Olympia Snowe

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

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I honor a Maine small business that has not only captured Maine history and tradition through their unique craft, but has also aimed to selflessly support various organizations and charities throughout the State of Maine for over a decade. Sea Bags, Inc., coowned by Maine natives Hannah Kubiak and Beth Shissler, is based in Maine's largest city, Portland, and has been using recycled sails to create inventive, environmentally friendly purses and tote bags that are ``sailed around the world'' and ``recycled in Maine.'' Sea Bags, Inc. was founded in 1999 on the principle that ``recycling is not just a fad, but a responsibility.'' And while they own a globally successful business, Hannah Kubiak and Beth Shissler have always emphasized making a positive and lasting impact locally. Ms. Kubiak, who grew up sailing in the famed seaside town of Kennebunkport, was inspired by her father, who would often brainstorm ways to reuse old sails. Additionally, Ms. Shissler travelled the world in her work for several large companies before being drawn home to put her business experience to use at Sea Bags. Their work has been featured in a variety of publications, including Vanity Fair; the New York Times; Vogue; and O, the Oprah Magazine. Believing that everyone should have a second chance, Sea Bags has previously partnered with the Maine Department of Correction's Industries Program to engage inmates at the Maine Correctional Institute for Women in helping make the bags and teaching them job skills such as sewing. This 2-year collaboration helped the company keep up with the increased demand in recent years. In 2005, Sea Bags was selling roughly 60 items per year, and it now sells over 2,000 each month. In addition to its line of regular, everyday tote bags--which are water resistant and durable--the company also offers creative bath mats, coasters, and shaving kits. Sea Bags has also created a limited- edition line of ``Cure Bags'' to ``celebrate a cure'' for breast cancer. Fifty percent of all of the proceeds from Cure Bags goes to the Maine Cancer Foundation for breast cancer support and awareness programs. When it comes to supporting Maine's timeless tradition of sailing, Sea Bags donates to the Sail Maine Scholarship Fund with the aim of helping underprivileged children learn how to sail. Sea Bags has teamed up with other local nautical organizations, including the Islesboro Yacht Club Youth Sailing Program, the Compass Project, and the Maine Maritime Academy, to sustain the historic art of sailing. Additionally, for the 2008 Olympics, Sea Bags created a line of totes to support the quest of New England sailors Andy Horton and Brad Nichol, pledging $40,000 to help send the athletes to Beijing. Hannah Kubiak and Beth Shissler have offered a vivid example of the difference a small business can make in a community locally, and globally, through a noble devotion to social responsibility. It is evident that through their distinctive dedication to promoting recycling and assisting charities, they have started a trend in responsible entrepreneurship that other small companies will surely emulate. I sincerely thank Ms. Kubiak and Ms. Shissler and everyone at Sea Bags, Inc. for their continued service to the State of Maine, and offer my best wishes for their future success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, though we often say in Maine that April can still be considered a winter month, we are hopeful that warmer weather is just around the corner. And one of our Nation's favorite summer pastimes is grilling outdoors--eating good food while enjoying the company of friends and family. While barbecue is traditionally considered Southern cuisine, one Maine company is out to redefine that notion--and having great success in this endeavor. As such, I rise today to recognize DennyMike's 'Cue Stuff Inc. for its numerous award-winning barbecue products. DennyMike's got its start in 2002 when Dennis Michael--or DennyMike-- Sherman, a born and bred Mainer, opened DennyMike's Smokehouse BBQ and Deli in the popular seaside town of Old Orchard Beach. Mr. Sherman's purpose in opening this unique restaurant in Maine was to expose New Englanders to a cuisine he has loved since the 1970s, when he first experienced authentic Texas-style barbecue. In 2008, Mr. Sherman also launched a line of genuine, hand-crafted barbecue rubs and sauces for use by customers at home, whether it be to spice up meatloaf made in the oven or add flavor to seafood or steak cooked on the grill. The company is a member of the Kansas City BBQ Society and the National BBQ Association, among other organizations, ensuring that it is at the forefront of this burgeoning industry. To create its unique sauces and rubs, DennyMike's utilizes high- quality ingredients such as clover honey, natural sea salt, and Barbados molasses. The company creates these products, which are all- natural and gluten-free, in small batches to ensure a richer flavor. The company markets a broad range of sauces like the Sweet 'N Spicy, DennyMike's original standard-bearer, as well as rubs that include the Fintastic, seasoned with a hint of citrus for a tangy twist on traditional Maine cuisine such as fresh fish and shrimp. From sweet and savory to strong and spicy, DennyMike's products are designed to please any discerning set of taste buds. DennyMike and his wife, Patty, accompanied by one full-time employee, produce the sauces and rubs, with five part-time workers supplementing as needed. While some may scoff at the notion of an award-winning barbecue master hailing from Maine, Mr. Sherman has put such critics to shame with an impressive display of awards from organizations nationwide. In November, one of DennyMike's sauces was named the best barbecue sauce in the ``All-Natural Hot'' category at the 2010 Scovie Awards, while another of its distinctive rubs won top place in the ``Dry Rub/All- Purpose'' class. Decided through scrupulous blind tastings, the Scovie Awards are prestigious in the barbecue industry, and now comprise one of the world's most competitive gourmet food competitions. Additionally, DennyMike's received five medals--two gold, one silver, and two bronze--from the National Barbecue Association, or NBBQA, last year, while also winning several awards for its distinct packaging from various organizations. At this year's NBBQA Conference and Expo, DennyMike's racked up seven awards, building on its record of accomplishment and success within the industry. DennyMike's 'Cue Stuff has quickly made a name for itself by introducing quality, all-natural barbecue products to our home State. As he continues to promote his sauces and rubs at regional trade shows across New England, I am confident that word will only spread faster of Mr. Sherman's creative and celebrated line of products. I thank Mr. Sherman for so vividly embodying the entrepreneurial spirit, and wish him continued success in his tasty quest.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, 40 years ago, Senator Gaylord Nelson attempted to bring attention to a degraded environment through a day dedicated to our planet. On April 22, 1970, environmental issues, as they are today, were challenging oxygen levels in the Androscoggin River in my great state of Maine frequently reached zero during the summer, resulting in the death of nearly all fish and other aquatic life in the river and carbon monoxide and ozone emissions significantly degraded our country's air quality. The environmental, economic, and personal costs of a failure to recognize the benefits of a healthy environment had reached a tipping point for many American citizens who demanded action both through greater awareness of personal environmental decisions and through new public laws. Millions of Americans, as Senator Nelson said, ``organized themselves'' to not only protest the degradation of our environment, but also to educate each other on personal steps to reduce waste, increase recycling, and together improve the condition of environment around us. Four decades later, Earth Day serves as a consequential reminder of what we have achieved since 1970, and what we still have left to accomplish, especially as we evaluate the current state of our environment. In that light, on this Earth Day, as the ranking member of Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, I held a hearing on the threat of acidification on the largest ecosystems of the world, our oceans. And while the expert witnesses outlined the daunting hurdles of this 21st century challenge to our lobster industry and the beautiful coral reefs of the world, it is encouraging at the same time to reflect upon the past challenges we've met that seemed insurmountable. In 1970, there were less than 50 bald eagle nesting pairs in Maine, today there are at least 477. This extraordinary increase came to fruition through a combination of the federal banning of DDT and a concerted effort by Mainers who volunteered to track our sacred national symbol and conserve its habitat. Furthermore, just last year, the Commissioner of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife remarkably and thankfully was able to recommend the removal of the Bald Eagle from Maine's list of Endangered and Threatened Species. It was a combination of dedicated attention by Mainers as well as public policies that made this success a reality. And in Maine's iconic rivers and waterways fish are returning and our air quality has improved. Nationally, for nearly 10 years, I have been pleased to join forces with my good friend and colleague, Senator Dianne Feinstein, to implement technology available today and raise fuel economy standards for our Nation's automobile fleet. And finally, in 2007 we passed legislation that will cut air pollution, reduce our consumption of foreign oil, and save money at the gas pump which will be of benefit to everyone, especially those in the rural parts of my state. And earlier this month, these rules were finalized and will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the life of cars and trucks sold between the 2012 and 2016 model years. This welcomed and long overdue advancement will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from our vehicles by 21 percent by 2030 and represents the most significant effort so far to combat climate change. When we commemorate the 50th anniversary of Earth Day in just 10 years from now, let it be said that in 2010, we made great strides in improving our energy efficiency in our homes and offices, we reduced the number of miles that we drive on a weekly basis, we mitigated carbon dioxide emissions, and we reduced the amount of oil we import. Above all, let us hope we can look back and say we were able to forge comprehensive energy legislation that spoke not just to our goals for protecting the environment and harnessing new sources for energy, for ensuring greater not lesser energy independence, but that reflected once again the hallmark vision, ingenuity, and can-do spirit that have always driven this great land for whom no task is too daunting and no adversity too steep.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, we frequently hear stories of small businesses across our Nation that are struggling to survive, a trend which has only been exacerbated by the present economic recession. Facing numerous challenges, too many small firms simply end up closing their doors. Yet fortunately, thanks to the generosity of one man, the story has a different ending for one small business in my home State of Maine. Today I honor Varney's Store, a longstanding fixture in the central Maine town of Windsor, that recently reopened to the approval of the store's many loyal customers. Shirley Varney has been running Varney's Store, a traditional, family-owned convenience store at the corner of Routes 17 and 32 in Windsor, for the past 73 years. Over these many years, she has experienced times of terrible burden and significant difficulty, such as when her husband and business partner sadly passed away 60 years ago. Additionally, Mrs. Varney suffered a stroke several years ago, which has left her confined to a wheelchair. As a result, it became difficult for Mrs. Varney to run her store, which she recently had to close. The closing of Varney's Store left a noticeable void in the community. Not long after, Mike Richardson, a Maine State trooper and local patron of the store for 35 years, stepped forward to offer a helping hand. Mr. Richardson had developed a lengthy relationship with the Varney family through his patronage of the store, and often came to Mrs. Varney's aid throughout the years. Displaying a true act of kindness, Mr. Richardson petitioned to become Mrs. Varney's legal guardian, committing to look after her and her son, who is also wheelchair bound. Furthermore, Mr. Richardson had the desire to resurrect the fabled general store, and embarked on an ambitious plan to make significant renovations and reopen the establishment to its dedicated customers. Along with his son Corey, now the manager of the store, Mr. Richardson gutted and revamped the inside, adding new and improved hardware and furnishings. The duo also incorporated a brand new grill area, tables, coolers, counters, and restrooms, and added a new parking lot outside. Mr. Richardson insisted that the unique character and ambiance be maintained, and so the store contains the original wood interior, several old tools, pictures of the original store, and many of the notable antiques that have made this institution so famous in the eyes of its clients. The store still boasts its famous swinging doors, which have been standing for the past 73 years. Thanks to the hard work and commitment of Mike Richardson, the new Varney's Store hosted a friends and family night on February 20 to celebrate the grand reopening of this famous locale, and the store was back in operation early the next morning, serving breakfast to longtime customers who had awaited its return. For nearly three-quarters of a century, Varney's Store has offered the people of Windsor and surrounding towns the goods they need for everyday living, but more significantly, it has provided them with a feeling of hospitality. I thank Mrs. Varney for her numerous years of dedicated service to make her store such a welcoming environment. Additionally, the story of Varney's Store resurgence is exemplary of how a neighbor's kindness can give hope to a family and an entire community. It is through the compassionate and gracious deeds of Mike Richardson and his family that Varney's Store has been refurbished and reopened, and I wish him and everyone at Varney's Store much success as they aim to continue its tradition of excellence.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, today I honor a small business in my home State of Maine that has faced substantial adversity and demonstrated incredible resolve and determination. Located on the beautiful Damariscotta River in midcoast Maine, Washburn & Doughty Associates, Inc., has manufactured steel and aluminum commercial vessels since 1977. Founded by Bruce Doughty, Bruce Washburn, and Carl Pianka, the company delivers an assortment of tugboats, commercial passenger vessels, fishing boats, barges, ferries, and research vessels to a wide variety of clients. In July of 2008, at their facility in East Boothbay, a fire torched the company's central construction location, leaving the operation in shambles. The company faced a steep uphill climb as they began seeking grants, loans, and insurance funds to recover their operation. Following the blaze, the company battled the Maine winter and forged ahead to continue building its vessels outdoors. With fortitude and grit the company was the only boatyard in Maine to win a grant under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The boat maker earned a $2.6 million grant under the Maritime Administration's Small Shipyards Grant Program which it has put to use in helping to design a new, state-of-the-art construction building. The spacious facility, which was unveiled in September of last year, measures 42,000 square feet and is able to maneuver vessels up to 200 feet long and 50 feet wide. It features two construction bays, each equipped with two, 20-ton cranes. A central mezzanine contains shop space and offices for production support, supervision, design, and engineering. The company also purchased modern shipbuilding tools and equipment to sharpen their boat-making skills. In conjunction with this critical Federal aid, many members of the local community collaborated to help the company, raising an astonishing $140,000 to help replace tools and provide general assistance to the employees. Indeed, the town of Boothbay joined countless organizations like the Boothbay Harbor Region Chamber of Commerce and the Boothbay Region Land Trust to support Washburn & Doughty and its outstanding workers. Their working in concert is truly a testament to Maine's culture of cooperation and its deep sense of community values. Since the fire of 2008, Washburn & Doughty Associates, Inc. has rebounded at an incredible pace. Late last year, the company posted positive job growth, having gone from 92 employees during early 2008 to 125 employees at present. This 35-percent increase in employment can be directly attributed to the steely resolve and dedicated work ethic of the men and women of Maine's working waterfront. Undeniably, Bruce Doughty and Bruce Washburn embody these attributes as evidenced by their deep and abiding commitment to the firm's dedicated workforce and their unwavering resolve to rebuild. When times were bleak, they maintained their unyielding focus, and despite encountering countless hurdles along the way, persevered, rebuilt the company, and further solidified its reputation as one of the top steel construction shipyards in the Northeast. I applaud the strong efforts of everyone at Washburn & Doughty to rebuild their company in such an impressive manner, and wish them a smooth road forward full of success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to commemorate the 189th anniversary of the day in 1821 when the people of Greece declared independence from the Ottoman Empire, launching the country's heroic 8- year struggle to end centuries of political, religious and cultural repression of their proud and ancient culture. This is a truly cherished milestone for the Greek people, Greek Americans, and for all the friends of Greece around the globe. The ancient Greeks developed the concept of democracy, in which the supreme power to govern is vested in the people, and it was based on this political model and philosophy that our Founding Fathers formed our democratic republic. Today, our two nations are not only faithful allies, but also close friends bound by a shared heritage of democratic values and together we are at the forefront of freedom, democracy, peace, stability, and human rights. Nearly two centuries after the rebirth of Greek independence, there is much to celebrate, but there are also many significant challenges which we face in the 21st century. Ongoing provocations by Turkey in the Aegean and irredentist actions by the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia thwart Greece's quest for a stable southeastern Europe free of past centuries' often devastating territorial disputes. Protecting the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople the leader of Greek Orthodox Christians around the world from persecution, and ending the illegal occupation of the north of Cyprus remain as enormous imperatives that will require constructive engagement and a strong commitment from those willing to champion human rights. Overcoming these hurdles will require us to strengthen the relationship that exists between our two great nations, so as to defend our foundational principles and ensure our vitality in the centuries to come. On this anniversary of Greek independence, let us not only celebrate and congratulate our friends in Greece, but also rededicate ourselves to bolstering the relationship that exists between our countries. Madam President, as the first Greek-American woman elected to both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, I extend my warm congratulations and best wishes to the people of Greece and all Greek Americans as we celebrate the 189th anniversary of Greece's independence.