it. We are going to repeal 1099. We are not only going to repeal the portion that was put in by health care--which was not done intentionally, but there are sometimes unintended consequences. Anybody around here who thinks they can write perfect pieces of legislation--they cannot. When you do something wrong, you should correct it. We are going to correct it. But in addition, my bill that I am going to file right now is going to repeal the $600 requirement that has been in the law for 62 years, and we are going to raise that threshold to $5,000, clean up the way small businesses have to report, and do something good for small business in America. It is going to be a Landrieu bill. Lots of other people have indicated an interest in the past. It is not theater, it is real. We are going to find a way to pay for it that both sides can agree to. I want to tell the Chamber of Commerce that I know is listening right now: We have heard you. I have heard the NFIB. I have heard small businesses in my State, and I know we made a mistake on this 1099 and we are going to fix it. But it does not have to be fixed this morning. It doesn't even go into effect for a year and a half. Hear me, it doesn't go into effect for a year and a half. We have time to fix 1099. But we don't have 1 minute to wait to send money to small businesses that are putting ``Closed'' signs on their businesses this morning. If the Republican Party thinks they can keep saying no to small business and keep saying no to Main Street and keep saying no to the middle class--they cannot. I hope when we vote on final passage there will be a few more yeses. We have a year and a half to fix 1099. We don't have any more time to help small businesses. I yield the floor for the Senator from Virginia.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia is absolutely correct. He has put his finger on two pending and very serious problems. One is the regulation direction being driven by some of the new legislation we have passed. Of course, he would know this, because as a member of the Banking Committee, he has been such a strong advocate for commonsense regulation and supporting community banks. So he is absolutely correct. And you do have my commitment, through the Small Business Committee, to keep this issue alive and in view so that we can find some appropriate solution. I think the Senator raises an absolutely very key point. The second point the Senator from Virginia has put his finger on is the $2 trillion in capital sitting there. One thing that makes further interest is the zero capital gains rate in this bill, should they take some of that $2 trillion in capital and invest in some small businesses that have a capitalization level below $50 million. That is one thing that could help encourage them. They will pay no tax, none, on the money they earn through that investment, which should be an incentive. But there are some additional things I think we can do. I want to work with the Senator from Virginia because his leadership is very much needed at this time, with his particular background as a successful business person, as a Governor. So the Senator is right, this bill is not a silver bullet. It is a good first step. But there are some other things we need to do as quickly as we can. I look forward to working with the Senator on those two and others in the weeks to come.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time in recess for the caucus luncheons count postcloture.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous conent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 14, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on September 14, 2010, at 2:15 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Rape in the United States: The Chronic Failure to Report and Investigate Rape Cases.''

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I thank both Senators from Ohio and from North Dakota who have been two of the most effective and passionate leaders for ending this recession, creating jobs for the middle class, jobs focused on Main Street as opposed to Wall Street, and because of their leadership, it is starting to happen. The Senator from North Dakota is so right. I do not know what it takes to get some of this good news being heralded by either news reporters or through the many channels open on the Internet for people to understand that actions taken by this Congress, led by Democrats but joined by a few--not many, only a few--Republicans helped to save the domestic auto industry. While those are big businesses--and I am going to talk about small businesses in a minute--the Senator from Ohio is exactly correct when he says the help to save the domestic auto industry was not just about saving big auto, it was about saving the thousands of small suppliers and small businesses that are part of this manufacturing chain. That would have been lost. Everything we have tried has not worked as well, but the things we have put into place are starting to have some benefit and some evidence-based data to support the efforts that have been made. The Senator from Ohio raises one very good example. I would like to talk about something complementary to this issue today. Access to capital equals job creation. The Democratic Congress is leading the effort to pass a bill targeted to the small businesses of America that are truly the engines of economic growth. We know big companies supply many jobs around the world and in our country, whether it is big oil, big insurance, big finance or big auto. Right beneath that surface of all those big names we hear all the time, whether it is General Motors or Goldman Sachs, ExxonMobil, there are millions of small businesses. To be exact, 27 million small businesses in America; 20 million people are self-employed and 7 to 8 million small businesses that hire fewer than 500 people, many of them hiring less than 250 and the majority of them hiring less than 50. Madam President, you are on the Small Business Committee. We do not hear those names the way we should, whether it is Casey Tubing or whether it is Big Al's Sandwich Shop or whether it is Mandina's restaurant in New Orleans, where I just ate last week. That is one of the best restaurants in the world, and I had the privilege of eating there in my