Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, at the onset of Women's History Month, along with my colleagues Senators Gillibrand, Landrieu, Bennet, Shaheen, Mikulski, and Murkowski to introduce the Fairness in Women-Owned Small Business Contracting Act. The purpose of the bill is to remove inequities that exist in the women-owned small business contracting program, when compared to other socio-economic programs. As former Chair and now Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have long championed women entrepreneurship and have urged both past and present Administrations to implement the woman-owned small business, WOSB, Federal contracting program, which was enacted into law 10 years ago. On March 4, 2010, the Small Business Administration, SBA, finally proposed a workable rule to implement the women's procurement program. I am pleased to report that today there is a functional WOSB contracting program, however, the program lacks the critical elements that the SBA's 8(a), historically underutilized business zones, and the service-disabled veteran-owned government contracting programs include. To remedy this, our bipartisan bill will help provide tools women need to compete fairly in the Federal contracting arena by allowing for receipt of non-competitive contracts, when circumstances allow. Moreover, the legislation would eliminate a restriction on the dollar amount of a contract that a WOSB can compete for, thus putting them on a level playing field with the other socio-economic contracting programs. Women-owned small businesses have yet to receive their fair share of the Federal marketplace. In fact, our government has never achieved its goal of five percent of contracts going to WOSBs, achieving only 4.04 percent in fiscal year 2010. Our bill would greatly assist Federal agencies in achieving the small business goaling requirement for WOSBs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, throughout the 112th Congress, I have consistently implored my colleagues to remember the value of our Nation's small businesses. These enterprising firms are the key to job creation. Nowhere is this more prevalent than in my home State of Maine, whose entrepreneurial spirit has remained vibrant as businesses continue to make headlines. Today I wish to recognize and commend Baxter Brewing Company, whose owner and founder, Luke Livingston, was recently named one of Forbes Magazine's 30 under 30 in the food and wine category. A native of Auburn, ME, Luke began brewing while still in college at Clark University in Worcester, MA. Following college, although he was successfully employed, Luke's passion continued to remain in brewing. At 24, he decided it was time to take the leap, and quit his day job to develop a business plan for Baxter Brewing Company. In seeking to create a well-crafted business plan--particularly in such a tumultuous economy--Luke turned to counselors within the Maine Small Business Development Center, who provided him critical guidance that was instrumental in achieving his goal. Now at age 27, Luke's dream has become a reality, as his business has quickly risen to the ranks of top micro-breweries. Baxter Brewing Company, began selling its product in January of 2011, and is located in a portion of newly renovated space at the Bates Mill Complex, a historic former textile mill in downtown Lewiston. Currently, the company offers three varieties of beer including a Stowaway India Pale Ale, IPA, Pamola Xtra Pale Ale, and its newest addition, the Amber Road. Unlike most craft beer producers, Luke sells his micro-brew in cans rather than glass bottles. By using cans, Baxter is able to utilize recycled materials while reducing shipping costs and providing fresher beer to their customers at the same time. Recently, celebrating Baxter's first year anniversary, Luke's gamble has certainly paid off with expanding sales markets and multiple accolades for the young brewery. In the first year, the company sold slightly over 5,000 barrels of beer, making it one of 2011's most successful first year craft breweries. Accordingly, in addition to Luke's personal recognition by Forbes, Baxter Brewing is also being recognized by BevNet Magazine, an elite beverage trade magazine, as the New Brewery of the Year. As Baxter Brewing Company continues to expand further into Massachusetts and New Hampshire, this small business offers incredible insight into how young entrepreneurs can triumph in today's economy. Luke's ambition and zealous commitment to his craft have provided a remarkable pathway to success. I am proud to extend my congratulations to Luke and everyone at Baxter Brewing for their richly deserved honors, and offer my best wishes for their future endeavors.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce valuable, bipartisan legislation that would codify the current policy of the Social Security Administration, SSA, to protect access to the Supplemental Security Income, SSI, program for those who prepay burial and funeral expenses. When individuals are fiscally responsible, and plan ahead for their end-of-life costs, it makes no sense to penalize them. Under the current policy, if funds or life insurance are set aside, irrevocably-- so the individual cannot take them back even if he or she wants to-- then those resources do not count against the individual when determining whether or not they are eligible for SSI. This is a good policy, and I applaud the SSA for maintaining it. Regrettably, this has not always been the case. When Congress passed anti-fraud legislation in 2000, the next year SSA misinterpreted provisions in the new law because it did not specifically carve out the exclusion for burial trusts. Therefore, SSA had the power to end the exclusion--and in fact, it did. SSA later realized its mistake and restored the exclusion. However, in the meantime, this hiccup created a wave of chaos for responsible seniors who were wrongly denied access to SSI. This bill will codify the exclusion, so this or future administrations will not even have the possibility of making that mistake again. In doing so, we will not only provide clarity to the administrative agencies, but will also give certainty to SSI enrollees and applicants. They will be ensured that planning ahead to protect their loved ones from the costs associated with death will in no way penalize them when applying for assistance. We are all aware that Americans are facing difficult times with unacceptably high unemployment and an economy that continues to sag. That is why it is unfair to penalize individuals who are fiscally responsible; rather we should further encourage them to plan ahead. This is not a loophole or a giveaway; this is current policy at SSA, and remember that this exclusion is only for funds or insurance that are absolutely going to be spent on burial costs. They are called ``irrevocable trusts'' because once you put the money aside, you cannot get it back. This bill has negligible revenue effect, because it merely tells the government, firmly, to keep doing what it is already doing. I should also point to the fact that we are talking about SSI enrollees-- individuals who generally do not have a lot of resources. If they are fiscally responsible and plan ahead for their burial and funeral costs, this reduces the likelihood of these costs falling on the obligation of State and local governments. I know that we want agencies like SSA to be able to use their discretion and be nimble enough to adapt to a changing environment. However, we have gone that route before, and because of the SSA's mistake in reversing the exclusion in 2001, we need to be absolutely clear about the intent of Congress on this policy. It is unconscionable for seniors to have their applications erroneously delayed or denied, and it is incumbent upon us to enact this simple, straightforward, uncontroversial fix. Americans sacrifice a portion of every paycheck in order to support the programs SSA administers. They do so willingly, knowing that when they retire, or should they become disabled or fall on hard times during old age, programs like SSI will be there for them. This is a promise that we in Congress made to Americans. Enacting this fix is part of keeping that promise. As a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, I worked with SSA in developing this language. Many members have expressed support both for this legislation, and for the underlying policy that it codifies. I urge my colleagues to support enactment of this bill, so that we can keep our promise to the Nation's seniors, provide certainty, and reward fiscal responsibility and prudent planning. 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 to introduce valuable, bipartisan legislation that would codify the current policy of the Social Security Administration, SSA, to protect access to the Supplemental Security Income, SSI, program for those who prepay burial and funeral expenses. When individuals are fiscally responsible, and plan ahead for their end-of-life costs, it makes no sense to penalize them. Under the current policy, if funds or life insurance are set aside, irrevocably-- so the individual cannot take them back even if he or she wants to-- then those resources do not count against the individual when determining whether or not they are eligible for SSI. This is a good policy, and I applaud the SSA for maintaining it. Regrettably, this has not always been the case. When Congress passed anti-fraud legislation in 2000, the next year SSA misinterpreted provisions in the new law because it did not specifically carve out the exclusion for burial trusts. Therefore, SSA had the power to end the exclusion--and in fact, it did. SSA later realized its mistake and restored the exclusion. However, in the meantime, this hiccup created a wave of chaos for responsible seniors who were wrongly denied access to SSI. This bill will codify the exclusion, so this or future administrations will not even have the possibility of making that mistake again. In doing so, we will not only provide clarity to the administrative agencies, but will also give certainty to SSI enrollees and applicants. They will be ensured that planning ahead to protect their loved ones from the costs associated with death will in no way penalize them when applying for assistance. We are all aware that Americans are facing difficult times with unacceptably high unemployment and an economy that continues to sag. That is why it is unfair to penalize individuals who are fiscally responsible; rather we should further encourage them to plan ahead. This is not a loophole or a giveaway; this is current policy at SSA, and remember that this exclusion is only for funds or insurance that are absolutely going to be spent on burial costs. They are called ``irrevocable trusts'' because once you put the money aside, you cannot get it back. This bill has negligible revenue effect, because it merely tells the government, firmly, to keep doing what it is already doing. I should also point to the fact that we are talking about SSI enrollees-- individuals who generally do not have a lot of resources. If they are fiscally responsible and plan ahead for their burial and funeral costs, this reduces the likelihood of these costs falling on the obligation of State and local governments. I know that we want agencies like SSA to be able to use their discretion and be nimble enough to adapt to a changing environment. However, we have gone that route before, and because of the SSA's mistake in reversing the exclusion in 2001, we need to be absolutely clear about the intent of Congress on this policy. It is unconscionable for seniors to have their applications erroneously delayed or denied, and it is incumbent upon us to enact this simple, straightforward, uncontroversial fix. Americans sacrifice a portion of every paycheck in order to support the programs SSA administers. They do so willingly, knowing that when they retire, or should they become disabled or fall on hard times during old age, programs like SSI will be there for them. This is a promise that we in Congress made to Americans. Enacting this fix is part of keeping that promise. As a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, I worked with SSA in developing this language. Many members have expressed support both for this legislation, and for the underlying policy that it codifies. I urge my colleagues to support enactment of this bill, so that we can keep our promise to the Nation's seniors, provide certainty, and reward fiscal responsibility and prudent planning. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have the privilege of hearing countless small business success stories from hard-working entrepreneurs across the country. Today I wish to recognize and commend the extraordinary achievements of PenBay Solutions, an award-winning geographic information systems, GIS, firm headquartered in Brunswick, ME. Since its inception in 1999, PenBay has grown to become a leader in the expanding GIS industry while spurring job creation. Today, the company employs 26 people in Maine, many of which graduated from the University of Maine system, a primer education institution for GIS. Additionally, PenBay employs several individuals working remotely around the country as well as in their New York and Washington D.C. offices. As a technology leader, PenBay Solutions provides geographic information to help clients economize space, cut costs, comply with building codes, and make better decisions across the board. While GIS is an emerging technology, PenBay has been a forerunner in providing businesses with this vital asset and has distinguished themselves among clients in a breadth of industries including: education, health care, government, and more. Among their many achievements, PenBay has undertaken several complex and fascinating projects of note. In 2006, PenBay assisted the Fire Department of New York, FDNY, in complying with a New York City law that required the FDNY to review certain buildings and evaluate compliance with new building codes and evacuation procedures. PenBay played an instrumental role in helping the Department achieve this goal by automating over 16,000 floor plans for simple retrieval and evaluation. With PenBay's support, the FDNY was able to meet its goals and concentrate on its main mission: protecting and saving New York City residents' lives. In addition to working with the FDNY, PenBay has been awarded many other government contracts. In late 2008, PenBay assisted the 6th Civil Engineering Squadron of MacDill Air Force Base, 6CES, with a maintenance contract of 130 government buildings. In this instance, 6CES lacked the significant in-building data necessary to make informed decisions about the space and floor materials within each building. With minimal disruption to facility operations and within a remarkable turnaround time of 9 days, PenBay Solutions was able to complete Phase 1 of the project and provide the necessary geospatial data for over 1.7 million square feet of building space. As a result of the company's valuable work, Stuart Rich, PenBay's Chief Technology Officer, was honored by the Technology Association of Maine with their 2011 CxO of the Year Award in recognition of his innovation in the geographic information systems industry. Mr. Rich was also inducted into the University of Maine's Francis Crowe Society in 2010. This tremendous honor is bestowed upon University of Maine engineering graduates who have made substantial contributions to the engineering profession. I applaud PenBay Solutions for being a hallmark example of an innovative American small business. Their incredible contributions to geospatial technology truly demonstrate the entrepreneurial spirit and remarkable talent found in my home State of Maine. I am proud to extend my congratulations to everyone at PenBay Solutions, and offer my best wishes for their continued success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today millions of Americans across the country will be reminded of the wonders of love and romance. Some may receive a traditional Valentines Day card, others a perfect bouquet of fragrant flowers, and several lucky individuals will receive delectable chocolates, perhaps enclosed in a magnificent red heart shaped box. While today is Valentines Day, the entire month of February is National Chocolate Lover's month, and with these two festive occasions in mind, I rise to commend Wilbur's of Maine Chocolate Confections located in Freeport, ME. Tom Wilbur and Catherine Carty-Wilbur opened this small chocolatier in 1983, with the goal of providing the highest quality chocolate products to their customers. One of the highlights of Wilbur's is their scrumptious Needham candy, which is a unique delicacy of Maine offering a luxurious blend of chocolate and potato. Wilbur's uses only Maine- farmed potatoes which are among the best in the world in making this delightful treat. Over the years, the store's charm and rich chocolate selection warranted an expansion and Tom and Catherine sought to move from their original Freeport location to a larger space where they could produce more candy. While garnering funds for expansion, the Wilburs consulted with the Maine Small Business and Technology Development Center regarding a seed grant from the Maine Technology Institute, which they were successfully awarded in 2008. This grant allowed Wilbur's to finish research and development on two pieces of equipment, which were integral in enhancing their company's candy production. Today, this small business has three retail store locations, two in Freeport and one in Brunswick. Inquisitive customers can even tour one of their Freeport locations which doubles as Wilbur's factory! Wilbur's also understands the importance of giving back to their local community. Recipients of their generous donations include the Central Maine Medical Center as well as Day One in south Portland--a non-profit whose mission is to reduce youth substance abuse. Additionally, to spread the joy of chocolate making, this small business frequently holds events to instruct individuals in this unique craft, including a summer program to turn children into junior chocolatiers. Earlier this month, Wilbur's even held a fun ``love bug'' event at their Freeport store where individuals could create a special Valentines treat for their loved ones, and demonstrated Needham-making for the Freeport Historical Society. In light of their delicious product and valued contributions to the State, it is no surprise that this small company has received several accolades. In both 2010 and 2011, they were honored with the Readers' Choice Award for Candy Shops by Downeast Maine Magazine. Furthermore, earlier this year Tom and Catherine received the Gowell Award, which is the highest honor bestowed by the New England Retail Confectioner Association and is only given out once every three years--a truly astounding achievement indeed. Throughout the month of February, but especially today, we celebrate our love of all things chocolate. Wilbur's of Maine Chocolate Confections is a shining example of why everyone's heart truly lights up at the thought of consuming delectable chocolate goods. This company not only produces a superior product, but continually provides valuable contributions as active and engaged members of the community. I am proud to extend my congratulations to everyone at Wilbur's of Maine Chocolate Confections for their dedication to excellence, and offer my best wishes for their continued success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, one of the proudest American traditions is that of an individual who starts out on his or her own, takes a risk, and opens a successful business. Such entrepreneurs are the true drivers of our economy, creating jobs and supporting other small enterprises while revitalizing the areas in which they operate. Today I commend chef Masa Miyake of Miyake Restaurants, who has done exactly this in the city of Portland, ME. In 2007, Masa was working as a chef in New York City and living in Queens with his wife and two young children. He dreamt of relocating to a place that offered a better quality of life for his children and somewhere with savory seafood. Maine offered him all of these things, and having vacationed on Maine's coast in the past, the State reminded him of the beauty of his native Japan. Coincidentally, Masa actually grew up in Japan's Aomori Prefecture in northern Japan, Maine's sister state. When Masa opened Food Factory Miyake later that year in Portland, he and his wife and eventually one other person were the sole employees of the operation. As a small firm starting out, they did not have a liquor license, and initially the business was BYOB--bring your own beverage. But through hard work and ingenuity, Masa grew the business and built a respected brand, not to mention an excellent selection of authentic drink pairings including wine and sake. Today, Masa's two restaurants--the revitalized original Miyake and the new Pai Men Miyake noodle restaurant--employ over 38 individuals. Maine is well known for its first-class seafood, and is really beginning to make a name for itself in the trendy world of sushi and haute Asian-fusion cuisine, thanks in no small part to chef Masa Miyake. Further, Masa has developed his 3-acre backyard into a small farm. Here, Masa and his staff grow vegetables and raise livestock to directly supply his restaurants and other local Maine businesses, including Rosemont Markets, Hugo's, and the Barn on Walnut Hill. These include rare animals such as blue Swedish ducks, Freedom Ranger chickens, and guinea hens. This dynamic blend greatly enhances the rich culture of our State, and I congratulate Chef Miyake for his innovative approach to food and hope other budding entrepreneurs will follow his lead. I am proud to extend my congratulations to chef Masa Miyake not only for his substantial contribution to the culinary scene in Maine but also for recognizing and highlighting the appeal of Maine as a great place to raise a family and start a business. Job creators with vision and big ideas like Chef Miyake are exactly what Maine needs as we work to restore and improve the economy in our small but vibrant and beautiful State. I offer my best wishes for continued success to Miyake Restaurants and look forward to Chef Miyake's future succulent dishes.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have heard time and again how difficult it is to start a business in our current economy. As the new year begins, I find it especially critical to honor those entrepreneurs, who in spite of these challenging times, are surmounting all obstacles to pursue the American dream of starting a small business. With this in mind, today I wish to commend and recognize the most recent addition to the renowned brewing family, the Bull Jagger Brewing Company of Portland, ME. Bull Jagger opened in the fall of 2011 with two employees and a dream to produce high-quality lager. In a 1,500-square-foot space in Portland's Riverside Industrial Park, the two owners, Tom Bull and Allan Jagger, have begun producing the Portland Lager. In their small facility, they currently produce about eight barrels a week which makes approximately 1,800 bottles of the refreshing beverage. Their lager debuted at the Portland Harvest on the Harbor in October of 2011 to rave reviews. This success is truly exceptional as only a few years ago, Tom Bull, a Bath native who has worked at local companies such as Gritty McDuff's and the former Stone Coast Brewing, was developing his own homemade beer and dreaming of opening a micro-lager business. Fortunately, after meeting through mutual friends and tasting Tom's homebrew, local businessman Allan Jagger was convinced that Tom's dream was worth pursuing. Together as partners, they decided to turn their aspirations into reality and venture into Maine's micro-brew market. Across the State, both Tom and Allan found that Maine's micro-brew market lacked one particular beer variety--a micro-brew lager. While larger breweries all produce lagers, most micro-breweries shy away from lagers because of the increased length of brewing time in comparison to ales. Typically, lager has to sit in a cold cellar for several weeks to allow proper fermentation to occur. While this may have deterred other micro-breweries in the past, Bull Jagger believed their lager would be worth the wait, and they were certainly right. In true lager fashion, this small brewery allows their lager to ferment over 6 weeks, which is approximately a month longer than traditional ales. This may have diminished the speed with which the product leaves the factory, but it certainly has not slowed down the consumption, as sales are continuing to grow. As a new small business that has already distinguished itself in Maine's prominent micro-brew market, Bull Jagger is looking forward to producing additional varieties, including a Pilsner beer, in the near future. This small firm's attention to detail and initial success demonstrates the remarkable quality of their product. I am proud to extend my congratulations to Tom Bull and Allan Jagger for their tremendous efforts, and offer my best wishes for the continued success of Bull Jagger Brewing Company.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce along with Senator Landrieu the Small Business Tax Extenders Act of 2012, that will provide targeted tax relief legislation to small businesses and extend the essential tax relief provisions that were included in the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, P.L. 111-240. When the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 was crafted, Senator Landrieu and I worked closely with Finance Committee Chair Baucus, then-Ranking Member Grassley, and now Ranking Member Hatch to ensure the critical small business tax provisions that reflected our shared priorities were included in that legislation. We sincerely appreciate all of their hard work on that legislation. As the former Chair and now Ranking Member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and along with current Chair Landrieu, we are well aware of the urgent imperative of job creation in our country. