HUBZone Improvement Act of 2010

Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Landrieu, Bond, and Merkley to introduce the Historically Underutilized Business Zone, HUBZone, Improvement Act of 2010. This vital piece of bipartisan legislation is similar to that which I introduced in the 110th Congress, S. 3699. The purpose of the bill is to help ensure that only eligible firms participate in the critical HUBZone program by requiring that the Small Business Administration, SBA, implement Government Accountability Office, GAO, recommendations for improving the management, oversight and evaluation of the program.

As former Chair and now Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have long championed critical small business programs such as the HUBZone program, which provides Federal contracting opportunities to small firms located in economically distressed areas.

The program is devised to help stimulate economic development and job creation. In these troubled economic times, a properly functioning HUBZone program is essential for nation-wide economic recovery. According to the SBA, as of October 2009, 21,222 certified businesses have participated in the HUBZone program since its inception in 1997. In fiscal year 2008, HUBZone firms were awarded approximately $10.1 billion in Federal contracts. And let there be no doubt--with the Federal Government contracting for over $500 billion in goods and services in fiscal year 2009 alone--we must have a robust and trustworthy HUBZone program for small businesses to continue generating jobs in our nation's most economically distressed communities.

The GAO has issued multiple reports detailing fraud and abuses within the HUBZone program. Alarmingly, the GAO found that the mechanisms the SBA uses to certify and monitor HUBZone firms provide limited assurance that only eligible firms participate in the program. The GAO specifically stated that the ``SBA's control weaknesses exposed the government to fraud and abuse.'' The GAO also had concerns that the SBA had no mechanisms to adequately assess program results.

The legislation I am introducing today would take immediate steps to rectify the serious issues that GAO found. The bill requires the SBA to implement the GAO recommendations resulting from the study and audits. These include maintaining an accurate, correct and up-to-date map; implementing policies that ensure that only eligible firms participate in the program; employing appropriate technology to control costs and maximize other benefits, such as uniformity, completeness, simplification and efficiency; notifying the Congressional Small Business Committees of any backlogs in applications and recertifications with plans and timetables for eliminating the backlogs; and implementing plans to assess the effectiveness of the HUBZone program.

Moreover, the Federal Government must strive to continue to provide maximum practicable contracting opportunities to those who are legitimate HUBZone firms. I am dismayed by the myriad ways that government departments and agencies have time and again egregiously failed to meet most of their statutory small business contracting goals. I am alarmed that only one Federal small business contracting program--the Small Disadvantaged Business program--has met its statutory goal, and that the three other small business goaling programs have all fallen drastically short. In fiscal year 2008, the Federal Government met only 2.34 percent of its 3 percent government- wide goal for the HUBZone program. Even worse, the Federal Government missed meeting its overall goal for small business contracting by almost 2 percent, depriving small businesses of over $10 billion.

I am confident that this legislation will require the changes necessary to eliminate fraud while paving the way for the Federal Government to maximize the use of this contracting vehicle. In turn, qualified HUBZone firms will provide the essential job creation and economic development necessary in their respective communities. The HUBZone program is a tremendous tool for replacing lost jobs across all industry sectors in distressed geographic areas, and clearly, this program should be better utilized.

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

Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleague Senator Pryor, to introduce the Job Impact Analysis Act of 2010, a bipartisan measure that will help ensure that the Federal Government--both Congress and agencies of the executive branch--fully considers small business job creation in the bills we pass here in Congress and in the rules and regulations that agencies promulgate.

As the former Chair and now Ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I believe there is no more urgent imperative than job creation in our country. With 25,000 additional unemployed in my State of Maine alone, since the recession began in 2007, and twenty-three million Americans unemployed or underemployed, it is more paramount than ever that everything we do must focus like a laser on jumpstarting our economy. Furthermore, the fastest route to recovery runs through Main Street small businesses, which over the past 15 years have generated 64 percent of all net new jobs in this country, and so we must foster an entrepreneurial environment where small businesses can take risks and invest in the future to preserve and create more jobs.

