Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. The Senator from Maryland has been on the floor for almost an hour. May he have the next 3 minutes? I see the Senator from Maine who could then speak after him.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I understand the leadership has 5 minutes each, equally divided.

Ms. LANDRIEU. That is fine. Thank you. I would like the minority leader to go ahead. It is his 5 minutes, and I will reserve the last 5.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I would like to respond directly to the minority leader because I wish to make clear that there are no extraneous provisions in this bill other than disaster relief for farmers. The last time I checked, they were small business owners, many of them. They are running a different kind of business. It is not a hardware store, it is not a restaurant--they go out and actually get their food out of the ground. The last time I checked or thought about it, they were small businesses. If the minority leader is suggesting there is not bipartisan support for agricultural disaster relief, I urge him, at his next available opportunity, to file an amendment to repeal it because I think his side would have strong objection to that. That was put in at the request of Senator Lincoln and Senator Chambliss from Georgia, and he very well knows that--through the Chair to the minority leader. There were only two arguments made this morning against this bill because it was just a political advertisement that the minority leader outlined, so I will not even respond to him, to the Senator from Kentucky, but I will respond, in closing, to Senator Snowe and Senator Hatch. Mr. Hatch came to the floor, the Senator from Utah, and said we couldn't possibly pass a $12 billion tax cut for small business today unless we could, as a Senate, in the next few hours, make final decisions on whether to extend the entire tax package passed by George Bush when he was President 8 years ago. I think that is a big lift for the Small Business Committee. We want to give $12 billion of tax cuts today. I hope people will vote for them. Second and finally, Senator Snowe does deserve the last reference on this because she is an outstanding Senator, one of the finest I have ever worked with, but this issue is a public debate between those of us who support the Small Business Lending Fund and those who do not. She does not support it. She has made excellent arguments. Her arguments are given merit. We voted on it, but we got 60 votes. Senator Reid, I know, has the last minute and he has been outstanding in this, but, please, there are only two legitimate arguments. We cannot solve extension of all the tax cuts in the next 2 hours. Our small businesses have picked up enough weight. They cannot handle that weight. If we don't give them some help now, today, many of them are not going to be here, I want the Senator from Kentucky to know, when we show up in September. I yield the last minute to the leader.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, we have had a very enlightening debate this morning on the floor that started at 9:30. It has been continuing until now. The good news about this debate is that although we did not win on this vote--cloture was not invoked--Main Street is still winning and we are alive. We are still standing. Earlier this morning, the two leaders came to the floor and said--basically agreed--that if we can have a few more amendments, what I heard the minority leader say, the Senator from Kentucky--the minority leader said a few more amendments, we could then bring some help to Main Street. Main Street has been waiting for a year and a half. We have had bill after bill, amendment after amendment. What I heard this morning from the minority leader was very positive. He said: All we need is just a few more amendments. I asked what ``a few'' was. Was that two or three or four or five? That answer never came. I am assuming that ``a few'' is a few, and if we work hard over the next few hours and come up with a few, Main Street could win because this bill is about Main Street and businesses on Main Street. It is not about Wall Street. It is not about big banks. It is about small community banks and the small businesses in our country that are desperate for help. This bill has $12 billion in tax cuts for small business, not big business. This bill has a $30 billion lending program that is voluntary, with no restrictions for small banks, not big banks. This bill is supported by over 70 organizations. I would like my colleagues on the other side to know that the chamber of commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business are supporting this bill. Chambers and community bankers all over America are supporting this bill. And we are two votes from passage.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I very much would like to yield to the Senator from California for a question.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I would like to answer the Senator from California by saying the record will speak for itself because that vote we just took, there were 59 Senators, all on this side of the aisle, who pushed a green light, and there were 41 on the other side who pushed a red light. So it is very clear who is trying to move forward and who is trying to stop this bill. It is very clear. I don't think there is anyone, even in the press, confused about that because this debate, amazingly, has been so open. So much of it has gone on on the Senate floor that they can actually follow it. These deals are not being done in back rooms; they are being done right here on the Senate floor, and they are following it. They know there are 70 organizations, and they know this bill is bipartisan. I am just going to read the names, not the provisions, that the Senator was asking about: Landrieu-Snowe, Snowe-Landrieu, Snowe- Merkley-Landrieu-Crapo-Risch, Snowe-Landrieu, Landrieu-Nelson, Snowe- Pryor. And let's continue: Kerry-Snowe-Menendez, Merkley-Alexander, Snowe, Bingaman-Hatch-Landrieu-Grassley, Baucus-Grassley-Brownback-Inhofe- Johanns-Menendez, Baucus-Grassley-Crapo, Kerry-Ensign--there are 72 cosponsors that Senators Kerry and Ensign put on this bill--Snowe, Grassley. For the ranking member to come and suggest that there