Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, unwavering in principle and hewing always to her Maine roots and hallmark independence, Margaret Chase Smith exemplified the finest qualities of our great state of Maine which she represented with the highest distinction in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. A true American political icon and esteemed stateswoman, she was and remains the embodiment of Maine's motto, Dirigo or ``I Lead.'' And lead she did. As I said 10 years ago, on the 50th anniversary of her groundbreaking remarks, in order to lead, one must first be able to follow--follow one's conscience, follow one's own ideals, and follow what you know in your heart to be right. In taking the path less travelled, Senator Smith became a truly distinguished leader, not just of her time, but for all time, and delivered what we remember as her signature contribution to America and the very freedoms we cherish. Indeed, on this momentous occasion, we pay tribute to a political giant and legend, who rose from the most humble of beginnings to the highest corridors of power--the heights of which she never sought for personal gain, but rather in order to serve the state she loved and the Nation she revered. And we honor her uncommon courage in confronting a scourge no other Senator sought to challenge, which she demonstrated without equivocation on June 1, 1950. During a time enveloped by a crucible of hatred and fear, it was Senator Margaret Chase Smith who became the first U.S. Senator to speak the words that much of America had been thinking to itself back in the dark spring of 1950--as Senator Joseph McCarthy made sensational and unsubstantiated charges that, through blatant opportunism, had turned him into a national celebrity. But while her colleagues hid behind their silence, with her famous ``Declaration of Conscience'' speech, Margaret Chase Smith articulated the truth and, in so doing, courageously challenged a giant of demagoguery. Senator Smith stood and bravely defended what she termed ``some of the basic principles of Americanism.'' She managed to accomplish in 15 minutes what 94 of her colleagues had not dared to do, prompting American financier and presidential adviser, Bernard Baruch, to say that, ``had a man made that speech, he would have become the next President of the United States.'' Margaret Chase Smith was a teacher, a telephone operator, a newspaper woman, an office manager, a secretary, a wife, a Congresswoman, and a U.S. Senator. She was a visionary of endless ``firsts'' . . . the first woman to be elected to both Houses of Congress . . . the first woman to be nominated for President by a major party . . . even the first woman to break the sound barrier in an F-100F Super Sabre Air Force jet. But because of her bravery--both in politics and in life itself--she inspired millions of young girls, and became a role model for countless more women across America who never before thought they could aspire to any kind of public office. She certainly paved the way for Senator Collins and me--after all, who could have predicted that, one day, Maine would make history by electing two Republican women to serve concurrently in the U.S. Senate. That is why, as direct beneficiaries of Senator Smith's groundbreaking public service in the U.S. Congress, it is a tremendous privilege to introduce this resolution. In the end, the measure of Senator Smith's life is in the standard of leadership established by her resonating words and powerful actions. We cannot begin to overstate the legacy she has bequeathed to us, the hallmark of which was her Declaration of Conscience speech. In the words of the ancient Greek, Aeschylus, she ``was not to seem, but to be, the best.'' Simply put, she was and she will always be! Her example will forever illuminate this chamber and light our way. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Margaret Chase Smith's ``Declaration of Conscience'' speech be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. During the Senate's consideration of this legislation, I authored an amendment approved by voice vote to confirm that small business merchants and retailers would not be subject to regulation by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB, when they engage in credit sales. This amendment was supported by a number of key small business stakeholders, including the National Federation of Independent Business, IBNF, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The amendment included a three-prong test that excludes such entities from the CFPB when they (1) only extend credit for the sale of nonfinancial goods and services; (2) retain the credit they have extended on their books; and (3) meet the relevant industry size threshold to be a small business, based on annual receipts, pursuant to the Small Business Act. It is my understanding that wholesale merchants and distributors and manufacturers would not generally need to avail themselves of that exclusion because their sales of nonfinancial goods and any related financing they may provide, are not to consumers in the first instance. Is this view correct?

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the words of Chairman Dodd. There are a number of lenders in Maine that make smaller size loans. Because the points and fees cap in the Merkley- Klobuchar amendment, which I supported, is based on a percentage of the principal amount of the loan, the points and fees cap established in the amendment may limit the ability of some lenders to make smaller- size loans. As a result, like Senator Dodd, I assume that it is the Senator's intention that the regulator use the authority to make adjustments to the standards in the case of these smaller loans. Is this correct?

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, next week marks National Small Business Week, a time when we honor our Nation's entrepreneurs and the tremendous accomplishments they have made. As small business owners and advocates from across America gather in Washington, DC, for several days of events, among that group will be two Mainers who have earned the U.S. Small Business Administration's prestigious 2010 Maine Small Business Persons of the Year award. Today I wish to recognize Trapper Clark and Tom Sturtevant, the president and corporate vice president, respectively, of Alcom, Inc., a major manufacturer of aluminum trailers located in the town of Winslow. Alcom got its start in 2006 when Trapper Clark opened the firm in 8,000 square feet of space at the historic Wyandotte Mill in Waterville. Trapper, a graduate of the University of Maine, had previously worked for aluminum sport and utility manufacturer SnoPro, giving him a deep familiarity with the industry and how it operates. When he decided to open his own small business, he approached Tom, his stepfather who had been retired for a decade, to help get his company off the ground. Mr. Sturtevant is an entrepreneur in his own right, having founded Gazelle Products--the third-largest fiberglass-canoe manufacturer in the country when he sold it in 1990--and Benton Plastics--the third-largest manufacturer of plastic bed liners in the world when he sold the firm in 1994. Clearly, both Trapper and Tom had the knowledge, background, and expertise to launch Alcom in early 2006. When the company opened its doors, it employed just a handful of people but sold 105 of its trailers to dealers on its first day of operation. Business continued to stay strong, and within a year, Alcom was using all 46,000 available square feet at the mill. Facing a dilemma that could have easily forced their company out of State, Trapper and Tom instead chose to utilize a $1.1 million SBA loan guarantee to move into an expanded, 70,000 square foot facility in the Winslow Industrial Park. In part because of the expansion, Alcom now employs 80 and is slated to complete $18 million in sales in 2010. The company sells its trailers to 200 dealers throughout the United States and Canada. Additionally, the company's 5-year plan anticipates the company having 196 employees and $44 million in sales in 2013, an incredible measurement of the company's success and growth. The ability of Alcom to grow and thrive during such difficult economic times is a testament to the dedication and commitment of Trapper Clark and Tom Sturtevant, who vividly represent America's entrepreneurial spirit. Indeed, Alcom is truly one of our Nation's shining small business success stories, and has quickly become a nationwide leader in the design and manufacturing of recreational aluminum trailers. I am proud that Maine is home to such a vibrant and resilient firm, and I am optimistic for the company's future prospects. Once again, I congratulate Trapper and Tom for being exceptional models for Maine and the Nation, and I wish them and everyone at Alcom all the best for many more successful years to come.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Mary Landrieu, Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, to introduce the Strengthening Entrepreneurship for America's Veterans Act. This critical legislation, which is a slightly modified version of language we included in S. 1229, the Entrepreneurial Development Act of 2009, will establish a nationwide Veterans' Business Center program, housed at the Small Business Administration, or SBA, to tailor counseling and outreach programs for aspiring veteran entrepreneurs. This program will build on the extraordinary work of the SBA's Office of Veterans Business Development, headed by Bill Elmore, which currently oversees eight such centers and last year counseled or trained over 120,000 veterans. According to the Department of Veteran Affairs, almost 2 million brave American men and women have deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq since the beginning of combat operations in September 2001, nearly 1.2 million of whom are now veterans. Regrettably, the unemployment rate among these veterans stands at 13.1 percent over three percentage points higher than the national average. It is critical that when our Nation's service-members return from duty, they receive the assistance they deserve to seamlessly assimilate back to civilian life. Many of these veterans are aspiring entrepreneurs seeking to open their own business and live the American dream. To assist them in their efforts, our legislation establishes a Veterans' Business Center program to create a nationwide network of entrepreneurial assistance centers for veterans and reservists, along with their spouses and surviving spouses. Each center would receive an annual grant between $150,000 and $200,000 for a 5-year period, followed by the opportunity for additional 