[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6570-6573]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               SBIR/STTR

  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

[[Page 6571]]

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.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      May 2, 2011.
     Hon. Olympia Snowe,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Tom Coburn,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Snowe and Coburn: As representatives of small 
     businesses, we are pleased to support Senate Amendment 299, 
     the Small Business Regulatory Freedom Act of 2011. This 
     amendment to S. 493, the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act, puts 
     into place strong protections for small business to help 
     ensure that the federal government fully considers the impact 
     of proposed regulation on small businesses.
       In an economy with high unemployment, and where almost 2/3 
     of all net new jobs come from the small business sector, we 
     appreciate that your legislation would require regulators to 
     further analyze the impact of certain proposals on job 
     creation. The annual cost of federal regulation per employee 
     is significantly higher for smaller firms than larger firms. 
     Federal regulations--not to mention state and local 
     regulations--add up and increase the cost of labor. If the 
     cost of labor continues to increase, then job creation will 
     be stifled because small businesses will not be able to 
     afford to hire new employees.
       The Small Business Regulatory Freedom Act expands the scope 
     of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) by forcing government 
     regulators to include the indirect impact of their 
     regulations in their assessments of a regulation's impact on 
     small businesses. The bill also provides small business with 
     expanded judicial review protections, which would help to 
     ensure that small businesses have their views heard during 
     the proposed rule stage of federal rulemaking.
       The legislation strengthens several other aspects of the 
     RFA--such as clarifying the standard for periodic review of 
     rules by federal agencies; requiring federal agencies to 
     conduct small business economic analyses before publishing 
     informal guidance documents; and requiring federal agencies 
     to review existing penalty structures for their impact on 
     small businesses within a set timeframe after enactment of 
     new legislation. These important protections are needed to 
     prevent duplicative and outdated regulatory burdens as well 
     as to address penalty structures that may be too high for the 
     small business sector.
       The legislation also expands over time the small business 
     advocacy review panel process. Currently, the panels only 
     apply to the Environmental Protection Agency, the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the 
     Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. These panels have 
     proven to be an extremely effective mechanism in helping 
     agencies to understand how their rules will affect small 
     businesses, and help agencies identify less costly 
     alternatives to regulations before proposing new rules.
       We applaud your efforts to ensure the federal government 
     recognizes the important contributions of job creation by 
     small business, and look forward to working with you on this 
     important legislation.
           Sincerely,
       Air Conditioning Contractors of America, American Bakers 
     Association, American Chemistry Council, American Farm Bureau 
     Federation, Associated Builders and Contractors, Food 
     Marketing Institute, Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association, 
     Hispanic Leadership Fund, Independent Electrical Contractors, 
     Institute for Liberty, International Franchise Association, 
     National Association for the Self-Employed, National 
     Association of Home Builders, National Association of 
     REALTORS, National Association of the Remodeling Industry 
     (NARI).
       National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), National 
     Black Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent 
     Business, National Funeral Directors Association, National 
     Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association, National 
     Restaurant Association, National Retail Federation, National 
     Roofing Contractors Association, Plumbing-Heating-Cooling 
     Contractors--National Association, Printing Industries of 
     America, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, Snack 
     Food Association, Society of American Florists, U.S. Chamber 
     of Commerce, Window and Door Manufacturers Association.

  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.

[[Page 6572]]

