Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to discuss a bipartisan amendment I have filed to S. 782, the Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2011. This amendment, the Small Business Contracting Fraud Prevention Act of 2011, is cosponsored by Senators McCaskill, Grassley, Hagan, Collins, Merkley, and Enzi. In the past year, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, has identified vulnerabilities and abuses in virtually all of the SBA's contracting programs, including the 8(a) Business Development Program, the Historically Underutilized Business Zone, HUBZone, program, and the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned small business, SDVOSB, program. Our amendment attempts to remedy the spate of illegitimate firms siphoning away contracts from the rightful businesses trying to compete within the SBA's contracting programs. As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I take very seriously our responsibility of vigorous oversight. That is why, last December, Senator Landrieu and I sent a letter to the SBA highlighting the recent press headlines and GAO reports of fraud and abuse that have plagued the agency's contracting programs. That letter stated unequivocally that our committee's first priority this Congress is ensuring that all of the SBA's contracting programs are running efficiently, effectively, and free of exploitation. Adopting this critical small business legislation is an effective first step at ensuring all small businesses are competing fairly and honestly within the Federal marketplace. The SBA has begun to take positive steps to address issues of fraud, but reports continue to surface showing additional tools are needed. As recently as Saturday, March 12, the Washington Post, as part of an ongoing investigation, published an article titled, ``D.C. insiders can reap fortunes from federal programs for small businesses.'' This article states ``Government officials were not monitoring contracts for compliance with rules.'' The report exposes a glaring deficiency in contract oversight. Moreover, an SBA spokesperson is quoted as saying the SBA ``long ago transferred that authority to the Pentagon and other agencies.'' This hands-off attitude is unacceptable, and as I told the SBA Deputy Administrator at a recent Small Business Committee hearing, the ultimate authority for monitoring fraud lies with the SBA. This amendment contains recommendations both from the SBA inspector general and the GAO for combating these reports of fraud and addresses vulnerabilities in the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned small business program, the HUBZone program, and the 8(a) program. Additionally, the bill will work to change the culture at SBA to make the process of suspensions and debarments more transparent. In order to effectively execute the small business contracting programs, the SBA needs a comprehensive framework to provide effective certification, continued surveillance and monitoring, and robust enforcement throughout the SBA's contracting portfolio. This bill aims to increase criminal prosecutions as well as suspension and debarments for businesses found to have attained contracts through fraudulent means, and requires the SBA to submit a report to Congress annually detailing the specific data on all suspensions, debarments, and cases referred to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecutions. My amendment provides the SBA more stringent oversight capacity across all the SBA contracting programs. It is SBA's duty to utilize every fraud prevention measure at its disposal and this amendment puts the tools in place to punish the bad actors that have infiltrated the SBA contracting programs.

Ms. SNOWE. Reserving the right to object, I wish to include the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.

Ms. SNOWE. Fifteen.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, before I begin to address the pending amendment I have offered along with a number of Senators in response to regulatory reform, I am going to yield to the Senator from North Dakota, who is a cosponsor of this legislation. I am delighted that he is a cosponsor, and that he recognizes and acknowledges the importance of changing the regulatory environment in America if we are going to have job creation and economic growth.

Ms. SNOWE. Reserving the right to object, the Senator from California has been addressing the Senate, so wouldn't it be appropriate for the Senator from South Dakota to speak?

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Hoeven, for his excellent remarks. As a former Governor for 10 years, he knows the impact of regulations on small businesses and how detrimental they can be to job creation, particularly at this time where we have a very difficult economy. We have persistent high unemployment and subpar economic growth. We are at a consequential moment in our economic history, frankly, that deserves the attention of the Senate. So, again, I thank the Senator for his comments in recognizing the effect regulatory reform will have on the performance of small business and, ultimately, job creation in this economy. I am very pleased to have many colleagues cosponsoring this amendment. I am pleased to have worked with Senator Coburn from Oklahoma, and this amendment is also cosponsored by Senators McConnell, Ayotte, Barrasso, Brown of Massachusetts, Coats, Enzi, Isakson, Kirk, Hoeven, Johnson, Moran, Thune, and Vitter. It is clear to me that many of the Senators understand the value and imperative of reforming our regulatory system. It is absolutely vital that the Federal Government consider the small business economic impact of the rules and regulations that agencies promulgate. The question might be asked, Why do we need regulatory reform? We had a bill on the floor last month, in early May, wherein I was denied a vote, which was regrettable because it is clear that many people don't understand how important this is and how central it is to small business job creation, how vital it is to the survival of small businesses and the cost of doing business across America. But I keep hearing from certain colleagues, ``Yes, we understand it is important; however'' or ``but'' or ``at some point.'' Let's define ``at some point.'' When? When I was denied a vote on regulatory reform, on May 4 in the Senate, I heard that we are going to have hearings on the issue. Well, that obviously has not occurred. So it becomes the politics of obfuscation, not the reality. As I heard from a small business owner yesterday, ``When I come into Washington, it is a walled city--walled off from reality, detached from the real world on Main Street.'' I have been told that a concern with this amendment is that we have not had hearings. We had a hearing in the Small Business Committee on regulatory reform, but that is not enough for the Senator from California, who is saying we have not had hearings. She has offered plenty of amendments that haven't had hearings in the Senate. We had a major issue yesterday that was very important to small business--the interchange fee--which didn't have hearings. It didn't have hearings the first time it was offered to the Dodd-Frank legislation last year, and yesterday's amendment didn't have a hearing. So is there a new standard, in the Senate, when it comes to regulatory reform? Do you think there have been any overtures by anybody who opposes my legislation to work with us on this right away? What is happening on Main Street America is that we are not creating jobs. Why? Because of what is failing to happen in Washington, DC, in the Senate. There is a clear detachment from the real world. Small businesses keep asking me what is going on. I say I can't explain it, other than it is clear that people don't understand what is going on because if they did, we would be working on it. I heard the Senator from California say, ``at some point.'' But tell that to the person who is running a small business and trying to keep their neck above water and keep their business afloat during these very difficult times. What do these small business owners talk about? They talk about the regulations that are suffocating their ability to survive in a very tough economic climate. We are dithering. That is what this is all about. It is all a masquerade, a facade, just bringing up bogus arguments. I have been in the legislative process for the better part of four decades, and I know when there is a serious purpose about working together and solving a problem. It appears to me that there is no interest in solving this problem here in Washington. Everybody has their own agenda, but people are wondering why there is this unemployment rate of 9.1 percent. When I raised these concerns to the Secretary of the Treasury back in early February in the Finance Committee, when he was testifying--I described the concerns about what was happening on Main Street because I take Main Street tours, and I invite people to do that and to actually listen to what people are saying--he said: ``I think your view of the economy is dark and pessimistic.'' I said: Well, maybe I wasn't hearing it right. Maybe I wasn't hearing it right on Main Street. So when I meet with small business owners, I mention the Secretary's comments to them, and they cannot believe it. They cannot comprehend that the Secretary of the Treasury doesn't understand what is going on on Main Street; that the administration doesn't, the Senate doesn't, and the Congress doesn't. If they did, we would be working here day and night. I was told I had to have a vote on this amendment right now. Why? Because it is Thursday, and certain members of this body are smelling the jet fumes while people are suffering on Main Street. Our fellow Americans are losing their jobs. Have my colleagues heard the stories about what people are facing? Time and time again I hear the same old refrains: ``We don't have time. We have to rush it. It hasn't had hearings. We will do it sometime.'' Well, tell that to the average American who is struggling to keep a job, to find a job or to keep the doors open to their business. That is what this amendment is all about. That is the reality. We can pretend it is something else, but the macroeconomic numbers are demonstrating time and again there is a desperation out there. Yet, we take 2-week recesses, then we come back and have morning business and chat along, but it does nothing to resolve the consequential issues facing this Nation. There was a time when the Senate used to work, where we could sit down and solve a problem. Now it is all a facade, a few talking points and we move on. In the meantime, people are suffering and they are handicapped by our inability to work together. Regulatory reform is central to that agenda, make no mistake about it. Let's look at what we are talking about and why we need regulatory reform. The analysts have lowered their forecast for the second quarter growth this year. The first quarter growth was already abysmal at 1.8 percent of GDP. Manufacturing recovery has slowed. Housing remains in shambles. New claims for jobless benefits, as the Senator from North Dakota indicated, exceeds 400,000--again. Growth of consumer spending is sluggish. The President talks about job creation and stimulating the economy, but the results speak louder than words. Since the President took