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average annual unemployment rate for 2011 was 9 percent. For the past 3 years, unemployment has been no lower than 8.3 percent, so we are far from where we need to be in a recovery. About 45 percent of the unemployed have been out of work for at least 6 months--a level previously unseen in the 6 decades since World War II. At a time when 14 million Americans are still unemployed, and have been so for the longest period since record keeping began in 1948, our government should be taking every possible step to ease the burden on job creators. We must help create an environment that is conducive to small businesses' job creation. Our Nation's small businesses are the engine of job creation, being responsible for at least 60 percent and perhaps as many as \2/3\ of all new jobs created, and they should be the focus of our support. One critical way to do so is through targeted small business tax incentives. The bill Senator Landrieu and I are introducing today provides those targeted tax incentives that in the past have received bipartisan support both in the Senate and in the House. These tax provisions provide relief to small businesses in their capital investments and to those willing to risk their own savings by investing in the small business. The provisions provide relief to the self-employed as well as to S corporations and partnerships. The success of these provisions over the past several years is evident in the fact we noted above, about small businesses being the one bright spot of job creation even in these troubled times, and this bill will help them continue to grow and continue to help provide jobs. The lifeblood of a small business is its cash flow and this bill contains several provisions to improve it. One of these provisions will address a fundamental injustice of the tax code by extending the deduction for health insurance premiums against not only income taxes but also against payroll taxes. At a rate of 15.3 percent, the self- employment, or SECA, tax is imposed on the health benefits of business owners. This is a costly injustice that makes health insurance just that much more expensive at a time when insurance costs are already prohibitively expensive. In the coming years we will certainly see health premiums rise, making it all the more onerous on small businesses to provide critical benefits to their employees. Allowing the full deduction for health insurance is critical for its affordability. I was thrilled that we were able to address this injustice in the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, and I sincerely hope that this provision can be extended again until we can find a permanent solution. This legislation will also extend a provision permitting general business credits to be carried back 5 years and taken against the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT. Before the enactment of the Small Business Jobs Act, a business's unused general business credit could be carried back to offset taxes paid in the previous year, and the remaining amount could be carried forward for 20 years to offset future tax liabilities. The 5-year carryback of credits will allow business owners to reach back to prior years when they had taxable income to offset prior tax liability with these credits and get immediate cash infusion. Business owners can use this cash as they choose, but as we have seen with net operating loss relief, they use these funds for anything from meeting payroll to investing in new equipment. The same principle applies with respect to the provision that allows credits to be used against the AMT. When Congress implements policies through the tax code, it is with intent that businesses will utilize such incentives to do what they do best, and that is to grow their operations, which in turn leads to hiring additional employees. Unfortunately, during a struggling economic cycle that we have been experiencing for more than 3 years, businesses do not have income tax liability that can be offset with a credit. It is rather simple: if you do not have enough revenue to claim a credit, that credit is of little use to you. An incredible benefit of the carryback and the use of general business credits against the AMT is to make health insurance more affordable for business owners to offer to their employees. This bill would also extend the availability of the so-called Section 179 expensing to give businesses the option of writing off the cost of qualifying capital expenses in the year of acquisition instead of recovering these costs over time through depreciation, and allow businesses to take advantage of higher limits for the so-called Section 179 expensing. Under this provision, up to $250,000 can be expensed for real property and up to $250,000 for equipment, or up to the full $500,000 for just equipment. Expanding Section 179 expensing has been a significant Small Business Committee bipartisan priority of mine and Chair Landrieu's, as well as of former Small Business Committee Chair Kerry, as reflected in no fewer than three separate bills in the previous Congress. I want my colleagues to understand that this provision is expected to confer a major economic boost because it certainly speeds up the recovery time on these investments. Extending this provision will help the businesses modernize while aiding construction firms and their employees. Additionally, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 provided for a temporary reduction in the recognition period for S corporation built- in gains tax. When businesses convert from a C corporation to an S corporation, they have been required to hold their appreciated assets for a full decade or face a punitive level of double taxation. In such instances, first the built-in gain corporate tax rate of 35 percent is applied and then all other applicable federal, state and local shareholder tax rates are applied, often totaling near 60 percent in most states, including Maine. In effect, the built-in gain tax locks-up businesses' own capital and forces them to look elsewhere--a particular challenge for S corporations since closely-held businesses have limited access to the public markets and therefore fewer options for raising needed capital. Recent law changes temporarily shortened this holding period to 7 years, but that is still too long. By infusing capital--that is, releasing their own capital--this provision in the Small Business Jobs Act, reducing the holding period from 7 years to 5 years, enabled companies that have long been S corporations to redeploy this capital to invest in and grow their businesses. Extending this provision also underscores how vital access to capital is for small businesses, while preserving the original policy intent of the holding period and making it more reflective of the shorter business planning cycles of the 21st century. A final provision would extend a complete exclusion on capital gains attributable to small business stock held for five years. Extending this measure will help further critical investment in our nation's small businesses. This is a longstanding priority of mine and of Senator John Kerry--former Chair of the Small Business Committee and my fellow colleague on the Finance Committee. The Kerry-Snowe Invest in Small Business Act of 2009 included this exclusion, which we fought to incorporate into the Small Business Jobs Act. Chair Landrieu and I are very pleased to take-up that mantle together and we are committed to its extension. But targeted small business tax provisions, for all their importance and critical need, are not enough. That is why as a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, I have been urging this administration to champion tax reform, and, in fact, I led a panel on the issue as part of the Economic Summit at the White House more than three years ago. The individual income tax form has more than tripled in length from 52 pages for 1980 to 174 pages for 2009. American taxpayers spend 7.6 billion hours and shell out $140 billion--or one percent of GDP--just struggling to comply with tax filing requirements. This is not surprising as there have been 15,000 changes to the tax code since the last overhaul in 1986. Alarmingly, the tax code is also needlessly restricting our ability to compete in today's integrated global economy, as we strain under the second highest corporate tax burden in the industrialized world. And while this Administration and the Senate majority are pondering whether we should reform our tax code, small businesses continued to struggle with the current tax regime at the expense of creating more jobs and growing operations. While I continue to advocate for comprehensive tax reform, there are certain measures that, although not a silver bullet, should be passed right away to help improve the economic environment for small businesses. The Small Business Tax Extenders Act is a critical example: this legislation contains provisions that Senator Landrieu and I have championed for years to provide small businesses greater cash flow, incentivizing their investments, and increasing tax fairness. Mr. President, it is essential that we pass these small business tax extensions. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so we can ensure that our Nation's small businesses and their employees are provided with much needed tax 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 to pay tribute to the retiring Parliamentarian of the Senate, Alan Frumin, who has for the past two decades faithfully and honorably served this institution and who will, beginning tomorrow, embark upon a new chapter in his professional life. For 20 years, Alan has advised the Senate and the hundreds who have had the privilege of serving here with a deft understanding of its rules, some of which can be quite arcane, and an abiding passion for this august body that will reverberate for generations to come. As Alan departs this Chamber, I extend my personal gratitude to him, wish him the very best, and hope he knows that this country is deeply indebted to him for his longstanding service. At the same time, I want to recognize and applaud a milestone moment in the life of this venerable institution as we welcome Alan's successor, Elizabeth MacDonough, the first woman in the history of the Senate to assume the indispensable responsibilities of the Parliamentarian. Elizabeth, who has served as Senior Assistant Parliamentarian since 2002, has proved herself to be not only well- versed in the labyrinthine procedures of this body but fully prepared for the demanding and often unheralded work of ensuring that my colleagues and I remain within the bounds of proper parliamentary procedure, allowing us to focus less on the operation of the Senate and more on fulfilling the Senate's constitutional role. Since 1931, the Parliamentarian has diligently sat below the President's rostrum, independently advising the Presiding Officer on the often obscure rules and precedents that guide the process and work of the Senate. Tomorrow Elizabeth becomes the first woman in 80 years to answer what can only be deemed a calling, and a noble one at that. There are very few who have amassed the considerable experience, knowledge, and disposition required to serve with distinction in this capacity. Elizabeth is well-equipped to take on this formidable task, and I wish her the very best.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce along with Senator Landrieu the Small Business Tax Extenders Act of 2012, that will provide targeted tax relief legislation to small businesses and extend the essential tax relief provisions that were included in the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, P.L. 111-240. When the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 was crafted, Senator Landrieu and I worked closely with Finance Committee Chair Baucus, then-Ranking Member Grassley, and now Ranking Member Hatch to ensure the critical small business tax provisions that reflected our shared priorities were included in that legislation. We sincerely appreciate all of their hard work on that legislation. As the former Chair and now Ranking Member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and along with current Chair Landrieu, we are well aware of the urgent imperative of job creation in our country. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average annual unemployment rate for 2011 was 9 percent. For the past 3 years, unemployment has been no lower than 8.3 percent, so we are far from where we need to be in a recovery. About 45 percent of the unemployed have been out of work for at least 6 months--a level previously unseen in the 6 decades since World War II. At a time when 14 million Americans are still unemployed, and have been so for the longest period since record keeping began in 1948, our government should be taking every possible step to ease the burden on job creators. We must help create an environment that is conducive to small businesses' job creation. Our Nation's small businesses are the engine of job creation, being responsible for at least 60 percent and perhaps as many as \2/3\ of all new jobs created, and they should be the focus of our support. One critical way to do so is through targeted small business tax incentives. The bill Senator Landrieu and I are introducing today provides those targeted tax incentives that in the past have received bipartisan support both in the Senate and in the House. These tax provisions provide relief to small businesses in their capital investments and to those willing to risk their own savings by investing in the small business. The provisions provide relief to the self-employed as well as to S corporations and partnerships. The success of these provisions over the past several years is evident in the fact we noted above, about small businesses being the one bright spot of job creation even in these troubled times, and this bill will help them continue to grow and continue to help provide jobs. The lifeblood of a small business is its cash flow and this bill contains several provisions to improve it. One of these provisions will address a fundamental injustice of the tax code by extending the deduction for health insurance premiums against not only income taxes but also against payroll taxes. At a rate of 15.3 percent, the self- employment, or SECA, tax is imposed on the health benefits of business owners. This is a costly injustice that makes health insurance just that much more expensive at a time when insurance costs are already prohibitively expensive. In the coming years we will certainly see health premiums rise, making it all the more onerous on small businesses to provide critical benefits to their employees. Allowing the full deduction for health insurance is critical for its affordability. I was thrilled that we were able to address this injustice in the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, and I sincerely hope that this provision can be extended again until we can find a permanent solution. This legislation will also extend a provision permitting general business credits to be carried back 5 years and taken against the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT. Before the enactment of the Small Business Jobs Act, a business's unused general business credit could be carried back to offset taxes paid in