Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleague, the chair of the Small Business Committee, to further elaborate on some of the key issues regarding the pending legislation before the Senate to reauthorize the Small Business Innovation Research and the Small Business Technology Transfer Programs for 8 years. When we consider what the value is of both of these programs, what it will represent to our Nation's economy during these perilous economic times is indisputable. It certainly will bolster economic growth. It certainly will bolster small businesses and innovation and put America at the forefront of new technologies, as we have seen with the examples of those who have been recipients of awards from the SBIR Program, most notably Qualcomm when they started more than 25 years ago with fewer than a dozen employees and $1.5 million in awards from SBIR. Now they are, as we know, a Fortune 500 company with more than 17,000 employees, just to cite one example. There are numerous examples certainly in my State and in the chair's State of Louisiana and all across this country, and that is the point. This program has an illustrious history. I think it is important to note how far back this program goes. It was really inspired as a result of a White House small business conference that recommended applying the original pilot program at the National Science Foundation to a wider range of agencies. In particular, according to the National Academy of Sciences' landmark study on the SBIR Program, the recommendation was grounded in a number of facts, including evidence that a declining share of Federal research and development dollars was going to small businesses; difficulty among innovative small businesses in raising capital in a period of historically high interest rates; and research suggesting small businesses were at the vanguard of job creation, which, as we all know today is certainly the truth. So the SBIR Program was formally established in law back in 1982, and I was a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives and an original cosponsor of that legislation. The legislation set out several goals, including to stimulate technological innovation, use small businesses to meet R&D needs, foster and encourage participation by minority and disadvantaged small businesses in technological innovation, and increase private sector R&D. So all of that has occurred with this legislation over that period of time in which it has been part of our Nation's laws. That is why it is so important, when we reconvene after this recess, to make sure we have the opportunity to move this legislation along. It is critical because we are at a point in time in our economy where we need the jobs, we need the investments in small business. This is not adding additional costs to the Federal budget because it is drawing from the already appropriated funds for research and development within 11 different Federal agencies that would set aside certain amounts in both of these programs for small businesses. It has broad support among a variety of organizations that are also crucial because they have been at the forefront of benefitting from these programs and understand the value of these programs and how they will bolster our economy. I am pleased to note that we have organizations such as the NFIB, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Small Business Association, the Small Business Technology Council, and the National Venture Capital Association which, in a letter, stated that our legislation: . . . represents a fair compromise to ensure that America's most innovative small businesses can once again have access to existing government incentives to grow jobs by commercializing new discoveries. Furthermore, groups that have long been at odds with these small business groups on SBIR reauthorization are now solidly behind the legislation. This is because we worked over the last 2 years during the course of drafting this legislation for reauthorization and built a compromise and a consensus on the definition of venture capital and who can participate in the program. There had been a ruling within the Small Business Administration that said it had to be individuals, which excluded a number of different venture capital backed firms from being able to participate. So we developed a consensus across the political aisle--with broad support--that ultimately brought additional organizations on in support of this reauthorization. Most notable is the Biotechnology Industry Organization--again, talking about bringing drug therapies to market that take 10 to 15 years. They require millions and millions of dollars to develop a drug therapy and bring it to market, and the research and development and ultimately to commercialize that drug therapy treatment certainly is very costly. So to have the added benefit of venture capital investments from research and development funds that are already provided within the Federal agency is a long-term benefit for our country. In its letter, the Biotechnology Industry Organization notes: [t]his bill represents a balanced approach to ensure that America's most innovative small businesses can access existing incentives to grow jobs by commercializing new discoveries. The group also says it represents a compromise to ensure that America's small businesses remain at the forefront of global innovation. It also states that SBIR helps small biotechnology companies continue lines of medical research that might otherwise go unfunded. It will help to increase access to early-stage capital, which is a critical source of funding if we are to develop the therapies that are so important to advancing our medical systems in this country and our health care. It bolsters economic growth, job creation, breakthrough drug treatments, and therapies for patients, and it also increases America's competitiveness in the global economy. That is exactly the intent of this program that was created in 1982, and that certainly underscores the value of this program as stated by the Biotechnology Industry Organization. I am confident this legislation represents an unprecedented compromise that will give us the necessary momentum to get this reauthorization over the finish line once and for all. This is a welcome change, after 10 temporary short- term extensions over the past 2\1/2\ years. I think the legacy of this program is making significant contributions to America's economy, and to the well-being of small businesses, the engine that drives America's economy. We depend on small businesses to create most of the jobs in America. We need to facilitate that, given the high unemployment rate-- when we have had 21 consecutive months of an unemployment rate at or above 9 percent. That is the longest stretch in our Nation's history. These two programs collectively and individually will contribute significantly to the growth of small businesses and job creation in this country. That is why there is a broad array of organizations that are supporting this legislation, because it is a testament to its history of success. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Warner, to reintroduce legislation that provides greater technical resources to the Commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission. Such resources are essential to making sound regulatory decisions and being a more effective technical agency--especially in this era of rapid innovation in the industries under the Commission's jurisdiction. Specifically, the FCC Technical Expertise Capacity Heightening or ``FCC TECH'' Act would allow Commissioners'' to appoint a staff member--an electrical engineer or computer scientist--to provide in- depth technical consultation, and commission a study by the National Academy of Sciences on the technical policy decision-making process and the availability of technical personnel at FCC. The study would include an examination of the FCC's technical policy decision-making, current technical personnel staffing levels, and agency recruiting and hiring processes of technical staff and engineers, and make specific recommendations to improve these areas. Over the past several years, I have shared the concerns voiced by the technical community and even some Commissioners themselves about the lack of technical resources and expertise at the FCC. Such concern is warranted. In 1948, the FCC had 720 engineers on staff; today, it has fewer than 270--an astonishing 63 percent reduction--even though the FCC now must face more technical issues concerning the Internet, advanced wireless communications, commercial cable & satellite industries, and broadband. It should be noted that engineering staff currently only accounts for a dismally low 14 percent of the FCC's workforce--in 1948 that figure was more than 50 percent. A December 2009 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO- 10-79) provides additional evidence of the need for this legislation. The GAO concluded that ``weaknesses in FCC's processes for collecting and using information also raise concerns regarding the transparency and informed nature of FCC's decision-making process.'' Furthermore, the report found the ``FCC faces challenges in ensuring it has the expertise needed to adapt to a changing market place.'' So in a time when citizens are demanding more effective and efficient government and zero government waste, taking such steps as prescribed by this legislation will ensure the FCC is adequately equipped legally and technically to properly craft policy. It should be noted this legislation does not require new staff--it just makes better use of them. In addition, streamlining FCC processes and rulemakings will make sure the Commission keeps pace with the dynamics of the industry it oversees, which is important in order for U.S. companies to continue to be competitive in this global economy. In a letter I wrote to Chairman Genachowski last year, I highlighted several outstanding spectrum proceedings that I urged the Commission to conclude. The proceedings I mentioned had a common characteristic that concerned me--all of them had been open for three years or longer, and another related proceeding had been pending for well over a decade. This regulatory delay and uncertainty due to the Commission's inaction