office, unemployment has dipped below 9 percent for only 5 months. Even that data is skewed because it doesn't account for the millions of workers who have exited the workforce altogether. Just last week, the unemployment rate for May increased to 9.1 percent. We are experiencing the longest unemployment period in American history since data collection started in 1948, surpassing even the 1982 double-dip recession for the length of unemployment. Despite the President's promise, and an $800 billion stimulus package, a $700 billion TARP program, up to $600 billion in quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve, and over $2 trillion in overall government spending, we are years away from where we need to be in terms of job or economic growth. Mr. President, 40 months after the start of the four deepest postwar recessions our economic output averaged 7.6 percent higher than pre-recession levels. Yet since December 2007, when the most recent recession commenced, our GDP has only increased 0.1 percent. That is why we need regulatory reform. We need to bolster job creation, and the only place we can do that is through small businesses. The Senator from California says we need hearings on this amendment. Then we should change the rules of the Senate and require that every amendment offered on this floor has a hearing, and every bill. That must be a new standard, Mr. President. We have had hearings on this question in the Small Business Committee, and the focus is that we desperately need reform. In a small business regulatory reform hearing in November 2010 we heard a witness note if there was a 30 percent cut in regulatory costs, an average 10-person firm would save nearly $32,000--enough to hire one additional person. When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. I know because I served in the House of Representatives at that moment in time. With unemployment soaring into double digits, at a peak of 10.8 percent, huge chunks of industrial America shut down in the recession of 1981-1982 and never reopened. Yet once the recovery began in earnest in the first quarter of 1983, the economy boomed. It exceeded 7.1 percent for five consecutive quarters and kept growing at a 4-percent pace for another 2 years. The contrast in results between the current recovery and the Reagan years is instructive because the government's response was so different. As a recent Wall Street Journal article reiterated, in the 1980s the policy goals were to cut tax rates, reduce regulatory costs and uncertainty--which is what these regulations are producing day in and day out--let the private economy allocate capital free of political direction, and focus monetary policy on price stability rather than on reducing unemployment. That is the type of policy mix we need to rediscover if we are going to climb out of this economic downturn. Let's look at the first chart--small business job creators in my State and across America because they are the ones that create 70 percent of all the net new jobs in America. That is why regulation reform becomes so essential and imperative. The total cost of regulation is at $1.7 trillion--that is with a ``t''--and small firms with fewer than 20 employees bear a disproportionate burden in terms of those costs. It is $10,585 per employee, which is 36 percent higher than the regulatory costs confronting larger firms. I know some people like to dispute numbers and say: Oh, no, that is not really a true number. Oh, really? Just add them up. There was a study that was done by Crain and Crain. They added the estimated cost of four categories or types of regulations--economic regulations at $1.2 trillion; environmental regulations at $281 billion; task compliance, $160 billion; and regulations involving occupational safety, health, and homeland security, $75 billion. Some studies omit independent agencies. Some even omit the Internal Revenue Service from the calculation cost of regulations. Well, ask a small business or any business in America about whether IRS regulations have a cost for them. Of course they do. We have to include all agencies of government that have an impact directly on small business or any business in America. Even a separate White House finding acknowledges that the estimated annual cost of major Federal regulations reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget this past decade cost between $44 billion and $62 billion. The point is, the principal impediment to job creation in this country is a broken regulatory system. We have repeatedly talked about it. It is a top priority for the small business community across America. Every major organization that is a key voice for small business echoes this repeatedly: Federal regulations have placed a tremendous burden on them. I know many of my colleagues and I understand the critical nature of all of this. We have heard the message loud and clearly. Even the President, interestingly enough, issued an Executive order in January to begin the process of reviewing Federal regulations, citing the need for ``absurd and unnecessary paperwork requirements that waste time and money.'' So in 4 months the administration's preliminarily findings uncovered over $1 billion in savings in 30 agencies. They ran the gamut. They included even environmental regulations. So, obviously, there is some recognition and acknowledgment that regulations are a barrier and an impediment. The President is making eliminations at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. And yet, I don't think anybody would suggest he is trying to eradicate all environmental protections in America by identifying some that just aren't worthy of support because they are onerous. He would eliminate the requirement that States install a system to protect against fuel polluting the air at gas stations since modern vehicles already have these systems. That would save up to $67 million a year. But no one in this Chamber is going to accuse the President of saying, well, we are undermining all environmental regulations in the country. It is as if we can't be discerning and discriminating in evaluating what is worthy and what isn't, what is too costly and complex and what isn't, what makes sense and what doesn't in this current context of this economic environment. Can we spend time doing that, since I was denied the time on May 4 and an ability to vote on this amendment? Could we have worked that out? Absolutely not. So why can't we become involved in this effort? It seems we are turning a blind eye to it. There is no recognition because I don't think there is a full understanding or an appreciation of what is going awry in the economic landscape in every community across this country and why there is that despair, that anxiety. By the way, about 80 percent of the American people believe we are moving in the wrong direction when it comes to our economy. That should be a Paul Revere wake-up call. It should be a message on which we might want to realign our focus in the Senate. Maybe we should spend some time in the Senate working out the issues to solve the problems so we can create jobs for Americans who are unemployed, because we know that 9.1 percent doesn't capture all unemployed Americans. There are many who have dropped out of the workforce entirely. You could have, underemployed or unemployed, as many as up to 25 million Americans. That is staggering. That is breathtaking. Since the time I was denied a vote, we could have been moving ahead on this legislation, or in the interim from when I was denied that vote on May 4, working out a solution, working through these issues. And during that time, the chairman of President Obama's own Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt, announced the top four priorities. This just happened on May 10. Understand, on May 4 I was prevented from having a vote on regulatory reform. That is preposterous. We have not had hearings. Hearings sometimes are a path to nowhere; leading to nothing. But since then, have there been hearings called for? No, of course not. But 6 days later, who is speaking on regulatory reform? The President's own Council on Jobs and Competitiveness chairman, that is who, and he is noting a number of priorities. Guess what. One of them happens to be regulations to support a pro-growth environment and strengthen U.S. competitiveness. He listed improving and innovating education and bolstering exports to the world's fastest growing markets as three of those priorities. Then he called for ``collaboration between government and business with regard to regulation'' as a top priority, noting that ``Decades of overlapping, uncoordinated regulations create unnecessary hurdles and increased burdens for entrepreneurs and businesses, large and small, across the country.'' Let me repeat, this is from the President's hand-selected chairman of a council dedicated to create American jobs and boosting our competitiveness. He made this pronouncement less than a week after the Senate failed to consider my regulatory reform amendment to the SBIR Reauthorization legislation that we were considering for nearly two months, with a mere three days of votes over that time. You might think that if there were some reasonable concerns about my amendment, the other side would try to work with me since then. Nothing. Nothing. We might have had a recess or two. We had days without votes, days without debating key issues--actually not just days, weeks. Nothing. Nothing is connecting. What is connecting, though, unfortunately for small businesses and people who depend on them for jobs, is that there is a cause and effect and that is why you are seeing the deleterious effects of our inability to work on the issues that matter, that we have basically relegated all of this to the backseat, we have substituted other things without purpose. It is truly regrettable because of what it is doing to the average American and for those who are struggling. People, rightfully, know it. The American people understand what is happening here--or what is not happening here, I should say. The breadth of regulations is truly punitive on businesses in America. The Heritage Foundation reported last year that ``[t]he burden of regulation on Americans increased at an alarming rate in fiscal year 2010,'' with a record 43 major new regulations costing $26.5 billion alone, ``far more than any other year for which records are available.'' That is just in 1 year, $26.5 billion. That is on top of the $1.75 trillion in already existing total regulatory costs. That is just 1 year, $26.5 billion. It is clear the administration and the agencies have gone on a regulatory rampage. Again, it is that detachment from the real world. What does this mean? What are the real, practical implications for the person running a small business and trying to calculate the costs or anticipate future costs? Why are they going to hire a new employee and take on new costs? Why should they make investments? They don't dare. They can't take the risk. They say: We don't know. I meet with small businesses regularly and talk to them and they say it is the uncertainty with regulations that continues to limit their decisions. This demonstrates it. The Heritage Foundation reports that ``[r]egulatory costs will rise until policymakers appreciate the burdens that regulations are imposing on Americans and the