5-year renewal periods. These centers would provide specific education, training, advice, and counseling tailored to eligible individuals regarding financing planning and access to capital; management and business operations; marketing and advertising; procurement and contracting opportunities; and other general small business opportunities for reservists and their spouses. Furthermore, each district office under the auspices of the SBA would be required to designate one employee to serve as a ``veterans business ownership representative'' responsible for increasing coordination between that region's Veterans' Business Center and SBA district office, to leverage resources and perform outreach to a greater number of veterans. Additionally, our legislation will ensure proper oversight of the recently formed Interagency Task Force on Veterans Small Business Development by requiring the SBA to issue biennial reports to Congress regarding the establishment and progress of this body. This task force was included in the Military Reservist and Veteran Small Business Reauthorization and Opportunity Act which Senator John Kerry and I fought for last Congress and which was signed into law by former President George W. Bush on February 14, 2008. After more than 2 years of delay, the task force was finally established by Executive Order on April 26 of this year. The purpose of the task force is to coordinate the efforts of Federal agencies necessary to increase capital and business development opportunities for, and increase the award of Federal contracting opportunities to, small businesses owned and controlled by veterans. Given that we are fast approaching the ninth anniversary of the commencement of Operation Enduring Freedom, this type of coordinated and targeted effort by our Federal government is long overdue. Finally, our bill includes several additional reporting requirements to ensure that the Veterans' Business Center program is being administered effectively and providing truly unique and proper resources, counseling, assistance, and training to veterans. Because credit to small businesses remains stifled, one of these reports will explore the sources of credit utilized by veteran-owned small businesses, obstacles faced by veterans trying to access credit, and the extent to which deployment and other military responsibilities affect the credit history of veterans and reservists. This crucial report will provide a detailed picture of the access to credit landscape confronting veteran entrepreneurs, and will afford us an opportunity to make necessary policy changes that alleviate any challenges they face. As our service-members and reservists answer our Nation's call to duty, we must similarly fulfill our obligations to help protect their livelihood back home. That is why I am pleased to be introducing this critical legislation today with Chair Landrieu, and I pledge to push for its passage before the end of this Congress.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Mary Landrieu, Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, to introduce the Strengthening Entrepreneurship for America's Veterans Act. This critical legislation, which is a slightly modified version of language we included in S. 1229, the Entrepreneurial Development Act of 2009, will establish a nationwide Veterans' Business Center program, housed at the Small Business Administration, or SBA, to tailor counseling and outreach programs for aspiring veteran entrepreneurs. This program will build on the extraordinary work of the SBA's Office of Veterans Business Development, headed by Bill Elmore, which currently oversees eight such centers and last year counseled or trained over 120,000 veterans. According to the Department of Veteran Affairs, almost 2 million brave American men and women have deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq since the beginning of combat operations in September 2001, nearly 1.2 million of whom are now veterans. Regrettably, the unemployment rate among these veterans stands at 13.1 percent over three percentage points higher than the national average. It is critical that when our Nation's service-members return from duty, they receive the assistance they deserve to seamlessly assimilate back to civilian life. Many of these veterans are aspiring entrepreneurs seeking to open their own business and live the American dream. To assist them in their efforts, our legislation establishes a Veterans' Business Center program to create a nationwide network of entrepreneurial assistance centers for veterans and reservists, along with their spouses and surviving spouses. Each center would receive an annual grant between $150,000 and $200,000 for a 5-year period, followed by the opportunity for additional 5-year renewal periods. These centers would provide specific education, training, advice, and counseling tailored to eligible individuals regarding financing planning and access to capital; management and business operations; marketing and advertising; procurement and contracting opportunities; and other general small business opportunities for reservists and their spouses. Furthermore, each district office under the auspices of the SBA would be required to designate one employee to serve as a ``veterans business ownership representative'' responsible for increasing coordination between that region's Veterans' Business Center and SBA district office, to leverage resources and perform outreach to a greater number of veterans. Additionally, our legislation will ensure proper oversight of the recently formed Interagency Task Force on Veterans Small Business Development by requiring the SBA to issue biennial reports to Congress regarding the establishment and progress of this body. This task force was included in the Military Reservist and Veteran Small Business Reauthorization and Opportunity Act which Senator John Kerry and I fought for last Congress and which was signed into law by former President George W. Bush on February 14, 2008. After more than 2 years of delay, the task force was finally established by Executive Order on April 26 of this year. The purpose of the task force is to coordinate the efforts of Federal agencies necessary to increase capital and business development opportunities for, and increase the award of Federal contracting opportunities to, small businesses owned and controlled by veterans. Given that we are fast approaching the ninth anniversary of the commencement of Operation Enduring Freedom, this type of coordinated and targeted effort by our Federal government is long overdue. Finally, our bill includes several additional reporting requirements to ensure that the Veterans' Business Center program is being administered effectively and providing truly unique and proper resources, counseling, assistance, and training to veterans. Because credit to small businesses remains stifled, one of these reports will explore the sources of credit utilized by veteran-owned small businesses, obstacles faced by veterans trying to access credit, and the extent to which deployment and other military responsibilities affect the credit history of veterans and reservists. This crucial report will provide a detailed picture of the access to credit landscape confronting veteran entrepreneurs, and will afford us an opportunity to make necessary policy changes that alleviate any challenges they face. As our service-members and reservists answer our Nation's call to duty, we must similarly fulfill our obligations to help protect their livelihood back home. That is why I am pleased to be introducing this critical legislation today with Chair Landrieu, and I pledge to push for its passage before the end of this Congress.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise again to speak on the amendment that is pending that I had offered last week, No. 3883, which I have introduced with my good friend and colleague, Senator Pryor. Our amendment would ensure fairness and regulatory transparency for small business in the financial regulatory reform measure that we are now considering. This bipartisan amendment was also cosponsored by my colleagues, Senator Graham, Senator Menendez, Senator Franken, Senator Bond, Senator Burris and Senator Thune. Our amendment would ensure that this newly created bureau in the bill, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, would, before it promulgates proposed rules, fully consider the economic effect that those rules and regulations would impose on our Nation's approximately 30 million small businesses that create 64 percent of all of the net new jobs in America. That certainly has been the case over the last 15 years, and they are the ones that we are depending on to lead us out of this jobless recovery. Our amendment would designate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as a ``covered agency'' under the Regulatory Flexibility Act--so that small business review panels would apply to the Bureau's rulemaking process. Now, it is critically important to have these advisory small panels that currently only apply to EPA and to OSHA. They have been extremely successful in helping to shape more workable regulations at those agencies for small businesses to be much more attentive to the impact that these statutes are going to have on the well-being of small businesses. Since 1996, when these small business panel provisions were passed-- unanimously, I might add, in the Senate as part of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, SBREFA--and signed into law by then-President Clinton, the EPA has convened 35 panels and OSHA has convened 9 panels. The findings of these panel reports have helped EPA and OSHA improve their proposed rules by tailoring regulatory approaches and alternatives to the unique situations of small businesses. And that is very important. As we look over the number of panels that have been convened over the last 14 years, we have seen there have been rules regarding groundwater, radon in drinking water, arsenic in drinking water, tuberculosis, ergonomics, and the list goes on and on. It has worked exceptionally well in this process for those agencies that obviously could have a tremendous effect on small businesses by creating unintended consequences. So is it not better to know potential small business effects at the forefront of the regulatory process, not afterwards, in which the small businesses are consumed not only with time but energy and money in order to fight the regulatory process once it has taken effect? So our amendment would specify very clearly the same process that has applied to EPA and OSHA for the last 14 years has been supported by the Senate unanimously when SBREFA was adopted; that