Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record, without further intervening action or debate.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 486, H.R. 1454.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, without any intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I understand, under a previous order, I have the next hour to follow up on Senator Durbin's comments. I would like to claim that hour now.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois is absolutely correct. One of the last remaining works that we have to do, as we try to wrap up this portion of the session as we move to an August work period in our home States and our home districts, is to get this small business bill passed. It has been a focus of the Democrats. It has also been the focus of some Republican support. That is what I wish to talk about today. I wish to make sure we understand that the team that is following this bill is a broad team of hundreds of organizations from the Chamber of Commerce to the National Federation of Independent Business, to the Small Business Alliance, to the Community Bankers of America, to individual business owners around the country, as the Presiding Officer knows because he himself has been a great leader in this effort. The point I wish to make in the first few minutes of this hour is the tremendous bipartisan support and input that has gone into this bill to get us to this point. There is some criticism that is not valid. There is a criticism out there that Democrats are trying to ram this through and Republicans have not been able to offer amendments. The facts are that this bill, this small business job growth bill, has been built through two committees, the Finance Committee and the Small Business Committee. I have the pleasure and honor of chairing the Small Business Committee. Senator Baucus chairs the Finance Committee. For the last, literally, year, these two committees have been working to bring a bill to the floor that is focused on Main Street, not Wall Street; that is focused on job creation, not capital accumulation; focused on job creation on Main Street through traditional, old-fashioned, smart strategic lending to small businesses that have the potential to grow. We know there is no disagreement that the new jobs created--the Presiding Officer will know--will be created by small businesses that do not hoard their cash. They cannot wait for a better day. They have to act now. That is the nature of small business. Lucky for us it is, because if we give them a little help, they can start creating that one new job or two new jobs or three new jobs. But if it is done millions of times across the country, which it can be, it can make a difference in a significant way by creating literally the millions of jobs we need. If people want to know why this is a jobless recovery, I would like to say--because it seems like it is--that is because we have been giving a lot of money to the big guys: a lot of money to Wall Street, a lot of money to big manufacturers, large manufacturers. But if we would spend some time today--and we have over the course of drafting a bill which we have done in a bipartisan way--to get money to Main Street, we might see an end to this recession. That is the hope of all of us. This is a description, Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010. These are just the small business provisions--small business access to credit. You will see here, this was done jointly by myself and my ranking member, Senator Snowe. It passed our committee 17 to 1, and we have almost an equal number of Republicans and Democrats on our committee. It passed with overwhelming support. This will increase 7(a) loans from $2 to $5 million, increase 504 loans from $1.5 million to $5.5 million, and increase microloans from $35,000 to $50,000. It also extends the 90-percent guarantee on loans up from 75 percent and eliminates fees. Let me read what one business in Louisiana says. I can probably read you thousands of testimonies, but let me read from one. Sawyer Industrial Plastics of West Monroe has been in existence for 32 years. It has provided plastic repair parts for the paper industry. Mr. Sawyer's line of credit was canceled by his bank so he needed to term out his debt as well as arrange for expansion capital to move into other areas that could design plastic parts. Mr. Sawyer's existing business would service his debt, but without capital to expand into new markets and industries, his long-term business prospects would be tied to the weakening paper industry. With this provision that was in the stimulus package but which has expired, which is in this bill--which will reignite when this bill passes but not a minute before--Mr. Sawyer was able to get a 90-percent guarantee. It allowed the lender, North Louisiana BIDCO, to leverage its capital and provide more funds to meet this $700,000 loan. The waiver of the guaranty fee added over $20,000 to available working capital. In other words, instead of paying the $20,000 to the Federal Treasury, under the provision we are passing, he paid it to himself, which is the point of our legislation. We have $12 billion in tax cuts for small businesses and that is not including this fee waiver I am talking about now. This is a significant amount of money to go into the pockets of small business owners. Mr. Sawyer, from my State, took that $20,000 and, instead of paying a fee to the Federal Government, we are waving those fees under this bill, and he hired an additional worker. That is the point. That is the point of this bill you have helped to draft. We are reducing fees, we are reducing taxes, and we are targeting much needed capital--access to capital to small businesses, which will create the jobs that lead us out of this recession. So he added a new employee and he added some new product lines. Another story comes from First Bank and Trust. This is in Mandeville, LA. It is about Woolf Harris, Inc., a 14-year-old company. The acquisition of a building recently left the business short of cash. Although the national economy turned down, residual effects of two recent hurricanes continue to push demand for the product. It is a plumbing supply business. Lacking adequate collateral for a conventional loan, First Bank and Trust--again, a local trusted community bank--was able to extend a $120,000 line of credit, with a $125,000 3-year term loan for working capital to Woolf Harris. With the 90-percent guaranty, First Bank felt comfortable taking the soft collateral available to secure the loan while being able to provide Woolf Harris a most favorable interest rate of 2.25 over prime. This might not sound like a lot, but to small businesses out there struggling, getting a loan at 2.25 points over prime is much better and much preferable to having to put it on their credit card and pay 16 percent or 20 percent or 24 percent or run down to the payday lender because they are so desperate for cash and pay 36 percent or 50 percent. If we can't help small business now, I don't know when we can. This bill we put together with bipartisan support is supported by the Independent Community Bankers, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber, the National Small Business Association, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Small Business Majority, the National Association of the Self- Employed, and, yes, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They told me this morning they are proud that their membership is actually representative--96 percent is made up of small business. So I am proud to have the Chamber support for this legislation. Now we need all these coalitions to support bringing this debate to an end. We agree there are some amendments, two or three, that could be added--on the Republican side, on the Democratic side. We could have an open debate. But there is such a thing as amending a bill to death. I do not think that is going on. I hope it is not going on. I believe both leaders are working in good faith. But to the small business team out there that has done such a good job in building bipartisan support for this bill, I hope you will trust me when I say that at some point the debate has to come to an end and we have to vote on a bill. If we do not, we will leave here--I do not want to be one who does leave here without doing one of the most important things that I think we were sent here to do; that is, create jobs. The people creating the jobs are not us, it is the small businesspeople out there. To leave without this bill--fully paid for, $12 billion in tax relief, reduced regulations, reduced fees, and expansion of very popular and broadly supported programs--would, in fact, be a shame. I see the Senator from Virginia who has worked so diligently on this bill. If I could, as I relinquish the floor to him, I would like to ask him if he would comment, as a former Governor of the State of Virginia and someone knowledgeable about the programs he initiated as Governor, how this bill might be helpful to those programs and what other Governors are saying about this bill today, if the Senator would not mind answering that question.