or Login to see your representatives.

Access Candidates' and Representatives' Biographies, Voting Records, Interest Group Ratings, Issue Positions, Public Statements, and Campaign Finances

Simply enter your zip code above to get to all of your candidates and representatives, or enter a name. Then, just click on the person you are interested in, and you can navigate to the categories of information we track for them.

Public Statements

SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011

Floor Speech

By:
Date:
Location: Washington, DC

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I will speak for just a moment, if I could.

I know people in Washington and people in America do not believe we can actually eliminate a program. We are getting ready to eliminate one now in a bipartisan fashion to cut funding and to cut a program that has not worked. I just want to underline that we most certainly can do that in a bipartisan way. That is what this vote is about.

I do not believe there is any opposition, so I yield back the remaining time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, before I get into the business before us, which is SBIR and STTR reauthorization, a very important small business program, let me just add a few thoughts to the colloquy of the Senator from Arizona and the minority leader. I would most certainly support that view, and there may be others on the Democratic side who feel that way as well. As chair of the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee, let me be very clear that I don't think we should go to another short-term CR without a full-year appropriation of Homeland Security. Not only is the Defense Department appropriations bill absolutely essential to the well-being of this Nation, but so is the Homeland Security budget. They have complete jurisdiction over Customs and Immigration, over safety and security at our ports and our airports and train stations. We most certainly can't let our guard down as it pertains to our overseas operations, but we absolutely cannot let our guard down as it pertains to our safety here at home.

I hope both Republican and Democratic leadership, as we find our way through this complicated and difficult appropriations process, will remember Defense and Homeland Security.

I see Senator Cornyn on the floor. I know he is going to call up, with no objection from me, his amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu], for Mr. Casey, proposes an amendment numbered 216.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require contractors to notify small business concerns that have been included in offers relating to contracts let by Federal agencies)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3__. SUBCONTRACTOR NOTIFICATIONS.

Section 8(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(13) Notification Requirement.--

``(A) IN GENERAL.--An offeror with respect to a contract let by a Federal agency that is to be awarded pursuant to the negotiated method of procurement that intends to identify a small business concern as a potential subcontractor in the offer relating to the contract shall--

``(i) notify the small business concern that the offeror intends to identify the small business concern as a potential subcontractor in the offer; and

``(14) Reporting by Subcontractors.--The Administrator shall establish a reporting mechanism that allows a subcontractor to report fraudulent activity by a contractor with respect to a subcontracting plan submitted to a procurement authority under paragraph (4)(B).''.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Our intention is for Senator Casey to have an opportunity when he comes to the floor.

Before Senator Cornyn speaks, for just one moment I wish to add a few comments about what happened this morning. We did get two amendment votes on the bill. Those were the first two amendments, the Nelson of Nebraska amendment, and then Senator Snowe and I offered an amendment. We have approximately six other amendments pending not yet scheduled for a vote. Most of them were discussed at some length yesterday on the floor, the most notable Senator McConnell's amendment, which Senator Boxer and others strongly opposed.

I wish to say one thing, as respectfully as I can, in response to a comment Senator Wicker made regarding the Nelson amendment. He said something along the lines that Senator Nelson had found some new--how did he say it--new-found enthusiasm for cutting the budget. In defense of Senator Nelson, I wish to say his enthusiasm is most certainly not new found. He has been a leader on our side in cutting the agencies and departments respectfully and appropriately under his jurisdiction. He has been the lead sponsor of legislation for a long time that has cut legislative spending. I might say it is very difficult with his bill because he also has had to absorb $22 million in additional expenses related to the operation of the Visitor Center which all of our constituents enjoy and support. So he has absorbed that into his operating budget and still managed to cut.

I know Senator Wicker is relatively new to the Senate, but I do wish to remind him and others that Senator Nelson has been a leader in that field.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for a question on his amendment?

Mr. CORNYN. Yes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Most of the programs I am familiar with at the Federal level have built-in sunsets, because they have limited authorization.

How does the Senator's amendment either override that or undercut that? Why is his amendment necessary?

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I am glad to respond to the question. As the Senator knows, many programs that are currently up and running are operating on the basis of an appropriation without an authorization by the committee of jurisdiction, and that is part of what the sunset commission would look at because, frankly, it hasn't been authorized, the kind of oversight that is needed in order to scrub the numbers and make sure the program is still necessary and the spending is appropriate doesn't happen.

This also is designed specifically to deal with what the GAO pointed out in the last 7 to 10 days, where we have dozens of programs designed to do exactly the same thing. In other words, rather than making sure that existing programs work, we tend to layer those on over time, forgetting that those existing programs are even there. So this would be designed primarily to do two things: one, to deal with programs where there is spending because there has been an appropriation made but no authorization; and it would also deal with that duplication.

If, in fact, Congress comes back and authorizes the program, that is one way they could respond to the report of the commission.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator. I will comment, and I know the Senator wants to genuinely root out the waste and duplication. I only say that for programs that are operating under appropriations only. The Senator will know that that authorization is only intact for 1 year under the general rules. When you appropriate money, it is only for 1 year at a time. It can only be extended by an act of this body every year. On the authorizing programs, to my knowledge--and I will get the committee to check on that--Homeland Security has jurisdiction over government operations. It is my understanding that every authorized program has a length of time and that each committee here is responsible for their own oversight.

If the Senator is suggesting that committees either can't, or don't, do their work and we need an extra commission, we will consider that. I understand what the Senator is trying to do. I will have the Homeland Security team look at it on our side and we will respond.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Texas.

Hopefully, as we go through the day, we will have a discussion on that amendment and others. I will try to give a recap. My ranking member is on the floor, and we wish to proceed today as we did yesterday, fairly orderly. We have made progress. We got two amendments voted on already. There are now several amendments pending. I want to ask this for clarification. We have Johanns 161, Vitter 178, McConnell 183, Casey 216, and Cornyn 186. Those are all pending, but no time has been established for a vote. Can I ask the Chair to confirm that?

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Can I also ask the Chair this: We have filed and discussed Hutchison 197, Paul 199, and Sanders 207, which are not pending but have been discussed on the floor. Does that list exist at the desk?