hometown. Whether it is the restaurants, small manufacturers or entrepreneurs building different technologies to support the big businesses of the world, now is the time to focus on them. We have done some things--tax cuts, tax credits, and support--over the last year and a half, but the small business bill that is on the floor today, tomorrow, and this week, will, if we can get 60 votes to pass this bill, send a real shot of hope and optimism across the country to build on the successes of the strengthening of the auto industry, to build on the successes of the stabilization of the financial markets, if we can take that next step--investment in infrastructure from the stimulus fund--and now take the next step to provide access to capital, through a very strategic, well-thought-out, and fully funded bill, I might add--which equals job creation. The Members have heard me speak about a particular business. I continue to speak about them because they are a great example of what we are talking about when we say that small businesses with great promise, a great product, and very strong leadership are having difficulty getting access to the capital they need to hire workers and expand. I again use the example of Georgetown Cupcake. I should have brought a box with me to the floor because they are very recognizable. Not only is this a growing, popular, exciting business in the DC area, it also has its own reality television show called DC Cupcakes. The real name of the business is Georgetown Cupcake. It was founded by two sisters who leveraged their entire savings, borrowed here and there to try to start a very interesting and counterintuitive concept to start a cupcake company in the middle of a recession. Who would think it would work? Lines out the door early in the morning, late at night in the sticky heat or the cold of winter. You can go by Georgetown Cupcake and there is a long line. One of the more popular gifts to give when you go to a dinner party now or when you want to acknowledge the good work of a friend is to send them a dozen cupcakes from Georgetown Cupcake. Do you know they went to bank after bank--with lines out the door, with a product that was obviously popular to even the casual observer-- and they were turned down until finally a community bank, Eagle Bank, one of the largest lenders to small business in this region, stepped up and said yes. We need others to start saying yes to small business and that is what our bill does. We need to start saying yes to Main Street. We have done enough saying yes to Wall Street. That is what our bill does. It says yes to Main Street. This bill establishes a $30 billion strategic partnership with healthy community banks, not troubled banks. This bill is not for banks. It is for small businesses. But this bill, in its principle, trusts community banks with their know-how and their understanding of their neighborhoods. This bill recognizes rural communities in America that are starving for capital and says: We want to work in partnership with you. We think that $30 billion, according to the experts who have looked at this bill, will leverage $300 billion in affordable loans and credit to businesses just like Georgetown Cupcake. Today they are hiring--not just the two owners who started it--125 people now work for Georgetown Cupcake, from 2 to 125, with a future without limit based on the product and their model of service. I know in Louisiana and Texas and Mississippi, along the gulf coast, in New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Ohio, there are thousands of small businesses that with just the right partnership with a community bank to get more capital out to Main Street--not Wall Street--combined with $12 billion of tax cuts in this bill--not for big business, not for businesses that take their jobs and their products overseas but for small businesses right here on the main streets in our communities, $12 billion of targeted tax cuts, and, in addition, some strengthening of the core SBA programs that eliminate borrower's fees, increase the guarantee from 75 percent to 95 percent, and also strengthens some of the export provisions, both in the SBA and in the Commerce Department, so we can encourage our small businesses to look other places for their markets, not just in the United States, not just down the street or downtown but look to Beijing, look to other countries around the world for markets. I just had a life-altering trip to Ethiopia, one of the poorer countries in the world, and spent time in the capital and a small town, Batu. Their future also lies in their ability to create the beautiful products we saw and their ability to export to other parts of the world. There are beautiful products and services produced right here in America that could be absolutely used around the world. The opportunity for trade builds friendship but also builds prosperity. It is very difficult for small businesses to go through all the maturations and gyrations of figuring out how to trade in some of these markets. But the Commerce Department and many States have set up technical centers for consultation to small businesses at many of our universities. Our bill funds and supports those efforts. I am very excited about that. I wish to show the export chart. This is where we have the potential for growth. If a consultant came in and looked at America, where are our weak points and where are our strong points, I promise this would be a strength, this would be growth potential. Less than 1 percent of small businesses are exporting. The market is overseas. Yes, we have a strong market in America, but the majority of the market of the world, the purchasing power is not in America, it is outside America. A lot of small businesses want to grow. They not only have to sell their products around their neighborhoods, cities, and in our country, but they have to export. Our bill lays down a marker for exporting. Overall, I have to say it is quite a balanced, well-put-together, well-thought-through bill that has been built with excellent contributions from Republican Senators and from Democratic Senators. We tried to take a lot of people's views as we have shaped this bill. We are now this week very close to passage. Over the break, there were a lot of wonderful articles