are not enough bipartisan amendments, let me continue. There are more: There is LeMieux-Landrieu, Nelson is on this one, LeMieux-Landrieu-Nelson- Klobuchar. This bill came out of the Finance Committee and the Small Business Committee with bipartisan support. One of the things we couldn't agree on was the Small Business Lending Fund. I understand the rules; I have been around here 14 years. So we had a vote on it. You know what. It got 60 votes. The Small Business Lending Program got 60 votes on the floor of the Senate after it passed the House of Representatives. When I was in school, I learned that once a bill was passed, it comes to the Senate, they pass it, and it goes to the President for signature. Maybe there are some people who don't want that provision to go to the President for signature. I understand that. But we got 60 votes on the bill, as the Senator from California knows. So here we are. The other side is very good about hiding behind pages. They bring out these big pages of bills and they say: We don't know what is in it, and we can't tell. So I sent the four pages in my hand to all the press organizations today. It is just four pages. Anyone can read this. They are on my Web site and lots of other Web sites. There are just four pages. That is all that is in the bill--all small business items. There was an agricultural provision that was in the bill that I actually support. Senator Lincoln put it in the bill, along with Senator Chambliss. But you heard the minority leader say this morning that he didn't think farmers were small businesspeople. I will let him explain that to the farmers in Kentucky. But he said he did not think the provision for the farmers had anything to do with small business. Maybe he hasn't been in a seed store lately, or maybe he hasn't been where people purchase hay and supplies. Maybe he hasn't been to a John Deere dealership, but they sure are all over Louisiana and Arkansas.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield for a question.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Absolutely, the Senator is correct. I am glad I have this chart to answer her question because she has been representing the State of California beautifully for so many years. She knows this without me showing it, but 81 percent of the jobs lost in America are from small business. So when the other side complains and complains and just flaps and flaps and flaps all day long about it is a jobless recovery, we have a bill on the floor to create jobs from small business and they say no. That vote today was a ``no'' vote to give help to small business. They can color it, paint it any way they want. That is what it was. We know this recovery is having a hard time with jobs. I am going to yield in a minute because there are eight other Senators on the floor who want to speak on different subjects, so I will conclude with this. This isn't Mary Landrieu information. This comes from the monthly national employment reports from 2008 to 2010--the job losses with small business. That crew over there on the other side of that aisle can't run fast enough to help big business, to help Wall Street. But when it comes to voting to help small businesses that are bleeding jobs, they want to run and hide off the floor. The minority leader said a few amendments. I would like to know how many is a few? Is it three, is it four, is it five, is it six? Let's get a deal done today. I would just as soon do it here, out in the open, but I guess that is not the way things are done here. So I will yield the floor and let other Senators speak about judges and other things that have to be done because there are other problems in the world. This isn't the only one. This is a big one, but it is not the only one. I will end with this sign because this is what this debate is about. It is about Main Street. You are either for it or you are against it. It is about as simple as that. When I became chair of this committee, I said: We are going to fight hard for small business, and I asked the chamber the other day: How many of your members are small businesses? They said: Senator, you would be surprised. It is 96 percent of the members of the chamber. I asked: Are you all standing up for this bill? They said: Yes, we are. So I thank the chamber and I thank the NFIB. I feel like I am Alice in Wonderland. Most of the time they are on that side, but this time they are on our side, and we can't get the Republicans to vote. Finally, the Senator from Utah came to give a feeble argument this morning. He said he could not vote for it because we haven't debated the entire extent of the Bush tax cuts. That is a big debate that we need to have, but we don't have to have it on this bill. These people can't take any more waiting. They have had enough. We can handle that debate on another day, on another bill, but not on this one. So I would suggest to the Senator from Utah that he has quite a few amendments on this bill, and of the few amendments we might have, he may have two.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I will yield.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I am going to speak for some time and try and reengage this debate. We had an excellent debate this morning between 9:30 and 12:30 trying to find a way forward on a very important bill, the small business bill. This is the Main Street bill we have been working on. As you know, Madam President--you are a member of the Small Business Committee--we have been working in good faith up until the last few hours. It has been a good effort on both sides. I am hoping in potentially the next few hours we can work through this because we are extremely close on a very important bill for small businesses in America and for Main Street. I wanted to come to the floor to clarify a few things. Many people are following this debate. They heard the minority leader say that he was upset and some of the Republican Members were upset that they had not quite gotten amendments on this bill. That is a charge that needs an answer. I want to go over, again, this bill and point out how many amendments are already included in the underlying bill that were offered by the other side, by Republican Senators. I had in the last few hours several of my Members on the Democratic side say to