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Those amendments have been filed and will need to be offered.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Let me say again how pleased I am that only a handful of amendments out of the 68 that are pending actually pertain directly to the programs we are getting ready, hopefully, to authorize. Actually, out of the 68 amendments pending, only 14 are related to this particular program, and 3 others to the Small Business Administration itself. I want to believe that is because Senator Snowe and I have tried hard to take all Members' views into consideration as we have moved the bill through the process. As I said, yesterday, we worked on reauthorization of this important program--the largest Federal research program for small business in the country, the largest program--we have worked on this reauthorization for 6 years. So in the last three Congresses this bill has been debated, both in committee and on the floor, in the House and in the Senate. It has been modified many different times to accommodate different views.

The great news is that the bill is still strong, very focused. It provides an additional percentage of funding for small business so they can actually have access to the research and development dollars like big businesses, which often have better access. It gives an open door and an opportunity for small businesses--for some of our best patents, our best inventors, our strongest risk takers, which are often very small startups. We want to encourage that, because the country is fighting its way--and I mean that--out of this recession. It is not easy, and it will not happen automatically. It will happen by what actions the Federal Government takes, State governments, and local governments, creating atmospheres so the private sector can grow. This bill helps to improve that atmosphere. That is why we are talking about this.

Many people have come to the floor and said: Why aren't we talking about closing the deficit? We are talking about reducing the deficit and debt, because one of the ways we do that is by creating private-sector jobs. This bill is one of the bills filed in this Congress--I am not saying it is the top or the absolute best, but I can promise you that it is one of the best bills that is filed that will have a direct and immediate impact on job creation in America.

That is why Senator Snowe and I are spending our time talking about it because it is a jobs bill. It is also a deficit closing bill. It is also a debt reduction bill. It is also a great bill that is going to help level the playing field between large and small companies and say to some of those risk takers out there who look at Washington and shake their head and say, What is going on, doesn't anyone pay attention to us, yes, we are paying attention, we know you are out there. We know if we can provide open-door access to Federal Government research and development dollars, we can have literally hundreds of companies grow and expand.

One example I gave yesterday--and I will give many more today--is Qualcomm, unknown 35 years ago. It started in Dr. Jacobs' den. It received early funding through this program, SBIR. They received multiple grants. You can get multiple grants as your technology improves and it shows promise. Of course, it showed promise. At a point, they were recognized by the venture capital community and investors came in. History has shown now that company employs 17,500 people and last year their local San Diego-based company paid taxes to local governments in California and around the country of $1 billion. That covers half the cost of this entire program--one company.

That is why Senator Snowe and I have spent so much time on this reauthorization and why she has been fighting for this program for actually almost 20 years, since she was a Member of Congress. This program is one that works. We have tweaked it. We have improved it. We are extending our authorizations from 4 years to 8 years to give certainty.

Those are some of the comments I wanted to make about the bill. We have, as I said, 68 amendments that have been filed. I ask Members, if they are interested in getting their amendments pending, to come to the floor to see what we can do to work that out. I am not sure we will get to final passage of the bill this week, but we want to do as much work on the bill as we can so when we get back, it will hopefully be the first order of business. We will see. Maybe there will be a breakthrough in the next 2 or 3 days and we can get it done before we leave. That would send a positive signal. We are working with the leadership to see if that can be done. If not, we will continue to work this week to get as many amendments offered and pending and some votes today and tomorrow.

I see the ranking member on the floor. I wish to turn the time over to her now.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, first, I thank Senator Landrieu for her leadership on these many issues and especially on this critically important legislation to small businesses and for allowing me for a few minutes to talk about the amendment I have submitted. It is amendment No. 216. It addresses a crucial issue that affects subcontractors, particularly subcontractors who are minority owned or women-owned firms in the United States of America.

When I was the auditor general of Pennsylvania, we audited a similar program at the State level and found all kinds of problems, all kinds of abuses when prime contractors do not do what they are supposed to do. In many instances, prime contractors will routinely list a minority-owned firm or women-owned firm to make their application in a competitive process without informing the named subcontractor. It puts that subcontractor at a disadvantage. Once the contract is awarded, the business is not given to the named subcontractor.

The purpose of this amendment is very simple. It will ensure that all subcontractors are aware of their inclusion in Federal procurement bids by prime contractors and establish a system in which those subcontractors can report any fraudulent activity. It is a simple but critically important remedy to part of this problem. We have more work to do on this issue, but it will give subcontractors the ability to more fairly and more fully participate in contracting. That is the least we should be doing at a time when so many small businesses are struggling to survive and to thrive.

I am grateful Senator Landrieu gave me this opportunity. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. I do intend to support his amendment. It is an excellent one. Hopefully, we can get a vote on it sometime today or tomorrow.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, while we are waiting for Senators to come to the floor, I would like to put a couple other quotes or comments from very well-respected organizations about the importance of this bill into the record. I, again, appreciate the 84 Members of the Senate who voted yes to bring this bill to the floor because those 84 Members of the Senate understand we cannot close budget gaps and reduce deficits without growing the economy. Those 84 Members understand that in order to grow the economy, helping government create the atmosphere for the private sector to grow is absolutely imperative. If we would spend a little less hot air time around here and a little more on illuminating discussion, the benefits of programs such as this would be clear. It is actually a Federal program, but it is a Federal program that establishes a partnership with the private sector that is exciting and that works and that helps to create jobs.

The Biodistrict in New Orleans, which was newly formed after Katrina, sent a document to the office that said, in reference to the temporary extensions of this program:

These repeated, temporary extensions have wreaked havoc on agencies' ability to make strategic decisions in regard to the programs.

The Small Business Technology Council says:

Not only does this program spur technological innovation and entrepreneurship, it helps create high-tech jobs, and does so without increasing Federal spending.

The National Small Business Association, another strong supporter, said:

The uncertain future of the program has deterred potential participants and investors.