adversely affects American businesses, which request technical waivers or file petitions to better compete domestically and internationally, and suppresses innovation and the jobs associated with it. We must make sure the Commission is a catalyst to innovation and jobs, not an inhibitor. Even the general public is aware of the significant technical deficit that exists at the Commission and the importance of increasing its technical aptitude--one of the top public recommendations on the FCC's reform website, reboot.fcc.gov, is to ``require at least one FCC Commissioner to be an engineer.'' This Administration has stressed the importance of innovation being a vital component in our economic recovery, so allowing a shortage of technical staff to exist at an agency responsible for regulating very technical industries that will be the main drivers for innovation is counterintuitive. The President has also placed a major emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, STEM, education in order to enhance our nation's competitiveness and economic wellbeing in the global economy yet, engineers only constitute 14 percent of the FCC's workforce and, it is my understanding, there is only one engineer in a senior management role at the Commission today--the government's technical expert agency. This legislation enhances technical resources at the FCC so it will be better equipped and more agile to address the ever-changing technical landscape from a regulatory perspective. If it isn't, our nation's technical leadership in this area will continue to erode and it will be even more difficult to lay the proper policy foundation necessary to meet future telecommunications needs. It is also an essential component to execute the FCC's recently released National Broadband Plan, which includes several technically complex initiatives. Last Congress, several technical organizations expressed support for the legislation--the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Society of Broadcast Engineers, Association for Computing Machinery, and the Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers. Also, prominent individuals in this field, such as Vint Cerf, and former Senior FCC Technical Officials Dale Hatfield, Dave Farber, and Robert Powers support the legislation. In the past, Chairman Genachowski has stated ``the country expects the FCC to be an expert agency.'' Being an expert agency starts with having the technical expertise to comprehensively understand and examine the issues that are within its jurisdiction and also acting on those issues in a timely manner. If it doesn't, our nation's technical leadership in telecommunications could continue to erode due to regulatory bottlenecks that are created at the Commission from unresolved proceedings and petitions. Removing the bottlenecks that exist through streamlining processes and removing bureaucracy will reduce government expenses and waste over the long term. This bill takes steps toward properly addressing glaring technical deficiencies at the Commission, which left unaddressed could continue to hamper American innovation and competitiveness. This is absolutely critical given how rapidly technologies are changing and the implications that regulation could have on the underlying technical catalysts of innovation. That is why I sincerely hope that my colleagues join Senator Warner and me in supporting this critical legislation.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation with Senator Merkley that will provide the President of the United States with emergency powers to aggressively reduce the Federal Government's demand for energy. The Strategic Petroleum Demand Response Act will be an additional tool to address rapidly rising energy prices by reducing our country's demand for oil. The political instability in the Middle East reminds us that this region, which holds the largest reserves of oil in the world, has had profound implications on our country's economy by dramatically affecting the price of oil. Although the attention has been on potential supply disruption, our country also consumes nearly 17 million barrels of oil per day and through aggressive measures the Federal Government can lead our country in reducing its energy bill, curtailing its consumption of oil, and reducing the price of oil for consumers. As we encounter these price spikes, some have called for a release of oil from our country's strategic petroleum reserve. The fact is prior to releasing our country's strategic reserves we must develop policies that prioritize the Federal Government's consumption of these critical oil supplies. The Federal Government can reduce nonemergency travel, reduce congestion on the roads by providing flexible work hours, decrease the use of oil in heating and cooling buildings, and work with local and state governments to cut consumption as well. We must develop a strategic petroleum strategy that reflects the fact that prices are dictated by both supply and demand and the Strategic Petroleum Demand Response Act will address the demand side of the equation. Since the start of the year the price for West Texas Intermediate has increased by 16 percent and the week of February 28 encountered the second highest net increase in gasoline prices in our country's history. While I strongly believe that we need to develop specific long-term strategies that build on the success of fuel economy standards and reduce our consumption of oil, this legislation will allow the President to take immediate and decisive action to address any energy crisis through both supply and demand.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Warner, to reintroduce legislation that provides greater technical resources to the Commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission. Such resources are essential to making sound regulatory decisions and being a more effective technical agency--especially in this era of rapid innovation in the industries under the Commission's jurisdiction. Specifically, the FCC Technical Expertise Capacity Heightening or ``FCC TECH'' Act would allow Commissioners'' to appoint a staff member--an electrical engineer or computer scientist--to provide in- depth technical consultation, and commission a study by the National Academy of Sciences on the technical policy decision-making process and the availability of technical personnel at FCC. The study would include an examination of the FCC's technical policy decision-making, current technical personnel staffing levels, and agency recruiting and hiring processes of technical staff and engineers, and make specific recommendations to improve these areas. Over the past several years, I have shared the concerns voiced by the technical community and even some Commissioners themselves about the lack of technical resources and expertise at the FCC. Such concern is warranted. In 1948, the FCC had 720 engineers on staff; today, it has fewer than 270--an astonishing 63 percent reduction--even though the FCC now must face more technical issues concerning the Internet, advanced wireless communications, commercial cable & satellite industries, and broadband. It should be noted that engineering staff currently only accounts for a dismally low 14 percent of the FCC's workforce--in 1948 that figure was more than 50 percent. A December 2009 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO- 10-79) provides additional evidence of the need for this legislation. The GAO concluded that ``weaknesses in FCC's processes for collecting and using information also raise concerns regarding the transparency and informed nature of FCC's decision-making process.'' Furthermore, the report found the ``FCC faces challenges in ensuring it has the expertise needed to adapt to a changing market place.'' So in a time when citizens are demanding more effective and efficient government and zero government waste, taking such steps as prescribed by this legislation will ensure the FCC is adequately equipped legally and technically to properly craft policy. It should be noted this legislation does not require new staff--it just makes better use of them. In addition, streamlining FCC processes and rulemakings will make sure the Commission keeps pace with the dynamics of the industry it oversees, which is important in order for U.S. companies to continue to be competitive in this global economy. In a letter I wrote to Chairman Genachowski last year, I highlighted several outstanding spectrum proceedings that I urged the Commission to conclude. The proceedings I mentioned had a common characteristic that concerned me--all of them had been open for three years or longer, and another related proceeding had been pending for well over a decade. This regulatory delay and uncertainty due to the Commission's inaction adversely affects American businesses, which request technical waivers or file petitions to better compete domestically and internationally, and suppresses innovation and the jobs associated with it. We must make sure the Commission is a catalyst to innovation and jobs, not an inhibitor. Even the general public is aware of the significant technical deficit that exists at the Commission and the importance of increasing its technical aptitude--one of the top public recommendations on the FCC's reform website, reboot.fcc.gov, is to ``require at least one FCC Commissioner to be an engineer.'' This Administration has stressed the importance of innovation being a vital component in our economic recovery, so allowing a shortage of technical staff to exist at an agency responsible for regulating very technical industries that will be the main drivers for innovation is counterintuitive. The President has also placed a major emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, STEM, education in order to enhance our nation's competitiveness and economic wellbeing in the global economy yet, engineers only constitute 14 percent of the FCC's workforce and, it is my understanding, there is only one engineer in a senior management role at the Commission today--the government's technical expert agency. This legislation enhances technical resources at the FCC so it will be better equipped and more agile to address the ever-changing technical landscape from a regulatory perspective. If it isn't, our