the bureau must consider the economic effect that these rules will have on the cost of credit for small businesses. This is critical because, as we know, and according to the National Federation of Independent of Business, NFIB, which is the largest voice for small business in this country, 42 percent of small business owners use a personal credit card for business purposes. So it is absolutely vital that small business interests are fully considered before the bureau issues regulations on consumer credit cards, so that however well intentioned those rules and regulations are, we want to make sure the bureau does not inadvertently cut off or suspend vital small business credit sources, especially during these fragile economic times when, as a recent Federal Deposit Insurance Company survey noted, banks posted their sharpest decline in lending since 1942. I want to add that there are some fundamental misconceptions about the pending amendment. I would like to address them because I think it is critically important that we sort through the misperceptions and mischaracterizations and get to the truth of what this amendment is all about. First and foremost, this is a tried-and-true proposal. It has been the law for the last 14 years for EPA and OSHA. Some, including the Treasury Department, have argued that my amendment would compromise the independence of the new bureau by holding it captive the very businesses it is set to regulate. This argument is flawed for many reasons. Given how many months--in most cases, years--it takes Federal agencies to promulgate new rules under the notice and comment process, how does 60 days built into the process undermine key consumer protections the underlying legislation seeks to achieve? I really don't understand exactly what the Treasury Department is so concerned about, let alone afraid of. If there are going to be adverse economic effects on small firms, our Nation's primary job creators--at this key juncture when unemployment is at virtually 10 percent and 15 million Americans are unemployed, and we are depending on small businesses to be the job generators--wouldn't we want to know what effect any rules and regulations this bureau is about to promulgate would have on small businesses? Why not know that ahead of time, set up a small business review panel, which has been done in so many instances in the past and worked effectively and successfully, to ascertain exactly what might affect small businesses' well-being so that we can address it at the forefront of the regulatory process and not afterward? That is what this is all about. Wouldn't we want to know before an agency proposes a rule as opposed to afterward? That is what we do with EPA as well as OSHA. Secondly, it is the bureau itself--not SBA, not OMB or any other agency within government--that is overseeing the small business advisory panel process as well as the report and recommendations. The bureau does this with the input of small business stakeholders that the bureau, in consultation with the independent SBA Office of Advocacy, chooses to include. So the bureau has flexibility in this process. The bureau gets to choose what small businesses participate, what information it shares with the panel, and it overseas the process and the writing of the report. I ask my colleagues again, how would the bureau be controlled by the regulating community, unless the bureau allows itself to be controlled? I went back to look at the SBA Office of Advocacy to determine how they view this process and how well it has worked. They said: Invariably, the participation of these panels provides extremely valuable information on the real-world impacts and compliance costs of agency proposals. The purpose of the panel process is threefold. This is from the independent office within the Small Business Administration. The Office of Advocacy has authored their own independent assessment, separate and apart from the SBA, to determine what works and what does not work. First, the panel process ensures that small entities that would be affected by a regulatory proposal are consulted about the pending action and offered an opportunity to provide information on its potential effects. Secondly, a panel can develop, consider, and recommend less burdensome alternatives to a regulatory proposal when warranted. Finally, the rulemaking agency has the benefit of input from both real-world small entities and analysis prior to publication. Wouldn't we want to know the real-world effect? Certainly, we would. We can act theoretically when we pass legislation that becomes law, but ultimately, how is it going to affect the real world? What is it going to do to small businesses on Main Street? Now I am hearing from the Treasury Department that they simply don't want to know the truth. It is too invasive. It is taking too much time. They want to put all these regulations by this new bureau within the act, this Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that essentially comprises more than 300 pages out of this 1,500-page bill, that is obviously going to have a host of rules and regulations. They are saying: No, it is too invasive. We can't take that kind of time. It might hold us up. We are saying a 60-day process. It is a 60-day review process. This panel would be convened if the bureau itself determines that, yes, in fact, some of the rules they may propose will have an effect on small businesses. So then they convene a panel. They choose the particular stakeholders across the board within the agencies and with the small business community. They convene for 60 days. Within 60 days, the bureau completes the report and submits it to the bureau. It contains recommendations that are advisory, not mandatory. Then the bureau considers these recommendations as it proposes its rules and regulations. I think that is a pretty logical process. I can't understand why the Treasury Department would be so adamantly opposed to this very logical, straightforward approach that has already been utilized time and again for EPA and OSHA. It is mystifying to me. The attorneys at the Treasury Department say it could take 6 months to do these panels. Our amendment would adhere to the Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements that specify 60 days. How the bureau handles that 60-day report is obviously up to them. There is list after list of panels where these review panels have been used time and again under OSHA and EPA. It has been very effective--understandably so. We want to make sure these rules work. Why wouldn't the Treasury Department want to know whether these rules and regulations will work for small businesses? Thirty million small businesses in this country generate two-thirds of all the net new jobs each year. We are surely depending on them to create the jobs in this jobless recovery. I've said it before and I will say it agin: A jobless recovery is not a true recovery. We need jobs. But we are saying: No, we don't want to bother with this 60-day review panel. We don't want to bother with that because it could interfere with our process. We want to put everything on a fast track. We will figure out later whether it works for small businesses. That is unacceptable and objectionable. That is why there is so much anger and frustration across America. Go up and down Main Streets and see what is happening to small businesses. Now we are saying, with this new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, that we don't want to take the time to consider anything that would have an effect on small businesses. We will find out about it later. Let them pay the price of whether they can survive. Let them pay the price as to whether they can afford these regulations, that it makes sense, that it is workable, or to fight the regulatory process. Anybody been through that process? We know what it is all about. It is time-consuming, complex, and bureaucratic. It is simply unaffordable for most small businesses. Ultimately, they will have to close their doors or they will not hire or they are going to lay off people. That is what the net result of all this will be. Yet we have had a demonstrable approach with this by virtue of what has happened to EPA and OSHA. According to the independent SBA Office of Advocacy report: [t]he panel process does not replace, but enhances, the regular notice-and-comment process. The Office of Advocacy has also found that these small business review panels have facilitated ``revisions or adjustments to be made to an agency draft rule that mitigated its potentially adverse effects on small entities, but did not compromise the rule's public policy objective.'' It makes good sense that they would be able to consider less burdensome alternatives in the event this 60-day review process by a small business panel, which would be established and appointed by the bureau itself, would determine they would be more preferable than the ones that originally were being considered. I understand the majority intends to offer a side-by-side amendment that astoundingly does not have the support of the small business community. An abundance of organizations support this amendment offered by Senator Pryor and others, along with myself. We have more than 23 organizations that have supported this legislation. Let's look at the alternative that may be offered. And I truly hope it isn't offered. As this chart reveals, the side-by-side my colleagues are proposing on behalf of the Treasury Department would be a diluted version of the amendment I am offering. My amendment with Senator Pryor would permit the small business voice to be heard before a rule is actually proposed. It certainly makes sense to know the consequences of any potential rules before they take effect, before they go through the rulemaking process. The side-by-side that my colleagues may be offering includes a loophole under which the bureau could evade entirely its small business panel requirements, so the small business voice would never be heard if their amendment is adopted. Mind you, the language in their amendment would take 90 days for the small business panel to make its report. My amendment would take 60 days. Their process would take 90 days, and it would be a permanent panel. I am not asking for a permanent panel. I am saying that whenever the bureau determines they will be proposing rules that would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses, that the Bureau convene a small business panel in which they would have to complete their work within 60 days, the bureau would submit their report for consideration, and the bureau would have to consider the small business panel report as they develop their proposed rule, before they promulgate