economy, and exercise the political will necessary to limit--and reduce--those burdens.'' That is exactly what our amendment will do. This is a clarion call for regulatory reform. There should be no political or philosophical boundaries. There should not be philosophical differences. You might have some arguments about what approach you take, but those things could be worked out. In fact, that is exactly what I did with the amendment I offered on which I was denied a vote back on May 4. From the other side there were some issues. We made five major modifications to my proposal because it is important to build bipartisan support. I have certainly reached across the aisle on so many occasions. I would have thought we could have had a corresponding response to work out these issues. That is what I do not understand. I cannot understand. There should not be any debate. If they talk to their small business community, they will get the same response. What can we do to make it better? That is the key. The key is making some changes. One, I called for a small business review panel to be required for every agency so they can review the regulations before they are promulgated, before they are implemented, so we find out beforehand what might be of concern to small business, what might have potential costs or risks, or will not work out, and know it beforehand. I hear from some: Oh, no, we will work it out later, afterward. You ask the small business person how you are going to work it out afterward, after they paid astronomical costs to comply with that regulation. Let's set up the small business review panels. This is not a new model. There are such panels for OSHA and EPA. And due to an amendment that I offered to the financial regulatory reform bill, one also now exists at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and it is part of that mechanism now. There was a model that we adopted from OSHA and EPA, from 1996, when we had a Democratic administration, and it worked exceptionally well. So I thought, Why not apply it to every agency? But we heard, absolutely not. So I said OK, what can we do to work it out? I talked to those on the other side of the aisle and we changed it and said for the 3 years that this bill will be authorized we will do it for nine agencies, three a year, to see how it works for the nine agencies who's rules have the most effect on small businesses. I did that. I made that change to address the concerns that were expressed on the other side of the aisle. Then we said we should start requiring the agencies to do what they are supposed to do by law. You think it is a little redundant to ask them to do what they are required to do already, which is to review the rules? They are supposed to review the rules every 10 years but, guess what, they do not. So I said: If they are not reviewing a rule every 10 years, then that rule cannot be that important. So let's take it off the books. That is what I proposed. If an agency cannot be bothered to review the regulations as they are required to do under the law every 10 years, if they are not doing it, then it must not be that important so let's take them off. There was some resistance on the other side so I made the change in response to the concerns. What I incorporated is that they would lose 1 percent of their operating budget. That is fair. We have to give them incentives to do what they should be doing by law but we will now give them some greater impetus to comply with the law. It is amazing that we are in that position, but that is where it stands. So I made that change because I thought it was important. We have tasked inspector generals with assuring that these reviews are taking place and they can do so in consultation with the chief advocacy counsel at the Small Business Administration. It is not unusual for an IG to determine that the agency they are overseeing complies with existing laws. After all, isn't that what they precisely do? Would anybody argue that outdated and ineffective regulations hurt the environment or harm small businesses? The administration's own preliminary review of regulations at 30 agencies in 4 months identified $1 billion worth of savings. Why would we not want to start having those reviews become the norm rather than the exception? I do not understand it. Are we that busy here that we cannot do it? Maybe we could forfeit a few recesses and do some work for America to connect what is going on in Main Street--getting back to Main Street because that is where the jobs are created. Maybe we could spend more time here doing that instead of deferring to sometime down the road. I made some other key changes in hopes that we could build that bridge in response to the concerns that were given by the other side. I made five major modifications because I thought it is important to build bipartisan support. Again I was denied that opportunity. Now we are being told that the main concern is that it has not had a hearing. Does that mean that we ought to change the rules of the Senate, as I said earlier, to require a hearing for every amendment? Perhaps that would slow the train down even more here. Maybe we could get back to achieving some results. Another provision I have in my Regulatory Reform Act that I have introduced with Senator Coburn and so many others here, is a basic commonsense approach: incorporating the indirect economic effects of regulations on small businesses so we make sure they anticipate the foreseeable indirect economic effects in addition to the direct effects, because we know there are a multiplicity of effects that resonate and reverberate with other industries. That needs to be calculated and incorporated and factored into the equation in terms of cost. And let's be clear. This is not a radical or partisan proposition. In fact, the language was taken directly, word for word, from the President's Chief small business regulatory watchdog, the head of the SBA Office of Advocacy. I also recommend that we expand the judicial review requirement so we make sure that when an agency proposes a rule, it has complied with its existing legal requirements to consider the economic impact of the rule on small businesses, that it has contemplated less costly alternative ways to make the rule less burdensome. That is important because they ought to listen to diverse options, in terms of the rule they are proposing, to make sure that they have incorporated the views of small businesses in understanding the implications, being more exact and precise in the process--not waiting until months and years down the road, after you go through a very extensive, complicated rulemaking process, to try to make your case. Small businesses do not have the resources to do that to begin with, let alone the time or employees to do it. That is not a good use of their capital, by the way, to be spending their time arguing with a government agency time and again. For 30 years, small businesses have had the ability to seek judicial review of an agency's small business impact statement after the rule has been made. In this entire time period, for over 30 years, even with the ability to obtain judicial review, we know of only two rules that were remanded by the courts. One was a mining regulation that did not account for the number of small businesses that had gone bankrupt under bonding requirements. The other was fishing restrictions issued without realizing the impact on fishermen. This means that waiting until the rule is final is simply too late; the damage is done. To correct this injustice, our amendment would provide small businesses the ability to bring legal action earlier in the process so we can avert mistakes at the outset so we do not force small businesses to go through this onerous, complicated, costly process, and then find out we made a mistake, the agencies made a mistake, and they say: You know what. You are going to have to fight it and go through another rulemaking process which takes months if not years. It is not going to happen. That is why we are not stimulating economic growth; we have thousands of regulations. As a result, we have provided small businesses the ability to bring legal action, to seek judicial review prior to the rule becoming finalized, whether an agency failed to comply with its existing small business review requirement. This is a commonsense approach, to ensure agencies abide by the law prior to a rule being made final. It is not a partisan measure. It is just practical sense. If somebody has not run a small business, they probably do not understand it, do not appreciate what it takes to start or run a small business, the ingenuity and the cost involved. If you take a small operation with 5 employees, 10 employees, 20 employees, they are the majority of small businesses in America. And small businesses account for up to 70 percent of the net new jobs in America. Remember, in the last 2\1/2\ years other than 4 months, we have had 9 percent or higher unemployment rates. I mean, that is a dire commentary of where we stand today after we have spent $2 trillion, and the deficit is growing, the debt is growing. We are facing the potential of a debt crisis if we do not deal with this massive accumulation of debt. That is why job growth becomes such an imperative. This is why regulatory reform is urgent and why we must do something about it. We could work across the aisle instead of making broad accusations that this is going to decimate the environment, and workplace safety, that this is going to decimate health care. If that is the case, the President must be doing the same thing because he has just proposed revoking more than $1 billion worth of regulations from agencies in 4 months. We cannot even have a hearing in 4 months on the issue if hearings are so important to the outcome. I would be more than happy to have hearings to get it done, but we cannot even get hearings, cannot work it out. It is just talk, talk, talk. Many of my proposals have bipartisan support. In fact, interestingly enough, this proposal regarding judicial review was a provision that actually the Small Business Committee chair, the Senator from Louisiana, proposed and Senator Cardin from Maryland, in a nearly identical fashion as section 605 of the Small Business Investment and Innovation Act of 2010 in the 111th Congress. They obviously agreed with the approach. There is nothing partisan about this. We ought to be able to work this out. There is nothing complicated about it. There is nothing complicated about addressing a fundamental issue facing small business. I just want to set things straight so it is clear and we are not misunderstood. Some are making generalized mischaracterizations. People have not read the amendment, or taken the time and effort to understand it. Reason it out, and if you disagree, come up with something so we can move with urgency, with dispatch because we are losing jobs in America. We are losing businesses. This would help enormously. That is why the legislation I have introduced, and the Senator from Oklahoma and others, has broad support from major small business organizations across America. They understand. They are hearing from their membership. And speaking of this, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two letters of support, one from 32 major business organizations and another from the Chamber of Commerce.

