Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I wish to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my colleagues Senator Lincoln, Senator Chambliss, Senator Shaheen, Senator Murkowski, Senator Barrasso and Senator Byrd, I rise today to submit a resolution in support of the goals and ideals of National Guard Youth Challenge Day and in support of the Youth ChalleNGe program. Few programs have been as effective in combating the high rate of high school dropouts as the Youth ChalleNGe program. Established by the National Guard in 1993 to help at-risk youth aged 16-18 who have dropped out or been expelled from school, the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe program includes a 5-month residential program and 12-month mentoring program where participants learn life-skills, gain real-life work experience, receive on-the-job training, participate in community service and have the opportunity to earn a high school diploma or GED. Everyone knows that high school dropouts face much greater challenges than their peers who finish school. Dropouts have an unemployment rate of 40 percent, as compared to the national average of 10 percent. Fifty-four percent of high school dropouts were jobless in an average month during 2008 alone. One in every three teen mothers is a dropout and one in four babies is born to a high school dropout. Dropouts have a life expectancy that is nine years less than a high school graduate. While looking for programs that keep students in school, we must also focus on programs that offer our high school dropouts a road back, and the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program is one such program. The National Guard Youth ChalleNGe program has graduated more than 92,850 former high school dropouts from the program to date, with 99 percent of them going on to pursue higher education, a career in the military or employment, according to a recent audit. The annual cost of graduating one child from the Youth ChalleNGe program is $14,000. Contrasted with the $40,000 it costs to incarcerate that same youth, it is no surprise the program has earned the enthusiastic bipartisan support of governors nationwide. The program currently operates only 32 programs across 27 states and Puerto Rico. Last year alone, of the 18,701 dropouts who applied to this voluntary program, more than 40 percent were turned away due to lack of funding. Unfortunately, America has one of the highest dropout rates in the world among developed nations. Nationally, an estimated one-third of high school freshmen do not graduate from high school in four years; in the 50 largest U.S. cities, the dropout rate may be closer to 50 percent. That totals 1.2 million high school dropouts each year. The soaring dropout rate is a national crisis that costs our economy billions of dollars each year to support dropouts who are more likely to be unemployed or underemployed, incarcerated, on public welfare, or teen parents. The median income of a high school dropout is $18,000, versus $25,000 for a high school graduate, and the annual unemployment rate for dropouts is 40 percent compared with the nationwide rate of 10 percent. This means that each dropout, over the course of his or her lifetime, contributes $60,000 less in taxes that an individual with a high school degree. Each class of dropouts costs States $17 billion in publicly subsidized health care costs over the course of their lives. Individuals lacking a high school education also make up 90 percent of our nation's prison population accounting for $45 billion of the $50 billion spent annually on incarceration. The economic cost in lost productivity and earnings over the course of a high school dropout's lifetime is $329 billion, according to the Alliance for Excellent Education. Over the next decade, if current dropout rates persist, the economic loss to our nation will total more than $3 trillion. Eleven States have requested funding to start a program. Unlike most programs, the Youth ChalleNGe program requires States to match 25 percent of the program's cost with the Federal Government providing 75 percent, and three States with existing programs are seeking funding for additional programs. The National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program changes more than just the cadet; it transforms entire families and communities. According to the parent of a recent ChalleNGe graduate in Louisiana: ``I had struggled for several years trying to give [my son] what he needed in the way of direction. He had no ambition, no direction, no goals for the future, no interest whatsoever in school, and appeared to have no grasp of how poorly his future looked if he continued on the road he was on. The successes the Youth ChalleNGe program provided gave him a self-confidence I've never seen in him before. He realizes he can achieve anything he wants in life if he is willing to put forth the effort. Thank you for giving me my son back.'' Our nation can no longer afford to lose ground educationally if we are to compete in a global, knowledge-based society. As President Obama noted in his speech, ``In this country, the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than on their potential.'' In order to make that sentiment a reality, we must not only address needed reforms to put our failing schools back on track, but also expand programs that reach out to those youth who dropped out of high school to ensure that they have every chance to succeed. The future of our youth--and our economy--depends on it. Do not just take my word for it. Tomorrow morning I am hosting a panel and discussion about the Youth ChalleNGe Program in the Russell Building, Room 485 from 10:30 to 11:45. I invite all of my colleagues to meet some of these remarkable young men and women who have made the choice to turn their lives around. Again, I ask my colleagues to join with me to pass this resolution which shines a much needed light on a program that is truly making a difference in the lives of our greatest natural resource--our children. This is a happy subject, and one for which I think the Presiding Officer shares my enthusiasm, and that is our support of the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program. Tonight we are celebrating at the fifth gala that supports this program, and tomorrow I will be hosting, along with many of our colleagues, a panel about the success of the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program. The Presiding Officer was a Governor before she became a Senator, so she knows very well the challenges of workforce development, moving our young people through high school so they graduate on time with the requisite skills to allow them to be ready to go to college or ready to go to work. Unfortunately, that is not the case in America today with too many of our young people. So we are struggling here in Congress; Governors are looking for programs all over the country; educators are searching for what works. I am here to tell my colleagues that there is a program that works, and I thank the Presiding Officer for her support. I also wish to thank Senator Lincoln, Senator Chambliss, Senator Shaheen, Senator Murkowski, Senator Barrasso and Senator Byrd for cosponsoring this resolution and for calling attention to the fact that tomorrow is National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Day. But more than joining in this resolution, I hope this Congress, as this appropriations process starts for this year, when looking to find a wise way to spend a dollar, will look to the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program. This program reaches out in 27 States and Puerto Rico with over 32 programs to kids between the ages of 16 and 18 who have given up on themselves and whose families have given up on them. They haven't been arrested yet. They haven't been incarcerated yet. They haven't gotten into trouble with drugs yet, but they are on the road in that dangerous direction. This program offers them an opportunity to take a different road. It offers them an opportunity to change. I am proud to say that since this program was started here in Congress and in partnership with Governors and nonprofits around the country, we have graduated thousands of children from this program with an almost 95-percent success rate, which with this group is almost unheard of. This is a 17- month program including 5 months of residential schooling followed by 12 months of mentorship. So in 17 months, kids who were headed in the wrong direction are literally turned around and headed in the right direction. That is because it is a combination of all of the best practices: getting them out of their environment and introducing them to a new set of disciplines and rules and regulations. It is not a boot camp. There are not wires around these facilities. These young people can leave any day. It is completely voluntary. But they stay because they know they need the discipline. They know they need the focus. They know our men and women of the National Guard care not just about our country as a whole but about the individual citizens who make up the country. Through our National Guard, men and women give of their time in terms of teaching and training. It is a phenomenal program. I don't know if the Presiding Officer has attended some of the graduations, but I have, and I think perhaps she has, and many of our colleagues have. They share with me their stories. They say, Senator, I have given speeches at many of my college graduations and at many wonderful, prominent, large high schools, but the graduations that have touched me the most have been the graduations of the Youth ChalleNGe cadets. Sometimes a program will graduate 100 cadets; sometimes smaller programs will graduate 50; but there are always lots of tears of joy in those auditoriums around the country when these cadets graduate. I will never, ever forget standing in Alexandria, actually Camp Beauregard, right outside of Alexandria, a central Louisiana city. I had given my speech. I thought it was pretty good, but it wasn't spectacular. It was very good. I heard a grown man behind me sobbing. I thought to myself, I hope I haven't said anything inappropriate in my remarks. He came up to me with these huge arms and hugged me from the back and said, Senator, I have never known my government to do anything good for me--I don't know if I agree with that--but, he said, Today, you have given me my son back. I will never forget that as long as I live. That is what this program means to parents. It is giving them their children back, which is the greatest gift a parent, as the Presiding Officer knows, having four children, can have. These kids are floundering in the regular high schools, not making any sense to them, because we haven't done I think what we should be doing in all cases with them in high school. This program works. Not only does it work for the individual, but it works for our economy. I wish to read into the Record a few of the statistics about what it means to our country when we save one person from dropping out of high school. These are the statistics. One in every three teen mothers is a dropout from high school. One in four babies born is born to a high school dropout. The National Guard program has graduated more than 92,850 former high school dropouts with 99 percent of them going on to either pursue higher education, a career in the military, or employment, according to a recent audit. The annual cost of graduating one child from this program is $14,000. Contrast that with the $40,000 it costs annually for incarceration of someone who failed to graduate, got on the wrong road, got involved in drugs or in a life of crime. For a $14,000 investment, leveraging the strength of the National Guard, leveraging the hopes and prayers of parents who want so much for their children to turn around, leveraging the power of the individual child knowing something is wrong and wanting to make it right, I couldn't think of a better program than this. I have spoken personally to Secretary Arne Duncan about this. I have spoken personally on every occasion I can to members of the White House leadership team and the education team and the members of the Defense Appropriations team. So I am hoping we recognize the soaring dropout rate as a national crisis that costs our economy billions of dollars. There are programs that work. Not every program that government invents or frames fails. So for people who say we can't spend any more money, let's spend it on programs such as this. Let's move the money from some programs that aren't working as well to programs such as this and leverage the investments our country is making, whether it is through the National Guard or through other programs. The median income of a high school dropout is $18,000 versus $25,000 for a high school graduate. Over a lifetime, that amounts to literally millions of dollars in lost employment opportunities. There are any number of reasons. I think I have explained them fairly well. I will submit a longer statement for the Record. But again, today, we wish to recognize our National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program. We wish to thank the National Guard. Not only are they on the front lines in Iraq and in Afghanistan and everywhere around the world, but they are on the front lines right here, helping us educate future military members, future executives, future workforce leaders, and we are very proud of the leadership of the National Guard. I wish to thank the Presiding Officer again for her support and for the support of many of our colleagues for this very worthwhile and meritorious program.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and thank the Senator from Connecticut for yielding the remainder of his time. I understand he has an hour under his control, and I intend to take the full measure of the hour that is left, first speaking in favor of the nominee who he has so eloquently described in terms of her background and experience and the arguments he is making about trying to bring more civility and bipartisanship to this body and the importance of getting some of these very important Federal officials appointed so government can work better and more efficiently. It has been my pleasure to serve with the chairman now for several years on the Homeland Security Committee, and I am familiar with the work he and his ranking member, Susan Collins, the Senator from Maine, have done together. They have shown a real example of bipartisanship, and I would hope his calls for this nominee to move forward without delay and not be held up would be heeded. Louisiana FMAP Formula Mr. President, I am on the floor to speak about a different subject, one that is very important to the State of Louisiana and the people of our State--an issue that has been mischaracterized for months now in all sorts of venues--and I thought taking an opportunity today, for a couple of hours, to go through the request by the State of Louisiana for a change or realignment of our FMAP formula, the formula that funds our Medicaid system, would be good to do. It is good to do for several reasons, the most important of which is not to bring up this subject again for further review to try to clear anything that people have said about me. I have been in public office now for 30 years. People have said all sorts of things about me as a public official. I would venture to say every Member of this body has been called some very choice names. That is actually not why I am here, to defend myself. The Record will do that. What I am here to do is to defend the people of Louisiana and to express clearly and strongly why and how our delegation came forward, united in a very public way, to press our case here in Washington--the only place this can be fixed--why we felt as a delegation, strongly united Democrats and Republicans, to press this case to the Federal Government to get some immediate and necessary and urgent relief for the people of our State. I make no apologies for leading this effort. I do not back up an inch from the yearlong effort we have undertaken. I am here today because I actually do not have any idea at the moment what will happen to the health care bill we have worked on for the better part of a year. I do not know if we are going to have a bill. I do not know if it is going to be the Senate version or the House version. I do not know if it is going to be a bill passed by 60-plus people or more on the Senate side and a wide majority in the House. I do not know if there is going to be reconciliation that is used. Those discussions are happening actually right now above my pay grade. But what is in my pay grade, what I actually do get paid to do here, is to represent the people of Louisiana, and I intend to do that for the better part of this hour and for the rest of the day because there has been some great misunderstanding about this in the national media-- not much in the mainstream media but on the fringes; but sometimes those fringes can be quite loud, and I would like to try my best to silence them a little bit at this point. The mainstream media has been, for the most part, taking their time to understand, and I appreciate it. I most certainly appreciate the newspapers in my State that actually know more about this than any media outlets. They would because they have covered it longer, have editorialized generally in my favor and the favor of our delegation that has stood strong, except two members who have folded on this issue. So I want to start to try to take everyone through chronologically the timeframe. First of all, I have been, and the State of Louisiana has been, criticized for a ``secret'' deal, for something that happened at the very end of the process that people did not know about. I wish to call everyone's attention to a Times-Picayune headline-- this is the newspaper in New Orleans--a Times-Picayune headline, dated January 11, 2009. We are in February of 2010, so this was a year ago. This was a year ago. I also would call to the attention of my critics that this date is actually almost 2 weeks before President Obama was ever sworn into office, just to remind people. This meeting, called by my Governor, who is a Republican Governor, happened in a public place, in the Governor's mansion in Baton Rouge and five members of our delegation were there, and the entire delegation was represented. It was reported at length in several papers. In the Times-Picayune, this is the headline: ``Jindal reviews wish list with LA delegation; aid for recovery, health care stressed.'' This is the other headline: ``Governor Jindal Stresses Urgent Need for Federal Government to Fix Faulty FMAP Rate.'' Let me repeat that: ``Governor Jindal Stresses Urgent Need for Federal Government to Fix Faulty FMAP Rate.'' Not special FMAP rate, not FMAP rate problems that every State is fixing, but faulty FMAP. I will explain why we think it is faulty in a minute. ``The Advocate,'' August 29. This was in July. These meetings continued through the year: Jindal, Republican Governor; Landrieu, Democratic Senator, Pushed for Federal Funding Fix. So I wish to put my critics on notice. I am going to submit letters and documents and these articles. Nothing about this effort was secret. Nothing. If there is one Member of this body, either the junior Senator from Louisiana, or the great Senator from Arizona, or any other Senator who would like to come and talk to me about this ``secret'' effort, I would look forward to hearing their comments on the floor of this Senate sometime today because I am staying here today until 6 or 7 o'clock, until we go out of session tonight. I thought it would be good to spend the better part of the day. If anyone, if any Senator, wants to come down and say they thought this was some kind of secret arrangement, I think the editors of our newspapers would be very interested since they have been reporting on it since the first meeting on January 11, 2009. Secondly, I wish to show a letter signed by our entire delegation to make another point. My critics have said: Oh, there she goes again, Senator Landrieu, just running off on her own making all sorts of terrible things and making the State of Louisiana look bad. I have spent 30 years of my life trying to represent the people of my State and make them look good. Even when they were wrong, I have defended them. When they were right, I praised them. When I was wrong, I apologized; and when I was right, I was very proud of my work. Never--never--in my life have I ever or will ever throw the people of my State under a bus to save my reputation or my job. I know who I am inside. I don't need anyone to remind me of the goodness I have inside. My parents do that. My husband does that. My children do that for me every day. I most certainly don't need anyone-- and I don't need this job badly enough; maybe some people do, I don't-- to throw the people of my State under a bus to protect myself politically. I wish to show everyone a letter dated May 4, and I am going to read every single signature because I am actually proud to lead this delegation. I only have one Democrat besides myself, but other than about one member of this delegation, we have some pretty extraordinary leaders. I am proud of them. Some are very conservative and some are very liberal and some are in the middle. We have a very diverse delegation. I signed this letter; Rodney Alexander signed this letter, a member of the Appropriations Committee; Charlie Melancon signed this letter, a Member of Congress; Bill Cassidy is a Member from Baton Rouge; David Vitter, the Senator; Charles Boustany from Lafayette; Steve Scalise from Jefferson Parish; and John Fleming from Shreveport and Joseph Cao, a Vietnamese-American Member of Congress from the New Orleans area signed this letter. This was made public. Actually, some Members put out their own press releases. The letter is to Secretary Sebelius, who was finally sworn in after being held up for months: We write to you today to follow up on an April 9 letter your office received from Louisiana Secretary Alan Levine. That is our Secretary. While many states will face challenges to their Medicaid programs in the coming years, we believe that Louisiana's case is unique. We believe Louisiana's case is unique. As you may be aware, our state is still rebuilding from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 as well as Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008, including the rehabilitation of the health care system in the New Orleans area. These extensive recovery efforts have inflated Louisiana's per capita income, but they were only temporary and do not accurately reflect the increases to incomes in industries not related to the hurricane recovery. Since the FMAP formula per capita to calculate how much each state will receive, we are greatly concerned that the post hurricane per capita income increase would significantly impact our State's FMAP allocation. We ask that you meet with Secretary Levine to develop a solution to the unique problem that our state is facing. This is an example of one letter--I have many others--signed by our entire delegation asking the officials here, from the White House to Kathleen Sebelius to other powerful Members, to please look at Louisiana's situation because ours alone among the 50 States was unique, and I will explain why in a minute. So the fact that this was a secret is a lie. The fact that it wasn't supported by our delegation is a lie. Now I wish to explain what our problem is, and this map explains it-- or chart--better than I can. As anyone knows how this Federal formula works for Medicaid, Medicaid is a voluntary program to a certain extent that States can enter into to cover their very poor. The Federal Government says: If you want to do that, if you are a wealthy State, we will pick up 50 percent of your effort. If you are a moderately wealthy State, we will pick up 60 percent of your effort. And if you are one of the poorest States in the Union--not that Louisiana isn't an extraordinary State, but we have high poverty relative to other States, just like Mississippi and Alabama, West Virginia. We know who our cohorts are. We have been at this a long time. For us, the Federal Government says: If you try to cover your poor, we will pick up 70 percent for you, which is the right thing to do. The Federal Government should help the poorest States a little bit more than the wealthier States. It is