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from Virginia for that explanation and for his commitment to this bill and this effort. He was an extremely successful Governor before he became a Senator, and I say ``successful'' measured by the way those of us in public life are measured: by results. He left his State with a surplus. I know he did not do that singlehandedly, but it is a great feat these days to leave office with a surplus, and he did, with very high approval ratings and with a reputation as being very strong on fiscal matters. I think that is what our Congress needs. I thank the Senator so much for his help on this bill because that is exactly what people are looking for--a smart, strategic way to move big pieces of legislation forward but with our eyes on the bottom line and our eyes focused on results, not bureaucracy, not regulation, not additional rules, et cetera, but real results. That is the way this bill was built. It was built with, as the Senator said, menus and choices, not one-size-fits-all. We did not say: There is one way to save small business in America, and this is what we are going to do. We said: We have heard a lot of good ideas. Let's try to put them together in a bill--some strategic tax cuts, some reduced regulation, some reduction in fees, and some options for capital. Options--none of this is mandatory. All of this is voluntary on the part of the banks--all voluntary. If they want to use those programs to lend to small businesses, they can. No one is forcing them. No one is requiring them. And if they do, they can actually make a significant profit. So it really is putting the incentives in the right place. That is why this is not anything like TARP. We are not using TARP funds to fund this. We are not designing it like TARP. TARP was a completely different program in size, scope, and focus. TARP stands for Troubled Asset Relief Program. It was for big banks that were failing. This is for small community banks on Main Street that are healthy, so that they can lend to the small businesses that can grow with the money the banks lend. Let me read a letter we just received from the Lake Charles area, which is the southwestern area of Louisiana, from a business, Lake Area Marine. It says: Dear Senator Landrieu. Lake Area Marine strongly supports your substitute bill, the Small Business Lending Fund Act, and the other parts of the bill. Our company is based in Lake Charles. The provisions outlined will restore much needed credit to small business owners like me, by addressing one of the primary reasons for the extent of the depression in the boating industry. By restoring the disruption in the recreational boating industry's distribution chain caused by the credit crunch, thousands of American jobs will be preserved or created. It goes on to say: The Small Business Administration's dealer floor plan financing--which is part of this bill--is a critical component, helping, as I said, to raise the cap, from $2 million to $5 million. We have hundreds of letters. This happens to be from a marine business, but there is floor plan financing for other businesses where large inventories are required. Although lots of people do buy products in the house from the Internet, as you know, millions of consumers still like to go to the showroom, they like to touch and feel and drive and see before they buy a car, buy a boat, buy other products. Many of these businesses in all of our States have seen their lines of credit evaporate, just go away. This bill is a lifeline for them. So I thank the business owners, such as Jerald Link, who sent me this letter, and the thousands of business owners around the country who have said, yes, let's pass this bill now. I see my colleague from Michigan. He also helped to craft a section of this bill. I would like him to explain the importance of that particular section which has to do with supporting weakened collateral in States such as Michigan, States such as Nevada, probably Florida, where they have seen such a depression of real estate prices. Thank goodness not so much in Louisiana, although the spill and the moratorium are giving us fits at the moment. But last year our prices held pretty well. In Michigan, in Ohio, Florida, Nevada, California, these assessments collapsed. Small businesses were trying to function and were asked to put up collateral, and did. Then the banks came a long and said: Mr. Jones or Ms. Smith, you have collateral, but it used to be worth $500,000. Now the assessors are out there, and it is only worth $200,000. We are pulling your loan. If we don't do something to fix that, they are going to lose their business. It is that simple. This is not complicated. It is horrifying, it is painful, but not complicated. Senator Levin worked hard and came up with an innovative solution. Hopefully, he will speak about how this provision will technically work in Michigan and throughout many of the States. I, again, wish to read into the Record some of the specifics about this initiative and talk about job creation by small businesses. First, to reiterate, there is great support for this bill, in large measure because it is not like TARP. It is not funded with TARP moneys. It is completely different--different focus, different scope--than TARP. What it does do is create a small business lending fund to banks with less than $10 billion in assets. TARP, although some of the money did go to middle-size and small banks, most of it was taken by the big banks, worth billions and billions of dollars. This is only for small banks, $10 billion or less. There are about 8,000 small community banks in America. The SBLF, Small Business Lending Fund, is performance based, unlike TARP, which we sort of gave the money and said: Do what you need to do with it. This says: If you take the money, you need to lend it to small business. When you do, we will give you a discounted rate so your bank can make more money, and the small business can make more money. The most important part, equally important, the taxpayers can be repaid. This program doesn't cost the Federal Government money or the taxpayers money. It will make $1.1 billion, according to the CBO score. This is what I call smart government. This is not big or little government; it is smart government. It is leveraging the power and assets of the Federal Government. There are many to be proud of. It is using it to support Main Street so that jobs can be created, the recession can end, people can get back to work, business can flourish, and then we can work our way out of the terrible deficit situation we inherited. This recession called for additional spending which was necessary, although it is troubling. In this case we are going to make money on this program for the taxpayer. It also supports a new small business credit initiative, as Senator Warner explained. It is going to save taxpayers $1 billion. One of the most important components of this argument is the 81- percent job loss in the last year. This is from the national employment report. People need to know--and it is startling--that 81 percent of the jobs lost in America were from small business. Only 19 percent were from large business. The dramatic dropoff in employment has come from small business. If we do our job right on this bill today and tomorrow--not in September, not next week but today and tomorrow--if we do our job in the Senate, it will give the House enough time to deal with this before they go home, and we can give relief now. The pain is so great. The times are so desperate. They are not getting better. This is the bill that will jumpstart, jolt, be a catalyst. We have tried other things this year. Some things have worked; some haven't. But there is great confidence that this bill we are putting forward now will do the job. It is not one size fits all. It is not mandatory. It is a smart, strategic, voluntary, public/private partnership which makes so much sense in this day and age. I see others who may want to speak. Then, hopefully, we can get to a vote in the next few hours. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, if the minority leader will yield for a question, I appreciate how the leaders have tried to work together, although we don't seem to be getting to an agreement at this moment, but I wanted to ask the minority leader to clarify something. When he said things got snarled up, I don't know what has been snarled. The only amendment that has been offered on this bill, which was passed with 60 votes, was an amendment offered by Senator LeMieux from Florida, who is a Republican. It wasn't mine. I was a cosponsor, but he was the lead sponsor. It was a Republican amendment that was offered on the floor and received 60 votes. Is that what he was referring to that got snarled or was it something else?