The legislation we are introducing today would help make sure that in whatever measure we are debating--whether it be health care reform, a jobs

bill, or financial services overhaul--that we strive to discern whether it contributes to creating a climate in which our smallest enterprises and entrepreneurs cannot only survive, but thrive. It would amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to direct the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, to the extent practicable, to estimate in a ``job impact statement'' the potential job creation or job loss attributable to each bill or joint resolution reported by a congressional committee that exceeds $5 billion in costs. For years we have had environmental impact statements, and so in 2010, I do not think it is too much to ask, where are the job impact statements?

As our Nation continues to reel from the worst set of economic circumstances since World War II, Congress must focus on job creation, and we must begin by ensuring all economic factors--including potential small business job creation and job loss--are fully considered in debate of every bill that we consider in the Senate. It is clear that Washington has ignored the will of the people for far too long. At a time when the Nation is struggling to dig out of the deepest recession since the Great Depression, we must ensure that our country once again brings to bear the kind of ingenuity, creativity, and innovation that made America and our free-market economy the greatest and most powerful on earth. I believe that a job impact statement attached to every bill with costs over $5 billion would provide a powerful incentive for Congress to focus its efforts where they belong and help Congress focus on what matters to the American people these days--job creation.

In addition, onerous regulations are crushing the entrepreneurial spirit of America's small businesses. In 2009, there were close to 70,000 pages in the Federal Register, which chronicles new regulations by the government. Furthermore, according to research by the Small Business Administration's, SBA's, Office of Advocacy, the annual cost of Federal regulations totals $1.1 trillion, and small firms bear a disproportionate burden, paying approximately 45 percent more per employee in annual regulatory compliance costs than larger firms. Small firms also spend twice as much on tax compliance than their larger counterparts.

So our legislation includes several targeted regulatory reforms that would help to ensure that Federal agencies fully consider small business implications during the rulemaking process. The reforms in our bill are based on what we introduced in the Regulatory Flexibility Reform Act in the 109th Congress and the Independent Office of Advocacy and Small Business Regulatory Reform Act of 2008, from the 110th Congress. Most of these reforms have been supported by a host of small business stakeholders, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Small Business Association, the National Association for the Self-Employed, Women Impacting Public Policy, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, Small Business Legislative Council, and the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

Our measure would amend the Regulatory Flexibility Act, RFA, the seminal legislation, enacted in 1980, which requires agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory proposals on small businesses, to analyze effective alternatives that minimize small business impact, and to make their analyses available for public comment. The RFA requires federal agencies to conduct a small business analysis any time a proposed Federal rule would impose a ``significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses.'' Unfortunately, there remain a number of loopholes in the RFA that undermine its effectiveness in reducing these regulatory burdens.

Our legislation would close loopholes in this process, while also ensuring that Federal agencies consider potential job creation and job loss during the rulemaking process. In far too many cases, Federal agencies promulgate rules and regulations without adequately addressing the economic impact on small businesses. Under our legislation agencies must consider the ``indirect'' effects of an ``economic impact.'' Rules with indirect effects are currently exempt from RFA coverage according to well-established case law. This has serious consequences for small businesses. It means that Federal agencies can avoid the various analyses required under the RFA by either requiring the states to regulate small entities or regulating an industry so rigorously that it has a negative trickle down impact on other industries. For example, rules can regulate a handful of large manufacturers in the same industry. Yet, a foreseeable, indirect effect of these rules--not presently considered under RFA analyses--is that small distributors would no longer have the right to sell the product produced by the larger manufacturers.

The RFA has already saved billions of dollars for small businesses by forcing government regulators to be sensitive to their direct impact on small firms. If billions of dollars can be filtered out of direct regulatory mandates upon small business while improving workplace safety and environmental conditions, even more can be saved by filtering out unnecessary or duplicative costs to those small businesses indirectly impacted by regulation. Those dollars would be better spent by the businesses hiring more employees or providing existing employees with greater benefits, and would also help to prevent unintended job loss through regulatory requirements.