actually what is taught in the Bible. I wish we would follow it a little bit more around here. So for years, this is what has occurred. In 1999, the Federal Government paid 70 cents of every dollar. You can see, basically, that it is done by an income calculation. Because our income--we have gotten a little bit richer here, you can see, a little bit richer, a little bit poorer, a little bit richer. But all of a sudden, because of a unique set of circumstances that happened because of Katrina and Rita and Ike and Gustav--not because of any politics here but because of hurricanes and levee breaks and a catastrophic flood and an influx of Federal dollars that came to help, which we are grateful for--our calculations were terribly distorted and skewed when the new calculation was made. As a result, the Federal Government's portion would have fallen to 63 percent. So from an average of about 70, we would have fallen to 63 percent. That doesn't sound like a lot, but it would have meant about a $400 million to $600 million--very roughly, $400 million to $600 million difference. Either the people of my State would have had to cut $400 million to $600 million out of programs today or they would have had to raise $400 million to $600 million in taxes. That is a lot of money even in Washington where we throw around $1 billion and $1 trillion like it is nothing. I can promise you, there are people sitting around their kitchen tables in Louisiana way down in Tibido and way up in Mansfield, LA, thinking: Where are we going to come up with $500 million? This is terrible, Senator. We didn't do anything. We are not that much richer. We are actually still struggling from the recovery. Does anyone in Washington understand that we did not get--we are not 40 percent richer than we were 2 years ago? Does anybody know up there that we are still struggling with this recovery? I assured them I knew, and our delegation knew, and that I knew some people who might be understanding. I mentioned to them actually that I would bring this to Harry Reid, I said, because he is a good man. He has a good heart. I thought if I explained this to him and to Kathleen Sebelius, who is a very good Secretary, and got their staffs to look at it, perhaps they would agree with us that we needed some special assistance. I thought there might be one person--one person with a heart on the other side of the aisle. I still think there may be. But, I said, let's just try. So our delegation went to work and, lo and behold, then we have a health care bill coming along. It is a bill that some people like and some people don't, but it is most certainly germane to my subject. It is most certainly germane to my subject. So I say: This is nice. I know we are going to be on health care. Let's see what we can do to get this in this health care bill. I don't know what the bill is going to look like. I don't know if I can vote for it when it finally comes. I don't even know if I am going to be for it. But it is a health care bill. This is a health care amendment. Some people have actually criticized me and said: You know, the Senator put it on the wrong bill. The Senator discussed this at the wrong time. The Senator has ruined the efforts of the State to get help because she asked for this amendment. Was I supposed to ask for it on a transportation bill? Was I supposed to ask for a Medicaid fix on a jobs bill? Was I supposed to ask for it on a lands bill? Forgive me for asking for a health care amendment on a health care bill. So I did. We pursued it openly, we pursued it bipartisanly, and we pursued it intelligently and smartly on the health care bill. And I assured my Republicans privately and publicly: I know you are not for the bill. You don't have to vote for the bill. I may not vote for the bill. I didn't know I was going to vote for the bill until the very end. I am going to talk about why I decided to vote for the bill. I said: But no matter how we vote on this bill, let's really make a case as strong as we can that this should be fixed. We basically agreed to do that, and the record will show that. So at some point later, as the debate moved over to the Senate, I was asked to present, on any number of occasions, just as every Senator was asked, what are the things that I think are the most important in this health care bill as we begin the debate. I wasn't on the HELP Committee. I am not on Finance. So those of us not on HELP and not on the Finance Committee submitted our documents, which I am going to release today to the leader, and said: These are the things that we think are most important. This was always on that list. I am proud it was on the list, but what I want people to realize is it wasn't the only thing on the list. It wasn't the first thing on the list. It wasn't on the list in any letter or correspondence that said if this doesn't get on, I am not voting for the bill. In every correspondence, in every public meeting, and in every private meeting, I pressed for this issue, but never did I say at any time that if this wasn't in the bill, I wouldn't vote for it, or if it was in the bill that I would vote for it because I don't believe in that. As strongly as I feel about this provision and the merits of it, I would never have asked my colleagues--I did ask my colleagues to understand a few other things, and they can tell you that I said this in any number of meetings and, unfortunately, some of them were locked up with me for days. So they actually got to hear this over and over again. I said: I cannot vote for this bill unless it drives down costs. I cannot vote for this bill if there is a government-run, public delivery system. I will not vote for this bill if there is an employer mandate. I can only vote for this bill if it extends coverage to people who don't have it in a way they can afford it where they have choices in the private sector. I said that speech 100 times in my State. I was on the radio. I was on this floor. My colleagues have heard it any number of times. I said to my colleagues: If you are going to cover children who can stay on their parents' insurance--if the underlying bill, whether it comes from the Senate or the House, is going to cover children up to 26 years old, which is a very good reform--something I think the American people support, and most certainly the people in my State would love to be able to do until they are 26--I said I would be hard-pressed to vote for bills if you left out children who don't have parents. Since I am the cochair of the adoption caucus and cochair of the foster care caucus, with Chairman Grassley, I felt very empowered to speak those words to the leaders here. Part of my job that I have taken on myself is to try to represent children in foster care. I don't do a very good job every day, and sometimes I don't do the job I should do for them. I try my best. When we are in those meetings, when they have no one speaking for them--they most certainly don't have any money to hire a lobbyist. They most certainly have no parents here advocating for them. But I said if you are going to put that in the bill so every child in America gets to stay on their parents' health insurance until they are 26--do you all realize we have 22,000 children who graduate or come out of our foster care system who don't have any parents? I said: What are we going to do for them? They said: We don't know. We think we will leave them out. I said: If you want my support for this bill, that has to be in there. I said that on the floor and in meetings. This was not in that conversation. This was. We need it. We believe we have a $400 million to $600 million fix. We would love you to fix it all. We would love the full $600 million, but we would appreciate whatever you can do to help us. Frankly, the reason we should fix it is not only will it be good for Louisiana, but by chance if any other State--when the earthquake hits Memphis, and it will some day, or when it hits California, and it will some day--do you know what. If this is in the law, they will not have to pay double for their Medicaid 3 years after that disaster because there will be this adjustment that says, if your rates are arbitrarily or artificially distorted by the fact that you have an increase in public assistance coming into your State, we will not count you as having a 40-percent increase in income. It will help. Contrary to what the Senator from Arizona says, it doesn't just affect Louisiana. For the time being, it does, but in the future it would affect a lot of other States. That is the right thing to do. Nobody should be punished for having a disaster. Why would you punish that? This money--this $400 million is to protect the poorest children in my State--children who lost their parents in floods, lost grandparents in floods, children who lost siblings in the floods, children who are still not back in their houses. Why would we punish these children, these disabled people, the poor people on Medicaid because the Federal Government's levees broke? Why would we do that? I don't think we want to. I am not going to stand by silently while the people of Louisiana are criticized for asking for something in a public way, describing our situation, expressing that we are unique among the States in this, and asking for assistance. I think the White House understands this. I know that Kathleen Sebelius understands this. I am most certainly confident the leadership on the Democratic side understands it. I am very interested in what the Republican leadership has to say about this. They have been very quiet. If this isn't the place to ask for it, where is the place? I would like to go there. If this isn't the time to ask for it, what is the time? This budget is being crafted right now by my legislators--not 2 years from now but right now. They are either going to know they have $350 million to work with or they are not. They are either going to raise $350 million on the backs of my people who can hardly pay the taxes they are paying now or they are going to cut off more from the elderly, the poor or the disabled who rely on Medicaid. So if this isn't the time, when would I come? To close, because I have a few more minutes, I am going to leave with the one statement my Governor made publicly on this for the record. Being in public office takes more than being intelligent, more than a fancy resume--it takes guts. Some people have more of those than others. This is what my Governor said on November 20 to CNN: The bill is awful, but it is unfair to criticize Senator Landrieu or the rest of our delegation for fighting to correct this injustice to Louisiana. Our entire delegation is working together across party lines to correct this flawed formula. This is the one statement he made. I see my colleague from Missouri here to speak about other matters. I am going to rest for a moment. I will be on this floor until 6 o'clock today. I am not leaving. If any Senator from the Democratic side or the Republican side wants to debate me on any aspect of this, I kindly ask them to let's get this over with today. I look forward to seeing them. I will be here until 6 o'clock. If they don't come, then I hope they will keep their mouths shut about something they know nothing about. Thank you.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I know that under the previous arrangement, the Senator from Massachusetts will be giving his farewell remarks. I would like to speak for the next 4 minutes prior to him coming to the floor. I spoke on the floor earlier explaining to my colleagues and providing some additional information about the fair resolution the Senate came to to help Louisiana and any other State that would have been similarly impacted through a very difficult Medicaid readjustment rate. I spoke at length this morning about that. I want to show this chart that clearly outlines our particular and unique and disastrous situation. Since 1999, and before, the State of Louisiana--and the occupant of the chair was a Governor, so she knows-- paid approximately 30 percent of our Medicaid dollars and the Federal Government picked up about 70. We are in the lower one-third of States on a per capita basis and have been since the Civil War, and we remain that way to this day. What happened after Katrina and Rita was, because of the great generosity not only of this body and the Congress and the former President and the current President and private sector dollars-- billions and billions of dollars poured into our State, driving our per capita income up an unprecedented 40 percent. That has never happened in the history of the Medicaid Program. The State that comes closest to a per capita increase, I believe--or several States increased by only 14 percent. The bottom line is, if our delegation had not sought some fix, some arrangement, some workout of this problem, the people of Louisiana, who have been impacted by the largest disaster in recent memory, would have had to pay $472 million more for basically the same program. The formula was flawed. The point I want to make in my final minute is this: I am proud to lead this effort to fix this. The effort was not a secret effort; it was a public effort--called for by the Republican Governor, Bobby Jindal, in a press conference 2 weeks before Barack Obama was sworn in as President--to talk about this issue in a public forum, not a private forum. It was not a last-minute effort; it started a year ago. It was not a special deal for me; it was a timely and fair resolution for the people of Louisiana--one which they still deserve. The consequences of failure, in my final 15 seconds, are that the people of Louisiana, if this is not fixed--a health care issue on a health care bill--if it is not fixed, the people of Louisiana will have to either cut $472 million out of our budget this year--and that is a lot of money out of a budget, even by Washington standards--or raise taxes. I will continue to come to the floor to speak proudly, openly, and forcefully about this issue. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for allowing me to clarify a few points. I ask unanimous consent to have a group of documents printed in the Record to substantiate what I have said today.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on an issue that is of great importance to my home State of Louisiana: disaster recovery from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita of 2005 and Hurricanes Gustav and Ike of 2008. Almost 5 years after these first two devastating storms, our eyes are still fixed on our shores during hurricane season as our communities and businesses in the hardest-hit areas continue to rebuild. As chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I remain focused on their ongoing recovery efforts and am here today to introduce a bill that I believe will help these struggling small businesses become successful once again and hire new workers. Charles R. ``Ray'' Bergeron and his wife's Fleur de Lis Car Care Center in New Orleans, Louisiana, is one of the businesses that need this type of assistance. Small Business Administrator Karen Mills and I toured the Bergerons' business back in June. Pre-Katrina, Fleur de Lis, which opened in 1988, had nine employees. After Hurricane Katrina hit, Mr. and Mrs. Bergeron found themselves having to take out two loans, one for their house and another for their small business. As of our visit in June, the Bergerons were down to two employees, not including themselves, and their business was back at about 40 percent of pre- Katrina sales, due in large measure to the population not returning. Their neighborhood is mostly empty homes, which Mr. Bergeron attributes in part to high flood insurance premiums, high property taxes and high homeowner's insurance. As of June when I met with them, the Bergerons had a $225,000 SBA disaster loan with a standard 30-year term, which Mr. Bergeron says he will not pay off until he is 101 years old. But just yesterday, Mrs. Bergeron contacted my office requesting SBA assistance with their loan repayment after work to repair the flood-damaged roads surrounding their gas station had cut access to their business for even their most loyal customers. Since the project began, Fleur de Lis' sales have been cut almost in half. This latest challenge comes on the heels of the economic downturn, which caused the station to lay off two employees earlier last year. The Bergeron's story is one I have heard from countless businesses. Coupled with their recovery from the 2005 and 2008 hurricanes, and more recently, the economic downturn, these businesses--the ones that took the initiative to quickly reopen after the storms--are today struggling with one challenge after another. Yet these ``pioneer'' businesses are the ones rebuilding communities need the most because they serve as anchors. If residents see the Bergeron's gas station, or their favorite restaurant, open, they are more likely to come back to rebuild their homes. To help ongoing recovery efforts in the Gulf Coast, and to give these struggling businesses immediate assistance, I am introducing today the Southeast Hurricanes Small Business Disaster Relief Act of 2010. I thank my colleague Representative Charlie Melancon for introducing the House companion bill. Our legislation would provide targeted assistance to as many as 22,000 businesses in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. What these particular businesses have in common is that they received SBA disaster loans following the 2005 or 2008 hurricanes. While they have made payments on these loans, I have heard from countless businesses in my State that they could expand operations if they had additional cash flow. This legislation would inject immediate capital into these hardest-hit businesses by giving SBA the authority to waive up to $15,000 of interest payments over 3 years, helping to create or save up to 81,000 jobs. Under this program, SBA is required to give priority to applications from businesses with 50 employees or less and businesses that re-opened between September 2005 and October 2006 for the 2005 storms or September and December 2008 for the 2008 hurricanes. This ensures that SBA first helps true small businesses and those ``pioneer'' businesses that were the first to re-open after the disaster. The program would end on December 31, 2010. This program makes a difference because for some businesses, depending on the loan term and loan amount, their total principal/ interest payments could run as high as $1,000 per month. For example, for a $114,000 disaster loan with a 4 percent interest rate and a 25- year term, a business could be paying as much as $400 in monthly interest. In one year, this adds up to $4,800 and almost $14,500 in 3 years. While this is not a lot of money for Wall Street banks or Fortune 500 companies, $15,000 makes a major impact for a gas station with two employees, like Fleur de Lis, or a neighborhood restaurant with 10 employees. These businesses have seen their bottom lines shrink as others on Wall Street received extravagant bonuses. I, for one, believe it is time to help these Main Street businesses, as they are the backbone of our communities. My legislation also follows legislation approved by a previous Congress. The prior bill came after Hurricane Betsy devastated Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi in September 1965. According to Red Cross reports at the time, between 800,000 and 1 million people were adversely impacted by the hurricane. Before this storm, the only previous disaster of that magnitude was the 1937 Ohio-Mississippi River floods, which forced more than a million people from their homes. In total, Betsy destroyed more than 1,500 homes, damaged more than 150,000, and damaged more than 2,000 trailers. Hurricane Betsy also destroyed 1,400 farm buildings and 2,600 small businesses. At the time, the Senate Committee on Public Works noted in Committee Report 89-917 that, ``The overwhelming magnitude of the vicious storm, surprising even to experienced disaster workers, was more apparent every day as storm victims continued to register for long-term recovery help in rebuilding their lives and homes.'' As part of the review to provide Hurricane Betsy victims appropriate assistance, including a field hearing in Louisiana, Congress determined that the massive scale of this disaster required targeted, disaster- specific programs. In particular, Congress approved the Southeast Hurricane Disaster Relief Act of 1965, Public Law 89-339. This bill authorized various business, homeowner, and agricultural disaster assistance, including loans and temporary rental assistance. In its committee report on the legislation, which is referenced above, the Senate Committee on Public Works wrote, ``This bill contains what the committee believes is needed and necessary to give further aid to the disaster-stricken areas . . . including special measures to help these States in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of devastated areas.'' Among other provisions, Section 3 of the bill authorized SBA to waive interest--for loans above $500--due on the loan over a period of 3 years, but not to exceed $1,800 in interest. The bill was signed into law in November 1965 and Congress later approved $35 million to implement provisions in the Act. Just as with Hurricane Betsy in 1965, in 2005, Mississippi and Louisiana again saw a catastrophic disaster hit their businesses, farms, and homes. Everyone now knows the impact Hurricanes Katrina and Rita had on the New Orleans area and the southeast part of our State. Images from the devastation following these storms, and the subsequent Federal levee breaks, were transmitted across the country and around the world. Katrina ended up being the deadliest natural disaster in United States history, with 1,800 people killed--1,500 in Louisiana alone. Katrina was also the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history, with more than $81.2 billion reported in damage. In Louisiana, we had 18,000 businesses catastrophically destroyed and 81,000 businesses economically impacted. I believe that, across the entire Gulf Coast, some estimates ran as high as 125,000 businesses impacted by Katrina and Rita. Many of these businesses, for various reasons, have not returned or re-opened. By mid-2007, Orleans Parish was still down 2,000 employers, or 23 percent of its pre-Katrina business level. Nearby St. Bernard Parish--which had up to 80 percent of its homes damaged--had the largest percentage decline of 48 percent fewer businesses open, according to Louisiana State University and the Louisiana Recovery Authority. These disasters were followed by the 2008 hurricanes that hit the same areas in Texas and Louisiana. With this in mind, on September 25, 2009, I chaired a committee field hearing in Galveston, Texas. At this hearing, we received a progress report from Federal, State and local officials on the recovery from Hurricane Ike in 2008. We also heard from individual business owners in Galveston who were still struggling a year on from the hurricane. These Galveston business owners, the Bergeron's Fleur de Lis gas station, and many other ``pioneer'' businesses did choose to re-open and are now struggling to stay alive. As is clear from the Bergerons' story, these businesses have suffered from not one disaster, but three: Hurricane Katrina/Rita in 2005, Hurricane Gustav/Ike in 2008, and the economic downturn. My home State of Louisiana was slow to feel the brunt of the credit crunch and economic meltdown, but last year we began to see the drying up of investments and the shrinking of consumers' pocketbooks. I believe the special program implemented following Hurricane Betsy in 1965 would today greatly benefit businesses in these three states hardest hit by Katrina, Rita, Gustav and Ike. Given the urgent needs of many of these impacted businesses, I will be reaching out to my colleagues in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi to hopefully gain their support for quick passage of this assistance. While I recognize that these are the hardest hit states, I am also interested to hear from my other Gulf Coast colleagues on whether this program would benefit their impacted businesses as well. In closing, I would like to note that Congress has been generous in providing essential recovery funds following the 2005 and 2008 storms. However, as we approach the fifth anniversary of the 2005 disasters, we must now ensure that impacted businesses can make it past this anniversary--preventing thousands more workers from being unemployed or additional defaults on SBA disaster loans. One important way that this Congress can ensure that these workers remain employed and that these businesses survive, and even grow, would be to relieve some of the interest on these SBA disaster loans. For this reason, I urge my Senate colleagues to support this commonsense legislation which would make a difference for up to 22,000 Main Street business owners and their estimated 81,000 employees in the Gulf Coast. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be introducing the Small Business Contracting Improvements Act of 2010, legislation designed to protect the interests of small businesses and boost their opportunities in the Federal marketplace. As Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have focused a considerable amount of energy promoting the interests of small businesses in the federal contracting arena. The legislation I am introducing today marks a critical step forward in this process. As the largest purchaser in the world, the Federal Government is uniquely positioned to offer new and reliable business opportunities for our Main Street businesses. Government contracts are perhaps one of the easiest and most inexpensive ways the government can help immediately increase sales for America's entrepreneurs, giving them the tools they need to keep our economy strong and create jobs. By increasing contracts to small businesses by just 1 percent, we can create more than 100,000 new jobs--and today, we need those jobs more than ever. But the reality is, small businesses need all the help they can get accessing Federal contracts. In fiscal year 2007, according to the Federal Procurement Data System, the Federal Government missed its 23 percent contracting goal by .992 percent. That .992 percent represents more than $3.74 billion and 93,500 jobs lost for small businesses. The numbers are even worse the next fiscal, in fiscal year 2008 the Federal Procurement Data System reported that the government missed its goal by 1.51 percent--meaning more than $6.51 billion and 162,700 jobs lost. While these numbers tell the stark story of why this legislation is vital for our small businesses and our overall economy, they are still only a part of the story of why this legislation is needed. Our small businesses have been taking the brunt of this economic downturn. In this past year, small businesses accounted for more than 85 percent of job losses. This fact was vividly illustrated to me this weekend when I met with Louisiana business owners and officials. A small business owner who spoke at our meeting told of how he was down from 20 plus employees to three. He was clear that if he had access to federal work he would begin staffing up tomorrow. That is the reason I am introducing this legislation today. These contracting opportunities represent job creation for small businesses in a way that is unique. When large businesses get new work they typically spread that work among existing employees. When small businesses get these contracts they must staff up to meet the increased demand. Furthermore, last night President Obama made the case that small businesses need to be the focus of our recovery. I have heard over and over again that small business is the engine that drives our economy. Well, if that is true, then it is time to give that engine some gas. President Obama set the right tone last night and today our bill looks to act on his words and fill that tank as we consider improvements in four key areas. The first area I attempt to make improvements in is the area of contract bundling. Although contract bundling may have started out as a good idea, it has now become the prime example of the old saying that too much of a good thing can be very, very bad. The proliferation of bundled contracts coupled with the decimation of contracting professionals within the government threatens to kill small businesses' ability to compete for federal contracts. Our bill looks to address those issues by ensuring: accountability of senior agency management for all incidents of bundling; timely and accurate reporting of contract bundling information by all federal agencies; and improved oversight of bundling regulation compliance by the Small Business Administration, SBA. The bill also ensures that contract consolidation decisions made by a department or agency, other than the Defense Department and its agencies, provide small businesses with appropriate opportunities to participate as prime contractors and subcontractors. Another way that this bill attempts to tackle the issue of bundling is by creating a joint venture and teaming center at the SBA. This center will provide technical support to associations and businesses who are interested in bidding on larger contracts as part of small business teams or joint ventures. The bill will also ease regulations that serve as a disincentive for small businesses who want to enter into teaming relationships with one another. The second area that this bill attempts to address is subcontracting. The Committee has heard from many businesses about the challenges that some small business subcontractors face when dealing with prime contractors. Business owners have related that the way subcontracting compliance is calculated creates opportunity for abuse. They also related that many small businesses will spend time, money and effort preparing bid proposals to be a part of a bid team and that once the contract is won they never heard from the prime contractor again. Many also complain about a lack of timely payments after they have completed work. This bill attempts to deal with some of these issues by including provisions designed to prevent misrepresentations in subcontracting by prime contractors. To accomplish this, the bill: provides guidelines and procedures for reviewing and evaluating subcontractor participation in prime contracts and provides for speedier payments to small business subcontractors who have successfully completed work on behalf of the prime contractor. The third area I intend to update is the acquisition process. This bill aims to increase the number of small business contracting opportunities by including additional provisions to reduce bundled contracts by reserving more contracts for small business concerns. The bill accomplishes this by: authorizing small business set-asides in multiple-award, multi-agency contracting vehicles; directing the Office of Federal Procurement Policy to issue guidelines to analyze the use of government credit cards for the purpose of meeting small business goals; and requiring that agencies include meeting small business contracting goals in the performance evaluation of contracting and program personnel. The last area that I tackle in this legislation is small business size and status integrity. The Committee has heard from a number of small businesses about large businesses parading as small businesses. It is imperative that small business contracts go to small businesses. Small businesses may be losing billions of dollars in opportunities because of size standard loopholes. This bill attempts to address these issues by making additions to the Small Business Act that are designed to strengthen the government's ability to enforce the size and status standards for small business certification. To achieve this, the new section: establishes a presumption of loss to the federal government whenever a large business performs a small business contract; requires that small businesses annually certify their size status; requires the development of training programs for small business size standards; requires a detailed review of the size standards for small businesses by the SBA within one year; and directs GAO to study the effectiveness of the mentor-protege program. It is well past time to provide greater opportunities for the thousands of small business owners who wish to do business with the Federal Government. I believe that this legislation is a good step toward opening those doors of opportunity. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill and I look forward to working with them as we work to move this legislation forward. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on an issue that is of great importance to my home State of Louisiana: disaster recovery from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita of 2005 and Hurricanes Gustav and Ike of 2008. Almost 5 years after these first two devastating storms, our eyes are still fixed on our shores during hurricane season as our communities and businesses in the hardest-hit areas continue to rebuild. As chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I remain focused on their ongoing recovery efforts and am here today to introduce a bill that I believe will help these struggling small businesses become successful once again and hire new workers. Charles R. ``Ray'' Bergeron and his wife's Fleur de Lis Car Care Center in New Orleans, Louisiana, is one of the businesses that need this type of assistance. Small Business Administrator Karen Mills and I toured the Bergerons' business back in June. Pre-Katrina, Fleur de Lis, which opened in 1988, had nine employees. After Hurricane Katrina hit, Mr. and Mrs. Bergeron found themselves having to take out two loans, one for their house and another for their small business. As of our visit in June, the Bergerons were down to two employees, not including themselves, and their business was back at about 40 percent of pre- Katrina sales, due in large measure to the population not returning. Their neighborhood is mostly empty homes, which Mr. Bergeron attributes in part to high flood insurance premiums, high property taxes and high homeowner's insurance. As of June when I met with them, the Bergerons had a $225,000 SBA disaster loan with a standard 30-year term, which Mr. Bergeron says he will not pay off until he is 101 years old. But just yesterday, Mrs. Bergeron contacted my office requesting SBA assistance with their loan repayment after work to repair the flood-damaged roads surrounding their gas station had cut access to their business for even their most loyal customers. Since the project began, Fleur de Lis' sales have been cut almost in half. This latest challenge comes on the heels of the economic downturn, which caused the station to lay off two employees earlier last year. The Bergeron's story is one I have heard from countless businesses. Coupled with their recovery from the 2005 and 2008 hurricanes, and more recently, the economic downturn, these businesses--the ones that took the initiative to quickly reopen after the storms--are today struggling with one challenge after another. Yet these ``pioneer'' businesses are the ones rebuilding communities need the most because they serve as anchors. If residents see the Bergeron's gas station, or their favorite restaurant, open, they are more likely to come back to rebuild their homes. To help ongoing recovery efforts in the Gulf Coast, and to give these struggling businesses immediate assistance, I am introducing today the Southeast Hurricanes Small Business Disaster Relief Act of 2010. I thank my colleague Representative Charlie Melancon for introducing the House companion bill. Our legislation would provide targeted assistance to as many as 22,000 businesses in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. What these particular businesses have in common is that they received SBA disaster loans following the 2005 or 2008 hurricanes. While they have made payments on these loans, I have heard from countless businesses in my State that they could expand operations if they had additional cash flow. This legislation would inject immediate capital into these hardest-hit businesses by giving SBA the authority to waive up to $15,000 of interest payments over 3 years, helping to create or save up to 81,000 jobs. Under this program, SBA is required to give priority to applications from businesses with 50 employees or less and businesses that re-opened between September 2005 and October 2006 for the 2005 storms or September and December 2008 for the 2008 hurricanes. This ensures that SBA first helps true small businesses and those ``pioneer'' businesses that were the first to re-open after the disaster. The program would end on December 31, 2010. This program makes a difference because for some businesses, depending on the loan term and loan amount, their total principal/ interest payments could run as high as $1,000 per month. For example, for a $114,000 disaster loan with a 4 percent interest rate and a 25- year term, a business could be paying as much as $400 in monthly interest. In one year, this adds up to $4,800 and almost $14,500 in 3 years. While this is not a lot of money for Wall Street banks or Fortune 500 companies, $15,000 makes a major impact for a gas station with two employees, like Fleur de Lis, or a neighborhood restaurant with 10 employees. These businesses have seen their bottom lines shrink as others on Wall Street received extravagant bonuses. I, for one, believe it is time to help these Main Street businesses, as they are the backbone of our communities. My legislation also follows legislation approved by a previous Congress. The prior bill came after Hurricane Betsy devastated Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi in September 1965. According to Red Cross reports at the time, between 800,000 and 1 million people were adversely impacted by the hurricane. Before this storm, the only previous disaster of that magnitude was the 1937 Ohio-Mississippi River floods, which forced more than a million people from their homes. In total, Betsy destroyed more than 1,500 homes, damaged more than 150,000, and damaged more than 2,000 trailers. Hurricane Betsy also destroyed 1,400 farm buildings and 2,600 small businesses. At the time, the Senate Committee on Public Works noted in Committee Report 89-917 that, ``The overwhelming magnitude of the vicious storm, surprising even to experienced disaster workers, was more apparent every day as storm victims continued to register for long-term recovery help in rebuilding their lives and homes.'' As part of the review to provide Hurricane Betsy victims appropriate assistance, including a field hearing in Louisiana, Congress determined that the massive scale of this disaster required targeted, disaster- specific programs. In particular, Congress approved the Southeast Hurricane Disaster Relief Act of 1965, Public Law 89-339. This bill authorized various business, homeowner, and agricultural disaster assistance, including loans and temporary rental assistance. In its committee report on the legislation, which is referenced above, the Senate Committee on Public Works wrote, ``This bill contains what the committee believes is needed and necessary to give further aid to the disaster-stricken areas . . . including special measures to help these States in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of devastated areas.'' Among other provisions, Section 3 of the bill authorized SBA to waive interest--for loans above $500--due on the loan over a period of 3 years, but not to exceed $1,800 in interest. The bill was signed into law in November 1965 and Congress later approved $35 million to implement provisions in the Act. Just as with Hurricane Betsy in 1965, in 2005, Mississippi and Louisiana again saw a catastrophic disaster hit their businesses, farms, and homes. Everyone now knows the impact Hurricanes Katrina and Rita had on the New Orleans area and the southeast part of our State. Images from the devastation following these storms, and the subsequent Federal levee breaks, were transmitted across the country and around the world. Katrina ended up being the deadliest natural disaster in United States history, with 1,800 people killed--1,500 in Louisiana alone. Katrina was also the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history, with more than $81.2 billion reported in damage. In Louisiana, we had 18,000 businesses catastrophically destroyed and 81,000 businesses economically impacted. I believe that, across the entire Gulf Coast, some estimates ran as high as 125,000 businesses impacted by Katrina and Rita. Many of these businesses, for various reasons, have not returned or re-opened. By mid-2007, Orleans Parish was still down 2,000 employers, or 23 percent of its pre-Katrina business level. Nearby St. Bernard Parish--which had up to 80 percent of its homes damaged--had the largest percentage decline of 48 percent fewer businesses open, according to Louisiana State University and the Louisiana Recovery Authority. These disasters were followed by the 2008 hurricanes that hit the same areas in Texas and Louisiana. With this in mind, on September 25, 2009, I chaired a committee field hearing in Galveston, Texas. At this hearing, we received a progress report from Federal, State and local officials on the recovery from Hurricane Ike in 2008. We also heard from individual business owners in Galveston who were still struggling a year on from the hurricane. These Galveston business owners, the Bergeron's Fleur de Lis gas station, and many other ``pioneer'' businesses did choose to re-open and are now struggling to stay alive. As is clear from the Bergerons' story, these businesses have suffered from not one disaster, but three: Hurricane Katrina/Rita in 2005, Hurricane Gustav/Ike in 2008, and the economic downturn. My home State of Louisiana was slow to feel the brunt of the credit crunch and economic meltdown, but last year we began to see the drying up of investments and the shrinking of consumers' pocketbooks. I believe the special program implemented following Hurricane Betsy in 1965 would today greatly benefit businesses in these three states hardest hit by Katrina, Rita, Gustav and Ike. Given the urgent needs of many of these impacted businesses, I will be reaching out to my colleagues in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi to hopefully gain their support for quick passage of this assistance. While I recognize that these are the hardest hit states, I am also interested to hear from my other Gulf Coast colleagues on whether this program would benefit their impacted businesses as well. In closing, I would like to note that Congress has been generous in providing essential recovery funds following the 2005 and 2008 storms. However, as we approach the fifth anniversary of the 2005 disasters, we must now ensure that impacted businesses can make it past this anniversary--preventing thousands more workers from being unemployed or additional defaults on SBA disaster loans. One important way that this Congress can ensure that these workers remain employed and that these businesses survive, and even grow, would be to relieve some of the interest on these SBA disaster loans. For this reason, I urge my Senate colleagues to support this commonsense legislation which would make a difference for up to 22,000 Main Street business owners and their estimated 81,000 employees in the Gulf Coast. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be introducing the Small Business Contracting Improvements Act of 2010, legislation designed to protect the interests of small businesses and boost their opportunities in the Federal marketplace. As Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have focused a considerable amount of energy promoting the interests of small businesses in the federal contracting arena. The legislation I am introducing today marks a critical step forward in this process. As the largest purchaser in the world, the Federal Government is uniquely positioned to offer new and reliable business opportunities for our Main Street businesses. Government contracts are perhaps one of the easiest and most inexpensive ways the government can help immediately increase sales for America's entrepreneurs, giving them the tools they need to keep our economy strong and create jobs. By increasing contracts to small businesses by just 1 percent, we can create more than 100,000 new jobs--and today, we need those jobs more than ever. But the reality is, small businesses need all the help they can get accessing Federal contracts. In fiscal year 2007, according to the Federal Procurement Data System, the Federal Government missed its 23 percent contracting goal by .992 percent. That .992 percent represents more than $3.74 billion and 93,500 jobs lost for small businesses. The numbers are even worse the next fiscal, in fiscal year 2008 the Federal Procurement Data System reported that the government missed its goal by 1.51 percent--meaning more than $6.51 billion and 162,700 jobs lost. While these numbers tell the stark story of why this legislation is vital for our small businesses and our overall economy, they are still only a part of the story of why this legislation is needed. Our small businesses have been taking the brunt of this economic downturn. In this past year, small businesses accounted for more than 85 percent of job losses. This fact was vividly illustrated to me this weekend when I met with Louisiana business owners and officials. A small business owner who spoke at our meeting told of how he was down from 20 plus employees to three. He was clear that if he had access to federal work he would begin staffing up tomorrow. That is the reason I am introducing this legislation today. These contracting opportunities represent job creation for small businesses in a way that is unique. When large businesses get new work they typically spread that work among existing employees. When small businesses get these contracts they must staff up to meet the increased demand. Furthermore, last night President Obama made the case that small businesses need to be the focus of our recovery. I have heard over and over again that small business is the engine that drives our economy. Well, if that is true, then it is time to give that engine some gas. President Obama set the right tone last night and today our bill looks to act on his words and fill that tank as we consider improvements in four key areas. The first area I attempt to make improvements in is the area of contract bundling. Although contract bundling may have started out as a good idea, it has now become the prime example of the old saying that too much of a good thing can be very, very bad. The proliferation of bundled contracts coupled with the decimation of contracting professionals within the government threatens to kill small businesses' ability to compete for federal contracts. Our bill looks to address those issues by ensuring: accountability of senior agency management for all incidents of bundling; timely and accurate reporting of contract bundling information by all federal agencies; and improved oversight of bundling regulation compliance by the Small Business Administration, SBA. The bill also ensures that contract consolidation decisions made by a department or agency, other than the Defense Department and its agencies, provide small businesses with appropriate opportunities to participate as prime contractors and subcontractors. Another way that this bill attempts to tackle the issue of bundling is by creating a joint venture and teaming center at the SBA. This center will provide technical support to associations and businesses who are interested in bidding on larger contracts as part of small business teams or joint ventures. The bill will also ease regulations that serve as a disincentive for small businesses who want to enter into teaming relationships with one another. The second area that this bill attempts to address is subcontracting. The Committee has heard from many businesses about the challenges that some small business subcontractors face when dealing with prime contractors. Business owners have related that the way subcontracting compliance is calculated creates opportunity for abuse. They also related that many small businesses will spend time, money and effort preparing bid proposals to be a part of a bid team and that once the contract is won they never heard from the prime contractor again. Many also complain about a lack of timely payments after they have completed work. This bill attempts to deal with some of these issues by including provisions designed to prevent misrepresentations in subcontracting by prime contractors. To accomplish this, the bill: provides guidelines and procedures for reviewing and evaluating subcontractor participation in prime contracts and provides for speedier payments to small business subcontractors who have successfully completed work on behalf of the prime contractor. The third area I intend to update is the acquisition process. This bill aims to increase the number of small business contracting opportunities by including additional provisions to reduce bundled contracts by reserving more contracts for small business concerns. The bill accomplishes this by: authorizing small business set-asides in multiple-award, multi-agency contracting vehicles; directing the Office of Federal Procurement Policy to issue guidelines to analyze the use of government credit cards for the purpose of meeting small business goals; and requiring that agencies include meeting small business contracting goals in the performance evaluation of contracting and program personnel. The last area that I tackle in this legislation is small business size and status integrity. The Committee has heard from a number of small businesses about large businesses parading as small businesses. It is imperative that small business contracts go to small businesses. Small businesses may be losing billions of dollars in opportunities because of size standard loopholes. This bill attempts to address these issues by making additions to the Small Business Act that are designed to strengthen the government's ability to enforce the size and status standards for small business certification. To achieve this, the new section: establishes a presumption of loss to the federal government whenever a large business performs a small business contract; requires that small businesses annually certify their size status; requires the development of training programs for small business size standards; requires a detailed review of the size standards for small businesses by the SBA within one year; and directs GAO to study the effectiveness of the mentor-protege program. It is well past time to provide greater opportunities for the thousands of small business owners who wish to do business with the Federal Government. I believe that this legislation is a good step toward opening those doors of opportunity. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill and I look forward to working with them as we work to move this legislation forward. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank my colleague from Illinois for his passionate and coherent and convincing arguments about the issue of how to detain terrorists and knowing that we can do that very well in the United States, and also his explanations about the financial situation and some of the things the President is doing to correct that situation. But I came to the floor this morning in morning business to talk about a different subject, and one that is quite troubling to Americans as we watch the unfolding horror in Haiti. As we stand ready and willing to do everything we can, not only as leaders in the Senate and Congress, our constituents are leaning forward wanting in every corner of this country to do everything they can to help. It is very frustrating to see, again, some of the similar, almost eerily similar scenes from having lived through Katrina and Rita, Gustav, and Ike along the gulf coast. Whether those scenes were from New Orleans, as we remember, or Plaquemines Parish or St. Bernard or Galveston or Gulfport or Biloxi, those scenes are still quite fresh in the minds of Americans. I think people are thinking the same way I am, which is, when will we ever get this right? We know sometimes things happen that are unpredictable, but this is not one of those cases either. Just like some parts of the Katrina disaster were quite known and predictable, this too, and that is a story for another day. But as we struggle through this situation, I want to thank the administration, not only ours but administrations around the world, for what they are trying to do, and say I know we can do better and everybody watching this knows we can do better and one day we will. We are going to do what we can as quickly as we can. I am going to stay focused, with many of my colleagues here, on one aspect of this response and recovery; that is, the aspect of children and particularly orphan children. I have been very proud to be the leader of the coalition in this Congress of over 220 Members. We are completely united and completely nonpartisan in our advocacy for orphans in America and around the world. This is a moment where I would like to spend, although my time is short, saying this is a good time for us as a country and as Members of Congress to try to understand the magnitude of the challenge before us. Let me begin, before I go into the situation, to personally and by name thank the Members of the Senate who have stepped up to date quickly and forcefully to join this effort. Your name, Madam President, is at the top of the list, the junior Senator from New York. We thank you for your extraordinary leadership. I also thank the Senator from Colorado, Mark Udall; the Senator from Massachusetts, John Kerry; the Senator from Michigan, Carl Levin; Chris Bond from Missouri; Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania; Bob Casey from Pennsylvania; Herb Kohl from Wisconsin; Mark Warner from Virginia; Senator Barrasso; Senator Johnson; Senator Bennett; Senator Stabenow; Senator Bill Nelson from Florida; Senator Lautenberg; Senator Thune; Senator McCain; Senator Menendez; and Senator Hutchison; and my cochair in all of this, obviously, Senator Inhofe. We are a bipartisan group. Our numbers are growing every day, numbers of Senators who say we want to focus on the welfare of children and particularly orphans and come up with a better plan to respond to this humanitarian disaster as it relates to them. We are committed to the fundamental--almost a concept that I do not know how anyone could argue, but people do, that all of us understand that children actually belong in families. I know this is a difficult concept for some people in our country and the international community to grasp. But children do not do well alone. Children do not do well in orphanages, no matter how well they are run. Children do not want to grow up in group homes of which we have thousands of children in our own country in group homes. Actually, children want to grow up in families. This may be a startling concept for some but not for us. That is why we advocate for child welfare policies that at its beginning, middle, and end advocate the basic fundamental truth that children are best raised in a family with one responsible parent if not two. We do not think there should be any argument about that. So we are puzzled as to why we have so many difficulties sometimes explaining that in situations like Haiti or in America or in places in Africa or Central America around the world. There are so many barriers to adoption. It breaks our hearts. It just breaks our heart. One barrier after another. We think this is quite simple. We think these barriers have to come down, and we are determined to pull this out. I want to give some numbers to you that will be startling to you because they are to me. In America we have 320 million people approximately. We have 100,000 orphans. There are a lot of orphans in our own country. They are invisible to people. We try to bring their pictures to the Senate floor sometimes and tell people there are 100,000 magnificent children of all races, shapes, and sizes who are in need of a family right here at home. We do our best to promote domestic adoptions and have been doing a much better job. Americans adopt about 120,000 children a year, mostly from our foster care system, some infant adoptions in America, and, happily, 20,000 international adoptions. But when you hear this number, you would fall down if you were not sitting down. Haiti has 9 million people. Remember, we have 320 million, they have 9 million. They had 380,000 orphans before the earthquake struck. I am going to repeat that. They have 9 million people. They had 380,000 orphans before the earthquake struck. We cannot begin to estimate how many orphans there are today, but I promise you that number has at least doubled. Now, I am not going to be part of a system that says, with those numbers and that truth, our job is to find those children, dust them off, fix their broken limbs, heal them physically, try to help them emotionally, and then stick them in orphanages for the rest of their lives. I am not going to support that. I am hoping the Members on this side will not support that either. That is what we have had for the last 50 and 100 years in terms of policy all around the world, even in Haiti. We cannot have that anymore. The international treaty that we have all been a part of trying to help says this: It says every child should stay in the family to which they were born with the parents who brought them into the world. When they are separated from those parents, through death or disease or famine or war, they are then to be placed, as quickly as possible, with a relative who is willing and able to raise them. If I passed away, the Presiding Officer knows my sisters or one of my brothers would step in. If my husband and I died, my sisters and brothers would step in to raise our children. That is normally what is done all over the world. It is no surprise. But when there is no family member to take in a child, then the treaty says you shall find a home for that child somewhere in their country, in their community, which makes sense. Culturally, that makes sense. While I am a big believer in cross-cultural adoption and biracial adoption--I am a huge supporter of that--but I understand we want to try to place children as close to their initial beginnings as possible. When that becomes impossible, it is our job to find them a home somewhere else in the human family because, after all, we are one human family. If anybody would like to come to the Senate floor to disagree with me, I look forward to debating that with them. I do not think I will find any arguments here among Senators, from the very conservative to the most liberal. It is just a basic moral tenet that we are one human family. So it makes me so angry when I see governments, sometimes even our own, sometimes even our own bureaucracy, sometimes even our own embassy fighting that concept. They throw up their hands and say: We just cannot. It is overwhelming. We cannot find a way to do it. Every excuse in the world to keep these children from the one thing they need most, which is a parent, someone to love them. If anyone thinks that just feeding children and clothing children is what God is calling us to do, I would beg to differ. Yes, we have to keep them alive. Yes, we have to give them care. But what most importantly little human beings need are bigger human beings to raise them. If they do not get that, they end up not growing up in a strong way. They end up in our prison systems. They end up in homes. They end up sick. Not that every child that is in a family in America, even with the most loving parents ends up always wonderfully, but they most certainly have a better opportunity. So I am just putting a line in the sand here and saying to my colleagues that I am proud of the 40 Members of Congress, House and Senate Members, who sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who all of her life has been a leader on this subject. We are so grateful she is there as Secretary of State. We sent this letter to Secretary Napolitano. I am going to put this letter in the Record. I am pleased the letter we just sent 3 days ago has already been responded to. The Departments have issued humanitarian parole for the orphans who were in the process of being adopted, and there were a couple hundred. Parents here have been desperate. They have already been matched with their children. They have pictures of their children. They were in the process of adopting those children. You can imagine how desperate they are. That process is underway. We are going to continue to press to make sure that not just the green light was held up, but that our government at every level, from Defense to Homeland Security to Transportation, is doing everything they can to execute the swift and safe removal of these children in Haiti to American families who will nurture them and support them. Then the next step--I see my colleague from Utah here--I am going to end in just a moment. The next step will be to work with a broad coalition of faith-based communities in our country and around the world, with private sector corporations, large and small, with individual Americans who want to contribute and be a part of this effort. I intend to lead and set up a framework so that thousands and thousands, hundreds of thousands of orphans in Haiti can find the family to which they were born. We are going to try very hard. If not, a relative in Haiti, if not someplace in Haiti for them to live in the joy and comfort of a supporting and loving family, and then if not here, then somewhere in the world where these hundreds of thousands of orphans--and I hope not to say this, but potentially 1 million; but let's hope that number does not ever reach this--find families. This is not going to happen in the next 24 hours or 48 hours. But with our concerted help and vision and leadership, it can happen not just in Haiti but around the world, including right here in the United States of America. So I want to thank my colleague, Jim Inhofe, who is the cochair of the Adoption Caucus. I want to thank the Members of the Senate and the House, particularly Jim Cooper, Michele Bachmann, and others who have stepped up so quickly. We will be speaking on this floor quite a few times in the future as we get updates about this issue. I thank Americans for the outpouring of support for children in Haiti, for all people of Haiti, but particularly the children and particularly the orphans who need our help. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor today in support of the Patient Protection and Affordability Act, and I wish to give some of the reasons why I am supporting this important piece of legislation. Before my colleague leaves the floor, I would like to respond to his last comment. One of the reasons the American people are having difficulty believing the government can do anything right is that he and his colleagues have spent the last several decades convincing them that the government is the problem and that the government can't do anything right. Even in the face of strong evidence that suggests otherwise, they continue that worn-out, tired mantra. People in my State and around the Nation are getting tired of it because they know that government must stand sometimes to protect them from abusive practices in the private marketplace, abusive practices of insurance companies, to try to level the playing field and set the rules. Of course, those on the other side don't believe in a level playing field and rules. They believe citizens in our country should be at the whim and mercy of the private market. That has been their philosophy for decades. That is not the philosophy of the Democratic Party. We believe in a public-private partnership. We believe in a level playing field. We believe in giving people the opportunity to earn their way, with fair rules in place. That party has never believed that, and that is at great issue in the underlying debate. They can continue to fabricate myths and lies about this bill, but those of us who support it will proudly continue to tell the truth about it. I have served in public office for 30 years as a State legislator, State treasurer, and now as a United States Senator. But it doesn't take 30 years to know the health care system our citizens live under and live with today is expensive, wasteful, and painfully inefficient. From my visits with doctors and nurses, to seniors on Medicare, to recent college graduates struggling to afford coverage, to dozens and dozens of small business owners who are frightened to death that they are not going to be able to continue in their business because of the rising cost of health care, it has become clear to me that the time for reform is now. In Louisiana, the average family spends more than $12,000 each year for health insurance. That is almost 100 percent of the earnings of a person who is working 40 hours a week at the minimum wage. Think about that. Only in one developed country in the world would we have a system that says if you go to work 40 or 50 hours a week, you have the privilege of taking all that money and having to purchase health care in the system that my colleagues on the other side want to advocate for. That is wrong. We must drive down the cost to the government, to businesses, and to families. This bill will begin to do that. Since 2000, the amount that working families are charged for health insurance has increased by 91 percent. That doesn't seem to concern my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. If this Congress stood by and did nothing, those costs would nearly double in the next 6 years, with economists predicting that families in my State will pay a whopping $23,000 for insurance in 2016--an 85-percent increase. To say that a different way, that means that if we do nothing, the average family in Louisiana will be paying 60 percent of their income for health care--if they can find it and if they can get around a preexisting condition--leaving only 40 percent of their wages to cover food, education, children, housing, transportation, and everything else families need their funds for. These skyrocketing costs are burdening families not just in Louisiana but in every State. We don't have a choice but to change. We cannot continue to rely just on the private market without reform, without guidelines, and without incentives to change. Our people will be priced out of the market. Maybe that is what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want. That is not what I want. Small businesses are struggling to remain competitive and to turn a profit. In the face of highly unstable and unpredictable health care costs this is getting harder and harder. As chair of the Small Business Committee, I have held 23 hearings and roundtables just this year, and several of them have been focused on how the current health care system and volatile health care costs are hurting our Nation's small businesses. Today, small businesses are seeing their health care costs increase faster than the prices of the products and services they sell four times faster than the rate of inflation since 2001. Premiums for single policies increased by 74 percent for small businesses in the last eight years, according to a 2009 Kaiser Family Foundation survey. Nationally, 40 percent of small businesses say that health care costs have had a negative impact on other parts of their business. What are we supposed to do, stand here and do nothing? No--that is why acting now is so important. That is why this bill is so important, because the status quo is unsustainable. It is unsustainable for our government and it is unsustainable for small businesses. Even though families, businesses, and government budgets are being squeezed by unsustainable costs, Senate Republicans are doing everything they can to argue for the status quo. Why? I don't know. Each day, they find a new excuse for their obstruction. I wish they had put the same amount of passion, energy, and creative thinking into contributing policies and ideas to this debate as they have into their delaying tactics. Every amendment they offered was to send the bill backward, not forward. They seem hell-bent on defeating and not improving this bill, contrary to their statements on the floor. The Republicans have charged that we are rushing in to vote for this bill. That is simply not true. We have been debating this issue on and off for the last 87 years. Republican President, Theodore Roosevelt, made national health insurance a plank in his party platform when he sought the Presidency in 1912. President Harry Truman, in 1945 and then again in 1948, called on Congress to pass reform legislation to expand quality health care coverage to more Americans. President Truman believed we needed a stronger system and that the federal government must play a role in establishing a more robust system of care. His critics called his approach ``socialized medicine.'' Sound familiar? Only in Washington would 87 years be considered rushing! This has been a debate that has gone on with particular intensity for the last 2 years, as our Presidential candidates took to the airwaves in debate after debate--Republican and Democratic--outlining their ideas for reform. This hasn't sprung up in the last 2 weeks. This hasn't sprung up in the last 2 months. Millions of Americans went to the polls, understanding, in large measure, what we needed to do to change the system. Despite the rhetoric from the other side, that is the reality, and the record will reflect that. Instead of coming to the table and working with Democrats to write a bipartisan bill, Republicans chose to put partisan party politics first. I listened to my friend, Max Baucus, this morning. I, myself, who thought I had followed carefully the work of the Senate Finance Committee, was actually moved to hear the number of meetings-- dozens and dozens, maybe hundreds and hundreds of meetings--he attempted to have in a bipartisan way months ago, years ago, with Republicans. Then, at some point, they decided they thought that politics was more important than policy. I think they made the wrong choice. They fabricated death panels, distorted Medicare cuts, and undermined and disrespected the role of government in protecting its citizens. They have engaged in a relentless misinformation campaign, aimed solely at using fear to sway public opinion against this bill. Recently--just yesterday--Senator John McCain, our colleague from Arizona, claimed that the American people are opposed to reform, and he speaks about the will of the majority. I remind my colleague from Arizona that the will of the majority spoke loud and clear last year when they elected President Obama to be President and decided not to elect him. The President is carrying out the will of the majority of the people by trying to provide for them hope and opportunity in an area that has eluded us for 87 years. This is a good effort, a strong effort, and I most certainly believe that the will of the American people is being heard. The other side has tried to paint a picture of a nation opposed to health care reform. Recent polls show otherwise. When we cut through the misinformation and scare tactics, when Americans hear what is in the bill, they overwhelmingly support it. According to a recent CNN poll, 73 percent of Americans support expanding Medicaid for the poor. Americans know what most of us know: Most people on Medicaid are the working poor. These are people who wake up early in the morning, work hard all day, and they go back home at night, often by taking public transportation because they don't have an automobile. They work hard. They are American citizens. But they don't have enough money to spend 60 percent or 80 percent of their income on health insurance in a broken, unbridled, unfixed private market. So we join together with our States to provide them access to care through the Medicaid system. I support that. And in this bill, the Federal Government will pick up a large share of the cost of expanding coverage. That same poll showed that providing subsidies for families that make up to $88,000 a year is favored by 67 percent of Americans. Additional regulations on insurance companies, such as banning denial of coverage for those with preexisting conditions are favored by 60 percent of the American people. I am one of the Democrats who didn't want to eliminate insurance companies. I believe in private markets. But there have to be certain rules and regulations in order for the private market to work for everyone, and not just for those with wealth or those with the inside scoop on how private markets work. So we are incentivizing a healthier insurance industry--not coddling it but encouraging it to be competitive and to provide services and coverage for more people in our country. A recent poll by the Mellman Group shows that support for this bill exists in all States. In my home State of Louisiana, when the provisions of the bill were actually read to voters, 57 percent of Louisianians supported the bill, with 43 percent strongly supporting the reform