Ms. LANDRIEU. May I ask another question? I appreciate what the Senator has said, but the ranking member has made it clear for many months now that she doesn't support--and I have great respect for her-- the Small Business Lending Fund. So we actually did what we were supposed to do. We had a debate for 12 hours on the floor, and everybody got to speak. She spoke, I spoke, everyone spoke. And do you know what happened? The minority leader may remember. We got 60 votes, so we won.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Hold on. I just want to say, if that is not the process, I don't know what is. We didn't cut that deal in the back room. We told everybody what we were going to do. I stood out here for 12 hours. We voted in public. Everyone knew about it. So if that is the definition of snarled, we have a real problem. But go ahead. Yes, I will yield for a question.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Well, I appreciate that because I do have the greatest respect for the Senator from Maine. But she has not been excited about this program. She voted no, but we got 60 votes for the program. So I think perhaps we might find a way forward. I am going to yield in just a minute, but the minority leader said he wanted eight amendments; our side wants three. Maybe we can figure out some way to agree on five on each side and get the small businesses in America the help they need. I don't know if the Senator from Illinois has an idea, but the Republicans want eight; we want three; let's get five.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Oregon, who has been one of the creators and designers of this bill and who has been a leading advocate and tireless in his efforts. He has conducted probably dozens of meetings in his office with Treasury officials, with Members from both sides of the aisle. I have put this poster up in the Chamber because I want everybody to know this is what we are talking about today: small business. We spend a lot of time in this Chamber talking about lots of other issues-- foreign aid, other countries, big corporations, Wall Street--but today, in these few hours--today and tomorrow--we are going to be talking about small businesses on Main Street. Small businesses on Main Street, I think they deserve this time, and they deserve our focus. I know there are many other issues Members of this body, both Democrats and Republicans, want to solve or try to solve before we break in a few days. But I have to say, we cannot solve every problem in the world in this bill for Main Street and for small business. Some have criticized and said: Oh, well, the Democratic leadership is not allowing amendments. Nothing could be further from the truth. This bill was built on amendments in committee--amendments by Democrats, amendments by Republicans, negotiations. The Presiding Officer most certainly knows this. I see my colleague from Texas, and I know he will have time in a moment. But the Presiding Officer knows, because she is a member of the Small Business Committee, this bill was built on a foundation of bipartisan support for small business because we all agree we want to end this recession, and the best way to end it is by smartly investing in strategic alliances with community banks and other lenders to get money to small businesses on Main Street. That is what this bill does. As I conclude, I am asking Members on both sides of the aisle: Let's work with our leaders. Let's not burden this bill to help Main Street with amendments that have nothing to do with small business, that have to do with other political objectives, et cetera. Let's try to come together for the benefit of all of the 27 million small businesses in America that are watching us, hoping we can take the right steps to help them end this recession and get the country moving again. I see my colleague from Texas.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes. And I thank the Senator.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I think the Senator has assessed it correctly. But we have worked in a bipartisan fashion through both the Finance Committee--and I see the Senator from Montana, the leader of that committee, is here--and through the Small Business Committee. There were a few issues that couldn't be worked out in those committees, so the idea is to bring them to the floor and get a vote. We brought the lending provision to the floor, we had a vote, and we got 60 votes. So let's just continue to move on. If someone wants to offer an amendment to strike it and take it out--I don't think they will get that but, fine, and let's move on. It is a very strong bill. I just want to say that the only amendment that has been adopted to this bill has been a Republican amendment--with my cosponsorship--by Senator LeMieux from Florida because he says he has a State full of small businesses that desperately need this help. So we are not that far apart. They want eight amendments; we want three. Maybe we can figure out five amendments that could be offered because I think the small businesses of America deserve our best efforts. I thank the Senator from Illinois.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I wish to speak up to 10 minutes.