it. The difference between my amendment and the side-by-side that could potentially be offered is they create a permanent board and it is not even tied to rulemaking. They create a board that will meet four times a year. Now it is a bureaucracy within a bureaucracy. That is essentially what it is all about. It would create a bureaucracy within the bureau to meet four times a year for no particular purpose. Maybe they could consider small business economic effects from a potential rulemaking but maybe not, under this amendment. It clearly doesn't make any sense. And then it is an additional cost to the taxpayers. And it doesn't require, most importantly, the panel recommendations before the rules are actually proposed in the federal register. But even worse than that, they are not even required to consider any of the panel's recommendations, if they have any, before the final rule is issued. So that is a fairly major loophole in their amendment. So here we are. We have the amendment Senator Pryor and I have offered that would create a 60-day process that has been utilized time and again for the last 14 years and worked exceptionally well. They submit their proposal to the bureau. It is a panel established by the bureau. They can determine who will be represented in that panel. They can consider the recommendations as they draft their rules for the rulemaking process, at the outset before a rule is proposed. In this case, on the other hand, the amendment my colleagues intend to offer--I know it is the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu contains a loophole under which the Bureau would never have to consider the recommendations of the small business panel. They will meet four times a year for no particular purpose. It is not even tied to a rulemaking process. I hope our amendment will be adopted. It really has already been established in precedent, in practice, not in theory. It is not conceptual; it is very real. Certainly, it will be real to small businesses in terms of whether it is going to have a major effect on their ability to conduct their business. Our amendment builds on the current requirements under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Since the Regulatory Flexibility Act was amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, SBREFA, back in 1996, to include these small business review panels, EPA has convened 35 panels and OSHA has convened 9 panels. It has worked very well. Our amendment will ensure transparency in the regulatory process because the small business panel reports would be included in those proposed rules. It will allow the voice of small businesses to be heard at the front end of a regulation, before the proposed regulation has been published in the Federal Register. In contrast, the side-by-side amendment that potentially will be offered would expedite the bureau's rulemaking process and allow it to finalize onerous regulations that could crush small businesses without considering first the small business effects either during the proposed or the final rule stage of the regulatory process. I urge my colleagues to oppose the side-by-side amendment. It would establish a dangerous precedent of diluting not only current law in the way it now functions with respect to EPA and OSHA but also how it has been extremely successful. My amendment is an extension of current law as it applied to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. As you will see on the next chart, we have strong support from a broad cross section of 23 stakeholders, representing millions and millions of small businesses across the spectrum--of course, the National Federation of Independent Business, known as NFIB; the Associated Building and Contractors; the National Restaurant Association; the National Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association; S Corporation Association; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the United States Black Chamber; the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; Women Impacting Public Policy; the International Franchise Association, the Independent Electrical Contractors; the Hispanic Leadership Fund. The list goes on, and rightfully so, because they understand what is at stake. They understand the effects it will have on small business. We want to make sure we have a very practical, real process that is going to work for small businesses. I hope we are not going to disregard the invaluable voices of small businesses to have the ability to have input at the forefront of the regulatory process, and utilizing a process that has worked so well. I hope we would reject any other watered-down, side-by-side amendment because, as I have already pointed out, it has a number of weaknesses and a loophole. It establishes a permanent panel for no apparent reason and that is not necessarily tied to the rulemaking. But more critical is the fact that, under the side-by-side amendment, the Bureau can totally ignore and disregard the input. Even if they created one of these panels for a rule-making process, they do not have to consider it, either before the proposed rule is published or before the final rule is promulgated in the Federal Register. Something does not make sense. The bottom line is, the side-by-side amendment would be a job killer for small business. So if we are talking about jobs, jobs, jobs--and I hope we are going to get to a small business tax relief bill. I have been hoping since January we are going to get to it because it is so critically important. I know there are a lot of things to consider here on the floor of the Senate, but primary of which should be about creating jobs. So while we are saying we want to create jobs on the one hand, and we are concerned about small businesses' economic well-being on the other hand, we are doing things that are going to undermine the status of small businesses in America, as they are struggling to survive. They are struggling to survive. We know that. We have had an abundance of hearings in the Small Business Committee. As ranking member of the Small Business Committee, I can tell you, we hear it time and again repeatedly. They are desperate. They need our support. We cannot hinder their ability to survive in this very tough, unprecedented environment. So if we are depending on them to create jobs, then I think we better think very seriously about whether to support my amendment. I hope it would not be rejected. I hope it will be supported. There is no reason, there is no rationale, there is no logical explanation as to why the Treasury Department--of all the Departments, frankly, we are here because the Treasury Department did not provide the necessary and effective oversight of financial institutions--we are dealing with a financial regulatory reform bill, so I cannot imagine rejecting something that has been tried before and has worked so effectively. That is what I am asking, that we would allow my amendment to be adopted. Because, as you can see, this amendment is supported overwhelmingly by critical small business organizations, because they understand the reality. They understand the net effect of what is going to happen. They need this support. This is not a minimalist amendment. It has real consequences, if we fail to adopt it. That is the fact. That is reality that small businesses are facing all across America. So when we are creating this new entity, this Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, that literally consumes hundreds of pages in the pending legislation, are we not saying we want to make sure, when they are drafting those rules, we are going to consider how it will affect small businesses on a day-to-day basis? Because that is what they are going to live with. By the way, I think we all know who pays more for regulatory compliance. It is not the large corporations. It is the small business. In the past, we think about Sarbanes-Oxley. I know there is an amendment that has been filed that has been offered by the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Louisiana that will ``spare,'' as it says in this Wall Street Journal editorial, ``the smallest public companies from the worst bureaucratic horrors of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley law.'' They said: This is one reason the two Senators aim to exempt companies with less than $150 million of shares held by the public from ``internal-controls'' audits. Because of the indirect costs, as well as the direct costs, they said that: [T]he average public company pays more than $2 million per year complying with the law's Section 404. The indirect costs may be much greater . . . The indirect costs are even greater from Sarbanes-Oxley. Small firms pay 45 percent more in regulatory compliance costs than larger firms, according to the Office of Advocacy within the Small Business Administration. That is the point. So on one hand, we are saying: Well, in financial regulatory reform, we should exempt small public companies because of the bureaucratic hindrance that Sarbanes-Oxley has provided. So there is another example of what the effects are, the unintended consequences, when rules have a disproportionate effect on small businesses. That is what has happened in that instance. So these are legitimate and valid issues based on reality, based on the experiences of small businesses, what they have had to already endure. So why compel them to have to further endure another regulatory nightmare and quagmire that might ensue as a result of this bureau? We are asking to take an intermediate step: 60 days. Somebody is saying 60 days is too much time to give consideration to the well-being of small businesses in America? Well, we are offering amendments that say: Gee, we ought to exempt the smallest companies because of what occurred under Sarbanes-Oxley, what it has done with the unintentional effects. We all know the adverse consequences that can emanate and result from legislation that becomes law. So let's be attentive and sensitive to those issues at the forefront of this process. That is what this amendment is all about. I would hope there would be strong support for my amendment because there truly is overwhelming support from all of these organizations and more that are represented on these charts. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of organizations in support of my amendment, as well as a number of letters that have been sent from small business organizations declaring that it is an imperative that this amendment be accepted because of the concern, the abiding concern, of the small businesses community across this country that they are going to suffocate under this rule-making process if they do not have a voice.