We do not want to deter anyone. We do not want to discourage anyone from making that investment or taking that step to create the next business that could create not just a handful of jobs but dozens, hundreds, and potentially thousands. That is why President Obama is talking about--and I support his efforts--the need to outinnovate and outcompete, to fight our way out of this recession.

This bill of Senator Snowe and mine might be a relatively small bill from a small agency, but it packs a lot of power and potential to create the jobs that people--in your home State of Minnesota, in my home State of Louisiana, in Maine, and other places--want to see us creating, with virtually no additional cost to the Federal Government. We are simply setting aside a slightly larger portion of research and development moneys already budgeted for cutting-edge research and development and targeting those to small businesses that have proven themselves to produce excellent innovations, technology, and in fact have a disproportionate share of high-impact patents.

The National Venture Capital Association says:

At a time when our country needs to build new businesses, the venture capital industry believes the best use of government dollars is to leverage public/private partnerships. .....

That is what this does. I know there are a few people around this place who do not think the Federal Government can do anything right. I am not one of them. I actually think the Federal Government can do lots of things right. Yes, we make mistakes; yes, there is money wasted; yes, there is duplication; and, yes, sometimes there is even fraud. But programs such as this need to be reauthorized. We have been debating now for 6 years whether this program should be authorized.

If it takes us 6 years to reauthorize one of the best programs in the Federal Government, I wonder how long it is going to take us to reauthorize some of those that are not as well run and to give us the opportunity to make them run better instead of just running around, throwing up our hands, saying nothing works, nothing ever works, everything in Washington is broken. This program is not broken, and it deserves to be reauthorized.

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce:

The SBIR program serves as an important avenue by which agencies harness the creativity and ingenuity of small business to meet specific research and development needs of the Federal Government.

Might I say, they may be the today needs of the Federal Government; such as we need a way to cool our tanks in Afghanistan and Iraq because our tanks are operating in temperatures that are excessive. That was a real need of the Defense Department. They sent out, basically, an SOS: Can anybody come up with a better way?

Not only did we come up with a better way in a radiator out of technology we actually developed in Louisiana, but as you know, these technologies do not stay in the Department of Defense. Once they go out to be used in our tanks, helping keep our war fighters safe and helping win the wars we send them to fight, this technology can now be deployed, potentially, in the racing car industry or in Detroit or some of our other car manufacturing. While it is launched by Federal scientists and inventors and people who are good employees and good, solid Americans who are looking for a better way, it finds its way out into the general public for all of our benefit.

Let me give two more quotes. I see the Senator from Kentucky. The BioTechnology Industry Organization says:

This bill represents a balanced approach to ensure that America's most innovative small businesses can access existing incentives to grow jobs by commercializing new discoveries.

Finally, from the University of California, the CONNECT group says:

Because acquiring funding through traditional lending sources continues to prove difficult in today's tight credit market, SBIR/STTR grants provide tech start-up companies another viable chance to compete for early-stage funding.

Yes, there are many venture capitalists out there. There are always very savvy inventors looking for the next best thing. But before the next best things are invented, there has to be somebody betting on the human capital in our Federal agencies, the human capital in our academic institutions, and the human capital in small businesses that take the risks and believe they can invent that next best thing.

This financing is early. It is high risk. Not every SBIR grant works. But according to the man who gave us the review of this program, if every one of these inventions works, we are not running the program correctly. This program is early, before it is clear whether it is going to work, a chance to get it to work. But the upside is so great when one or more does work, and we have hundreds of companies that have sort of broken out.

I see the Senator from Kentucky. I will rest my discussion. I do want to put some other things in the Record, but to keep the debate moving forward, this would be a good time for him to proceed.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LANDRIEU. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SANDERS. I sure would.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Would the Senator explain--I think he knows because he is quite an expert on this program. I agree 100 percent with the views he just expressed. What is the basic average Social Security income that a person might receive? I understand it is somewhere between $7,000 and $10,000.

Mr. SANDERS. I think it is a hair higher than that. I think it is about $14,000 a year. But the point is, I would say to the Senator from Louisiana, there are millions of seniors for whom that is either all or almost all of their income. That is it. That is it. In this day and age, that is the average. So your point is, there are people certainly below the average.

Ms. LANDRIEU. The reason I ask the Senator that is because it is striking to me that some Members from the other side of the aisle will come and argue that programs like this should be slated for cuts and reductions, and yet failed to vote favorably to raise slightly the income tax on families making over $1 million a year in annual income. I, frankly, Senator, do not understand that. I am not sure people listening to this understand it.

Could you enlighten us?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this has been a very interesting debate. It really gets to the heart of the larger amendment on Capitol Hill and in the minds of all Americans. How are we going to close this budget deficit, annual deficit, and how are we going to substantially reduce the national debt?

I am pleased this discussion is taking place on this bill because the intention of this legislation is to close that gap by creating jobs. Some Senators actually believe we can accomplish that by cutting discretionary spending alone.

The Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Paul, was arguing along that line, that if we just accept his amendment, which I will strongly object to, and cut $200 billion out of the discretionary side of the budget, that will get us in the direction we need to go. All that will do is eat the seed corn this country needs to invest in important things such as infrastructure and education to secure the future for our children and grandchildren.

I remind Senators that since 1982, military discretionary spending has never dropped below 5.5 percent in any given year. The Paul amendment, if adopted--and I doubt it will be--would propose a 50-percent reduction in the discretionary funding of Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development. It is a drastic cut that would not support a foundation for growth and expansion.

Having said that, the other offensive thing to that approach is that there never seems to be a discussion of a reduction of the military budget when it comes to waste, fraud, and abuse. There are billions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars documented in the Defense Department by the Secretary of Defense himself that people object to in trying to get to a balanced budget. Then we have Members who are trying to use the Social Security situation to argue for their point that the roof is falling in, the world is collapsing, and we have to cut back on Social Security.

