Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, women-owned businesses are growing at one and a half times the national average in the United States. This astonishing statistic alone is impressive, but it should also be noted that despite this growth women owned small businesses face unique challenges. Thankfully there are programs in place that provide guidance to these entrepreneurs by individuals with specialized knowledge in women's business issues. Today I commend and recognize an exceptional woman who epitomizes the core values of entrepreneurship with conviction and competence--Erica Quin-Easter, a microenterprise coordinator at Maine Centers for Women, Work & Community in Presque Isle. Ms. Quin-Easter was recently named Maine's 2011 Women in Business Champion by the U.S. Small Business Administration, and she is being recognized today for this achievement at a luncheon in Bangor. This is a richly deserved honor as Ms. Quin- Easter continuously focuses on enhancing women's abilities to bring to fruition their dreams of small business ownership. Maine Centers for Women, Work & Community was founded in 1978. It serves as the only statewide comprehensive women's economic development organization in Maine. In 2008, Ms. Quin-Easter joined the Maine Center for Women, Work & Community at the Presque Isle location. The Presque Isle location serves Aroostook County, our State's largest and northernmost county. Since joining Women, Work & Community, Ms. Quin- Easter has assisted nearly 500 entrepreneurs on topics from loans to taxes to business plans. Ms. Quin-Easter also strives to educate the greater small business community, extending her reach beyond those who may utilize the center's resources. For example, this past March she wrote an article for the Bangor Daily News to enlighten small business owners on taking control of their business finances. Work such as this demonstrates Ms. Quin-Easter's commitment to ensuring that small businesses throughout Maine prosper. She also assisted in organizing a day-long seminar for women called ``ALL for Women''--Aroostook Leadership and Learning for Women--to connect them with other business and community leaders and mentors to assist in gathering insight and confidence to reach for their dreams of self employment. In addition to Ms. Quin-Easter's excellent work for small businesses, she continually seeks to enhance and promote her community. As a long- time musician and composer, Ms. Quin-Easter recently collaborated with poets and musicians to arrange ``(F)light.'' This piece will showcase Women in Harmony, a 60-member chorus of women's voices in Portland, with whom Ms. Quin-Easter previously sang. Furthermore, Ms. Quin-Easter works on the board of directors for Momentum Aroostook Board and Wintergreen Arts Center. While engaging in these philanthropic endeavors, Ms. Quin-Easter is also a University of Maine Canadian-American Center fellow. For one person this is an extraordinary workload, but Ms. Quin-Easter's daily energy and enthusiasm shine throughout all her work. Her many contributions to Maine, and Aroostook County in particular, demonstrate her commitment to enhancing cultural diversity across our State and helping others improve their own conditions. Erica Quin-Easter is truly an inspiring individual. Her dedication to encouraging and counseling women entrepreneurs and small business owners is exemplary and inspiring. I thank Erica for her tireless work on behalf of women and congratulate her on the distinction of being named ``Maine's 2011 Women in Business Champion'' by the U.S. Small Business Administration, a very well deserved honor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today regrettably, as ranking member of the Small Business Committee, to announce that I will be opposing cloture on the pending legislation regarding small business. I have reached this decision after much deliberation, because I support the underlying legislation. In fact, I have championed the Small Business Innovation Research Program since its inception in 1982, when I was serving in the House of Representatives. But regrettably there has been a disturbing trend in this body over the past several years of disregarding the minority rights and flat out disallowing votes on our amendments. We were informed early this year that we would have an open amendment process on legislation in this Congress. We were told, let's let the Senate be the Senate again. I could not agree more. Let's allow Senators to offer amendments and have votes on them. That is the Senate that I know, and the one that has served our country so well since it first convened in 1789. As we all well know, the Senate has traditionally been a place where the rights of the minority were protected, and where constructive debate is the rule, not the exception. It is supposed to be the institutional check that ensures all voices are heard and considered. Because while our constitutional democracy is premised on majority role, it is also grounded in a commitment to minority rights. The fact of the matter is, we have been considering the small business innovation research legislation since March 14, a month and a half ago. Over the course of that time, when excluding weekends and recesses, the Senate was in session 15 days. And in those 15 days, we had merely 3 days in which the Senate has held votes related to this legislation--3 days. Furthermore, we have voted on 11 amendments out of 137 amendments filed prior to the Easter recess, which hardly represents an open amendment process. So we have 137 amendments filed. What do we do? We do not hold votes or debate these issues, allowing those amendments to be offered, we go on a 2-week recess, a fact that was not lost on the American people. What they saw was business as usual in Washington, acting as if there is nothing wrong in America today. So it is disappointing to hear the statements that the Republicans are not allowing this bill to move forward. We are more than ready to move forward with votes on amendments, then onward to final passage. That is how the process works in the Senate. We could have already been at that point if we had been given the time, instead of having recesses and days off and morning business. Indeed the majority has squandered the time of the past several months not on this legislation but in quorum calls and in morning business. There was nothing else commanding our attention. There were several days we voted for the continuing resolution. I understand not having votes on those days. But just 3 days for votes out of 15 is unfortunate, not to mention underachieving. We could have held votes on any other day. Indeed, on April 19, USA Today ran an article titled, ``Two chambers work at different paces.'' It noted that the House of Representatives has held 277 roll call votes as of April 18, the most in that period of time since 1995 following the Republican Revolution. The article then shifted its focus to the Senate, where it noted that our body has held a mere 68 record votes ``the fewest roll-call votes since 1997''! One of our colleagues in the House joked last month that the Senate has two paces--``slow and glacial.'' It would be humorous if it didn't mean that the American people are getting short-changed by their elected representatives, who were sent here to vote on the critical issues facing our country. Voting is our primary responsibility, as are amendments to flesh out the legislative process. We should have had a vote on the legislation I was offering as an amendment, in conjunction with Senator Coburn and six other cosponsors on regulatory reform, to reduce the burden on our Nation's small businesses. This would have had a direct impact, here and now, on the ability of small businesses to create jobs. I am mystified as to why I cannot have a vote on this regulatory reform amendment as the ranking member of the Small Business Committee. In November, the Senate Small Business Committee held a hearing on regulatory reform. It was noted in that hearing that a 30-percent reduction in regulatory costs in an average 10-person firm would save nearly $32,000, enough to hire one additional individual. After enduring 26 straight months with unemployment at or above 8 percent, it is more imperative than ever that we finally liberate American small businesses from the regulatory burden that diminishes our ability to compete globally and create jobs at home. The regulatory reform amendment I am proposing with Senator Coburn is strongly supported by a variety of small business community organizations: the NFIB, the Chamber of Commerce, and 28 other groups. I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE. We have taken great strides to address the concerns of those from across the aisle. But they keep moving the goalposts. For instance, some did not like our definition of indirect effect and costs with respect to evaluating the impact of regulations on small businesses. So we agreed to take the language that was initially proposed by Dr. Sargeant with the Office of Advocacy at the Small Business Administration. He is the President's top small business regulatory appointee. It was expressed that the Office of Advocacy would require more funding to carry out these additional responsibilities. I agreed. We proposed increased authorization for the funding for this office. Moreover, we offset that spending with cuts in the SBA, already proposed in the President's 2012 budget. There were concerns with language that would require that rules sunset if agencies failed to review them as required by law, by the way. So we developed a compromise. Instead there would be a ``stick'' of reducing an agency's budget for salaries by 1 percent if it failed to comply with its review requirements under law. Moreover, it includes several safeguards to allow the agency to have multiple bites out of the apple to satisfy their legal requirements. We heard that some Democrats might oppose adding regulatory review panels at every agency, immediately, saying that doing so would be too much, too soon and that a phase-in would be more responsible so we proposed a modest phase-in approach of three additional agencies per year over 3 years. After all, what is wrong with having small business review panels established at agencies, when they are proposing rules? Let's determine whether those rules are going to affect small businesses before they are implemented in the rulemaking process, not after. You know, I hear in the Senate, well, we will see. We will let the rules take effect, and then see what happens to small businesses afterwards. Does anybody understand what that means for a small business on Main Street in America to have to implement a regulation that is handed down from the Federal Government--the cost of compliance, the added number of employees it requires just to deal with the regulatory burden? They can't afford it. After all, we are in an age of high unemployment. It is persistent. So we could deal with this issue here and now. We have had a number of hearings over time on regulatory reform. The Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee has had hearings on regulatory reform. The time is now to address it. Furthermore, what is the problem with allowing a vote on this amendment? That is what I don't understand. Why can't we have a vote on the amendment on regulatory reform? If those on the other side do not want to support it, they can vote against it. But let's have a vote. Let's have a debate. What else are we doing? We just came off of a 2-week recess. I cannot imagine anybody that went home and talked to small businesses on Main Street or to the average person who is desperately searching for a job not understanding that we need to do something about these key issues. We should focus more on issues like this and less on concerns about lunches, or recess. It is about doing our work in the Senate however long and however hard it is, but to do it. That is what this issue is all about. It is about doing things that are going to matter on Main Street, and regulatory reform matters on Main Street. We can talk about it endlessly. The time is now to act. That is what this is all about. Let the Senate work in the traditions of the Senate: an open, deliberative process. When we had the continuing resolution, we had 700 amendments in the House of Representatives. What amendments did we have? The same is true now. They are shutting down the process. I am told that we had 137 amendments, and what did the Senate do? Go on recess for 2 weeks. The point is, we have a serious problem in America. It is persistently high unemployment. It is subpar growth. The economic conditions are deeply troubling. We have to get the show on the road, and that means regulatory reform. It is one of the chief, foremost concerns among small businesses. Among the plethora of concerns they have about what we are doing or not doing, one of the foremost issues is regulatory reform, and we are dithering. I can't even get a vote on the amendment. Vote yes or vote no. Let's debate it. Is there anything else we are doing in the Senate? Can somebody tell me? We just came off of a 2-week recess, and I am mystified why we are just driving this to a cloture vote and I am denied a vote on an amendment that is so relevant to the well-being, to the survival of small businesses--regulations. There was a $26 billion increase in regulation costs last year. That is on new regulations. The total cost is $1.7 trillion overall. Some have debated that cost saying that is not a true cost. They say: No, it is this cost. It is a lesser cost. Some say: Well, it is less than $1 trillion. Why? Because they do not count the IRS. Well, ask the small businesses if IRS regulations are hampering their well-being and suffocating the entrepreneurial spirit in America, or the FCC or all the myriad of other independent agencies that are not included. I suggest everybody take Main Street tours and see what is happening. If we are wondering why we can't create the jobs that are necessary for America, then just look right here. We are shutting down the process with cloture votes. For what? Because we can't have a debate. We can't have votes. We are doing nothing.

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I frequently come to the floor to speak about a Maine small business that has done remarkable things in its community, or a business owner who has made a lasting impression on his or her company's employees. Today, I wish to recognize a Maine entrepreneur who has an inspiring life story that many have never heard. It is with great pride that I introduce to you a very special Maine resident and lifelong musician, Mr. Allerton Hawkes, whose amazing contributions to Maine's small business community and to the entire Nation's bluegrass legacy know no bounds. Mr. Hawkes was born on Christmas Day, 1930, in the city of Providence, RI. Soon thereafter, when Al was 10, his family returned to the southern Maine city of Westbrook to live on an old family farm. As a young teenager in the 1940s, Al began listening to bluegrass music by tuning in to remote Southern music radio stations, and he was determined to play several stringed instruments often associated with bluegrass. He soon became friend with a man named Alton Meyers, whom he met scavenging through record bins at a used furniture store in Portland. Because of their shared love of music, they became the first interracial duo to play bluegrass--presenting many live performances and radio shows until 1951, when both began their service in the U.S. military. This duo remains to this day, historically, our only interracial bluegrass duo. Although Mr. Meyers passed away in 2000, Al Hawkes--now in his 80s, continues to be involved in the bluegrass movement. Fortunately for all of us, the bluegrass duo's recordings have been preserved forever by Bear Family Records which has provided the Nation's audience with a compact disc recording containing 70 minutes and 27 tracks of this special part of our American musical heritage. Furthermore, Al has been joined by several friends in compiling a CD to benefit research combating Parkinson's disease, which is forthcoming. Al continues to live in Maine and has amassed a very valuable collection of American bluegrass and country recordings. He has been recognized by the International Bluegrass Music Museum as one of the pioneers in bluegrass at a ceremony in Owensboro, KY. Al's historical legacy is contained in a documentary entitled ``The Eventful Life of Al Hawkes,'' which also recently aired six times on Maine's Public Broadcasting Network. His famous remark about his musical history--that he believes there is a ``bluegrass gene'' which he inherited--seems to reflect in his additional musical accomplishments, playing with other bluegrass and country stars throughout the years and being the recipient of 25 awards in the musical lexicon. Beyond bluegrass, Al's deep-seated Maine legacy revolves around a huge sign of a repairman which, to this day, is a famous landmark in southern Maine. As a small business entrepreneur who ran both a TV repair and dry cleaning business in the noteworthy Hawkes Plaza, Al actually made and installed the famous icon sign of the 13-foot high repairman who once sported 385 light bulbs, fluorescent lights and moving parts which gave the illusion of a walking repairman. To residents' delight, the sign--although no longer sporting the creative lights or moving parts--still remains a treasure which sustains generational memories, nearly 50 years after Al built it in 1962. Indeed, Maine's unique character has thus been supported by Al's wonderful inventiveness on several fronts throughout the years. Al Hawkes is truly a Maine and national treasure whose inheritance of that special ``bluegrass gene'' has provided us all with the rich and entertaining joy and privilege of listening to great, distinctive American music. I am proud that Al has chosen to stay in Maine, and has led such a distinguished and varied career, from small business owner and entrepreneurs, to pioneering and accomplished musician. I wish Al all the best, and thank him for his outstanding contributions to our Nation's cultural life.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss two amendments to the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011, S. 493, which would improve our oversight of the critical Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR, and Small Business Technology Transfer, STTR, programs. First, I would note that S. 493, which I introduced in March with Senate Small Business Committee Chair Mary Landrieu, has broad, bipartisan support, and has the backed of divergent stakeholders who have long been at odds on how to proceed in reauthorizing these successful programs. Our legislation includes a provision requiring the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, to continue its evaluation of the SBIR program. The NAS has produced a series of informative and groundbreaking reports on the SBIR program which helped inform Chair Landrieu and I as we sought to reauthorize this crucial initiative. That said, the STTR program lacks any significant analysis or evaluation since its inception in 1992. While we can point to annual data provided by the Small Business Administration to demonstrate its effectiveness, it is critical that independent, outside experts explore the STTR program and make recommendations for how to improve it when we next consider reauthorization of these initiatives. My first amendment would require that the NAS also evaluate the STTR program. Instead of a separate report, the NAS would be required to consider STTR in its ongoing evaluation of the SBIR program, which would be completed four years following enactment of the legislation. This would avoid expending additional resources necessary to produce an independent report on STTR during these difficult economic times. Additionally, S. 493 incorporates a recommendation from the NAS landmark study to allow agencies to use three percent of their SBIR budgets for administrative, oversight, and contract processing costs. I am concerned, however, that Congress will not have adequate knowledge about how the agencies are utilizing this funding. As such, my second amendment requires these agencies to submit a report each year to the relevant congressional committees detailing in a specific manner how they are using these administrative funds. These reports will allow us, in our responsibility of oversight, to ensure these taxpayer dollars are being used wisely, and to examine these agencies' spending choices for any waste or abuse. Additionally, it will help inform us of the need, or lack thereof, to continue this pilot initiative in future reauthorizations. My amendments are simple, straightforward, good government initiatives that allow us to examine the effectiveness of these critical job creation programs, and to keep a watchful eye on how Federal agencies are utilizing taxpayer dollars. I would urge my colleagues to support them.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object, I have an additional amendment I would like to have considered on this list. I thought we had an agreement that there would be an even number of amendments offered on both sides, and now I understand that in the request that is put forward by the majority leader, there are five amendments on the Democratic side and four amendments on our side. I would like to ask consent, because I thought my amendment--Snowe amendment No. 299--would also be included in the agreement. So I am asking unanimous consent that the order be modified to include Snowe amendment No. 299.

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

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments that have been made by the majority leader. But to the contrary, this is very relevant to the underlying legislation. It is about regulatory reform. And if you were to ask the small business community exactly what is their major priority in the U.S. Congress, it would be regulatory reform. Undeniably, it is one of the most onerous burdens placed on small businesses today, and our economic well-being. We have had numerous hearings within our committee that touch on the issue of regulatory reform, and my legislation would reform the process to ensure that small businesses are free to compete and to create jobs. What could be more important at a time when we are struggling to create jobs in our economy, where we need to create millions of jobs if we are ever going to turn around this serious unemployment rate that is plaguing our Nation today and critically affecting the personal financial well-being of all Americans? So, Mr. President, I am surprised with the standard proposed now about hearings. We have had numerous hearings touching on the subject. The question is that we never addressed the issue in the U.S. Senate. As I look through the number of amendments that are going to be offered to vote on in the majority leader's unanimous consent request, many of these amendments have not had hearings either, they have not been the subject of very specific hearings. The point is, everyone has had the opportunity and would have the opportunity to review this legislation and debate it amply, and would be able to explore these issues. My legislation has drawn the broad support of the small business community nationwide. They reviewed the legislation. They understand the implications. They understand the benefits if we do regulatory reform, and they understand the consequences if we do not. So I am just surprised that there is a new standard here because we have passed numerous pieces of legislation on the floor of the Senate that may not be subject to a specific hearing, but have been touched upon in numerous hearings on various subjects. The same is true of the amendment that had been included in the majority leader's unanimous consent agreement. So I will have to object at this time to the underlying consent agreement since I am unable to have a vote on my amendment. Hopefully, we can review this upon return from the recess so we can go forward with these votes.