me: Gee, Mary, I didn't realize there was so much in the bill and how good the bill was, but I didn't understand how many Republican provisions are in this bill. I want to take a minute, because the minority leader has made a charge that Democrats have been heavyhanded--it does not sit well with many of us who have a fairly light glove here. I don't think anybody watching this debate over the last couple of weeks, or even as it has gone through the iterations of the past year, can say we are trying to have a heavy hand. We are trying to get a bill that is important to the 27 million small businesses closed, finished, and delivered to them. The fact is, the longer we stay here without coming to some terms, the harder and harder that gets. As the 70 organizations that support this bill most certainly understand, there is a risk because not every bill that every Member can think of is going to pass in this Congress, but they are going to think this is a bill that has a lot of support, which it does, and they are going to think: This bill is going to get passed, so I am going to add my amendment, I am going to add my amendment, I am going to add my amendment. If we do not hurry up and get this done--you can kill a bill in a lot of ways. One way you can kill it is put too many amendments on it and it is too heavy to carry itself. The small businesses do not deserve that. I said 100 times on this floor, they are already carrying a heavy load. They are carrying more regulations. They are carrying a weakened economy. They are having to lay off employees, and in a small business, it is like laying off family because these businesses are having to say goodbye and hand pink slips to people they literally know well and love. It is hard to fire anyone but particularly upfront, close, and personal, like this is happening. I want to put up one chart--the lost business chart--to make this point. I know that Members are clear, but this is according to the National Employment Reports. This is jobs lost by firm size. Small businesses, which are defined by businesses 500 or less--that is the official definition: 81 percent of the job loss has been absorbed by small businesses. They have laid off people. When people ask the question, How do we get this recovery engaged, how do we make this recovery successful, how do we get jobs attached to the recovery as opposed to just money--we know the big businesses have money. They are sitting on it. It has been widely reported. We know Wall Street has money because they just paid $1.8 billion in bonuses to top executives, the money we gave them. We know they have it. The people who do not have the money are the small businesses. That is what this bill is for, to help them in many different ways, voluntarily lay out some things they can choose. This is not government telling them what to do. They can choose. They can choose to take part of the $12 billion tax cuts we are providing them. They can file for those tax cuts. If they want to, they can get the tax cuts. They can apply for the lending program. Eighty-one percent of the jobs are lost by small businesses. If we want jobs, I suggest we focus on small business. That is what this bill is. For a year and a half, we have been pulling this bill together. I want to go over how many Republican provisions are in this bill. I do not want my Democratic colleagues to get upset. I am taking some risk because they could come to me and say there are more Republican proposals in this bill than Democratic proposals. But we tried to be very fair. Again, the 7(a) loans, an increase to $5 million, was a Landrieu- Snowe provision; small business trade export was a Snowe-Landrieu provision; small business contracting was Snowe and Merkley, Crapo and Risch; small business management counseling, Senator Snowe took the lead on that amendment; Senators Snowe and Pryor took the lead on small business regulation relief; Senators Kerry, Snowe, and Menendez, the 100-percent exclusion. You pay no capital gains. People on that side are talking about reducing capital gains from 20 percent or 15 percent. They are arguing it should not go up to 20 percent. This is 100 percent, zero capital gains. If you invest in a small business in America, you will pay zero capital gains. Zero. This is a bipartisan amendment. Merkley and Lamar Alexander, a leader on the Republican side, the increased deduction for small business expenditures; another Republican amendment, the Snowe amendment, extension of section 179; another bipartisan amendment, Senator Hatch, Senator Grassley, Senator Inhofe, Senator Johanns, Senator Brownback. These are Republican Senators. For the minority leader to say this bill has not had Republican input, this is the red line. I put down all of the sponsors of the amendment so that the press and the groups that are following this debate can see. This is probably the most bipartisan bill we have taken up on this floor in the last Congress and maybe in a long time, maybe a decade. The leader would come to the floor and say: That is in the underlying bill, Senator. What we are talking about is amendments on the floor. I will go through a few Republican amendments that were put in on the floor. The first bill the majority leader laid down was a bill that included the lending fund. Senator Snowe and others objected. A Republican objection was laid against that bill, so the lending fund was taken out. That was a Republican amendment. They were against the lending fund. It was taken out. We had to fight to put it back in. Then Senators Snowe, Grassley, Enzi, Isakson, and Collins filed amendment No. 4483 which adds the SBA Recovery Act extenders to the bill. That was not in the bill. I think these are Republican Senators-- Republicans Snowe, Grassley, Enzi, and Isakson. The last time I checked, they were Republicans. This is another amendment they got in the bill. Then Senators Thune, Johanns, Coburn, Inhofe, and filed amendment No. 4453 to strip out the Small Business Lending Fund. That was agreed to. We have been fighting over this Small Business Lending Fund. They want to strip it out. We are putting it back in with support from two Republicans, maybe more as this debate goes on. We have two now. We won that. Then comes the substitute, the second one, with the SBA extenders in