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from New Hampshire very much for his leadership and for consideration of the time today. As consideration of health care reform draws to a close in the Senate with the pending reconciliation bill, I cannot help but arrive at this moment with a sense of profound disappointment in considering what might have been, rather than what has actually occurred with respect to one of the foremost domestic matters of our time. As I stated as a member of the Senate Finance Committee at the conclusion of our markup of health reform legislation last October, this is one of the most complex set of issues ever placed before us. At the same time, I have said the reality that crafting the right approach is arduous in no way obviates our responsibility to make it happen, given the enormous implications of reordering more than $33 trillion in health care expenditures over the next 10 years, representing one-sixth of our economy and affecting every American. Well, if there is one thing I have learned, it is that the only way to allay people's fears is by systematically working through the concerns, the issues, and the policy alternatives from all sides. When we hear proponents portraying the passage of health care reform as the equivalent of landmark legislation of the past, what they fail to note is, those efforts were all bipartisan. Regrettably, part of the history we made this week is that, for the first time, a truly watershed bill became law purely along partisan lines. As I mentioned on the floor last November, it is almost impossible to imagine how transformational legislation over the last nearly 100 years, such as Social Security, Medicare, and civil rights could have been as strongly woven into the fabric of our Nation had they forsaken bipartisanship. We could have extended that bipartisan legacy. The majority had 60 votes for health care reform, so they had a choice. They could have worked collaboratively to develop a more balanced, effective, and credible approach that--even if it ultimately failed to attract many Republican votes--could have resulted in legislation more widely embraced by the American people because, in the final analysis, no one party or person has a monopoly on good ideas. That is precisely the reality that originally brought six of us together in the Senate Finance Committee in the so-called Gang of 6, to the credit of Chairman Baucus, who convened a meeting last summer, along with Ranking Member Grassley, and that the chairman and ranking member referenced earlier in the debate on the floor. I commend them for what was the only bipartisan effort in any committee of the House and Senate. Certainly, that has been true and indicative of their collaborative, cooperative relationship. As the chairman pointed out, we met 31 times, week after week, for over 4 months, to debate policy and not politics because we were attempting to reach bipartisan consensus on reform legislation. While we ultimately did not reach an agreement, given our discussions were ended prematurely by an artificially imposed deadline, our efforts did, in many ways, form the foundation for the subsequent Finance Committee legislation that, while far from perfect, produced bipartisan reforms, including banning the egregious practices by the insurance companies that have been discussed so often. We tried to navigate the ideologies on both ends of the political spectrum. At the same time, as I stated at the conclusion of the Finance Committee markup, the issue of affordability remained one of my paramount concerns. I further expressed that we could not create vast, new bureaucracies and governmental intrusions. Finally, I said my vote to report the bill out of the committee was to continue to work to improve the legislation and, therefore, it would be imperative moving forward that the majority in the Senate give deference to the scope and the complexity of this issue, earn broader support, and resist the impulse to retreat into partisanship. Yet regrettably, since the Finance Committee vote on October 13, the wheels essentially came off. The process went behind closed doors, with only one party represented. Long gone was the transparency of the Finance Committee debate, and what came to the Senate floor was a 2,400-page bill--900 pages longer than the Finance Committee bill--that we were forced to complete by Christmas Day, after a mere 21 days on the floor. In looking at a relative equivalence in terms of benchmark legislation, the Senate debated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 57 days. In the FAA bill that we just considered--that we just voted on this past Monday--we disposed of 45 amendments. That is 17 more than we addressed in the amendment process on health care reform legislation in December. What exactly were people afraid of? Think what we could have been celebrating today if we would have had the open amendment process we had been promised or even if we had had, as I urged, that bipartisan summit last October instead of just last month. If it was a good idea now, it would have been a good idea then. Imagine if everyone had the opportunity to sit down with the actual legislative language and work through all the issues, determining what works and what doesn't work. We could have crafted a better product. But now we will never know. We could have, instead, developed something practical, rolled out in phases--something all the more critical, given we are already in treacherous economic and fiscal waters. It is not as though we lacked the time. After all, the major provisions of this initiative do not even take effect until 2014. In fact, CBO has said that with the majority of the reform measures not scheduled to commence until then--4 years from now, by year 2013--there will still be 50 million uninsured Americans, exactly the same number as today. There are those who will argue that the Senate-passed legislation was basically the same bill that emerged from the Finance Committee. But the facts tell a story of a different bill that, far from improving upon the finance measure, as I had indicated would be critical, instead went precisely in the opposite direction from what Americans wanted-- with greater bureaucracy, more taxes, and ill-conceived measures that will cost our Nation jobs rather than help to create them. Look at this chart, with respect to the employer mandate, to cite some examples. Something of critical importance to me, as ranking member of the Senate Small Business Committee, the Finance Committee proposal contained no employer mandate per se, forcing firms to offer health insurance. Rather, it specified that if a firm chose not to offer insurance and any of its workers received subsidized coverage in the exchange, the firm would pay a penalty equal to the lesser of an average credit amount that the employee received in the exchange or a flat $400 fee for all its workers. While I would have preferred a zero penalty, the Senate-passed bill actually got worse, as you can see with this chart. First, penalties nearly doubled from those in the Finance Committee package to $750 per employee. Then it greatly expanded the instances in which penalties would be applied, requiring employers with more than 50 full-time employees who don't at least offer coverage and have even one full-time employee receiving a subsidy through the exchange to pay $750 for each of its full-time workers. Under the reconciliation package that is pending before the Senate, firms with more than 50 workers would have to pay $2,000 per employee with just the first 30 employees exempted. That is a 167-percent increase over the $750 in the bill that was just signed into law. So we have gone from $400 to $750 and now to $2,000. If that is not enough, part-time workers and seasonal workers will now be counted in determining whether the mandate will apply. That will be devastating. It will be devastating to small firms, middle-sized firms, restaurants, retailers, and seasonal industries, such as those in my State of Maine, that will be subject to this mandate, which now produces $52 billion in revenue, up from the $27 billion in the bill that just became law. Exactly how is this going to help our Nation's greatest job generators--our small businesses--that we are depending on to lead us out of this downturn? Now let's look at the Medicare taxes, the second chart. The finance bill did not contain any form of Medicare taxes. We did not increase Medicare taxes. The Senate bill that just now became law, signed by the President yesterday, included $87 billion in Medicare taxes. That disproportionately affects small businesses because they apply to the income those businesses would normally reinvest. Plain and simple, this .9 percentage point increase in Medicare payroll taxes is a job killer as it essentially takes away 1 additional percentage point of capital from the very small business owners we are depending on to create jobs, who are more than likely to employ between 20 and 250 employees, all at a moment when we should be looking for ways to help bring capital into small businesses. If that were not bad enough, here we have reconciliation that is pending before the Senate that compounds the mistake with a 3.8-percent Medicare tax that is unprecedented because it is imposing a payroll tax on investment income. When combined with a capital gains tax increase the majority is planning for the end of this year, this 3.8 percent tax will raise the capital gains tax rate to an astonishing 23.8 percent, which is a 67-percent increase in taxes on investment during these precarious times. Taken together, it is a grand total of $210 billion in Medicare taxes. So we went from the Finance Committee at zero to the Senate- passed bill that became law yesterday at $87 billion, and now in the bill pending before the Senate, we have a grand total of $210 billion in Medicare taxes. It is a hidden tax, by the way. It is not indexed for inflation, so it will be similar to the alternative minimum tax that is going to continue to ensnare more and more people in this tax. It is a major tax increase on individuals, small businesses, on capital, at a time when we desperately need that capital to be reinvested to create more jobs. Again, we have gone from zero to $210 billion in new taxes in Medicare. Do we seriously believe this is the time we should be instituting these breathtaking and job-killing increases, not to mention the unprecedented shift because not one dollar gets reinvested in Medicare--not one dollar--not to mention it does not address the physician problem with a 21-percent reduction in provider reimbursement that we have to extend this week for another month because it is a month-to-month problem. We need a 10-year fix. That will be over $200 billion but, rather, we are taxing it for other purposes rather than into Medicare. But unfortunately, that's what becomes of a broken process. Look at what two of the largest organizations representing small business in America stated upon passage of the finance bill. The National Federation of Independent Business said at the time the finance bill passed on October 13: NFIB appreciates the many provisions in this package that reflect small businesses' needs, which are rooted in approaches that aim to lower costs, increasing coverage options, and provide real competition in the private marketplace. Fast forward to the Senate-passed bill in December that now became law as a result of the President signing it yesterday. Now what does NFIB, the National Federation of Independent Business, have to say? The impact from these new taxes, a rich benefit package that is more costly than what they can afford today . . . [and] a hard employer mandate-- The one I referred to earlier-- equals disaster for small businesses. On March 21, they said: We couldn't have been clearer how damaging this bill will be to America's small businesses and the economic recovery of this country. Particularly in these precarious economic times, shouldn't that make us all deeply concerned? Now consider what the National Small Business Association released this weekend. I have that on a chart as well. We have continued to work positively for needed changes . . . but it is now clear that most of these recommendations have not been accepted. . . .We understand that it is impossible to create a significant reform such as this one without some objections from nearly every constituency. But our objections to this bill go beyond those reasonable expectations. Congress can do better. To which I add, I could not agree more. They say they oppose the health care reform bill with regret but they base it on all the significant issues that have been incorporated in this legislation that will be damaging to small businesses. I could not agree more. Furthermore, I am deeply troubled by the manner in which the Medicare tax increases in this bill are to be utilized--$210 billion. According to CBO, and this is their exact words: To describe the full amount of the [Medicare] trust fund savings as both improving the government's ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government's fiscal position. So, No. 1, talking about the fact of the reduction of deficit, it is not going to improve that; and No. 2, whether or not it can be plowed back into Medicare, obviously it is not going to affect Medicare's insolvency issue because it is going to go to other purposes and is not intended for the Medicare trust fund. How are we going to strengthen Medicare when these new tax dollars are being diverted from their original intended purpose of actually paying for Medicare benefits? Another major difference in the legislation we passed in the Senate Finance Committee on October 13 and in the pending reconciliation bill, is the so-called CLASS Act. While proponents point to estimates that this provision would raise $72 billion over the first 10 years, that savings only occurs as a result of a fiscal shell game of using funds promised to pay beneficiaries later to lower the deficit today. As CBO says, ``The program would pay out far less in benefits than it would receive in premiums over the 10-year budget window,'' raising $70 billion in premiums that will fund benefits outside the window, and as a result, CBO further concluded that ``in the decade following 2029, the CLASS program will begin to increase the deficit.'' Again, this is exactly the wrong direction for America. Perhaps most disturbingly, we don't even have answers from CBO to many of the most fundamental questions in the minds of Americans, the minds of small businesses--what will be the true impact? Those were questions I posed to CBO on December 3 to which I still don't have the answers. What provisions in the legislation would justify and facilitate premium increases, and to what extent would other provisions limit their outcome? What would go up and what would go down? We need to know what is going to drive up premium costs and what is going to lower premium costs. Indeed, the headline on Tuesday in my home State newspaper the Portland Press Herald was ``Mainers Wait and Wonder: How Will Reform Affect Us?'' That is why I also requested from CBO specific state-by-state analysis of reform's effects on premiums, because while we do have from CBO a national average for premiums, what they would be for minimum credible coverage under the new law, the reality is that cost will vary widely from State to State. That is why I proposed and I asked CBO what the impact would be of opening up the legislation to extend the ``young invincibles'' plan, that catastrophic coverage for young people, to all Americans and extend those subsidies to that coverage as well so everyone at least has one affordable option to purchase health insurance. Why? Because the Federal Government is requiring for the first time that individuals purchase health insurance--that is, first, individual mandates; second, it sets new standards in the plan and the exchanges that could drive up premium costs for certain individuals and small businesses. So shouldn't we have the certainty that affordable choices are available? Yet we do not even have substantiation whether provisions of this reform will make health care costs higher or lower. In fact, there is actually a presumption in the legislation that costs may well go up. I find it telling that the excise tax on high-cost insurance in this reconciliation contains a fail-safe provision, referred to as a health cost adjustment percentage, that automatically raises the threshold to higher numbers. That was described in the House Democratic summary of reconciliation. They put it this way: CBO is wrong in its forecast of the premium inflation rate between now and 2018. Maine is a high-cost State, regrettably, because it is not a competitive market. We have high-cost plans, along with 16 other States. But given that the bill already provides for thresholds as high as $13,900 for individuals and $36,450 excluding vision and dental benefits before triggering the excise tax, those thresholds are significantly higher than those that were passed in the Senate-passed bill yesterday. Now they will be raised even higher under the pending reconciliation. The question is, Why exactly would we still require a medical inflation adjusted for 2018, 8 years from now, that raises those thresholds even higher? What does that say about the performance confidence in reining in medical costs as a result of this legislation that was signed into law and the pending reconciliation? It says they simply do not know. The fail-safe automatic increase in the threshold clearly assumes this legislation still may not address runaway costs.