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I heard the majority leader's comments, and I appreciate them. It is not about the evenness of the amendments, but that was the agreement. That was the understanding before I arrived on the floor. My staff worked in concert with the staff of the Small Business Committee chair, Senator Landrieu from Louisiana, so that was the agreement. So that agreement obviously changed sometime in the last hour. Getting beyond that point, though, in talking about hearings, when I look at the list of amendments that are going to be voted on and put forward in the majority leader's unanimous consent agreement, many of these amendments have not had specific hearings. But everybody in the small business community, every small business in America, understands the value of regulatory reform. It is a very straightforward piece of legislation. Many of these issues have been addressed in hearings. Last fall we had a small business jobs bill, part of which was a $30 billion lending facility, and, believe me, there were serious problems with that lending facility. But that was not the subject of one Senate hearing, and I just want to understand, to garner clarity with respect to the standards that are now being established. This issue is very important. Regulatory reform is absolutely crucial and central to small business job creation, not to mention survival. You don't have to take too many Main Street tours to figure out what is happening on Main Street. They are struggling to survive. Last year alone there were $26 billion in additional regulatory costs that was imposed on small businesses across this country as a result of new regulations--$26 billion. But what is the total cost of regulations in America? It is $1.7 trillion. So is there any question in terms of the urgency and the imperative of addressing this issue? It is very central to the underlying legislation. It is about small businesses. It is about regulation and the hardships and the costs that are associated with it, and it is disproportionate on the small business community. It is disproportionate. They pay more than $10,000 per employee, more than the large companies because they don't have the number of employees to be able to fill out the forms and do all that is required that is associated with the complexities and the costs of complying with those regulations. So that is the issue. We had a $30 billion lending facility as part and parcel of a piece of legislation that was voted on and became law. There are issues with it today and it was not subject to even one Senate hearing. So what I am saying is it was my understanding that we had an agreement. That is what I understood, that we were going to have an even number of amendments on both sides to be offered and that my amendment was going to be included and brought up for a vote. If Members of the Senate don't want to vote for the amendment, they don't have to vote for the amendment. It is just saying: Please allow us to have a vote on this specific amendment just like the others that are in the majority leader's unanimous consent request. That is all I am asking. We have had this bill pending for the last month, and I wanted to bring it up, but, unfortunately, for a lot of reasons, we are where we are today. That doesn't mean to say that we should not have the opportunity to vote on this particular amendment that had been prepared to go more than a month ago to be considered on the floor of the Senate. But, in any event, I regret we are in this position tonight. Hopefully, we can work through this during the course of the recess so that we have the opportunity to vote on this amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, for the past month, the U.S. Senate has been considering legislation to reauthorize the critical Small Business Innovation Research, or SBIR, program. SBIR fosters an environment of innovative entrepreneurship by directing more than $2 billion annually in Federal research and development funding to the nation's small firms most likely to create jobs and commercialize their products. I wish to recognize the achievements of Ocean Farm Technologies, a small business in Searsmont, ME, which has utilized the SBIR program to revolutionize the aquaculture sector through innovative new products. Today, aquaculture supplies over 45 percent of the world's fish supply, and Ocean Farm Technologies is at the cutting edge of improving the sector's productive future. The company's founder Steve Page has over 30 years of experience as an organic farmer and entrepreneur. Prior to founding the company in 2005, Mr. Page acted as the environmental compliance officer for Atlantic Salmon of Maine, an aquaculture company that farmed salmon in Machiasport. One of Ocean Farm Technologies' most creative innovations is the self propelled and eco-friendly ``AquaPod'' containment system that allows for an unprecedented diversity of marine species to be safely and sustainably cultivated at sea. Marine aquaculture has been restricted to calm coastal waters where stationary fish farms can be sheltered from ocean currents and storms. This has limited the variety of cultivatable species and has raised environmental concerns regarding effluent pollution. Determined to overcome these constraints, Mr. Page obtained a $250,000 grant from the Maine Technology Institute to design a system capable of surviving rough open ocean conditions. The resultant ``AquaPod'' is an award winning and patented spherical fish pen made of reinforced polyethylene, steel, and mesh netting. It is submersible, self-propelled, environmentally friendly, and safe from marine predators. In 2008, the ``AquaPod'' was successfully tested by researchers from the Massachusetts Institute for Technology off the coast of Culebra, Puerto Rico. It is the first self-propelled open ocean aquaculture pen in the world. Additionally, it is the winner of the Maine Technology Institute's Development Award, and has been deployed in places as divergent as South Korea and Mexico. Furthermore, Ocean Farm Technologies was the recipient of a Tibbetts Awards from the U.S. Small Business Administration earlier this year. The award is presented to small businesses and individuals judged to exemplify the best in the SBIR program, and promote its mission and goals. It is named for Roland Tibbetts, acknowledged as the father of the SBIR program. This award is a distinguished honor, and I am proud of Ocean Farm Technologies for earning this high recognition. Ocean Farm Technologies embodies the bright future of aquaculture, which is critical to my home State of Maine, and indeed the true spirit of American entrepreneurship. I wish Steve Page and everyone at Ocean Farm Technologies the very best, and thank them for their ingenuity and considerable accomplishments.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 4, to repeal the mandate on small businesses throughout this country. The failure to repeal this onerous mandate of the 1099 requirement would have a profound impact on millions of businesses across this country and on the already stressed job market, as employers have to grapple with the enormity of this cost, not to mention the compliance with this regulation. I certainly commend the author of this legislation, the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Johanns, for his tenacity, his perseverance, his relentlessness in bringing this to the forefront not only of the Senate but to the Congress and to the country. I hope we can join with our counterparts in the House of Representatives in an impressive, bipartisan vote because we do need to bring this to a conclusion. I also appreciate that the Senator from Nebraska included in this repeal the provision I recommended, which was to repeal the provision that the mandate would be extended to rental property owners. This was a requirement that was included in the Small Business Jobs Tax Relief Act that became law last fall--inexplicably, given the fact that the 1099 quagmire was already well known to everyone. Yet it was included in that legislation that became law--so those who are rental property owners will have to comply with this mandate as well. The big difference is, this requirement takes effect in January of this year so unsuspecting owners will already be subject to the burden of reporting to the Internal Revenue Service any business expenditures for goods and services that exceed $600 per vendor, similar to all the other requirements under the law that will begin for 2012 for all small business owners. As we all know, this new mandate on small businesses was imposed in the health care reform law. Yet it had nothing to do with reforming the health insurance industry. It had everything to do with raising revenues and placing inordinate burdens on small businesses. The rental real estate was added to this paperwork morass, and what is disconcerting is the fact that it directly affects those States that depend on tourism, such as my State of Maine, with respect to rental property. I think it is going to be very important to make sure people understand this requirement will be repealed as part of this legislation. Failure to repeal this mandate will raise the compliance costs for small businesses astronomically. Already, as estimated by the NFIB, the major voice for small businesses in this country--they have estimated that small business compliance costs with respect to tax compliance alone is $74 an hour. Tax compliance is the most expensive form of paperwork. So the burden on small businesses will be strenuous and inordinate. It is already disproportionate. Their costs are 67 percent higher than larger firms. There is no question, given the ubiquitous nature of this requirement, that small businesses all across this country will come under the weight of these very stringent regulations, having to submit 1099 forms. In fact, I was talking to an individual the other day who heads up an organization which has 1,650 members and what did he say? He said every one of these members will have to file anywhere from 200 to 600 forms every day. That is 200 to 600 forms on a daily basis. They didn't want to talk about taxes. They didn't want to talk about anything else. They wanted to talk about whether we were going to repeal the 1099 requirement. That is why there is so much support for this repeal. It is so important, during these difficult economic times, that we avoid imposing any tough regulations on our small business owners. The other point to be made is, this 1099 requirement is vastly different from what is familiar to most Americans. For most Americans, 1099 forms generally come from their financial institutions to report the interest they have earned on their savings accounts or to report the interest they pay on their mortgage to their lenders. That requirement is specific, to make sure they report directly their tax liability on the income earned in that specific tax year. Now we are reverting to a very different form by requiring businesses to report in the aggregate all their expenditures for goods and services to any vendor. That is a very different requirement. My concern is one that has not been widely discussed. The fact is, by doing so, by making this conversion how we use the 1099 form, it is essentially putting in place an infrastructure, a system for a value- added tax, by requiring businesses to report all this information. So we could essentially have a system in place, where we could have a functioning value-added tax by taking the next step based on the information that is already required to be submitted by this requirement. It is urgent we repeal this mandate. It is important to send that message. It is important to repeal this mandate in its entirety. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I wish to honor one of my Small Business Committee staff members and trusted advisers, Alex Hecht, as he prepares to depart Capitol Hill for the private sector. Alex joined my office in March 2005--6 years ago--as regulatory counsel for the committee, after serving as a legislative analyst for the National Multi Housing Council. Since then, Alex has taken on a host of issues vital to our Nation's small businesses and has been at the forefront of helping me craft critical legislation to assist these job generators. As regulatory counsel, Alex helped me develop an agenda to help small businesses fight the onerous regulations they face. And he has continued his work to this day. As has been noted frequently, our current Federal regulatory situation is outrageous. Small firms--our Nation's primary job creators--with fewer than 20 employees bear a disproportionate burden of complying with Federal regulations, paying an annual regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee, which is 36 percent higher than the regulatory cost facing larger firms. To reduce the burdensome task of complying with excessive Federal regulations, Alex helped me draft an amendment to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill that created small business advocacy review panels within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB, through the Regulatory Flexibility Act so that the CFPB fully considers small business economic effects when it promulgates new regulations. Alex also helped me move the Small Business Compliance Assistance Enhancement Act over the finish line in 2007 to ensure that agencies publish small business compliance guides for regulations in plain English and in a timely manner. Alex was also instrumental in helping me introduce the Small Business Regulatory Freedom Act of 2011 with Senator Coburn to help ensure that the Federal Government fully considers the small business economic impact of the rules and regulations that agencies promulgate. Since January 2007, Alex has served as my chief counsel on the committee, overseeing much of its policy work and specializing in a number of issue areas, including health care and small business energy policy, in addition to regulatory reform. Alex was crucial in helping me develop the Small Business Health Options Program Act--or SHOP Act-- in both the 110th and 111th Congresses. This bipartisan legislation would have made health insurance more affordable and accessible for small businesses and the self-employed, who represent a majority of our Nation's uninsured. Alex also helped me craft the Small Business Energy Efficiency Act of 2007, which was signed into law as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. This legislation is helping to combat climate change by using Small Business Administration, SBA, resources to assist in the development of energy efficiency projects. Additionally, Alex has been inextricably linked with our committee's efforts to reauthorize the Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR, and Small Business Technology Transfer, STTR, programs. These critical initiatives foster an environment of innovative entrepreneurship by directing more than $2 billion annually in Federal research and development, R&D, funding to the Nation's small firms most likely to create jobs and commercialize their products. We are presently debating such legislation on the floor--legislation which represents an unprecedented compromise supported by stakeholders from all sides--and we are closer than we have been in 5 years to getting a bill to the President's desk. This is largely in part to Alex's consistent and dedicated efforts. As Alex prepares to leave the Senate, I offer him my sincerest gratitude for 6 dedicated years of service to my office and to America's small businesses. In particular, I want to thank him for serving as acting staff director of the committee in late 2006. Over his years on the Hill, Alex has developed a thorough knowledge and passion for Senate procedure and has been key in helping me formulate our committee rules each Congress. His absence will be regrettably notable. I wish him, his wife Amy, and his children, Chance and Marin, all the best as they begin this exciting new chapter.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish to discuss an amendment entitled ``the Greater Accountability in the Treasury Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2011.'' As ranking member of the Senate Small Business Committee, it is my responsibility to ensure that small businesses have access to affordable credit. In this regard, I have worked on a bipartisan basis with Senator Landrieu, chair of the Small Business Committee, to include provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that enhanced the SBA's 7(a) and 504 loan programs. Those measures resulted in a 90-percent national increase in SBA lending at a crucial time in our Nation's lending crisis. I also authored provisions, recently enacted into law, to increase the SBA's maximum loan limits for its microloan, 7(a), and 504 loans, to make the SBA more relevant to the needs of today's borrowers. Additionally, I have been supportive of efforts to increase the arbitrarily imposed cap on member business lending at credit unions--at no cost to taxpayers--so that credit unions can play a greater role in helping to address the problems that small businesses continue to face in accessing credit. But, unfortunately, I was unable to vote in favor of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, even though it included many of my priorities, due to my significant concerns with the Treasury Small Business Lending Fund--SBLF or lending fund--provisions included into that bill. I opposed the inclusion of the lending fund for several reasons. While I will not reiterate all of those here, I will discuss a few of them briefly. First, the lending fund is essentially an extension of the Troubled Assets Relief Program, TARP, which was terminated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This fact was confirmed by the bipartisan Congressional Oversight Panel for TARP in its May Oversight Report. Second, it is possible that instead of promoting quality loans, the lending fund could encourage unnecessarily risky behavior by banks. Under the current law, the Treasury Department lends funds to banks at a 5-percent interest rate, which can be reduced to as low as 1 percent if the institutions in turn increase their small business lending. If the banks fail to increase their small business lending, the interest rate they pay could rise to a more punitive 7 percent. This could lead to an untenable situation where banks would make risky loans to avoid paying higher interest rates--a behavior known as ``moral hazard.'' Third, I still believe that the lending fund could put taxpayer resources at risk. The score for the Small Business Lending Fund is convoluted. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, score for the lending fund listed it as raising $1.1 billion over 10 years, based on a cash- based estimate. However, the very same CBO score highlighted that if CBO were permitted to base its score on a fair-value estimate, which accounts for market risk, the score would be a $6.2 billion loss. In fact, the CBO score stated: Estimates prepared on a ``fair-value'' basis include the cost of the risk that the government has assumed; as a result, they provide a more comprehensive measure of the cost of the financial commitments than estimates done on a FCRA [Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA)] basis or on a cash basis. CBO estimates that the cost of the SBLF on such a fair-value basis (that is, reflecting market risk) would be $6.2 billion. While I favor outright repeal of the Small Business Lending Fund, I know that will be very difficult--and likely impossible, given that the majority party in the Senate and the President strongly supported its enactment. And so I am focusing my efforts on making as many improvements to the fund as possible, a responsibility that all of us in Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, should be able to coalesce around. We undoubtedly have a shared responsibility to ensure that taxpayer's dollars, in this case $30 billion for the Small Business Lending Fund, are used in a transparent, prudent, and responsible manner. If we foster an environment in which banks are free to make risky loans to avoid higher interest rates, if we permit banks to accept loans without any formal guarantee of repayment, we fail our responsibility to our constituents and do a disservice to our Nation's 30 million small businesses. The following is a description of some of the amendment's provisions. One section would require that banks that receive Small Business Lending Fund distributions, must--within 10 years--repay the money they receive. While the current law directs that within 10 years of receiving the funds, the banks should repay them to the Treasury Department, it also gives discretion to the Treasury Secretary to extend--even indefinitely--the period of time that banks have, to repay the government. Again, this is a commonsense provision to ensure that taxpayer's dollars do not go to waste. Another provision would establish a sunset of 15 years for the Small Business Lending Fund. Under the current law, no such end date exists. The Lending Fund must not be authorized to continue in perpetuity. The amendment would also prohibit, moving forward, banks that have received TARP distributions from also obtaining small business lending funds. Under the current law, banks that have received money through the TARP program remain eligible to receive small business lending funds as well, unless they default on TARP repayment. My provision is not inferring that banks who received TARP funds are bad actors, or that they are being penalized for participating in the program. Rather, it is a simple recognition that the Federal government should be limiting the frequency with which it subsidizes private banks with taxpayer funds at favorable interest rates. This crucial amendment will prohibit banks from ``double dipping'' into taxpayer funds. Another provision would provide that the Small Business Lending Fund cease operations if the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is appointed receiver of 5 percent or more of any eligible institutions. It is essential that the lending fund is not a bailout and if there are strong indications that this fund has serious systemic difficulties, it must be halted until the problems within the program are corrected. Another provision would provide that only healthy banks participate in the Small Business Lending Fund. This amendment prevents banks who apply for the SBLF from counting expected SBLF funds as tier 1 capital in order to artificially strengthen their capital position in order to receive government funds. This provision ensures that banks would have to stand on their own two feet, rather than being able to count the anticipated future receipts of taxpayer funds, when determining if the banks are healthy enough to be provided those funds in the first place. My amendment would also help ensure that regulators have more meaningful controls over the Small Business Lending Fund. For there to be meaningful controls over the SBLF, it is essential that all bank regulators, whether State or Federal, have a real voice in the lending fund's ability to lend to regulated banks. This amendment gives State bank regulators the ability to determine whether or not a bank which they regulate should receive capital investment through the SBLF program. The current lending fund only gives State bank regulators an advisory role over whether or not a bank they regulate will receive SBLF funds. As this fund is targeted towards community banks, most of the banks applying for this program will be regulated at the State level. If we are really going to include State regulators and make this an inclusive regulator process, it is essential that State regulators have the power to affect a bank's application. And my amendment would also establish an appropriate benchmark for assessing changes in small business lending by recipients of capital investments under the Small Business Lending Fund. As it is currently written, the SBLF uses 2008 as a benchmark year to determine how much banks will have to increase their lending to small firms. My concern is that 2008 was a true low mark for small business lending. This benchmark shortchanges small businesses. Using 2007, or some other measure, as a benchmark may increase the number of loans, banks participating in the SBLF program would have to make to small firms. This legislation is not a silver bullet, and I recognize that we should continue to vet these issues further. But it does attempt to deal with many of the significant problems that I have with the lending fund. Regrettably, these are precisely the types of issues that could have been resolved, had the lending fund received hearings and been properly vetted in the Senate--as one would expect of any legislative proposal of this magnitude. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the section by section of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Selecting Employment Clusters to Organize Regional Success, SECTORS, Act, which Senator Sherrod Brown and I are introducing. This legislation would amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to establish an industry or sector partnership grant program administered by the Department of Labor. The SECTORS Act provides grants to industry clusters--interrelated group of businesses, service providers, and associated institutions--in order to establish and expand sector partnerships. By providing financial assistance to these partnerships, this legislation would create customized workforce training solutions for specific industries at a regional level. A sector approach is beneficial because it can focus on the dual goals of promoting the long-term competitiveness of industries and advancing employment opportunities for workers, thereby encouraging economic growth. Existing sector partnerships have long been recognized as key strategic elements within some of the most successful economic development initiatives throughout the country. Unfortunately, current federal policy does not provide sufficient support for these critical ventures. As Co-Chair of the bipartisan Senate Task Force on Manufacturing, one of my key goals is to ensure that manufacturers have access to a capable workforce. Unfortunately, manufacturers across the country have raised significant concerns about whether the next generation of workers is being trained to meet the needs of an increasingly high-tech workplace. In fact, in my home State of Maine, the manufacturing sector has shed an alarming 26,200 jobs in the past ten years, or 1/3 of the State's manufacturing employment. And since the beginning of 1990, our state has lost 43,000 jobs. It is therefore critical that we as a Nation provide unemployed manufacturing workers the training needed to excel as our manufacturing sector becomes increasingly technical. This legislation provides a crucial link between establishing worker training programs and fostering new employment opportunities for those who have been affected by the manufacturing industry's decline. By promoting this innovative partnership, we will take a crucial step toward rejuvenating our economy. Throughout the country, sector partnerships are being used to promote the long-term competitiveness of industries and to advance employment opportunities. For example, the State of Maine has created the North Star Alliance Initiative. The Alliance has brought together Maine's boat builders, the University of Maine's Advanced Engineered Wood Composites Centers, Maine's marine and composite trade association, economic development groups, and investment organizations for the purpose of advancing workforce training. Our Nation's capacity to innovate is a key reason why our economy, despite difficult times, remains the envy of the world. Ideas by innovative Americans across the spectrums of professions and industries have paid enormous dividends, improving the lives of millions throughout the world. We must continue to encourage all avenues for advancing our nation's economic well-being if America is to compete at the vanguard of innovation. The SECTORS Act will help align America's workforce with the needs of our Nation's employers to promote a robust and growing economy.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my good friends and esteemed colleagues, Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Senator Barbara Boxer of California, as we honor a compatriot of ours from the House of Representatives, an electoral trailblazer, and political torchbearer--the incomparable and courageous, Geraldine Ferraro, who passed away last Saturday after a brave and resilient 12- year battle with cancer. As this august body will hear many times over, Geraldine was a pioneering champion and a dynamic force for women and women's rights, a stalwart legislator and colleague of all three of ours in the U.S. House of Representatives, and always a dear friend through more than three decades. As America's first female Vice-Presidential nominee for a major party, Geraldine has forever secured a legendary position along the timeline of American political history, as Walter Mondale selected her as his running mate in the 1984 Presidential election. (Ms. MIKULSKI assumed the Chair.) While America was learning about Geraldine on the national stage, Barbara Mikulski, Barbara Boxer, and I knew her as a legislative, sister-in-arms, if you will, as all of us served together in the U.S. House of Representatives. Geraldine and I were members of the same House freshman class that began service in January 1979 that brought the total number of women in the 96th Congress in the House to 16. And all four of us fought for myriad causes, most especially those affecting America's women. Looking back, I take enormous pride, as I know both Senators Mikulski and Boxer do, that we spoke as women first, not as Republicans or Democrats, that women's issues transcended partisan lines for us. The fact was, we just couldn't afford to draw partisan lines with women underrepresented in Congress. And that idea is what drove our agenda at the bipartisan Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, which I cochaired for over 10 years in the House of Representatives and where Geraldine Ferarro was also at the vanguard in amplifying issues for literally generations of women. Our adherence to working together--and to the ideal of principle over politics--became our foundation. We determined if we didn't act, who would? And we started to make a difference for women, and not a moment too soon. Indeed, there was indeed a time in America when our laws specifically worked against women, when economic equality pertained only to economic equality among men--not women, when our laws didn't reflect the changing, dual responsibilities of women who were increasingly working as well as caring for a family. Well, we weren't going to accept the status quo any longer, and certainly Geraldine was not one to ever countenance the notion of ``that's just the way it is.'' To the contrary. We confronted these disparities for women head on and introduced a package of laws that opened the doors of economic opportunity for the women of America by revising laws and giving women the tools required to succeed. That package was the multifaceted Economic Equity Act. Among a litany of provisions, we called for a study of the government's pay practices, sought to ensure equal credit for women in business ventures, and battled with Geraldine Ferraro who led the effort to end pension award discrimination against women who were discovering upon their husband's death that, unbeknownst to them, they had been left with absolutely no pension benefits. And in a group of women legislators that was not, shall we say, comprised of shrinking violets, no one gave greater voice to these issues, no one demonstrated more passion in their advocacy, and no one pressed for remedies to right these wrongs with more verve or skill than Geraldine Ferraro. She was a bulwark against injustice and a cherished champion for fairness in an America where women were increasing their roles in American life and their presence in the U.S. workplace and economy. On a personal note, I can't help but think that part of our mutual bond was that we came from similar backgrounds. Our families immigrated to this great land--hers from Italy and mine from Greece. Our heritages spoke to the very best of our Nation's mosaic and the American dream where anything is possible and the only limits you have are those you place on yourself. Indeed, the New York Times mentions how Geraldine's mother crocheted beads on wedding dresses to send her to the best schools. My Aunt Mary worked the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. night shift at a textile mill in Lewiston, ME, to earn money to ensure my cousins and I received a good education. Although Geraldine and I didn't agree on everything, we shared an unequivocal determination to make a lasting difference on issues for women and working families--an unerring focus that surmounted politics and party labels. Not surprisingly, more than 30 years later, Geraldine's legacy lives on through the 74 women serving the other body today, as well as the 17 women currently serving in the Senate. How fitting it is that on the Monday after she passed away, my 16 Senate women colleagues and I submitted a resolution advocating for women's rights in North Africa and the Middle East. We have the moral high ground in that clarion call in no small part because of Geraldine's historic leadership and legacy. In closing, I can't help but recall the great Lady Astor, who was the first woman to ever serve in the British House of Parliament. In fact, on the day she took her seat in that distinguished body, a Member of Parliament turned to her and said, ``Welcome to the most exclusive men's club in Europe.'' Demonstrating the kind of moxie and sense of obligation that were hallmarks of America's Geraldine Ferraro, Lady Astor responded ``it won't be exclusive for long.'' she said. ``When I came in, I left the door wide open!'' Geraldine Ferraro espoused and exemplified what Lady Astor so memorably articulated--that it is not enough to break old barriers and chart a new course, you have to ensure that others are able to traverse it as well. Geraldine spent a lifetime making certain that the path she helped pave was available and accessible to every woman with the courage and will to travel it. And so, today, it is a privilege for me to extol this remarkable woman whose indelible imprint upon the political and public policy arenas will be felt for generations to come. At this most difficult of times, our thoughts and prayers remain with her husband of 50 years, John--as well as their children, Donna, John Jr., and Laura and Geraldine's grandchildren. May they be comforted by the knowledge that so many share in their profound sense of loss, as well as the memory of a trailblazing woman who, above all else, was an adoring and beloved mother and grandmother who leaves an indelible mark upon her family, as well as an entire Nation. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Selecting Employment Clusters to Organize Regional Success, SECTORS, Act, which Senator Sherrod Brown and I are introducing. This legislation would amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to establish an industry or sector partnership grant program administered by the Department of Labor. The SECTORS Act provides grants to industry clusters--interrelated group of businesses, service providers, and associated institutions--in order to establish and expand sector partnerships. By providing financial assistance to these partnerships, this legislation would create customized workforce training solutions for specific industries at a regional level. A sector approach is beneficial because it can focus on the dual goals of promoting the long-term competitiveness of industries and advancing employment opportunities for workers, thereby encouraging economic growth. Existing sector partnerships have long been recognized as key strategic elements within some of the most successful economic development initiatives throughout the country. Unfortunately, current federal policy does not provide sufficient support for these critical ventures. As Co-Chair of the bipartisan Senate Task Force on Manufacturing, one of my key goals is to ensure that manufacturers have access to a capable workforce. Unfortunately, manufacturers across the country have raised significant concerns about whether the next generation of workers is being trained to meet the needs of an increasingly high-tech workplace. In fact, in my home State of Maine, the manufacturing sector has shed an alarming 26,200 jobs in the past ten years, or 1/3 of the State's manufacturing employment. And since the beginning of 1990, our state has lost 43,000 jobs. It is therefore critical that we as a Nation provide unemployed manufacturing workers the training needed to excel as our manufacturing sector becomes increasingly technical. This legislation provides a crucial link between establishing worker training programs and fostering new employment opportunities for those who have been affected by the manufacturing industry's decline. By promoting this innovative partnership, we will take a crucial step toward rejuvenating our economy. Throughout the country, sector partnerships are being used to promote the long-term competitiveness of industries and to advance employment opportunities. For example, the State of Maine has created the North Star Alliance Initiative. The Alliance has brought together Maine's boat builders, the University of Maine's Advanced Engineered Wood Composites Centers, Maine's marine and composite trade association, economic development groups, and investment organizations for the purpose of advancing workforce training. Our Nation's capacity to innovate is a key reason why our economy, despite difficult times, remains the envy of the world. Ideas by innovative Americans across the spectrums of professions and industries have paid enormous dividends, improving the lives of millions throughout the world. We must continue to encourage all avenues for advancing our nation's economic well-being if America is to compete at the vanguard of innovation. The SECTORS Act will help align America's workforce with the needs of our Nation's employers to promote a robust and growing economy.