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

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am still hopeful we can find a way forward. Many things in life are worth fighting for and this bill is one of them. I did not know if we would have to fight 12 hours and a few days or 12 hours and a month. But we are going to continue to fight for a strong small business bill for America. It is extremely important that we focus our attention on small business and that is what this bill does. We have a bipartisan bill. We have had a bipartisan amendment offered by the Republican from Florida, Republican George LeMieux, that got on this bill after 12 hours of debate. It is a stronger bill because of it. Because of a request by Senator Lincoln from Arkansas and, I understand, Senator Saxby Chambliss from Georgia, the leader, our leader, included at the request of both of them--not one, but both the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Arkansas asked for the farm disaster relief to be included. It costs $1.2 billion. The wonderful thing about it is it is paid for. The status now is we have a very strong bill--$12 billion in tax cuts, a small business lending program and credit and collateral programs, a strengthening of all the SBA programs, the entire bill is paid for, and we have bipartisan support. What could go wrong? Something has. I am not sure that I know all the details of it, but I do know this bill is worth fighting for. I have been joined by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business--I am going to submit again the long list of associations supporting this bill. I wish I could tell all these organizations that we could get this done tonight or in the morning. We have a vote in the morning. If we cannot get it done in the morning, and we may, I want the leader to know we are going to work hard over the August break because small business in America is desperate for a bill such as this, with a menu of choices, things that could work for them. We have spent a lot of time focused on Main Street. We have given a lot of tax credits for big business. We bailed out the auto industry. We bailed out Wall Street. Yet when it comes to supporting and coming to closure on an extraordinarily good bill for small business, we cannot seem to do it because one side wants eight amendments and one side wants three? We can't figure that out? Any three? Any eight? Even if they are not paid for, people can vote them up or down. I hope these organizations that have a lot at stake in this bill, our community bankers, our realtors, homebuilders--manufacturers have worked so hard. Because of the Senator from Montana, something that the self-employed wanted--and Senator Durbin has worked on this, actually worked for 8 years to put a $2 billion tax break in for the self- employed so they can get a write-down for their health insurance. They worked on that. We tried to get it done on the health care bill and could not. Senator Baucus promised the minute we had an opportunity we would do that. That is in this bill. So we have a $2 billion tax cut for the self-employed, to help them fund insurance for this year. We have $10 billion in other targeted tax cuts for small business as well as strengthened programs that raise the loan limits, et cetera. I think the bill is in great shape. We just need to get it over the finish line, and I hope the Senator will continue to fight for it because he has and I hope he will continue.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I will yield for a question.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator for raising that. Although it was not said publicly, I have been told privately that there is some strong objection on the Republican side for including that. I said I thought it was a bipartisan amendment, but if it is not, perhaps something could be worked out where we could have a straight up-or-down vote on that on the floor. That did not seem to satisfy the critics. Let's wait and see. I don't know how to respond other than I have heard that. I have said I think there are enough votes on the floor of the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, to vote to move that provision with this bill. If there is any doubt about it, then let's have a straight up-or- down vote on it, but we will see. Right now, in conclusion, the bill, the package that came to the floor, has one amendment offered by Republican LeMieux and Landrieu, and the agricultural disaster. That is it. That is what is in this bill and it is worthy of a positive vote. If there are three or four or other things that need to be amended, we should figure that out, but I am prepared to vote to move this bill to final passage because it is in excellent shape with bipartisan support--although not everybody supports every provision. We most certainly have had a very rigorous debate and hopefully we can continue to keep this bill in its current form, with maybe a few additions, but if not, it is in very good form now, and I yield the floor. I will suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I wish to speak for 2 minutes to close this out. I thank the Senator from Alaska who has been very forceful in his advocacy for this bill and for lending the experience he has had, before he was a Senator, as a small business owner to help strengthen this bill. I want to be very clear. As this bill stands right now, this was a bipartisan bill when it came out of the Small Business Committee and the Finance Committee and it still is a bipartisan bill. The only two changes that have been made to this bill we are going to vote on tomorrow--the only two that were made to this bill--No. 1 was a LeMieux-Landrieu amendment that added a $30 billion small business lending fund that was voted on on the floor of this Senate by 60 Senators, a voluntary small business lending fund that goes only to small community banks so they can turn around and lend money to Main Street. That is it. In addition, the Senator was smart enough to also ask for, and it was in that amendment, an antifraud provision to save the taxpayers money from people trying to defraud the Federal Government by not using their credit cards in the right way when they pay for Medicaid and Medicare services. That is an added benefit to the taxpayer. The third piece of this amendment, to be very clear, was an expansion of an export provision that Senator Snowe and I jointly put on the bill that the Senator did with Senator Klobuchar. So all three aspects of the LeMieux-Landrieu amendment were jointly supported by Republicans and Democrats and debated for 12 hours on this floor, voted on with 60 votes. The other amendment that was added to this bill in late night negotiations, which was in public view and public record because it was done at about midnight in public view, was that the leader said--at the request of both Senator from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln, and the Senator from Georgia, Senator Saxby Chambliss--he was going to put in a $1.2 billion disaster loan provision for farmers, not all but many of whom are small businesses. I know you might say why is that on this bill. This is a small business bill and that is a farming issue. It is an issue important to Members on both sides. There are not going to be that many bills passed between now and the next few days.

Ms. LANDRIEU. The farmers are an important constituency. They have broad-based support. So that is on this bill. That is it; the bill as it came out of Finance, the bill as it came out of Small Business with those two amendments--one put in by the leader on the request of Democrats and Republicans, another one added by a public vote, by the Members of this body. This is a very good bill. I do not understand why we cannot have eight or five or three. But I want the small business community out there to know, they need to fight for this bill in its current form. We can have a debate on nuclear policy on an energy bill. We can have a debate on tax extenders on the extenders bill. We can have a debate on Tax Code changes on a finance bill. But this is a very bipartisan, strongly supported, broad-based small business bill that is going to affect every Member in a positive way. I see my friend from Rhode Island. I do not want to take any more time, so I will yield the floor. I thank my colleague from Washington State who may speak on this and other subjects. She has been extraordinary. And she knows. She has built a small business that turned out to be quite a big business--very successful. So she has been there before, and she understands what businesses need, the kind of capital they need to grow. I thank both Senators, particularly the Senator from Rhode Island for his tremendous support. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich.) The Senator from Rhode Island.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Madam President. We are now on a very important bill, the small business jobs growth bill. It is a bill that actually many of us on both sides of the aisle--from the Small Business Committee to the Finance Committee, to Members who are not members of either one of those committees--have contributed immensely to the building of a bill that we think holds a great deal of promise for small businesses throughout our country that have been beaten and battered. But amazingly, in many places, these businesses, despite all the odds, are hanging on and they are looking for some help. That is what this bill attempts to do--to build strong partnerships with the private sector, to use the resources that are already out there, most notably, our community banks, our small banks. There are over 8,000 of them. We have not heard a lot about those banks. I see the Senator from Florida in the Chamber who is going to speak in just a minute. We have not heard a lot about community banks on this floor. All we have heard about are Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, AIG. We have heard about Wall Street and big banks. We have not heard about small community banks and small businesses--the 27 million of them that are struggling in America today. This bill finally--finally--has reached the floor of the Senate. The House has already passed a very strong bill. It has finally reached the floor of the Senate to give us an opportunity to debate what we can do to help small business and what we can do to strengthen and support our healthy community banks in all our States. It is an exciting time. I say to the Presiding Officer, I thank her as a member of the Senate Small Business Committee for being a part of this effort. Again, the Small Business Committee, in a bipartisan way, and the Finance Committee, in a bipartisan way, have contributed to this legislation, and we are moving to the final hours of this debate now. Amendment No. 4500 The Senator from Florida, Mr. LeMieux, and I are offering an amendment which is pending before the Senate now. It is a very important amendment to the underlying bill. The pending amendment is the LeMieux-Landrieu amendment. It has many other cosponsors whom I will submit for the record in a moment. But this amendment that is pending now is a small business lending fund amendment that actually makes $1.1 billion for the Treasury. It earns that much over 10 years. It does not cost the Treasury anything. It earns $1.1 billion. It uses the power of the private sector. It uses the power of our community banks that are on Main Streets--whether it is in Tallulah, LA, Lake Charles, LA, or right down Canal Street in New Orleans or some of the main streets in Florida and other States. It uses the power of those banks--their knowledge of the small businesses in their communities--and it leverages that powerful relationship to help end this recession. But we have to be about job creation, and the people who are going to create the jobs are small businesses. (Mr. BURRIS assumed the chair.)