  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator's time has 
expired.
  Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture 
on this important bill. It is the Federal Government's largest research 
program for new technologies and innovation. It is a job creator. It is 
widely supported by many business organizations in this country. It is 
a bill that should have passed 6 years ago. It is a bill, a statute, 
that will expire in less than 30 days from now. If we don't vote 
favorably on this bill today, there will be virtually no chance of this 
program being extended under law, and we will either have to eliminate 
the program entirely or we will revert back to no way to do business, 
which is a 3-month or 6-month rolling extension.
  I wish to answer a few of the charges made by my colleague. First of 
all, I have the greatest respect for my ranking member, and I can 
understand her frustration as being the ranking member of the Small 
Business Committee and not getting her amendment on the Senate floor. I 
would respectfully remind her that we could have had a vote on her 
amendment in committee except that her side demanded--and I wish to 
submit a letter to the effect--that the bill come out of our committee 
clean; that the SBIR bill not be attached to anything else so we could 
have an open debate on it because it has been going on for 6 years.
  No. 2, an open amendment process, which the majority leader has been 
more than gracious with, considering the fact that 150 amendments have 
been filed on a bill that is only 116 pages long, and 95 percent of 
these amendments have nothing to do with this bill--the majority leader 
has been more than patient. But an open debate does not--on the Senate 
floor, an open and free debate does not mean eliminating the committee 
process in the Senate that has existed, to my knowledge, as long as 
this body has existed, and it never will.
  We cannot trample on the rights of our committees, whether it be 
Homeland Security, which has primary jurisdiction over this issue, or 
the Small Business Committee, which has some jurisdiction over this 
issue. But because this regulatory reform bill is so far reaching and a 
necessary debate to have--not here, not now, not on this Senate floor 
but in the relevant committees. In fact, there are four other bills 
besides that of my ranking member. Senator Vitter has one bill, and I 
will submit for the Record other bills that have been filed, in fact, 
on this exact subject.
  The chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, who sits right here 
at this desk, has already agreed to have a hearing on all of these 
bills because Senator Snowe, with all due respect, is not the only 
Member who has an interest in regulatory reform. My committee, which I 
chair, does not have complete jurisdiction over this issue. Commerce is 
interested in it. Homeland Security is interested in it.
  I can't pull a bill--I don't believe it is right to pull a bill from 
the floor to have a vote that has not had a hearing in any committee of 
the Senate. That is not an open process. That is an ask that is 
impossible to agree to.
  No. 3 in my argument: If we vote no on cloture, I wish to remind 
Senators the amendments of Senator Carper and Senator Vitter will see 
no light of day. They have good amendments they have been working on 
for 3 years that have had committee review to help expedite the sale of 
Federal buildings that could save taxpayers millions of dollars. That 
amendment will go down.
  The Cornyn amendment, which establishes a commission to cut spending 
which will also save taxpayer money and reduce the burden on taxpayers, 
that amendment will go down.
  Senator Paul's amendment to reduce spending by $200 billion, he will 
not get the majority of our votes, but there will be an interesting 
debate on whether we can cut $200 billion out of the Federal 
Government. We lose that amendment.
  Senator Hutchison has an amendment for us to debate all of the 
regulations in the entire universe on health care. People are 
complaining about regulations for health care. We are giving a vote on 
that. That amendment will not be voted on.
  Senator Cardin has an amendment to fix surety bonds. We are going to 
lose that.
  Senator Snowe, herself, has an amendment to prevent fraud in 
contracting. We are going to lose that.
  So, evidently, 95 percent of the loaf is not enough. So we either get 
60 votes on this bill or we don't.
  Mr. President, I wish to give my last minute to Senator Shaheen, and 
I wish to ask her a question. What actually did the Senator hear in the 
Armed Services Committee that is relevant to this bill? If I have 2 
seconds, go ahead and tell me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I took the opportunity yesterday in an Armed Services 
Committee subcommittee to ask Department of Defense officials who have 
been responsible for maintaining our military technological edge what 
the impact would be on DOD's research if Congress does not reauthorize 
the SBIR Program. Assistant Secretary Zachary Lemnios said the SBIR is 
``something we absolutely need.'' He spoke of what it is like talking 
to small innovative companies he works with through SBIR, and he told 
me:

       There are small companies willing to take some risk in 
     areas where larger companies just, for whatever reason, just 
     don't. You spend a day with a small business like that, and 
     your mind explodes with new ideas.