Ms. SNOWE. Our amendment includes a number of other provisions that would be important. For instance, we asked the Internal Revenue Service to consider small business impact on rulemaking, and that agencies review their rule penalty structures. I think we should ask the Internal Revenue Service to consider small business impact as well. It is reasonable. They obviously have a broad effect on small businesses across America. I have spoken on this issue at great length because I think it is that important. I have been a ranking member of the Small Business Committee. I have been chair of the Small Business Committee, since 2003 in either capacity. My State of Maine is a small business State with over 97 percent small businesses, so I fully understand and appreciate the magnitude of the situation, the circumstances in which they find themselves and struggle to survive. The interchange fee amendment to this bill, was an important issue that consumed a lot of time in the Senate. I certainly did not complain because I understand that. It did not have a hearing. It is a new proposal--that did not have any hearings. I did not complain, but it is important to understand--I just want everybody to understand not every amendment offered on the Senate floor, every proposal, has a hearing. Far from it. Very few ever do. We had a hearing on small business regulations last fall. That is why I am working this out, but we cannot work it out. There is no process or mechanism. It is all talk. No action for where it matters most, and I feel the despair and anxiety of my constituents. I feel it intuitively. I wish we could do better. I have been in the legislative process, as I said earlier, for the better part of four decades. My whole reason for serving in public office is to rise to a higher level. I believe it is my responsibility to solve the problems on behalf of people I represent and, hopefully, the country. There are only 100 United State Senators. It matters for our States, and it matters for our country. I would hope we could aspire to a higher level than this; certainly, in the aftermath of the last election, where there was an indisputable, unequivocal message from the American people begging and pleading with us to solve problems. We have an individual and a collective responsibility. We know how to do it, and we can do it. The genius of America has always been working together to solve our problems. It has been the hallmark of the innovation and the can-do spirit of America. I happen to believe in that can-do spirit. I know it is possible if we have a process and a procedure in the Senate that allows for it. When I get up every day, it is about what I can do for the people I represent and for this country at a very trying and anguishing moment, where the uncertainty is permeating the American psyche; to feel and to understand the fear that people get up with every day wondering if they are going to find a job or keep a job. Even if they get a job, it is about one-third of what they were making before. I heard that story yesterday from some constituents, about the hundreds who apply for a job for one-third of what they were making. How are they going to keep their families afloat, their homes? If they can keep it. That is what it is all about. Why is it we cannot replicate it here in actions and speak to the American people and give voice to those fears and say we are going to do it, we are going to do it right here, and then systematically tackle those issues one after the other and just do it and do it as long as it takes, even if we have to work weekends? Americans are working weekends, two and three jobs. They are doing everything. We take recesses. We do this. We ``obfuscate'' is the word that comes to mind, sort of create a confusion, a masquerade that we are doing something to mix it up. The practical impact in the absence of what we are doing is directly felt at home on the average American. I know we can do better. There have been soaring moments in this Chamber and there can be again. This is one of the most consequential times in our economic history, and we have an obligation to lift up the spirits of the people by working together on the issues that matter, and this is one issue that matters because there are 30 million small businesses in America. They are the job generators and creators, and if we do not recognize the reality of this type of reform and we cannot get it done, then we have failed to do our jobs. And I regret that. I believe we can do it, and working it out instead of talking about hearings at some point, some ambiguity, as if we cannot appreciate or understand what is happening in the real world and households every day on our Main Streets. If you do not, then I suggest you take a few Main Street tours and talk to small businesses and talk about their fears. These are Americans who are working mighty hard to make a difference in this world. All they want is a better life for themselves and their families and their children and, in fact, we are retreating. We have an obligation to stand up to do what is right. I hope we can find our way somehow, somewhere. This is a great place to start to make a difference. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, how much time remains on the Republican side?

Ms. SNOWE. Thirteen minutes. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to make a few points. It is about solving problems. That is what this is all about. It truly amazes me that we have an amendment here on regulatory reform that everybody agrees with in principle and everything else, that goes to the heart of the issues concerning the economic well-being of small business and, hence, America's well-being in these desperate times, yet we can't manage to get it together and to work on these issues. I made a number of good-faith changes in my legislation, and I would have done more if I had heard any response from the other side to working those out. I made five major changes to the proposition back in April to respond to this. But there is no response. Then I hear about these hearings. Can somebody please tell me where it is in the rules of the Senate that every amendment has to have a hearing? We had a major vote yesterday on interchange for the second time. That is important to small business. But even the committee of jurisdiction didn't have a hearing. So this is, again--as I describe it--the politics of obfuscation. Let's get to the heart of the matter and solve the problems for America. It isn't about who authors it and who is doing it. Let's do it. That is the point: We are not doing it. We are just sitting here talking, recessing, going home today, going to do something else, going to have recesses. We have five committees that have jurisdiction over this issue. We are going to need a roadmap pretty soon. I don't want to go home and tell my constituents this is what happened on regulatory reform. So let me get this straight. Let me get this straight. We have five committees, there are a number of bills, time is running out, people have to leave, and we can't have enough time to debate this. That is what I was told this morning. All of a sudden I was given a call saying: Sorry, you have to do it right now. I said: Well, is the bill over? We just started. There are a number of pending amendments that haven't even been addressed yet. Let's vote on those. This is an important issue. Let's give this the equivalency of the interchange amendment. Let's do something that is important for small business. Absolutely not. This is about jobs at a very difficult time in America. Let me repeat, 40 months after the start of the four deepest postwar recessions, our economic output averaged 7.6 percent. Here we are, our GDP has only increased .1 percent. Those are terrible numbers. But behind those numbers are people and human beings because it means we are not creating jobs. We heard here today that sometimes bureaucracy is good. Well, bureaucracies, by definition, and I read, mean ``excessive multiplication of, and concentration of power in administrative bureaus or administrators'' Absolutely. They are unelected. We are elected. We understand the problems. Even the President--let's read this headline, ``Obama to scale back regulations in an effort to spur economic growth.'' What is interesting about all this--nobody is accusing the President of decimating the environment or workplace or health care. Understanding that, 6 days after I was denied a vote on this very amendment where I made five different adjustments to respond to the other side, you have the President's Economic Competitiveness Council coming out with four major priorities, one of which is a need to improve the regulatory process because there are decades of overlapping and uncoordinated regulations. Even by the administration's estimate, this White House's own estimate, that regulations last decade cost anywhere from $44 to $62 billion, last year's alone with a $26 billion. This is a serious issue. Can we work it out? Can we do it? Do we have the capacity to work on issues anymore, thoroughly and deliberatively? It has been almost 2 months and we have not gotten any further. We haven't even had a hearing. Somewhere, somebody has bills. Great. Bring them up. Let's debate them. Let's compare them. Let's do something. Let's do something for small business. They desperately need it. Now I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Ms. SNOWE. I now yield to the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Brown.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for additional time on the bill, since the vote is not going to occur until 2:15, and that time be equally divided.

Ms. SNOWE. I yield the remainder of the time to Senator Brown. It is regrettable, since this is an important issue, that we couldn't have more time on this key issue.

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President. I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is about jobs. It is about small businesses. It is about the well-being of American families. Just remember this: the stark numbers. The unemployment rate is at 9.1 percent; the average over the last 2\1/2\ years, 9.4 percent. For 23 out of the last 28 months, unemployment has been at 9 percent or higher. Housing prices are at the lowest level since mid-2002. This is the longest recession since modern record- keeping. These are stark, grim numbers. What I am hearing here today is a bureaucratic process and response, exactly what we are trying to attack. This is not indiscriminate, as some have described on the other side of the aisle about this regulatory reform measure. It is very consistent. I know the Senator from Louisiana was talking about several of the issues. I would like to go through them. First of all, she mentioned about the concerns of the judicial review. But this provision is nearly identical to one that she and Senator Cardin introduced in their own legislation in the 111th Congress. The Senator also was concerned with our tying budget cuts to the SBA to this amendment as a way of paying for some of the costs of it. But, to avoid controversy, we specifically selected as offsets, cuts in the SBA that had been proposed by the Agency's Inspector General, and in the President's very own budget. The Senator from Louisiana talked about the problems associated with considering indirect economic effects on small businesses when issuing rules. But, for that provision we used the exact same language suggested by the President's chief small business regulatory appointee, the chief advocate at the Small Business Administration. So this is not indiscriminate and some are mischaracterizing the provisions in this legislation because they have not bothered to read the amendment. I made a number of changes in order to address the concerns on the other side. If there were further concerns, that we could work through, I would have addressed those as well. So I think we better make sure we get our facts straight because it is about small businesses and jobs. That is what it is about. We are just stalling, deferring, delaying. We heard concerns that we did not have a hearing on my specific amendment. Well, the Senate did not hold a hearing on it since I was denied a vote on it on May 4. And the President came out a few days later and said regulatory reform was one of the top four issues for American economic growth and job creation. Then we hear a bureaucratic conversation about hearings and multiple jurisdictions and committees and committees. I have to say, I have never known amendments to require hearings before they are considered on the floor. In fact, I believe the Senator from California had 19 amendments in the last Congress--19 amendments--8 of which were accepted and none had hearings. Yesterday we had a major amendment on interchange. We did not have a hearing on that major issue. I am just making a point. This is just bringing up issues to obfuscate and obscure. I do not know exactly what the concern is, to be honest with you. If there are some issues to address, then let's address them. But to just postpone in conversation, debating--the talk goes nowhere. There are no hearings. There is nothing. The President scaled back regulations, as I said earlier in an effort to spur economic growth, including some in the Environmental Protection Agency. He did not undercut the Endangered Species Act. Nobody is accusing him of scaling back every environmental law that has ever been on the books. I think we ought to get away from extreme mischaracterizations, inaccuracies and untruths. Let's talk about the facts. Let's read the bill. Let's know what we are talking about and get our facts straight. This goes to the heart of economic growth. It goes to jobs. It goes to the American people's well-being.