nation's technical leadership in this area will continue to erode and it will be even more difficult to lay the proper policy foundation necessary to meet future telecommunications needs. It is also an essential component to execute the FCC's recently released National Broadband Plan, which includes several technically complex initiatives. Last Congress, several technical organizations expressed support for the legislation--the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Society of Broadcast Engineers, Association for Computing Machinery, and the Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers. Also, prominent individuals in this field, such as Vint Cerf, and former Senior FCC Technical Officials Dale Hatfield, Dave Farber, and Robert Powers support the legislation. In the past, Chairman Genachowski has stated ``the country expects the FCC to be an expert agency.'' Being an expert agency starts with having the technical expertise to comprehensively understand and examine the issues that are within its jurisdiction and also acting on those issues in a timely manner. If it doesn't, our nation's technical leadership in telecommunications could continue to erode due to regulatory bottlenecks that are created at the Commission from unresolved proceedings and petitions. Removing the bottlenecks that exist through streamlining processes and removing bureaucracy will reduce government expenses and waste over the long term. This bill takes steps toward properly addressing glaring technical deficiencies at the Commission, which left unaddressed could continue to hamper American innovation and competitiveness. This is absolutely critical given how rapidly technologies are changing and the implications that regulation could have on the underlying technical catalysts of innovation. That is why I sincerely hope that my colleagues join Senator Warner and me in supporting this critical legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation with Senator Merkley that will provide the President of the United States with emergency powers to aggressively reduce the Federal Government's demand for energy. The Strategic Petroleum Demand Response Act will be an additional tool to address rapidly rising energy prices by reducing our country's demand for oil. The political instability in the Middle East reminds us that this region, which holds the largest reserves of oil in the world, has had profound implications on our country's economy by dramatically affecting the price of oil. Although the attention has been on potential supply disruption, our country also consumes nearly 17 million barrels of oil per day and through aggressive measures the Federal Government can lead our country in reducing its energy bill, curtailing its consumption of oil, and reducing the price of oil for consumers. As we encounter these price spikes, some have called for a release of oil from our country's strategic petroleum reserve. The fact is prior to releasing our country's strategic reserves we must develop policies that prioritize the Federal Government's consumption of these critical oil supplies. The Federal Government can reduce nonemergency travel, reduce congestion on the roads by providing flexible work hours, decrease the use of oil in heating and cooling buildings, and work with local and state governments to cut consumption as well. We must develop a strategic petroleum strategy that reflects the fact that prices are dictated by both supply and demand and the Strategic Petroleum Demand Response Act will address the demand side of the equation. Since the start of the year the price for West Texas Intermediate has increased by 16 percent and the week of February 28 encountered the second highest net increase in gasoline prices in our country's history. While I strongly believe that we need to develop specific long-term strategies that build on the success of fuel economy standards and reduce our consumption of oil, this legislation will allow the President to take immediate and decisive action to address any energy crisis through both supply and demand.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, this bipartisan amendment is supported by me; Chair Landrieu; Senator Kerry, the former chair of the committee; Senator Coburn; and Senator Webb. This amendment is based on a report that was conducted by the Small Business Committee back in 2008, when Senator Kerry was chair of the committee, and we both requested an investigation into the National Veterans Business Development Corporation, also known as TVC, and found egregious mismanagement. TVC was engaged in mismanagement, misuse of taxpayer money, and did not abide by its statutory obligations. Our committee issued a very detailed report explaining how they misused hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars. In light of our investigation and subsequent efforts, they do not receive any federal appropriations now. But we want to remove them from statute so they do not have any Federal linkage, any Federal charter, or any ability to use the auspices of the Federal Government for any activities in the future. So I urge support of this amendment and note that both the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion supported discontinuing the funding for this organization, after our report was released.

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I certainly concur in the comments that have been made by the Chair of the Small Business Committee, Senator Landrieu, who has exhibited tremendous leadership in bringing these initiatives to the floor for reauthorization. It has been a long journey for these programs, reaching the point of reauthorizing them for the first time since 2008. In the intervening years, the programs have had to rely on multiple extensions to continue to operate. These programs are of indisputable value to the growth in America when it comes to innovation and invention on the part of small businesses. They undeniably have been critically effective. When they have had access to venture capital and research and development dollars that are available in more than 11 agencies across the government, including the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, to name a few, they have provided invaluable support to the entrepreneurial spirit that is so critical to this country. As the Chair indicated, it is the small businesses in America, the one segment of the economy that undeniably creates the kinds of jobs that are so important to this country. In fact, they create two-thirds of all the net new jobs. We have to do everything we can to make sure that they are getting access to the kind of capital and support and the research and development dollars that are available at the national level. These two programs, were created back in 1982. As the Chair indicated, I was an original cosponsor of that legislation when I was serving in the House of Representatives because we knew it could ultimately be a great catalyst for innovative and technological ideas in America. It has provided it, without question. The National Academy of Sciences study of the SBIR Program--which is a landmark study--called the program sound in concept and effective in practice. Just over 20 percent of companies they surveyed were founded partly or entirely because of the SBIR program. Over two-thirds of the respondents said that the SBIR projects would not have taken place without the funding. Each year, over one-third of firms awarded SBIR funds participate in the program for the first time. Again, it is encouraging innovation across a broad spectrum of businesses and creating additional competition among suppliers for the Federal Government's procurement agencies. We see that it produces over and over again the benefits, the jobs, the creativity. The Chair spoke about Qualcomm. That is true. We saw the Sonicare toothbrush. In May, we had a company called Tex Tech that developed armor for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we can give the infusion of these dollars--dollars already being expended by Federal agencies but redirected to small businesses and making sure that they are getting a fair share of the Federal pie--then they can put that money to good use in creating the kinds of jobs and the inventions that are so important to moving this country forward in the 21st century. I am very pleased we are at this point. Hopefully, we will be able to get this legislation through and signed into law because it is critical to venture capital investments. It is a prominent source of investment in biotechnology research and development. As we know, it takes 10 to 15 years of work and hundreds of millions of dollars to bring a drug to market and to complete the testing of the drug process along the way costs millions of dollars. The biotechnology companies are able to commercialize their technologies with this kind of backing from these programs and money that is being expended at the Federal level in these key agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health. Such investments in biotechnology and medical device industries totaled more than $1 billion in 2007. Again, it is a demonstration of the kind of value and results we achieve through this program without providing additional Federal appropriations. It is not as if we are spending more money on a new program. We are not. What we are saying is that with the research and development dollars that are already being appropriated within the Federal agencies, we are asking that they set aside more than $2.5 billion in Federal research and development to fund our Nation's smallest firms because they are the ones that are most likely to create the jobs and to commercialize their products. They have demonstrated time and again, year after year, at an all-time high, that the innovations coming out of small businesses are directly through these two programs. Their inventions reach the marketplace. They commercialize them. Qualcomm, 25 years ago started with a $1.5 million grant from the SBIR Program. They had less than a dozen employees. Currently, they have more than 17,000 employees in their company, and are a multibillion dollar Fortune 500 company. Again, it is an example how this program can work. The Information Technology Innovation Foundation indicated in its report recently that 25 percent of the top 100 innovations came from small businesses funded through the SBIR Program, and stated further that it is a powerful indication that this program has become a key force in the innovation economy of the United States. If there were ever a time that we should be supporting these programs and promptly and expeditiously, it is here and now. We saw last month where we created 200,000 jobs. But the month prior was 36,000 jobs. In order to reach prerecession levels of unemployment, it would take eight consecutive years of creating jobs at a rate of 200,000 a month in order to achieve the prerecession levels of unemployment of 5 percent. That is an indication of how far we need to go to create jobs in this economy, and it is creating the anxiety, the apprehension, the fear all across this country because people are struggling to find jobs or to keep the ones they have. This would go a long way to benefitting the sector of the economy that does create the jobs, and that is, of course, small businesses. Again, I hope that we can move quickly to get this legislation enacted and signed into law and create the kinds of jobs people in this country undeniably deserve. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair as well. I wish to speak to the amendment offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania. I think it is a critical amendment for the contracting process. As the Chair well understands, because I know the Chair has called many meetings on contracts and processes, and over the years we have attempted to rectify and mitigate many of the problems that have arisen during the course of a contract to make sure there is access for small business within the Federal agencies, I have heard, as I know the Chair has as well, from countless small businesses who feel abused by large prime contractors. During the procurement process when preparing for government bids, oftentimes large prime contractors do not fulfill their obligations to use small businesses as outlined in the subcontracting plan. They identify the small businesses in their own plan that they submit to the government, they win the contract, and then they turn around and don't use the small businesses they have identified in their bid they have submitted to the Federal Government. So I wish to congratulate the Senator from Pennsylvania for identifying an important way to make sure small businesses are not left out of this process, because they are required--once they have been identified in an open, large prime contractor's plan, they are required to use that small business. But, unfortunately, if a small business is not notified that the large prime contractor has won that bid from the Federal agency, they have no way of pursuing a process by which they make sure they are part of that overall bid. I think it is very important that small businesses have access to the procurement process, and when large contractors are including small businesses, we have to make sure they notify the small businesses about their intent to use them in the bid process, and to make sure they are aware that they have won the contract as well. This becomes paramount because small businesses then have the opportunity to contract with Federal agencies because the Federal Government is the largest purchaser of goods and services in the world, spending more than $500 billion in fiscal year 2000 alone. For small firms that are struggling to stay afloat and maintain their workforce, Federal contracting can be an instrumental part of the larger strategy for broadening their customer base in creating jobs. So it is a commonsense amendment that protects small businesses from abuses during the Federal procurement process. Also, I think the reporting mechanism that is created by the Senator's amendment will allow small businesses to report fraudulent activity with respect to subcontracting plans. These small business protections will benefit small contracting firms without adding an undue burden to the government's acquisition workforce. I think it is an amendment that is not only practical but critical in making sure small business has fair access and opportunities for procurement within the Federal agencies, and more to curb the abuses that have occurred with large prime contractors that either disguise themselves as small businesses and go through the contracting process or use small businesses in their bid but never notify the small businesses of their intent to use them and, therefore, small businesses have no opportunity to pursue the legal process, due process to make sure they can report these abuses. I urge support of the Casey amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for yielding to me so I could call up an amendment. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to call up amendment No. 193.

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

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I will address this amendment later. I wish to add that the Chair and Senator Coburn are both cosponsors of this amendment as well. I thank the Senator from California.

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I would like to speak to the amendment that I called up earlier, amendment No. 193. This is a bipartisan amendment that is being cosponsored by the chair of the committee, Senator Landrieu, as well as Senator Coburn, who, as we all know, has been recognized as a true leader in this body for streamlining the Federal Government. We had a discussion recently about what programs or agencies or entities could be eliminated, and we readily identified the National Veterans Business Development Corporation--simply known as the TVC--as an example of an organization that the Federal government should sever its ties with, for the reasons that I will enumerate, Madam President. The Veterans Corporation has been ineffective and controversial since its inception as part of the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act back in 1999. In fact, in December of 2008, the former Small Business Committee chairman, Senator Kerry, and I investigated the Veterans Corporation and issued a report detailing the organization's blatant mismanagement and the wasting of taxpayer dollars. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record pages one through four of the report and refer interested persons to the following Web site, for the full text of the report: http://sbc.senate.gov/Committee%20Report%20on% 20TVC.pdf

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, the report was initiated by the Small Business Committee, and it found, among other things, that the Veterans Corporation failed to support Veterans Business Resource Centers; it had wasteful programs; it lacked outcome-based measurements; it provided its employees with unacceptably high executive compensation; it engaged in dubious expenditures; and it failed to properly raise the necessary funds to become self-sufficient, as they were required to do under the law. For example, our report concluded that the Veterans Corporation had spent only 15 percent of the Federal funding that it had received on Veterans Business Resource Centers, which the TVC was required to establish and maintain under law. In fact, in fiscal year 2008, the percentage dropped to about 9 percent. We also found that the executives at TVC received unacceptably high levels of compensation given the organization's limited resources and reach. While an average of 15 percent of the Veterans Corporation's federally appropriated funds went to the centers, 22 percent of the funds that were appropriated in 2007 were spent on its top two executives' compensation packages alone. Moreover, the organization miserably failed to raise the sufficient funds, as required by law, in order to develop self-sufficiency and independence from Federal appropriations. During fiscal years 2005 through 2007, the Veterans Corporation leaders spent $2.50 for every $1 they raised through the organization's fundraising efforts--almost entirely at the taxpayers' expense. Additionally, through broad-based decision making powers granted to the Veteran Corporation's executive committee under the organization's bylaws, the committee approved a number of measures without proper approval or ratification from the full board, including $40,000 in employee bonuses in 1 year alone. Since the issuing of the Small Business Committee's report, Congress has appropriated no additional funding for TVC, and the Small Business Administration has incorporated the Veterans Business Resource Centers previously funded into the existing network of the Veterans Business Outreach Centers. These moves were publicly supported by a variety of veterans service organizations, including the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. For example, in August of 2008, the American Legion passed a resolution at its national convention stating that the legion ``no longer supports the continuing initiatives or existence of the national Veterans Business Development Corporation.'' Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of that resolution printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE. At present, TVC still exists, and it is still federally chartered. But as I indicated earlier, it receives no Federal funds, and has no department or agency oversight. So in light of everything I have discussed, and based on the report, it is my belief that the Federal Government must take the next step and fully sever all ties with the organization. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan initiative. It is important to underscore the fact that the report the committee undertook back in 2008 illustrated serious mismanagement problems with this organization. As indicated in the summary of the report findings, it failed to achieve its statutory commission, which was to support the Veterans Business Resource Centers; it spent its limited resources on several programs that bore little or no relation to the organization's statutory mission; and it largely reported the results of its programs by measuring its activity rather than its outcomes. So it was very difficult to actually determine what TVC's results were and whether they were consistent with the intended purposes under Federal statute. TVC mismanaged Federal funds by providing for high executive compensation, and had dubious expenditures. The report indicates that TVC spent tens of thousands of dollars on expensive dinners for employees and board members at high-priced restaurants in Washington, luxury hotels, first-class travel arrangements, memberships to various airline club lounges, and TVC's top two executives failed to report over $91,000 in charges on their company-issued credit cards. It is certainly an abysmal track record, regrettably, and that is why I think it is important that even though we do not provide any additional appropriations--no appropriations--we should sever any linkage of Federal ties with this entity. So, Madam President, I would hope we could get bipartisan support, and I will ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, first I wish to commend the Chair of the Small Business Committee. She has done an extraordinary job in bringing this legislation to the floor in a bipartisan fashion, which I think is so essential to ensuring the passage of this legislation which, suffice it to say, has been long overdue. It has been on a long journey since 2008 in terms of extensions and reextensions, but we have never been able to accomplish a reauthorization for a variety of reasons which I will explain later in my statement. But I do wish to congratulate the Chair for working mightily on both sides of the aisle and in the committee, accommodating bipartisanship by allowing the new members of the committee--particularly on our side of the aisle where we have five new members of the committee--who were not able to have the opportunity to review this legislation as new Members of the Senate because we had passed this unanimously in the last session of Congress. So she did hold a hearing and a markup to accommodate those views and give them a chance to review this legislation as well as to amend it in the committee. I know some of the Members will have amendments they will offer on the floor as well. So I wish to thank the Chair for accommodating those various issues and the members of the committee as they attempted their new duties as members of the Small Business Committee. I also wish to thank the Chair for working through these issues diligently, because these are two critical programs, as she indicated in her opening statement, that are crucial to small businesses, but also important to innovation in America. Reauthorizing both the SBIR and the STTR Programs represents a profound opportunity for us to reaffirm the truth in the optimistic vision of America that indeed it is small businesses that are going to make the contributions not only for job creation but through their innovation and inventions, as the Chair mentioned, with President Reagan's comments many years ago. That is why I am very excited about reauthorizing these programs, which foster 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. Small businesses are our Nation's job generators, employing more than half of all private-sector employees and creating 64 percent of the net new jobs over the past 15 years. They also represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms. Furthermore, small businesses are our Nation's most effective innovators, producing roughly 13 times more patents per employee than large firms--patents which are at least two times as likely to be among the top 1 percent of high-impact patents. Recipients of both of these programs have produced more than 85,000 patents and have generated millions of well-paying jobs across all 50 States. It is crucial, then, that both of these programs--one of the strongest examples of a successful public-private partnership--be a key part of our job creation agenda. The SBIR program got its start at the National Science Foundation back in 1976 following growing concerns that small businesses were not receiving an adequate share of Federal research and development funding despite their prominent role in innovation. It was officially established in law as part of the Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982. As the Chair indicated, I was an original cosponsor in the House--hopefully that is not dating myself too much--which set four goals for the program: stimulate technological innovation; use small business to meet Federal R&D funds; foster and encourage participation by minority and disadvantaged persons in the technological innovation; and increase private-sector commercialization of innovation derived from Federal R&D. The STTR program was established in 1992 to complement the SBIR program by stimulating partnerships between small businesses and nonprofit research institutions such as universities and research laboratories. Together, these vital job creation programs have provided small firms with over $28 billion during their lifespans. These programs have been front and center in improving our Nation's capacity to be innovative. According to a report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, SBIR-backed firms have been responsible for roughly 25 percent of the Nation's most crucial innovations over the past decade--``a powerful indication that the SBIR program has become a key force in the innovation economy of the United States.'' Furthermore, a comprehensive 2008 National Academy of Sciences study of the SBIR program noted that more than 20 percent of companies responding to their survey noted they were founded entirely, or at least in part, because of a prospective SBIR award, and a full two- thirds said the projects they performed would not have taken place without the funding. Just under half of the projects pursued in the SBIR program reached the marketplace, bringing countless new innovations to our everyday lives. Additionally, the study noted that over one-third of the companies awarded SBIR funding participate in the program for the first time each year, thus . . . ``encouraging innovation across a broad spectrum of firms.'' It concludes that SBIR is ``sound in concept and effective in practice.'' In fact, there is a wide range of remarkable success stories associated with the SBIR program, including Qualcomm, which the Chair mentioned, which is a remarkable story. Qualcomm received roughly $1.5 billion in SBIR grants to pursue several innovative programs and develop breakthrough technologies. Now it employs 17,500 individuals worldwide with an annual revenue of $11 billion. In fiscal year 2010 alone, Qualcomm paid $1.4 billion in Federal, State, and local taxes--a significant return on investment. Another example of SBIR's success is LASIK eye surgery. The company behind the technology for the procedure received SBIR awards from both NASA and the Department of Defense. In the 1980s, NASA awarded funding for a project developing technology for docking of space vehicles to satellites by pointing laser beams. This concept was then applied to develop LASIK, which corrects vision problems. The technology that went into the Sonicare electronic toothbrush was funded by an SBIR award. According to NIH, which made the award, SBIR funding allowed the firm that developed the technology to create a $300 million business, employing over 500 individuals. In my home State of Maine, Tex Tech Industries has researched and developed high-tech textiles that are used in body armor for U.S. troops and bulletproof vests for public safety personnel. Tex Tech also developed a fire-resistant material to be used as the primary fire barrier in the seating cabins of new commercial aircraft. Additionally, BioSciCon in Maryland is responsible for the MarkPap system, which is a diagnostic device that tests for cervical cancer and can be used as a research tool to improve cervical cancer screening. Other companies such as Symantec, which makes antivirus software for computers, and Genzyme, one of the world's leading biotechnology firms, all received SBIR funding at some point during their formative years. Some of these firms are now household names; others are still small businesses with a plethora of novel ideas. As these examples demonstrate, SBIR funding has helped small businesses nationwide develop incredible breakthrough technologies for a whole host of applications. These are innovations we use in our everyday lives, that help strengthen our national defense, improve our health, and boost our competitiveness. Regrettably the SBIR program expired in September 2008 and has been subject to a series of 10 short- term, temporary extensions since then, plaguing the programs with uncertainty and potentially dissuading some of our Nation's most promising firms from participating in them. This is legislation that our committee has worked to have signed into law for nearly 6 years-- since the time, in fact, when I was chair of the committee. Indeed, we passed legislation out of the Small Business Committee unanimously in 2006 to preempt this stalemate by making improvements to the program and doubling the SBIR allocation from 2.5 percent to 5 percent over 5 years, and doubling the STTR allocation immediately. Last Congress, with our Chair, we once again passed legislation out of our committee unanimously which was very similar to the bill we reported out in the previous Congress. Specifically, it maintained the allocation increases spread out incrementally that had been developed in the previous Congress as a compromise, as well as the 18-and-8 compromise on the venture capital issue. This time, the full Senate passed the legislation unanimously and sent it to the House of Representatives, where the bill sat. The legislation we are debating today is very similar to the bill we passed out unanimously 3 months ago. But we have already wasted too much time over the past several years, and it is now vitally critical that we act now and pass this legislation to provide these crucial innovation initiatives with certainty for the future. As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has noted: [E]ven though this important program for the small business has a proven track record of success, its full potential has been held hostage by a series of short-term reauthorizations which has created uncertainty for SBIR program managers and limitations for potential small