effort. And most importantly, 62 percent of Louisianians oppose using the filibuster to stop health care reform. I will read the language used in the poll because people say you can say anything in polls, which is true. If pollsters are not reputable, they can twist and distort. I will read the language used by the poll to describe the plan: The plan would require every American citizen to have health insurance and require large employers to provide coverage to their employees. It would require insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions and prevent them from dropping coverage for people who get sick, while providing incentives for affordable preventive care. Individuals and small businesses that do not have coverage would be able to select a private insurance plan from a range of options sold on a National Insurance Exchange. Lower and middle income people would receive subsidies to help them afford this insurance, while those individuals who like the coverage they already have will be able to keep their current plan. This is a very accurate description of this bill before us--the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It is not a government takeover. There is no public option. There is a national plan available now to every American, just like the Members of Congress and the Federal employees have. There will be exchanges--similar to shopping centers--and Americans will be go to the exchanges and choose from a number of insurance options. The prices will be more transparent. Administrative costs will be lowered. You will not need a Ph.D. to be able to read these policies--they will be written in plain English. Again, this is not a government takeover, as the other side claims. That is why 57 percent of people in Louisiana, when given the right information, without the rhetoric, without the railing, without the distortions, say: Absolutely, I am for a public-private partnership. The American people elected President Obama to bring about change. A big part of the change President Obama and Democrats promised during the campaign was improving health care for all Americans. Thanks to the President's leadership and the leadership of Senator Reid and many others, we are taking several meaningful steps toward fulfilling that promise. With the exception of two colleagues, Republicans have failed to negotiate in good faith. I want to say how much I respect our two colleagues from Maine, Senator Snowe and Senator Collins. I have been in dozens of meetings with both of them and know that they struggled mightily to find a way to work with us and to support this bill. I have not spoken with them in the last few days, so I will not discuss their reasons for withholding their support. I am sure they will express those on the floor. But I can say that they are the exception to the rule. I know Senator Grassley, Senator Graham, Senator Bennett, and a few others engaged early on. I want to acknowledge them and I appreciate their good will. But, unfortunately, the leadership of the Republican Party chose politics over policy. I am disappointed that not a single Republican could support an end to the filibuster. I suppose it is easy to stay unified when the only word in your vocabulary is NO. Although Democrats did not initially agree on exactly how to get there, we were united in saying yes to the common goal of delivering meaningful health care reform to America's families and small businesses. It has been difficult. Some of us come from very conservative States. Some of us come from liberal States. We have diverse populations in our States that have different needs and different views. It has not been pretty, but it has been a practical and hopefully a positive exercise that will bring comfort, support, and strength to the American people and to our economy. I do hold out hope that when we take our vote on final passage, Republicans will recognize this historic opportunity and vote in favor of this bill that will reduce costs and increase access to health care for millions of Americans. Last month, I stood here on the floor of the Senate to announce my intention to vote in favor of bringing Senator Reid's melded bill to the floor. At the time, I was very clear that my vote was not an indication that I supported that particular version of the bill. My vote was to bring that bill to the floor so that we could do the legislative work the American people sent us here to do. After weeks of floor debate and amendments and round-the-clock negotiations, that work has been completed. We produced a health care bill that is significantly improved from the one that came to the floor. I would like to share a few thoughts about why, in my view, it is improved. Through tough negotiations, Senate Democrats have developed a consensus that blends the best of public and private approaches to reduce costs, expand coverage, and increase choice and competition for Americans and have done so without a government-run public option. Since I continue to hear distortions from my colleagues on the other side, let me be clear: there is no government-run public option in this bill. Instead, we reached an agreement to provide private health insurance plans to be sold nationwide. The Office of Personnel Management will negotiate lower premiums, just as they negotiate the plans currently available to Federal employees and to Members of Congress. Importantly, we ensured that at least one nonprofit plan will be offered in every State exchange and that the States cannot opt out at the whim of every Governor and legislature. For the first time in our Nation's history, Americans will have an opportunity to have the same kind of insurance that federal employees, including Members of Congress, have. In addition, there has been a lot of talk about the cost of this bill to the government and to taxpayers. There have been a number of false claims about how this bill will add to the deficit and be a burden to our children and grandchildren. The fact is, this bill is completely paid for and it will reduce the deficit by $132 billion over the next 10 years and as much as $1.3 trillion in the following 10 years. Based on our efforts, the Congressional Budget Office and the Nation's premier economists have confirmed that premiums will go down over time or remain stable so that wages for millions of Americans can increase. When this bill is passed, 3l million uninsured Americans will have access to quality health coverage. This bill is a big step toward fiscal responsibility and a stronger economy. It aims to achieve these goals by streamlining the health insurance market, ensuring efficiency, and limiting insurance company administrative costs, and to some degree, their profits. It also imposes an excise tax on insurance companies with high-cost plans. This will encourage employers to be more value-conscious purchasers of health insurance. Employers are expected to choose cheaper plans, and as less capital is spent on health care, wages will go up for hard-working families. Economists predict that this could give American workers a $223 billion pay raise, amounting to $660 per household. I strongly urge that this provision be included in the final legislation. I know that there is fierce opposition to this on the House side. But--and the President has said this publicly and privately to us--this is one of the most significant provisions that will help drive down costs for the entire health care system. It cannot be jettisoned at this point in the debate. This provision must be in the bill for me to give my final support. We have also created administrative savings through insurance exchanges, and during Senate consideration of the bill we strengthened the Independent Medicare Advisory Board to find more ways to reduce cost growth and improve quality. The final Senate bill includes a substantial investment in community health centers and will provide funding to expand access to health care in rural communities and under-served urban areas as well. In Louisiana, federally-supported health clinics have saved the state over $354 million in emergency room visits by the uninsured. The legislation also expands access by increasing funding for rural health care providers and training programs for physician and other health care providers. There are many parts of the current bill that I am proud to have fought for. The bill creates health insurance exchanges that will provide individuals, families, and small businesses with a wide variety of affordable choices and ensure that they will always have coverage, whether they change jobs, lose a job, move or get sick. These state- based exchanges will enable consumers to comparison shop online for health insurance which will drive down costs by increasing choice and competition. The exchange will help the uninsured obtain needed coverage and will also help the more than 200,000 Louisiana residents who currently do not have insurance through their employer to get quality coverage at an affordable price. Many of these Louisianians in the exchange will qualify for a tax credit to help them purchase the insurance of their choice. For example, in Calcasieu Parish, the median household income is $39,713. In the exchange created by this bill, the average family in Calcasieu would receive an affordability credit that limits what they spend on their premium to around 5.6% of their income or $2,225. Considering, right now the average Louisiana family is spending up to 28% of their income on health care, this is a huge improvement. This version of the bill that we improved on the Senate floor now includes additional much-needed help for small business owners, led by Senator Lincoln, Senator Stabenow, myself, and other members of my committee. Senator Shaheen, Senator Cardin, Senator Hagan, Senator Bayh, and others worked very diligently on these provisions. While small businesses make up 74 percent of Louisiana's businesses, only 37 percent of them offered health coverage benefits in 2008. Of those, 62 percent say they are struggling to do so. Of the 64 percent who don't provide insurance, 87 percent say they can't afford it. I worked closely with Senator Stabenow to improve affordability and choices for small businesses and amended the bill to make the bridge credit available immediately to help small businesses afford health insurance for their employees, and improve the tax credits for small businesses. This means that small businesses who want to offer quality health insurance to their employees will get tax breaks right away, rather than waiting until 2011. I also worked with Senator Lincoln to expand the number of small businesses that will be eligible for tax credits so that more small businesses get help in offering health insurance coverage for their employees--allowing more small business workers to benefit. In all, these changes bring an additional $13 billion in tax relief--on top of the $27 billion already in the bill-- to small businesses. If you own a small business of 25 or less employees here is how reform will help you: Businesses with 25 or less employees whose average annual wages are less than $50,000 will get immediate help through a three-year bridge credit. The creation of exchanges and a 2 year exchange tax credit will lift the burden of excessive paperwork administrative costs. The exchanges will create more stable, secure choices for your employees In Louisiana, more than 50,000 small businesses could be helped by this small business tax credit proposal! This will help small business owners such as Mary Noel Black and her husband, who own a UPS franchise store in Baton Rouge. They offer their four employees group coverage and are willing to pay half the cost, but the premium rates have gone up so much that neither the workers nor the business can afford to pay the $3,600 a year per employee for insurance. To help Mary pay for the health insurance of each employee, beginning in 2011, Mary could get a $1,260 bridge credit per employee under this bill for 3 years. Then, in 2014, if she purchases coverage through the exchange, her business is eligible for an exchange credit of $1,800 per employee for an even more generous tax credit for another 2 years. This savings could mean the difference between offering insurance or dropping coverage because instead of costing her business $14,400 a year now for her four employees--a cost that is just unaffordable--the tax credit could initially bring her cost down to $9,360 and later to $7,200. Through our work on the Senate floor during this public debate, we have made this good bill better for small business. Not only have we extended and expanded the small business tax credits, the legislation includes several amendments I authored to ensure small businesses continue to have a seat at the table once this bill is implemented. The bill requires that small businesses receive information regarding reinsurance for early retirees, small business tax credits, and other issues specifically for small businesses regarding affordable health care options. It lists Small Business Administration resource partners as eligible recipients of exchange public awareness grants and will include all Small Business Administration partners in the program, including Women's Business Centers, SCORE, Minority Business Centers, Veteran Business Centers, and others. The bill now requires the Government Accountability Office to specifically review the impact of exchanges on access to affordable health care for small businesses to ensure that exchanges are indeed making a difference for small business owners. It also clearly states that agencies cannot waive the Federal acquisition regulation, which requires them to report small business contracting numbers and meet small business contracting goals of 23 percent. There is a provision that modifies the definition of a full-time employee to take into account fluctuation in employee hours, and reduce the impact of employer responsibility requirements for industries with high turnover and that rely on part-time employees. The bill eliminates penalties for businesses that wait up to 60 days to provide health insurance to their full-time employees. Finally, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act establishes a national workforce commission to gather information on the health care workforce and better coordinate and implement workforce planning and analysis. The managers' amendment ensures that small businesses and the self-employed will be represented on the commission. These are important considerations for small businesses and I was proud to ensure these concerns were addressed through the amendment process. Despite claims from opponents of the bill, we have taken important steps to strengthen Medicare, not weaken it. The Senate health care reform bill creates an independent Medicare advisory board to find ways to reduce cost growth and improve quality and moves to a system that rewards quality over quantity. It reduces payments for preventable hospital readmissions in Medicare, and cuts waste, fraud and abuse by enhancing oversight, identifying areas prone to fraud and requiring Medicare and Medicaid providers and suppliers to establish compliance programs. As much as our Republican colleagues have tried to scare seniors into opposing this bill, the fact is that Louisiana's 650,000 Medicare beneficiaries stand to gain from this health care reform bill. The AARP and many seniors' organizations are continuing to support this bill because they know it improves care for our seniors. The bill lowers premiums by reducing Medicare's overpayments to private plans. All Medicare beneficiaries pay the price of excessive overpayments through higher premiums--even the 78 percent of seniors in Louisiana who are not enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan. Without reform a typical couple in traditional Medicare would pay nearly $90 in additional Medicare premiums next year to subsidize these private plans. Our bill extends the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by 9 years and lays the groundwork for a more sustainable health system. Thanks to these reform efforts, there will be no additional cost for preventive services under the Medicare program. This includes a free wellness visit and personalized prevention plan designed to help give beneficiaries the resources they need to take better care of themselves in these important years. This legislation puts taxpayers' dollars above insurance company profits by forcing insurers to bid competitively for the business of Medicare beneficiaries and makes changes to the Medicare Advantage payment structure that will give insurers an incentive to deliver more value. Another critical aspect of the bill is that it increases the amount of coverage Medicare Part D beneficiaries receive before they begin to pay out of pocket for their prescriptions. Right now, roughly 116,000 Medicare beneficiaries in Louisiana hit a wall in Medicare Part D drug coverage that will cost some of them an average of $4,080 per year. This reform legislation will provide a 50 percent discount for brand- name drugs. Some of the bill's most important provisions will benefit the most important population--children. The underlying bill includes a provision allowing children to remain on their parents' plans up until the age of 26. I have children. I would like to think that by 22 or 23, they will be on their own, they will be gainfully employed and off my payroll. But any of us who have raised children know that sometimes it takes a little more time to launch our children. I see Senator Shaheen, who is nodding. She has done this herself. It takes a little time to launch them. According to the latest data from the Census Bureau, in 2007 there were an estimated 13.2 million uninsured young adults. So the bill includes this important provision to allow kids to stay on their parents' insurance for a bit longer as they transition into adulthood. But my question was, where do the young people who age out of the foster care system sign up, because they do not have parents? I was proud to work on a provision that Leader Reid included in this bill to ensure that every young person who ages out of the foster care system will be able to stay on Medicaid until the age of 26 starting in 2014. Almost 30,000 young people age out of the foster care system every year, having never been adopted or reunified with their birth parents. The fact that they aged out is our failure as government. We have failed them once and we just can't fail them twice. We must support their transition to adulthood, and guaranteeing access to quality health care will help with that transition. When this legislation is signed into law, insurance companies will not be able to drop children for preexisting conditions beginning immediately. This is crucial for families with children who have battled cancer or diabetes. When a parent loses a job, they may struggle to get insurance when they find new employment. Once this bill becomes law, no insurance company will be able to deny a child with preexisting conditions. This health care reform bill holds insurance companies' feet to the fire to ensure they are accountable to their customers. By 2014, insurers will not be able to deny coverage due to preexisting conditions. That means they will not be allowed to drop you from coverage if you get sick or are in an accident. Because of the good work of my colleagues Senator Rockefeller and Senator Ben Nelson, this bill requires insurance companies to disclose the pricing of their benefits to ensure that premiums are spent on health benefits not profits and gives consumers rebates, putting the insurance companies' excessive profits back into your pockets. It contains new requirements ensuring that insurers and health care providers report on their performance, empowering patients to make the best possible decisions. Under this bill, a health insurer's participation in the exchanges will depend on its performance. Insurers that jack up their premiums before the exchanges begin will be excluded--a powerful incentive to keep premiums affordable. Finally, I was also proud to work with Leader Reid and Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus to address an inequity in the formula that determines the federal match of Medicaid dollars. As we all know, in 2005 Hurricanes Katrina and Rita ravaged the Gulf Coast and destroyed homes, neighborhoods, and even full communities throughout South Louisiana. In an effort to aid the recovery, Congress approved a much-needed aid package for Louisianians that infused grant dollars and direct assistance to speed our recovery. Some of the necessary one-time recovery dollars were calculated into our state's per capita income. In addition, labor and wage costs increased because there was heightened recovery activity and a constriction in the market. Consequently, Louisiana's per capita income was abnormally inflated and put us in a category with richer states. The result is that our federal match for Medicaid is scheduled to drop pretty dramatically. I worked with my colleagues to correct this formula. I never asked for special treatment for Louisiana, but only for understanding of our state's unique situation. We only wanted to be treated fairly and not to get penalized because we have been forced to rebuild following the worst natural disaster in the United States' history. Our federal Medicaid match rates should reflect that the reality on the ground in Louisiana, not the cold calculations of inflexible federal formulas. An important note is that this Medicaid funding fix was supported by every Member of our Congressional Delegation, and specifically and repeatedly requested by our Republican Governor Bobby Jindal. Some politicians in my state may run and hide when the heat gets turned up, but that's not the way I was raised. I never have and never will run from what I think is right. I was sent here to fight for my state and that is exactly what I'm doing. Those who have dubbed this provision the ``Louisiana Purchase'' know little about lawmaking and even less about my views on health care reform. This Medicaid fix alone would not have been enough to earn my vote on this legislation. This was one of literally a dozen priorities I had as the Senate considered health care reform. I am voting for this bill because it achieves the goals I laid out at the beginning of this debate: it drives down costs and expands affordable health care choices for millions of families and small businesses in Louisiana and around the nation. Any claim to the contrary, is a pathetic lie meant to derail this bill, a tactic that was all too common during this debate. Today, we stand on the verge of history, with an opportunity to support a bill that will provide health insurance to 31 million more Americans, reducing the deficit by $132 billion over the next ten years. The bill is not perfect. It is not the exact health care bill that I would have written. I think the same could be said for each of my colleagues. It was a long, difficult process and during the course of completing this landmark bill there were a lot of twists and turns. But, as former President Clinton was fond of saying, we should never let the perfect become the enemy of the good. And through hard work and good faith and tough negotiations and keeping our eye on the ball, Senate Democrats have actually crafted, in my view, an extraordinary piece of legislation that will go a long way to providing comfort and security to the American people who elected us to do so. It will provide comfort and security for the local grocery store owner in Jennings, the 22-year-old in Lake Charles who has just left the foster care system, the single mother of three in Monroe, the 9- year-old boy in Natchitoches who was just diagnosed with diabetes, and the 70-year-old Medicare beneficiary in Houma who worked for three decades in the offshore oil industry. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will make a difference in these lives and millions more across America, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the ways in which small businesses will be helped in this bill. Before my colleagues leave the floor, had some of them stayed at the negotiating table, perhaps some of the provisions they talked about could have been considered. Since they pretty much packed up their bags months ago and left the debate and they just come to the floor to talk, it is very difficult to put any of their provisions in the legislation. There were some amendments that were accepted in the Finance Committee and in the HELP Committee. The fact is, there is a lot of choice in this bill. There are a lot of choices for individuals and for small businesses. There is help for Americans and for businesses not only in the State of Louisiana, which I represent, but all the States in the Union. As you can see on this chart, without reform, the cost for small businesses will rise from--or the jobs lost because of the lack of reform will rise from 39,000, to 70,000, to 103,000, to 137,000, and then to 178,000. These are jobs lost because small businesses are having a very difficult time affording premiums and because of a lack of reform in the private insurance market, which this bill also provides. This trendline will continue unless we do something. That is why many of us are here working early in the morning, through the middle of the day, and until late at night trying to figure out the way to reform this system. I respect my colleagues. I know them all very well. They made their statements for the record this morning. But the fact is, we have been at this since Harry Truman was the President. We can't throw this bill away and start over again. There is choice and there is expansion of Medicaid and reform in the Medicaid system. There will be strengthening and reform of the Medicare system. In the middle, there is great strength and reform of the private insurance market. I am a very strong supporter of choice and competition. I came to the floor to speak about a segment of our population--27 million, to be exact. That is the number of small businesses that are depending on us to do our very best work on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act pending before the Senate as we speak. Our economic prosperity as a nation, as you know, Mr. President, as a former Governor of Virginia who helped bring millions of jobs to your State and now as a leader on small business yourself, the economic prosperity of our Nation relies, in large measure, on how we can help our small businesses become the economic engines we know they can be to help lift us out of this recession. Entrepreneurs roll up their sleeves and go to work each and every day. They go early to work; they stay late. They create jobs. They push the envelope on technical advances, and they assume the risk necessary to succeed in the private marketplace. Small businesses created 64 percent of American jobs in the last 15 years, according to the Small Business Administration and others. Yet as chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have heard time and time again from these same business owners that they cannot afford to operate in the current broken health care system, and they desperately need us to fix it. That is what this effort underway is. Small businesses have been hard hit by premiums that are regularly increasing at 15 percent, 25 percent and, in many cases, 45 percent. This is the cumulative cost of health benefits: You will see, in 2009, $156 billion. Without reform, it is going to go to $717 billion. Then, in 2015, it will exceed the $1 trillion mark. This is what happens if we do what my colleagues are urging us to do and do nothing or to start again. We have been, as I said, since Harry Truman was President, trying to figure out a way to provide each and every American with affordable health insurance, either through the public or the private sector or some combination of the above. That is why this bill is so important because, without reform, this is the price our small businesses will have to pay, and it is too steep, it is too high of a mountain for them to climb. Without these reforms, as I said, costs are expected to more than double over the next 10 years. But this debate is not about numbers, it is about people--people such as Mike Brey, who owns Hobby Works in Laurel, MD, and who was here just last week in the Capitol to speak at a press conference. I have had hundreds of business owners from all over the country to come. Mike was one of the last ones to come and speak at a press conference last week. He said to us that his plan not too long ago cost only $100 a person, most of which he was happy to cover as a company. Over the years, however, his premiums have tripled and his employees have seen their costs go five times higher as they pay more of their premiums, up to almost a $1,200 deductible. Mike said--and his words are echoed by business owners in my State and business owners around the country: Those of us who do provide coverage are slowly being dragged down by these costs. Something that we once considered a benefit, a benefit I was proud to provide, has now come to be seen as a burden--a burden to be feared because you don't know what is coming next. He went on to say: After years of astonishing rate hikes and declining competition among providers, many small businesses, like mine, may be only one or two years away from having to cut their health care programs entirely. I'm not going to let [these premiums] put me out of business. I'm just going to say we can't do it anymore. This is what is happening all across America. Only 15 years ago, 65 percent of small businesses in our country offered affordable health insurance, something they were proud to provide--full and comprehensive coverage, many of them picking up a majority of the costs. Today that has dropped to 39 percent and dropping every week that we fail to act. Small business owners, such as Mike from Maryland, hundreds in my State, need meaningful health care reform. The Senate health care bill contains measures that responsibly put in place both intermediate and long-term insurance reforms that are very important. Let me start with the immediate benefits. I understand there are some, including myself, who would like to see more immediate benefits, but these are some that are important, substantial, and real. Temporary reinsurance for early retirees will be available under this bill. This will help many in a very tough stage in their life. States may establish exchanges to get a jump on, of course, the mandatory date that is in the bill. No annual limits and restricted lifetime limits. This will be a very important benefit to small business. Reporting medical loss ratios. For the first time, insurance companies will have to report information that will help keep the costs lower over time and bring more transparency and accountability to the system. The bridge credit for small businesses will go into effect almost immediately. It will help businesses that have 10 employees or 25 employees provide health coverage for their workers. Then, in the intermediate timeframe, there are some additional ones. The exchanges will be set up by 2014. When people on the other side talk about choice, there is going to be plenty of choice in this bill for uninsured individuals, for those who are in small businesses up to 100 employees. They will be able to access these exchanges and look for affordable options. That is going to be a major improvement over the current system. There is a bridge credit--a credit I call a bridge credit--a bridge to the exchanges for small businesses. Once the exchanges are up and running, businesses with 10 and 25 employees or less will be able to get almost 35 percent credit for the insurance they provide. That is in addition to the deductibility they have in current law. I ask unanimous consent to speak for another 5 minutes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, one of the major criticisms of this bill has been the costs. The bill does show fiscal responsibility, cutting budget deficits by $127 billion in the first decade and $650 billion in the second decade. Anything we do is going to cost money upfront to fix the system, but the way this bill is being designed is that for every dollar that is spent, there is a dollar raised to pay for that change. That is a refreshing change of method, considering the last 8 years, where bill after bill was put on this floor, whether for domestic or international priorities, and not paid for at all. We can be criticized for trying to push major reform forward, but at least we are finding ways within the system to pay for these important changes that will hopefully drive down costs for everyone. As Mike reminded me, the gentleman who spoke at our press conference: It is even more important not to let one problem prevent you from solving another problem. While we do have budget deficit problems and we are very sensitive to it, we cannot allow that to stop us from doing anything else. What we can do, as we work on the other problems, is to do it in the most fiscally responsible way possible. That is why I and many Members of the Senate have said we are not prepared to vote on anything until we get a final CBO score, to make sure not only can we afford it and not only have we paid for it but that, over time, premium costs will go down, costs to the government will go down, both at the Federal and State level, as well as to small businesses. The Business Roundtable reports that these exchanges, both in the near term and the intermediate term, could reduce administrative costs for business owners by as much as 22 percent. If business owners are making shoes, they can get back to making shoes, not running around looking for insurance they cannot find and, if they can, it is too expensive for them anyway. If they are building high-tech equipment or electronic equipment, they can get back to the business of doing that, instead of being in the business of figuring out insurance actuarial tables. Reducing administrative costs for small businesses is important. Twenty-two million self-employed Americans have even more unpredictable costs. Their premiums have risen 74 percent since 2001. These exchanges will help them also reduce administrative costs. I am proud that one of the amendments I have pending on the Senate floor would give the self-employed a 50-percent tax deduction so they can be on a similar playing field, if you will, for the small businesses and large businesses that enjoy favorable tax treatment under the current Tax Code. It has been mentioned before, but insurance companies will no longer be allowed to arbitrarily raise rates or drop coverage. Instead, companies will be forced to compete on the price and quality of their plans, not by underwriting the least risk. The bill also has no employer mandate. Instead, we have a shared responsibility for businesses with more than 50 employees. Ninety-six percent of small businesses in America are exempt from the provision of required coverage, but we have come to terms with a system that requires individuals to purchase insurance, as well as small businesses to provide insurance with proper tax credits and subsidies that help them make it possible. To help small businesses more immediately bridge the affordability gap, these exchanges will not be up and running until 2014. Again, there is an amendment to push that up. I hope we will be able to do that. In the bill, tax credits will help about 51,000 businesses in my State of Louisiana alone. There are hundreds of thousands of businesses that will benefit--51,000 in my home State of Louisiana alone--because of the credits that are in the bill, and through the amendment process, we are hoping to enrich and expand them. While these provisions in the underlying bill are strong for small business, there is always room for improvement. That is why I, along with many of my colleagues, have submitted a series of amendments. Some have costs to them, such as the 50-percent deduction. It is a $12 billion cost. But if we can find it in the bill, if the mark allows us to find $12 billion, that would be a good place to spend it because these individuals, whether they are realtors, attorneys, accountants, sole contractors, or carpenters who are working out there creating a job for themselves and creating economic opportunity in their communities, could use a tax cut and a tax credit to help them. There are a series of amendments that I have submitted that do not have any costs associated. They are just common sense and create more efficiency in the system. I trust the leadership will consider including those amendments. In addition, Senator Lincoln has an amendment to expand both the bridge credit and the tax credit. It is a $9 billion provision. We are hoping the mark will allow for that addition as well. I wish to mention a few other points in my closing. I thank the small business owners, organizations, and advocates who remained at the negotiating table. They did not pack up their bags and run away. They stayed here in Washington, in State capitals, on telephones, on conference calls, in public meetings, in the debates taking place in the many committee rooms to argue for this kind of reform--for choice, for transparency, for insurance market reform, the tax credits, more favorable tax treatment to help them afford the insurance they know is the right thing for them to do and it is the smart thing for them to do. Most small business owners want to provide good health insurance for their employees so they can compete for the best employees out there, which helps them keep their businesses strong. I thank the small business owners, particularly the small business majority, many of the women business owners, organizations that have stayed at the table to help negotiate this important bill. In conclusion, as we move forward, I am prepared to work with my colleagues in the Senate to pass meaningful and responsible health care reform for small businesses. We have a historic opportunity in Washington to fix a system that is broken, that is in desperate need of repair. Let us not let this chance slip away. In these final days of negotiation, let us come together to find a way forward, again, one that reforms the private insurance market, strengthens Medicare, and sustains its viability over a longer period of time, helps to improve the system of Medicaid, by hopefully providing poor, middle-class, and wealthy people with more choices of health care and by coming to terms that we are not going to have an all-public system and we are not going to have an all-private system. We are going to have to find a middle ground, where we take the best of both sides of the public and private system and put them together so every American can have insurance they can count on and, most important, that our small businesses can have insurance that help them create the jobs necessary to lead us out of this recession to start turning this deficit situation around and creating wealth and prosperity for all Americans. Mr. President, I see my colleague here, the Senator from Vermont, and so I thank the Chair and I yield my time.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, our Nation's small businesses have created 64 percent of all new jobs in the last 15 years, yet in the last year nearly 85 percent of the jobs lost have come from small businesses. To reverse this job loss trend and allow small businesses to be the engine of economic growth once again, we must make sure they have the access to capital they need to be successful and help grow our economy. That is exactly why I, along with the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, Olympia Snowe of Maine, am introducing the Small Business Job Creation and Access to Capital Act of 2009. This bipartisan legislation is a result of five hearings and roundtables in the Small Business Committee this year as well as numerous meetings with small business owners. It builds off of S. 1832, the Small Business Access to Capital Act of 2009, and S. 1615, the Next Step for Main Street Credit Availability Act of 2009, legislation Senator Snowe and I have previously introduced. This legislation enhances the ability of the SBA to support larger loans and provide more options to small businesses. As many other sources of capital have evaporated, loans guaranteed by the SBA, with support of funding through the Recovery Act, have been able to support $16.5 billion in loans to small businesses. Specifically, this act would: increase the loan limit on 7(a) loans from $2 million to $5 million; increase the loan limit on 504 loans from $1.5 million to $5.5 million; increase the loan limit on microloans from $35,000 to $50,000, as well as increase the loan limit to microloan intermediaries from $3.5 million to $5 million; allow the 504 loan program to refinance short-term commercial real estate debt into long-term, fixed rate loans; extend the authorization to provide 90 percent guarantees on 7(a) loans and fee elimination for borrowers on 7(a) and 504 loans through December 31, 2010; and direct the SBA to create a website where small businesses can identify lenders in their communities. These provisions will have an immediate impact on increasing the availability of credit for small businesses and spurring job growth, with many of these provisions coming at little or no cost to the government. For example, the SBA estimates that the loan limit increases will be budget neutral, but will increase SBA lending by $5 billion next year alone. The refinancing provisions could help save 60,000 jobs next year by allowing small businesses to refinance short- term commercial real estate debt into long-term fixed rate mortgages. To ensure that this program is budget neutral we have included a provision that would require any additional cost created by the program to be funded by the fees of the participants. Additionally, we have placed a number of safeguards on this program, such as requiring that the refinanced loan be current for at least one year, that the business owner invest a minimum of 20 percent equity and that the availability of funds be capped at $65,000 for every job retained. The extension of the 90 percent guarantees on 7(a) loan and the fee elimination for borrowers on traditional 504 and 7(a) loans extends critical provisions in the Recovery Act. This legislation does not include the appropriations for this funding, but does provide an extension of its authorization should appropriations be made available. It is estimated that if an additional $479 million were to be appropriated for these programs, the SBA would be able to support $18.5 billion in lending to small businesses. Alternately, we are starting to see the impact of this funding not being available. In the first full week of lending since the SBA had to create a waiting list for the final Recovery Act funding, 7(a) loan volume fell from $985 million in the last week of the full funding being available, to $71 million. This $71 million in loan volume is lower than the average weekly volume we were experiencing before the Recovery Act was approved. We also know that as of today there are more than 700 small businesses in the SBA waiting list approved for $350 million in loans if we made more funding available. It is clear that now is the time to act. Our Nation's small businesses need access to capital and this bill helps facilitate this crucial need.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, our Nation's small businesses have created 64 percent of all new jobs in the last 15 years, yet in the last year nearly 85 percent of the jobs lost have come from small businesses. To reverse this job loss trend and allow small businesses to be the engine of economic growth once again, we must make sure they have the access to capital they need to be successful and help grow our economy. That is exactly why I, along with the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, Olympia Snowe of Maine, am introducing the Small Business Job Creation and Access to Capital Act of 2009. This bipartisan legislation is a result of five hearings and roundtables in the Small Business Committee this year as well as numerous meetings with small business owners. It builds off of S. 1832, the Small Business Access to Capital Act of 2009, and S. 1615, the Next Step for Main Street Credit Availability Act of 2009, legislation Senator Snowe and I have previously introduced. This legislation enhances the ability of the SBA to support larger loans and provide more options to small businesses. As many other sources of capital have evaporated, loans guaranteed by the SBA, with support of funding through the Recovery Act, have been able to support $16.5 billion in loans to small businesses. Specifically, this act would: increase the loan limit on 7(a) loans from $2 million to $5 million; increase the loan limit on 504 loans from $1.5 million to $5.5 million; increase the loan limit on microloans from $35,000 to $50,000, as well as increase the loan limit to microloan intermediaries from $3.5 million to $5 million; allow the 504 loan program to refinance short-term commercial real estate debt into long-term, fixed rate loans; extend the authorization to provide 90 percent guarantees on 7(a) loans and fee elimination for borrowers on 7(a) and 504 loans through December 31, 2010; and direct the SBA to create a website where small businesses can identify lenders in their communities. These provisions will have an immediate impact on increasing the availability of credit for small businesses and spurring job growth, with many of these provisions coming at little or no cost to the government. For example, the SBA estimates that the loan limit increases will be budget neutral, but will increase SBA lending by $5 billion next year alone. The refinancing provisions could help save 60,000 jobs next year by allowing small businesses to refinance short- term commercial real estate debt into long-term fixed rate mortgages. To ensure that this program is budget neutral we have included a provision that would require any additional cost created by the program to be funded by the fees of the participants. Additionally, we have placed a number of safeguards on this program, such as requiring that the refinanced loan be current for at least one year, that the business owner invest a minimum of 20 percent equity and that the availability of funds be capped at $65,000 for every job retained. The extension of the 90 percent guarantees on 7(a) loan and the fee elimination for borrowers on traditional 504 and 7(a) loans extends critical provisions in the Recovery Act. This legislation does not include the appropriations for this funding, but does provide an extension of its authorization should appropriations be made available. It is estimated that if an additional $479 million were to be appropriated for these programs, the SBA would be able to support $18.5 billion in lending to small businesses. Alternately, we are starting to see the impact of this funding not being available. In the first full week of lending since the SBA had to create a waiting list for the final Recovery Act funding, 7(a) loan volume fell from $985 million in the last week of the full funding being available, to $71 million. This $71 million in loan volume is lower than the average weekly volume we were experiencing before the Recovery Act was approved. We also know that as of today there are more than 700 small businesses in the SBA waiting list approved for $350 million in loans if we made more funding available. It is clear that now is the time to act. Our Nation's small businesses need access to capital and this bill helps facilitate this crucial need.