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution calling for women's rights in North Africa and the Middle East. Following weeks of tumult and protests in this area of the world, I could not be more honored to lead my 16 female colleagues in the United States Senate in emphasizing the importance of women's rights and political participation. As one unified voice, the 17 of us have introduced a resolution calling for a renewed focus on women's rights as leaders in North Africa and the Middle East consider constitutional reforms and shape new governments. The resolution we introduced reaffirms our commitment to representative and responsive democratic governments that respect women's rights and calls on leaders to include women when it comes to making decisions that will affect their lives. In the course of peaceful protests in countries throughout North Africa and the Middle East, women have stood shoulder to shoulder with men to advance their rights. Indeed, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has said that, ``the rights of women and girls is the unfinished business of the 21st century,'' and I couldn't agree more. Earlier this year, demonstrations spread from Tunisia to Egypt, with thousands of protesters peacefully calling for new governments, free and fair elections, significant constitutional and political reforms, greater economic opportunity, and an end to government corruption. Women played a vital role in these movements, utilizing social media to galvanize support for peaceful protest--facing tear gas and sleeping in tents in Tahrir Square. In fact, hundreds of women took part in a rally in Cairo on March 8th, the 100th anniversary of International Women's Day, to remind women in Egypt that they must have a voice in their nation's future. And today, as the people of Libya seek to overturn the brutal regime of Moammar Qadhafi, women have been working behind the scenes making a profound difference to promote reform and keep the momentum of the uprising alive. However, while women have sacrificed and peacefully protested side by side with men in nations throughout North Africa and the Middle East, there are signs that women are increasingly being sidelined from the formation of new governments. In Tunisia, according to press reports, only two women have been appointed to the transitional government and in Egypt, not a single woman has been appointed to the council in charge of revamping the constitution. The simple truth is women around the world continue to face significant obstacles in all aspects of their lives, including denial of basic human rights, discrimination, and gender-based violence. Be it Tunisia and Egypt--or Morocco, Yemen, Lebanon, and Iran--women have attempted to harness critical support regarding matters affecting their rights, which is precisely why my colleagues and I introduced this resolution. We stand together to honor the women in North Africa and the Middle East who have worked to ensure guaranteed equality and basic human rights, recognizing that the empowerment of women is inextricably linked to the potential of nations to generate economic growth and sustainable democracy. Part and parcel to the success and stability of any government is the equal voice and participation of women. The spirit and devotion exemplified by women in North Africa and the Middle East--and the ongoing challenges they continue to face--are both an inspiration to us all and a reminder that discrimination and gender- based violence endures around the world. The resolution I am introducing with my colleagues is meant to honor their commitment to ensuring future generations enjoy the guaranteed equality and basic human rights for which they endeavor to this day.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join the chair of the Small Business Committee to address the pending legislation before the Senate, which is so essential to helping to revitalize our economy and most especially the small business sector that is central to the job- creation abilities in this country. The programs that would be reauthorized in the legislation pending before the Senate are extremely important to the ability of small businesses to be engaged in innovation and advancement in our economy and the businesses they are in. It helps to assist in the technology and the entrepreneurial spirit that is so essential for America, which has obviously been an innovative nation throughout our history. The two pending programs before the Senate are very crucial. I hope, like the chair, that we will be able to get to a point to consider the remaining amendments the Senators may have to offer so that we can move quickly and expeditiously to vote on the bill, so it can move forward and ultimately become law. The SBIR and STTR programs have had a longstanding history, most specifically with the SBIR Program, regarding innovative research, which has been in law since 1982 because it has been extremely worthwhile and beneficial. It has been the subject of numerous reports essentially because it has been able to produce jobs and the innovation that has advanced this Nation. In fact, there are two assessments--one by the National Academy of Sciences and another report from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation--both underscoring that it is imperative to reauthorize these programs but also demonstrating their essential value to our Nation's economy--most especially from the standpoint that, of course, small businesses are the job creators. Two-thirds of all new jobs in America come from small businesses. Obviously, they represent more than 99.7 percent of the employers in America. It is absolutely critical that we do everything we can to buoy this segment of the economy. The more we procrastinate in moving this legislation forward, the less likely we are going to see jobs created in our economy and get this economy to move forward. Frankly, it is critical, given the fact that we need to create more than 285,000 new jobs per month for 5 years just to return to the unemployment levels we were experiencing in 2007 at prerecession levels. We could be 10 years away from normal unemployment and full recovery if we do not make substantial strides in creating at least 285,000 jobs every month for 5 consecutive years and, most possibly, 8 consecutive years to achieve 5.5 percent unemployment rate. To achieve a 7-percent unemployment rate would require us to create 300,000 jobs per month. We experienced an uptick in job creation numbers last month of a 192,000, but that has been the exception, not the norm, over the last 2\1/2\ years. In fact, there are only 3 months in 2\1/2\ years in which we have achieved those levels. I am just underscoring how difficult it is going to be to create the jobs we need in order to return to normal prerecession levels of unemployment. That is why the pending legislation is so critical and vital to this endeavor. I wish to reiterate some of the anecdotal information that came to the committee that, again, emphasizes the value of these programs. Roland Tibbetts, the father of the SBIR Program, summed up its purpose most vividly when he said that ``SBIR addresses a paradox at the heart of innovation funding: capital is always short until the test result are in. At the idea stage, and even the early development stage, the risks are too great for all but a few investors. But innovations can't get beyond that stage without funding.'' SBIR provides the funding for promising small firms, by directing critical research and development funding within 11 critical agencies within the Federal Government to perform the necessary testing and assess the validity of an idea and subsequently commercialize the product. As we know, small businesses are looking for the kinds of initiatives that can provide the catalyst for creating that innovation. It is all about taking risks. Risk means investment. There are few opportunities in America now with respect to having access to early- stage capital. The programs before us represent just that. It is important for creating the middle-class jobs we need, and the fact is that small and medium-size businesses really do the majority of the hiring and firing, as Thomas Friedman noted in his book, The World is Flat. When they are hiring people, the economy is robust. When they are not, it is in recession, which is precisely what we are recovering from currently. We have to move these programs forward, and hopefully that opportunity is going to come sooner rather than later. Hopefully, we can accomplish that at the end of this week because I think it is important to send the right message and a signal to give certainty and stability that small businesses and medium-sized businesses are desperately searching for. Dr. Jacobs, cofounder of Qualcomm, who testified before our committee in February, revolutionized the wireless communication industry. As we both have noted earlier when we began debating this legislation, they applied for $1.5 million in SBIR funding almost 25 years ago. Today they have 17,500 employees. They paid approximately $1.4 billion in taxes in fiscal year 2010, more than half the cost of the SBIR and STTR programs annually. Dr. Jacobs noted in his testimony that SBIR funding ``allowed us to pursue several innovative programs that otherwise would not have been possible.'' He went on to note that: Cutting-edge research leads to breakthrough discoveries, but in order for companies to attract private funding, they need support to prove the feasibility of new and often risky and unproven technologies. For Qualcomm, SBIR provided one source of that critical start-up funding. . . . it was one of the critical ``stamps of approval'' that allowed us to successfully pursue sources of private capital. Dr. Matt Silver, the cofounder of Cambrian Innovation, an environmental product development firm from Massachusetts, informed the committee that six SBIR awards--or, in his words, ``relatively small grants''--enabled his company to attract angel and direct investment, hire seven employees, file several provisional patents, and develop relationships with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Penn State for collaborative R&D, among other opportunities. His company's story is a remarkable example of the success that can be garnered from a relatively modest investment by Federal agencies in new and promising technologies. Additionally, 2 weeks ago, the House Small Business Committee also held a hearings on these programs. I would like to briefly share some quotes from the testimony of several witnesses. Professor David Audretsch noted that the United States `` . . . is no doubt more innovative, more competitive in the global economy and has generated more and better jobs as a result of