business grant recipients. As in the previous two Congresses, our legislation increases the allocation for SBIR from 2.5 percent of an agency's extramural research and development to 3.5 percent for over 10 years, and doubles the STTR allocations from 0.3 to 0.6 percent over 5 years. This means the Federal Government can make more awards to a greater number of small businesses out of its existing research and development budget. It would also codify increased award sizes of $150,000 for phase I and $1 million for phase II in the SBIR program, and apply those levels to the STTR program as well to adjust for inflation. The last statutory increase in award sizes for the SBIR program was 19 years ago as part of the 1992 reauthorization. It is critical that we bring the program into the 21st century to acknowledge the growing costs of quality research. Furthermore, in December, Chair Landrieu and I sent a letter to SBA Administrator Karen Mills stating that rooting out fraud and abuse in the agency's program will be our committee's first priority this Congress. To that end, this bill includes stringent oversight and fraud prevention measures, requiring inspectors general of participating Federal agencies to establish fraud detection measures. In a similar vein, the legislation includes a series of data- collection provisions that we worked on with Senator Coburn to ensure we have a better base of information to use when considering future policy changes to the programs and engaging in necessary oversight. This reauthorization act contains an unprecedented compromise on the venture capital issue which has long bogged down any serious progress in reauthorizing these valuable programs. It would make firms majority owned by multiple venture capital companies eligible for up to 25 percent of SBIR funds at the National Institute of Health, National Science Foundation, and Department of Energy, and up to 15 percent of the funds at the remaining agencies. My longstanding guiding principle on reauthorization of these programs has been simple: These are small business programs, not big business programs or venture capital programs. I have worked closely with Chair Landrieu to ensure changes we make to these programs keep it squarely as a small business program. The unprecedented landmark compromise on the venture capital issue passes this test. Our compromise has the backing of diverse stakeholders, from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, NFIB, Small Business Technology Council, to the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the National Venture Capital Association, and a whole host of other organizations, as we can see on this chart. It is critical to note that funding for both of these programs is meant to serve as early-stage seed capital for eligible small businesses. In general, venture capital companies invest in firms that are further along in their development and commercialization, and they focus on larger investments that are easier to manage than is normally appropriate for many small, innovative technology firms. Nonetheless, particularly for firms in the biotechnology industry, venture capital investment is essentially a necessity to commercialize their technology. Here is what some of the groups endorsing our legislation have to say about the compromise we arrived at. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of support we have received regarding this legislation, as well as the report from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation I referenced earlier.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the Biotechnology Industry Organization noted: [t]his bill represents a balanced approach to ensure that America's most innovative small businesses can access existing incentives to grow jobs by commercializing new discoveries. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said: [t]his landmark compromise bill, if passed into law, would unlock the door for entry for businesses that acquire equity funding through venture capital firms without diminishing the programs effectiveness for traditional small businesses, thus setting the stage for a robust and revitalized SBIR program. That is really our goal--a modern program that recognizes the reality of today's innovative small businesses and provides the appropriate environment in which they can flourish. Given the nature of the compromise we have reached--from increasing allocations over a number of years to allowing limited participation by majority-owned venture capital firms--we must allow time for these provisions to take shape and enhance these programs. That is why our legislation reauthorizes these measures for 8 years, through 2019. Indeed, the past two reauthorizations of the SBIR program have been for 8 years each--in 1992 and 2000--as was the last reauthorization for the STTR program in 2001. This long-term reauthorization will allow more small businesses to access this funding without the fear of constant interruptions based on whims of whether Congress will extend these programs for an indefinite period of time. Indeed, a company's life cycle in either of these programs is by nature a multiyear process--a phase I award will last 6 months, while a phase II award will last for 2 years. That timeframe does not include the time it takes for businesses to apply for funding and await a decision, as well as the time between three phases waiting for new solicitations from agencies. It will also allow the Government Accountability Office to effectively study the venture capital compromise over time to see if it is serving its intended purpose of allowing promising small businesses to utilize these resources. We include a provision in the bill mandating that the GAO issue a report on the subject 3 years after enactment and every 3 years thereafter. By reducing the length of the reauthorization, we would be allowing this delicate compromise to be relitigated immediately without the benefit of studying its impact, and we would effectively negate any modicum of certainty provided in the pending legislation. Finally, on the matter of procedure, I am very pleased the majority leader has indicated he will be allowing an open amendment process to this legislation. That is also important as well as necessary for working through these issues and others that are critical to our consideration. Mr. President, I thank you for the consideration, but I most especially thank the chair of the Small Business Committee for providing the kind of leadership that has been so essential to bringing this legislation forward. After 10 reauthorizations and for about 6 years in the process, to bring it to this point will be critical for the innovation that is so essential to creating new products and to also creating new jobs we desperately need in our economy.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. The points she raised are very critical because of the contributions these programs have made to our economy, most especially because much of the innovation that occurs in America comes from small businesses. In fact, this report by the Information and Innovation Technology Foundation underscores this point, that the innovations coming from big companies is actually on the decline. We really do depend on the entrepreneurial spirit of small businesses to create the kind of innovation we require in America if we are going to be on the vanguard of change and vanguard of technologies and which is so crucial in moving forward as a nation. The SBIR program in particular has played a very crucial role in that regard. I think this report truly does emphasize the degree to which it has played a paramount role over the years since the program was created in 1982. It certainly has had an extraordinary history in that regard. We talk about a lot of programs that we underwrite at the Federal level, but I can say this is a good use of taxpayers' dollars when we are thinking about how we maximize taxpayers' dollars within the Federal agencies that are now utilizing these programs, of which we have 11 different agencies that are setting aside the research and development funds specifically to ensure that small business has an allocation among the research and development dollars so they get their fair share because that is from where the innovation is derived in the final analysis. That certainly has been the indication of the many results we have achieved due to these programs, and that is what makes them outstanding in that regard. You can draw a cause and effect. Certainly, there is a correlation between the effectiveness of these programs among the agencies that award them to small businesses that then become the true laboratories for the innovation. That transformation, as this report indicated, has been central to the types of technologies that have emerged over the last three decades. We want to continue to advance these programs because they are undeniably beneficial and well worth the investments that are made by these agencies because of their required set-asides for these programs and to ensure that small businesses are part of the research and development funding that is in the billions of dollars at the Federal level, if you look at the collective budgets of just these 11 agencies. We want to make sure small businesses are key to our technological growth and, therefore, having these types of programs becomes a major force in developing our innovative economy, as this report indicated recently. Again, I wish to thank the Chair for her efforts in that regard.