it and the lending fund is out. That is at least two or three amendments, in addition to the underlying amendments, that Republicans put in this bill, both in the Finance Committee and the Small Business Committee. I hope no one tries to tell a reporter, either in Washington or back home--because reporters are smart. They need to be listening, and I think they are. I hope no reporter takes the line: Oh, well, the Democrats were heavyhanded. They offered us no amendments, so we could not possibly vote for the small business bill. We are clear that there are many Republican amendments in the underlying bill. We have made clear in the Record that to get us to this point, there have been any number of Republican amendments either accepted or voted in or voted out. I have not mentioned one Democratic amendment yet. I am thinking we are doing fine. We are not being heavyhanded. We are going right along. We have an open vote, 12-hour debate on the Small Business Lending Fund, and we win with 60 votes. It is back in the bill because it is the right thing to do. I know some people are opposed to it, but we have 70 organizations, including the Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, Small Business Majority, manufacturers, heating and air conditioning--all sorts of organizations. I submitted for the Record several times this long and impressive list. In addition, we have the Community Bankers Association of Alabama, the community bankers of Georgia, the community bankers of Illinois, the community bankers of Kansas, the community bankers of Ohio, the community bankers of Iowa--I could go on and on; the Independent Bankers of America, the International Automobile Dealers. I don't know how many other groups we can have to step up and say: This is the right thing to do. The Travel Goods Association, the Tennessee Bankers Association, the Virginia Association of Community Banks, National RV Retailers Association, Nebraska Independent Community Bankers. They are for this lending program. They have been sitting on the sidelines watching us give money to big banks, bailing out Wall Street, bailing out big car manufacturers in Michigan. These small banks are sitting out there saying to us: Don't you know we are out here, 8,000 of us? We are ready to do our job, roll up our sleeves, be a partner with you, and go to work getting capital to small businesses so we can have a job-filled recovery instead of a jobless recovery. We want a job-filled recovery. This is not about this recovery making a few fat cats richer. This is about making the middle class stronger. It is about creating jobs and hope and opportunity for the broad middle class. I do not want to be part of a recovery that does not include that. It is not worth it. So we created a fund that works with our community bankers and we still can't get the Republican side to step to the plate and say it is time to close this debate. We have had a year and a half to talk and to think, and that is what the vote was this morning. Every Democrat, I am extremely proud to say, voted to say yes to Main Street. They gave a green light to go forward. Every single Republican in this Chamber voted no against Main Street this morning, which is why I am here, to try to pull up the shades here a little bit and shed some light, under the guise that they weren't given enough amendments. If I give them any more amendments, I am going to get in trouble with the Democrats because I am the Democratic chair of the committee. I have given more amendments to the Republicans than I have given to my own side. After a while, it is hard to convince our side, and my Democratic colleagues have been so good. I have 10 Democrats who are dying to offer amendments on this bill--and some of them are relevant to the underlying bill--but they know the more time that passes the less likely it is we will get this bill passed, and they know how important it is. I wish to say another thing about this, and hopefully the last about this amendment situation, unless the minority leader says something else--and he might this afternoon about amendments. I have in front of me, and every reporter also has this, the unanimous consent agreement from last night. Senator Reid offered four amendments--Baucus, Murray, another Baucus, and then another Reid amendment. Four. Senator McConnell reserved his right to object and he did object and then he offered eight. So that is where we are. We offered four, they offered eight. You would think, in the next few hours, that somebody could figure out around here how to split this baby and do six and get it done. I am hoping that is what we can do. We are running out of options. If six is too many, maybe we could agree to have no amendments, because we already have so many, and pass this good bill that is already right here on the floor. I mean, we do have a good bill already that has Republican and Democratic amendments in it. So the Democrats have offered four, the Republicans have offered eight. Some of them are directly germane and some are indirect. It gets a little confusing sometimes about what is direct and indirect. I am not confused about farmers, but the Senator from Kentucky said today he doesn't think farmers are small businesses. I think there are a lot of Senators who disagree with that. They do think farmers work hard, and many of them are small business owners and operate small operations. I think most people understand that those disaster payments that go to farmers don't stay in their pockets that long. They go to pay out all sorts of vendors--seed companies, to pay down their tractor or their equipment bill. I think people understand, even though it has the title ``disaster aid,'' it actually is a small business issue. I heard the majority leader say that if the Republican leader objected so much to that, even though Senator Lincoln worked so hard to put it in, we would take that out of this bill and find another way to do that. But that didn't seem to be enough either. So I am going to say again that I am so proud of the Senators who have worked hard on this bill--Senator Merkley, Senator Cantwell, Senator Murray, Senator Boxer, Senator Schumer--and Senator Durbin has been down to the floor--both Senators from Florida. I am hoping Senator LeMieux will do his very best