I wish to add to what Senator Sanders said and clarify something. I respect Senator Coburn. No Member has worked harder on the issue of deficits and debt reduction. I do not agree with all the things he suggests, but I most certainly recognize effort when I see it. Senator Coburn has most certainly put in the effort. When he says the Social Security Program is running a deficit in terms of money in and money out, he is correct. But, as Senator Sanders pointed out, the reason is because the Federal Government used the surplus over the last 15 or 20 years to fund other operations of government. But the Social Security Program itself is intact. When that money is paid back, it will have a surplus. Using the fact that it is running an annual deficit to argue for either cutting benefits to Social Security or cutting benefits from education or from health to pay for Social Security is not a legitimate argument. Again, Social Security is intact. It is actually running a surplus. They would have a surplus right now in the account if the money had been left there.

It continues to amaze me that even in this discussion, we never, ever hear from the other side a willingness to raise $50 billion, if we are trying to get to $100 billion in cuts--and some people want to get to 200, but we would like to close the gap by anywhere from $10 to $100 billion--if we want to get 50 of that billion by raising the income tax on people who make over $1 million, we could get halfway to $100 billion by doing that. But we never hear that. We just hear: Cut Social Security benefits, cut education, cut health care, cut Pell grants, cut homeland security.

I know we have to cut back on spending. I know we have to get our deficit under control. I know our debt is too high. But we are not going to achieve the goal of fiscal responsibility by cutting discretionary spending on the domestic side, which means cutting Head Start, Pell grants, and education, and adamantly refusing to raise the income tax for people who make over $1 million.

This is going to be a very interesting debate over the next couple of weeks. It will not be settled on the SBIR bill, but it will be settled sometime in the next couple of weeks in this Congress. I, for one, look forward to the debate. I believe the American people need to have an open and honest debate about what is actually going on.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LANDRIEU. I know Senator Portman is here on the floor, and under a previous order will be recognized in a few minutes. But before that, for clarification purposes on the previous agreement, I want to state that the next first-degree amendment in order after Senator Hutchison, who spoke a minute ago, will be from the Democratic side.

As a recap, there are, I think, seven amendments pending. We are hoping to get some votes on those amendments that are pending later this afternoon, potentially in the morning. If there are other amendments Senators have to offer, come down to floor. We want to limit, of course, what we can. It is very important for us to move this bill forward.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Without objection, it is so ordered.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to thank all of my colleagues for really helping us to focus on this debate yesterday and today. We started discussing the reauthorization of the SBIR and STTR Programs within the Small Business Administration. Senator Snowe has been on the floor most of the day yesterday and part of the day today as we have managed this bill.

As I have said many times, this particular program is the Federal Government's largest research program for small business. It was started in 1982 by a bipartisan group of Senators and House Members who believed small businesses in America had something to contribute in the technological and scientific advances in this country, and they were right. They said the Federal Government spends billions of dollars every year on research and development, and yet some of our most promising small businesses--maybe independent scientists or researchers or engineers or inventors of all different backgrounds and persuasions--could not really get in the front door of the Department of Defense or NIH. In those days, people only wanted to see people from big companies.

Well, not only was that not allowing small business an opportunity, but it was shortchanging the taxpayers because what taxpayers want is the best technology. It does not matter to them whether it comes from a small shop down the street operating on the second floor above a doughnut shop--like my father got started many years ago--or whether it comes from the back office of IBM. They just want the best, and they deserve it. This program delivers it. So this is about innovation and jobs.

One thing I want to stress again: Several people have come down to the floor and said, why aren't we--I guess meaning Democrats--focused like a laser on closing the budget gap?

Let me say that this is an effort to close the budget gap and to reduce the debt and to close the annual deficit because that can be done by cutting discretionary spending, cutting defense spending, where it is wasteful and not effective, raising revenues where it is appropriate--particularly for those making over $1 million a year would be a good place to start--and most importantly or equally important to all of the above is creating an atmosphere so the private sector can get about the business of creating jobs. That is what this program does. That is why Senator Snowe and I are on the floor. That is why our committee voted this bill out 18 to 1. We know it is important. Innovation creates jobs.

I want to show you just three examples, as we are waiting for Senators to come to the floor to talk about their amendments. I want to share one story. This is from Connecticut.

Might I say that over the 20-plus years of this program, there have been small businesses in every State that have benefited either through grants or through contracts. The Department of Defense has about $1 billion of their research and development set aside for this purpose. Other departments call them grants. The Department of Defense actually enters into contracts with small businesses.

I am not sure if this example came out of the Department of Defense. It is not noted on the chart. But one of our agencies thought it might be important to create a device to safely transport toxic chemicals.

I am from Louisiana. We have a tremendous and are proud of our industrial base in petrochemicals. Some things we produce are really safe. Some things we produce are quite dangerous but necessary to undergird our economy. So the transport of these toxic chemicals--to do it safely--is important.

So one of the agencies--and I do not have exactly which one--identified a company in Connecticut that might be able to come up with some such device. They did. That particular company, which is now ATMI, paid more than 10 times in taxes now that that invention has been commercialized, as we can see here on this chart. But what people really need to know is that this company paid more than 10 times in taxes than what they received from the program. This is just one example.

ATMI went from 40 employees to employing 800 people worldwide. I am hoping their company is still located in Danbury, CT, and I am hoping most of these 800 people are working in America. There is no requirement in this particular program for that to occur, and we would not want to have that requirement because we are producing technology and innovation for America and for the world, and our people will benefit from it. But let's hope that is the case. That is just one example.

A second example comes from Ann Arbor, MI. Senator Stabenow was on the floor earlier today, and I thank her so very much. She was a very strong supporter of our very important small business jobs and innovation bill in the last Congress. I am pleased the leadership has given our committee an opportunity to be on the floor with another important bill so early in this Congress.

I think Leader Reid knows and feels strongly--as strongly as I do--that there are more ways to cut a deficit than the one being trumpeted on the other side of this Capitol, and it is not even a way because it will not work. All we hear from the other Chamber is cut discretionary spending and you will get there. A, we will not get there, and B, we are going to shoot off both feet in the process of trying to go down that road because it is a road to a dead end.

You cannot get to where we want to go the way some people are arguing. We can get to reducing our deficit, eliminating our debt, by doing all four of the things I mentioned, and one of them is creating jobs and doing it in the private sector.