  That is the kind of innovative spirit we need to stay competitive. We 
need

[[Page 6573]]

this for America's national security, and as the Senator from Louisiana 
points out, this is a program that creates jobs.
  We need to get this reauthorization done. We need to talk about 
regulatory reform, but we need to do this first.
  In a few minutes we will be voting on whether to move forward with a 
bill reauthorizing a program that is critically important to my home 
State of New Hampshire and the entire country--the Small Business 
Innovation Research program, or SBIR.
  As Chair Landrieu has pointed out, the Senate has been debating this 
bill for 5 weeks now. My colleagues and I from the Small Business 
Committee have come to the floor several times to talk about the 
importance of this program for the future of our economy. The bottom 
line is that SBIR promotes innovation among the entrepreneurs that will 
keep the American economy competitive in the 21st century.
  But as we decide whether to move forward with this bill--which has 
broad bipartisan support--I wanted to talk about the importance of 
SBIR--not just for our small businesses, but also for our national 
defense.
  Many agencies have come to rely on small, innovative companies to 
help them think outside the box and solve important problems. This is 
especially true for agencies that are charged with protecting our 
national security. Agencies like the Department of Defense rely on 
small companies to perform R&D that often leads to technologies that 
help our troops in the battlefield and help secure our country.
  I took the opportunity yesterday at an Armed Services Committee 
hearing to ask the Department of Defense officials responsible for 
maintaining our military's technological edge what the impact would be 
on DOD's research if Congress did not reauthorize SBIR. Assistant 
Secretary Zachary Lemnios said the SBIR is ``something we absolutely 
need.'' He discussed what it is like talking to the small, innovative 
entrepreneurs that he works with through the SBIR program. He told me, 
``there are small companies willing to take some risk in areas where 
larger companies just, for whatever reason, just don't. You spend a day 
with a small business like that, and your mind explodes with new 
ideas.''
  That is the kind of innovative spirit that we need to stay 
competitive. And it is the same spirit that agencies like the 
Department of Defense need to keep America secure. In 2010, the 
Department of Defense issued nearly 3,000 awards through the SBIR 
program.
  Let me give just one example of a company in my State that has 
benefitted from the SBIR program and has helped the Department of 
Defense develop a product that is currently helping our troops carry 
out their missions.
  Earlier this year, I visited a firm called Active Shock in 
Manchester, NH. Active Shock showed me the suspension technologies that 
it developed with funding from a competitive SBIR award. These 
technologies are now used by the Department of Defense to help our 
troops in the field. They help stabilize our war vehicles in rough 
terrain.
  This is exactly the kind of high-tech product that is developed as a 
result of SBIR. And SBIR awards are absolutely critical for these small 
companies. Bill Larkins, the CEO of Active Shock, told me that Active 
Shock would simply not be here today were it not for the SBIR program. 
The products that Active Shock developed also have commercial 
applications, so the SBIR awards have helped them grow and create jobs. 
Active Shock started with only a few employees; now, it has grown to 
over 30 employees.
  Active Shock is just one of many small firms in New Hampshire that 
have successfully competed for funding through SBIR in the 28 years it 
has been in existence. All across New Hampshire, small businesses that 
otherwise would not be able to compete for federal R&D funding have won 
competitive SBIR grants that advance technology and science and create 
good jobs. In just the last 2 years, New Hampshire firms have won 80 
SBIR awards.
  And many of these companies are helping the Department of Defense 
meet its R&D needs--in fact, despite its small size, New Hampshire is 
ranked 22nd in the Nation for total grants awarded from the Department 
of Defense since SBIR began.
  We need to focus on smart ways to create jobs and stay competitive. 
This program is critical for meeting that goal. But we also need to 
remember that SBIR also enhances our national security.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
program.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for answering my 
question.
  I would like to submit many more things for the Record. But, again, I 
wish to close, because we are 10 minutes extended from the vote, by 
asking the Senate to please consider voting for the SBIR Program. If we 
don't it will expire on May 31 this year.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________