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for the next 10 minutes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know Members are busy around the Senate today on various committees and special caucus lunches, talking about many aspects of not just this bill but other things that are pending. I thought I would come to the floor while we had this time to make a few general remarks about the small business bill and also specifically about the Small Business Lending Fund which is the amendment that is pending. The Small Business Lending Fund amendment is a bipartisan amendment by Senator LeMieux of Florida and myself. It is also sponsored by the senior Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, Senator Merkley from Oregon, Senator Boxer from California, Senator Cantwell, Senator Murray, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Burris from Illinois. We added Senator Hagan just a few minutes ago as a cosponsor, and we are getting calls regularly, throughout the day, from Senators who want to be a sponsor of this amendment. We believe we have great support on the floor of the Senate, and that support is growing as this debate goes forward and as more people begin to understand that this Small Business Lending Fund is really the core of the small business bill. There are three pieces of the small business bill. One piece that came out of the Finance Committee on a very strong bipartisan vote, I understand, was a $12 billion targeted tax cut for small businesses in America. There should be listed, I hope on my Web site and other Web sites of the Finance Committee, a list of all those tax cuts. One or two I am very familiar with would be a real advantage to anyone in America who wants to invest in a small business over the course of the next 6 months to a year. You will pay no capital gains if you hold that investment for 5 years; you will pay zero capital gains because that is one of the strategic targeted tax cuts in this bill. In addition, there is accelerated depreciation for small businesses--not for big businesses but for small businesses--so small businesses in America, defined as those businesses with under 500 employees, can write off some of the investments they are making to try to grow their businesses in these difficult times. We want to help them do that. So one important part of this bill is $12 billion in tax cuts to small businesses. This is a very important component. The other important component came out of the Small Business Committee with a bipartisan vote. It strengthens the core programs within the Small Business Administration. It strengthens the 7(a) Program. It strengthens the 504 Program. These are programs that allow lending to small businesses for commercial real estate. They allow lending for the capital needs of those businesses--for businesses to purchase inventory, to purchase other goods and services necessary to operate their business. These are longstanding programs that are very well supported on both sides of the aisle and that we find have worked so well we want to double the limits, we want to eliminate the fees, and we want to increase the guarantee from 75 percent to 90 percent. When we did this under the stimulus program a year ago on an emergency basis, we saw the number of loans go up dramatically. That time came to an end, and so in this bill we are reinstating that very successful program that works. Senator Snowe, the ranking member, and I are very supportive of that provision, and that is in the bill. There are three main pieces. I have talked about two. The third piece is what this amendment represents. The third piece, according to the National Bankers Association, is really the core of the bill. That is according to the community banks, not the big banks on Wall Street but the community banks on Main Street. They have written letters to all of us--to the majority leader, to the minority leader--saying: Please support the Small Business Lending Fund. It is not like TARP, it is completely different, they say, and they are right. As I said earlier this morning, a little bit of opposition we are hearing even from the minority leader, Mitch McConnell, indicated that one of the reasons that maybe some of the Republicans might not be for this is because this is like TARP. The TARP was a $700 billion bailout to big banks. This is a $30 billion partnership with healthy community banks. TARP was a $700 billion bailout for failing, unhealthy big banks on Wall Street. The small business lending program is $30 billion--much smaller, strategic private sector partnership with small community banks that are on Main Street to keep all of our small businesses open and operating and growing so we can get out of this recession. I hope the arguments that this is TARP-lite or TARP, Jr., will go away because the facts are so completely different from one program to the other. This is a strong strategic partnership that could have been defined as a bailout. It was a bailout. Some of us think it was necessary, some think it was unnecessary, but it was a bailout. This is not a bailout. This is only going to healthy banks that, because of the falling value of collateral they are holding behind some of those loans because the regulators are looking at it a bit more, giving more scrutiny to banks everywhere--some of that is good and some is a little bit heavyhanded, but nonetheless it is happening--banks are having a hard time generating the capital to have those ratios correct when the regulators come in, and so they are cutting back on lending. If we want banks to lend to small businesses, we need to help them, and they want us to help them. They are for this. The independent bankers have sent us letters. The community bankers have sent us letters, as well as the American Bankers Association. That is unlike TARP, where there were many banks, even some that received money, that didn't like the program. They didn't like it because there were lots of strings attached. They didn't like it because they thought it would ``ruin their reputations.'' They didn't like it because they didn't want to have to go through stress tests. I understand that. I think the program has worked pretty well, but that was that program. That was 2 years ago. This is now. It is a different initiative. It is not even really a government program; it is a private sector partnership between the Federal Government and taxpayers and their community banks that they know and they trust. They see these bankers at the Rotary Clubs and Kiwanis clubs. They see them in church, they see them in the synagogues, they see them on Main Street. These are the bankers who know their businesses and want to lend to their businesses. They know the businesses that have the potential to grow and those that potentially might not be able to grow. They know the businesses that have readjusted for this economy, this tough economy. We can trust our community bankers. I am the chair of the Small Business Committee. I have had the most extraordinary opportunity as chair of this committee--on which you serve, I say to the Presiding Officer--to listen to small business owner after small business owner pleading, saying to me things like: Senator, I never missed a payment. Senator, I always sent in my money, and they cut my line of credit. Senator, we are desperate out here. We do not have access to credit. Please help us. One argument I have heard some others make is based on a study that came out from the National Federation of Independent Business, the NFIB. I am going to try to get that study in just a minute because I want to respond to that. The NFIB study is quoted sometimes in this debate. Here it