Ms. SNOWE. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, these are the thresholds. Eight years from now--the legislation suggests that because of inflation for medical costs that outpaces inflation two to three times, they are saying that 8 years from now, we will not have controlled medical costs even with the passage of this legislation having taken effect as a result of yesterday. It is precisely because of this uncertainty that I will be offering amendments to address these very issues. Somehow, the high worth of legislating, of deliberating, of ironing out our differences has been cast aside in favor of either/or propositions when we could have instead risen to the monumental challenge with the best possible solution to strengthen America's health care today and for generations to come. I profoundly regret that this process has provided far too few opportunities to forge legislation that would stand not just the test of our time but for all time. We could have done better and we should have done better. I yield the floor, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the NSBA statement of March 19, 2010; the NFIB statement of November 19, 2009; and the Portland Press Herald article of March 23, 2010.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the majority leader for finally bringing this essential legislation to the floor after more than 3 years of extensions and delays. This bipartisan bill is the product of years of diligence, patience, and an overriding commitment to safety. From the tremendous steps forward in implementing the critical Next Generation Air Traffic Control System to the thousands of jobs created by the funding for infrastructure improvements and innovation incentives, this legislation revolves, first and foremost, around enhancing the safety of our skies. This bill addresses glaring gaps in safety brought to light by the heart-breaking tragedy of what should have been a routine flight for 49 people on February 12, 2009, and instead became, according to the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, the worst aviation accident since 2001. The stunning cockpit voice recordings released by the NTSB during their investigation of the Continental Connection flight 3407 accident outside of Buffalo, NY, chilled Americans across the country. On behalf of the families who lost loved ones in that accident, and who courageously testified at a series of hearings called by Senators Dorgan and DeMint on the safety of regional air carriers, Senator Boxer and I introduced the One Level of Safety Act. Incorporated into the larger FAA reauthorization bill before us, our legislation seeks to finally fulfill the decade-old promise of One Level of Safety, which the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, regrettably viewed as little more than a slogan for the past several years. Working closely with the devastated families left behind by the tragic crash of flight 3407, and the NTSB, we have addressed a number of glaring deficiencies in our aviation system which threatened the safety of passengers across the country. In response to questions I and others posed before the Commerce Committee, NTSB chairwoman Debbie Hersman vowed to have the flight 3407 investigation completed within a year. To her credit, she lived up to her promise. In fact, with 1 year as chair now under her belt, she has performed admirably. And the work of the Board brought to light critical information necessary to address the gaps in our safety regime, gaps that contributed to the flight 3407 accident. For example, one of the primary causes of the Continental Connection crash, according to the NTSB's preliminary report released in January, was the lack of rest for the pilots. One airline claims that more than a quarter of its pilots commute 1,000 miles just to get to work! And the safety implications of pilot fatigue are not a new concern. In fact, as you can see on this chart, fatigue has been at the top of the NTSB's Most Wanted list of safety improvements since the list's inception in 1990, left unaddressed now for over 20 years! Today it languishes on that same list, the NTSB noting hat it has received an ``unacceptable response'' from the FAA. Yet the NTSB has indicated that fatigue is the primary cause of over 250 accident deaths over the past 15 years. Indeed, when the FAA last considered modernizing these fatigue rules in 1995, after receiving resistance from the airlines, the agency simply chose to shelve the proposed changes rather than address obsolete fatigue rules more than a half-century old. We cannot allow this to continue, which is why we require the FAA to develop regulations that would limit the number of hours permitted for pilots to fly in a 24 hour period, to assist in alleviating pilot fatigue problems, as well as to provide guidance to air carriers to develop, and submit to the FAA, fatigue management plans. The bill mandates the completion--within a year of enactment--of an ongoing FAA rulemaking addressing fatigue, an effort undertaken recently by Administrator Babbitt. For too long, the FAA has been a reactionary body, acting only after a tragedy, rather than analyzing trends and data to enable the agency to foresee future accidents. So, to address this issue, Senator Boxer and I added a level of accountability to the FAA's safety programs to encourage proactive oversight. Specifically, this legislation requires unannounced, on-the-ground annual inspections of flight training schools and airlines, ensuring all safety standards included in this legislation will be enforced. Another element of our legislation, specifically cited by the NTSB and recently added to their ``Most Wanted'' List of aviation safety threats, as you can see on this chart, addresses the ability of air carriers to view a potential pilot's entire flying history. Incredibly, this information is currently unavailable to an airline--unless they file a Freedom of Information Act request! And that is simply unacceptable. The pilot operating the Continental Connection flight 3407 at the time of the accident had previously failed five flight tests, or ``checks''. But the air carrier claimed it was unaware of these failures, because the pilot did not disclose them on his application. To reverse this unfathomable rule once and for all, this bill gives airlines access to a pilot's complete history to ensure they are hiring qualified, well-trained, and talented pilots. Another measure, which I am particularly pleased to have included in the Reauthorization is the landmark Passenger Bill of Rights legislation on which Senator Boxer and I worked so diligently as far back as the spring of 2007. The fact is Congress has waited far too long to move on this essential safety measure. New York State, one of many states frustrated by the delays in improving passenger safety here in Washington, sought to impose its own passenger rights standard, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit struck down their effort, placing the onus squarely on Congress. Specifically, the Circuit's decision stated that only the Federal Government may implement a national standard for passenger safety, and I commend the Commerce Committee for responding by including the Passengers' Bill of Rights. We all have heard the horror stories, many detailed before the several hearings held in the Senate Commerce Committee on this topic-- people trapped on aircraft for nearly 12 hours, left in the dark by the airlines, uncertain when or if they would ever be permitted to deplane; overflowing restrooms; diabetics unable to access their insulin and at risk of going into shock. This was the case in Austin, TX, just prior to New Year's Eve in 2006, when an aircraft remained on the tarmac for nearly 9 hours, with no communication from the airline and passengers ready to revolt. Such incredible stories were on the verge of becoming commonplace during the explosive growth of air travel during the mid- 2000s. In fact, just last year there were 904 flights that remained unmoving on the tarmac for 3 hours or more. More than 10 years since the first attempt to put in place protections for passengers, they can now be assured that they no longer will become prisoners in the event of a lengthy delay, nor will their safety be compromised to meet an airline's bottom line. Guaranteeing basic necessities like food, water, and functioning restrooms for passengers left on a grounded aircraft for hours at a time, while providing them a choice to safely deplane after remaining stranded on the tarmac for more than 3 hours, is a tremendous leap forward for the millions of passengers who travel our skies every year. And I say it is about time. Moreover, a key component of this bill ends the often ``cozy'' relationship between airlines and their FAA maintenance inspectors that threatens to undermine aircraft safety. Senator Klobuchar and I originally developed this legislation to prevent FAA inspectors from turning a blind eye to safety violations at various airlines. First brought to light by a report issued by Department of Transportation inspector general Calvin Scovel in 2008, those failings were confirmed just last month, when a follow-up report issued by the IG's office revealed that despite the previous report, the ``. . . FAA had failed to take appropriate action . . .'' to address airlines ``. . . longstanding failure to comply with required maintenance inspection procedures . . .'' In recent years, the FAA experienced a culture shift away from a safety-first mentality. In fact, the charter of the FAA was amended in 2003 to include the promotion of air carriers in their mission statement. How is it that a government agency can simultaneously promote and regulate an entire industry? This bill struck the dueling nature of such a mission statement, reducing the significance of advocating for the airlines and returning safety to its rightfully preeminent position at the agency. At the same time, we put into place a Whistleblower's Office to protect individuals who reveal violations within the FAA from retribution. Why is this necessary? Too often in recent years, Congress has heard from courageous whistleblowers like Doug Peters, who had his job and family threatened in 2008 for reporting numerous safety violations at Southwest, the same violations detailed in the 2008 inspector general's report. Rather than being rewarded for their dedication, these individuals were either summarily removed from their jobs or strategically relocated to place them ``out of the way.'' Thanks to this legislation, they will have advocates and legal recourse within the Department at the Whistleblowers Office. The reauthorization also slams shut the revolving door between inspectors and airlines. The inspector general's 2008 and 2010 reports concluded that inspectors responsible for requiring compliance with federal standards by an individual air carrier were transitioning between the FAA and those particular airlines and back again, establishing relationships that led to the undermining of safety requirements issued by the FAA. Our bill requires an inspector must experience a ``cooling-off'' period of 2 full years before he or she can gain employment with the air carrier they once inspected. At the same time, an additional, critical issue for both Maine and the Nation is rural aviation. As a tool for economic development, access to commercial aviation is absolutely essential. To that end, Senator Bingaman and I were pleased to see the inclusion of the Rural Aviation Improvement Act, which overhauls the Essential Air Service, EAS, and small community air service grant programs, to continue the commitment Congress made to small communities when we deregulated the aviation industry in 1978-- ensuring those communities hurt by deregulation, particularly less populated areas, would continue to receive commercial air service. The fact is, since deregulation, communities across the country have experienced a decline in flights and size of aircraft while seeing an increase in fares. More than 300 have lost air service altogether. Our bill raises funding for the program from $127 to $175 million annually, consistent with the President's budget request for the program. A handful of ``bad actors'' have jeopardized commercial aviation for entire regions, most of them rural, by submitting low-ball contracts to the Department of Transportation to ensure they receive the EAS subsidy, and once they have, reneging on their commitment to the extent and quality of their service. Our bill will not only establish a system of minimum requirements for all EAS contracts to protect municipalities that rely on the program for commercial service, but it will also extend those contracts to 4 years from the current 2. This gives a heightened degree of certainty, so that rather than having communities negotiating new contracts or receiving service from entirely new carriers every 18 months, those municipalities participating in the program can plan for infrastructure improvements or other means to expand service. Actively encouraging communities to get involved in the process, and build relationships with the carriers who serve them, can only bolster the quality of the program. The reauthorization provides states and communities the ability to take a more active role in the level of service they receive by allowing them a ``buy-in'' option. This would allow states or local communities to leverage the EAS subsidy to develop incentives that would attract additional flights from an existing carrier, or bring in new carriers who offer a larger array of destinations. In short, I believe this an outstanding, bipartisan bill that has required long hours--over 3 years--and considerable effort to complete. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for adding so many of these improvements to the underlying legislation, commend the Commerce and Finance Committees for their relentless work, and urge all my colleagues to support this critical legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, restaurants in my home State recently celebrated the second annual Maine Restaurant Week from March 1 through 10. This creative event is designed to offer Mainers and visitors alike the opportunity to spend an evening out to try a new restaurant at an affordable fixed price. After last year's success, where nearly 98 percent of attendees said the event met or exceeded their expectations, over 100 restaurants participated in this year's celebration. I rise today to recognize one restaurant that took part in Restaurant Week, Fuel, that has helped to lead a renaissance in downtown Lewiston. In 2005, Eric Agren and his wife Carrie purchased the old Lyceum Hall in downtown Lewiston with the purpose of renovating the 135-year-old theater, which is listed on the National Historic Register. The goal was to transform the theater, vacant for over 50 years, into a cozy, welcoming space while maintaining the historical nature of the building. Mr. Agren, who is originally from the Lewiston-Auburn area, spent several years in Chicago working for a kitchen design company, which piqued his interest in the culinary arts, before returning home to pursue his longtime dream of opening a restaurant. The couple also turned the upstairs of the building into a 5,000-square-foot apartment. Because of the Agrens' dedicated efforts, Fuel received historic preservation awards from the State of Maine and the city of Lewiston, both in 2007. Fuel's menu features French country cuisine with a close-to-home twist. Starting with French classics like escargot, fondue, and French onion soup, the menu includes an eclectic mix of dishes from braised short ribs and steak frites to roasted chicken and homemade macaroni and cheese. The Agrens describe Fuel's interior decor as ``urban cozy,'' with French vintage art, leather chairs in the bar, and butcher paper topping the tables. The restaurant received a 2008 Editor's Choice Award from Yankee Magazine, as well as Wine Spectator magazine's Award of Excellence for its exceptional wine list of over 100 selections. Fuel has also been the recipient of the Androscoggin County Chamber of Commerce's President's Award and has received recognition as Downeast Magazine's Best Dining in Lewiston. Since the opening of Fuel, several other restaurants have opened across Lewiston, resulting in a burgeoning revival of the city's downtown. Nearly a dozen new restaurants have entered the Lewiston dining scene in recent years, leading to increased traffic and a more vibrant atmosphere downtown, as well as creating new jobs. Indeed, to continue this trend, the Agrens soon plan to open another restaurant just down Lisbon Street from Fuel called Marche. In the process of refurbishing the building, the couple also created a two-bedroom, 2,000-square-foot apartment upstairs from the restaurant. As Mr. Agren recently explained, he hopes these efforts bring new people to the downtown area, and expects `` to see a small core of affiliated businesses sprout up--such as dry cleaners and specialty markets--that would cater to a growing downtown population.'' Additionally, over the years, Fuel and other local eateries have participated in numerous community events, raising money for charities like the Sisters of Charity Food Pantry and the American Heart Association. While these restaurants engage in healthy competition, they are also team players when it comes to helping the community. The renaissance of downtown Lewiston is well-documented, and a welcome sign during these difficult economic times. And Eric and Carrie Agren have played a central role in spurring this critical development. I thank the Agrens for their commitment to the Twin Cities of Lewiston and Auburn, and I look forward to hearing about the continued success of their investments.