Ms. SNOWE. I urge adoption of this amendment. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I recognize Black Dinah Chocolatiers, a rare treasure of a company found on the tiny, remote Maine island of Isle au Haut in Penobscot Bay. While this small business may be nestled on a small island, it is no secret to the world. Featured in Martha Stewart Living and various other publications, chocolate lovers travel from near and far to take the 45- minute ride by mail boat or ferry from the mainland to indulge in the rich, delightful taste of Black Dinah's specialty handcrafted chocolates. The history behind this tasty small business is a tale of adventure and creativity. Black Dinah Chocolatiers' founders Kate and Steve Shaffer fell in love with the small fishing and lobstering community of Isle au Haut after moving there in 2004. Not seeking employment in the island's traditional trades of lobstering and carpentry, Kate and Steve designed an alternative business plan that consisted of a product that could be marketed and shipped off the island year-round to compensate for cold Maine winters and a sparsely populated customer base on the island. Their solution was chocolate. With Kate's years of experience in the restaurant industry, Steve's experience in the computer repair business, and some assistance from one of Maine's exceptional women's business centers, the Shaffers launched Black Dinah Chocolatiers in July of 2007. Today, thousands of chocolates are shipped off the island to every State during holidays such as Thanksgiving, Christmas, Valentine's Day, and Mothers Day. In addition to an active mail order business, the Shaffers supply their artisan chocolates to Maine gourmet food stores, wine shops, and florists. They also run an organic bakery and coffeehouse from May through September for tourists and locals alike. This small business has a tremendous impact on the island's community--not only through its satisfying contribution of extraordinary chocolate but as a profitable venture that is helping to sustain its local economy through sales that have doubled each year since its inception. Black Dinah Chocolatier further assists the regional economy through its use of local Maine produce. Kate turns out dozens of handmade Venezuelan, Belgian, and rare Peruvian-style chocolates, including truffles and caramels, all of them flavored with natural ingredients-- organic herbs, flowers, fruits, and even cheeses cultivated by the region's farmers. In fact, each season's flavored chocolates are dictated by what is at the nearby Stonington farmers market on the mainland. Every chocolate features at least one ingredient from a Maine farmer located within 50 miles of the company's base. The Shaffers understand how critical it is for their business to establish and maintain local relationships, especially on an island the size of Isle au Haut. In a truly Maine example of how neighbors help each other to this day, Kate told Martha Stewart Living Magazine, ``It's not as though you can go to the store when you run out of butter. If I run out of butter I'll go to Diana, the innkeeper. For cream cheese, I call Brenda, a lobsterman's wife, who makes lots of crab dip. And of course, if anyone needs sugar or chocolate, they come to me.'' A true sweet spot in the heart of an island community as well as the hearts of chocolate lovers worldwide, Black Dinah Chocolatiers is a prime example of a Maine small business that seeks to be a profitable venture and a good neighbor. I commend its founders, Kate and Steve Shaffer, for their ingenuity in creating this thriving and viable business, as well as for their commitment and dedication to helping grow their local economy, and I wish them the sweetest success in the future.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise to speak today on amendment No. 3883, which is pending, which I have offered with my good friend and colleague from Arkansas, Senator Pryor. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Pryor be able to follow my remarks.

Ms. SNOWE. I will be glad to yield.

Ms. SNOWE. Fifteen minutes.

Ms. SNOWE. About 5 minutes.