This is a Cybernet ammo sorter, as shown on this chart. This did come from the Defense Department. When people ask, how can you save millions of dollars, well, this particular invention has saved the government hundreds of millions of dollars in defense costs over 5 years. It started in Michigan. Now it is expanding to Florida. That will make Senator Nelson very happy. It was initially implemented at one of our camps in Kuwait. It was in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. It is now also in use at Fort Irwin, the National Training Center in the Mojave Desert, where troops train before deployment. It sorts ammunition in a way that saves our troops many manhours and hundreds of millions of dollars.

So there is another way to cut spending besides just slashing and burning some of the best programs in the world, literally. Some of the best programs in the world have been left on the chopping block--not just in America, in the world, have been left on the chopping block--on the House of Representatives floor.

I might suggest that they think outside the box and they think of other ways to reduce spending, which is investing in smart investments that streamline operations, that create efficiencies and save taxpayers money and create jobs at the same time; thus, companies can pay in more taxes at the local, State, and Federal levels, and we continue to get spending under control and reduce our deficit.

So that is Cybernet's Automated Tactical Ammunition Classification System. Leave it to the Department of Defense to make up such a name.

As shown on this chart, this is Beacon Interactive Systems' TurboWork out of Cambridge, MA. This company created technology to help sailors keep the fleet safe through streamlined and uniformed maintenance.

It will be going now into all 250 ships in the Navy, and 460,000 sailors will use this technology developed out of the SBIR Program every day to protect and preserve our warships. In its first full year of implementation, the software should give a 300-percent return on the initial SBIR investment.

The Presiding Officer knows this because he has been a very strong advocate nationally--not just in the State of Oregon--for small business. The Presiding Officer knows that with a little investment at the right time, there can be a tremendous upside, and that is what we are seeing here with this program.

Our initial grants are only $150,000. People might say, geez, what can you do with $150,000? Well, $150,000 given to the scientist or the engineer or the inventor at the right time can help provide that half-year or year of research and development necessary to grow and to mobilize the technologies to develop it into something that could work. Then phase II comes in with the potential: If it looks inviting and exciting and interesting to the agency, they might award such a grantee another $150,000 for phase II, and then it can go up to $1.5 million. That is the way these companies or these ideas grow.

At some point, this program ceases to be necessary because what happens is it either becomes clear to the people managing it that this idea has failed, the technology is not going to work and the grant is simply shut down or the contract comes to end, then, yes, that money will be lost. But what often happens, although not in every case, is that technology goes to such a phase that it becomes so promising that venture capitalists step in, as they should, and other investors step in and take that company way up. That is what happened to Qualcomm. Twenty years ago nobody ever heard of them. They got a small grant from this program and they were one of the winners. We were winners too, not just the company, because now they employ 17,800 people operating in more than 30 countries worldwide. They paid in taxes in 1 year half of the cost of this entire program.

As the doctor who researched this program said to us in our hearing--we have five new members of our committee from the Republican side and Senator Snowe and I wanted to give them a chance to understand this bill. I am proud to say all but one supported it coming out of committee when they understood--of course, some of them had served in the House before and were familiar with this. But when they understood that this has been one of the most successful programs, and when it was reviewed by--I think it was Dr. Wessner who gave us a review of the program, he said, Let me tell you, Senator: If every single grant produces a company, you are running the wrong kind of program. Because this is a high-risk effort, but it is a risk that over time has paid off tremendously to the taxpayer and will continue if it continues to run in that fashion.

We have tightened up fraud and abuse statutes in this bill. We have put in more oversight, which Senator Snowe and I thought was important, not to heavily burden the program but to make sure the people in our Departments, whether it is in Defense or NIH or the NASA program, are utilizing this program to the extent and with the spirit Congress intends. So we have made some adjustments, some perfections through some adjustments and modifications, and we think we have made this program hopefully even stronger.

Not every grant that is given will result in jobs, and it will be folded. But when it works, it works, and we are so benefited as a nation. In fact, there was also testimony given before our committee that countries all over the world are trying to model some of their programs after this one. They keep asking: How is it in America you have such an innovative spirit? How is it you start so many small businesses, and many of them--not all--succeed? What is it?

It is a number of things. It is our own nature and spirit. It is also because people have traditionally had a variety of accesses to capital, whether it is equity in their homes or a savings account or a banking system that is for the most part very honest and transparent. We have had some difficulties in the past few years with some of the antics on Wall Street that caused people to catch their breath. Generally, compared to many other countries in the world, our people have access to those things--private property they own. In many countries people can't even own private property. They can't even get a clear title to property, so how can they borrow against it to start a business? They don't.

There are many things that go into this miracle we call the American economy, and this is a big part of it. The Federal Government doesn't do it all. But I am hoping, as people consider this debate, every State in the Union will create a similar program. Some of them already have. I will try to provide to all the Members here a list of what their individual States have done. Because if we think about it, the large cities, whether it be New York or San Francisco or Detroit or Chicago--if every city government would think about setting aside a small portion of some of their research and development money to push out the small businesses that aren't obvious sometimes to Wall Street and New York or they are not obvious to Pennsylvania Avenue and Washington or they are not exactly located in the Silicon Valley in California, but there are budding entrepreneurs and Americans with great ideas and great drive and great determination--I am hoping our government can be smarter. I would like the Federal Government to be as smart as it can possibly be, and I am hoping our State governments will look at this program as a model and, potentially, cities.

I can tell my colleagues one thing I am very excited about. I haven't talked with them about it specifically, but I have spoken at some length to the Goldman Sachs executives, and I wish to speak for a minute about a program I am very impressed with. It is not something we are doing. It is something they are doing, but I think it is worth mentioning here.

Goldman Sachs has decided to try to create 10,000 new small businesses in America--not new small businesses. They are trying to grow 10,000 small businesses in America. They have a very strategic plan and one I am watching very closely for a number of reasons. One, their model is scaleable and other companies could potentially do it and maybe we could model some kind of Federal program, if theirs is successful.