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I honor a small restaurant in my home State of Maine that has taken a creative approach to bringing people together by hosting a number of community-oriented events. Located in the charming and quaint town of Damariscotta, the Damariscotta River Grill has become a well-known name in the midcoast Maine dining scene by providing diners with a comfortable and welcoming environment to enjoy a good meal while meeting local artists. The Damariscotta River Grill opened in late 2003 and has quickly become a recognized name throughout Maine's burgeoning restaurant scene. Noted for its fresh and diverse menu, the Grill offers customers an eclectic mix of local seafood, meats, and produce. For lunch, the restaurant makes a wide array of sandwiches, and on Sundays the restaurant prepares a delectable brunch complete with an incredible number of options for landlubbers and seafood lovers alike. The restaurant has quickly caught the attention of critics from far and wide, who all agree that the Damariscotta River Grill is not to be missed when visiting Midcoast Maine. Publications as divergent as the Boston Herald, New York Times, Portland Press Herald, and Fodor's have praised the consistent and mouthwatering cuisine that chef-owner Rick Hirsch cooks up year round. Cape Cod Today went as far as to say that the restaurant offers `` . . . as original and appealing a menu as any in New England''--a ringing endorsement given the number of superb establishments throughout the six-state region! On March 30, Chef Rick Hirsch will be acknowledged for his hard work and dedication in producing such a high-caliber restaurant when he receives the Maine Restaurant Association's 2010 Chef of the Year award at a ceremony in Portland. A graduate of the renowned Johnson & Wales University in Rhode Island, Mr. Hirsch is extraordinarily deserving of this prestigious award, which recognizes Mr. Hirsch's more than two decades of culinary experience as the owner of two restaurants in Maine--the Damariscotta River Grill, as well as the Anchor Inn Restaurant in Round Pond--and his Red Plate Catering business. Additionally, since its inception, the Damariscotta River Grille has been an engaged participant in the local community. The Maine winner of the National Restaurant Association's 2008 Restaurant Neighbor Award, the Damariscotta River Grill contributes regularly and generously to numerous regional organizations and initiatives, including the Boys and Girls Clubs' wreath sale each year. The restaurant is also involved in the annual Chocolate Fest, which was just held last month, to support ``Healthy Kids!,'' a program that helps prevent child abuse and neglect in Lincoln County through educational outreach to families. Beyond fundraisers for charities and other organizations, the Damariscotta River Grill hosts inventive gatherings to attract the restaurant's loyal following. To highlight its Wine Spectator award- wining wine list, the restaurant's Wine Club features at least six wine and food tastings with a wine expert, as well as door prizes and discounts on wine purchases. Additionally, the Grill's ``Art At the Grill'' series, presently in its 5th year, shines a significant spotlight on area artists. The restaurant displays an artist's work for a period of time, and hosts a reception, open to the public, where guests can speak with the artists about their work. In 2010, the restaurant plans to host over 15 artists, including painters, potters, photographers and fabric artists through this unique project. The Damariscotta River Grill has become a favorite of locals and tourists alike because of its wide-ranging menu and unique character and charm. Chef Hirsch, along with his wife and business partner, Jean Kerrigan, has created something truly special in downtown Damariscotta. I congratulate Mr. Hirsch on his well-deserved award, and wish everyone at the Damariscotta River Grill a remarkable and successful year.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 10 additional minutes in morning business.

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President. (The remarks of Ms. Snowe pertaining to the introduction of S. 3103 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak to the urgent imperative of job creation in our country and impress upon my colleagues that if we are serious about assisting our Nation's small businesses--the very catalysts that will lead us out of the longest and deepest recession since World War II--we cannot devolve once again into more delays. To that end, I filed an amendment to the tax extenders legislation before this Chamber which included a package of six bipartisan, achievable policy reforms designed to facilitate an entrepreneurial environment under which our Nation's almost 30 million small business firms can create new jobs. I had hoped to offer this amendment, which I am introducing today as a freestanding bill called the Small Business Job Creation Act, but after talking with the majority leader at length last week, I decided to forgo that opportunity, as the leader indicated to me personally--and to the entire Senate--that he, too, is anxious to address a small business jobs bill in the coming weeks. Now that we have cleared the tax extenders package today and are taking up the long overdue Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization legislation, I hope the Senate as well will consider the jobs package that will include small business initiatives that are so vital and imperative to the well-being of small businesses throughout the country and that we can address this issue before the Easter recess. As ranking member of the Senate Small Business Committee, I want to begin by taking a moment to tout the work our committee has accomplished in this Congress. As one of the most bipartisan panels in the Congress, I appreciate the chair, Senator Landrieu, who has built on the foundation of 22 hearings and roundtables and reported out a series of bipartisan bills on topics ranging from access to capital, to exporting, and, just last week, small business contracting reform. I truly appreciate Chair Landrieu's approach in building a collaboration in the committee on these key issues. Most of the provisions I am championing here tonight originated from the work we have accomplished together in the committee as well. When it comes to this jobs agenda, I would have preferred a different approach to advancing it--one that was more comprehensive and robust, frankly. This kind of piecemeal strategy is not one I would embrace. It is not one the New York Times approves of, either, for that matter. In fact, an editorial of theirs this week contained the following observation: [T]he danger is that with stopgap measures boosting the headline job numbers, Congress and the Administration will avoid the heavy lifting that is required to clear away the wreckage of the recession. So it is not enough to say jobs, jobs, jobs are the new mantra. They must be the new singular mission of this Congress that deserves rigorous action, not just in dribs and drabs but as the full-tilt agenda of this institution. Make no mistake, time is of the essence if we are to assist our Nation's small businesses. Nowhere is the test of meeting that challenge more immediate than with our Nation's small businesses, which at each turn and in every sector are having to struggle, not only at their own expense but at the expense of job creation and reversing our dire economic downturn. Based on what I have heard firsthand from numerous small business forums in Maine that I have held, not only this year but last year, throughout the entire year of 2009, business owners are desperate for relief, and they want answers to the pervasive uncertainty they are confronted with on so many levels. For example, as indicated on this chart, in an economic climate devoid of continuity on tax policy, skyrocketing health care costs, onerous regulations, or volatile energy prices, how can small businesses expect to hire a new employee, buy additional equipment, expand operations, or accurately forecast their operating costs? The regrettable fact is, they cannot as long as they remain not just unsure but understandably anxious about whether or when Washington will exact another tax, levy a new mandate, promulgate another regulation, or create more bureaucracy. A solid foundational starting point would be enacting the provisions in the amendment I filed, many of which I underscored in a letter I sent to both the majority leader and the Republican leader. Frankly, there is such wide agreement on so many of these ideas. In fact, the Small Business Committee has approved many of these provisions unanimously, and the President has called for them to be included in a jobs package. So I think most people would be shocked to learn that they are not already enacted into law. Getting back to the original proposition, it is the fact that there is uncertainty with respect to the policies that are emanating from Washington that creates a lot of anxiety and disenchantment about the direction we are taking but more importantly anxiety about their cost of doing business. What is it going to do to increase the cost of doing business, whether or not they are prepared to hire a new employee or make investments in capital and equipment, if they do not know the certainty of the propositions that come from Washington that could add to their costs of doing business? For example, if the centerpiece of any jobs agenda is assisting the best known job creators we have--our small businesses--then bringing some certitude to the expensing provisions in the Tax Code is unquestionably the place to begin. I know the Senate has already enacted this legislation, extending what had been part of the stimulus plan to increase expensing immediately for small businesses to write off up to $250,000. That expired at the end of last year, and we have extended that proposition for the remaining 10 months in this year. But then again, it will expire. So at that point, in 2011, then small businesses will only be able to write off up to $25,000. So that is a $225,000 decline. Exactly how does that contribute to greater confidence for small business owners? How are they supposed to look to the future in the face of a Draconian measure of that magnitude? So, really, it is important to extend the small business expensing level of $250,000 not just for 10 months but at least for 5 years. As we see in this chart I am showing in the Chamber this evening, between Republicans and Democrats and the administration, they support extending small business expensing, they support enacting a zero- percent capital gains rate for small businesses. So we have bipartisan solutions across the board with respect to these initiatives. It is also important to make sure there is continuity in these policies, which is really the troubling point because it is so important to make sure they can look down the road. They might not be making a decision within the next 5 or 6 months or 10 months, but it is important for them to be able to see down the road beyond the 10 months that there is certitude with respect to the policies we are enacting, especially regarding tax relief and tax policy--the types of initiatives that, frankly, are going to be instrumental in making a difference in job creation. So we have two initiatives here; that is, extending the small business expensing and enacting a zero-percent capital gains rate for small businesses, of which I joined with Senator Kerry in introducing that legislation. So it is true we can reach an agreement on some issues. That is important. And we are moving forward. But we have to give more longevity to these tax policies given the severity of the downturn, given the severity of the economic situation we face today, that it is a jobless recovery. We need to create jobs. If we are going to create jobs, then we have to create more permanent tax relief. We have seen that with the credit crisis. Why can we not join forces and address this stifling credit crunch that is placing a perilous choke hold on our economy across the country? Why can we not agree on doing something viable and bold to confront such a universally acknowledged problem? It remains an unmitigated outrage, frankly, that the Federal Reserve's January Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey found the percentage of banks easing credit terms for small businesses was an astonishing zero percent--zero percent. The same was true in October, the last time they conducted the survey. So if you wanted not just to freeze credit but fossilize it, that would be the way to do it. This is not a recipe for recovery. After all, lending is critical. It is a lifeline to our economy, it is the lifeblood, and it is certainly a lifeline for small businesses if they are going to be able to have jobs, to preserve jobs, or to make investments in the future. But here again is another area where we could take immediate action right here and now, where we can turn this deplorable trend around beginning with boosting the SBA's access to credit. My provisions include key lending provisions from the bill I introduced in the Small Business Committee with Chair Landrieu which was reported out of our committee with a vote of 17 to 1--overwhelmingly bipartisan--to increase the maximum limits for the SBA 7(a) program and the 504 loan program from $2 million to $5 million, raising the maximum microloan limit from $35,000 to $50,000, and allowing for the refinancing of conventional small business loans through the SBA 504 program. Now, if fully utilized, the loan limit increases would create and retain up to an estimated 211,000 jobs. I would note that enhancing SBA loans has already paid tremendous dividends, as in the stimulus bill, because we included these provisions which have been credited with increasing loan volumes by a remarkable 86 percent nationwide and in my own State of Maine, 227 percent. That is all as a result of what we included in the stimulus package last year in increasing and expanding the loan volumes under these programs. So it obviously is indicative of what can be accomplished. So with numbers such as these, not to mention the endorsement of 80 business organizations, it is essential that we give these critical programs the ability to grow more small businesses. Just as there is much we can do right away domestically, how about finally taking action to help our small businesses compete globally? Given that fewer than 1 percent of our small businesses export, it is all the more vital that we take advantage of this untapped market and help those enterprises sell their goods and services to 95 percent of the world's customers who live outside our borders. In the State of the Union Address, President Obama made clear that we must double our exports over the next 5 years, and small businesses are a critical component of the administration's strategy and our national competitiveness. For this reason, my provisions were included in the small business exporting legislation I introduced with Chair Landrieu. As this chart reveals, the provisions in the bill--larger SBA export loan limits, expanded export technical assistance, and enhanced assistance