the SBIR'' Program. Additionally, he summarized that ``The evidence accumulated from a broad spectrum of studies utilizing divergent methodologies all comes to the same result--the SBIR program has unequivocally made an invaluable contribution to the innovative performance of the United States.'' There are a number of specific examples of how the SBIR Program has contributed to the vitality of our economy and how it has advanced the technological developments that have occurred in America. Furthermore, the Government Accountability Office has reviewed different aspects of the SBIR Program over the course of its history and has come to a number of positive conclusions. Specifically, the 2005 GAO report on the program summarized that, one: SBIR is achieving its goals to enhance the role of small businesses in federal R&D, stimulate commercialization of research results. . . . . . . more than three-quarters of the research conducted with SBIR funding was as good as or better than any agency- funded research. Agency officials also rated the research as more likely than other research they oversaw to result in the invention and commercialization of new products-- And-- The SBIR program successfully attracts many qualified companies, has had a high level of competition, and consistently has had a high number of first-time participants. Combining those assessments that I have just cited with the National Academy of Sciences's landmark 2008 study, which I have spoken about earlier, SBIR and STTR clearly provide remarkable benefits to the American people. But also there is a larger picture for the Nation's entrepreneurs and job creators. Small businesses are facing a veritable confluence of challenges from all sides these days, whether it is exorbitant costs through more taxes or crippling tax burden and regulations. There are a number of amendments pending before the Senate that I think would be vital to enhancing that dimension of helping our small businesses with respect to fighting burdensome regulations. That is why Senator Coburn and I have introduced a regulatory reform bill we hope we will offer as an amendment to the pending legislation because we think it is important to address the numerous regulations that have imposed significant burdens on a number of businesses across this country. If we just look at the average cost to small businesses in America, a business with 20 or fewer employees pays $10,585 per employee in annual regulatory costs. That is 36 percent higher than larger firms. Additionally, our Tax Code is so complex that taxpayers and businesses spent 7.6 billion hours and about $140 billion trying to comply with tax-filing requirements in 2008. I do believe it is important we make strides in the regulatory arena because it is clear that small businesses cannot move forward having to comply with not only the additional costs but also the burden because there are so few employees in a small business. They are saddled with incessant and unnecessary paperwork, as we saw demonstrated with the 1099 filing requirement that was included in the overall health care law. As we all know--and we are almost in unanimous agreement that we should repeal that onerous provision, but we have not reached that point. Hopefully, we will with respect to our legislation. We know Senator Johanns has filed an amendment to the pending bill, but we want to address that issue because it has provided a burdensome impact on small businesses across the country, even though it has yet to be enforced because it is not required until 2012. The point is, businesses are already calculating the cost of having to comply with that paperwork. Because of the additional costs, because they do not know the extent to which it is going to add to the cost of their bottom lines, they are hesitant about hiring new individuals or making investments in capital equipment. The sooner we can address this issue, the sooner we can repeal it and resolve the outstanding issues in terms of how we are going to pay for it, the sooner small businesses can understand the certainty with respect to this individual provision. As I have conducted numerous street tours in my State, I can tell you this is the one issue that comes up repeatedly because, for every small business, they are starting to calculate how many forms they will have to submit to the IRS for every $600 in business transactions. Not only is that paperwork burdensome but also it is going to add additional costs, not to mention, obviously, the fact that we are going to hire thousands more in Internal Revenue Service agents just to comply with this particular mandate. I hope we can tackle this major problem and bring it to a final conclusion with respect to resolving this issue and to repeal it once and for all. It is regrettable it has taken so much time to get to this point. I know we worked mightily to address this issue, but clearly it is not sustainable for small businesses. I am hopeful we can move forward with this effort to repeal this provision and this requirement that clearly will represent, I think, a major step forward in understanding the dimensions small businesses are facing in today's environment. As I stand here with my colleague, the chair of the Small Business Committee, I hope we can proceed to passing this legislation. I urge Members to come to the floor if they have amendments to begin to address those issues so we can advance this legislation at the conclusion of this week because I do think it is in the best interest of the small business community but, more importantly, it is also in the best interest of our Nation's economy, given the fact that we have to create jobs, and that obviously is not happening to the degree people deserve in this country. There are a number of agencies that will be part of the scope of this legislation that will be setting aside the research and development dollars that play a critical role in innovation. It does not require additional funding. It is based on existing research and development dollars that are already appropriated to these agencies. But it is saying: Let's set it aside for small businesses to make sure they can have one piece of the pie when it comes to research and development because that is where we derive most of the innovation and the entrepreneurship--from the small business sector of our economy. Not only can it add jobs in America but, ultimately, as we saw with the example of Qualcomm, we can add to the dimensions of growth exponentially for decades to come. This is a generational issue as well because we know we have to take the small steps to ultimately reach the large developments that can occur with the initial investments that are taken even with a modest sum of money. We know that is true in biotechnology, for example, which takes 10 to 15 years to bring a drug online. It can require millions, if not billions, for pharmaceuticals to do that. Again, the SBIR Program has been essential and central to that effort. That is why the Biotechnology Industry Organization and the National Venture Capital Association also support this legislation because it can provide the initial boost that is a catalyst for the development of major drug therapies in this country. Dr. Charles Wessner, who authored the landmark National Academy of Sciences report, underscored in his testimony to our committee about the SBIR Program and highlighted the work the SBIR Program created as a result of these investments. He said: The program brings in over a third new companies every year. This is really extraordinary. It is not captured by a small group. Twenty percent of the companies are created because of the awards, bringing things out of the research community into the market, its core function. It encourages partnership with the university community. . . . Almost 50 percent of the firms that get awards reach the market. These numbers, again, demonstrate the incredible role the SBIR Program plays in our Nation's capacity to innovate. That is essentially why it was created at the outset. If we look historically as to when the SBIR Program was created, it was in 1982. I was an original cosponsor of that legislation when I was serving in the U.S. House of Representatives. But it coincided as well during a similarly difficult economy. In fact, at that time, we were in the midst of a recession. Now we are struggling to emerge from a recession and trying to create jobs. The same was true at that point in time. In fact, we were at the height of it. Dr. Jere Glover, who has served as the chief counsel at the SBA's Office of Advocacy, testified before our committee. He concluded: Twice before, we have seen the President and Congress look at the situation where we are coming out of severe recessions and decide that the SBIR program was important. President Reagan in the early Congress in 1982 decided that this was an important thing to do to create jobs, to help grow innovation and technology. Again in 1992, Congress doubled the SBIR program, with the support of President Bush. So we have seen recognition in the past, when you are in a severe economic time, it is time to call on small business innovation. He urged us to do that now. I concur with his call for us to use this opportunity to reauthorize these critical programs that will jump-start our Nation's economy through small business and talents they bring to bear when it comes to innovation. It is something we certainly need in our economy today and our country. More important, it is just not reauthorizing a program simply for reauthorizing it or because it has been on the books but because it works, and it has demonstrated it has worked repeatedly throughout the history of both these programs. That is why I urge the Senate to move as quickly as possible to adopt these bills so they can become law. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation along with Senators Landrieu, Merkley, Brown of Massachusetts, and Enzi, titled the Small Business Contracting Fraud Prevention Act of 2011. In the past year, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, has identified vulnerabilities and abuses in virtually all of the SBA's contracting programs, including the 8(a) Business Development Program, the Historically Underutilized Business Zone, HUBZone, program, and the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned small business, SDVOSB, program. Our legislation attempts to remedy the spate of illegitimate firms siphoning away contracts from the rightful businesses trying to compete within the SBA's contracting programs. As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I take very seriously our responsibility of vigorous oversight. That is why, last December, Senator Landrieu and I sent a letter to the SBA highlighting the recent press headlines and GAO reports of fraud and abuse that have plagued the Agency's contracting programs. That letter stated unequivocally that our Committee's first priority this Congress is ensuring that ALL of the SBA's contracting programs are running efficiently, effectively, and free of exploitation. Adopting this critical small business legislation is an effective first step at ensuring all small businesses are competing fairly and honestly within the Federal marketplace. As recently as Saturday March 12, the Washington Post, as part of an ongoing investigation, published an article titled, ``DC insiders can reap fortunes from federal programs for small businesses.'' This article states ``Government officials were not monitoring contracts for compliance with rules.'' The report exposes a glaring deficiency in contract oversight. Moreover, an SBA spokesperson is quoted as saying the SBA ``long ago transferred that authority to the Pentagon and other agencies.'' This hands-off attitude is unacceptable, and as I told the SBA Deputy Administrator at a recent Small Business Committee hearing, the ultimate authority for monitoring fraud lies with the SBA. This legislation contains recommendations both from the SBA Inspector General and the GAO for combating these reports of fraud and addresses vulnerabilities in the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned small business program, the HUBZone program, and the 8(a) program. Additionally, the