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, while our efforts here in Washington regarding small business are often focused on how to help start new companies, our economy also relies on those small firms which have been in operation for generation after generation. One such small business, Towle's Hardware & Lumber Store in Dixfield, this week celebrates its 100th anniversary. Today I commend Towle's for its remarkable achievement and highlight its tremendous story. Towle's Hardware and Lumber Store opened its doors in 1911 as C.H. Towle's Hardware, when Charles Towle purchased the former Stockbridge Hardware Store on Weld Street in Dixfield. At that time, Towle's offered its customers a wide variety of basic necessities, from paint, lumber, and tools, to cast iron stoves, electric and gas refrigerators, and even John Deere tractors. The Towle family considers the company's long-term success and longevity as byproducts of its work ethic, attention to customer service, and decision to sell quality products at reasonable prices. Indeed, over the years, the business has expanded in size, installed an elevator, and opened a package shipping operation in the 1980s. In the 1960s, Towle's joined American Hardware, one of the Nation's earlier co-operative hardware companies, and to this day it remains a member of True Value, with which American Hardware later merged. In 2008, Towle's Hardware moved into a new 6,000-square-foot location just a few yards from the old location. That same year the family also opened the Towle's Corner Store to serve the community in even more ways. This week, Towle's is holding a week-long celebration of the company's centennial. Events include free product giveaways, raffles for Towle's gift certificates and other prizes, and a recognition ceremony for the company, which includes the presentation of a special plaque to Towle's in honor of its centennial by officials from the town of Dixfield and True Value. Small businesses like Towle's Hardware are the heart and soul of our Nation's communities. Main Streets across America are chock full of restaurants, grocery stores, and shopping boutiques which provide citizens with the goods and wares they need. Towle's Hardware and Lumber is a prime example of a small business that has persevered through turbulent economic times--from the Great Depression to the most recent recession--time and time again. I congratulate everyone at Towle's for their major milestone and wish them many more years of accomplishment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senator Stabenow of Michigan to introduce The Preservation of Access to Osteoporosis Testing for Medicare Beneficiaries Act of 2011. The companion bill in the U.S. House of Representatives is being introduced by Representative Michael Burgess with Representative Shelley Berkley. Since 1997, Congress has recognized the necessity of osteoporosis prevention by standardizing coverage for bone mass measurement under the Medicare program. At that time, I actively pursued inclusion of the language in the Medicare Bone Mass Measurement Standardization bill as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Later, with the passage of health care reform legislation, Congress enacted a temporary solution to the problem caused by Medicare cuts in reimbursement rates for osteoporosis screening tests through bone mass measurements. The osteoporosis screening provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act returned the Medicare reimbursement level to 70 percent of the 2006 Medicare reimbursement rate. Regrettably, this provision will expire at the end of the calendar year. For Medicare beneficiaries, this sunset means that access to osteoporosis diagnosis, prevention, and treatment will once again be in jeopardy as Medicare reimbursement rates for osteoporosis screening will plummet by about 50 percent on January 1, 2012. Moreover, without adequate Medicare reimbursement rates, we most certainly risk losing the battle for improving access to bone density testing as well as preventing debilitating and costly bone fractures--an outcome we can ill afford. A disease of reduced bone mass that ultimately results in bones becoming brittle and fracturing more easily, osteoporosis constitutes a major public health threat, affecting 44 million Americans who either have the disease or are at risk for developing it due to low bone density. Osteoporosis is especially prevalent among women, who represent an incredible 71 percent of all cases. In fact, in their lifetime, one in two women and as many as one in four men over the age of 50 will fracture a bone due to osteoporosis. Amazingly, a woman's risk of an osteoporotic fracture is greater than her annual combined incidence of breast cancer, heart attack, and stroke, making access and affordability absolutely imperative. I want to stress to my colleagues that while there is no cure for osteoporosis, it is largely preventable and thousands of fractures could be avoided through early detection and treatment of low bone mass. New drug therapies have been proven to reduce fractures and to rebuild bone mass. At the same time, a bone mass measurement is necessary prior to initiating any form of osteoporosis therapy or prophylaxis. Bone mass measurements can be used to determine the status of a person's bone health and to predict the risk of future fractures. These tests are safe, painless, accurate, and quick. DXA, dual energy x-ray absorptiometry, is recognized by the World Health Organization, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services as the ``gold standard'' for diagnosing osteoporosis. A technique called vertebral fracture assessment or VFA can identify spinal fractures and show abnormally shaped vertebra. Bone density screenings have been shown to result in 37 percent reduction in hip fracture rates according to a 2008 study by Kaiser in Southern California. Reimbursement under the Medicare program for DXA screening is scheduled to be reduced by 62 percent by 2013 and VFA will be reduced by 30 percent by 2013. The reduction in Medicare reimbursement will almost certainly discourage physicians from continuing to provide convenient access to DXA screening or VFA in their offices. Since \2/3\ of all DXA scans are performed in non-facility settings, such as physician offices, patient access to bone mass measurement will continue to be severely compromised if DXA scans are not readily available to all patients. Our bill would renew the current Medicare levels for reimbursement relief to preserve access to DXA screenings, improve patient care, and prevent unnecessary costs to the Medicare program through reduced expenditures on fractures. Osteoporosis, which is responsible for more than two million fractures annually, is a silent disease that often goes undetected until a fall or an injury results in a broken bone. Our senior population is at greatest risk, with 89 percent of fracture costs attributed to individuals who are 65 years of age or older. Perhaps the most tragic consequences occur with elderly individuals who fall and suffer osteoporotic hip fractures. Of those senior citizens suffering hip fractures, 12-13 percent will die within 6 months following the injury and 20 percent will require nursing home care . . . often for the rest of their lives. Moreover, the Medicaid budget bears the cost of nursing home admissions for hip fractures for low-income Americans. In general, osteoporotic fractures result in an estimated annual cost of $19 billion to our health care system. I remain hopeful that one day researchers will discover a cure for this silent and debilitating disease. In the meantime, early detection continues to be our best weapon against osteoporosis, because it is through early detection that we can best thwart the progress of osteoporosis by initiating preventive measures to combat bone loss. Continuing our current Medicare reimbursement rate for osteoporosis screening tests satisfies the triple aim of better care, improved health, and lower costs. I hope that our colleagues will join Senator Stabenow and me in supporting this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, for 25 years, the Smaller Business Association of New England, SBANE, has been recognizing the accomplishments and innovations of small businesses throughout the Northeast with its innovation awards. The Rising Star category is reserved for those small businesses that will have a significant impact in their industry or sector in the near future. Today I rise to recognize Biovation LLC, a small manufacturing firm in the coastal Maine town of Boothbay that creates antimicrobial chemical and nonwoven fiber products for both food packaging and wound care. Biovation beat out nearly 200 nominees and 20 finalists to win the coveted Rising Star category of the SBANE's Innovation Awards, a truly worthy and aptly named recognition for this up-and-coming firm. The company was nominated for the SBANE award by the Maine Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, with which it has worked to increase efficiency, productivity and competitiveness. Rosemary Presnar of the Maine MEP has noted that Biovation possesses ``a rare combination of engineering capability and entrepreneurial zeal; and they're visionary in applying their technology to develop new products and create new market opportunities.'' This commitment to improvement is a source of inspiration, and is an example of the blossoming technological and R&D sector that is transforming Maine. Biovation received the award at SBANE's annual gala dinner on May 11 in Massachusetts, joining Maine companies such as Tom's of Maine and Wright Express, which have been recognized in previous years. Biovation aspires to become a worldwide leader in the product safety and wound care sectors within the next decade, and the company is off to a resounding start. Biovation has developed a process where textile fibers are infused with antimicrobial chemical formulations; these fibers can be used for bandages and dressings to prevent the spread of disease by inhibiting the growth of bacteria and fungi. Clearly, this is a perfect tool for use in hospitals and medical facilities worldwide in efforts to eradicate the transmission of infections between patients. In April of this year, Biovation shipped out its first orders of food safety