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, the amendment that is pending that we have offered--and I add that also has been cosponsored by Senator Graham and Senator Menendez--would ensure that small businesses are considered in the federal rulemaking process by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection that would be created in this bill. The more attentive we are with respect to small businesses and the issues incorporated in this legislation, the better small businesses will be in their ability to create jobs and to survive what is a very difficult and tragic economic environment. This amendment would ensure that when the newly created bureau promulgates rules and regulations, it fully considers the economic impact those rules and regulations would impose on our Nation's more than 30 million small businesses that have created 64 percent of all new jobs over the past 15 years and no question will drive our Nation's economic recovery. Indeed, we are depending on these small businesses to lead us out of this jobless recovery. We know a jobless recovery is not a true recovery. We have more than 15 million Americans who are unemployed or underemployed. Clearly, it is going to be small businesses that pave the way toward employment. Plain and simple, onerous regulations are crushing the entrepreneurial spirit of America's small businesses. In 2009 alone, there were close to 70,000 pages in the Federal Register, and the annual cost of Federal regulations now totals more than $1.1 trillion. Furthermore, according to the research by the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, small firms--and this is no surprise--bear a disproportionate burden, paying approximately 45 percent more per employee in annual regulation compliance than larger firms. The amendment we are offering today would ensure small business fairness and regulatory transparency by first designating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as a ``covered agency'' under the Regulatory Flexibility Act so that small business review panel provisions would apply to the bureau's rulemaking. These advisory small business panels currently apply to EPA and OSHA and have been extremely successful in helping to shape more workable regulations at these agencies for small businesses across America. Since 1996, when these small business panel provisions were passed unanimously in the Senate and signed into law by then-President Clinton, the EPA has convened 35 panels and OSHA has convened 9 panels. The findings of the panel reports have helped EPA and OSHA improve draft proposals by tailoring regulatory approaches to the unique situations of small businesses. I know there are some who will argue that my amendment will undermine the rulemaking capacity of the bureau. This simply is not the case. According to the SBA Office of Advocacy report, ``The panel process does not replace, but enhances, the regular notice-and-comment process.'' The Office of Advocacy has also found that these small business review panels have facilitated ``revisions or adjustments to be made to an agency draft rule that mitigated its potentially adverse effects on small entities, but did not compromise the rule's public policy objective.'' Others have expressed concern that these small business advocacy review panels should not apply to the bureau because they apply to no other financial regulatory authority. Unfortunately, there is continued frustration by leaders in the small business community toward government agencies and one-size-fits-all regulation. Independent agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC, and its approach to regulation under Sarbanes-Oxley, and the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, and its rulemaking governing telecommunications practices are too often cited as failing to adequately consider their impact on small business prior to issuing new regulatory mandates. This is why it is vital that small business requirements apply to the new independent agency that is created in the underlying legislation. Still others will argue that our amendment is unnecessary because my earlier amendment to this legislation provides for an exemption for small businesses from the regulatory requirements of the bureau. However, we must go further to ensure that rules that the bureau promulgates do not unintentionally impact small firms' job creation capacity. That is why our amendment would also specify during the rulemaking process the bureau must consider the economic effects its rule would have on the cost of credit for small businesses. According to a recent National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB, survey--and that is the foremost organization that speaks for small businesses--42 percent of small business owners use a personal credit card for business purposes. It is imperative that small business interests are fully considered when the bureau issues regulations on consumer credit cards, so that however well-intentioned, the bureau does not inadvertently cut off vital small business credit sources, especially during these tenuous economic times when a recent Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation survey noted that banks posted their sharpest decline in lending since 1942. That is a big issue right now because lending is not occurring to small businesses. That is one of the issues we must address in any small business tax relief package. Those discussions are ongoing right now with the Treasury Department and the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, Karen Mills, with Chairman Landrieu of the Small Business Committee, myself, and key staff from the Finance Committee, and the leadership of both the Republican and Democratic sides because it is so critical. If we cannot get access to lending to small businesses, jobs cannot be created. We do not want to compound the problem with the creation of this bureau that ignores the implications when it comes to applications for credit from small businesses. After all, all the entities under this legislation--even the smaller institutions--all the entities will be covered under this bureau with respect to regulations. We must make sure that the smallest financial institutions' voices are heard because they are the ones that primarily provide access to small businesses, not to mention the credit card companies that also will certainly be regulated under this bureau. We want to make sure we are not just having the big institutions' voices heard but not the small financial institutions and not how it will affect small businesses throughout the country. To give an understanding of how strongly regarded and supported this legislation is, we have a broad cross-section of stakeholders who support this amendment, more than 23 organizations that represent millions and millions of small business owners. I am going to list them now because they are so important, given the support they are providing this amendment and how critical they think it is to the functioning of this bureau and being cognizant of the regulations that are issued, that they do not adversely affect the well-being of small businesses during these tumultuous economic times. You have the Associated Builders and Contractors, the Association of Kentucky Fried Chicken Franchisees, the Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association, Hispanic Leadership Fund, Independent Electrical Contractors, Institute for Liberty, International Franchise Association, the National Association for the Self-Employed, the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association, the National Restaurant Association, the National Roofing Contractors Association, the National Small Business Association, the Printing Industries of America, the S Corporation Association, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, Society of American Florists, the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates, the Tire Industry Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Black Chamber of Commerce, the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and the Women Impacting Public Policy. As you can see, a broad array of stakeholders are so concerned about the pending legislation with respect to this bureau that they support this amendment. These groups have sent a letter as well to both the chairman and the ranking member of the Banking Committee as well as the majority and minority leadership because they are so concerned about the underlying legislation, the creation of this Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and how it will affect small businesses. I wish to quote from their letter. It says that our amendment is: . . . an effort to prevent unintended consequences by a new agency that could harm the small business sector . . . and provides assurance that small business access to credit is a top consideration by Bureau officials as they take on the important task of overseeing our financial sector. Just to give you another indication of how supportive and how important these advisory panels are--the ones that would be created in order to review the regulations that would be issued by this bureau-- this would be before they issue the proposed rule that these advisory panels would be created--this has occurred under EPA as well as OSHA since 1996. To give an illustration of the rules that have been reviewed through these advisory panels that are created--within a 60- day period, I might add, they would be required to report to the bureau on their assessment of any particular rule before they propose and issue that rule so we can understand the ramifications. The EPA has issued rules that created an advisory panel on groundwater, radon and drinking water, arsenic and drinking water, and diesel fuel requirements, just to give an illustration. Since 1996, these advisory panels, as the SBA Office of Advocacy has indicated in their materials, has provided extremely valuable information on the real-world impact--and that is important to understand, the real-world impact, when a small business has to digest and to live by and to implement any rules and regulations issued by this bureau and the compliance costs of these agency proposals. So, clearly, this will have enormous benefits to small businesses because we will have a chance to review, in advance, through these advisory panels that would be comprised of the rulemaking agency--in this instance it would be the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau-- representatives of the small business community, as well as the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. So there would be a broad array of voices including small business concerns to examine these rules before they are proposed for the rulemaking process. Doesn't that make sense? Isn't it important to understand the ramifications before we issue these regulations that could have adverse consequences for small businesses as they attempt to survive during these tenuous economic times? The SBA Office of Advocacy has indicated in their materials