the previous year, and the remaining amount could be carried forward for 20 years to offset future tax liabilities. The 5-year carryback of credits will allow business owners to reach back to prior years when they had taxable income to offset prior tax liability with these credits and get immediate cash infusion. Business owners can use this cash as they choose, but as we have seen with net operating loss relief, they use these funds for anything from meeting payroll to investing in new equipment. The same principle applies with respect to the provision that allows credits to be used against the AMT. When Congress implements policies through the tax code, it is with intent that businesses will utilize such incentives to do what they do best, and that is to grow their operations, which in turn leads to hiring additional employees. Unfortunately, during a struggling economic cycle that we have been experiencing for more than 3 years, businesses do not have income tax liability that can be offset with a credit. It is rather simple: if you do not have enough revenue to claim a credit, that credit is of little use to you. An incredible benefit of the carryback and the use of general business credits against the AMT is to make health insurance more affordable for business owners to offer to their employees. This bill would also extend the availability of the so-called Section 179 expensing to give businesses the option of writing off the cost of qualifying capital expenses in the year of acquisition instead of recovering these costs over time through depreciation, and allow businesses to take advantage of higher limits for the so-called Section 179 expensing. Under this provision, up to $250,000 can be expensed for real property and up to $250,000 for equipment, or up to the full $500,000 for just equipment. Expanding Section 179 expensing has been a significant Small Business Committee bipartisan priority of mine and Chair Landrieu's, as well as of former Small Business Committee Chair Kerry, as reflected in no fewer than three separate bills in the previous Congress. I want my colleagues to understand that this provision is expected to confer a major economic boost because it certainly speeds up the recovery time on these investments. Extending this provision will help the businesses modernize while aiding construction firms and their employees. Additionally, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 provided for a temporary reduction in the recognition period for S corporation built- in gains tax. When businesses convert from a C corporation to an S corporation, they have been required to hold their appreciated assets for a full decade or face a punitive level of double taxation. In such instances, first the built-in gain corporate tax rate of 35 percent is applied and then all other applicable federal, state and local shareholder tax rates are applied, often totaling near 60 percent in most states, including Maine. In effect, the built-in gain tax locks-up businesses' own capital and forces them to look elsewhere--a particular challenge for S corporations since closely-held businesses have limited access to the public markets and therefore fewer options for raising needed capital. Recent law changes temporarily shortened this holding period to 7 years, but that is still too long. By infusing capital--that is, releasing their own capital--this provision in the Small Business Jobs Act, reducing the holding period from 7 years to 5 years, enabled companies that have long been S corporations to redeploy this capital to invest in and grow their businesses. Extending this provision also underscores how vital access to capital is for small businesses, while preserving the original policy intent of the holding period and making it more reflective of the shorter business planning cycles of the 21st century. A final provision would extend a complete exclusion on capital gains attributable to small business stock held for five years. Extending this measure will help further critical investment in our nation's small businesses. This is a longstanding priority of mine and of Senator John Kerry--former Chair of the Small Business Committee and my fellow colleague on the Finance Committee. The Kerry-Snowe Invest in Small Business Act of 2009 included this exclusion, which we fought to incorporate into the Small Business Jobs Act. Chair Landrieu and I are very pleased to take-up that mantle together and we are committed to its extension. But targeted small business tax provisions, for all their importance and critical need, are not enough. That is why as a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, I have been urging this administration to champion tax reform, and, in fact, I led a panel on the issue as part of the Economic Summit at the White House more than three years ago. The individual income tax form has more than tripled in length from 52 pages for 1980 to 174 pages for 2009. American taxpayers spend 7.6 billion hours and shell out $140 billion--or one percent of GDP--just struggling to comply with tax filing requirements. This is not surprising as there have been 15,000 changes to the tax code since the last overhaul in 1986. Alarmingly, the tax code is also needlessly restricting our ability to compete in today's integrated global economy, as we strain under the second highest corporate tax burden in the industrialized world. And while this Administration and the Senate majority are pondering whether we should reform our tax code, small businesses continued to struggle with the current tax regime at the expense of creating more jobs and growing operations. While I continue to advocate for comprehensive tax reform, there are certain measures that, although not a silver bullet, should be passed right away to help improve the economic environment for small businesses. The Small Business Tax Extenders Act is a critical example: this legislation contains provisions that Senator Landrieu and I have championed for years to provide small businesses greater cash flow, incentivizing their investments, and increasing tax fairness. Mr. President, it is essential that we pass these small business tax extensions. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so we can ensure that our Nation's small businesses and their employees are provided with much needed tax relief. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, during the past 100 years our country has seen remarkable changes. From horse drawn-carriages to cars and airplanes, and handwritten letters to text messaging, our world has undergone a vast transformation. Few small businesses have had the tenacity to adapt to these changes and continue to prosper, but those who have, deserve our sincerest praise. With this in mind, today I rise to recognize Cyr Bus Lines, located in Old Town, ME, which this year celebrates its 100th anniversary. When John T. Cyr founded this small transportation firm in 1912, it utilized horses and carriages for transporting everything from timber to passengers. And now, the Cyr name is highly regarded throughout Maine for its elite bus transportation. As the needs of Maine changed, so did the company, shifting from local trucking to expand into school buses and motor coaches to best suit the wishes of its customers. The result of Cyr's successful adaptation has been a flourishing enterprise. Today, Cyr buses are a familiar sight to numerous school children and parents, serving 17 different school districts across Maine. Additionally, the company offers over 120 guided coach tours, allowing customers a relaxing and informative trip to several destinations. In 2012, these guided tours include routes to popular destinations throughout New England as well as more distant favorites such as Quebec and New Orleans. This year, one could even book a tour aboard a luxurious Cyr bus to visit Washington D.C. during the magnificent cherry blossom season. Cyr Bus Lines represents a true family-owned small business, which has been handed down throughout generations and is now owned and operated by the founder's grandson, Joe Cyr. Joe took over operations in 1967 from his father, Harvey, and has continually strived to improve the company. As the years have progressed, the fourth generation of the Cyr family has become involved with Joe's son Mike running the coach department and Joe's daughter Becky acting as bookkeeper. In light of this firm's long-term success, it should come as no surprise that this small business has received several honors recognizing their commitment to safety and quality. Most recently in 2011, Cyr Bus Lines was awarded the International Motor Coach Group, IMG, award for Motor Coach Safety. Further, at the 2011 annual meeting of the Maine Chamber Group Trust, the local provider for workers' compensation insurance, Cyr Bus Lines received honors for both ``Most Improved Safety Program'' and for ``No Indemnity Claims in 2010.'' Additionally on April 21, 2011, two of Cyr's employees received first place trophies, in the categories of transit school bus and conventional school bus, for their exceptional driving skills at the Maine Association for Pupil Transportation Central Maine Conference and School Bus Rodeo. A century later, Cyr Bus Lines continues to maintain a position of excellence in the community. This small business' tireless and successful efforts to persevere and prosper in a changing environment represent a truly monumental achievement. I am proud to extend my congratulations to the Cyr family and everyone at Cyr Bus Lines on their 100th anniversary. I offer my best wishes for their continued success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Maine Association of Agricultural Fairs and to congratulate this venerable organization on 100 years of championing the agricultural fair industry and the agricultural community of Maine. As the Maine Association of Agricultural Fairs celebrates its centennial anniversary, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the remarkable progress and strides made by this historic organization in this century and the last. Founded in 1912, the Association served as a vital catalyst in uniting the agricultural fairs across Maine and promoting a shared spirit of fellowship and cooperation. What was once a welcomed vehicle for local farmers to exchange and showcase their cattle and goods has over many decades evolved into 26 officially licensed agricultural fairs. During Maine's fair season, which starts in July and ends in early October, families can look forward to any number of events that have achieved iconic status, including harness racing, educational museums, the world's largest steer and oxen show, as well as a world-class Woodsmen's Day competition--all of which speak to Maine's legendary work ethic and can-do spirit. Every one of Maine's storied agricultural fairs has its own persona, tradition, and imprint on the landscape of our State and the unerring character of our people. In fact, just last year I had the privilege of attending two agricultural fairs--the Skowhegan Fair which began in 1818 and, according to the Association, lays claim to being the oldest continuous-running fair in the United States, and the Fryeburg Fair which is considered Maine's largest agricultural fair, attracting more than 300,000 people annually. In this second decade of the 21st century, the integral role that the Maine Association of Agricultural Fairs and that agriculture itself continue to play in the lives of Mainers could not be more paramount or indispensable. As many of my colleagues in the Senate can attest, and as thousands of Mainers undeniably understand firsthand, the agricultural industry is one of the bedrock foundations of our State and Nation--central both to consumption and commerce. In fact, it was the Father of our country, President George Washington, also an avid agriculturist, who considered the improvement of agriculture as one of the greatest pursuits ``in which more real and important services can be rendered to any country.'' I could not agree more!! What was true at the founding of our great Nation remains ever-true today because of the example set by all in my State who are tied irrevocably to working the land, and by the exceptional leadership of the Maine Association of Agricultural Fairs, Board Members, and volunteers. We could not be more appreciative to them for the well- earned spotlight they shine on the infinite contributions made by Maine farmers and organized fairs, which have become a staple on the yearly calendar for our State and indeed across New England. To experience one of these wonderful fairs is to witness the very best of who we are as Mainers and to experience the limitless pride our farmers take in cultivating the bounty our great State has to offer.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Oregon regarding this critical issue we have been working on for a considerable period of time and that thought we had really cleared on both sides. This language is mightily important to improving the rural economies of this country, particularly because it would expedite the HUBZone designation to allow businesses in those HUBzones to provide jobs by virtue of the fact that they would get preferential treatment in the contracting process. As we know, the Federal Government buys more than $400 billion worth of contracts each year. We want to make sure small businesses and particularly those located in hard-hit areas of our country have access to those contracting dollars and are able to participate on an equal footing. This would create jobs. So I regret the fact that we are not able to get support to move this legislation forward because I know the Senator from Oregon has tested it on both sides. We have run it through the hotline. There are no objections to the language. I cannot understand why we cannot move this very important legislation that absolutely would be central to creating jobs in the areas that need them the most throughout the country, especially when we have such a high unemployment rate. This is not a difficult issue to understand. It is very straightforward. The legislation expedites the timeframe in which these designations occur for HUBzones, particularly because HUBzones are areas that are suffering most with respect to the downturn of this economy. When we have a paltry economic growth of 1.3 percent, of .4 percent, or 2 percent, when we have an unemployment rate that is 8.6 percent but we have had 9 percent or higher for a good 28 months, and over 8 percent for the last 34 months, we need to do something about it. This could help small businesses, and it could help people in these areas who are currently unemployed. So I would hope there would be no objections with respect to this initiative. I thank the Senator from Oregon for his leadership on this matter.