is here, the ``Small Business Credit in Deep Recession'' study. It is waved around on the floor by some people who are not sure how they might vote on this amendment because they have heard things. They are not sure, but they say: According to the NFIB, the National Federation of Independent Business, 40 percent of the banks say credit is not a problem. And there is some data here that is going to show that 40 percent of the banks say they were able to get all the loans they needed; 10 percent said they could get almost all the loans they needed. But the rest of the study is what is important. It is about 60 percent who say they could not get it, from the National Federation of Independent Business. Their own study showed that 60 percent of their businesses said they could not get the collateral from the banks that they so desperately need. I know there is this little argument out there that there are no good businesses to lend to. We all know that is not true. There are businesses in all of our districts. We are hearing from them. They cannot get credit because of new regulations, because of tightening capital ratios. This is a partnership with banks that has absolutely nothing to do with TARP, big banks, Wall Street, unhealthy banks. It has everything to do with community banks that are less than $10 billion. Those are the only banks that can even apply to be a part of this. It is completely voluntary. If a community bank in Illinois or Louisiana--and I have talked to some--said, Senator, we are healthy; we have a lot of capital to lend, I have said to them, that is wonderful. Then you do not need to apply for this. But if you want to grow your bank in these times, then it is completely up to you. This will be available to you. You know what, they brighten up. They say, well, we did not realize that. We thought it was going to be something forced. Absolutely not. It is completely voluntary. So for the NFIB and the 40 percent of their businesses that said they could not get collateral, this is a solution. I am very proud to offer this solution in this way. I also want to say we have letters from, I believe, almost 20 Governors who have said, please help us. We are trying to do everything we can in our State to stimulate growth and development. We are trying to do what we can. So they have sent letters, both Republican and Democratic Governors. A letter I have that I will submit to the Record is from February, from Christine Gregoire, the Governor from Washington State. She writes a very strong letter to Dr. Romer, our economic adviser for President Obama, to Tim Geithner, to Chairman Sheila Bair, saying, this small business lending program is what the State of Washington needs. We are full, she says, of small businesses that are knocking on our doors at the State capital that cannot get credit. We must open the opportunities for them. If we want our States' economies to grow, which we do, whether it is Washington or California, I say to my good friend from Arizona, or from Tennessee, or from Massachusetts, the way they are going to grow is through small business. Look at this. From 1993 to 2009, in the last 16 years--I think these numbers would be updated and it would even show more--65 percent of all new jobs in America are created by small business. When we have letters such as this from Governors who say their small businesses cannot get credit, what are we going to do? Sit here and do nothing? I do not think so. I think we should act. One of the best ideas that has come forward from Republicans and Democrats that has been scrutinized and looked at and torn apart and put back together is a $30 billion small business lending fund that will not create a new government program. This is not lending by the government, this is lending by the private sector. This is not lending by big banks, who do not lend--by the way, we have seen the bank lending, big bank lending to small business has declined in the last four quarters by 8.1 percent. Think about that. The banks that got all of the money in the last year of the Bush administration and the first year of the Obama administration, the banks that got all of the money, the reports show, cut lending to small business by 8.1 percent. The banks that did not get any help, the healthy community banks in our States, even in these times have increased the lending to small business because, A, it is smart for them to do so, because when they do it right they make money, which is the whole point of them being in business, and because many of them also believe strongly in the communities in which they have built their business. They helped build these towns. They do not want to see them take bankruptcy. They helped build the businesses on Main Street. Do you think they are happy to sit there and watch these businesses close up? But we spent the last 2 years, the last year under Bush and the first year under Obama, bailing out Wall Street. When it comes to helping Main Street, it gets very quiet around here. I wonder why. That is what this amendment does. We know small business creates jobs. We know there are credible small businesses in all of our States. Even according to the NFIB, even according to their own survey, 40 percent of the businesses said, we did not get all of the credit we need. If we could get it, if we could get credit from our banks, if we could borrow money from our banks, we could grow, even according to this study. We are very proud of this lending provision in this bill. I think the whole bill is very good. Maybe there are some other amendments that need to be included, that could come from Finance or that might come from someone else. But the core of the bill, the $12 billion in tax cuts for small business, the strengthening of the small business lending programs and contracting programs and surety bond programs, which many of our Members have worked on, and this lending piece is absolutely crucial. It is one of the best things that we could do as a Congress to help small businesses find their footing, to help them get more certainty about the future. They are the ones that are going to take the risk. We have seen the headlines in the last couple of days. If you are reading the Washington Post, if you are reading the New York Times, if you are reading your hometown newspaper, what do those headlines say? I will tell you what they say: Big business hoarding cash. Big banks sitting on $1.6 trillion in profits. They are sitting on it. They are holding it. They are not lending it. Do you know who is lending? Do you know who is still lending, or they are trying to lend? The community banks of America. They are desperately trying to lend. And what are we doing? Sitting here not listening to them or not helping them. We must listen to them. I have letters here I have submitted to the Record, independent bankers, community bankers, American bankers: Please help the healthy small banks in America to do the job we want to do for you and end the recession. When we vote on this amendment, I hope we get a strong vote. I hope people in this Chamber will not turn their backs on the small businesses in their districts and the healthy community banks that have been there for a long time. If we act responsibly, and if we join in partnership with them, and we rely on the private sector savvy that is out there, I think we can make some real headway. That is what I am hoping. There is no silver bullet. I am not 100 percent positive this is going to work in the way that we think. But I am very confident that it has a great chance of working. Shouldn't we give the benefit of the doubt to our own small businesses and community bankers? A lot of people did not