Secondly, I am watching it closely because one of the cities they chose for their pilot is the City of New Orleans, the city I represent. My brother serves as mayor there now. He is very engaged with the leadership there, because New Orleans has become a hotbed of innovation. When I hear President Obama talking about out-competing and out-innovating, that is not going to happen on Pennsylvania Avenue or right down on the intersection of M and Wisconsin in Georgetown. It is going to happen on Canal Street and in the lower ninth ward in New Orleans east, in Gentilly, and places all over the world.

Goldman Sachs is saying, All right, Mr. Mayor, you get the city leadership and one of the community colleges to get the training. We jointly choose these entrepreneurs that have promise--they are already established and they have proven they can run a business and they can turn a profit, but they are stagnating. They are smaller. They have the potential to be larger, but they are not. What is it that is causing this? Maybe lack of knowledge, lack of capital. Our Delgado Community College--and I am very proud of Delgado. It is one of the finest community colleges in the country. Delgado stepped up and said, Let us put them through the training. When they succeed and successfully exit the training--and I believe it is a 6-month to 9-month program--at the other end, Goldman Sachs gives them a check for X amount of money. I am not sure if it is $25,000 or $100,000 or $200,000. I will get that into the Record so we can be clear. But they give them a check so they have the capital and know-how and then they have the support of some of the nonprofits in the area to help them grow.

Think about that. If that is something only one company is doing, think about what companies such as Chevron--and I see them advertising--what they are doing to help small business. I think about other companies. American Express with their Plum card, if I am correct, talks about what they

are doing. I am not promoting these companies, but they are examples of programs that are out there supporting small business. The Federal Government can do its part as well, and we have an obligation. We can't do everything, but we most certainly can do our part, as many large companies around the country and the world are also thinking about what they can do to help grow small businesses in their area. That is just one example.

We are going to watch the success of some of these programs in the private sector, and then we will get some of their best ideas and potentially even strengthen our partnership. But this is a partnership between the Federal Government and private small businesses throughout our country.

Let me switch for a minute to mention a couple of the organizations that are supporting this program. I don't see anyone on the floor at this time to speak, so let me read into the Record again some of the comments we have received from very strong organizations.

The Small Business Technology Council says:

Not only does this SBIR program spur technological innovation and entrepreneurship, it helps create high-tech jobs and does so without increasing the Federal deficit.

The National Small Business Association says:

The uncertain future of this program--

and as I said, for 6 years it has been operating on short-term arrangements: 3 months here, 2 months there. For 6 years, nobody has had any idea, either from the private sector, from some of the best labs, from our agencies, whether this program would be there next week. That is unconscionable. That is why Senator Snowe and I have fought so hard to get this program authorized.

I see Senator Coburn on the floor, the Senator from Oklahoma, and I wish to thank him, because as a result of his good compromising efforts with us last Congress we will be able to authorize this program for 8 years, as the Senator will know, because he has been a strong advocate for good management and streamlining. Programs such as this need certainty. The labs, our agencies need to know. We are looking out 2 years or 3 years for this new technology, but if there is a company out here we think could provide it to us, we need to know. So this 8-year authorization is important. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma, because some programs are only authorized for 4 years or 5 years. But we feel because we have been in limbo for 6 years, it would be a good idea to get an 8-year authorization.

One more comment for 30 seconds and I will yield the floor. I wish to read into the Record the letters of support from a short list of companies, and as additional ones come in we will read into the Record their support:

The Bay Area Innovation Alliance has sent their support. The Bio District of New Orleans, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, Connect of California, the National Defense Industrial Association, the New England Innovation Alliance, the National Small Business Association, the National Venture Capital Association, the Small Business Association of New England--and I wish to thank Senator Shaheen particularly for her support--Small Businesses of California, Small Business Technology Council, V-Labs, Inc./American Chemical Society, and the United States Chamber of Commerce, to name a few.

Let's keep this debate moving forward. We have had a number of amendments today. I see Senator Coburn on the floor.

I yield the floor at this time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 184 and make it pending.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Ms. LANDRIEU. There is no objection. But before we do that, I ask the Senator a question. I actually like this amendment, No. 184. The Senator spoke with me about this previously. It has some merit. I thank the Senator for being cooperative.

If he could identify his other number, I would like to suggest that if we can get a Democratic amendment slid in between these, we might call up his two and the Democratic one.

Mr. COBURN. The other amendment is No. 220.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Would the Senator mind explaining that amendment, and I will make sure it is cleared on our side and we will see what we can do.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I understand my first amendment is up and pending; is that correct?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the amendment.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an amendment numbered 184.

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide a list of programs administered by every Federal department and agency)

At the end of title V, add the following:

SEC. __. REQUIREMENT TO IDENTIFY AND DESCRIBE PROGRAMS.

(a) Each fiscal year, the head of each Federal agency shall--

(1) identify and describe every program administered by the agency, including the mission, goals, purpose, budget, and statutory authority of each program;

(2) report the list and description of programs to the Office of Management and Budget, Congress, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office; and

(3) post the list and description of programs on the agency's public website.

(b) Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall prescribe regulations to implement this section.

(c) This section shall be implemented beginning in the first full fiscal year occurring after the date of the enactment of this Act.

AMENDMENT NO. 220

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I will discuss amendment No. 220 now. Is the chairman's intention that I defer calling up that amendment right now?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I may not have an objection. We are trying to get it cleared on our side. If the Senator will explain it, we can get back to him in short order.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, we are waiting 10 or 15 minutes for Senators to come to the floor to speak about the bill. Senator Snowe, myself, and others have fairly described it for hours today and yesterday. I thought I would take a minute to pay honor to a gentleman, the last U.S. veteran of World War I, who was laid to rest in Arlington Cemetery just yesterday and to put into the Congressional Record an article. I would like to read as much of it as I am able before the other Members come because it struck me as something important. It is a beautifully written article in the Post this morning. I hope many people got to see it. I am hoping many of our Members are able to read it. I learned some things I had actually no idea about, which will become apparent as I read this short article. It was beautifully written by Paul Duggan.