for trade promotion--had bipartisan support. They were reported unanimously by our panel and passed unanimously last December--unanimously. They have the administration's support. They have been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. So we have solidarity on this initiative, and for good reason, because it could create roughly 36,000 new American jobs in the year after enactment and 170,000 jobs over the next 5 years. So there is no reason on Earth why we cannot move on this bill today. Whether we are debating trade or health care, a jobs bill or climate change, whatever the issue, it is also time we retool our thinking so that in every matter before us we are striving to create a climate in which our job creators cannot only survive but thrive. For example, for years we have had environmental impact statements. Well, in 2010, it is high time we require job impact statements. Consider that 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, with small firms bearing the brunt. There are enough built-in impediments to starting a small business, not to mention sustaining one, without the Federal Government compounding the problem. That is why I have included language in my legislation I introduced last month with Senator Pryor requiring the Congressional Budget Office to provide such job impact statements for every single major initiative before Congress to evaluate its effect, positive and negative, on job creation, job losses, job preservation. We didn't stop there. Our bill would also require Federal agencies to fully analyze the cost of regulations on small businesses which too often undermine and usurp the entrepreneurial spirit that has defined every generation of Americans. Our bill is strongly supported by groups including the NFIB, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Small Business Association. My provisions include $50 million in funding for the Small Business Development Centers which, again, provide critical technical assistance and counseling to small businesses at over 1,000 locations nationwide. The SBDC program has a proven track record of job creation, and according to an annual report by Dr. James Chrisman of Mississippi State University, between 2007 and 2008, employment levels of SBDC clients have increased 10 percent more than for businesses in general. As a result of the additional funding I am pressing for, Dr. Chrisman estimates that over 20,000 new jobs would be created, while tens of thousands more will be saved. Finally, while it is paramount that we move forward with the initiatives I have just described, we must simultaneously be mindful of their cost. I have also included an offset for this legislation. I do happen to think it is important that we provide offsets. I think we have to reexamine the stimulus package we enacted last year, much of which has been meritorious, much of which has worked, but there are other parts of it that have yet to be implemented or expended, and I think that is the point. The fact is, with a projected $1.6 trillion deficit this year alone, it is essential that we look at ways in which we can pay for legislation, especially targeted toward job creation, that can be accomplished immediately. That is why I am proposing to fully offset the cost of my provision with unspent, unobligated funds that we appropriated as part of the stimulus. I understand some of my colleagues oppose using unobligated stimulus funds as an offset, citing Congressional Budget Office data that the Recovery Act has added up to 2.1 million jobs and has preserved many jobs across this country. At the same time, I also believe it is our obligation to continually assess and reassess whether the Recovery Act is working because, after all, stimulus is supposed to be timely, targeted, and temporary. In two of the three instances it has not met those goals. In fact, as we have noted in this following chart, just $288 billion of the $787 billion that was enacted last February--only 37 percent of the total--has actually been spent. When you consider just the $275 billion of the stimulus's appropriated funding for expenditures such as contracts, grants, and loans, just $81.6 billion, or 30 percent, has been paid out. That is where I think we need to reassess the three critical criteria of timely, targeted, and temporary. Obviously, for timeliness and being targeted, we have not met those goals. That is why I think we should redirect some of these stimulus funds to other purposes that are more effective, more immediate to do the job. That is where our small businesses enter the equation, with these initiatives I have identified that are absolutely paramount to helping small businesses to create jobs across this country. After all, we are depending on small businesses to lead us out of this economic downturn. They have been the job generators in the past. They have created two- thirds of all the net new jobs in America. We need to create millions and millions of jobs. We have 100,000 new entrants in the market every month, so we have to move expeditiously. That is the point here tonight. I have an array of initiatives that are very critical and vital to small business and job generation. One, we have to do it immediately. Two, we have to be focused and we have to provide continuity of policy and certainty so that small businesses can look down the road and see what types of policies are emanating from Washington, DC. As I said to the Secretary of the Treasury recently, would you take a risk in making investments today? Would you take a risk knowing what you are hearing in Washington? Since we will see more costs as a result of potential health care legislation, adding more costs to small businesses--and there is no question that with the Medicare payroll tax that is embedded in that legislation, that really is another hidden tax, just as the alternative minimum tax. It will raise taxes 62 percent, and it is not indexed for inflation. So we know what the exponential growth in that tax will become for small businesses. That is an example. Ten months does not make a policy of certainty with respect to tax relief. We need to provide continuity of that policy with respect to tax relief, and small business expensing is certainly part of it. We can expand the loan limits under the SBA's programs, and 7(a) and 504 already demonstrated they can work. They did work in the year in which we expanded those programs. It has been demonstrated nationwide and certainly conclusively in my State. So why not move expeditiously to address those issues? Finally, we can pay for it. We can redirect the stimulus. I think that is the most conservative, effective approach to paying for this legislation because, after all, if we have only spent 30 percent of the appropriated funds under stimulus and only 37 percent overall of the stimulus, we may not even spend $600 billion at the end of this year; we need to spend it now. That is the point, is spending it now. What are we waiting for? There is no question that there is a sense of despair across the landscape in looking at the unemployment numbers. We are not creating jobs; we are losing jobs every month. Albeit it has improved in terms of the number of jobs lost, the fact is, we need to create millions and millions of jobs in addition to offsetting the new entrants into the market every month. We have a 9.7-percent unemployment rate. That means we have to get to work, and the only way we can do that is helping small businesses, and the only way we can do that is to put these initiatives to work before the Easter recess. Let's not delay and defer. We have time to do it now. It has broad unanimous support in the Small Business Committee. There is no reason we cannot accomplish this goal now. I appreciate the majority leader's indication and commitment that he will bring a small business package to the floor. I urge the leader and I urge all Members of the Senate to support doing that before the Easter recess because we need to adopt it now, not months from now, because people depend on these jobs. There is uncertainty, and people are looking on their Main Streets in their communities, and what are they seeing is trouble. They are wondering whether the hardware store is going to stay open, or the barbershop. That creates either certainty or uncertainty; that is what creates either despair or hope. So I hope we would move and that we would move with a sense of urgency with respect to small businesses. If we are depending on them, then we have to get to work now. There is no reason, no rationale, no excuse for not taking action in this Chamber in this Congress that can be signed by the President and that we can move forward on. So we should strive with every fiber of our beings to help these longtime beacons of our economy, which is going to give hope to all Americans. What they deserve is to see action that will create the kind of certainty, give them the kinds of resources that they deserve, and do it in a fiscally responsible manner.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak to the urgent imperative of job creation in our country and impress upon my colleagues that if we are serious about assisting our Nation's small businesses--the very catalysts that will lead us out of the longest and deepest recession since World War II--we cannot devolve once again into more delays. To that end, I filed an amendment to the tax extenders legislation before this Chamber which included a package of six bipartisan, achievable policy reforms designed to facilitate an entrepreneurial environment under which our Nation's almost 30 million small business firms can create new jobs. I had hoped to offer this amendment, which I am introducing today as a freestanding bill called the Small Business Job Creation Act, but after talking with the majority leader at length last week, I decided to forgo that opportunity, as the leader indicated to me personally--and to the entire Senate--that he, too, is anxious to address a small business jobs bill in the coming weeks. Now that we have cleared the tax extenders package today and are taking up the long overdue Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization legislation, I hope the Senate as well will consider the jobs package that will include small business initiatives that are so vital and imperative to the well-being of small businesses throughout the country and that we can address this issue before the Easter recess. As ranking member of the Senate Small Business Committee, I want to begin by taking a moment to tout the work our committee has accomplished in this Congress. As one of the most bipartisan panels in the Congress, I appreciate the chair, Senator Landrieu, who has built on the foundation of 22 hearings and roundtables and reported out a series of bipartisan bills on topics ranging from access to capital, to exporting, and, just last week, small business contracting reform. I truly appreciate Chair Landrieu's approach in building a collaboration in the committee on these key issues. Most of the provisions I am championing here tonight originated from the work we have accomplished together in the committee as well. When it comes to this jobs agenda, I would have preferred a different approach to advancing it--one that was more comprehensive and robust, frankly. This kind of piecemeal strategy is not one I would embrace. It is not one the New York Times approves of, either, for that matter. In fact, an editorial of theirs this week contained the following observation: [T]he danger is that with stopgap measures boosting the headline job numbers, Congress and the Administration will avoid the heavy lifting that is required to clear away the wreckage of the recession. So it is not enough to say jobs, jobs, jobs are the new mantra. They must be the new singular mission of this Congress that deserves rigorous action, not just in dribs and drabs but as the full-tilt agenda of this institution. Make no mistake, time is of the essence if we are to assist our Nation's small businesses. Nowhere is the test of meeting that challenge more immediate than with our Nation's small businesses, which at each turn and in every sector are having to struggle, not only at their own expense but at the expense of job creation and reversing our dire economic downturn. Based on what I have heard firsthand from numerous small business forums in Maine that I have held, not only this year but last year, throughout the entire year of 2009, business owners are desperate for relief, and they want answers to the pervasive uncertainty they are confronted with on so many levels. For example, as indicated on this chart, in an economic climate devoid of continuity on tax policy, skyrocketing health care costs, onerous regulations, or volatile energy prices, how can small businesses expect to hire a new employee, buy additional equipment, expand operations, or accurately forecast their operating costs? The regrettable fact is, they cannot as long as they remain not just unsure but understandably anxious about whether or when Washington will exact another tax, levy a new mandate, promulgate another regulation, or create more bureaucracy. A solid foundational starting point would be enacting the provisions in the amendment I filed, many of which I underscored in a letter I sent to both the majority leader and the Republican leader. Frankly, there is such wide agreement on so many of these ideas. In fact, the Small Business Committee has approved many of these provisions unanimously, and the President has called for them to be included in a jobs package. So I think most people would be shocked to learn that they are not already enacted into law. Getting back to the original proposition, it is the fact that there is uncertainty with respect to the policies that are emanating from Washington that creates a lot of anxiety and disenchantment about the direction we are taking but more importantly anxiety about their cost of doing business. What is it going to do to increase the cost of doing business, whether or not they are prepared to hire a new employee or make investments in capital and equipment, if they do not know the certainty of the propositions that come from Washington that could add to their costs of doing business? For example, if the centerpiece of any jobs agenda is assisting the best known job creators we have--our small businesses--then bringing some certitude to the expensing provisions in the Tax Code is unquestionably the place to begin. I know the Senate has already enacted this legislation, extending what had been part of the stimulus plan to increase expensing immediately for small businesses to write off up to $250,000. That expired at the end of last year, and we have extended that proposition for the remaining 10 months in this year. But then again, it will expire. So at that point, in 2011, then small businesses will only be able to write off up to $25,000. So that is a $225,000 decline. Exactly how does that contribute to greater confidence for small business owners? How are they supposed to look to the future in the face of a Draconian measure of that magnitude? So, really, it is important to extend the small business expensing level of $250,000 not just for 10 months but at least for 5 years. As we see in this chart I am showing in the Chamber this evening, between Republicans and Democrats and the administration, they support extending small business expensing, they support enacting a zero- percent capital gains rate for small businesses. So we have bipartisan solutions across the board with respect to these initiatives. It is also important to make sure there is continuity in these policies, which is really the troubling point because it is so important to make sure they can look down the road. They might not be making a decision within the next 5 or 6 months or 10 months, but it is important for them to be able to see down the road beyond the 10 months that there is certitude with respect to the policies we are enacting, especially regarding tax relief and tax policy--the types of initiatives that, frankly, are going to be instrumental in making a difference in job creation. So we have two initiatives here; that is, extending the small business expensing and enacting a zero-percent capital gains rate for small businesses, of which I joined with Senator Kerry in introducing that legislation. So it is true we can reach an agreement on some issues. That is important. And we are moving forward. But we have to give more longevity to these tax policies