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, since settlers first occupied the vast forest areas found in my home State of Maine, the logging industry has been a vital part of the state's economy. Last year, approximately 2,600 were employed by the forestry and logging industry, and over 4,000 were employed in wood product manufacturing. Maine loggers have constantly been at the forefront of advances in their industry, including inventing the Peavey hook and the Lombard log hauler. Despite these great advancements, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, considers logging to be one of the most dangerous industries in the United States. Today I commend and recognize Portage Woods Products LLC, a logging company in my home State of Maine, for receiving the Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program, SHARP, award, OSHA's highest honor for small businesses that show an exemplary commitment to workplace safety and health. Portage Woods Products LLC, a division of Maine Woods Company LLC, located in the northern Maine town of Portage, knows what it takes to be a successful small business without compromising safety and integrity. The Pingree family has been invested in logging since 1841. Currently their small business employs 63 individuals and distributes $2.6 million in payroll. In 2006, the Pingrees acquired and integrated Portage Woods Products, or PWP, into Maine Woods Company. The Portage Woods site is the only fully integrated hardwood manufacturing complex in the Northeast. Throughout its history, PWP has strived to uphold its mission, ``to manufacture quality hardwood lumber at the lowest cost while providing for a safe work environment.'' To do so, the firm incorporates accident prevention into its training of employees, and asks workers to remember that, ``no job is more important than your safety!'' Clearly, Portage Woods Products makes safety a priority, and in December 2010 OSHA recognized this aspect of the business by honoring the company with the SHARP award. This is truly distinctive, as less than 1,600 small worksites currently possess this honor. I commend the company's high achievement and its laudable commitment to safety. I know firsthand that small businesses face unparalleled burdens in complying with all types of regulations, which only makes this accomplishment all the more impressive. Portage Woods Products has demonstrated that when a company sets goals and prides itself on safety, it is possible to attain excellence. I thank everyone at PWP and Maine Woods Company for their dedication and commitment to a safe and productive work environment, and offer my best wishes for another 150 years of success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my friend and colleague, Senator Mark Pryor, in introducing the Patriot Express Authorization Act of 2011. This legislation codifies a critical Small Business Administration, SBA, lending program for America's veterans and Reservists, as well as their spouses. It is critical that we support our nation's veterans and, in particular, our service-members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. Regrettably, the unemployment rate for veterans of these two wars is 12.5 percent--a full 3.6 percent higher than the national unemployment rate for the overall population. Many of these brave men and women have aspirations of owning their own business, and I was proud to work with Senator Kerry to pass the Military Reservist and Veteran Small Business Reauthorization and Opportunity Act of 2008, which President George W. Bush signed into law three years ago. This legislation contains a number of provisions to help veterans and Reservists who own or are seeking to own a business, and created an Interagency Task Force on Veterans Small Business Development, which President Obama formed by Executive Order last spring, to assist veterans with government contracting and capital access opportunities in particular. One way the SBA has supported veteran entrepreneurs is through the Patriot Express Loan Initiative, which was established as a pilot program in 2007. According to the data from the SBA, Patriot Express supported nearly 7,000 loans totaling $560 million to small businesses owned and operated by eligible participants in just three and a half years. While the program was scheduled to expire in December, the SBA extended it for an additional three years, through 2013. That said, this legislation would provide certainty to the program by placing it in statute. Coupled with the counseling and training assistance provided by the SBA's Office of Veterans Business Development, the Patriot Express loan program is a signal to our nation's veterans, Reservists, service- members, and their families that the Federal government takes seriously its obligation to give back for all they have done to defend our nation. These loans will help participants start or expand their firms, purchase equipment or inventory, and ultimately, create jobs. I am proud to cosponsor this legislation with Senator Pryor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my friend and colleague, Senator Mark Pryor, in introducing the Patriot Express Authorization Act of 2011. This legislation codifies a critical Small Business Administration, SBA, lending program for America's veterans and Reservists, as well as their spouses. It is critical that we support our nation's veterans and, in particular, our service-members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. Regrettably, the unemployment rate for veterans of these two wars is 12.5 percent--a full 3.6 percent higher than the national unemployment rate for the overall population. Many of these brave men and women have aspirations of owning their own business, and I was proud to work with Senator Kerry to pass the Military Reservist and Veteran Small Business Reauthorization and Opportunity Act of 2008, which President George W. Bush signed into law three years ago. This legislation contains a number of provisions to help veterans and Reservists who own or are seeking to own a business, and created an Interagency Task Force on Veterans Small Business Development, which President Obama formed by Executive Order last spring, to assist veterans with government contracting and capital access opportunities in particular. One way the SBA has supported veteran entrepreneurs is through the Patriot Express Loan Initiative, which was established as a pilot program in 2007. According to the data from the SBA, Patriot Express supported nearly 7,000 loans totaling $560 million to small businesses owned and operated by eligible participants in just three and a half years. While the program was scheduled to expire in December, the SBA extended it for an additional three years, through 2013. That said, this legislation would provide certainty to the program by placing it in statute. Coupled with the counseling and training assistance provided by the SBA's Office of Veterans Business Development, the Patriot Express loan program is a signal to our nation's veterans, Reservists, service- members, and their families that the Federal government takes seriously its obligation to give back for all they have done to defend our nation. These loans will help participants start or expand their firms, purchase equipment or inventory, and ultimately, create jobs. I am proud to cosponsor this legislation with Senator Pryor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for instituting biennial budgeting within the U.S. Government. We should reform the Federal budget process by converting it from an annual spending process to a 2-year cycle, with 1 year for appropriating Federal dollars and the following year devoted to oversight of Federal programs. Under the current budget process, Congress almost never finishes the appropriations bills by October 1 and is forced to consider omnibus legislation composed of individual appropriations bills that were never considered on the Senate floor. Worse still is that we are often unable to amend an omnibus appropriations bill and are forced to accept provisions that may be objectionable. Because we are constantly racing against the clock to finish appropriations, authorizing committees are hampered in their ability to conduct effective oversight. This means that we have trouble learning about what spending programs work and which must be modified or eliminated. Budget reforms are much needed and long overdue. The amendment that I filed today would require the President to submit a 2-year budget at the beginning of the first session of a Congress. Members of Congress would then need to adopt a 2-year budget resolution, a reconciliation bill if necessary and 2-year appropriations bills during that first session. The legislation ensures the enactment of 2-year appropriations bills by providing a new majority point of order against consideration of an appropriations bill that fails to cover 2 years. The second session of a Congress would then be devoted to the consideration of authorization bills and oversight of Federal programs. The result is enhanced oversight that will provide greater accountability of government programs and a superior budget process. Each year, approximately 40 percent of Congress's debating time is spent on appropriations, on the resolution and on the reconciliation process. In some years, that number is as high as 60 percent, not even reflecting the time that the budget process consumes the entire Federal bureaucracy. Moreover through February 18 of this year, House lawmakers spent 61 hours over 4 days debating 162 of the nearly 600 amendments filed on the 359-page measure to fund government until September. And after all the debate and consideration last year, Congress failed to adopt the budget or pass any of the 13 appropriations bills for the first time since the landmark Budget Act of 1974. It is no wonder that the American people are dismayed because all they have seen is the chaotic nature of the budgetary process and the failure of Congress time and time again to meet statutory deadlines. It is important to have a biennial budget because it will allow the President--as well as Congress--in the second year to fine-tune the budget, revisit issues, improve oversight activities, and--if necessary--respond to a downturn in the economy, such as a recession. And it would also immeasurably add to accountability to the American taxpayer. If you ask the American taxpayer, ``Do you think your Federal dollars are being spent wisely and efficiently?''