with respect to how these panels work--and, again, they are required under law within 60 days to make a proposal to the bureau in terms of the ramifications or the effects or other considerations that ought to be incorporated as they issue their proposed rule. The purpose of the panel process is threefold, and this is from the SBA Office of Advocacy. First, the panel process ensures that small entities that would be affected by a regulatory proposal are consulted about the pending action and offered an opportunity to provide information on its potential effect. Second, a panel can develop, consider and recommend less burdensome alternatives to a regulatory proposal when warranted. Finally, the rulemaking agency has the benefit of input from both real-world small entities and the panel's report and analysis prior to publication. Doesn't it make sense? It saves everybody a lot of aggravation, a lot of money, a lot of energy that would have to be devoted in the rulemaking process after they issue the proposal rather than before they issue the proposal for the rulemaking process. It clearly does make sense and that is why it has worked so well for EPA and OSHA and that is why it will work well under this circumstance and most especially during these times when we are creating this bureau that will have a wide-ranging effect on financial institutions all across this country that ultimately will affect the more than 30 million small businesses, because 42 percent of them depend on personal credit cards for credit. We want to make sure we are considering the consequences of anything that is done. Also, the downstream effect of bank regulations would be considered as well as a potential effect of a regulation by this bureau. When banking practices are restricted, they do not just affect consumers, they also affect small businesses--higher capital requirements tighten the availability of credit for small businesses. That is another example of a potential rule that would come out of this bureau that could directly affect small businesses. So it is not only consumers, it is also small businesses. The regulation of angel investors--a very important fact. In fact, NFIB has written on this question because there will be subsequent amendments to address this issue as well. But the regulation of angel investors also affects the economic well-being of small businesses because they use them as a source of capital. I know that NFIB is concerned about the reduced pool, as they have indicated in their letter, with respect to angel investors. Many small businesses depend on these individuals who invest to provide that kind of startup capital in their businesses. There are other significant small entities in the financial products industry who are likely to be overlooked in the bureau's rulemaking process. The panel requirement will benefit these businesses and will benefit the bureau's consideration of how their rules should be tailored to minimize the impact on these businesses while maximizing the intended benefits overall for small businesses. This is not anything unique to what we don't already know about how important the Regulatory Flexibility Act is overall. Every agency is required to consider the effect of any rule or law and how it is going to have implications on small businesses and two agencies--the EPA and OSHA--are required to establish advisory panels when it is determined rules are going to be issued that have consequences on small businesses and that gives them the opportunity to have input into the process before this bureau issues those rules. I think it makes a great deal of sense. It is reasonable, it is logical, and it averts any unintended consequences in the onset of the process rather than waiting to see how well it takes effect, and then we discover that, in fact, it depresses the ability of small businesses to create jobs or to survive. So I hope we can get very strong support for this legislation. I am very appreciative of the work of my colleague, Senator Pryor, with whom I work on the Small Business Committee. He does a great job and has provided a great deal of input into the drafting of this legislation, and I appreciate his leadership. I appreciate the fact that it is done on a bipartisan basis because I think we all recognize the pivotal role small businesses play in today's economy and will certainly depend on playing a critical role in the future. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a report regarding the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I yield the floor and now also yield to the Senator from Arkansas.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Dodd, for being responsive and receptive to a number of amendments we have offered with respect to small businesses and for making sure there are not unintended consequences as a result of this legislation that require more regulation on their part. I also thank the chairman of the Small Business Committee, Senator Landrieu, for cosponsoring this amendment and for her efforts as a strong champion on behalf of small businesses. I thank the chairman for working with me to forge a compromise on this particular amendment that gives small businesses certainty that they will be exempted from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to the degree that they are not involved in financial products that will be regulated under this legislation. This amendment will modify a provision in the underlying legislation that could unintentionally ensnare small businesses within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau if they are judged by the bureau as having engaged ``significantly'' in consumer financial products or services such as selling goods or services on credit or through an installment program. The term ``significantly'' is unclear. Certainly, it could potentially lead to Main Street enterprises such as jewelers, orthodontists, or furniture store owners being roped into a bureau intended to regulate providers of financial services. The chairman has been clear that through his interpretation, small business owners are specifically excluded, that they were never intended to be placed within the bureau itself. Yet the bill's use of the term ``significantly'' is vague. Perhaps an article entitled ``To Protect Consumers, Who Will Be Regulated?'' published by the New York Times on April 30 captured this issue the best when it noted: A review of the consumer protection provisions, which account for 335 pages of the 1,565-page bill, shows that the intent of this legislation is not to cover Main Street businesses. But the ambiguity of some terms--like the word ``significantly''--leaves the regulations open to broad interpretation. Accordingly, while I strongly believe Congress should pursue the providers of abusive and predatory financial products that harm Americans, we must be careful not to inadvertently target Main Street small businesses. Given the state of the economy and the difficulties placed on small businesses struggling to keep their doors open, entrepreneurs already have enough to be concerned about. We should not be injecting more uncertainty in the very enterprises we are counting on to reverse the 7.8 million job losses we have experienced thus far in this recession and create opportunities for the 15.3 million Americans who remain unemployed. Additional uncertainty will make small firms far less likely to take risks and make new investments. I believe we add clarity to this provision by virtue of this amendment. We prevent the overregulation of small businesses that may result in regulators interpreting this statute too broadly. My amendment creates a quick, easy, bright-line test for small businesses. Firms that fall under the Small Business Administration's North American Industry Classification System--the classification system small businesses use to file their taxes and qualify for SBA programs and services--would be exempt so long as the small business extends credit for the sale of nonfinancial goods and does not securitize its debt. For example, this means a doctor's office would be exempt if it has less than $10 million in revenue, a jeweler would be exempt if it has revenues below $7 million, and a grocery or convenience store would be exempt if it has revenues under $27 million. As a result of this modification, business owners would know with certainty that if they were defined as small businesses by SBA standards, they would be exempt from regulations by the bureau. In addition, if a business is in its first year of existence, it would be considered a small business if it is reasonably expected to fall under the SBA's size standard. This simple measuring stick provides objective criteria for small firms and has also been endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Business, the largest organization and voice for small business. It is also endorsed by the American Dental Association and the American Association of Orthodontists. Finally, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has indicated that although it continues to have concerns with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, it views this amendment as an important step forward. In the past year, the economic recession and the radical overhaul of the Nation's health care system have sown the seeds of doubt and uncertainty in America's small businesses. In Maine, I have been told time and again by constituents and small business owners that they are concerned about the future and worried about the growth of government. Adding another regulator with ambiguous powers is not the answer small businesses and Mainers are looking for to enable them to make plans about their futures, potentially adding jobs and making future investments. This is why I have also filed--and intend to call up during this debate--another amendment that I filed with my good friend and colleague, Senator Pryor. That amendment would ensure that when the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau promulgates rules and regulations, it fully considers the economic impact that those rules and regulations would impose on our Nation's 30 million small firms and their ability to access credit. I look forward to working with Senators Dodd and Shelby to have that amendment considered. In conclusion, this bipartisan amendment now before the Senate was crafted in consultation with small business stakeholders and is a commonsense solution to this problem. Given that ``stability'' is in the title of this legislation, I urge Members on both sides of the political aisle to aid small business owners and gain a measure of stability in these uncertain times and support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to the chairman for working so constructively to develop this amendment, to build a consensus, and to give a strong measure of assurance to the small business community about the intent of this legislation so it doesn't create unintended consequences. I appreciate all he has done to make sure this amendment could be considered and hopefully adopted.