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as chair of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am pleased to join the committee's ranking member, Olympia Snowe of Maine, in introducing the Small Business Export Enhancement and International Trade Act of 2009. Building upon legislation that I have introduced in the last three Congresses, including, S. 1196 the Small Business International Trade Enhancements Act of 2009 that I introduced in June of this year, this bipartisan legislation will ensure that small businesses seeking to export their goods and services will have access to the resources they need to successfully expand into foreign markets. With health premiums increasing more each year and cash registers at home not ringing like they used to, exporting has become a practical solution for small firms. Expanding opportunities for small business trade is not only vital to the financial security of our entrepreneurs, it is vital to the recovery of our economy. Last year, $70 billion in exports maintained or created 600,000 high- paying American jobs. By creating jobs, as well as lessening the trade deficit, an increase in small business exporting will lead us out of this recession and make our nation better able to compete in the global marketplace. Furthermore, any investments we make in export programs will essentially pay for themselves. Every dollar invested in export programs increases exports by 40 percent, a World Bank study found. In my home State of Louisiana, we have experienced firsthand the benefit of expanding and investing in export opportunities. With over 40 ports and an extensive rail system, Louisiana has long been a top destination for companies seeking to export their goods and services, particularly exporters. Despite the devastation caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Louisiana has experienced a tremendous growth in trade activity during the last five years, largely due to increased exports. For example, in 2008 alone, Louisiana exported nearly $41.9 billion dollars worth of goods and services, representing a 38-percent increase from 2007, more than triple the national export growth rate for that year. However, while most of our Nation's exporters--about 97 percent--are small businesses, most of our small businesses are not exporting. In fact, small businesses make up just more than a quarter of the country's export volume--trade remains dominated by larger businesses. This is also true in Louisiana where, despite tremendous growth in exports in recent years, small businesses represent 85 percent of exporting companies, but account for only 30 percent of the export volume. What is holding our entrepreneurs back? As chair of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have heard from small exporters across the country. I held a roundtable on June 11--``Entrepreneurial Development: Investing in Small Businesses to Strengthen our Economy''--to hear from small business and exporting leaders. I also held a field hearing in New Orleans on June 30--``Keeping America Competitive: Federal Programs that Promote Small Business Exporting''--at which United States Trade Representative, Ambassador Ron Kirk, U.S. Small Business Administration, SBA, Administrator Karen Mills, U.S. Export-Import Bank Chairman and President Fred Hochberg and several small exporters testified. At these events, small exporters told me that the programs and services at the Small Business Administration, SBA, and other Federal agencies are helpful--but they are not doing everything they could and should do. Better coordination and improvements to the programs are needed. Like many small businesses, one of the biggest hurdles faced by small exporters is access to capital. The current economic conditions exacerbate this problem for small firms. The SBA offers several loan programs to help small exporters, but years of neglect under the previous administration have sometimes rendered these valuable tools both unattractive and impractical for borrowers and lenders alike. One of these programs is the International Trade Loan, ITL, program. This program allows exporters to borrow up to $2 million with $1.75 million guaranteed by the SBA. Exporters can then use this money to help develop and expand overseas markets, upgrade equipment and facilities or provide an infusion of capital if they are being hurt by import competition. While the original goal of this program is on target with the needs of larger exporters, it has not evolved to meet the financing needs of small exporters in an ever-changing global economy. The volume of loans made through this program has dropped by more than 90 percent since 2003. The SBA's other signature trade financing product--the Export Working Capital Program--has also seen a significant drop in its loan volume, declining by more than 31 percent over the same period. With a few small but significant changes to these programs, the SBA will once again be able to provide a user friendly and attractive financing option that makes sense for both borrowers and lenders. For example, one of the biggest problems with the ITL program is a discrepancy between the loan cap and the guarantee, forcing borrowers to take out a second loan to take full advantage of the guarantee. Additionally, ITL's can only be used to acquire fixed assets, rather than working capital, a common need for exporters. ITL's also do not have the same collateral or refinancing terms as SBA 7(a) loans. The provisions in this legislation, and previous versions of the legislation that I have introduced in the last three Congresses, address these concerns. The bill raises the loan guarantee to $4.5 million and the loan cap to $5 million, makes working capital an eligible use of proceeds, and extends the 7(a) program's terms for collateral and refinancing. The end result is a more relevant and more practical tool for small exporters. By making these simple changes and requiring the agency to publish an annual list of all participating banks and lending institutions, the SBA's export finance programs will once again provide small exporters with the practical and modern financing options small businesses need and deserve. These programs, however, are only useful if a small business owner can identify which loan products are right for them. Local lenders that specialize in export financing can help get these products into the hands of the small exporters that need them the most, but they are not always the most effective ones to do so. The SBA has 18 finance specialists posted at one-stop assistance centers throughout the country operated by the Department of Commerce. These specialists, at a minimal cost, have facilitated more than $10 billion in exports in the last 10 years, helping to create 140,000 new and higher paying jobs. Unfortunately, this program suffered staff cuts under the previous administration. Legislation that I introduced earlier this year, S. 1196, as well as other version of this legislation that I have introduced in previous Congresses, would restore the staffing levels to what they were in 2002, establishing a floor of 22 export finance specialists with priority staffing going to those centers who have been without a finance specialist since 2003. I am pleased that Ranking Member Snowe has included language from my legislation establishing a minimum staffing level for the program and I applaud her efforts to expand the program at a realistic rate by requiring that no fewer than three export finance specialists are assigned to each SBA region within two years of enactment. I am also pleased that the bill includes language that I proposed, requiring the SBA to conduct a reoccurring, biannual study on the availability of export finance specialists in high and low export volume areas. This will ensure that future assignment of SBA personnel and resources are allocated to the areas with the greatest need. With more than 20 federal agencies involved in export and trade promotion, small exporters often don't know where to turn for help, or even that help--like the local finance specialists--even exist. This legislation would help bring small business trade to the forefront in two ways: First, it gives the SBA's Office of International Trade, OIT, more resources and a higher profile within the Agency, making it directly accountable to the Administrator instead of part of the Office of Capital Access, OCA, where it is currently housed. It also requires that OIT make numerous internal improvements by requiring the office to: maintain a trade information distribution network in partnership with other Federal agencies and SBA resource partners; properly staff and clarify the role of existing OIT positions in both regional and district offices; provide more coordinated training between employees of the office and lenders, small exporters and other resource partners; develop a comprehensive trade dispute technical assistance program; and finally, to develop targeted annual goals and performance metrics. OIT is doing an adequate job now, but with these proposed changes, the office would have the potential to become a more robust partner and visible advocate for small exporters seeking assistance from the SBA. I have long advocated for these simple yet important changes and I am pleased they made it into the final legislation. In addition to improving the coordination and advocacy among Federal agencies and making needed changes to existing SBA resources, this bill seeks to increase the number of small businesses involved in exporting by using State resources more effectively. It does this by creating the State Trade and Export Promotion, STEP, program, a 3-year pilot grant program modeled after the SBA's successful SBIR-FAST program. Unlike existing Federal programs which tend to focus their resources in States that already possess a high percentage of small exporters or a large export volume, STEP seeks to reach small businesses in States with minimal export assistance resources to target businesses that typically do not export their goods and services. I have worked closely with the small business community in Louisiana and I believe that this program will have a tremendous impact not only in my State, but also nationally. Finally, this legislation requires the SBA to report back to the committee on their efforts to promote exports to small businesses located in rural areas. With the technology that we posses today, there is no reason why a small business located in a rural or traditionally nonexporting area shouldn't have access to the same opportunities available to those located in urban, or high-export areas. Creating access to exporting opportunities for rural small businesses could lead to the creation of new jobs and increased development in these communities, especially in Louisiana. I am pleased this language was included in this bill. The Small Business Export Enhancement and International Trade Act of 2009 is an important first step toward ensuring that small firms will have more opportunities to grow. By increasing exporting opportunities for small businesses, we will help them expand into international markets, create new and higher-paying jobs and strengthen the economy. I have heard from some of the members of my committee and I know how important this issue is to many of them, especially Ranking Member Snowe whom I have worked closely with these past months to develop this comprehensive, bipartisan bill. I thank Senator Snowe for her attention to this issue and strong willingness to make the changes our small exporters so desperately need. The 111th Congress will be the third consecutive Congress that I have introduced or cosponsored legislation to help our small exporters. I introduced a version of this legislation in the 109th Congress as S.3663, in the 110th Congress as S. 738 and earlier this year as S. 1196. In these previous Congresses we have had some success in moving the provisions through committee, but as with other SBA reauthorization legislation, it stalled in the full Senate. As the new chair of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship this Congress, I have made increasing small business export opportunities one of the committee's top priorities and will continue to do so in the future. I am pleased to join Ranking Member Snowe in introducing this legislation and will continue to work closely with her and other members of the committee in the coming months to bring this legislation to the President's desk.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I first want to commend my colleague, Senator Cantwell, the Senator from Washington State, who has worked so hard and so long and in such a professional way. She has been extremely helpful to me through this process, and I want to acknowledge that and thank her. Before I make a statement, I also want to comment about a few other colleagues who have been extremely helpful and supportive, not just to me but I think to the entire Senate, beginning with Senator Harry Reid, our leader, who, with patience and persistence and care, has led us to a bill that is before the Senate. The question today is whether we should proceed. I would like to say that, in my view, no other Member of the Senate could have accomplished what he has today. I think many Senators share that sentiment. No. 2, I want to recognize the extraordinary work of the Senator from Oregon, Senator Ron Wyden, who, 2 years ago, before the Presidential election had really gotten underway, before it was really ever clear as to who might win, Senator Wyden put down a bill called the Healthy Americans Act, which I was very proud to support, and I still am so proud of that effort today. That bill has the support of seven Republicans and seven Democrats. It is a truly bipartisan effort that would accomplish, in my view, what many Americans are asking for: a marketplace that is fixed and reformed, more affordable choices for individuals and small businesses and families, and a real effort to curb the rising and alarming cost to the Federal taxpayers, given that the percentage now of our GDP spent on health care is almost exceeding 16 percent, twice as high as any nation in the world. That is alarming. The Healthy Americans Act went a long way to help frame my thoughts on this debate. We are going to continue to work together through this process. I also thank Senator Blanche Lincoln who, because of her persistent leadership, has pushed and prodded Members of this body to ensure that we had the time necessary to review this bill. In so doing, she helped to assure our constituents, whether they are for or against the direction we are moving, knew that we had the time necessary to make an informed decision. I think I have used that time very well these last 2\1/2\ days. I have been in meetings with economists, on the phone with health care experts, talking with people from my State as well as around the Nation. I have used that time well and wisely. Senator Lincoln led the charge to ensure that we had the time we needed, and I am glad to have supported her in that effort. I know she will be speaking on the floor later today, giving her final views on where we are. I commend her for her leadership. Madam President, I come to the floor today to acknowledge to speak on the business before the Senate today, and that is the question of whether to proceed to debate on the Patient Protection and Affordability Act, a bill that is the best work of the Senate to date on a subject of significant importance to the people of my State and the country. I have decided to vote today to move forward on this important debate. My vote should in no way be construed by the supporters of this current framework as an indication of how I might vote on the final bill. My vote is a vote to move forward, to continue the good and essential and important and imperative work that is underway. After a thorough review of the bill, as I said, over the last 2\1/2\ days, which included many lengthy discussions, I have decided that there are enough significant reforms and safeguards in this bill to move forward, but much more work needs to be done before I can support this effort. Over the past many years, and in particular the last 6 months, I have heard from people all across Louisiana that their insurance premium costs are simply too high and continue to rise without warning, threatening the financial stability of their families and their businesses. I have also heard the pleas and cries of many people who need health coverage but they cannot find it anywhere within reach of their budgets. Through months of public meetings in VFW halls, school gyms, and in hospitals and health clinics from New Orleans to Shreveport, and in large and small communities throughout my State, it is clear to me that doing nothing is not an option, nor is postponing the debate. Spirited debate and good-faith negotiations in this Senate have produced a bill that contains some amazing and cutting-edge reforms that will, I am hopeful, reduce costs for families and small businesses while reducing the debt burden of the Federal Government. But these reforms must be implemented properly and carefully, and they must be put in place in a timely fashion. Small business owners across the country have told me time after time that in order to grow their businesses and create jobs, they need affordable health insurance and they need stable and predictable costs. Yes, they would like their costs to be lowered, and I am going to stay focused like a laser on doing just that. But what they also need is predictability--they need to be able to plan for the future, something they cannot do when the cost of healthcare spikes violently from year to year. As we all know, today, under the status quo, small business owners are frequently confronted with impossible choices when an employee or employee's family member gets seriously ill. They can expect exorbitant cost increases of up to 20 percent in their premiums when just one of their employees gets sick. Then they are confronted with the excruciating choice of going to that employee and those family members and saying: I am sorry, to save my business and the other 10 employees, we need to let you go. Here is $1,000 or $2,000 or $5,000. You are on your own. Good luck. That is a tragic story, painful, depressing, and it has to stop. I appreciate the hard work of many business owners and organizations that have helped to craft portions of this framework because they have remained at the negotiating table. They didn't run and hide, they remained at the table. I am asking them today to stay at this table. Before I discuss the work that needs to be done to improve this bill, I would like to discuss some of the points in this bill that encourage me to move forward. Small business owners, under the current framework of this bill, would no longer be confronted with these kinds of volatile costs. This bill prevents insurance companies from escalating their rates or dropping their coverage after someone gets sick. That important change goes a long way in stabilizing the amount small businesses will have to pay for their health plans, and it allows business owners to do what they do best--plan smart investments, grow their businesses, and then help us grow our economy. In recent years, economists have found that workers' wages have remained largely stagnant. Why? Because employers are paying more and more for health care that we are indirectly subsidizing through the current Tax Code and so have less and less money to pay real wages that workers in large and small businesses could actually take home, put in their pockets, and spend in much more productive ways. The bill we are debating would encourage employers to move away from high-cost benefit plans, and instead increase the amount that working families can take home. That is an important change from the status quo. In addition, this bill would ensure that the majority of Louisiana families would pay no more than 10 percent of their income for health care. That is still high. But today families in Louisiana pay an average of 30 percent of their income on healthcare costs. And economists project that if we do nothing, that total will climb to 60 percent of an average family's income that will have to be spent trying to afford health care. This bill changes that trajectory. So while some people still think that 10 percent or 12 percent may be too high, it is a lot better than 60 percent, which is the direction we are heading today if we do nothing. That is real progress. These reforms I have just mentioned are necessary and are too important a goal for the Senate to abandon its work. But, as I have said, there is a great deal more work that needs to be done. I would like to mention briefly just a few of the significant changes I would like to see be made to this bill. No. 1, in order to increase choices for small businesses, we must enhance and expand tax credits that are in this bill for small businesses, particularly for business with 25 fewer employees. If we can expand tax credits for slightly larger small businesses with between 25 and 50 employees, that would be significant progress. Current projections are that 96 percent of all businesses that have more than 50 employees have coverage. That is a good statistic, and those larger businesses have some choices. But we need to give small businesses more choices. It is these small businesses that are leading the country on its way out of this recession. And we need to help them in that effort. In addition, I will continue to fight for more tax equity for the 27 million Americans who are currently self-employed. Every chairman of the Small Business Committee--both Republican and Democrat, I understand, for the last 25 years--has asked for this to be addressed. It is time to make progress on that effort now. No. 2, in order to really deliver our promise to hold down costs for families, we should think about focusing on ways to prevent premiums from being excessively raised between the time this bill is enacted, if it ever is, and the time it actually goes into effect. Many of the provisions in this bill, because of cost considerations, which I understand, do not go into effect until 2014. Well, today is 2009. That's a long time between now and then, and we need to make sure that companies do not jack up their premiums in anticipation of the market reforms this bill will make, as we have seen the credit card industry do in anticipation of the important reforms we made earlier in the year. Americans cannot afford to allow that kind of predatory behavior. Finally, I remain concerned that the current version of the public option included in this bill could shift significant risks to taxpayers over time unnecessarily, and I will continue to work with my colleagues to find a better and bipartisan solution for this issue. I have suggested that a freestanding, premium-supported, competitive community option that would trigger on a date certain, if our private market reforms fail to work, might be a possible compromise. That would include language that Senator Snowe and other of my colleagues have been working on for several months. Because I am hopeful we can make progress on each of these concerns and others through an amendment and debate process that is open and transparent, I believe that it is incumbent upon me to allow the bill to move to debate on the Senate floor. I stand ready to work together with my colleagues to fashion a principled and hopefully bipartisan compromise in the end to achieve what the people in my State need, and what many Americans need, and which we really have to do our best to try to give them. Finally, I know my time is up, but I would like to ask a personal privilege for just 1 more minute to address an issue that has come up, unfortunately, in the last 24 hours, driven by some very partisan Republican bloggers. So I think I need to respond and will do so now. One of the provisions in the framework of this bill has to do with fixing a very difficult situation that Louisiana is facing. For reasons that are simply beyond my comprehension, some partisans have decided to attack me for leading an effort to address a serious budget shortfall facing my state. The reason for this situation goes back to the disastrous hurricanes of 2005. I am not going to review the horrors of Katrina and Rita. The levees broke, and by the way, the courts have just ruled that the Corps of Engineers was, as I have said from the beginning, responsible. But I will comment more on that at another date. But, nonetheless, in 2005 Louisiana experienced two of the worst natural disasters in recent memory. In an effort to aid the recovery, Congress stepped in with a massive aid package for Louisianans--thank you--that infused grant dollars and direct assistance. Some of necessary one-time recovery dollars, in addition to the increased economic activity, were calculated into our State's per capita income. The result has been that Louisiana's per capita income-- --

Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask for 1 additional minute?