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I wish to offer my heartfelt and warm congratulations to Orono Middle School in my State of Maine on being named a National Blue Ribbon School by the U.S. Department of Education earlier this year on September 14, especially as the school community gathers to celebrate this milestone next week. Since the inception of the National Blue Ribbon School Program in 1982, the U.S. Department of Education has undergone a rigorous, selective process of identifying those exceptional schools nationwide where students attain and maintain high academic goals. Needless to say, the bestowal of this well-earned, prestigious award speaks volumes about Orono Middle School's exemplary student accomplishments--and is an accolade in which all RSU 26 school board members, administrators, faculty, staff, and students--not to mention our entire State--can certainly take enormous pride. This distinguished recognition also affords Orono Middle School with an ideal platform to share its outstanding teaching models and approaches under the vision of Principal Robert Lucy with other schools--an opportunity which aligns with the larger effort of the Department of Education to facilitate the robust exchange of the best school leadership and teaching practices. Just as the Bangor region, where Orono is located, is the gateway to the natural wonders of the North Maine Woods and Acadia National Park, it is also a gateway to excellence in education. That is certainly the case at the university level at the University of Maine, my alma mater, as well as at the primary school level at Orono Middle School, where challenging and cultivating young minds is paramount; curiosity is prized; character is rewarded; enthusiasm is contagious; values are imparted; and an exuberant love of learning is palpable, even at times audible, and always ever-present. Principal Lucy aptly characterized this spirit and energy when he wrote that ``a visitor walking the halls hears parents conversing with teachers and students, actors exchanging lines, artists collaborating on projects, mathematicians solving team challenges, and coaches encouraging athletes. The sounds of our community make it clear that Orono Middle School thrives, largely because our students are connected to our school.'' And, thrive, it has, as Orono Middle School is exemplifying Maine's motto, ``Dirigo'' or ``I Lead'' and in doing so, ensuring that the seeds of hope for the next generation are firmly planted and taking root. Orono Middle School is proof positive that our State's hallmark work ethic and can-do spirit are alive and well. Orono Middle School is a top-performing institution on State-required assessments, which teachers use to customize and improve instruction. Eighty percent of Orono Middle School's faculty have advanced degrees and its award-winning roster of teachers place a premium on professional development. The school goes the extra mile to ensure that 100 percent of the student body participates in co-curricular activities and that the pervading climate is one of trust, purpose, and dignity. This focus also helps create an atmosphere where consensus and collaboration are the order of the day and where parents are actively engaged in the learning process of their children. I cannot underscore enough just how instrumental schools like Orono Middle School are to the overall progress of our tremendous State of Maine and indeed in brightening the horizons of this great land we love. What American and Maine political icon, U.S. Senator Margaret Chase Smith, once expressed in words Orono Middle School has demonstrated in action; namely, that ``education is not a means to life but education is life and must not be ignored.'' Orono Middle School has my very best wishes on receiving the National Blue Ribbon School designation this year which could not be more well- deserved.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, across the country the holiday shopping season is in full swing. For many, holiday shopping can be a stressful time, as picking out the ideal gift can often be overwhelming. Luckily, my home State of Maine has several small businesses which offer gift solutions in a fun and festive setting. Today I wish to commend and recognize one of these small businesses, Cool As A Moose, whose retail stores offer unique and creative gifts for the holiday season and throughout the year. Cool As A Moose first opened its doors in 1986 in the coastal town of Bar Harbor. Whether a customer longs for a moose hat or an adorable stuffed animal lobster, this small business offers customers an array of clever products and creative apparel. The company, now owned by Maine resident Kip Stone, has expanded to include stores in Freeport, Portland, and most recently Brunswick. The retailer also has an online presence and two licensed locations in Halifax and Quebec City, Canada. The establishment of a store and headquarters in Brunswick this past May was critical, as it brought jobs to an area of Maine that recently struggled after the closure of the Brunswick Naval Air Station. Kip's tireless search for an ideal location lasted 2 years, as he sought to find an environment that would allow him to open both a store and have space for his other company, Artforms, which supplies many of the designs for the retail store. Kip selected the Old Grand City restaurant and storefront for the flagship store. With this purchase and renovation, Kip furthered a critical mission by helping to revitalize the Brunswick downtown area. As can be seen from this small company's expansion, since its founding, this store's friendly customer service and engaging atmosphere have led to tremendous success. Most recently, Cool As A Moose was honored as the 2011 Merchant of the Year by the Maine Merchants Association. This honor is richly deserved as this small business consistently strives to improve each community it serves through volunteering and supporting area non-profits. Small businesses such as Cool As A Moose are the heart of the economy, and this holiday season I hope Americans will gather with me in supporting these retailers. In these tough economic times, this small firm's willingness to expand and continually strive to put local communities first is especially refreshing. I am proud to extend my congratulations to Kip Stone and everyone at Cool As A Moose for their tremendous efforts and offer my best wishes for continued success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, this morning I rise to speak to the question the Senate will be focused on over the next day or so regarding a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I do not think there is any doubt that we have to reverse this fiscal recklessness, not just for our time but for all time. I have consistently and vehemently championed a balanced budgeted amendment for the past three decades in both the House and the Senate to prevent precisely the kind of fiscal quagmire we are enmeshed in today, with our Federal Government borrowing an astonishing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. In my 30 years in Congress, I have cosponsored a balanced budget amendment 18 times. I spoke or made statements in favor of it 35 times. So I have had some experience in this battle to get the Federal Government to balance revenues with expenditures. I learned that without a self-restraining mechanism, the debt over time only goes in one direction--up. In fact, since 1981 we have debated a constitutional amendment to balance the budget in the Senate on five different occasions and on four occasions in the House of Representatives through 1997. In the meantime, we have seen what has happened with the mounting debt. The impending vote to amend the Constitution represents an unambiguous choice between changing business-as-usual in Washington or embracing the status quo that we can no longer afford, that has brought this country to the edge of our fiscal chasm; the status quo that has led to more than 3 years without passing a Federal budget; the status quo that has brought us the first ever downgrade of America's sterling AAA credit rating; the status quo that was exemplified by the supercommittee's inability to agree on $1.2 trillion in debt reduction over the next 10 years. Now we have two competing balanced budget proposals pending before the Senate in a partisan duel that has become regrettably all too predictable in Washington. Our Nation is on the edge of a fiscal cliff and 20 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed. There should not be two competing proposals on an issue as critical as our Nation's fiscal health and survival. We have been in legislative session for 86 days since July 1st, yet we can only consign about 8 hours or so to the idea on debating the mighty question of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Prior consideration in the Senate, whether it was in 1982--it was 11 days; in 1986 it was 8 days; in 1995 it was more than a month; in 1997 it was another month. We are giving 8 hours to debate two competing proposals rather than addressing the differences through the amendment process so we can ultimately resolve the question once and for all of whether we should have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Amending is consistent with the tradition and practice of the Senate. Yet, regrettably, we will be denied that opportunity which is unprecedented, frankly, on this question. It is a question that clearly deserves much greater deference than is being accorded in the Senate. Thomas Jefferson once wrote, I place economy among the first and most important republican virtues. And, yes, that is republican with a small ``r.'' He went on to say, Public debt is the greatest of dangers to be feared. He wrote in 1798: I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution . . . I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing. Jefferson understood the perils of borrowing. We are not even going as far as Thomas Jefferson was advocating. But he also recognized the danger of debt and deficits do matter. He said: One generation should not pay for the debts of another no more than we should pay the debts of a foreign nation. Jefferson could not have been more right. We have now entered what some economists have labeled an economic danger zone because our gross national debt is approaching 100 percent of gross domestic product. Our outstanding Federal debt exceeds the size of entire economy. There is no question that high levels of debt have stunted economic growth, costing millions of American jobs at a time when we are experiencing the longest period of long-term unemployment and the worst postrecession recovery in the history of this country, the second worst recession in 100 years. Just as disturbingly, the government currently pays $200 billion annually in interest to foreign countries--to foreign countries that hold our Treasury bonds, countries such as China and Russia. The cost of the net increase alone in interest will more than triple in the next 10 years by the year 2021. That is just the net interest that we will pay to foreign countries because of our bonded indebtedness. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office's most recent long-term outlook states that by 2035 interest costs on our Nation's debt will reach 9 percent of the gross domestic product, more than the United States currently spends on Social Security or Medicare. CBO warned that growing debt would increase the probability of a sudden fiscal crisis during which investors would lose confidence in the government's ability to manage its budget and government would thereby lose its ability to borrow at affordable rates. That is exactly what is happening in Europe. It could also happen here at any moment in time. It could be a small item that ultimately precipitates and triggers a debt crisis, that puts this economy in jeopardy and peril as we experienced so dramatically in America in 2008. We do not know what all could ignite this explosive growth in debt. If interest rates were just 1 percentage point higher per year over the next decade, the deficit would balloon by $1.3 trillion from increased costs. To put these numbers in perspective, we have to look at the past. It took our Nation 200 years to accumulate its first trillion-dollar debt. Yet in just the past 3 years alone the national debt has soared by nearly $5 trillion. Let's just repeat that for a moment. In the first 200 years we accumulated $1 trillion in debt. In the last 3 years we have accumulated $5 trillion. So when the President stated last summer that we do not need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs, well, not exactly. If that were true, if such an amendment were not required for us to do our jobs then why do we find ourselves wallowing in this economic morass? If Congress actually possessed the capacity to forestall the skyrocketing debt of its own volition, why are we mired in a major debt crisis? Why are the CBO and other economic forecasters reiterating and underscoring the negative outlook for the future if we do not grapple with this debt? The facts speak for themselves. In 1986 when the Senate failed by one vote to pass a balanced budget amendment, the national debt topped $2.1 trillion. In 1995, the Senate failed again by one vote to pass a balanced budget amendment, and the national debt at that time was $4.8 trillion. In 1997, when the Senate yet again failed to pass it by one vote, the national debt was $5.3 trillion, a number we found staggering. But, apparently, it was not staggering enough, as the abysmal track record following 1997 dramatically demonstrates. In 1999, just 2 years after that fateful vote, the debt rose to $5.6 trillion. By 2009 it rose to $11 trillion, and last year to $13.5 trillion. Today, it is at $15.1 trillion. The bottom line is that from 1997 to 2011 the national debt has almost tripled. In 1992, when I was serving in the House of Representatives, we debated a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. During one particular balanced budgeted debate on the floor, I said we have no way of knowing how bad things might get if we continue without a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Unfortunately, we can only speculate where we would be today had we passed that balanced budget amendment some 14 years ago. But we can no longer afford to speculate about where we will be with respect to our debt 14 years from now. Let's not be confused as we hear all of the usual diversionary excuses why this amendment should not pass. I have heard it time and time again over the last three decades, as I have indicated. Those excuses have been reiterated time and again in the nine times it has been considered between the House and the Senate over the last three decades. I have heard how a balanced budget amendment will be overly restrictive, spending reductions too substantial, and that other measures would be equally effective without changing our Constitution. Let's not be distracted by the siren's call with the masterful art of deflection. As I recall, during the course of that debate in 1992 in the House of Representatives, I was challenged by a colleague when he asked: What if appropriations exceed estimated revenue? What if the President and Congress underestimate the amount of Federal revenues in a fiscal year? What if it requires budgetary adjustments as a result of a contracting economy, or inaccurate estimates? Well, I said at the time, as I do now: welcome to the real world of families and businesses in America that are trying to project their costs every day--current costs, future costs, whether they will have a job, how much they will get paid, and how much health insurance will cost--not to mention the 49 States that have adopted a balanced budget requirement That is the real world, but apparently not in the Senate and the House of Representatives. It is one we have long ignored to our fiscal peril. These are issues that day in and day out the State capitals have to deal with, as the Chair knows, being a former Governor of New Hampshire. My husband was a former Governor of Maine, and I know that States have to make tough choices and establish priorities, and they have to understand what is coming in and what is going out. Why should the Federal Government be any different? So now we have a fiscal gap here in Washington where there not only is a disparity between revenues and expenditures, but there is also a shameful imbalance between the trust people place in us as elected officials and the responsibilities we must carry out if we are to demonstrate the worthiness of that trust. Absent a permanent mechanism that compels and forces the Congress to set and fulfill its fiscal priorities, we will blithely continue in our wayward practices. Obviously, we only have to learn from the past to understand the future. Rest assured that we have already tried every statutory mechanism possible. Yet nothing we have implemented has withstood the test of time, circumvention, or clever gimmickry to bind both the House and Senate to provide continuity from Congress to Congress--nothing. We have witnessed the positive effects of statutory limits with past budget enforcement mechanisms, such as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act, and the 1997 Balanced Budget Act that combined saved upward of $700 billion. Unfortunately, we allowed them to lapse because we could do it statutorily. We allowed these efforts to wither on the legislative vine. You could not do that with a constitutional amendment. When we talk about a deficit reduction package for the future, anything we implement today could be undone by tomorrow or by the next Congress if we do not have the binding effect of a constitutional amendment. That is the big difference. Congress does not want its hands tied. That is what this is all about--not tying Congress's hands, irrespective of the impact on the mountains of debt. We have squandered historic opportunities. I tried for a legislative trigger back in 2001 when we had projected surpluses to pay down the national debt and invest in Social Security and Medicare, but it was dismissed and derided. Senator Bayh and I tried to get that through, but people were not thinking about the future. I had seen from our experience in the past and I knew we had to protect the surpluses we had and invest them in the future. That didn't happen. People want to spend without restraint. As we sadly know, the promises to get a handle on budget and deficits were empty which is why we have not had budgets in the last 3 years--or why we passed only one appropriations bill last year for the first time since the 1974 Budget Act. If you have no discipline in the budget process, you have no discipline in spending and a mounting debt. That is the net effect of what has happened over the last three decades. The reality could not be more stark about the necessity for a balanced budget amendment. Yes, we do need one if we are ever to ensure fiscal balance and restraint. Finally, even Vice President Biden spoke to this issue in 1995, expressing the same frustration I do today. He said: There is nothing left to try except the balanced budget amendment. That is where we are. And I still do not understand why we have two competing amendments now. It is not as if we don't have differences, but why not amend one legislation? That is what the Senate is all about. Regrettably, it has become another cynical process in the Senate, an all-or-nothing proposition, a zero sum game, either your way or no way. We have two separate votes on two separate measures, creating a parallel universe with two different balanced budget amendments but zero opportunity to reconcile our differences. We know what the strategy is. It is called lip service. It is to allow everybody to say they voted for a balanced budget amendment, while the armies of the status quo employ every weapon to ensure it does not happen. I regret that we are not treating this issue with the deference it deserves--an issue that 70 to 80 percent of the American people support at a time in which the U.S. Congress has an approval rating of 9 to 12 percent--it varies from day to day. We should be embarrassed about how this reflects on the institution because we are not focusing on the issues that matter to people in their daily lives. It matters because they understand that we are shackling future generations. We can either bring disrepute upon ourselves by continuing to mortgage our future to cover the fiscal offenses of today or we can rise to the occasion and meet our moral responsibility and bequeath the generation to come a nation unencumbered by the shackles of perpetual debt. The decision is ours and history awaits our answer. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 20 minutes.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, December in Maine invokes the classic images of Christmas. The wonders of children sledding down snow-covered hills and small towns enveloped in December's darkness while illuminated by the glow of twinkling lights. One of the most memorable parts of any Christmas celebration revolves around the selection and decoration of the perfect tree. Today I rise to commend and recognize the Old Farm Christmas Place of Maine, a small business that allows families throughout the Nation to enjoy the tradition of selecting and cutting down their own Christmas tree. The Old Farm Christmas Place of Maine, located in the coastal town of Cape Elizabeth, opened in November of 2010. Jay Cox, the owner of Old Farm, purchased the historic Dyer-Hutchinson farmhouse in 2001. Built in 1790, the Old Farm stands as a testament to Maine's rich history and in 1997 was accepted into the National Registry of Historic Places. After substantial renovations to the historic property, Jay planted his first Christmas trees in the spring of 2004 on the 50-acre property. Finally, last year, with roughly 18,000 trees planted and 1,000 trees ready to be sold, Jay opened up his winter wonderland. This small business provides a unique tree-cutting venture and invites families to experience the joy of selecting the perfect tree. At Old Farm, this is a journey that begins with a wagon ride over the farmland onto the fields where families can explore acres of the beautiful farm until they find their ideal tree. Once this perfect tree is selected, they will assist you in cutting down the tree and loading it into your car or even delivering it to local areas throughout the State. Lastly, as Maine's winters can be frigid, families can finish the experience warming themselves by the fire inside the Old Farm store while sipping delectable cider and rich hot chocolate. Jay comes from a family of Christmas tree enthusiasts; his parents owned and operated Dun Roamin' Christmas Tree Farm in Cape Elizabeth for 25 years. That farm now makes wreaths which are sold at the Old Farm Christmas Place store. The storefront also carries several locally made Christmas decorations and ornaments to adorn households near and far, adding a new element to the traditional tree farm selection. As opening a small business is a daunting task, Jay Cox's dedication for nearly a decade to open a Christmas tree farm and storefront reminiscent of old times and tradition is truly inspiring. I am proud to extend my congratulations to everyone at the Old Farm Christmas Place of Maine for their tremendous efforts and offer my best wishes for continued success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011. Originally introduced in the House by Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, this targeted regulatory reform bill would amend the Regulatory Flexibility Act, RFA, the seminal legislation enacted in 1980 that requires Federal agencies to consider the cost and impact of proposed regulations on small businesses if such regulation would significantly affect a substantial number of small entities. As a steadfast proponent for regulatory reform, I have been deeply troubled by this chamber's unwillingness to act on an issue so critical to our Nation's job creators. In stark contrast, our House counterparts are poised to pass this legislation, offering relief to our Nation's small business job creators. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to seize this opportunity and support this legislation. If anyone believes this is a solution in need of a problem, there is ample evidence to the contrary. In fact, an October 24 Gallup poll of American small business owners revealed that the number one problem they face is ``complying with government regulations.'' What I find increasingly frustrating is that although small businesses repeatedly express their concerns, the Senate continues to sit idly by, failing to take serious action! At a time when unemployment stands at an unacceptable nine percent, and small businesses are struggling to create jobs, the imperative to focus our attention on regulatory reform couldn't be clearer. Unfortunately, small businesses, which historically create two-thirds of all new jobs, face an unequal federal regulatory burden. A September 2010, study commissioned by the Small Business Administration, SBA, Office of Advocacy found that small firms with fewer than 20 employees bear a disproportionate burden in complying with federal regulations. They pay an annual regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee, which is 36 percent higher than the regulatory cost facing larger firms. This must change, and the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011 aims to do just that. This bill reforms the flawed rulemaking process to ensure that federal agencies consider small business impact before a rule is promulgated, not after. For example, one provision of this legislation would expand the small business review panel process to apply to all agencies. These panels currently only apply to the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, and, thanks to an amendment that I included in the Wall Street Reform legislation, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB. These panels have worked well at EPA and OSHA since 1996. Why not apply this stipulation to every Federal agency, so small businesses are considered at the forefront of the rulemaking process? Another provision would require agencies to consider foreseeable ``indirect'' economic effects when determining whether a rule will have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses. Currently, only ``direct'' economic impacts are considered in the analysis. The RFA has already saved billions for small businesses by forcing government regulators to address the direct impact of proposed rules on small firms. If billions of