and I know he is continuing to work through the afternoon to talk with his leadership, to say: Look, there are dozens of amendments already in the bill. The only amendments that have been offered on the bill to date have been Republican amendments, either Republican amendments by Senator Snowe to take things out or put things in or an amendment by Senator LeMieux to put the lending fund in, the only amendments. The amendment Senator Lincoln put in the bill, without a vote, we offered to take that out to try to move this forward. So I hope reporters here and around the country will not allow a Republican Senator to say they just couldn't get to the small business bill because Democrats would not let them have amendments. The question is, Do they want to get to a small business bill or do they want to just continue to support big business, big corporations, and Wall Street? That is the question. Do they want to get to Main Street? Do they want to help Main Street? They have to show that by their votes--not just by their words but by their votes. In this business it is not words, it is actions that matter, and the only action we have is them voting no. No. I am trying to help them say yes. I know they want to say no. That is what they think they should say to America: No on this, no on that. I don't think Americans want to hear no when it comes to help for small business. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. I think they want to hear yes. So let's find a way. I am asking my colleagues on the other side to look at their list of amendments again and see if there is some way between the numbers of two and four and eight we can find a way to move forward to help Main Street businesses. Just so people understand, again, this bill that is pending before the Senate--and I see the Senator from Michigan is here. I am hoping he wants to speak a minute about the provision he has. I am thinking in a minute we may have some word--I know the leadership is talking, and perhaps sometime in the next hour or so we may have something that has come together. But I hope the Members are focusing on the importance of this bill for creating jobs in America today, and that is what people want. That is what we should have been focused on. We have tried, in many different ways, through many different bills, but this bill has $10 billion in tax cuts to small businesses--not to the big businesses, not to Wall Street but to small businesses. It has so many helpful provisions, through the Small Business Administration, to give small businesses the support they need.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I would be delighted to yield for a question.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Well, through the Chair, I thank the Senator from Michigan because he is absolutely right. This is the wrong bill to filibuster. I mean, you may get political points by filibustering other issues, but to filibuster a small business bill, to filibuster a Main Street bill is not the way forward. Again, I cannot stand here and allow any Member of the other side to say there haven't been Republican amendments that have been accepted, offered. We have done everything to the point where there are almost more Republican provisions than there are Democratic provisions in the bill, which is completely paid for and provides a $12 billion tax cut today. I see the majority leader, and I will yield the floor in just 30 seconds, but I wish to repeat one thing that is worth repeating. The Senator from Michigan was a cosponsor of this. For 10 years, independent entrepreneurs, sole entrepreneurs--and there are 20 million of them in America--have begged and pleaded to be on the same parity with big corporations so they could get a little bit of a break on their health insurance. This is a big issue for 20 million Americans. You know where it is? In this bill. Two billion dollars will leave the Federal Treasury and go into the pockets of every independent entrepreneur in America, and that side is standing in the way of that. I hope the reporters are following this carefully because the details are important. I thank the Senator from Michigan, and I see the majority leader on the floor. I think he may have a word or two to say. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my two outstanding colleagues on the floor tonight to continue to talk about this extremely important bill. I follow up on what the Senator from Michigan said about the Senator from Washington State. There are only a handful of Senators in this Chamber who have actually built a business, a small business--it was when it started--and then of course it was an extremely successful larger business in the State of Washington State, and then it went national. So she knows about what she speaks, the details of how a business needs to be built. You cannot build it without access to affordable capital. Our businesses, some of them that are lucky enough to have something, are paying exorbitant interest rates on their credit cards. Some of them have watched their lines of credit evaporate, so they have to scramble to go get high-cost--it is hard to run a small business if you are paying 10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent or 50 percent on the money you are borrowing to run your business. You know you have to get affordable capital. That is what small businesses need. That is what they do not have. Members on the other side of the aisle could not run fast enough to bail out big banks on Wall Street, but they are walking at a snail's pace to get small business help on Main Street, and it is a shame. But these headlines today say it all: ``GOP Filibusters Small Business Bill After Criticising Dems For Delay,'' ``Senate Republicans Block Small-Business Lending Measure,'' ``GOP blocks small business bill,'' ``Republicans block Senate vote on small business,'' ``Republicans block small business lending bill.'' The New York Times article today is actually pretty devastating. I would think if anybody bothered to read the top two paragraphs--I am going to ask my staff to get that to me in just a second, and I am going to read it into the Record. It goes on and on and on. I think that this debate has shown that we actually brought a bipartisan bill to the floor, that has been