know if TARP worked. A lot of people do not think it worked today. But nobody was saying, oh, well, we are not sure; we should not do it. We rushed on out there and gave billions of dollars to Wall Street, billions of dollars to big banks. Now when it comes to giving our community banks the benefit of the doubt, when it comes to giving small business people who have risked everything the benefit of the doubt, we are having some trouble. I do not understand that. As the chairman of the Small Business Committee, I promised them I would follow in the good footsteps of the former chairs of this committee: Senator Snowe has been an outstanding chair; Senator Kerry has been an outstanding chair; Senator Bond has been an outstanding chair. They have been very strong advocates for small business in America. When this program came across my desk, I wish I could say I designed it. I would love to take credit for it. But I did not. It was designed by other Senators. But when I saw it, I thought to myself, now this could work. When I heard the President speak about it, I thought, this makes a lot of sense. I thought, my goodness, this sounds like a good idea. The more I looked into it, I became convinced, it is not a good idea, it is an excellent idea. I am not going to leave it on the cutting room floor because of some political argument that makes no sense to me, and it should not make sense to anybody in this Chamber. I see other colleagues are on the floor to speak. I have exhausted my 10 or 15 minutes. I am happy to yield the floor. And then, of course, I will come back to the floor, to come back to speak about this amendment. I want to say I am very proud of the support of Senator LeMieux, as well as a growing list of other Senators who have come forward to support this amendment and to speak on the bill. I see the Senator from Arizona and I will yield the floor at this time.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to get back to the issue at hand, which is the small business bill, a job creation bill for America. It is something that many of us have worked on now for over a year. This bill has been developed by the work of many committees, both in the House and the Senate, over a long period of time--primarily the Small Business Committee and the Finance Committee, but also members from the Banking Committee and other committees that have been very much giving their input into this final product, which is in its final stage of passage. This bill passed the House recently with these major components--a very strong, targeted tax cut for small business. The Chair knows how important that is to small businesses in Minnesota that are watching additional regulations come upon them--some for good reasons and some not for good reasons. They are looking at an increased cost of capital. They need tax relief. This bill provides that because of the good work that has come out of the Finance Committee. Out of our Small Business Committee, as the ranking member so eloquently expressed and outlined, came some key measures in the bill that will improve the core programs of the SBA--an agency that is well supported here, particularly on the Democratic side, and even with some Republicans who are supportive of that agency. We believe that by strengthening their programs, we can be of some help to small business in America. The debate right now is on the small business lending fund. I have the greatest respect for my ranking member. We have a disagreement on this particular provision. I want to respond specifically to some of the criticisms of the program. First of all, in her arguments against the program--but before I go into that, I want to say how pleased I was to hear--and I believe that the transcript will show this--that she said should this amendment get on with 60-plus votes, and other amendments are potentially offered, she is supportive of the bill. She has some specific suggestions as to how this program could be made better, in her opinion. Maybe we can come to some terms on that. I believe that, in good faith, on major bills such as this we should consider amendments, if we can. This is one of them. This is the first amendment, a bipartisan amendment. Senator LeMieux and I are sponsoring this amendment along with over a dozen other colleagues. Senator Cantwell has been a tremendous advocate of this program, as have Senator Merkley from Oregon, Senator Murray from Washington, Senator Klobuchar from Minnesota, Senator Nelson from Florida, and Senator Schumer. They will come to the floor later this afternoon. We have a growing list--bipartisan list--with Senator LeMieux and myself and others supporting this small business lending program. Let me try to answer specifically some of the concerns the Senator from Maine expressed. She said there have not been any hearings on this program. There were two House hearings on this initiative. I am going to get the date for the record. But there were two hearings on this specific small business lending program. In one of those hearings, which I will submit--the House markup--there were more than 16 amendments discussed and debated and offered. So I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that this small business lending program did not receive congressional hearings. It has. This has also received the attention of the Nation, because the President himself spoke about it in probably one of the most highly publicized speeches a President can give, which is the State of the Union. He spoke to the small businesses of America and to the small healthy banks, and said we are going to try to craft a program to be your partner, to work with you, to get jobs created in America. So this has been discussed in hundreds of press conferences, two congressional hearings, and any number of Senators--particularly I want to say, Senator Merkley, Senator Boxer, and Senator Cantwell have spent hours and hours and hours of their time--days, weeks and months--on this provision, trying to work through any particular arguments that others might have. I want to put that argument to rest. There have been hearings. I have conducted in my committee probably a dozen hearings on related subjects. I could fill this desk with paper, which I will not do and burden the clerk, with letters and comments and e-mails and testimony from hundreds of business owners who say they can't get capital. Our small businesses need help. We want to work with our community banks. They ask: Why are you sending all of this money to Wall Street? We need some help right here on Main Street. Also, the second argument the Senator from Maine made--and again, I have the greatest respect for my ranking member, and she is a good friend--is that she is concerned because the ``watchdog'' does not like this program and thinks that it might be like TARP--the congressional watchdogs. I don't know those watchdogs. I haven't met those watchdogs. I have seen their report, which is here, the May oversight report. I could give you a few summaries from this--that they are not sure this program would work, but maybe we should give the benefit of the doubt to our community bankers, whom we know and trust, and our small businesses. Ms. Snowe, the Senator from Maine, for whom I have a great deal of respect, was speaking earlier about this provision that is pending before the Senate. It is a small business lending fund. Those of us offering this amendment believe it is time for us to get a focus on Main Street, to take our eyes off Wall Street for a minute and start focusing on Main Street, our small community banks that are trying to do their best to not only stay in business and make money, but they helped in many ways to