Our legislation also requires Federal agencies to consider comments provided by the SBA's Office of Advocacy, which has historically not received the public attention it deserves. In case after case, it has been the last, best hope for small businesses faced with burdensome, duplicative and nonsensical Federal regulations. Our legislation would also amend the RFA to include a provision for agencies to specifically respond to comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy. Codifying this necessary change would ensure that agencies give the proper deference to the Office of Advocacy, and to the comments and concerns of small businesses. This is a straightforward and simple reform that could have major benefits.

In addition, our measure would also clarify the circumstances for when ``periodic review'' under the RFA is required. Many questions have arisen as a result of ambiguous language in the RFA that has caused some confusion as to what rules require periodic review, and when. Under our bill, periodic review, with a focus on potential job creation or job loss, would be required for all final rules that would impose a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses. Agencies would be required to review all 10-year-old rules every year to avoid confusion over which rules to review. In addition, agencies would be required to review rules every 10 years and not just the first 10 years.

Finally, our bill would ensure the statutory and budgetary independence of the SBA Office of Advocacy, a key office that is intended to be the independent voice for small business within the Federal Government. It is charged with the duty of representing the views and interests of small businesses before other Federal agencies, and developing proposals for changing government policies to help small businesses. These roles can sometimes come into conflict.

Our bill would resolve such conflicts in favor of the small businesses that rely on the Chief Counsel and the Office of Advocacy to be a fully independent advocate within the Executive Branch. The bill would help to reinforce a clear mandate that the Office of Advocacy must fight on behalf of small businesses, regardless of the position taken on critical issues by the administration. Funding for the Office of Advocacy currently comes from the ``Salaries and Expense Account'' of the SBA's budget. Staffing is allocated by the SBA Administrator to the Office of Advocacy from the overall staff allocation for the Agency. In 1990, there were 70 full-time employees working on behalf of small businesses in the Office of Advocacy. Today, there are fewer than 50. The independence and effectiveness of the Office is potentially diminished when the Office of Advocacy staff is reduced, at the discretion of the administrator.

To address this problem, our legislation would build a firewall to minimize political intrusion into the management of day-to-day operations of the

Office of Advocacy similar to the one that protects Inspectors General in other agencies. The bill would require the Federal budget to include a separate account for the Office of Advocacy drawn directly from the General Fund of the Treasury. No longer would its funds come from the general operating account of the SBA. This will free the Chief Counsel for Advocacy from having to seek approval from the SBA Administrator to hire staff for the Office of Advocacy.

Our bill would leave unchanged current law that allows the Chief Counsel to hire individuals critical to the mission of the Office of Advocacy without going through the normal competitive procedures directed by Federal law and the Office of Personnel Management. This long-standing special hiring authority, which is limited only to employees within the Office of Advocacy, is beneficial because it allows the Chief Counsel to hire quickly those persons who can best assist the Office in responding to changing issues and problems confronting small businesses.

This non-controversial, bipartisan legislation is absolutely necessary. I urge my colleagues to support my bill so we can ensure that our Nation's small businesses and their employees are provided with much needed relief.

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

Mr. President, February 11, 2010, was the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Republic of Iran. For most Iranians, the Islamic Republic is the only government they have ever known, and unfortunately, it is a record that many would rather forget--

31 years of economic potential lost and the resources of a great and proud nation stolen by a corrupt ruling elite; 31 years of a regime that puts its own selfish interests and those of foreign terrorist groups ahead of the needs of the Iranian people; 31 years of justice denied, freedom curtailed, and dignity trampled.

In recent months, the world has watched in awe as hundreds of thousands of Iranians have said ``enough,'' and demanded better for themselves. They have taken to the streets and the Internet, risking the violent reprisal of a regime without conscience, in order to insist on their universal human rights. In television news clips and YouTube videos, in Twitter updates and countless online exchanges, the world has seen the naked oppression of the Iranian regime and its masked agents.