worked on openly in public all year or longer, in two committees, Finance and Small Business. As I said earlier today, and I put the red-line chart up, which I will put up in just a minute, this chart that we sent out to many people today showed every provision of the bill and who suggested that provision. As you can see, there are many Republican names listed here--Senator Snowe, Senator Crapo, Senator Risch, Senator Snowe again. Senator Grassley is on here. Senator Hatch is on here--because this bill was built with some of the best ideas from these committees over a long period of time. This is not a little bill. It is not a technical bill. It is not a bill that you pass and nobody knows you passed it because it does not do anything. This bill does some great things that we have needed to do for a long time. That is why we are fighting so hard. That is why we are not going to give up, and we cannot wait much longer. As Senator Cantwell said, it is heartbreaking for small businesses that had nothing to do with the Wall Street meltdown. They never owned a derivative. They never heard of the word ``derivative.'' They never heard of the word ``swap.'' All they were doing was serving pancakes in their diner day after day. All they were doing was selling hardware equipment so their neighbors could build or repair their houses. They never heard the word ``derivative.'' Then a couple things happened. They started seeing some very scary headlines. All of a sudden, the entire world economy was at risk, and they are standing there saying: Wait a minute, what did I do? I have been doing the same business. I am not a millionaire, but I am happy, I take care of my employees, I am bringing home a nice paycheck, I am building my business, and the floor fell out from underneath them through no fault of their own. This Congress has scrambled and scrambled and could not run fast enough to go help the big businesses and the executives. Sometimes I read in the paper what they make and I sit there and I almost want to cry, not because I am jealous of what they make in that way, but I think to myself, how does it feel to be struggling in a business and you--I have had letters from people who said: Senator, I stopped paying myself completely. That is what business owners are doing right now. They have stopped paying themselves completely, and I have to wake every morning and read about big company executives who are complaining because their take-home salary is $20 million a year or $200 million a year. I mean, think about that, $20 million, $200 million a year. We have business owners, 27 million small business owners, and many of them right now--because as Senator Cantwell said, this catastrophe did not start just 2 months ago--who have been holding on. I think about them at night. I see them. I think they are holding on with just their bare knuckles, by the remaining strength they have. They are not making any money. So the article today says--and they have gotten it right. This is dozens of articles: Senate Republicans on Thursday rejected a bill to aid small business with expanded loan programs and tax breaks, a procedural blockade that underscored how fiercly determined the party's leaders are to deny Democrats any further legislative accomplishments before November's midterm elections. This is a small business measure championed by myself and others and has the backing of some of the Republican party's most reliable allies in the business world, including the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business. Several Republican lawmakers, the article says, helped to write the bill. But Republican leaders filibustered. As the Senator from Michigan said, this is unprecedented. I do not know if the Senator from Michigan has that chart, but I would like to ask her to show it again, if you could hold it up or let me take it here because it is unprecedented in the number of noes and filibusters. I think this is a no that might have been said, but we need to find a way to say yes. I know a no was said, but we have to find a way to say yes. So that is what we are going to be doing tonight, tomorrow, through the weekend. I wish to say how much I appreciate the 70, now over 100, organizations that are supporting this bill. I know the NFIB has said, and I wish to be very clear, they want the bill. They also would like a few amendments. But they did not say they wanted 100 amendments. They did not say they wanted 50 amendments. We are now sort of down somewhere between one and four. That is better than 8 or 12 or 10. We are somewhere between one and four. If we can just keep narrowing it and try to be as fair as we can, we can deliver for the American people and share this wonderful victory, and I mean that. Share it. This is not a Democratic victory. It will not be a Republican victory. It will be a victory for our constituents and for the 27 million small businesses in America that are waiting for someone to stand and help them, cheer for them, and encourage them. That is what we are trying to do. I appreciate the support the President himself has given. He has been leading. He has been saying, as he is trying to work our way out of this recession--and I have not agreed with every single thing, of course, and no Senator does with any President, but I think this President has said that he understands the recession will be over when small businesses start to hire because big businesses are not going to. They basically say that in their reports. They are holding their capital. The big banks are holding their capital. It is going to be the small businesses that create the jobs. It is where the jobs were lost. I am going to show this chart again. This is from the monthly National Employment Report: Small business, 81 percent of the jobs lost were lost by small businesses. So it makes common sense that if it was the small businesses that lost the jobs in a recession, as I said, they were not in the back when they were making the ``donuts,'' they were not trading on derivatives. They did not have anything to do with that. But they got caught up in a terrible financial collapse because of greed and poor regulations and all sorts of shady dealings, and they did not have anything to do with it. But they lost the jobs. So in order to get this recovery