and editorials written about the bill. I wish to add to the Record an updated letter, dated September 13, from the Independent Community Bankers of America, to say again to the leadership: On behalf of the nearly 5,000 members of the Independent Community Bankers of America, I write to express our strong support for the Small Business Jobs Act (H.R. 5297). . . . And the addition of the small business lending fund in the Senate. I have a list of additional endorsers. One can see, it is hundreds and hundreds of very powerful organizations that absolutely know this is the step we must take now if we want this recovery to reach Main Street, if we want this recovery to be about jobs--which is the whole point. That is why I am so proud of the Senator from Ohio. All you have to do is look into the face of someone who has been offered a job where they know they can save their home, they can send their children to college, they do not have to literally go live with a relative or inquire about a homeless shelter. Middle-class families are shocked with some of the options that are presented to them when they have no hope for a job. A job, that is what the Democratic leadership has been focused on-- jobs for middle-class Americans, jobs for Main Street. We are making our way slowly but surely, and this bill will move us a great distance down that road. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the list of endorsers and the updated letter from the Independent Community Bankers of America. Also, I have another endorsement letter from the executive vice president of congressional relations and public policy for the American Bankers Association, another strong organization. They wanted to reiterate that while many of them cannot support TARP--this organization did not support TARP--they do support this because this is a program for healthy banks, not for troubled banks. This is a strategic partnership with community bankers who know the businesses in their community.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Let me respond to one point. I realize that part of the problem is the way the regulators are coming down a little harder than they probably need to in some instances with our community banks in an effort to prevent the banking system from reaching the excesses reached to cause all of us very serious financial loss and worldwide financial panic. I realize there have to be some adjustments to those regulations. This bill recognizes that. It doesn't address it because we don't have the jurisdiction in our Small Business Committee. That comes out of the Banking Committee. But I believe the members of our committee will very soon send to the Banking Committee a very strongly worded letter based on some of the testimony we have received--and the Presiding Officer has been in many of those meetings--from our bankers, who want to do more, who want to lend to credible, reputable businesspeople, but they say the regulators are coming down too hard on them. So we have to fix that. We also have to focus on the balloon notes coming due on commercial real estate lending in this country, because we have to handle that very deftly or we could see a setback. This bill will not solve all problems, but I promise it will get us on the right road and headed in the right direction. Then with some appropriate modifications on the regulatory side for the community banks, to make sure they are operating with full integrity but that they are also being given the latitude to do what they are supposed to be doing, which is lending affordable credit to businesses, and with some additional other steps, I believe we can have this recession on the run. That is my goal, and I know that is a goal that is shared not only by the President of the United States but by Members of Congress as well, and I hope of many people in the world. We are all working on that as hard as we can. I know some of my other colleagues are going to come and speak about this bill. We will be taking up one amendment on this bill, and it is a very important amendment that needs to get a resolution on the 1099 section of the small business reporting obligations. We need to have some significant changes. I hope we can get that done this week. There are plans underway to have it addressed, and we will be debating that this week on the floor. But whatever the outcome of the arguments about that amendment--because that provision doesn't go into effect until 2012, and it is September 2010 right now--we have some time to work that out. We may work it out this week. We may get the 60 votes on either the Nelson or the Johanns amendment, and the issue will be addressed either completely or partially. But if not, we have time to work that out, and the business community has my commitment to do so. It is very important that this bill be passed this week. I see Senator Merkley and Senator Cantwell on the floor, and I am going to yield time to both of them. They have been leaders on this issue. I will mention that Senator Boxer talked to me a minute ago on the floor. She said to me: Senator, please, let people know that as I traveled through California that was the main topic of conversation; and that she herself went to 15 or 20 small businesses that couldn't wait for this bill to pass because they know there is real help for them. This bill was built for them. It wasn't built for business and small businesses just to get the crumbs that fall from the table. This bill has been built with them in mind. We know they are the engines to get this economy started again. We can't wait to get it passed. We can't wait to get it to the President's desk. We believe it will have an immediate and substantial impact on their ability to hire new workers and to create the kind of economic activity that will lead this country and, frankly, the world out of this very troubling economic time. I yield for the Senator from Oregon, who has not only been a lead supporter but a designer of many of the pieces of this bill, and I can't thank him enough for his tireless efforts on behalf of small business, not just in Oregon but around the country.