dollars can be saved by filtering out overly cumbersome or duplicative direct regulatory mandates upon small business while improving workplace safety and environmental conditions, even more can be saved by filtering out unnecessary or burdensome costs to those small businesses indirectly impacted by regulation. This type of commonsense reform is why the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act enjoys the support of more than 150 small business advocacy organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB. President Obama himself has identified government regulations as harmful to job creation. In a January 18 Wall Street Journal op-ed, he wrote that, ``[s]ometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business--burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs.'' More recently, my friend, former Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln, partnered with NFIB President Dan Danner to write an open letter to President Obama calling for sensible regulatory reform. Winston Churchill once said, ``If you have 10,000 regulations, you destroy all respect for the law!'' And certainly, looking at the expanding universe of rules waiting on the horizon, and the vast labyrinth of existing ones, we should ponder how business can dedicate any time and resources to their principal mission of creating products, offering services, innovating and growing. Consider that, since President Obama took office, his administration has approved 613 Federal rules, 129 of which have an economic impact topping $100 million. In fact, the President's health reform legislation alone mandates 41 separate rulemakings, at least 100 additional regulatory guidance documents, and 129 reports, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. How can our Nation's small businesses compete in a global economy when Washington, DC agencies continue to saddle them with overwhelming regulatory burdens year after year? How can entrepreneurs grow their companies when the regulatory environment dissuades them from investing in new equipment or hiring additional workers? While members of both parties are now calling for small business regulatory reform, the United States Senate remains regrettably disengaged. I urge my colleagues to change course and put the interest of small business, our Nation's economic engines, ahead of petty politics at a time when more than 14 million Americans are unemployed and have been so for the longest time since World War II. The days of working together to craft innovative solutions for the good of the American people do not have to be over. It is well beyond time for this body to pass small business regulatory reform and I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011. Originally introduced in the House by Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, this targeted regulatory reform bill would amend the Regulatory Flexibility Act, RFA, the seminal legislation enacted in 1980 that requires Federal agencies to consider the cost and impact of proposed regulations on small businesses if such regulation would significantly affect a substantial number of small entities. As a steadfast proponent for regulatory reform, I have been deeply troubled by this chamber's unwillingness to act on an issue so critical to our Nation's job creators. In stark contrast, our House counterparts are poised to pass this legislation, offering relief to our Nation's small business job creators. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to seize this opportunity and support this legislation. If anyone believes this is a solution in need of a problem, there is ample evidence to the contrary. In fact, an October 24 Gallup poll of American small business owners revealed that the number one problem they face is ``complying with government regulations.'' What I find increasingly frustrating is that although small businesses repeatedly express their concerns, the Senate continues to sit idly by, failing to take serious action! At a time when unemployment stands at an unacceptable nine percent, and small businesses are struggling to create jobs, the imperative to focus our attention on regulatory reform couldn't be clearer. Unfortunately, small businesses, which historically create two-thirds of all new jobs, face an unequal federal regulatory burden. A September 2010, study commissioned by the Small Business Administration, SBA, Office of Advocacy found that small firms with fewer than 20 employees bear a disproportionate burden in complying with federal regulations. They pay an annual regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee, which is 36 percent higher than the regulatory cost facing larger firms. This must change, and the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011 aims to do just that. This bill reforms the flawed rulemaking process to ensure that federal agencies consider small business impact before a rule is promulgated, not after. For example, one provision of this legislation would expand the small business review panel process to apply to all agencies. These panels currently only apply to the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, and, thanks to an amendment that I included in the Wall Street Reform legislation, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB. These panels have worked well at EPA and OSHA since 1996. Why not apply this stipulation to every Federal agency, so small businesses are considered at the forefront of the rulemaking process? Another provision would require agencies to consider foreseeable ``indirect'' economic effects when determining whether a rule will have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses. Currently, only ``direct'' economic impacts are considered in the analysis. The RFA has already saved billions for small businesses by forcing government regulators to address the direct impact of proposed rules on small firms. If billions of dollars can be saved by filtering out overly cumbersome or duplicative direct regulatory mandates upon small business while improving workplace safety and environmental conditions, even more can be saved by filtering out unnecessary or burdensome costs to those small businesses indirectly impacted by regulation. This type of commonsense reform is why the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act enjoys the support of more than 150 small business advocacy organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB. President Obama himself has identified government regulations as harmful to job creation. In a January 18 Wall Street Journal op-ed, he wrote that, ``[s]ometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business--burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs.'' More recently, my friend, former Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln, partnered with NFIB President Dan Danner to write an open letter to President Obama calling for sensible regulatory reform. Winston Churchill once said, ``If you have 10,000 regulations, you destroy all respect for the law!'' And certainly, looking at the expanding universe of rules waiting on the horizon, and the vast labyrinth of existing ones, we should ponder how business can dedicate any time and resources to their principal mission of creating products, offering services, innovating and growing. Consider that, since President Obama took office, his administration has approved 613 Federal rules, 129 of which have an economic impact topping $100 million. In fact, the President's health reform legislation alone mandates 41 separate rulemakings, at least 100 additional regulatory guidance documents, and 129 reports, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. How can our Nation's small businesses compete in a global economy when Washington, DC agencies continue to saddle them with overwhelming regulatory burdens year after year? How can entrepreneurs grow their companies when the regulatory environment dissuades them from investing in new equipment or hiring additional workers? While members of both parties are now calling for small business regulatory reform, the United States Senate remains regrettably disengaged. I urge my colleagues to change course and put the interest of small business, our Nation's economic engines, ahead of petty politics at a time when more than 14 million Americans are unemployed and have been so for the longest time since World War II. The days of working together to craft innovative solutions for the good of the American people do not have to be over. It is well beyond time for this body to pass small business regulatory reform and I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, my home State of Maine boasts countless entrepreneurs who are working to ensure that our State and Nation have a vibrant, growing economy for years to come. Michael and Kyle Rancourt, a dynamic father and son duo, exemplify this vibrant entrepreneurial spirit. Through ingenuity and hard work, they have developed and maintained a thriving shoemaking business based in the central Maine city of Lewiston, which was once a hub for the industry. Today I wish to commend and recognize the founders of Rancourt & Co. Shoecrafters for their success and commitment to their business and local community. The Rancourt family has provided superb quality shoes for three generations. The family began its business in 1964. However, 11 years ago, Mike Rancourt sold the small family shoe business to Allen- Edmonds, which at the time was its largest client. Soon after, due to a struggling economy, the U.S. shoe industry experienced tremendous difficulties, and it became necessary for Allen-Edmonds to reduce its staff and close the Lewiston factory originally owned by the Rancourts. Aware of these developments and reluctant to see the shoe factory which provided so many throughout the community with jobs, Michael and Kyle Rancourt decided to buy the factory back from Allen-Edmonds in 2009, reviving their passion for shoe making. The Rancourts began anew with just 20 employees but quickly found success in what many considered to be a dying domestic industry as more shoe manufacturers expanded overseas. A shifting demand for domestically made, quality products provided the company with a growing consumer base and a steady source of revenue. This small business uses resources purchased from around the world to hand-make men's dress and casual shoes using the traditional method known as ``last.'' This meticulous process involves employees hand- fitting leather into a shoe form, tacking the leather pieces in place, and then hand-stitching them with waxed threads and needles. The result of this process is a shoe that is recognized around the world for its superior quality and genuine comfort. Looking at the new Rancourt & Co. today, it is difficult to imagine that it once faced extinction. The company has grown to over 50 employees today and has increased the number of men's shoes it manufactures on a weekly basis from 250 to 1,000. These fine-crafted products are sold throughout the United States as well as in international locations such as Hong Kong, India, the United Arab Emirates, and Japan. This small firm continues to expand, and in July, the company launched an online store which already grosses between $8,000-$10,000 each week. Small businesses like Rancourt & Co. Shoecrafters are critical to the economic health of our country and our local communities. During a time of heightened global competitiveness, Michael and Kyle Rancourt were able to revive and renew their business and compete in an environment that many thought was simply too difficult and taxing for domestic manufacturers. As a result of their efforts, the company has prospered, preserving jobs in a local Maine community while showing the world what American small businesses are truly capable of. I congratulate everyone at Rancourt & Co. Shoecrafters for their remarkable success and wish them many more years of accomplishment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Small Business Committee, Chairman Landrieu, for her leadership, and I commend her for that. I thank all of the Members of the Senate for supporting these two vital programs. We had much debate on these programs back in March for 5 weeks. There has been broad bipartisan support. They are vital job creators and innovators. They have provided more than 25 percent of the innovations that have occurred over this last decade and are certainly vital to the Defense Department as we are setting aside existing Federal research dollars for small business firms. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which is nearly identical to legislation that passed the Senate unanimously last December and which passed our Committee by a vote of 18 to 1 in March of this year. It is critical that we focus like a laser on job creation, and encourage an environment in which America's small businesses--our Nation's job generators--can once again flourish. We know that small businesses will lead us out of our economic morass. They employ more than half of all private sector employees and have created 64 percent of the net new jobs over the past 15 years. Ninety percent of that job creation is concentrated in four to five percent of all companies, commonly known as ``gazelles,'' or high-impact firms. The SBIR Program is designed to assist exactly these types of companies. Together, these vital job creation programs have provided small firms with over $28 billion during their lifespans. They have been front and center in improving our Nation's capacity to innovate. According to a report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, SBIR- backed firms have been responsible for roughly 25 percent of the Nation's most crucial innovations over the past decade plus--``a powerful indication that the SBIR Program has become a key force in the innovation economy of the United States.'' And the SBIR Program has played a critical role in providing the Department of Defense--our nation's largest SBIR agency--with the technology and components it requires. From night vision goggle simulators, to sensors which provide intelligence about battlefield events like anti-aircraft artillery and rocket launches to our brave men and women in the field, technologies borne from a small infusion of SBIR funding have helped make our military more efficient, cost-effective, and safer. Simply put, these programs have helped America's entrepreneurs create businesses, jobs, and innovations for a wide range of applications in our daily lives. Regrettably, SBIR has been subject to 14 short-term extensions since it was slated to expire in September 2008, and STTR has been a part of 11 of those since September 2009. This uncertainty is of concern to both program managers, who are never sure if they will have the funding for small business awardees, and to the small business applicants themselves. Furthermore, our amendment would reauthorize these programs for 8 years--which has been done twice before for SBIR in 1992 and 2000, the last two reauthorizations. A long-term reauthorization of SBIR and STTR is critical to the effectiveness of these initiatives. Simply stated, an SBIR or STTR recipient's lifecycle in the program is longer than 2 years. A Phase I award lasts for 6 months, while a Phase II lasts for 2 years. This does not take into account the time required for agencies to issue solicitations and companies to apply for awards, including between Phases I and II, as well as a company's time in Phase III commercializing its product or technology. Short-term reauthorizations dissuade promising small businesses from applying to the programs, and makes agencies hesitant to fund projects when they are uncertain for which they will have follow-on funding in the future. The 2-year extension that some members have been discussing would jeopardize the compromise reached in this legislation and remove the certainty the bill provides. In particular, it has the ability to unravel the ``venture capital'' compromise, which was negotiated for nearly 6 years between Members of Congress, the small business community, and the Biotechnology Industry Organization, BIO. This compromise--which allows firms majority owned by multiple venture capital operating companies to be eligible for up to 25 percent of SBIR funds at the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, and Department of Energy, and up to 15 percent of the funds at remaining agencies--includes the backing of a number of critical organizations, like BIO, the National Venture Capital Association, NVCA, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Small Business Association. A 2-year authorization would force us to relitigate this issue immediately, before we have the ability to analyze how the compromise is working. Indeed, our legislation requires the Government Accountability Office to review the impact of the venture capital compromise on the programs 3 years after the bill is enacted, and every 3 years thereafter. We need time to understand how well this change is working before reconsidering it. Furthermore, it would put at risk some of the key provisions in our bill--most noticeably the allocation increases for SBIR from 2.5 to 3.5 percent over 10 years, and for STTR from 0.3 to 0.6 percent over 5 years. Because these allocations are spread out over several years, and not immediate, they could be stunted by a short-term reauthorization, prohibiting small businesses from accessing critical funding to help develop their promising technologies. I would note that as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has noted in support of our legislation, ``[e]ven though this important program for small business has a proven track record of success, its full potential has been held hostage by a series of short-term reauthorizations which has created uncertainty for SBIR program managers and limitations for potential small business grant recipients.'' It is high time for us to unleash the potential of these critical firms by ensuring that these initiatives have the requisite stability that they have been lacking in recent years due to Congressional inaction. In its October Interim Report, the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness urged Congress to ``. . . permanently affirm and fully authorize Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) funding for the long term, rather than for short-term re-authorizations.'' It is long beyond time for us to pass a comprehensive, long-term reauthorization of these critical programs. Our amendment provides us with this opportunity.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of this resolution, submitted with my colleagues, Senator Gillibrand and Senator Feinstein, which honors the life and legacy of Evelyn Lauder. Fittingly extolled by The New York Times as a ``Champion of Breast Cancer Research,'' Evelyn will be long remembered by our Nation and indeed the world for her profound and lasting leadership in combating the dreaded scourge of breast cancer which Evelyn battled herself. One of the great philanthropists of our time or any time, Evelyn undeniably had the Midas touch as a superb business leader and innovator during her more than 50 years at the Estee Lauder Companies, where she had been initially persuaded by her mother-in-law, Mrs. Estee Lauder, to join the family business. And over the course of five decades, Evelyn became a driving impetus behind some of the company's most monumental strides. Make no mistake, any one of her myriad industry milestones alone would have secured Evelyn's name in the constellation of stars in cosmetics, but truly what set her apart time and again was the Midas heart she possessed that reached millions, especially breast cancer survivors. Evelyn was a rare visionary who not only conceived tremendous endeavors, but also possessed the will, talent, and fortitude to bring them to fruition. When the venerable Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center lacked a breast and diagnostic center, Evelyn undertook a fundraising campaign to establish the Evelyn H. Lauder Breast Center which opened its doors in 1992 and underwent an expansion in 2009. When also in 1992 Evelyn saw a gap in breast cancer awareness, she and Alexandra Penney, then editor of SELF magazine, developed the now iconic and legendary Pink Ribbon Campaign which has become the universal symbol for the battle against breast cancer. When Evelyn recognized a lack of funding for breast cancer research, she founded the landmark Breast Cancer Research Foundation which under her aegis grew from providing research grant awards totaling $159,000 to fund eight researchers in 1994 to remarkably awarding $36.5 million to 186 researchers this year. And this renowned foundation has since become the largest national organization dedicated exclusively to funding research relating to the causes, treatment, and prevention of breast cancer. And so, Mr. President, you can imagine the honor I felt upon being named a Funding Hero by The Breast Cancer Research Foundation along with then-Senator Hillary Clinton in 2004. And it is only fitting that I have joined with then-Senator Clinton's successor, Senator Gillibrand, in paying tribute to one of their legendary constituents from the Empire State. Evelyn Lauder was proof positive of Andrew Jackson's tenet that ``one man''--or, I might add, a woman--``with courage makes a majority'' as she helped to dramatically destigmatize and demystify the topic of breast cancer, spurring more women to seek medical attention sooner and improve their capacities to be their own best advocates. With unsurpassed leadership, Evelyn helped fill the so-called ``funding gap'' that scientists too often must confront between good and bold ideas. And I don't have to tell any of my colleagues here today, that means enabling more promising scientists with innovative scientific proposals to accelerate their research and findings rather than apply for federal grants alone. As I have remarked in the past, breast cancer doesn't wait to strike, just as our best researchers shouldn't have to wait to begin the work that just might lead to the goal we all seek a cure. Not only that, but with more than 90 cents of every dollar going directly to research and awareness, it seems to me Congress would do well to emulate the Foundation's efficiency. By increasing awareness, by funding research, by searching tirelessly for a cure, Evelyn Lauder was a vital, public service catalyst in this battle against breast cancer. Undoubtedly, Evelyn was not just a difference-maker in this fight, but the consummate, indispensable game- changer as well. Surely, integral to Evelyn's long cavalcade of achievements will be our continuous drive to make breast cancer history to move the needle where 1 in 8 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer at some point in their lifetime to eradicating this disease for all time. As someone who battled breast cancer herself, Evelyn understood better than anyone the urgency of waging a full attack that was both relentless and comprehensive. Indeed, Evelyn through her foundation was crucial in contributing dollars to the development of targeted therapies, such as Herceptin. As a longtime, vigorous advocate of the DOD Breast Cancer Research Program, which also contributed funding into the early research behind Herceptin, I recognize how essential it is to have strong partners like Evelyn complementing and amplifying our efforts in Congress. Finally, no discussion about Evelyn Lauder is remotely complete without paying tribute to the love of her life for well more than half a century, her incredible husband Leonard Lauder, Chairman Emeritus of the Estee Lauder Companies. Theirs was indeed a partnership in every sense of the word their mutual regard and respect for one another could not have been greater, and the joy they took in being in each other's company could not have been more evident. Each was instrumental to the success and trajectory of the other. Evelyn's legacy was perhaps best crystallized in her response to an interviewer's question about none other than her own critically- acclaimed photography. Regarding her passion for being behind the camera, Evelyn observed that ``you can't hold back time, but you can look forward to what's coming next and do everything in your power to create the best possible future.'' Suffice it to say, the lens through which Evelyn saw her camera's subjects will forever be the lens through which we will remember Evelyn, as she helped create the best possible future for millions of breast cancer survivors around the world. Our thoughts and prayers remain with her beloved Leonard and their two sons, William and Gary. It's often been said that ``we make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.'' Never have the words rung more true than when associated with the incomparable, selfless, trailblazer for good, Evelyn Lauder.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about bipartisan legislation I am introducing today, the Cut Energy Bills at Home Act, which would provide a 30 percent tax credit for Americans to cut their energy bills, and catalyze our construction industry, reduce pollution, and seize the opportunity in residential energy efficiency to secure America's energy future. With heating oil prices at $3.94 nationally for home heating oil, a record for this time of year, this legislation is a timely method to address what may be the most expensive heating season in history. I am pleased to have developed this bill with Senators Bingaman and Feinstein, two longtime leaders on energy efficiency, and look forward to discussing this bill with my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee. The Cut Energy Bills at Home Act recognizes the sea-change that has occurred in the energy efficiency industry and tries to ensure that middle-class Americans can harness these technological strides in their own lives. Specifically, not only have windows, insulation, and boilers become more advanced to reduce energy consumption, but our contractors who perform this work have developed sophisticated practices to holistically improve a home's energy consumption. In the past, homeowners would simply place insulation in the attic to contain heat, now companies are using infared thermography to identify temperature differences in a house, a blower door test to measure airflow leaks, to replace windows, doors, and insulation that will maximize the cost-effectiveness of home energy efficiency improvements. Today, we are on the cusp of a milestone turn in the energy efficiency industry--one with benefits for homeowners unimaginable even just five years ago. To spur early adoption of these advances and to ensure that cost is not prohibitive, our bill provides a 30 percent tax credit up to $5,000 to assist homeowners who make an investment that will reduce energy costs for not only this winter, but for future years to come. For example, under this bill if a homeowner invests in energy efficiency that will reduce heating oil consumption from 1,000 gallons of home heating oil to 800 gallons, a 20 percent improvement, the individual may claim 30 percent of the cost of the improvements as a tax credit up to $2,000. In 2009, New England consumed 3.4 billion gallons of home heating oil, which is approximately $13 billion that households spent simply to keep warm. A 20 percent reduction in this figure would yield a savings of $2.6 billion for households in New England. Energy efficiency can provide a critical tool to reduce this amount and allow households to invest in food, medicine, and the American economy. I urge my colleagues to support me in passing this legislation into law.