build the towns and communities, and they are watching the businesses they lent money to close their doors. We would like to be a better partner with these community banks, in a strategic partnership, to help get money to Main Street businesses. Senator Snowe is saying she has some reservations about this provision, and she outlined about five or six reasons she is not enthusiastic to support it. She said, one, that there were not enough congressional hearings or were not any congressional hearings. For the record, there were two hearings on this issue in the House. They were on May 18 and May 19. There were amendments offered. There was full testimony and full debate. There have been congressional hearings on this proposal. It is a relatively new proposal. It has been changed since it was first talked about over a year and a half ago. In my view, it has been greatly improved, greatly strengthened. There have been congressional hearings. As I said, there has been a tremendous amount of attention on this issue. The President himself spoke about it in his State of the Union Address. It has been debated in many different ways over the last year. No. 2, the Senator said her analysis is that this bill will not save $1.1 billion; it will cost $6 billion. I do not know the analysis she conducted. I have great respect for her ability to analyze numbers and understand details. She is one of the best around here. All I can tell my colleagues is, the group we go to, the agency, the authority on scoring that both Republicans and Democrats acknowledge as the authority on scoring has said this bill will save $1.1 billion over 10 years. That is the official CBO score that I am going to submit for the Record. Other people can do a different analysis. That happens around here sometimes. But when it comes down to the bottom line, the Congressional Budget Office is the only score that matters--Mr. President, you know that--and it says this bill earns, saves over 10 years $1.1 billion. The third argument the Senator made is that the congressional watchdogs are not sure this program will work. This is their report. It is the May oversight report, ``Small Business Credit Crunch and the Impact of TARP.'' She put up a chart that said TARP-like. This is where that came from. The congressional oversight report said this program, in their view, might be like TARP, and they are not sure there are any creditworthy businesses in America. That is what this watchdog said. They are not sure there are any businesses in America that are creditworthy to lend. That might be their opinion, but I am a Senator from Louisiana. I am listening to my small businesses. I see my small businesses. Many of them are creditworthy, and they most certainly, with a little bit of help from local community banks infusing capital into their business, could grow and expand. Don't take my word for it. Let's see what Chairman Bernanke says. Chairman Bernanke said--and this was on July 12, 2 weeks ago: It seems clear that some creditworthy businesses, including some whose collateral has lost value but whose cash flow remains strong, have had difficulty obtaining credit that they need to expand. This is what the Chairman of the Fed says. He is obviously in a position to see what banks are lending, what banks are not, what he is hearing, he is listening, he is traveling. Maybe there are a few watchdogs and appointees in Washington who are having a little difficulty figuring this out. But if you go to the real streets, if you go to the Main Streets, if you get out of Washington and out of the beltway, you are going to hear many hundreds, thousands of small businesses--and the Chairman himself said there are many creditworthy businesses out there that are having a hard time getting capital. That is what the small business lending program does. Mr. President, you have heard it yourself. In all our States we are hearing that. Those were some of the arguments the Senator made. I was pleased to hear her say that should the Senate vote on this amendment and get 60-plus votes--which, as we all know now is the way the Senate operates, not by a majority but by a supermajority--if 60 Senators say this is something they want to do to help Main Street, to help small businesses--this is not about Wall Street, it is not about bailouts, it is not about troubled assets, it is not TARP, it is a small business lending fund, a strategic partnership with community banks--if 60 of us say that, then she could be persuaded, if that is the will of the Senate, to pass the bill because there are other portions of this bill that are extremely important as well. I reiterate the important support we are picking up and to state for the record again the testimony by many business owners. This one comes from Steve Gordon, president of INSTANT-OFF, Inc, in Clearwater, FL, not from Louisiana but from Florida. He writes: I am the owner of INSTANT-OFF. We make water-saving devices for faucets. INSTANT-OFF replaces the aerator on any faucet, and each unit can save up to 10,000 gallons a year. Our market potential in the U.S. is estimated at 50 million units and globally between 100 million and 200 million. We can create 25 green jobs now. Twenty-five percent of those jobs will be people with disabilities. None of these jobs will be created without capital if I can't get the loan. This is a common refrain, whether it is businesses in Florida, Minnesota or Louisiana. All they have are their credit cards which are maxed out. All they have are their credit cards that charge them 12, 16, 18, 24 percent. All these small businesses have is equity in their houses or they did have some equity in their homes to borrow against to start or maintain their businesses. They have seen their home equity diminish considerably. The bank calls them and says: Joe, your house was worth $400,000. We had it as collateral backing up your $200,000 line of credit or $300,000 line of credit. Now your home is half the value. I need to call your line of credit. Are we not listening? This small business lending fund, $30 billion, is going to help healthy small banks of $10 billion or less. Goldman Sachs cannot even apply for this money. AIG cannot apply for this money. National banks cannot apply for this money. These are community banks that we know, as the Senator from Florida said, are at our Rotary Clubs, they are at our Kiwanis Clubs, they are at our business owners banquets and luncheons. These are the community bankers we know and trust and they know the businesses in their areas and we know them in our districts and in our States. The question is: Will the Republicans stand with a majority of Democrats and vote for small businesses? This is the New York Times. This is terrible. I see my friend from South Dakota in the Chamber. This is a terrible headline for his party: ``Senate Democrats' Plan to Aid Small Businesses Hits GOP Resistance.'' This is CQ Today: ``Democrats Plan to Make Republicans Vote on Small- Business Lending Fund.'' We did not have to have this vote. We have been forced to have this vote. Why would we even want to have a vote? After everything we have done to bail out Wall Street, we now come to a plan to lend money to Main Street and I have to hear from Republican leaders who say no. ``Senate Set to Pass Small-Business Bill.'' The reason we are in this deadlock is because Republican leaders, such as my good friend, have decided that we cannot, after all this, after TARP that was designed by President Bush, extended by President Obama to bail out Wall Street and large banks, now we have to hear: I don't know. We have either run out of energy or run out of will to help Main Street and small businesses.