products, and by this time next year, it expects to complete contract negotiations with a medical company for its wound care products. Additionally, the U.S. Marines have expressed interest in acquiring absorbent liners to keep soldier's boots dry. Because countries like Iraq and Afghanistan lack the proper infrastructure, it is difficult to use electric dryers for such tasks. Biovation's unique products can provide an affordable, lightweight pad to help our troops stay comfortable during their critical missions in extreme temperatures and conditions. It will take America's nearly 30 million small businesses working to out-innovate and out-produce the rest of the world to provide for a lasting economic recovery. With companies like Biovation leading the way, I am confident that we are well-poised to move our economy forward. I thank everyone at Biovation for their dedication and forward-thinking, and congratulate them on their success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senator Stabenow of Michigan to introduce The Preservation of Access to Osteoporosis Testing for Medicare Beneficiaries Act of 2011. The companion bill in the U.S. House of Representatives is being introduced by Representative Michael Burgess with Representative Shelley Berkley. Since 1997, Congress has recognized the necessity of osteoporosis prevention by standardizing coverage for bone mass measurement under the Medicare program. At that time, I actively pursued inclusion of the language in the Medicare Bone Mass Measurement Standardization bill as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Later, with the passage of health care reform legislation, Congress enacted a temporary solution to the problem caused by Medicare cuts in reimbursement rates for osteoporosis screening tests through bone mass measurements. The osteoporosis screening provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act returned the Medicare reimbursement level to 70 percent of the 2006 Medicare reimbursement rate. Regrettably, this provision will expire at the end of the calendar year. For Medicare beneficiaries, this sunset means that access to osteoporosis diagnosis, prevention, and treatment will once again be in jeopardy as Medicare reimbursement rates for osteoporosis screening will plummet by about 50 percent on January 1, 2012. Moreover, without adequate Medicare reimbursement rates, we most certainly risk losing the battle for improving access to bone density testing as well as preventing debilitating and costly bone fractures--an outcome we can ill afford. A disease of reduced bone mass that ultimately results in bones becoming brittle and fracturing more easily, osteoporosis constitutes a major public health threat, affecting 44 million Americans who either have the disease or are at risk for developing it due to low bone density. Osteoporosis is especially prevalent among women, who represent an incredible 71 percent of all cases. In fact, in their lifetime, one in two women and as many as one in four men over the age of 50 will fracture a bone due to osteoporosis. Amazingly, a woman's risk of an osteoporotic fracture is greater than her annual combined incidence of breast cancer, heart attack, and stroke, making access and affordability absolutely imperative. I want to stress to my colleagues that while there is no cure for osteoporosis, it is largely preventable and thousands of fractures could be avoided through early detection and treatment of low bone mass. New drug therapies have been proven to reduce fractures and to rebuild bone mass. At the same time, a bone mass measurement is necessary prior to initiating any form of osteoporosis therapy or prophylaxis. Bone mass measurements can be used to determine the status of a person's bone health and to predict the risk of future fractures. These tests are safe, painless, accurate, and quick. DXA, dual energy x-ray absorptiometry, is recognized by the World Health Organization, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services as the ``gold standard'' for diagnosing osteoporosis. A technique called vertebral fracture assessment or VFA can identify spinal fractures and show abnormally shaped vertebra. Bone density screenings have been shown to result in 37 percent reduction in hip fracture rates according to a 2008 study by Kaiser in Southern California. Reimbursement under the Medicare program for DXA screening is scheduled to be reduced by 62 percent by 2013 and VFA will be reduced by 30 percent by 2013. The reduction in Medicare reimbursement will almost certainly discourage physicians from continuing to provide convenient access to DXA screening or VFA in their offices. Since \2/3\ of all DXA scans are performed in non-facility settings, such as physician offices, patient access to bone mass measurement will continue to be severely compromised if DXA scans are not readily available to all patients. Our bill would renew the current Medicare levels for reimbursement relief to preserve access to DXA screenings, improve patient care, and prevent unnecessary costs to the Medicare program through reduced expenditures on fractures. Osteoporosis, which is responsible for more than two million fractures annually, is a silent disease that often goes undetected until a fall or an injury results in a broken bone. Our senior population is at greatest risk, with 89 percent of fracture costs attributed to individuals who are 65 years of age or older. Perhaps the most tragic consequences occur with elderly individuals who fall and suffer osteoporotic hip fractures. Of those senior citizens suffering hip fractures, 12-13 percent will die within 6 months following the injury and 20 percent will require nursing home care . . . often for the rest of their lives. Moreover, the Medicaid budget bears the cost of nursing home admissions for hip fractures for low-income Americans. In general, osteoporotic fractures result in an estimated annual cost of $19 billion to our health care system. I remain hopeful that one day researchers will discover a cure for this silent and debilitating disease. In the meantime, early detection continues to be our best weapon against osteoporosis, because it is through early detection that we can best thwart the progress of osteoporosis by initiating preventive measures to combat bone loss. Continuing our current Medicare reimbursement rate for osteoporosis screening tests satisfies the triple aim of better care, improved health, and lower costs. I hope that our colleagues will join Senator Stabenow and me in supporting this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleague, Senator Collins, to authorize the Department of Defense to carry out a pilot program to sell certain products at commissaries that serve areas with military installations that have been adversely affected by a Base Closure and Realignment, BRAC, round. It is my fervent hope that this legislation will provide the Department of Defense with a means of reducing the operating costs of the commissary in Topsham, Maine sufficiently that they are able to keep a commissary in the area open for many years after the disestablishment of Naval Air Station, NAS, Brunswick. As my colleagues know, the 2005 BRAC round ordered the closure of NAS Brunswick, Maine. That base, which once employed nearly 5,000 personnel in the region, will be officially disestablished on May 31, 2011. With the closure of NAS Brunswick, some in the Department of Defense have argued that the nearby commissary in Topsham, Maine, should also be closed. However, even after the closure of NAS Brunswick, nearly 1,500 active duty, Guard, and Reserve service members remain within a 20 mile drive of the installation, including more than 300 active duty personnel who support the Navy's Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair just down the road in Bath, Maine. In addition, almost 9,000 military retirees and their dependents live in the immediate area, with many thousands more living within an hour's drive. Thanks to a provision that I and my Maine colleagues succeeded in having included in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, the Topsham commissary will remain open until at least September 15, 2011, while the Department of Defense considers the findings of a Government Accountability Office review on commissary operations and policies. That GAO review was recently completed, and it revealed that the Department's decision to close the commissary was based on instructions that lack clear criteria for determining when commissaries should be established, operated, or closed. DOD concurred with GAO's assessment that its instructions are unclear, and indicated that it would clarify its criteria in the next version of commissary operations. So, just one week ago, on May 10, 2011, Senator Collins and I wrote to Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Clifford Stanley to urge that he not close ANY commissary--including the Topsham commissary--until those instructions are clarified. Such an approach is the only reasonable route for DOD to move forward in a fair and transparent manner. In recognition of the financial challenges facing our nation, we have also developed an idea to reduce the operating costs of the Topsham commissary, which DOD estimates to be approximately $2.2 million per year. The store currently returns about $400,000 to the commissary system through surcharge revenues, but I certainly appreciate how important it is to address the state of our nation's budget. So, with a commissary at Topsham, and an exchange at NAS Brunswick, we explored the option of using a provision in existing law to create a ``combined'' store. Although that idea was appealing, we learned that every store created under that authority has eventually failed for lack of financial support. Thus, we developed the legislation we introduce here today. This bill would create a pilot program to operate an ``enhanced commissary store'' in the Topsham-Brunswick area and at other installations closed or adversely realigned by a BRAC round. This new authority would allow the pilot stores to sell items that are currently sold by or for the military exchanges, such as alcoholic beverages and tobacco products. Unlike other products at the commissary, which are sold at cost plus a 5 percent surcharge, these products would be sold at higher prices as determined by the Secretary of Defense, and the proceeds from those sales would be applied to reducing the operating costs of each enhanced commissary. Although it is difficult to determine how much revenue would result from this proposal, preliminary estimates are that it could reduce costs at a location such as the Topsham commissary by approximately $300,000 per year. That is more than enough to make a cost-effective benefit like the commissary an even better deal for our service members and the taxpayer. On a final note, I would point out that this bill is quite similar to a provision included at the behest of Congresswoman Chellie Pingree in H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act fiscal year 2012, as reported by the House Armed Services Committee. It has been my pleasure to work with her in developing this concept, and I hope that we will be able to include similar language in the Senate version of the bill later this year. I believe that this bill is a common sense solution to ensuring that our service members, military retirees, and their dependents are able to continue to access the extremely important and valued benefit that is the commissary system, even in locations that undergo significant realignments due to a BRAC round. I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation, and look forward to working with the Senate Armed Services Committee to include the proposal in their version of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleague, Senator Collins, to authorize the Department of Defense to carry out a pilot program to sell certain products at commissaries that serve areas with military installations that have been adversely affected by a Base Closure and Realignment, BRAC, round. It