We have watched as peaceful Iranian demonstrators for human rights have been beaten, and shot--even murdered--in the streets of cities across Iran.

We have watched as Iranian men and women--many not more than young boys and girls--have been rounded up in their homes and dormitories, and hauled away unlawfully to face torture and other abuses in the darkest corners of the country, where the eyes of the international community struggle to see.

Just a few months ago, we watched as a young woman named Neda was shot in broad daylight by agents of the Iranian government. And as that young woman bled to death in the street, it became clear to me and many others that this was the beginning of the end of the Islamic Republic. After 31 years, that day cannot come soon enough, but how and when it does is up to the Iranian people.

This struggle continues in Iran. On February 11, many Iranians took to the streets again to demonstrate peacefully for freedom and justice. Again, many were beaten. Again, many were detained unlawfully. Again, many were no doubt tortured--and worse. The world has watched these abuses long enough. Now the world must act. It is long past time for democratic, law-abiding nations to stand up together, to speak with one voice, and to show these courageous Iranian human rights advocates that the free world is on their side. The recent statement between the U.S. and the European Union supporting human rights in Iran is a welcome development, and I hope to see more and more such joint actions.

It is also long past time for the U.N. Security Council to impose the crippling sanctions on the Iranian government that have been promised for so long. As that negotiation drags on, individual countries should not refrain from taking their own individual actions to impose pressure on the rulers of Iran for failing to abide by their own international agreements, both security agreements and human rights agreements. In that vein, I was pleased to see the White House recently announce a new set of sanctions against four Iranian entities and one individual active in Iran's nuclear program. I hope there is a lot more where that came from.

I do not wish, however, to confine our sanctions effort only to those persons in Iran who threaten our security and that of our allies, either through their support for terrorism or Iran's weapons programs. I also want to bring the full force of America's economic power to bear against those in Iran who threaten that country's peaceful human rights and democracy activists. That is why, just a few weeks ago, I sought to introduce an amendment to the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, which would impose targeted sanctions on persons in Iran who violate the human rights of their fellow citizens.

Building on that earlier effort, today I am introducing, together with my good friend and colleague Senator Joe Lieberman, the Iran Human Rights Sanctions Act, which is co-sponsored by a broad bipartisan group of U.S. Senators.

This bill has two parts.

First, it would require the President to compile a public list of individuals in Iran who, starting with the presidential election last June, are complicit in human rights violations against Iranian citizens and their families, no matter where in the world those abuses occur. I want to stress: This would be a public list, posted for all the world to see on the websites of the State and Treasury Departments. We will shine a light on the names of Iran's human rights abusers, and we will make them famous for their crimes.

Second, this bill would then ban these Iranian individuals from receiving U.S. visas, and impose on them the full battery of sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. That means, freezing any assets and blocking any property they hold under U.S. jurisdiction, and ending all their financial transactions with U.S. banks and other entities. If passed into law, this would be the first time the U.S. Government has ever imposed punitive measures against persons in Iran because of their human rights violations.

In short, under this bill, Iranian human rights abusers would be completely cut off from the global reach of the U.S. financial system, and that would send a powerful signal to every country, company, and bank in the world that they should think twice about doing business with the oppressors of the Iranian people.

Over the past year, the President has made every effort to extend a hand to the Iranian government--to seek to overcome 31 years of painful history, and to search for common ground on matters of common interest. Unfortunately, the President's generosity has been met defiantly, again and again, with the clenched fist of Iran's rulers--a fist that is increasingly stained with the blood of the Iranian people. It should now be clear that the Iranian regime has no desire to meet its international responsibilities and every desire to use all the tools of violence and repression at its disposal to crush the peaceful aspirations of Iran's citizens.

Faced with this disturbing reality, America must lead an international effort to support the human rights of the Iranian people, and to put that effort at the center of our policy toward Iran. We must encourage our international partners, especially our European allies, to do the same, and to impose their own targeted sanctions on Iran's human rights abusers. This is not about picking winners in an internal Iranian matter. It is about standing up for the universal values we hold dear, and championing the cause of all who seek to secure those values for themselves.