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

Ms. SNOWE. I call up amendment No. 3918.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, this weekend, Americans celebrate Mothers Day, a time to pay tribute to the women in our lives and the incredible work that they do every day. As is frequently noted, women often juggle the dual roles of being a mother and maintaining a professional career. This situation is made even more difficult for the roughly 10.4 million women who are small business owners. Indeed, women-owned small businesses are one of the fastest growing segments of our Nation's economy. To highlight the work of one mother in my home State who is simultaneously running an historic small business in northern Maine, today I recognize the accomplishments of Cathy Beaulieu, the owner of Wilder's Jewelry in Presque Isle, for her steadfast dedication to small business, to her community, and, of course, to her family. Cathy grew up in the St. John Valley, a stunning beautiful and scenic region at Maine's crest, where she was instilled with the famous work ethic of Maine's strong people. After exploring other places, she returned to Aroostook County--known to locals as simply ``the County.'' She went to work at Wilder's Jewelry store, a fixture in downtown Presque Isle which was originally opened by Ike Wilder nearly 80 years ago. His son, Harry, continued the family business until 1996, when Cathy purchased the business from him, along with the historic building where it is located. Wilder's sells a wide array of jewelry that will fit any budget, from traditional fine diamonds, rings, and watches to more contemporary costume jewelry, as well as stunning giftware items. Wilder's also offers customers unique, handmade gifts such as ``knobstoppers''--golf balls or old door knobs fitted with wine corks--to cap wine bottles. Wilder's purchases some of its products from an organization called Sarah's Hope, which funds microloans to help budding women entrepreneurs hone their craft and grow their businesses. By appealing to everyone, Wilder's has thrived through some of the most difficult economic times our country has seen in decades. Another reason for her success is Cathy's visible and passionate concern for her community. She has served as the president of the Greater Presque Isle Area Chamber of Commerce, as well as president of the Downtown Revitalization Committee, and she remains active in promoting the well-being of her city, attending city council meetings and speaking out on issues of concern to the community. Cathy also donates time, money, and resources to numerous charities throughout Aroostook County, from the Wintergreen Arts Center to the Presque Isle Rotary Club's annual Radio-TV auction, as well as a number of veteran causes. She also frequently sponsors trade shows in the area, and seven years ago helped begin a new annual Presque Isle tradition called Main Street Mania, a block party-style event where Main Street is shut to vehicular traffic while downtown businesses offer bargains to the maze of expectant shoppers. Cathy is also actively involved in a variety of school activities with her three beautiful children. I have had the pleasure of meeting Cathy Beaulieu on several occasions to hear her views on the difficulties concerning running a small business in Maine, and I have always come away impressed by her passion, determination, and perseverance. By raising a family and running a business at the same time, she is a shining example of Maine's motto, ``Dirigo''--or ``I lead.'' Cathy Beaulieu is truly a leader, and I thank her for all of her noteworthy efforts in running a successful business, supporting her community, and raising her family.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. This second amendment would fix an unintended consequence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the underlying legislation, which would have the effect of choking off access to credit by small business. According to the February 2010 survey of the National Federation of Independent Business on the state of credit: . . . 16 percent of all small employers have a mortgage on their residence that helps to finance the(ir) business. . . . The Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy has calculated that there are nearly 30 million small businesses in America. Taken together, this means approximately 4.8 million small firms, hardly an unsubstantial number, rely on a home mortgage for their financing. Many of those small business owners also make loan payments intended to reflect the cashflow of their business models. For example, innkeepers often make larger loan payments during their busier seasons, and farmers and fishermen borrow funds based on their crop or catch cycles. As brought before the Senate, the underlying bill would prohibit lending products if the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has a ``reasonable basis to conclude that . . . substantial injury is not outweighed by counterveiling benefits to consumers.'' This means if the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finds that the injury of a loan product is outweighed by the benefit it might create, the Bureau can prevent a financial institution from offering it. The problem with the manner in which the bill is drafted is that it does not take into account that many entrepreneurs use home mortgage loans with customized repayment terms for business purposes. Accordingly, overzealous regulators could determine that such loans, which are consumer products, are abusive and thereby either prevent or make it extremely difficult for financial institutions to continue offering these types of critical products. For example, a loan to a borrower with balloon payments in June, July and August and interest-only payments for the rest of the year might look suspicious to the Bureau and be declared abusive. Yet this is exactly how many seasonal firms in Maine and throughout the Nation finance their businesses. My amendment simply preserves the ability of small business owners to use their homes as collateral and to make payments based on an alternate lending cycle by clarifying that the CFPB must allow banks to offer home loan products with customized payment terms for small businesses. I originally raised my concern that the underlying bill could inadvertently harm small business lending during meetings with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and National Economic Council Chairman Larry Summers. They were both immediately receptive and agreed that the bill, if not altered, could have unintended consequences that would restrain access to capital for small businesses. The necessity of this amendment is especially critical given the small business credit crisis that continues to plague the Nation. This fact has been underscored by numerous studies including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's survey that found outstanding loan balances have dropped by the largest margin since 1942. Furthermore, the Federal Reserve's April 2010 Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey shows that only 1.9 percent of banks surveyed had loosened credit terms for small businesses in the past quarter. While harming small businesses, lack of access to affordable capital also has a ripple effect across the greater economy. In his April 14 testimony before the Finance Committee, Dr. Mark Zandi, the chief economist for Moody's Analytics, stated that ``small business credit (is) key to job creation.'' By preserving financing flexibility for small business owners, this amendment ensures that home equity will remain as a possible means for entrepreneurs to secure funds to start or grow their businesses. With small businesses adding two-thirds of all net new jobs, this provision will help small business owners create jobs, finance their businesses, and help us reduce our current 9.7 percent unemployment rate. We understand how instrumental small businesses are to job creation. We have to remain deeply concerned that in the last 3 months, we have had static employment growth with a 9.7-percent unemployment rate. Small businesses are the engine that will drive this recovery and will lead us out of a jobless recovery. A jobless recovery is not a true recovery. Anything we do here, particularly on this legislation, that could affect small business's access to capital will certainly infringe upon our ability to promote job creation. I reiterated that this morning in the Finance Committee hearing, where Treasury Secretary Geithner indicated he shared my deep concerns about stagnation when it comes to lending. It is important to improve upon these regulations that are vetted in the underlying legislation. I appreciate the chairman's effort to be flexible and to address and modify some of these issues and these constraints, and for allowing me to offer these amendments and agreeing to them. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Shaheen be added as a cosponsor.

Ms. SNOWE. I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Dodd, for working with me so constructively, as well as his staff, on these two amendments I am calling up this afternoon. And I thank Senator Shelby, as well, for agreeing to the substance of these amendments. I think it is important to address these issues that are so fundamental to so many small businesses across the country. The first amendment I have made pending would reduce cumbersome and unnecessary restrictions on the banking industry that may potentially infringe on Americans' privacy rights and curtail the ability of financial institutions to serve their customers. Specifically, the underlying legislation contains language that would compel banks to make the following disclosures to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Banks would have to report from each deposit-taking facility, including each individual automated teller machine, a record of the number and dollar amount of the deposit accounts of customers; a geo-coding, by census tract, of the residence or business location of each customer; and a record of whether each customer is transacting commercial or residential business. This type of detailed reporting imposes a regulatory cost on banks and provides an extraordinarily large amount of data to the Federal Government. While many have advanced the image of banks as monolithically large entities with tens of thousands of employees spread across the globe, the vast majority of banks are small community-centered institutions. For small community banks, every dollar spent on complying with government regulations is another dollar that cannot be used for customer service or extending credit. While these existing processes may be in place at large banks--and even if not, their procurement would be relatively inexpensive--for a small bank this could have a sizeable impact on their bottom line and prove to be an extremely large regulatory burden. In addition, the Federal Government's track record when it comes to securing its citizens' privacy data is less than stellar. As we all recall, in May of 2006 the Department of Veterans Affairs lost Social Security numbers and dates of birth of more than 26 million veterans. I cannot imagine what would occur if the sensitive deposit data that banks are required to track under this legislation was inadvertently lost. The legislation does contain a provision requiring that the personal identities of all customers be removed, but one slip could result in the intimate financial details of bank customers being revealed to unscrupulous computer hackers. I would note both the Independent Community Bankers Association and the Credit Union National Association are supporting this amendment due to its regulatory burden. I am pleased that we have reached agreement to have it accepted in this legislation. Amendment No. 3757 to Amendment No. 3739 I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up Snowe amendment No. 3757.

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