given the severity of the downturn, given the severity of the economic situation we face today, that it is a jobless recovery. We need to create jobs. If we are going to create jobs, then we have to create more permanent tax relief. We have seen that with the credit crisis. Why can we not join forces and address this stifling credit crunch that is placing a perilous choke hold on our economy across the country? Why can we not agree on doing something viable and bold to confront such a universally acknowledged problem? It remains an unmitigated outrage, frankly, that the Federal Reserve's January Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey found the percentage of banks easing credit terms for small businesses was an astonishing zero percent--zero percent. The same was true in October, the last time they conducted the survey. So if you wanted not just to freeze credit but fossilize it, that would be the way to do it. This is not a recipe for recovery. After all, lending is critical. It is a lifeline to our economy, it is the lifeblood, and it is certainly a lifeline for small businesses if they are going to be able to have jobs, to preserve jobs, or to make investments in the future. But here again is another area where we could take immediate action right here and now, where we can turn this deplorable trend around beginning with boosting the SBA's access to credit. My provisions include key lending provisions from the bill I introduced in the Small Business Committee with Chair Landrieu which was reported out of our committee with a vote of 17 to 1--overwhelmingly bipartisan--to increase the maximum limits for the SBA 7(a) program and the 504 loan program from $2 million to $5 million, raising the maximum microloan limit from $35,000 to $50,000, and allowing for the refinancing of conventional small business loans through the SBA 504 program. Now, if fully utilized, the loan limit increases would create and retain up to an estimated 211,000 jobs. I would note that enhancing SBA loans has already paid tremendous dividends, as in the stimulus bill, because we included these provisions which have been credited with increasing loan volumes by a remarkable 86 percent nationwide and in my own State of Maine, 227 percent. That is all as a result of what we included in the stimulus package last year in increasing and expanding the loan volumes under these programs. So it obviously is indicative of what can be accomplished. So with numbers such as these, not to mention the endorsement of 80 business organizations, it is essential that we give these critical programs the ability to grow more small businesses. Just as there is much we can do right away domestically, how about finally taking action to help our small businesses compete globally? Given that fewer than 1 percent of our small businesses export, it is all the more vital that we take advantage of this untapped market and help those enterprises sell their goods and services to 95 percent of the world's customers who live outside our borders. In the State of the Union Address, President Obama made clear that we must double our exports over the next 5 years, and small businesses are a critical component of the administration's strategy and our national competitiveness. For this reason, my provisions were included in the small business exporting legislation I introduced with Chair Landrieu. As this chart reveals, the provisions in the bill--larger SBA export loan limits, expanded export technical assistance, and enhanced assistance for trade promotion--had bipartisan support. They were reported unanimously by our panel and passed unanimously last December--unanimously. They have the administration's support. They have been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. So we have solidarity on this initiative, and for good reason, because it could create roughly 36,000 new American jobs in the year after enactment and 170,000 jobs over the next 5 years. So there is no reason on Earth why we cannot move on this bill today. Whether we are debating trade or health care, a jobs bill or climate change, whatever the issue, it is also time we retool our thinking so that in every matter before us we are striving to create a climate in which our job creators cannot only survive but thrive. For example, for years we have had environmental impact statements. Well, in 2010, it is high time we require job impact statements. Consider that 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, with small firms bearing the brunt. There are enough built-in impediments to starting a small business, not to mention sustaining one, without the Federal Government compounding the problem. That is why I have included language in my legislation I introduced last month with Senator Pryor requiring the Congressional Budget Office to provide such job impact statements for every single major initiative before Congress to evaluate its effect, positive and negative, on job creation, job losses, job preservation. We didn't stop there. Our bill would also require Federal agencies to fully analyze the cost of regulations on small businesses which too often undermine and usurp the entrepreneurial spirit that has defined every generation of Americans. Our bill is strongly supported by groups including the NFIB, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Small Business Association. My provisions include $50 million in funding for the Small Business Development Centers which, again, provide critical technical assistance and counseling to small businesses at over 1,000 locations nationwide. The SBDC program has a proven track record of job creation, and according to an annual report by Dr. James Chrisman of Mississippi State University, between 2007 and 2008, employment levels of SBDC clients have increased 10 percent more than for businesses in general. As a result of the additional funding I am pressing for, Dr. Chrisman estimates that over 20,000 new jobs would be created, while tens of thousands more will be saved. Finally, while it is paramount that we move forward with the initiatives I have just described, we must simultaneously be mindful of their cost. I have also included an offset for this legislation. I do happen to think it is important that we provide offsets. I think we have to reexamine the stimulus package we enacted last year, much of which has been meritorious, much of which has worked, but there are other parts of it that have yet to be implemented or expended, and I think that is the point. The fact is, with a projected $1.6 trillion deficit this year alone, it is essential that we look at ways in which we can pay for legislation, especially targeted toward job creation, that can be accomplished immediately. That is why I am proposing to fully offset the cost of my provision with unspent, unobligated funds that we appropriated as part of the stimulus. I understand some of my colleagues oppose using unobligated stimulus funds as an offset, citing Congressional Budget Office data that the Recovery Act has added up to 2.1 million jobs and has preserved many jobs across this country. At the same time, I also believe it is our obligation to continually assess and reassess whether the Recovery Act is working because, after all, stimulus is supposed to be timely, targeted, and temporary. In two of the three instances it has not met those goals. In fact, as we have noted in this following chart, just $288 billion of the $787 billion that was enacted last February--only 37 percent of the total--has actually been spent. When you consider just the $275 billion of the stimulus's appropriated funding for expenditures such as contracts, grants, and loans, just $81.6 billion, or 30 percent, has been paid out. That is where I think we need to reassess the three critical criteria of timely, targeted, and temporary. Obviously, for timeliness and being targeted, we have not met those goals. That is why I think we should redirect some of these stimulus funds to other purposes that are more effective, more immediate to do the job. That is where our small businesses enter the equation, with these initiatives I have identified that are absolutely paramount to helping small businesses to create jobs across this country. After all, we are depending on small businesses to lead us out of this economic downturn. They have been the job generators in the past. They have created two- thirds of all the net new jobs in America. We need to create millions and millions of jobs. We have 100,000 new entrants in the market every month, so we have to move expeditiously. That is the point here tonight. I have an array of initiatives that are very critical and vital to small business and job generation. One, we have to do it immediately. Two, we have to be focused and we have to provide continuity of policy and certainty so that small businesses can look down the road and see what types of policies are emanating from Washington, DC. As I said to the Secretary of the Treasury recently, would you take a risk in making investments today? Would you take a risk knowing what you are hearing in Washington? Since we will see more costs as a result of potential health care legislation, adding more costs to small businesses--and there is no question that with the Medicare payroll tax that is embedded in that legislation, that really is another hidden tax, just as the alternative minimum tax. It will raise taxes 62 percent, and it is not indexed for inflation. So we know what the exponential growth in that tax will become for small businesses. That is an example. Ten months does not make a policy of certainty with respect to tax relief. We need to provide continuity of that policy with respect to tax relief, and small business expensing is certainly part of it. We can expand the loan limits under the SBA's programs, and 7(a) and 504 already demonstrated they can work. They did work in the year in which we expanded those programs. It has been demonstrated nationwide and certainly conclusively in my State. So why not move expeditiously to address those issues? Finally, we can pay for it. We can redirect the stimulus. I think that is the most conservative, effective approach to paying for this legislation because, after all, if we have only spent 30 percent of the appropriated funds under stimulus and only 37 percent overall of the stimulus, we may not even spend $600 billion at the end of this year; we need to spend it now. That is the point, is spending it now. What are we waiting for? There is no question that there is a sense of despair across the landscape in looking at the unemployment numbers. We are not creating jobs; we are losing jobs every month. Albeit it has improved in terms of the number of jobs lost, the fact is, we need to create millions and millions of jobs in addition to offsetting the new entrants into the market every month. We have a 9.7-percent unemployment rate. That means we have to get to work, and the only way we can do that is helping small businesses, and the only way we can do that is to put these initiatives to work before the Easter recess. Let's not delay and defer. We have time to do it now. It has broad unanimous support in the Small Business Committee. There is no reason we cannot accomplish this goal now. I appreciate the majority leader's indication and commitment that he will bring a small business package to the floor. I urge the leader and I urge all Members of the Senate to support doing that before the Easter recess because we need to adopt it now, not months from now, because people depend on these jobs. There is uncertainty, and people are looking on their Main Streets in their communities, and what are they seeing is trouble. They are wondering whether the hardware store is going to stay open, or the barbershop. That creates either certainty or uncertainty; that is what creates either despair or hope. So I hope we would move and that we would move with a sense of urgency with respect to small businesses. If we are depending on them, then we have to get to work now. There is no reason, no rationale, no excuse for not taking action in this Chamber in this Congress that can be signed by the President and that we can move forward on. So we should strive with every fiber of our beings to help these longtime beacons of our economy, which is going to give hope to all Americans. What they deserve is to see action that will create the kind of certainty, give them the kinds of resources that they deserve, and do it in a fiscally responsible manner.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I wish to honor a Maine small business that has patriotically devoted itself to giving members of our Nation's military a relaxing surprise by providing Maine soldiers home from the warfront with a comforting night's stay in the picturesque western Maine town of Paris. Opened by Janice and Glenn Davis in 1999, the King's Hill Inn is a beautiful Victorian inn surrounded by scenic mountains and lakes in historic and peaceful Oxford County. And for Maine soldiers who have just returned from a theater of war, the King's Hill Inn simply promises ``. . . the best, quietest night's sleep with their loved one, far from the cold battlefield.'' This historic inn got its start in 1998 when Janice and Glenn Davis bought and restored the farm property, which was the 1811 birthplace of Horatio King, who served as Postmaster General under President James Buchanan. The rural town of Paris, frequently known as the home of King and Hannibal Hamlin, President Abraham Lincoln's first Vice President and a prominent Maine political figure, is also recognized for its panoply of natural wonders, many of which are accessible from King's Hill Inn. From the inn, guests can experience much of Maine's serene landscape which includes the beautiful Oxford Hills region, the exciting Saco River, as well as area mines that celebrate Maine's gem and mineral concentrations. The inn offers guests six stunning suites, each with a unique and charming setting--perfect for a weekend getaway. To give back to our Nation's bravest men and women who have served overseas, the King's Hill Inn offers a free overnight stay with a complimentary breakfast for each Maine soldier returning from the warfront and his or her significant other. In addition, the Davises offer a 28-percent discount to ``all military personnel stationed around the world'' in honor of their 28-year-old son CAPT Aaron Davis, a member of the U.S. Air Force who has served in Afghanistan. The Davises also work with various local business owners wishing to make donations of their own to the soldiers spending the night at the King's Hill Inn, including restaurants offering a free dinner and florists providing beautiful floral arrangements. After experiencing firsthand how difficult it was to part with her son when he was leaving to serve a year in the war in Afghanistan, Janice realized how such departures would be even more heartbreaking for the spouses of active-duty military personnel. Her objective in offering this magnanimous promotion is to provide soldiers with ``. . . that escape from the war front and that reunification with their spouse or loved one. My goal is that it will start a grassroots effort right here in Western Maine that will spread all the way to California, where my son is.'' The King's Hill Inn has truly offered a noble gift to our servicemen and women who have sacrificed so much for the people of our great Nation. I am hopeful that this gracious altruism will be mirrored in the actions of other businesses, small and large, wishing to make a positive difference for some of the most deserving members of our communities. I offer my sincerest thanks to the the Davises for their compassionate and philanthropic support of our military personnel and offer my best wishes for the future success of King's Hill Inn.