The Iran Human Rights Sanctions Act is an important start of this effort, and I encourage my colleagues in Congress to move quickly and pass it into law.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Landrieu, Bond, and Merkley to introduce the Historically Underutilized Business Zone, HUBZone, Improvement Act of 2010. This vital piece of bipartisan legislation is similar to that which I introduced in the 110th Congress, S. 3699. The purpose of the bill is to help ensure that only eligible firms participate in the critical HUBZone program by requiring that the Small Business Administration, SBA, implement Government Accountability Office, GAO, recommendations for improving the management, oversight and evaluation of the program.

As former Chair and now Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have long championed critical small business programs such as the HUBZone program, which provides Federal contracting opportunities to small firms located in economically distressed areas.

The program is devised to help stimulate economic development and job creation. In these troubled economic times, a properly functioning HUBZone program is essential for nation-wide economic recovery. According to the SBA, as of October 2009, 21,222 certified businesses have participated in the HUBZone program since its inception in 1997. In fiscal year 2008, HUBZone firms were awarded approximately $10.1 billion in Federal contracts. And let there be no doubt--with the Federal Government contracting for over $500 billion in goods and services in fiscal year 2009 alone--we must have a robust and trustworthy HUBZone program for small businesses to continue generating jobs in our nation's most economically distressed communities.

The GAO has issued multiple reports detailing fraud and abuses within the HUBZone program. Alarmingly, the GAO found that the mechanisms the SBA uses to certify and monitor HUBZone firms provide limited assurance that only eligible firms participate in the program. The GAO specifically stated that the ``SBA's control weaknesses exposed the government to fraud and abuse.'' The GAO also had concerns that the SBA had no mechanisms to adequately assess program results.

The legislation I am introducing today would take immediate steps to rectify the serious issues that GAO found. The bill requires the SBA to implement the GAO recommendations resulting from the study and audits. These include maintaining an accurate, correct and up-to-date map; implementing policies that ensure that only eligible firms participate in the program; employing appropriate technology to control costs and maximize other benefits, such as uniformity, completeness, simplification and efficiency; notifying the Congressional Small Business Committees of any backlogs in applications and recertifications with plans and timetables for eliminating the backlogs; and implementing plans to assess the effectiveness of the HUBZone program.

Moreover, the Federal Government must strive to continue to provide maximum practicable contracting opportunities to those who are legitimate HUBZone firms. I am dismayed by the myriad ways that government departments and agencies have time and again egregiously failed to meet most of their statutory small business contracting goals. I am alarmed that only one Federal small business contracting program--the Small Disadvantaged Business program--has met its statutory goal, and that the three other small business goaling programs have all fallen drastically short. In fiscal year 2008, the Federal Government met only 2.34 percent of its 3 percent government- wide goal for the HUBZone program. Even worse, the Federal Government missed meeting its overall goal for small business contracting by almost 2 percent, depriving small businesses of over $10 billion.

I am confident that this legislation will require the changes necessary to eliminate fraud while paving the way for the Federal Government to maximize the use of this contracting vehicle. In turn, qualified HUBZone firms will provide the essential job creation and economic development necessary in their respective communities. The HUBZone program is a tremendous tool for replacing lost jobs across all industry sectors in distressed geographic areas, and clearly, this program should be better utilized.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Support Renewable Energy Act of 2010 with my colleague, Senator Ensign. This bill would modify the Renewable Electricity Standard currently drafted in the American Clean Energy Leadership Act to ensure that all forms of renewable energy qualify.

I am pleased that the Senate is again considering the implementation of a Renewable Electricity Standard that will encourage the development and deployment of new and existing renewable energy technologies. However, as the proposed Renewable Electricity Standard is currently drafted, only electricity-producing renewable technologies would qualify. This would exclude direct use renewable energy technologies that displace the need for electricity, rather than produce electricity.