--the response is a resounding ``no'' as reflected in many polls and public opinion surveys. Only if we improve oversight activities and examine every program and agency, will we restore the confidence of the American taxpayer in how government spends hard-earned tax dollars. Unfortunately, the battle to get the biennial budget passed is not new. I have been advocating for budget reform for years and have pursued shifting the federal budgeting process to a biennial system throughout my tenure in the Senate. In 1997--the year that led to record surpluses--I cosponsored the Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act, S. 261, to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to revise the Federal and congressional budget processes by establishing a two-year budgeting and appropriations cycle and timetable. That bill sat dormant in a Senate committee--as did the next four bills of this kind that I have cosponsored since. So we find ourselves with record deficits, a complicated and time consuming budget process that gives Americans little confidence in their government, lack of congressional oversight over the many programs and agencies that dispense taxpayer's funds, and the surpluses of the 1998-2001 nowhere to be found. If that does not tell us that the system is broken, I do not know what does. The biennial budget would free up Senate floor time for other matters, help us avoid having to consider an end-of-year omnibus bill, and provide authorizing committees more time to carry out their oversight responsibilities. Biennial budgeting would make us more effective legislators and enable us to make more informed choices on behalf of our constituents. Biennial budgeting is necessary to return us to the path of fiscal sustainability and to allow Congress time to engage in meaningful oversight of government spending. As such, this legislation is long overdue and it is my hope that Congress will finally institute this much needed reform.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleague and chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Senator Landrieu, to reauthorize the critical Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR, and Small Business Technology Transfer, STTR, Programs. We are joined by Senators John Kerry, Scott Brown, Jeanne Shaheen, Kelly Ayotte, Ben Cardin, Mark Pryor, and Carl Levin. Frankly, after nearly 6 years of debate and discussion, it is well past time for us to pass this legislation and set these programs on a path of certainty. Our Nation's economic recovery is being suppressed by an inflated unemployment rate--which has been at or above 9 percent for 21 consecutive months--and, as a result, a small business community that remains uncertain about the future and unable to invest in their businesses and hire new workers. They are looking for market-based ways to create jobs with limited government intervention and unleash their innovative potential. That is why I am excited about reauthorizing the SBIR and STTR programs, which 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 that are most likely to create jobs and commercialize their products. Small businesses are our Nation's job generators, employing more than half of all private sector employees and creating 64 percent of the net new jobs over the past 15 years. Furthermore, small businesses are our Nation's most effective innovators, producing roughly 13 times more patents per employee than large firms--patents which are at least two times as likely to be among the top 1 percent of high-impact patents. In a budgetary environment where the Small Business Administration, SBA, will be required to do more with less funding, it is crucial that the SBIR and STTR programs--one of the strongest examples of a successful public-private partnership--be a key part of the Agency's job creation agenda. These programs have been front and center in improving our Nation's capacity to innovate. According to a report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, SBIR-backed firms have been responsible for roughly 25 percent of the Nation's most crucial innovations over the past decade plus--``a powerful indication that the SBIR program has become a key force in the innovation economy of the United States.'' Regrettably, SBIR and expired in September 2008, and it has been subject to a series of 10 short-term, temporary extensions since then, plaguing the programs with uncertainty and potentially dissuading some of our Nation's most promising firms from participating in them. That is why Chair Landrieu and I introduced the SBIR-STTR Reauthorization Act, S. 4053, at the end of last Congress after extensive negotiation and debate. This bill--which passed the Senate unanimously in December--is virtually the same legislation we are introducing today. It would reauthorize the programs for 8 years, while making critical improvements, such as increasing the allocation for SBIR from 2.5 percent of an agency's extramural research and development, R&D, budget to 3.5 percent over 10 years, and doubling the STTR allocation from 0.3 percent over 6 years. Our legislation would also codify increased award sizes of $150,000 for phase I and $1 million for phase II in the SBIR program, and apply those levels to the STTR program as well. Our bill 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 program, among other initiatives. The SBIR-STTR Reauthorization Act also includes an unprecedented compromise on the ``venture capital'' issue, which has long bogged down any serious progress in reauthorizing these valuable programs. It would make firms majority owned and controlled by multiple venture capital companies eligible for up to 25 percent of SBIR funds at the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, and Department of Energy, and up to 15 percent of the funds at the remaining eight participating SBIR agencies. Our compromise has the backing of diverse stakeholders from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB, and Small Business Technology Council, SBTC, to the Biotechnology Industry Organization, BIO, and the National Venture Capital Association, NVCA. So I look forward to ensuring that this will be the Congress to once and for all reauthorize these critical nationwide programs, and I am confident that the SBIR-STTR Reauthorization Act is the best way for us to get us there.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleague and chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Senator Landrieu, to reauthorize the critical Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR, and Small Business Technology Transfer, STTR, Programs. We are joined by Senators John Kerry, Scott Brown, Jeanne Shaheen, Kelly Ayotte, Ben Cardin, Mark Pryor, and Carl Levin. Frankly, after nearly 6 years of debate and discussion, it is well past time for us to pass this legislation and set these programs on a path of certainty. Our Nation's economic recovery is being suppressed by an inflated unemployment rate--which has been at or above 9 percent for 21 consecutive months--and, as a result, a small business community that remains uncertain about the future and unable to invest in their businesses and hire new workers. They are looking for market-based ways to create jobs with limited government intervention and unleash their innovative potential. That is why I am excited about reauthorizing the SBIR and STTR programs, which 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 that are most likely to create jobs and commercialize their products. Small businesses are our Nation's job generators, employing more than half of all private sector employees and creating 64 percent of the net new jobs over the past 15 years. Furthermore, small businesses are our Nation's most effective innovators, producing roughly 13 times more patents per employee than large firms--patents which are at least two times as likely to be among the top 1 percent of high-impact patents. In a budgetary environment where the Small Business Administration, SBA, will be required to do more with less funding, it is crucial that the SBIR and STTR programs--one of the strongest examples of a successful public-private partnership--be a key part of the Agency's job creation agenda. These programs have been front and center in improving our Nation's capacity to innovate. According to a report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, SBIR-backed firms have been responsible for roughly 25 percent of the Nation's most crucial innovations over the past decade plus--``a powerful indication that the SBIR program has become a key force in the innovation economy of the United States.'' Regrettably, SBIR and expired in September 2008, and it has been subject to a series of 10 short-term, temporary extensions since then, plaguing the programs with uncertainty and potentially dissuading some of our Nation's most promising firms from participating in them. That is why Chair Landrieu and I introduced the SBIR-STTR Reauthorization Act, S. 4053, at the end of last Congress after extensive negotiation and debate. This bill--which passed the Senate unanimously in December--is virtually the same legislation we are introducing today. It would reauthorize the programs for 8 years, while making critical improvements, such as increasing the allocation for SBIR from 2.5 percent of an agency's extramural research and development, R&D, budget to 3.5 percent over 10 years, and doubling the STTR allocation from 0.3 percent over 6 years. Our legislation would also codify increased award sizes of $150,000 for phase I and $1 million for phase II in the SBIR program, and apply those levels to the STTR program as well. Our bill 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 program, among other initiatives. The SBIR-STTR Reauthorization Act also includes an unprecedented compromise on the ``venture capital'' issue, which has long bogged down any serious progress in reauthorizing these valuable programs. It would make firms majority owned and controlled by multiple venture capital companies eligible for up to 25 percent of SBIR funds at the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, and Department of Energy, and up to 15 percent of the funds at the remaining eight participating SBIR agencies. Our compromise has the backing of diverse stakeholders from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB, and Small Business Technology Council, SBTC, to the Biotechnology Industry Organization, BIO, and the National Venture Capital Association, NVCA. So I look forward to ensuring that this will be the Congress to once and for all reauthorize these critical nationwide programs, and I am confident that the SBIR-STTR Reauthorization Act is the best way for us to get us there.