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation that I am introducing today, the Deepwater Wind Incentive Act, which will provide a critical long-term renewable production tax credit for developing deepwater wind facilities in the U.S. Deepwater wind refers to a new offshore wind technology that utilizes advanced floating technologies to remove restrictions on the depth of the water and expand our offshore wind resource by nearly a magnitude of six. Last year, Popular Science named deepwater wind one of the eight technologies that can revolutionize our energy paradigm. I am pleased to have worked with Senators Carper and Collins, two longtime leaders on offshore wind development, on this proposal and look forward to discussing this bill with my Finance Committee colleagues. Currently, there is a race to develop deepwater offshore wind facilities that could eventually be placed throughout our world's oceans and our Great Lakes. A Norwegian company is now moving forward with deployment of the first deep-water offshore floating turbine, which will be located in more than 328 feet of water. The key point is that if you can successfully develop a floating turbine at that depth it can be replicated throughout the world. Our competitors are recognizing this opportunity and are aggressively pursuing this technology. In fact, earlier this year the European Union Industrial Initiative announced a roughly 6 billion euro plan to invest in next generation wind technologies, including deepwater wind, with a goal of supplying 20 percent of its electricity through wind power. Deepwater wind is a resource that provides a tremendous potential for our country and provides a more consistent resource than onshore and near shore wind. Specifically, the U.S. has over 1500 gigawatts of deepwater offshore wind generation within 50 nautical miles of the coastline, and if our country can develop these deepwater technologies, we will have the equivalent of 1500 medium sized nuclear power plants available within a close proximity to the electricity demand of the U.S. Accordingly, I have modeled this legislation after the current tax credits available for nuclear power that exists in the tax code. Specifically, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided a production tax credit for the first 6,000 megawatts from advanced nuclear power. The Deepwater Wind Incentive Act, follows this template and provides a 50 percent bonus renewable production tax credit for advanced offshore wind facilities that are placed in service in more than 60 meters of water. The credit is capped at the first 6,000 megawatts to provide an incentive for companies to expeditiously research and deploy this technology. Time after time, the Department of Energy has indicated that wind can provide a substantial amount of electricity in our country. The Department's ``20 percent Wind Energy by 2030,'' outlined the policy steps that would move wind to be a major source of American power. In the report, the DOE states that the wind industry ``has responded positively to policy incentives when they are in effect.'' This tax policy provides a consistent and clear tax credit to achieve the 20 percent by 2030 that is considered in the report. I thank Senator Carper and Senator Collins for their assistance in crafting this legislation and I look forward to working with them to enact this legislation into law.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation that I am introducing today, the Deepwater Wind Incentive Act, which will provide a critical long-term renewable production tax credit for developing deepwater wind facilities in the U.S. Deepwater wind refers to a new offshore wind technology that utilizes advanced floating technologies to remove restrictions on the depth of the water and expand our offshore wind resource by nearly a magnitude of six. Last year, Popular Science named deepwater wind one of the eight technologies that can revolutionize our energy paradigm. I am pleased to have worked with Senators Carper and Collins, two longtime leaders on offshore wind development, on this proposal and look forward to discussing this bill with my Finance Committee colleagues. Currently, there is a race to develop deepwater offshore wind facilities that could eventually be placed throughout our world's oceans and our Great Lakes. A Norwegian company is now moving forward with deployment of the first deep-water offshore floating turbine, which will be located in more than 328 feet of water. The key point is that if you can successfully develop a floating turbine at that depth it can be replicated throughout the world. Our competitors are recognizing this opportunity and are aggressively pursuing this technology. In fact, earlier this year the European Union Industrial Initiative announced a roughly 6 billion euro plan to invest in next generation wind technologies, including deepwater wind, with a goal of supplying 20 percent of its electricity through wind power. Deepwater wind is a resource that provides a tremendous potential for our country and provides a more consistent resource than onshore and near shore wind. Specifically, the U.S. has over 1500 gigawatts of deepwater offshore wind generation within 50 nautical miles of the coastline, and if our country can develop these deepwater technologies, we will have the equivalent of 1500 medium sized nuclear power plants available within a close proximity to the electricity demand of the U.S. Accordingly, I have modeled this legislation after the current tax credits available for nuclear power that exists in the tax code. Specifically, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided a production tax credit for the first 6,000 megawatts from advanced nuclear power. The Deepwater Wind Incentive Act, follows this template and provides a 50 percent bonus renewable production tax credit for advanced offshore wind facilities that are placed in service in more than 60 meters of water. The credit is capped at the first 6,000 megawatts to provide an incentive for companies to expeditiously research and deploy this technology. Time after time, the Department of Energy has indicated that wind can provide a substantial amount of electricity in our country. The Department's ``20 percent Wind Energy by 2030,'' outlined the policy steps that would move wind to be a major source of American power. In the report, the DOE states that the wind industry ``has responded positively to policy incentives when they are in effect.'' This tax policy provides a consistent and clear tax credit to achieve the 20 percent by 2030 that is considered in the report. I thank Senator Carper and Senator Collins for their assistance in crafting this legislation and I look forward to working with them to enact this legislation into law.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Kaufman, to introduce legislation that puts a greater focus on efforts to improve the technical resources and decision-making process at the Federal Communications Commission. The bill proposes a study by the National Academy of Sciences on the technical policy decision-making process and the availability of technical personnel at FCC. Over the past several years, there have been concerns voiced by the technical community and even Commissioners themselves about the lack of technical resources and expertise at the Federal Communications Commission, FCC. It is for good reason: in 1948, the FCC had 720 engineers on staff; today, it has fewer than 300--an astonishing 62 percent reduction--even though the FCC now must face technical issues concerning the Internet, advanced wireless communications, and broadband. Also, FCC officials have recently acknowledged a shortage of network engineers and that a large number of experienced engineers are eligible to retire within the next few years. Yet, communications technologies are becoming increasingly complex-- evolving from the traditional circuit-switched phone networks to packet-based dynamic-routing high-bandwidth data networks. The need to thoroughly address these issues challenges staff and leads to delays or even inaction in technical rulemakings since the Commission doesn't have the appropriate resources for timely technical evaluation and decisionmaking. Technical proceedings, including those to authorize new technologies, have been dismally slow--typically taking 2-5 years for approval-- creating a bottleneck for innovation and competition. A December 2009 report by the Government Accountability Office, GAO- 10-10-79, reaffirms these concerns and provides additional evidence of the need for such a study. The GAO concluded that ``weaknesses in FCC's processes for collecting and using information also raise concerns regarding the transparency and informed nature of FCC's decisionmaking process.'' Furthermore, the report found the ``FCC faces challenges in ensuring it has the expertise needed to adapt to a changing marketplace.'' With the rapid advancement of technologies and innovation within the telecommunications industry, the FCC must be better equipped and more agile to address the ever-changing technical landscape from a regulatory perspective. If it isn't, our Nation's technical leadership in this area will continue to erode and it will be even more difficult to lay the proper policy foundation necessary to meet future telecommunications needs. To better examine these significant issues and make tangible recommendations toward a comprehensive solution, this legislation proposes a study by the National Academy of Sciences on the technical policy decisionmaking process and the availability of technical personnel at FCC. Specifically, the study would include an examination of the FCC's technical policy decisionmaking, current technical personnel staffing levels, and agency recruiting and hiring processes of technical staff and engineers, and recommendations to improve these areas. The study would provide tangible and specific proposals to streamline processes and rulemakings as well as how the FCC can be more competitive in hiring the required technical personnel to make it more effective. The bill authorizes $1 million over a 2-year period to conduct this comprehensive technical study. This bill takes a step towards ensuring the Commission has the adequate resources and proper technical decisionmaking processes in place to be a more effective agency. This is absolutely critical given how rapidly technologies are changing and the implications that regulation could have on the underlying technical catalysts of innovation. It is also critical to overall reform at the Commission because in order to properly regulate communications, the FCC must be deeply knowledgeable of both the legal and technical aspects of the issues before it. That is why I sincerely hope that my colleagues join Senator Kaufman and me in supporting this important legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Kaufman, to introduce legislation that puts a greater focus on efforts to improve the technical resources and decision-making process at the Federal Communications Commission. The bill proposes a study by the National Academy of Sciences on the technical policy decision-making process and the availability of technical personnel at FCC. Over the past several years, there have been concerns voiced by the technical community and even Commissioners themselves about the lack of technical resources and expertise at the Federal Communications Commission, FCC. It is for good reason: in 1948, the FCC had 720 engineers on staff; today, it has fewer than 300--an astonishing 62 percent reduction--even though the FCC now must face technical issues concerning the Internet, advanced wireless communications, and broadband. Also, FCC officials have recently acknowledged a shortage of network engineers and that a large number of experienced engineers are eligible to retire within the next few years. Yet, communications technologies are becoming increasingly complex-- evolving from the traditional circuit-switched phone networks to packet-based dynamic-routing high-bandwidth data networks. The need to thoroughly address these issues challenges staff and leads to delays or even inaction in technical rulemakings since the Commission doesn't have the appropriate resources for timely technical evaluation and decisionmaking. Technical proceedings, including those to authorize new technologies, have been dismally slow--typically taking 2-5 years for approval-- creating a bottleneck for innovation and competition. A December 2009 report by the Government Accountability Office, GAO- 10-10-79, reaffirms these concerns and provides additional evidence of the need for such a study. The GAO concluded that ``weaknesses in FCC's processes for collecting and using information also raise concerns regarding the transparency and informed nature of FCC's decisionmaking process.'' Furthermore, the report found the ``FCC faces challenges in ensuring it has the expertise needed to adapt to a changing marketplace.'' With the rapid advancement of technologies and innovation within the telecommunications industry, the FCC must be better equipped and more agile to address the ever-changing technical landscape from a regulatory perspective. If it isn't, our Nation's technical leadership in this area will continue to erode and it will be even more difficult to lay the proper policy foundation necessary to meet future telecommunications needs. To better examine these significant issues and make tangible recommendations toward a comprehensive solution, this legislation proposes a study by the National Academy of Sciences on the technical policy decisionmaking process and the availability of technical personnel at FCC. Specifically, the study would include an examination of the FCC's technical policy decisionmaking, current technical personnel staffing levels, and agency recruiting and hiring processes of technical staff and engineers, and recommendations to improve these areas. The study would provide tangible and specific proposals to streamline processes and rulemakings as well as how the FCC can be more competitive in hiring the required technical personnel to make it more effective. The bill authorizes $1 million over a 2-year period to conduct this comprehensive technical study. This bill takes a step towards ensuring the Commission has the adequate resources and proper technical decisionmaking processes in place to be a more effective agency. This is absolutely critical given how rapidly technologies are changing and the implications that regulation could have on the underlying technical catalysts of innovation. It is also critical to overall reform at the Commission because in order to properly regulate communications, the FCC must be deeply knowledgeable of both the legal and technical aspects of the issues before it. That is why I sincerely hope that my colleagues join Senator Kaufman and me in supporting this important legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, each day we read too many stories of small businesses unable to weather the current economic storm. Countless small firms both in Maine and across the Nation have been unable to compete with large chain stores and have been literally priced out of the market. Thankfully, today I wish to tell an inspirational success story and recognize a local retailer in my home State of Maine that has met the challenges of this difficult economic climate head on and continues to grow and thrive. Bull Moose is a small retail chain originally founded in Brunswick, ME. The company initially focused on providing its customers solely with music but has now branched out into many forms of entertainment and media, including movies, games, and books. Its founder and president, Brett Wickard, characterizes Bull Moose as selling ``inexpensive fun stuff.'' Twenty years ago, when Mr. Wickard was a college student at Brunswick's Bowdoin College, the local record store closed down. Now many of us would have just found another place to buy cassettes or records, but this young Bowdoin entrepreneur had a different idea. With just $7,000 of his own money and a small loan, Brett Wickard launched Bull Moose Music in the summer of 1989, and a truly homegrown business success story began. Mr. Wickard arranged his course schedule around his new store hours and had friends work in the store while he was in class. The Bull Moose business plan began by looking up record distributors in the Yellow Pages and ordering one album by every artist and band that had released at least two albums. The thought process was if you made a second album, you must be a good band. In the first summer, Bull Moose Music had sales of barely $100 a day, and Brett was forced to use his credit card as a tool to survive. But with dedication and perseverance, Bull Moose has grown from these humble beginnings in Brunswick to include 10 stores in both Maine and New Hampshire with over 100 employees. To keep up with the added demand, the company has now produced its own software to analyze which albums and artists it should carry based on the purchasing history of each of the store's customers. Mr. Wickard actually designed the Bull Moose purchasing software as his senior project while still a Bowdoin student--quite an upgrade from scouring the Yellow Pages! Bull Moose recently celebrated its 20th anniversary and is on track to have its best year ever despite the current recession. Nevertheless, it continues to face the challenges confronting many small businesses. Beyond the severity of the economic downturn, large chain stores make it increasingly difficult to compete, and digital downloads of music have reduced the number of customers buying music in stores. As a result of these overwhelming roadblocks, many small businesses have been forced to cut staff and eliminate bonuses. In contrast, Bull Moose has tripled Christmas bonuses and continues to hire more staff, including a location in Bangor, ME, that has tripled in size. Mr. Wickard credits Bull Moose's commitment to customer service and convenience to their unprecedented success and growth. It is indeed refreshing to see a superb small business overcome the many obstacles it faces in today's market. Stories such as this should renew our focus to help small entrepreneurs succeed because as small businesses like Bull Moose continue to grow, they provide a substantial positive impact on the health of the local community and our overall economy. My home State of Maine has benefited greatly from Bull Moose's success, and I wish Mr. Wickard and everyone at Bull Moose continued success for years to come.