Our legislation would modify the definition of renewable energy as it applies to the draft Renewable Electricity Standard to include customer-sited renewable energy equipment. Specific examples of these direct use technologies are solar water heating, solar space heating and cooling, solar daylight and light-pipe technology, biogas, and ground source geothermal heat pumps. These technologies can be used in homes and businesses to provide light, heating, and cooling directly-- without the need for electricity from the grid. This legislation will allow utilities to generate renewable energy credits equal to the electricity or thermal energy displaced by direct use renewable energy technologies in order to meet a Renewable Electricity Standard.

In addition to the reduced stress on our overburdened electricity transmission grid, the incentivized production and installation of these renewable technologies would spur the growth of green, sustainable jobs. One example of the potential for job creation was provided to me by Orion Energy Systems in my home State of Wisconsin. Orion manufactures light-pipes, which captures natural light on a roof and transfers that light through a pipe to a ceiling, where it is diffused to light a room, like a traditional light bulb. Because light pipes uses solar energy directly to produce light, rather than generate electricity, this innovative technology would not qualify as renewable energy under the draft Renewable Electricity Standard.

Orion has already retrofitted approximately 5,000 facilities with improved lighting technology nationwide. With about 400 lighting fixtures on average, if these same facilities decided to upgrade to the light-pipe technology it would take between 6 million and 10 million man-hours to install. These would be jobs for roofers and carpenters at a time when the construction industry is badly in need of work.

Direct use renewable energy technologies have significant environmental benefits. The energy savings from retrofitting these facilities with the light-pipe would amount to a savings of between 915 and 1,934 gigawatts of electricity per year, which amounts to the energy equivalent of 343 to 725 million tons of coal that would not have to be burned, avoiding the release of between 0.6 and 1.28 million tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere. In addition, the users of this technology will save money on their electric bill, which could then be used for other things, like hiring new employees or increasing salaries.

This is just one company and one of the many technologies that would qualify for the expanded Renewable Electricity Standard under our legislation. This is clearly a win-win-win situation for jobs, the facilities that install the technologies and save on energy costs, and for the environment.

Direct use renewable energy technology is cost-effective, can be deployed locally, requires no new transmission infrastructure, and can be utilized in areas throughout the country that cannot sustain a commercial-scale power generation facility from other renewable energy sources. Furthermore, it will create much needed American jobs in both manufacturing and construction. I encourage my colleagues to support the Support Renewable Energy Act of 2010.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Help Find the Missing Act, otherwise known as Billy's Law, which I am introducing today along with my colleagues, Senators Schumer, Gillibrand and Merkley.

I was introduced to the issues Billy's Law addresses by two of my constituents, Jan and Bill Smolinski, who have lived through a parent's worst nightmare: the disappearance of their son.

On the afternoon of August 24, 2004, then-31-year-old Billy Smolinski disappeared without a trace. He left behind a dog he loved and his brandnew house; a truck with his keys and wallet still inside; and parents who have spent every day since searching for him and praying for his return. One moment he was there, asking his neighbors to look after his dog for a few days, and the next he was gone without explanation.

Jan and Bill Smolinski have spent countless hours working with law enforcement to try to find Billy. Through that experience, they discovered that we do a poor job managing data about missing adults. The bill we are introducing today will help correct those shortcomings so that families in similar situations can focus only on their missing loved ones and not have to worry that their agony will be prolonged simply because we fail to keep track of--and share--critical identifying data.

Billy's Law does three things: It facilitates the sharing of data about missing people between agencies; it requires law enforcement to compile and track missing persons data that is not currently being collected consistently; and it provides funding to improve, monitor, and maintain that data.

It is my hope that no parent will ever have to experience what Jan and Bill Smolinski are going through, and, as a parent, my heart truly goes out to them. Passing Billy's Law will help give families of missing adults confidence that we are doing everything we can to carefully track the information necessary to locate their loved ones.