is my fervent hope that this legislation will provide the Department of Defense with a means of reducing the operating costs of the commissary in Topsham, Maine sufficiently that they are able to keep a commissary in the area open for many years after the disestablishment of Naval Air Station, NAS, Brunswick. As my colleagues know, the 2005 BRAC round ordered the closure of NAS Brunswick, Maine. That base, which once employed nearly 5,000 personnel in the region, will be officially disestablished on May 31, 2011. With the closure of NAS Brunswick, some in the Department of Defense have argued that the nearby commissary in Topsham, Maine, should also be closed. However, even after the closure of NAS Brunswick, nearly 1,500 active duty, Guard, and Reserve service members remain within a 20 mile drive of the installation, including more than 300 active duty personnel who support the Navy's Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair just down the road in Bath, Maine. In addition, almost 9,000 military retirees and their dependents live in the immediate area, with many thousands more living within an hour's drive. Thanks to a provision that I and my Maine colleagues succeeded in having included in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, the Topsham commissary will remain open until at least September 15, 2011, while the Department of Defense considers the findings of a Government Accountability Office review on commissary operations and policies. That GAO review was recently completed, and it revealed that the Department's decision to close the commissary was based on instructions that lack clear criteria for determining when commissaries should be established, operated, or closed. DOD concurred with GAO's assessment that its instructions are unclear, and indicated that it would clarify its criteria in the next version of commissary operations. So, just one week ago, on May 10, 2011, Senator Collins and I wrote to Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Clifford Stanley to urge that he not close ANY commissary--including the Topsham commissary--until those instructions are clarified. Such an approach is the only reasonable route for DOD to move forward in a fair and transparent manner. In recognition of the financial challenges facing our nation, we have also developed an idea to reduce the operating costs of the Topsham commissary, which DOD estimates to be approximately $2.2 million per year. The store currently returns about $400,000 to the commissary system through surcharge revenues, but I certainly appreciate how important it is to address the state of our nation's budget. So, with a commissary at Topsham, and an exchange at NAS Brunswick, we explored the option of using a provision in existing law to create a ``combined'' store. Although that idea was appealing, we learned that every store created under that authority has eventually failed for lack of financial support. Thus, we developed the legislation we introduce here today. This bill would create a pilot program to operate an ``enhanced commissary store'' in the Topsham-Brunswick area and at other installations closed or adversely realigned by a BRAC round. This new authority would allow the pilot stores to sell items that are currently sold by or for the military exchanges, such as alcoholic beverages and tobacco products. Unlike other products at the commissary, which are sold at cost plus a 5 percent surcharge, these products would be sold at higher prices as determined by the Secretary of Defense, and the proceeds from those sales would be applied to reducing the operating costs of each enhanced commissary. Although it is difficult to determine how much revenue would result from this proposal, preliminary estimates are that it could reduce costs at a location such as the Topsham commissary by approximately $300,000 per year. That is more than enough to make a cost-effective benefit like the commissary an even better deal for our service members and the taxpayer. On a final note, I would point out that this bill is quite similar to a provision included at the behest of Congresswoman Chellie Pingree in H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act fiscal year 2012, as reported by the House Armed Services Committee. It has been my pleasure to work with her in developing this concept, and I hope that we will be able to include similar language in the Senate version of the bill later this year. I believe that this bill is a common sense solution to ensuring that our service members, military retirees, and their dependents are able to continue to access the extremely important and valued benefit that is the commissary system, even in locations that undergo significant realignments due to a BRAC round. I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation, and look forward to working with the Senate Armed Services Committee to include the proposal in their version of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, this week marks the 48th annual celebration of National Small Business Week, a time to honor the enormous contributions of small businesses to our nation's economy. We know that small firms are truly our country's greatest job creators, responsible for two-thirds of new jobs annually, and they have consistently led us out of economic downturns historically. Presently, we have thousands of servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan each month. As these proud veterans attempt to reenter civilian life, many seek to start their own business. For the past several years, veterans in the midcoast region of Maine have had a counselor and advocate named Kristine Schuman helping them achieve their goals. In recognition of her outstanding commitment to these brave men and women, Kristine recently received the Maine Veteran Small Business Champion of the Year award from the U.S. Small Business Administration. Today I applaud Kristine for her selfless service, and offer my sincerest thanks for her work. A resident of Topsham, Kristine is the manager of the Base Realignment and Closure, or BRAC, Transition Center at Naval Air Station Brunswick, or NASB. The town of Brunswick has been home to NASB since 1943, when it was constructed to assist in the Allied effort during World War II. Over the years, thousands of Navy officers and civilians have worked and trained at NASB, contributing to a sense of community at the base. Regrettably, NASB was recommended for closure by the 2005 BRAC Commission, and is expected to close later this year. As the local community undertakes efforts to redevelop the base, many who have served at NASB over the years have stayed in the Brunswick area and now call it home. Indeed, Maine boasts the second highest per capita veteran population in the Nation, and those looking to start their own business or learn new job skills have a phenomenal counselor in Kristine Schuman. Since 2008, Kristine and her staff have assisted in the retraining and transitioning of over 1,000 servicemembers and their family members, as well as civilian workers, in the midcoast region. Furthermore, Kristine has served as the project manager for the military spouse career advancement account at the base, helping close to 200 military spouses receive the training necessary for placement in new employment opportunities. Our Nation owes our veterans in Maine, and throughout the country, a debt of gratitude that can never be fully repaid. Regrettably, the unemployment rate for veterans returning from Afghanistan and Iraq is 12.5 percent--a full 3.5 percent higher than the national unemployment rate for the overall population. That is what makes the work of Kristine Schuman and people like her all the more critical. I thank Kristine for her incredible work, and wish her success in future endeavors.

Ms SNOWE

Ms SNOWE. Mr. President, next week marks the 48th annual celebration of National Small Business Week, a tradition started in 1963 under President Kennedy to highlight the critical role small businesses play in our society. This year, despite a difficult economy struggling to rebound, we can be proud of our Nation's nearly 30 million small firms that are working to move our Nation forward. In light of this, today I commend and recognize Maine Commercial Tire, MCT, a commercial tire servicer and supplier in my home State of Maine. Recently, MCT's owners James McCurdy and James Lynch were named Maine's 2011 Small Business Persons of the year by the U.S. Small Business Administration. This is a highly deserved honor as both individuals' leadership has allowed MCT to prosper in a struggling and tumultuous economy. Maine Commercial Tire began in 1990 in the town of Hermon, roughly 15 minutes from Bangor. Their goal was to supply new tires and retreaded tires while providing outstanding service to the many trucking businesses in Maine and portions of New Hampshire. Since that time MCT has grown substantially from 18 employees to 59 employees, and expanded by opening three additional locations across the State, in Augusta, Scarborough, and Lewiston. The company now retreads roughly 35,000 tires each year. MCT is recognized both locally and globally for its commitment to excellence. The International Organization for Standardization, ISO, develops and sets high global standards that a variety of international companies strive to achieve in order to become certified in their field. In 2000, MCT became the first--and thus far, only--ISO 9002 certified tire dealer and independently owned retread shop in the United States. In addition to demonstrating MCT's commitment to excellence, this certification shows that American small businesses can truly compete in a global marketplace with hard work and perseverance. As a result of their accomplishments at MCT, Mr. McCurdy and Mr. Lynch are receiving the prestigious Small Business Person of the Year award. This award takes into account a variety of criteria including: staying power as an established business, growth in number of employees, increase in sales and/or unit volume, current and past financial performance, innovativeness of product or service offered, response to adversity, and contributions to community-oriented projects. This is truly a deserved honor for Mr. Lynch and Mr. McCurdy. Their hard work and dedication has resulted in MCT being regarded as a nationwide leader in both the supply and servicing of truck tires and retreaded truck tires. Mssrs. McCurdy and Lynch were honored at a luncheon in Maine on May 5, and will also be recognized next week during National Small Business Week here in Washington. It will take small businesses to lead us out of our economic morass. That is why I am thankful for companies such as Maine Commercial Tire, which have persevered and made great strides over the past 21 years. I thank Mr. McCurdy and Mr. Lynch for their leadership and everyone at MCT for their dedication to excellence, and offer my best wishes for success in their future endeavors.