moving and get jobs in the recovery, so it is not a jobless recovery but a job-filled recovery, we have to focus on small business. My ranking member, Senator Snowe, has worked very hard on many provisions of this bill. She has been a remarkable champion for small business. Max Baucus, every time we have sent him a couple things we want to do, you know what his job is? It is to find a way to pay for it. He has a thankless job around here. I want everyone to know. He has probably the toughest job in this entire place because everything everyone wants to do, everything, we have to find a way to pay for it. You know the guy who tries to find that is Max Baucus. I have given him page after page, amendment after amendment. He has been so gracious. Every time we say: We need this amendment paid for, Max, can we find a way to pay for it, he goes to work. But we are getting exhausted through this process, but we are going to continue to fight. Senator Baucus has found amazing ways to pay for these amendments because we are not going to add to the deficit anymore. Those days are over. We are going to pay for this bill. This bill has tremendous possibilities to actually make a lot of money. One program will actually earn $1.1 billion, it was so smartly put together. Then we understand that if more people are hired, of course, they will pay taxes, and that money will come back to local government and State government and that will be a big help to everyone, to try to get us out of our deficit situation. I see one or two other Senators on the floor. I see the Senator from Pennsylvania. My time has expired under the 10-minute morning business order. But I wish to thank the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Pennsylvania for their support. I am going to be working over the weekend with Members of both sides of the aisle. I am going to be working with both sides of the aisle over the weekend, through tonight, tomorrow, be in touch with both leaders, and continue to work with Senator LeMieux and Senator Voinovich, who were the two Republicans who gave us a vote on the lending program, and see what we can do to narrow it down from four to potentially one, have a great vote, and claim victory for the small businesses of America. We all share a great victory and can be proud of the work we have done over the last year and a half. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Well, I hope not. I wish to answer the question. I hope not. But we are very close because this bill, as the Senator knows, came to the floor because he helped to draft certain provisions of this from two committees with bipartisan support. Our leader, Senator Reid, has bent over backwards. When Republicans objected, he basically sort of took some things out of the bill to put on the floor in hopes--didn't even make anybody vote on it, against my objections, and then we started a debate. Then it just sort of shut down after we got that lending program back on. We have to open it again. We have to find a way forward because that lending program is extremely important. The Senator was a cosponsor of that. We have to find a way forward. I think I heard tonight on the Senate floor--I think I heard--that we are somewhere between one and four amendments. So as we work over the weekend, I am hoping we can find a way to say yes because the Senator knows, representing Florida, it is a whole State full of small businesses. The Senator knows more than any Senator here how many businesses are hurting in Florida. Our whole gulf coast has been under tremendous strain over many issues the last couple of years. So I thank the Senator. I am just responding to his question to say I hope we are not at the point of no return. But we are close. If we can salvage this bill and move forward and do the right thing for small business, I think we can all be proud of that work.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Florida. I am going to speak another 4 minutes. I know staff is tired and we are going to wrap up soon. I wanted to end with a comment from another small business in Metairie, LA, which is right outside of New Orleans. This is a small business owner, Patti Martinez, a lifelong resident of New Orleans, who opened her business in March 2009. I am sure she thinks about that decision every day, thinking: Maybe I should have opened a couple of years earlier or waited. But she didn't know all the derivatives on Wall Street would blow up. She opened her business in March 2009. She has three children, so the idea is she waited for 10 years--there are a lot of moms out there who have small kids at home. Frank and I have raised our children while I have been in the Senate. He works, too. We know how difficult that is. I know a lot of moms dream for a long time about what they would do if they had some time. Patti waited 10 years and then opened her business--lucky her--in March 2009. She said: I have 15 employees; they are part time. Our little business has taken off beautifully. We host birthday parties, holiday parties, and sock hops. I recently hosted a 50th birthday party. She is explaining that her business is going on. She said: Everyone, once inside our facility, loves our business and comes back again [even in these difficult times]. We ran one commercial on Channel 4 for a week and our bookings quadrupled. One commercial on Channel 4, which is our big station, for a week and her bookings quadrupled. If I had additional funds for advertising, video games, and maybe one more employee, our business would really take off. This is the story of the recovery. This is the story of the end of this recession. If we don't have more business owners like Patti Martinez who will hire that one more person, this recovery is never going to happen. Don't take my word for that. Go look up all of the journals, the scientific journals, and all of the economic studies. You can go to the fancy schools--Harvard, MIT--and look and they say that. It is not just what I am saying. Big business isn't going to hire. Small business is going to hire--the Patti Martinezes of the world. She ran one commercial and her business quadrupled. Couldn't we give her a loan so she can run maybe two or three commercials? She is not paying herself any bonus, I can promise you that. I am going to end with a letter we received today from the National Restaurant Association, representing 945,000 restaurants across the United States. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Well, the Senator is exactly right, but a better question is why would the minority leader insist on voting on an amendment we have already voted on three times. That is even a more interesting question. We have already voted on the Sessions-McCaskill amendment three times. The Senator knows some people work for 10 years on amendments and never get a vote on the floor of the Senate. That amendment has had three chances--not one, not two, but three--and now we have to give them a fourth vote on the floor of the Senate. That is not anything to do with small business; that is a message. It sends a terrible message. It says we are looking for bumper stickers and slogans as opposed to bills. I will say that again. Some people work around here for 10 years and can't get their amendment one vote on the floor of the Senate, and the Sessions-McCaskill amendment, in this case, because the minority leader has thrown it out there, we have voted this year three times already on that amendment. I don't think we need to vote on it again. We surely don't need it for this bill. It has nothing to do with spending caps. It has to do with sending money to community banks because they know the businesses that might be able to hire people, to create jobs, to lead us out of the recession. That is all this bill is mainly about.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Exactly. I mean, I don't know how you explain to teenagers. There really is no explanation. I think it is shameful and we need to fix it. The Senator should know that is what we are trying to do. Again, I don't know what we can do about those bonuses. That is a subject for another committee. I am concerned and the Senator is as well. Maybe we can find a way. The BP writeoff--there will be a tremendous amount of criticism, and perhaps there are some legal grounds for us not allowing them to do that. It is inexplicable to people who are trying to run a small business and they see us having worked for a year and a half, and all that is going on and we still cannot seem to move this bill forward to the House for negotiation and then to the President's desk as quickly as possible.

Ms. LANDRIEU. In part, it says: We also support the LeMieux-Landrieu Amendment incorporated into the bill, which would establish a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund. . . . As the nation's fragile economic recovery continues, households are still holding back on spending and, as a result, many restaurant operators are continuing to struggle. Expanding access to capital will help restaurant operators make necessary investments, hire and retain workers, and, in certain cases, keep their doors open. The restaurants in my State are having a particularly difficult time because they don't have capital. Now they don't have any seafood to sell. If we keep going much longer, they are not going to have any customers even if I could give them capital and seafood, because people don't think they should come to the gulf now. That is a whole other subject. Tonight, we can loosen up some of this capital through bankers that they know--they worship with them in church, they worship with them in synagogues; they know them. The bankers know them. If we can help small community banks, maybe--just maybe--and some of these credit unions-- maybe some of the money we shower on Wall Street--maybe we could give a little bit of rain out there to middle America and get this recession over. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the National Urban League on celebrating 100 years of enabling African Americans to secure economic self-reliance, parity, power, and civil rights. The National Urban League is a historic civil rights organization dedicated to economic empowerment in order to elevate the standard of living in historically underserved urban communities. Founded in 1910 and headquartered in New York City, the National Urban League spearheads the efforts of its local affiliates through the development of programs, public policy research, and advocacy. Today, there are more than 100 local affiliates in 36 States and the District of Columbia, providing direct services that impact and improve the lives of more than 2 million people nationwide. This week, some of the Nation's foremost power brokers, celebrities, corporate leaders, and activists are convening at the Washington Convention Center in the Nation's Capital to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the National Urban League. The Centennial Conference marks the completion of the first century of leadership and service and now prepare for a new civil rights strategy to meet the new challenges to equal opportunity in America. The National Urban League employs a five-point approach to provide economic empowerment, educational opportunities, and the guarantee of civil rights for African Americans: education and youth empowerment, which ensures the education of all children by providing access to early childhood literacy, aftercare programs and college scholarships; economic empowerment, which invests in the financial literacy and employability of adults through job training, home ownership, and entrepreneurship; health and quality of life empowerment, which promotes community wellness through a focus on prevention, including fitness, healthy eating, and access to affordable healthcare; civic engagement and leadership empowerment, which encourages all people to take an active role to improve quality of life through participation in community service projects and public policy initiatives; and civil rights and racial justice empowerment, which guarantees equal participation in all facets of American society through proactive public policies and community-based programs. I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating the National Urban League on its 100th anniversary and in wishing them the best for years to come.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 477, S. 258.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statement related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 601, submitted earlier today.