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleague Senator Pryor, to introduce the Job Impact Analysis Act of 2010, a bipartisan measure that will help ensure that the Federal Government--both Congress and agencies of the executive branch--fully considers small business job creation in the bills we pass here in Congress and in the rules and regulations that agencies promulgate. As the former Chair and now Ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I believe there is no more urgent imperative than job creation in our country. With 25,000 additional unemployed in my State of Maine alone, since the recession began in 2007, and twenty-three million Americans unemployed or underemployed, it is more paramount than ever that everything we do must focus like a laser on jumpstarting our economy. Furthermore, the fastest route to recovery runs through Main Street small businesses, which over the past 15 years have generated 64 percent of all net new jobs in this country, and so we must foster an entrepreneurial environment where small businesses can take risks and invest in the future to preserve and create more jobs. The legislation we are introducing today would help make sure that in whatever measure we are debating--whether it be health care reform, a jobs bill, or financial services overhaul--that we strive to discern whether it contributes to creating a climate in which our smallest enterprises and entrepreneurs cannot only survive, but thrive. It would amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to direct the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, to the extent practicable, to estimate in a ``job impact statement'' the potential job creation or job loss attributable to each bill or joint resolution reported by a congressional committee that exceeds $5 billion in costs. For years we have had environmental impact statements, and so in 2010, I do not think it is too much to ask, where are the job impact statements? As our Nation continues to reel from the worst set of economic circumstances since World War II, Congress must focus on job creation, and we must begin by ensuring all economic factors--including potential small business job creation and job loss--are fully considered in debate of every bill that we consider in the Senate. It is clear that Washington has ignored the will of the people for far too long. At a time when the Nation is struggling to dig out of the deepest recession since the Great Depression, we must ensure that our country once again brings to bear the kind of ingenuity, creativity, and innovation that made America and our free-market economy the greatest and most powerful on earth. I believe that a job impact statement attached to every bill with costs over $5 billion would provide a powerful incentive for Congress to focus its efforts where they belong and help Congress focus on what matters to the American people these days--job creation. In addition, onerous regulations are crushing the entrepreneurial spirit of America's small businesses. In 2009, there were close to 70,000 pages in the Federal Register, which chronicles new regulations by the government. Furthermore, according to research by the Small Business Administration's, SBA's, Office of Advocacy, the annual cost of Federal regulations totals $1.1 trillion, and small firms bear a disproportionate burden, paying approximately 45 percent more per employee in annual regulatory compliance costs than larger firms. Small firms also spend twice as much on tax compliance than their larger counterparts. So our legislation includes several targeted regulatory reforms that would help to ensure that Federal agencies fully consider small business implications during the rulemaking process. The reforms in our bill are based on what we introduced in the Regulatory Flexibility Reform Act in the 109th Congress and the Independent Office of Advocacy and Small Business Regulatory Reform Act of 2008, from the 110th Congress. Most of these reforms have been supported by a host of small business stakeholders, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Small Business Association, the National Association for the Self-Employed, Women Impacting Public Policy, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, Small Business Legislative Council, and the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. Our measure would amend the Regulatory Flexibility Act, RFA, the seminal legislation, enacted in 1980, which requires agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory proposals on small businesses, to analyze effective alternatives that minimize small business impact, and to make their analyses available for public comment. The RFA requires federal agencies to conduct a small business analysis any time a proposed Federal rule would impose a ``significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses.'' Unfortunately, there remain a number of loopholes in the RFA that undermine its effectiveness in reducing these regulatory burdens. Our legislation would close loopholes in this process, while also ensuring that Federal agencies consider potential job creation and job loss during the rulemaking process. In far too many cases, Federal agencies promulgate rules and regulations without adequately addressing the economic impact on small businesses. Under our legislation agencies must consider the ``indirect'' effects of an ``economic impact.'' Rules with indirect effects are currently exempt from RFA coverage according to well-established case law. This has serious consequences for small businesses. It means that Federal agencies can avoid the various analyses required under the RFA by either requiring the states to regulate small entities or regulating an industry so rigorously that it has a negative trickle down impact on other industries. For example, rules can regulate a handful of large manufacturers in the same industry. Yet, a foreseeable, indirect effect of these rules--not presently considered under RFA analyses--is that small distributors would no longer have the right to sell the product produced by the larger manufacturers. The RFA has already saved billions of dollars for small businesses by forcing government regulators to be sensitive to their direct impact on small firms. If billions of dollars can be filtered out of direct regulatory mandates upon small business while improving workplace safety and environmental conditions, even more can be saved by filtering out unnecessary or duplicative costs to those small businesses indirectly impacted by regulation. Those dollars would be better spent by the businesses hiring more employees or providing existing employees with greater benefits, and would also help to prevent unintended job loss through regulatory requirements. Our legislation also requires Federal agencies to consider comments provided by the SBA's Office of Advocacy, which has historically not received the public attention it deserves. In case after case, it has been the last, best hope for small businesses faced with burdensome, duplicative and nonsensical Federal regulations. Our legislation would also amend the RFA to include a provision for agencies to specifically respond to comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy. Codifying this necessary change would ensure that agencies give the proper deference to the Office of Advocacy, and to the comments and concerns of small businesses. This is a straightforward and simple reform that could have major benefits. In addition, our measure would also clarify the circumstances for when ``periodic review'' under the RFA is required. Many questions have arisen as a result of ambiguous language in the RFA that has caused some confusion as to what rules require periodic review, and when. Under our bill, periodic review, with a focus on potential job creation or job loss, would be required for all final rules that would impose a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses. Agencies would be required to review all 10-year-old rules every year to avoid confusion over which rules to review. In addition, agencies would be required to review rules every 10 years and not just the first 10 years. Finally, our bill would ensure the statutory and budgetary independence of the SBA Office of Advocacy, a key office that is intended to be the independent voice for small business within the Federal Government. It is charged with the duty of representing the views and interests of small businesses before other Federal agencies, and developing proposals for changing government policies to help small businesses. These roles can sometimes come into conflict. Our bill would resolve such conflicts in favor of the small businesses that rely on the Chief Counsel and the Office of Advocacy to be a fully independent advocate within the Executive Branch. The bill would help to reinforce a clear mandate that the Office of Advocacy must fight on behalf of small businesses, regardless of the position taken on critical issues by the administration. Funding for the Office of Advocacy currently comes from the ``Salaries and Expense Account'' of the SBA's budget. Staffing is allocated by the SBA Administrator to the Office of Advocacy from the overall staff allocation for the Agency. In 1990, there were 70 full-time employees working on behalf of small businesses in the Office of Advocacy. Today, there are fewer than 50. The independence and effectiveness of the Office is potentially diminished when the Office of Advocacy staff is reduced, at the discretion of the administrator. To address this problem, our legislation would build a firewall to minimize political intrusion into the management of day-to-day operations of the Office of Advocacy similar to the one that protects Inspectors General in other agencies. The bill would require the Federal budget to include a separate account for the Office of Advocacy drawn directly from the General Fund of the Treasury. No longer would its funds come from the general operating account of the SBA. This will free the Chief Counsel for Advocacy from having to seek approval from the SBA Administrator to hire staff for the Office of Advocacy. Our bill would leave unchanged current law that allows the Chief Counsel to hire individuals critical to the mission of the Office of Advocacy without going through the normal competitive procedures directed by Federal law and the Office of Personnel Management. This long-standing special hiring authority, which is limited only to employees within the Office of Advocacy, is beneficial because it allows the Chief Counsel to hire quickly those persons who can best assist the Office in responding to changing issues and problems confronting small businesses. This non-controversial, bipartisan legislation is absolutely necessary. I urge my colleagues to support my bill so we can ensure that our Nation's small businesses and their employees are provided with much needed relief. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Landrieu, Bond, and Merkley to introduce the Historically Underutilized Business Zone, HUBZone, Improvement Act of 2010. This vital piece of bipartisan legislation is similar to that which I introduced in the 110th Congress, S. 3699. The purpose of the bill is to help ensure that only eligible firms participate in the critical HUBZone program by requiring that the Small Business Administration, SBA, implement Government Accountability Office, GAO, recommendations for improving the management, oversight and evaluation of the program. As former Chair and now Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have long championed critical small business programs such as the HUBZone program, which provides Federal contracting opportunities to small firms located in economically distressed areas. The program is devised to help stimulate economic development and job creation. In these troubled economic times, a properly functioning HUBZone program is essential for nation-wide economic recovery. According to the SBA, as of October 2009, 21,222 certified businesses have participated in the HUBZone program since its inception in 1997. In fiscal year 2008, HUBZone firms were awarded approximately $10.1 billion in Federal contracts. And let there be no doubt--with the Federal Government contracting for over $500 billion in goods and services in fiscal year 2009 alone--we must have a robust and trustworthy HUBZone program for small businesses to continue generating jobs in our nation's most economically distressed communities. The GAO has issued multiple reports detailing fraud and abuses within the HUBZone program. Alarmingly, the GAO found that the mechanisms the SBA uses to certify and monitor HUBZone firms provide limited assurance that only eligible firms participate in the program. The GAO specifically stated that the ``SBA's control weaknesses exposed the government to fraud and abuse.'' The GAO also had concerns that the SBA had no mechanisms to adequately assess program results. The legislation I am introducing today would take immediate steps to rectify the serious issues that GAO found. The bill requires the SBA to implement the GAO recommendations resulting from the study and audits. These include maintaining an accurate, correct and up-to-date map; implementing policies that ensure that only eligible firms participate in the program; employing appropriate technology to control costs and maximize other benefits, such as uniformity, completeness, simplification and efficiency; notifying the Congressional Small Business Committees of any backlogs in applications and recertifications with plans and timetables for eliminating the backlogs; and implementing plans to assess the effectiveness of the HUBZone program. Moreover, the Federal Government must strive to continue to provide maximum practicable contracting opportunities to those who are legitimate HUBZone firms. I am dismayed by the myriad ways that government departments and agencies have time and again egregiously failed to meet most of their statutory small business contracting goals. I am alarmed that only one Federal small business contracting program--the Small Disadvantaged Business program--has met its statutory goal, and that the three other small business goaling programs have all fallen drastically short. In fiscal year 2008, the Federal Government met only 2.34 percent of its 3 percent government- wide goal for the HUBZone program. Even worse, the Federal Government missed meeting its overall goal for small business contracting by almost 2 percent, depriving small businesses of over $10 billion. I am confident that this legislation will require the changes necessary to eliminate fraud while paving the way for the Federal Government to maximize the use of this contracting vehicle. In turn, qualified HUBZone firms will provide the essential job creation and economic development necessary in their respective communities. The HUBZone program is a tremendous tool for replacing lost jobs across all industry sectors in distressed geographic areas, and clearly, this program should be better utilized. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.