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Small Business Committee, I am delighted to rise today, on the eve of National Small Business Week, with Senator Landrieu, who is Chair of the Committee, to introduce the Small Business Tax Equalization and Compliance Act. Our bipartisan measure is a pro-small business bill and would allow the salon industry to have the same tax rules on tips paid to employees as is permitted in the restaurant industry. The legislation would increase compliance with payroll tax obligations and will make sure that the women who work in the salon industry earn all the Social Security retirement and disability benefits they should be entitled to. It would also help to prevent salons that do not follow the tax law from gaining a competitive disadvantage against those that do follow the law. Congressman Sam Johnson, R-TX, is leading the charge on a companion bill in the House. Clearly this legislation will help all parts of the salon industry, big and small, men and women. But the reality is that because 84 percent of the workforce in the salon industry is female, this issue has special relevance for women. When women work as independent contractors at hair salons, they are less likely to disclose all of their tips for purposes of paying Social Security taxes. As a result, they reduce their future right to earn retirement and disability benefits in the Social Security system and reduce the size of any benefit they do ultimately earn. Making sure that working women are correctly paying into Social Security is critical to their future retirement security because many of these women will have had no other retirement benefits available to them. We know that women are disproportionately dependent on Social Security for their retirement benefits, a March 2010 study by the Women for Women's Policy Research showed that women's Social Security benefits in 2008 were only about 75 percent of the benefits earned by men and it comprised about half of their total retirement income. By contrast, Social Security benefits comprised roughly one-third of men's retirement income. Earning the right to collect a decent Social Security benefit is vital to women. As a small business issue, salons are a quintessential small business on Main Streets across America. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 98 percent of salon industry firms have only one establishment; 92 percent of salon establishments have sales of less than $500,000; and 82 percent of salon establishments have fewer than 10 employees. Extending the tip tax credit to salon owners would allow them to reinvest in their businesses and employees, create new jobs, granting new economic and employment opportunities in their local communities. I specifically want to explain what this legislation would do. First, it would provide to the salon industry with the same type of tax credit currently available in the restaurant industry. The credit is for employers to offset the matching Social Security and Medicare taxes that the salon pays on the tips that employees receive from customers. Next, the bill would help to make more even-handed IRS enforcement of laws on payroll and income taxes. Without this legislation it is often the lopsided practice of the IRS to seek back taxes from the employer but rarely from the employee or independent contractor despite the requirement that taxes be paid in equal measure. The legislation will protect both legitimate independent contractors and employees who pay their taxes but frees up IRS resources to focus on those bad actors who are not complying with the law. Although non- employer salons comprise 87 percent of establishments, their reported sales represent only 36 percent of total salon industry revenues, implying a significant underreporting of income in the non-employer segment. This legislation includes education and reporting requirements which will help address the ``tax gap'' and reveal a valuable new source of tax revenues for the federal government. This is a win-win- win for the salons, for employees, and for the government. This bill is supported by the Professional Beauty Association, the largest association in the professional beauty industry, which is comprised of salon and spa owners, manufacturers and distributors of salon and spa products, and individual licensed cosmetologists. Finally, I want to thank two salon owners who brought this issue to my attention, Alan Labos of Akari Salon in Portland, ME, Tiffany Conway of bei capelli salon in Scarborough, ME. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support our bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Small Business Committee, I am delighted to rise today, on the eve of National Small Business Week, with Senator Landrieu, who is Chair of the Committee, to introduce the Small Business Tax Equalization and Compliance Act. Our bipartisan measure is a pro-small business bill and would allow the salon industry to have the same tax rules on tips paid to employees as is permitted in the restaurant industry. The legislation would increase compliance with payroll tax obligations and will make sure that the women who work in the salon industry earn all the Social Security retirement and disability benefits they should be entitled to. It would also help to prevent salons that do not follow the tax law from gaining a competitive disadvantage against those that do follow the law. Congressman Sam Johnson, R-TX, is leading the charge on a companion bill in the House. Clearly this legislation will help all parts of the salon industry, big and small, men and women. But the reality is that because 84 percent of the workforce in the salon industry is female, this issue has special relevance for women. When women work as independent contractors at hair salons, they are less likely to disclose all of their tips for purposes of paying Social Security taxes. As a result, they reduce their future right to earn retirement and disability benefits in the Social Security system and reduce the size of any benefit they do ultimately earn. Making sure that working women are correctly paying into Social Security is critical to their future retirement security because many of these women will have had no other retirement benefits available to them. We know that women are disproportionately dependent on Social Security for their retirement benefits, a March 2010 study by the Women for Women's Policy Research showed that women's Social Security benefits in 2008 were only about 75 percent of the benefits earned by men and it comprised about half of their total retirement income. By contrast, Social Security benefits comprised roughly one-third of men's retirement income. Earning the right to collect a decent Social Security benefit is vital to women. As a small business issue, salons are a quintessential small business on Main Streets across America. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 98 percent of salon industry firms have only one establishment; 92 percent of salon establishments have sales of less than $500,000; and 82 percent of salon establishments have fewer than 10 employees. Extending the tip tax credit to salon owners would allow them to reinvest in their businesses and employees, create new jobs, granting new economic and employment opportunities in their local communities. I specifically want to explain what this legislation would do. First, it would provide to the salon industry with the same type of tax credit currently available in the restaurant industry. The credit is for employers to offset the matching Social Security and Medicare taxes that the salon pays on the tips that employees receive from customers. Next, the bill would help to make more even-handed IRS enforcement of laws on payroll and income taxes. Without this legislation it is often the lopsided practice of the IRS to seek back taxes from the employer but rarely from the employee or independent contractor despite the requirement that taxes be paid in equal measure. The legislation will protect both legitimate independent contractors and employees who pay their taxes but frees up IRS resources to focus on those bad actors who are not complying with the law. Although non- employer salons comprise 87 percent of establishments, their reported sales represent only 36 percent of total salon industry revenues, implying a significant underreporting of income in the non-employer segment. This legislation includes education and reporting requirements which will help address the ``tax gap'' and reveal a valuable new source of tax revenues for the federal government. This is a win-win- win for the salons, for employees, and for the government. This bill is supported by the Professional Beauty Association, the largest association in the professional beauty industry, which is comprised of salon and spa owners, manufacturers and distributors of salon and spa products, and individual licensed cosmetologists. Finally, I want to thank two salon owners who brought this issue to my attention, Alan Labos of Akari Salon in Portland, ME, Tiffany Conway of bei capelli salon in Scarborough, ME. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support our bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I was pleased to join Senate Majority Leader Reid and Republican Leader McConnell in offering the strongest possible support for the Senate resolution honoring our heroic military and intelligence communities responsible for carrying out the mission that resulted in the death of one of the most reviled murderers and nefarious menaces of our time--Osama bin Laden. As a senior member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I cannot begin to commend our Armed Forces and intelligence professionals enough for their absolutely exceptional and flawless heroism in conducting the most perilous and consequential of operations. With the highest level of perseverance, professionalism, service, and sacrifice conceivable, our bravest and finest joined forces and brought the day of reckoning and justice that long awaited this wretched terrorist. This landmark event is indeed a significant stride in the war on terrorism. Since 9/11, the efforts of our tireless and dedicated Armed Forces and intelligence operators have sought to keep our homeland safe and make the world more secure. On May 1, 2011, these efforts culminated in the death of one of terrorism's global leaders, marking a decisive milestone in the war against terror. We are blessed with such brave and valiant men and women serving this country at home and abroad. These heroes have made selfless sacrifices and put their lives on the line for our Nation. While we are sleeping at night, they are fighting on our behalf. During this now-legendary May 1 raid, their mettle and courage were brought to the forefront for all the world to see. As a result of the horrendous events of September 11, 2001, that are etched upon our consciousness for all time, we will never be the same. Out of the rubble of September 11 rose our resolve, out of despair grew our determination, and out of the hate that was perpetrated upon us stood our humanity. We illustrated in word and deed that the iconic American spirit is stronger and more permanent than any pain or suffering that can be inflicted upon us. If the likes of Osama bin Laden laid bare the unimaginable cruelties of which humankind is capable, it also imbued forever within our minds the heights to which the human spirit can rise--even and especially in the face of the most daunting of circumstances. The resilience we recaptured as a country remains pressed upon our national psyche and the memory of the inspirational sacrifices of so many heroic Americans who perished that September morning will forever have a home in our hearts and our prayers. I think about all of the servicemen and women who willingly joined the military specifically to fight because of what happened on 9/11, and the sacrifices of their families and the lives that have been lost. Today, and every day, we express immeasurable gratitude to the over 6,000 Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan who have given their lives to make the world a safer place. Without their vital contributions, we could not have achieved this milestone today. This resolution will stand as a testament that without the stalwart efforts and unwavering dedication of our valorous men and women in uniform and within our intelligence community, this threshold moment in our nation's history would not have been possible. While justice has been brought to the face of terrorism for the last decade, we must remain vigilant. In the aftermath of bin Laden's death, the threat posed by al-Qaida and other terrorist groups continues real and unabated--and we must remain on high alert. British statesman Edmund Burke once famously said ``all that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.'' These heroic patriots whom we laud today tracked their target with precision, preparation, and patience, as well as an unmistakable sense of duty and valor reserved for only the best among us, and they delivered a death knell that will reverberate for generations to come.