I thought I would take a minute to read it into the Record. This is the last U.S. veteran of World War I so, of course, it was not just any ordinary funeral--not that any funeral is ordinary. It was extremely special to our country and to the world. President Obama was in attendance. Vice President Joe Biden was in attendance. I would like to read as much of it as I can:

A lowly corporal of long ago was buried Tuesday at Arlington National Cemetery, ushered to his grave with all the Army's Old Guard solemn pomp.

Frank Woodruff Buckles lived to be 110, the last of nearly 5 million U.S. veterans of a dimly remembered war--a generation now laid to rest.

In a late-day chill, after hundreds of strangers had paid their respects in public viewings since the weekend, soldiers carried the former doughboy's flag-draped coffin partway up a knoll and set it on polished rails above his plot, a stone's toss from the grave of his old supreme commander, Gen. John J. ``Blackjack'' Pershing.

A chaplain commended his soul to God; rifle volleys cracked; a bugler sounded taps below the gentle rise. With flags at half-staff throughout the U.S. military and government, it was a fine send-off for the country's last known veteran of World War I, who died peacefully Feb. 27 in his West Virginia farmhouse.

Yet the hallowed ritual at grave No. 34-581 was not a farewell to one man alone. A reverent crowd of the powerful and the ordinary--President Obama and Vice President Biden, laborers and store clerks, heads bowed--came to salute Buckles's deceased generation, the vanished millions soldiers and sailors he came to symbolize in the end.

Who were they? Not the troops of ``the Greatest Generation,'' so celebrated these days, but the unheralded ones of 1917 and 1918, who came home to pats on the back and little else in an era before the country embraced and rewarded its veterans. Their 20th-century narrative, poignant and meaningful, is seldom recalled.

``I know my father would want me to be here,'' said Mike Oliver, 73, a retiree from Alexandria, leaning on a cane near the cemetery's amphitheater hours before the burial. Inside, a hushed procession of visitors filed past Buckles's closed coffin in the chapel.

``I'm here for Mr. Buckles, and I'm here for what he represents,'' Oliver said. On his left lapel, he wore a tiny gold pin, the insignia of his long-dead father's infantry division in World War I, the Army's 80th. ``I'm here to say goodbye to my dad,'' he said.

Buckles, who fibbed his way into the Army at 16, was a rear-echelon ambulance driver in war-ravaged France, miles behind the battlefront. More than 116,000 Americans died, about half in the fighting, most of the rest from illnesses, in the nation's 19-month long engagement in a conflict that scorched Europe for four years.

Now the veterans who survived are all gone. What's left is remembrance--the collective story of 4.7 million lives, an obituary for a generation.

Arriving stateside in 1918 and 1919, many of them, scarred in mind and limb, they were met by postwar recession and joblessness.

A lot of veterans thought that they were owed a boost, that they ought to be compensated for the good civilian wages they had missed. But--

Unfortunately, my words--

lawmakers, year after year, said no.

``Oh, the YMCA did give me a one-month free membership,'' Buckles recalled when he was a very old fellow. Except for the $60 most veterans got from the government when they mustered out, the YMCA gift was ``the only consideration I ever saw given to a soldier after the war,'' the last doughboy said.

What he and other veterans finally received, in 1924, were bonus certificates redeemable for cash in 1945. And Congress had to override a veto to secure even that.

With the 1920s roaring by then, the young veterans tucked away their certificates and went about their lives. Buckles became a purser on merchant ships, traveling the globe.

Then the Depression hit, and their generation's legacy took on another aspect, one of activism that helped propel a reshaping of the nation's social landscape.

Thousands of ruined veterans were left with nothing of value but the promise of eventual bonuses. In 1932, while Buckles was at sea, a ragtag army of ex-servicemen descended on Washington with their wives and kids to lobby for early redemption of the certificates, and a disaster ensued that would long reverberate.

This is the part I had no idea about, and I think it is important to recall it, to remember it:

Living for weeks in a sprawling shantytown on mud flats in the Anacostia and in tents and hovels near the U.S. Capitol, the dirt poor ``Bonus Army,'' numbering more than 20,000, defied orders to disperse. So the White House unleashed the military.

Infantrymen, saber-wielding cavalry troops and a half-dozen tanks swept along the avenues below the Capitol, routing the veterans and their families in a melee of blood and tear gas. Then soldiers cleared out the Anacostia shacks and set them ablaze.

Two veterans died, and hundreds were injured. Four years later, after a Florida hurricane killed 259 destitute veterans at a makeshift federal work camp, political support finally tipped for the bonuses, and the generation that fought World War I finally got a substantial benefit.

``I think mine was $800,'' Buckles said of his bonus, equal of $12,000 today. He said he gave it to his father, an Oklahoma Dust Bowl farmer barely hanging on.

The Bonus Army debacle weighed on Congress and the Roosevelt administration during World War II. With 16 million Americans in uniform--more than three times the World War I total--policymakers feared massive unrest if the new veterans got the same shabby treatment that Buckles' generation had received.

The result, in 1944, was the GI Bill, widely viewed as the most far-reaching social program in U.S. history.

I underscore that to say widely viewed as the most far-reaching social program in world history.

It made college and homeownership possible for the great wave of returning World War II veterans, when such opportunities were considered luxuries, and spurred a vast, decades-long expansion of America's middle class.

Unfortunately for the veterans of Buckles's era, the bill wasn't retroactive.

Tuesday's hours-long viewing in the amphitheater chapel was a consolation. Buckles's family and members of West Virginia's congressional delegation had wanted him to lie in honor in the Capitol Rotunda.

They wanted him to lie in honor here, but it was not to be permissible.

So the people of Arlington came to say goodbye.

The article continues:

A generation's end.

When Murial Sue Kerr met Buckles--

This was his wife--

in the 1970s, she was a secretary at the Alexandria headquarters of Veterans of World War I of the USA, which had a large office staff at the time, scores of chapters across the country and a quarter-million members out of 750,000 surviving veterans of the war.

``The commander,'' Kerr calls Buckles, who got that title in 2008 when the only other living member, a Florida man, passed away.

The group was formed in 1948 after millions of World War II veterans swelled the ranks of the American Legion and similar organizations.