Ms. LANDRIEU. The result is Louisiana's per capita income was abnormally inflated. You can understand that. There were billions of dollars that came in from insurance and road, home, and community development block grants. In addition, labor and wage costs went up because there was a constriction in the market, which any economist can tell us always happens after a natural disaster. As a result, when we did the calculation under the law, it made us seem as if we were a state with a high per capita income like Connecticut and not a state with a low per capita income like Louisiana, almost as if we had become rich overnight. That was not the case. Our State is still as poor as it was, if not poorer as a consequence of those devastating storms. I am not going to be defensive about asking for help in this situation. It is not a $100 million fix, it is a nearly $300 million fix. It is the No. 1 request of my Governor who is a Republican. He explicitly asked that I pursue these funds. It is unanimously supported by every Member of our delegation, Democratic and Republican. I am proud to have asked for it. I am proud to have fought for it. I will continue to. But that is not the reason I am moving to debate. The reason I am moving to the debate, as I expressed in this statement, is that the cost of healthcare is bankrupting families and it is bankrupting our government. We cannot afford the status quo. I thank my colleagues for their graciousness. I know I have gone over my time, but I wanted to get that on the record. I support moving forward with the debate and look forward to working with them to improve it. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in commenting on and thanking Senator Byrd for his extraordinary leadership, not just for the people of West Virginia but the people of our Nation--in fact, to millions of people around the world--because of the policies he has driven here, the speeches, the words he has put behind so many of the most remarkable policy decisions over the last half century. His work has had enormous impact, again, not just in his State and in our Nation but worldwide. I am speaking also as a Senator from Louisiana to give firsthand witness to his sensitive and timely and extraordinary leadership after the Katrina and Rita disasters, now almost 4\1/2\ years ago; it will be 5 years this August. That is hard to believe. The hurricanes and the subsequent levee failures devastated one of the great cities in America and one of the great regions. There were very few people who stood up in Washington. The administration at the time had a hard time grasping the scope of the disaster. But there was one person who understood. There were several others, but one in particular understood--amazingly, without even having gone down there, which was very hard to understand if you didn't go to New Orleans or south Louisiana. But he instinctively understood because of his compassion and great empathy that has been developed over a lifetime of caring, giving, understanding, and listening. Senator Byrd heard the cries of the people and he responded. Because of his leadership on the Appropriations Committee, despite having so much stacked against us, he was able to step up. I will never forget and the people of our State will never forget the friend we have had in Senator Byrd. He continues, to this day, to watch after our recovery and support it. When New Orleans makes its 300th anniversary, which will be 2018--our city will be 300 years old--there will be a person who needs to be thanked on that day for helping the city to reach its 300th birthday, and that would be the great Senator from West Virginia Robert C. Byrd.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from Virginia for their remarks earlier this morning on the subject I am also going to speak on, which is the urgency for us to provide important help to millions of small businesses out there that are depending on us to get this reform done right. I wish to speak for a minute about reforms for small business in America. There were many different reasons expressed by Members of Congress about why they began engaging in this very tough debate on health care. Many different issues brought us to the table. One of the issues that brought me to this table of reform and negotiation was the desperate plight of small businesses in America that have nowhere to turn. As my colleagues have said in their very excellent statements this morning, the unpredictable and unsustainable and skyrocketing costs of health care to small business in America is damaging their ability to grow, is participating in an uptick of bankruptcies, is diminishing their ability to hire people and create jobs at a time when our country needs those jobs created, perhaps more than ever in the last 25 or 30 years. Until we get health care right for small business, they cannot get job creation right for America. It is as simple as that. So as difficult as this debate has been--and it has been very long, very arduous, with lots of different views--one thing we must do, in the final weeks and months of the debate, is get it right for small business. I have heard from hundreds of small business owners as chairman of the Small Business Committee. My members have heard from hundreds. We have heard from thousands, through their representative associations, from conservative associations, to moderate, to more liberal associations representing a broad stretch of small businesses in this country, saying this is their No. 1 issue. Just this week, Barbara Biersmith, who owns Sylvan Learning Center in Monroe, LA, a small business owner--1 out of the 27 million that exist in the United States of America--and 27 million is a lot of people, a lot of businesses and employees. She is one. She is quoted in the Monroe News Star this week: As a business owner, I have struggled in vain for more than 22 years to find a way to provide health insurance for my employees. Health insurance providers tell me I have too few employees to make a group. Or they tell me that some of my employees have preexisting conditions that excludes them from a group and that would make the group too small. The kind of highly educated, experienced people I prefer to hire nearly always have preexisting conditions. Who doesn't have a preexisting condition by the age 30? Considering that being a woman of childbearing age is considered a preexisting condition, I think she is right. Who doesn't have one these days based on the interpretation of these policies? She goes on to say: Because my business can't provide good health benefits effectively, I am restricted to hiring people who are covered by their spouse's medical insurance. This is something that is not talked about often. I know my colleague from Washington is waiting to speak. I will go through this as quickly as I can. I hear this over and over again when I am on the streets and in towns and communities back home and I don't hear it here. Let me say it. I have any number of people who come up to me and say: Senator, thank you for working hard on health care. I am a little concerned or confused about what you all are doing but try to get it right because my health care is through my spouse who works for the government or my health care is through my spouse who works for a big company, and if I didn't have that health care, I wouldn't have any. I was in a restaurant last week, and the gentlemen who owns it told me this: I couldn't be a small business owner but for my health care that is covered through my spouse. It is right to get the policy right so everybody can have access to affordable health care coverage. She goes on to say: I hope and pray our representatives and Senators soon pass Federal legislation to help the really small businesses of America. Let me say I hope that help is on the way. If we can negotiate this bill, in terms of robust exchanges, subsidies for small businesses, particularly these very small businesses of under 10 employees or 25 employees, it would help. The situation Barbara is facing is not acceptable and must be corrected. But her situation is not unique, as I said. According to a report by the Small Business Majority, the health care costs for small businesses are expected to increase from $156 billion in 2009 to $2.4 trillion by 2018. Before I put up the next chart, I need to repeat these numbers because they are dramatic. These are numbers published by the Small Business Majority's report, based on actual data. This is a bill that small business cannot pay. This is a bill they cannot pay. We must get the costs moving in a different direction. It will take some time, but we must get this chart going from up to down. That is why I have pushed every day of this debate to focus on cost containment. Not only is it important for taxpayers and government, it is absolutely critical for small businesses to have more choices at lower costs. This chart shows the graph in a different way. This shows the cumulative cost of health care benefits--the first one. This is indicating job loss, and 178,000 small business jobs will be lost in 2018 due to the high cost of health care. That is up from 39,000. Companies can't continue to hire if they have to pay higher premiums for the employees they still have working for them. Costs are high because of a broken insurance market where insurers, in order to satisfy their stockholders, put a greater focus on their bottom line. I understand that when you are in business, you need to make a profit. I understand that is why you are in business. I have no problem with people making profits--and significant ones--as long as the rules are fair and as long as there is opportunity to keep our values in order. One of the values we have in America is people going into business making a profit but making sure, if you are in the business of insurance and delivering benefits, that is what you are delivering to the people you are trying to serve. So we need some adjustments in those rules and regulations. That is what I think we are doing in our reform bill. More alarmingly, getting back to the statistics, according to some reports, including a recent New York Times article, the insurance companies are planning to raise rates even higher today in anticipation of our reform effort. This is very unsettling, and the sooner we act the better I think we will be--to help reform this market, to bring some order to the framework. That would be extremely helpful. Lack of choice and competition is a problem, as I said. In Louisiana, our two top insurers maintain 74 percent of the market. In Alaska, I understand, there are two insurers maintaining 95 percent of the market. This is not real choice. It is not real competition. That is why the exchanges we have in most of the base bills, making them more robust, making subsidies as generous as we can to encourage individuals to assume responsibility for their health care, as well as subsidizing small businesses to encourage them to get into these large pools, I believe--and many of us believe--that will help to drive down costs, as we reform the private market. To level the playing field for small businesses and to provide working families with more choices at lower costs, the bill we will vote on in the Senate will have as robust an exchange system as possible. These exchanges will allow businesses and individuals to pool to give them the negotiating power and to spread risk. We estimate today that small businesses pay retail, as the Senator from Virginia. Mr. Warner said. Everybody else pays wholesale. Small business pays retail. The price of paying retail is a minimum of 18 percent more on premiums that they are paying. So we want to get that savings. The exchanges will achieve that. The exchanges will also achieve lower administrative costs, so you don't have to hire a full- time lawyer or accountant to navigate the wide variety--actually, there are limited choices today, but you will have more transparency, more robust exchanges. Finally, regardless of the level of benefit choices, there should be a limit on how much individuals must spend out of pocket and a minimum standard of care among all the plan levels. These are some of the protections we are working on for small businesses, which will benefit individuals as well. Again, I thank my colleagues for being on the floor this morning. I think Senator Cantwell, the Senator from Washington, who is here to give voice to this important part of the debate. Again, we have hundreds of Members of Congress. We all came to this debate carrying various issues and with greater concerns than others. One of my great concerns has been, as we try to find a way to dig ourselves out of this great recession--some say the worst economic situation since the Great Depression--the only way we are going to do that is for businesses to create jobs. Right now, there is a big burden that they have been carrying alone. They need help, support, and they need more tax credits, more robust subsidies, and a more orderly private market framework that allows the insurance companies to be in business and to make a profit but also allows small businesses to be able to afford quality coverage for American workers, so we can get back to being the most productive workforce in the world. I yield the floor for the Senator from Washington.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to honor a very special Louisianian, Eden Sutley, who has served her State and Nation with great distinction. Eden is a Lafayette, LA, native who is currently a junior at the George Washington University in Washington, DC. Just like Louisiana's senior Senator, Eden Sutley is a proud member of the Delta Gamma Fraternity. Winston Churchill, one of the great figures of World War II, once said: ``We make a living by what we do, but we make a life by what we give.'' Eden Sutley may not know what she wants to do to earn a living after college, but her volunteer spirit and desire to give back to the ``greatest generation'' precisely highlights the sentiment to which Mr. Churchill refers. At the urging of her father, 2 years ago Eden became involved with Louisiana HonorAir Program. This group, based in Eden's hometown of Lafayette, honors surviving World War II veterans by giving them an opportunity to see the Washington, DC, memorials dedicated to their service. After flying up from Louisiana, the veterans visit the World War II, Korea, Vietnam and Iwo Jima memorials and travel to Arlington National Cemetery. Eden Sutley has played an important role during HonorAir's trips to Washington, DC. For each visit, Eden organizes about 40 of her sorority sisters to come out and assist these World War II heroes. They help by pushing wheelchairs, taking pictures, and handing out water as these Louisiana World War II veterans experience the Nation's Capital, many for the first time. In all, Eden has recruited over 200 sorority sisters to lend a hand to our HonorAir veterans. They have volunteered on more than a dozen Saturdays since 2007, helping over 1,000 veterans. There have been seven different flights this year alone, including the last trip of the year, which occurred October 24. Volunteering with HonorAir to assist the World War II veterans is so popular among her fellow Delta Gammas that some sisters come back to help out even after they have graduated. Eden has also inspired two other Louisianians, Terricia Soyombo and Brooke Oschner, who are also Delta Gammas at George Washington University, to become part of this effort. Through her role as Delta Gamma president at George Washington, Eden has been instrumental in getting other Greek organizations involved, as well. Eden has demonstrated a passion for public service that serves as a model for college students across our great country. On behalf of Louisiana HonorAir and our entire State, I thank Eden for her leadership, for her willingness to give back, and for inspiring others to do the same.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am proud to honor a group of 97 World War II veterans from all over Louisiana who travelled to Washington, DC, on October 24 to visit the various memorials and monuments that recognize the sacrifices of our Nation's invaluable servicemembers. Louisiana HonorAir, a group based in Lafayette, LA, sponsored this trip to the Nation's Capital. The organization is honoring surviving World War II Louisiana veterans by giving them an opportunity to see the memorials dedicated to their service. The veterans visited the World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and Iwo Jima memorials. They also travelled to Arlington National Cemetery. This was the last of three flights Louisiana HonorAir made to Washington, DC this fall. It is the 20th flight to depart from Louisiana, which has sent more HonorAir flights than any other State to the Nation's Capital. World War II was one of America's greatest triumphs but was also a conflict rife with individual sacrifice and tragedy. More than 60 million people worldwide were killed, including 40 million civilians, and more than 400,000 American servicemembers were slain during the long war. The ultimate victory over enemies in the Pacific and in Europe is a testament to the valor of American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. The years 1941 to 1945 also witnessed an unprecedented mobilization of domestic industry, which supplied our military on two distant fronts. In Louisiana, there remain today about 30,000 living WWII veterans, and each one has a heroic tale of achieving the noble victory of freedom over tyranny. This HonorAir group had 41 veterans who served in the U.S. Army, 11 in the Army Air Corps, 33 in the Navy, 6 in the Marine Corps, 3 in the Merchant Marines, 1 in the Coast Guard, and 2 were a part of Women's Army Corps, WAC. Our heroes, many of them from Southeast Louisiana, trekked the world for their country. They fought in Germany, Holland, France, Italy, Africa, Guam, Bougainville, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, the Philippines, New Guinea, Japan, and Saipan. Their journeys included the invasions of North Africa, Sicily, and Normandy. One of our Army veterans fought on the front lines in Europe and was held as a prisoner of war. Another Army veteran was wounded in Bastogne and received a Purple Heart for his service. One Army Air Corps veteran served in 37 combat missions between 1943 and 1945 as a B-24 tail gunner. One Army veteran served in Normandy during D-day. Another Army veteran received five battle stars for his service. Yet another one of our Army veterans received a Purple Heart and five medals, including the Bronze Star Medal, for his service in Europe. I am also proud to acknowledge that of the 97 veterans who visited Washington this past weekend, two were women who served our country with honor and distinction during World War II. I ask the Senate to join me in honoring these 97 veterans, all Louisiana heroes, who visited Washington. We thank Louisiana HonorAir for making these trips a reality.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments from our leader, Senator Mikulski from Maryland, who does a magnificent job as a member of the Appropriations Committee, and particularly in this area she feels passionate about. I look forward to continuing to work with her in all sorts of criminal justice areas, particularly as it relates to the protection of children. I thank her for those comments. I thank the Senator for giving me a chance to speak very briefly, to do two things: one, to give a statement on an amendment that was proposed on this bill by Senator Vitter, that related to adding a question to the Census. I have submitted a letter on this to him personally. Senator Vitter contends that the founding fathers only believed that citizens should be counted by Census officials for the purposes of congressional apportionment. He argues that the inclusion of noncitizens in the census will result in Louisiana losing a congressional seat since the population of States like California and Texas could be inflated by millions of illegal immigrants, making their population growth relatively greater than ours. Should noncitizens be included in the calculation that determines the allocation of seats in the House of Representatives? I believe that the answer is no. But merely adding a question to the Census will not fix that. That change requires an amendment to the Constitution, which states: ``Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State''. I think that the Constitution is clear. But my staff has checked with the Nation's foremost constitutional scholars at Yale, Stanford, and UCLA to name a few. They have checked with scholars from the political right and scholars from the political left. So far, every single scholar agrees: If you want to exclude noncitizens you must amend the Constitution. Professor Eugene Volokh, a well-regarded constitutional law scholar at UCLA, and a staunch conservative, has written publicly that the notion would be unconstitutional. Were the founders wrong to create the formula for congressional apportionment in that way? That is a very serious question for all 50 States, but it is far from the most important challenge confronting Louisiana today. The fact is that if Louisiana does not bolster law enforcement, our communities will not be safe enough to attract new residents. If we do not improve our failing public schools, families will not want to call Louisiana home, and businesses would not have the employment base that will grow our economy. The truth is that our State has seen more outward migration than any other in the Union. Only Louisiana and North Dakota lost population this decade, and Louisiana's population was reduced by a much higher degree. Illegal immigration is a very serious problem. but it is not responsible for Louisiana's loss of representation. Andrew Beveridge, a sociologist at Queens College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New york, has shown that even if all illegal immigrants were excluded, Louisiana would still lose a seat. Here is our real problem: Decades of stagnant economic growth drove many Louisianians elsewhere, and that was before Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav and Ike severely impacted our populous coastal communities. Demonstrating that Louisiana means business when it comes to reforming our schools and our police departments and our basic infrastructure takes serious work. That is the work that I engage in every day. Blaming immigrants for our problems does not take much effort, but it will not make our State a better place to live either. Secondly, quickly, since Puerto Rico does not have a Senator, as it is still a territory and not a State, I wanted to take the opportunity to express to the people of Puerto Rico our sadness about a terrible explosion that happened recently, on October 24. It occurred at one of their major refineries. This came to my attention for two reasons. One, we also have a lot of refineries in Louisiana, so we are sensitive that accidents such as this can happen, but also as the Chair of the Subcommittee on Disaster Response, I wanted to talk a minute about this. The fire burned for 24 hours. It destroyed 22 of the 40 storage tanks. Thankfully and amazingly, no one was killed. I come to the floor to congratulate the local officials, the Governor, the FEMA representatives, the law enforcement that responded to this horrific disaster. Some 1,500 people were evacuated, 596 people were sheltered outside of the impacted area. There were 130 firefighters and National Guard troops who worked to bring the inferno under control. The good news is that they did. The purpose of this comment for the Record is to say that training and preparedness help. The Members of this body, both Democrats and Republicans, supported additional funding in last year's bill for FEMA for local training. Congress recognized the importance of training. Since 2007 we have appropriated over $250 million each year in grants. The post-Katrina emergency management reform gave FEMA regional administrators specific responsibility for coordinating that training. I am encouraged that FEMA seems to have learned some of the lessons from Hurricane Katrina and also from September 11, which is now several years behind us, but nonetheless still on our minds. So I wanted to say that training, the appropriate amount of investment in training, works. Again, no one was killed. I want to give credit to FEMA and the Governor of Puerto Rico, Luis Fortuno, for their quick action in keeping people safe, in responding to this situation. Hopefully we will continue to refine our processes, make our disaster response even better for disasters such as this. For hurricanes, for earthquakes, or for anything else that comes our way, we will be ready and able to respond. I yield the floor and I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for being gracious with his time.