bill will work to change the culture at SBA to make the process of suspensions and debarments more transparent. In order to effectively execute the small business contracting programs, the SBA needs a comprehensive framework to provide effective certification, continued surveillance and monitoring, and robust enforcement throughout the SBA's contracting portfolio. This bill aims to increase criminal prosecutions as well as suspension and debarments for businesses found to have attained contracts through fraudulent means, and requires the SBA to submit a report to Congress annually detailing the specific data on all suspensions, debarments, and cases referred to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecutions. To that end, the SBIR bill we are now debating on the Senate floor, includes stringent oversight and fraud prevention measures, requiring Inspectors General of participating Federal agencies to establish fraud detection measures, coordinate fraud-related information sharing between agencies, and provide fraud prevention related education and training to agencies administering the programs, among other initiatives. As a senior member of the Senate Commerce Committee, I worked with the Chairman, Senator Rockefeller, in developing this language following a 2009 committee investigation and hearing on the subject of fraud in the SBIR program. My amendment goes even further and provides the SBA more stringent oversight capacity across all the SBA contracting programs. It is SBA's duty to utilize every fraud prevention measure at its disposal and this amendment puts the tools in place to punish the bad actors that have infiltrated the SBA contracting programs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I want to rise in support of the comments as well as the initiative of the Senator from Colorado, Senator Udall, because I think this is a critical way to create jobs in America--by lifting the member business lending cap at credit unions. As he indicated, there was a historical norm of no cap on small business lending--or business lending--that could be done by credit unions in this country. I am very pleased to join him in this effort. Hopefully, we will have the opportunity to consider this initiative here on the floor. It deserves it. At a time when government essentially has exhausted all of its options to create economic growth and jobs, this is one demonstrable way in which we can create jobs in America and also have a massive infusion of capital at no cost to the Federal taxpayer, at no cost to the Federal Government. As the Senator from Colorado indicated, for 90 years there was no cap. In 1998 the Congress decided to impose a cap of 12.25 percent on business lending that could be done by credit unions. We want to raise that cap to 25 percent to inject more than $10 billion of new capital in our Nation's economy. It could create, potentially, as the Senator indicated, 100,000 new jobs within its first year, including some 1,000 jobs in my own State. We are a small State--Maine. We have 1.3 million people, and more than 600,000 Mainers are members of credit unions. Credit unions play a pivotal role in our State and our Nation's economy. They are on the front lines each and every day in our small communities, serving their members and local businesses. One of the greatest handicaps and hardships right now for small businesses, as demonstrated by a recent survey by the Federal Reserve, is that three- quarters of small businesses looking for credit last summer were turned down and received only some of the financing they requested. Small businesses are on the front lines of our economic recovery. They are the innovators and the job creators, the driving engine of the Nation's growth and prosperity, yet they are not getting the access to capital that is necessary to create jobs and to make the investments in their companies and firms that will stabilize the economy. So it is indisputable about the value this legislation would represent in terms of helping small businesses have access to that capital. Credit unions have been making business loans since their inception, for more than 100 years. They provide the essential capital in small communities. They understand the importance of lending to creditworthy customers, they understand the nature of their communities, they know their members and can make a difference in so many businesses as well as in the local communities. We know that in the past they have demonstrated responsible underwriting practices and strong management. They have money to lend--at a time when capital is much needed. At a time when we are struggling to find ways to create jobs, this is one sensible solution to that approach. Frankly, I am very disturbed about the inability of our economy to create the kind of jobs Americans deserve. As I said earlier, as of January this year, we have experienced 21 consecutive months of unemployment at or above 9 percent, which is the longest stretch in the recorded history. The second highest was back in the early 1980s. But if you think about the jobs that were created last month--one of only 3 months in the last 2 years in which 200,000 jobs were created, at that rate it would take 8 consecutive years to achieve the pre-recession unemployment level of 5 percent. We would have to create more than 300,000 jobs every month over the next 2 years to reach a 7-percent unemployment rate. In the month of January only 36,000 jobs were created. We have a long way to go. While the net unemployment rate, as it stands today, is 8.9 percent, in all reality--as an article indicated yesterday in the Washington Post--it is closer to 10.5 percent because of so many discouraged workers that have left the workforce. In this initiative, we have an important, effective, responsible way of putting money into the communities, allowing the credit unions to lend to creditworthy customers and businesses, the same entities that will help drive this economy into recovery. We depend on small businesses. They are the ones that are going to make it happen. That is why I want to commend the Senator from Colorado for offering this initiative. It is vitally important. I hope we don't defer the consideration of this legislation in this Congress, that we have the opportunity, when we return from this upcoming recess, to consider it and to vote on it. I also wish to give a few other facts that I think are important to illustrate the value of these loans in the community. The Treasury Department found that 25 percent of credit union member business loans were made to members with household incomes of less than $30,000 and that these loans totaled 13 percent of the outstanding member business lending balances. Another 20 percent went to households with incomes reported to be $30,000 and $50,000. So we are talking about middle- class America. We are talking about mom-and-pop operations and households that otherwise would be denied access to credit. We know that. We have heard it chapter and verse. I have heard it anecdotally from so many businesses in my State and across the country. We have heard testimony before the committee about the inability of so many small businesses to gain access to credit. Banks have decreased lending, for all practical purposes, to small businesses. That is why we have to do everything we can to enable these firms to access credit and loans that will allow them to stay in business and to sustain their operations in these very difficult times. Again, I want to thank the Senator from Colorado for offering this initiative, and hopefully we will have the opportunity to consider it and to vote on it because it is one way of stimulating job growth. I think that is indisputable based on the track record of the previous lending that has been done by the credit unions. This is one opportunity we should be able to have in making sure small businesses have access to capital that will allow them to continue. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation along with Senators Landrieu, Merkley, Brown of Massachusetts, and Enzi, titled the Small Business Contracting Fraud Prevention Act of 2011. In the past year, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, has identified vulnerabilities and abuses in virtually all of the SBA's contracting programs, including the 8(a) Business Development Program, the Historically Underutilized Business Zone, HUBZone, program, and the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned small business, SDVOSB, program. Our legislation attempts to remedy the spate of illegitimate firms siphoning away contracts from the rightful businesses trying to compete within the SBA's contracting programs. As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I take very seriously our responsibility of vigorous oversight. That is why, last December, Senator Landrieu and I sent a letter to the SBA highlighting the recent press headlines and GAO reports of fraud and abuse that have plagued the Agency's contracting programs. That letter stated unequivocally that our Committee's first priority this Congress is ensuring that ALL of the SBA's contracting programs are running efficiently, effectively, and free of exploitation. Adopting this critical small business legislation is an effective first step at ensuring all small businesses are competing fairly and honestly within the Federal marketplace. As recently as Saturday March 12, the Washington Post, as part of an ongoing investigation, published an article titled, ``DC insiders can reap fortunes from federal programs for small businesses.'' This article states ``Government officials were not monitoring contracts for compliance with rules.'' The report exposes a glaring deficiency in contract oversight. Moreover, an SBA spokesperson is quoted as saying the SBA ``long ago transferred that authority to the Pentagon and other agencies.'' This hands-off attitude is unacceptable, and as I told the SBA Deputy Administrator at a recent Small Business Committee hearing, the ultimate authority for monitoring fraud lies with the SBA. This legislation contains recommendations both from the SBA Inspector General and the GAO for combating these reports of fraud and addresses vulnerabilities in the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned small business program, the HUBZone program, and the 8(a) program. Additionally, the bill will work to change the culture at SBA to make the process of suspensions and debarments more transparent. In order to effectively execute the small business contracting programs, the SBA needs a comprehensive framework to provide effective certification, continued surveillance and monitoring, and robust enforcement throughout the SBA's contracting portfolio. This bill aims to increase criminal prosecutions as well as suspension and debarments for businesses found to have attained contracts through fraudulent means, and requires the SBA to submit a report to Congress annually detailing the specific data on all suspensions, debarments, and cases referred to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecutions. To that end, the SBIR bill we are now debating on the Senate floor, includes stringent oversight and fraud prevention measures, requiring Inspectors General of participating Federal agencies to establish fraud detection measures, coordinate fraud-related information sharing between agencies, and provide fraud prevention related education and training to agencies administering the programs, among other initiatives. As a senior member of the Senate Commerce Committee, I worked with the Chairman, Senator Rockefeller, in developing this language following a 2009 committee investigation and hearing on the subject of fraud in the SBIR program. My amendment goes even further and provides the SBA more stringent oversight capacity across all the SBA contracting programs. It is SBA's duty to utilize every fraud prevention measure at its disposal and this amendment puts the tools in place to punish the bad actors that have infiltrated the SBA contracting programs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jelena McWilliams, a detailee with the Small Business Committee, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of this legislation.