It goes on to quote Kerr:

``The World War II guys had business loans, home loans, education, all kinds of things,'' she said. ``My World War I guys? Nothing. So they said, `Okay ..... we'll go start our own bunch.' ''

Which included Buckles, who had been captured by the Japanese while working in Manila at the outbreak of hostilities in the Pacific. Although he spent World War II in an enemy prison camp, he was a civilian, so the GI Bill didn't extend to him.

In 1974, when Kerr was hired, most of the men were retirees.

She said:

``Every year they'd come to Washington, bus loads of them, and testify before Congress,'' she recalled. They wanted money for eyeglasses, hearing aids, dentures. ``And a little pension,'' she said. ``Good ol' H.R. 1918--it was a bill they were always putting in to give them $50 a month. But, of course, it never, ever passed.''

Just lot of memoirs now--the lobbying, the quarterly magazine, the big annual conventions in Hot Springs and Daytona Beach. Time ran out for all but the heartiest of the Veterans of World War I of the USA, and they died fast. By 1993, when the office shut for good, Kerr, then in her 40s, was the only staff member left.

And occasionally she got phone calls from some of the few remaining members, whose frail voices broke her heart.

``The typical sad things you'll hear from the elderly,'' she said. ``I had one of my guys, he was absolutely in tears. He was from Nevada, and his new nurse wouldn't cut the crust off of his sandwich.''

They were buried with honors Tuesday as scores of somber onlookers crowded the hillside, a distant generation borne to the grave with the last old veteran, who was cared for lovingly by his family to the end.

In the waning afternoon, the soldiers of the burial detail strode in formation up the avenue from the grand marble amphitheater to Section 34 of the cemetery, escorting the horse-drawn caisson with Buckles's metal coffin, the procession slow and deliberate, like the march of time.

After the prayer and the echoes of the bugle and the rifles had faded, the Army's vice chief of staff, Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, knelt before Buckles's daughter, seated by the grave, and handed her a tri-folded American flag. He whispered words of comfort, then stood and walked away.

No more doughboys now.

So long. Rest in peace.

Madam President, I thought this was an article worth entering into the Record. I am pleased I had the time today, before Senators came to the floor, to actually read it into the Record so that we could pause to remember this week the burial of the last veteran of World War I and what an obligation we have to our veterans today and the kind of determination that we must continue to foster to honor them for the sacrifices they make, whether it was this generation, which we in large measure failed to do, the veterans of World War II, the veterans of Vietnam and Korea, of course, Desert Storm, our veterans from Iraq and from Afghanistan who are currently fighting those battles. It helps us to remember that the important work we do here--the bills passing, particularly bills that provide these kinds of fair and equitable benefits--is most certainly something the Federal Government must continue to keep as one of its highest priorities.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Pennsylvania being so supportive and so helpful. I think this is an amendment we can support. I am hoping to get clarification to actually go to a vote on this amendment sometime in the next 20 minutes or so. We do not have that cleared at this point, but we are hoping to be able to vote on this amendment.

I would like to ask the Presiding Officer, though, to read the pending amendments just by number and name because I think we have seven or eight pending amendments. Could the Presiding Officer clarify what amendments are currently pending?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendments are No. 183, a McConnell amendment; No. 178, a Vitter amendment; No. 161, an Inhofe for Johanns amendment; No. 216, a Landrieu for Casey amendment; No. 186, a Cornyn amendment; No. 199, a Paul amendment; No. 207, a Sanders amendment; No. 197, a Hutchison amendment; No. 184, a Coburn amendment; and, finally, No. 229, a Pryor amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. That is what our records show.

I appreciate all these Members being very patient. We have their amendments pending. We are going to try to line up votes for them, hopefully, sometime either later tonight or tomorrow.

We also have a few other Members who have said they would like to have their amendments considered. I would simply ask if they can come down to the floor. Tonight would be a good time because we have had a very good, open, encompassing debate on a variety of different issues. Of course, the underlying bill before us is the reauthorization of the SBIR and STTR Programs that have been operating on a very short term with very ineffectual authorizations that do not allow these programs to have the benefit for taxpayers they deserve. So we have struggled now for 6 years, three Congresses. It is time to get this done.

So while we have many, many amendments that have been filed, I am happy to report that there are probably just a few more Members who want to actually come and speak on their amendments. Some have said: We will take up our amendments on a later day. Many of the Members who have filed five and six amendments have said: I am only going to go with one, Senator Landrieu and Senator Snowe.

We are very grateful for everyone's cooperation.

So, hopefully, we can vote on the Casey amendment tonight, and then have a queue of other amendments potentially in this order or some revision of this order. But all those pending will be, of course, provided an opportunity for a vote. We do have some outstanding questions about one of the Coburn amendments we have not cleared on either side.

So I am hoping we can have that vote tonight, and we will know something in a few minutes.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

AMENDMENT NO. 216

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we resume consideration of the Casey amendment No. 216; that there be 2 minutes equally divided before we proceed to a vote in relation to the amendment; that there be no amendments in order to the Casey amendment prior to the vote; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that the vote occur at 5:25.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as we are waiting for Senator Casey, I don't think there is any opposition to this amendment. I see the ranking member on the floor and I am wondering if she has anything she wishes to add at this point.

I said earlier Members have been very cooperative in trying to minimize--still have an open debate but nevertheless minimize--the issues and the amendments so we can pass this important bill and get it over to the House and onto the President's desk.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, how much time remains before the vote?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 45 seconds remaining.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Let me use the 45 seconds to ask unanimous consent to be listed as a cosponsor of the Casey amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I wish to join Senator Snowe in supporting this amendment. We have received actually many complaints from small businesses at any number of the roundtables we have held in our committee about the old bait and switch that is going on, where their names are used by large contractors to actually succeed in receiving the bid or winning the bid, and then, as Senator Snowe stated, their companies are switched out and they don't even know it. This also puts an enforcement mechanism in place and actually mandates the SBA to come up with an enforcement mechanism so we can have more honesty and transparency.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT


Source:
Back to top