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to discuss a heart wrenching tragedy that occurred in my home State earlier this week and to acknowledge the heroic efforts of our local first responders. On Monday evening, under sweltering temperatures that had surpassed 100 degrees, two Shreveport families gathered on the banks of the Red River, in Shreveport, LA, to enjoy a picnic. What is normally a routine summer outing for millions of people across America quickly turned into a disaster. Seven teenage children from these two families had wandered off into an unfamiliar part of the river. One of the children stepped off of a sand bar and into deeper, more dangerous water and began to scream for help. The other six children followed in an attempt to rescue the drowning teen. None of the seven children knew how to swim, nor did the adults who were with them. As the seven children struggled for their lives against the treacherous waters of the Red River, witnesses called 911 for help. Teams of first responders from Shreveport and Bossier City were dispatched and arrived on the scene at 6:30 p.m., roughly 10 minutes after the 911 call was made. Dive teams entered the water four at a time in search of the drowning children. Despite the tremendous efforts of the divers, the river's waters claimed the lives of six of the seven children. The lone survivor was rescued by a bystander named Christopher Partlan, before the dive teams could get to the area. At 7:51 p.m., the first of the victim's bodies was recovered from the water. This unthinkable task continued for more than 2 hours before the last of the victims was recovered at 10:02 p.m. At this time, I would like to read the names of the first responders from Shreveport and Bossier City who were dispatched to this tragic accident: Captain John Davis; Fire Engineer Craig Bynog; Firefighter Jared Mourad; Firefighter Chad Alexander; Battalion Chief Tim Thames; and Fire Engineer Jimmy Lockey of the Shreveport Fire Department. Officer Phillip Tucker of the Shreveport Police Department; Fire Driver Chad Arnette of the Bossier City Fire Department; and Christopher Partlan, the bystander who rescued 15-year-old DeKendrix Warner. All these brave men deserve to be recognized for their heroism. First responders in Shreveport and Bossier and in cities and towns across America protect our communities every day. We depend on them during fires, floods and other disasters and they put their lives on the line to save ours. For that, we owe them a debt of honor and gratitude. I would also like once again to send my condolences to the Warner and Stewart families for their tragic loss. I know the Shreveport community will wrap its arms around them and pray for them, comfort them and support them during this difficult time.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I appreciate the chairman yielding me just a few minutes. I wish to associate myself strongly with his remarks and urge our colleagues on this side to vote against the DeMint amendment. The Senator from Montana is absolutely correct. It is a stunt, and it is a very sad stunt. If the Senator from South Carolina is trying to wave the flag of small business to try to convince anybody to vote for his amendment, I wanted to put some things in the Record that might convince them otherwise. This is a recent report that came out from the Tax Policy Center, the Urban Institute, and the Brookings Institution--very well respected. It is dated August 3, 2010. I quote: If the objective-- Which would be the extension of all the Bush tax cuts-- is to help small business, continuing the Bush tax cuts on high-income taxpayers isn't the way to go [because] it would miss 98 percent of small business owners . . . It would miss 98 percent of small business owners. So I beg my colleagues, if you want to have this debate over tax cuts, we can have it at a different time. Please don't wave small business out here. What the Senator from South Carolina will do--the effect of his amendment, according to this very reputable report--would completely miss 98 percent of small businesses in America. They are desperate for help. His amendment misses them by a mile. If we were in target practice today, he wouldn't pass. He wouldn't hit the target for a mile. I have been on this floor for over 2 weeks with dozens of Members on this side begging the Republican Party on that side to do something before we leave to help small business. There is $12 billion of tax cuts directly to them. The Senator from South Carolina voted no. We have $30 billion that will turn into a $300 billion lending program directly to small businesses. Small businesses are the only people who could get it and community banks are the only people who could access it. Did the Senator from South Carolina vote yes or no? He voted no. This is a stunt, and it is a sad stunt. I tell my colleagues, there is a lot at stake. I know my 4 minutes is over, but I wanted to come and strongly urge my colleagues to follow the lead of the chairman and vote no on this sad stunt.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I add my voice in support of coming to closure on this important issue. I thank Senator Dorgan and Senator Lincoln for their extraordinary leadership for the Pigford and Cobell claimants. We are very close to settling a grave injustice that has gone on in two communities, one the Native-American community and the other the African-American community. I surely hope we can find a way forward in the next few hours, before we leave, to get this done; if not, that it would be one of the first orders of business when we return. Explanations have been made beautifully on both sides. I represent 1,000 African-American farmers. I am going to fight for them and advocate for them and continue to bring their cases before this body until we get justice. People in Louisiana generally, of many different races, understand systematic injustice. Talking about oil moneys not coming the way they should, there are many people in Louisiana right now shaking their heads in great sympathy with the stories the Senator from North Dakota shared with us about Native Americans. I support the Pigford settlement. I support the Cobell settlement. I hope we can find the $5 billion, approximately, so that it does not affect the deficit, paid for in a responsible way to end this discrimination and to provide some hope and support to these families. I was proud to send Clarence Hawkins' name to run the USDA in Louisiana, the first African-American administrator to do so, former mayor of Bastrop. The President appointed him at my suggestion. We are making some headway in Louisiana to rectify past injustices. Again, I thank Senators Dorgan and Lincoln for their leadership. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to speak on an issue that is still pending before this body. Unfortunately, it looks as though we will not be able to wrap this up in the next few hours. It looks encouraging that we may be able to take it up immediately when we return in September. Before I speak about that, I compliment Senators Lincoln, Casey, Harkin, and others who have come to the floor in the last few hours but have been working for months, if not years, on the child nutrition bill. It is quite extraordinary that this Chamber at this late hour, because of the work of Senators Lincoln, Harkin, Casey, and others, has decided by unanimous consent to pass a significant and major piece of legislation the Senator from Pennsylvania beautifully described. I compliment all of them for their work. I wish we had been able to do the same thing for the small business bill we have been fighting for, the Small Business Job Creation Act of 2010. We can't seem to get to a point where we can get unanimous consent. So we will have to fight this out a step at a time. We had some significant votes this last week by including a Republican amendment, including in the small business bill a $30 billion lending program. We have potentially other aspects to strengthen it. But the bill is in extremely good shape. I wish to put this up for a visual. I know people will find it hard to believe we could have literally over 100 organizations, extraordinarily strong and powerful bipartisan, conservative, moderate and liberal organizations, supporting small business. It may seem surprising that with all this support, we couldn't pass the bill before we leave. I wish to call out again just a few: The American Hotel and Lodging Association, the American International Automobile Dealers Association, the Associated Builders and Contractors of California, the California Bankers Association, Engineering Contractors, Hispanic Bankers of Texas, National Association of Self-Employed, National Restaurant Association, Recreation Vehicle Industry Association, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. I just listed one-half dozen or a dozen. Members can see we have hundreds of extraordinary organizations that have stepped up to say what I have been saying, what the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, has been saying, what the senior Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, and Senators Boxer and Merkley are saying: We are not going to end this recession until we find a way to get capital and cash in the hands of small business. That will lead the way out of this recession. It is not going to be led by Wall Street. It is going to be led by Main Street. I would like to put up our Main Street sign. Main Street is going to lead the way. There was a beautiful article written by Harold Meyerson. It was dated August 4 in the Washington Post. The article is entitled ``Jobs in the Cards?'' It reads, in part: All things considered, American big business is doing just fine, thank you. Profits, productivity and exports are up. New hires, rehires and wage increases, as I have written, are nowhere to be seen. They're no longer part of the U.S. corporate business plan, in which higher profits are premised on having fewer employees. Sell abroad, cut costs at home-- the global marketplace that American business has created is paying off big-time. Not so for American small business, which inhabits those less rarified realms of the economy in which depressed domestic demand and bottled-up credit remain a mortal threat. The great private-sector trickle-down machine has largely stopped working for small business. He is right. If we don't get small business started up again and focus on them and help them, this recession will never come to an end. Maybe that is what some people on the other side of the aisle want. Maybe they put politics before progress. But this is dangerous, it is wrong, and it is painful. We have to figure out a way. I ask unanimous consent to have the article from which I just quoted printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU. The bill we have put forward, supported by hundreds of organizations, has a way forward. I wish to also include for the Record another editorial by Mr. Richard Neiman of the Wall Street Journal. I submit it again because it is so good. The Journal mistakenly editorialized against this bill, but there are people sending letters to the Wall Street Journal to take a second look. Richard Neiman is one of them. He writes: Unlike TARP, the SBLF would incentivize banks to loan by lowering the dividend rate at which banks must repay the government if the banks meet lending performance metrics. Further, the SBLF removes the TARP stigma that discouraged small banks from participating in government programs that support lending. It is these banks that are the primary source of credit for small businesses which lack the same access to capital markets as large companies. The SBLF is not a sequel to TARP, but it can be a segue toward a stronger future for our nation's small businesses and their employees. I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record another very nice article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal by Ruth Simon, one of their reporters, who outlines a particular story about Pinnacle Bank, which is basically in support of our bill. This is a story about a bank in Florida. It will be in the Record for Members to read.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Finally, I have another article written by Barbra Barrett of the Miami Herald. It reads: The U.S. Senate might leave town this week without finishing up what Democrats had hoped would be a significant political achievement . . . On its face, the legislation would pour billions into a slate of programs to help small business obtain federal microloans, government contracts and export assistance. I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record.