Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to bid ``Aloha'' to an extraordinary colleague and a dear friend, Senator Daniel K. Inouye. I want to first and foremost offer my most sincere condolences to Dan's exceptional wife, Irene, who has been a pillar of unending strength and courage, as well Ken and Jennifer, both of whom he spoke of with boundless love, and of course, his entire family, as our hearts go out to them during this most difficult time. On an occasion of such a large and historic loss, finding the appropriate words to capture the immense depth and breadth of this moment, as well as the magnitude of its meaning, represents the most daunting of challenges. As Dan was the most senior member of this esteemed Chamber, and the second longest serving Senator in its history, every Senator here never known this institution without him-- and so it is difficult to comprehend that these hallowed halls will never again witness his presence or hear his deliberative, compassionate, and measured approach. Like all my colleagues, I profoundly admired Dan for his devotion to this country and the steadfast, irrepressible determination that he exhibited day in and day out, as he sought to better our Nation not only for his constituents in his beloved home State of Hawaii, but for all who called America home. But that is who Dan was, and throughout his remarkable life, he placed the highest of premiums on service above self. He did on the shores of Honolulu when, having heard the clarion call of sirens ringing out across the island as Japanese planes attacked American naval forces at Pearl Harbor, he rushed toward the battle to volunteer as a Red Cross medic. He did on the battlefields in Italy during the Second World War, when having taken sniper fire and enduring a gruesome explosion that would later claim his right arm, he refused to evacuate, pressing forward to neutralize enemy positions so that he could lead his men to safe ground--an act of heroism and valor which later rightfully earned him the Distinguished Service Cross and the Medal of Honor. Those acts of valor, which spoke to Dan's intrinsic and abiding concern for others, distinguished him throughout his life. In fact, it motivated him at every turn in Congress, where he cared not about scoring political points, but about doing what was right. In times rife with partisanship, he proved the rare exception, bringing to bear his principled voice of reason, as well as his enormous credibility, his gravitas, and his vast experience to rise above the rancorous din that all too often envelops us here in Washington. Indeed, Dan legislated with uncommon civility and candor, ability and efficacy, as well as the most seriousness of purpose and irrepressible good humor. It is no wonder, then, why the people of Hawaii, since achieving statehood in 1959, have repeatedly and overwhelmingly returned Dan to Congress for over half a century, entrusting him not only to be their voice and their vote, but their champion. And that is precisely what he was--a legislative stalwart and tireless advocate for his beloved home State, fighting fiercely on behalf of his fellow Hawaiians. Whether strengthening vital infrastructure, increasing job training and employment opportunities across the islands, or supporting veterans, he united a workhorse-like legislative craftsmanship with his legendary statesmanship to not only deliver on behalf of Hawaii, but ensure that his State, despite its geographical location, was on the vanguard of modernism. In fact, I can still well-recall traveling to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan with Senator Inouye and Senator Ted Stevens--who shared a remarkable friendship themselves--as part of a five-member Senate delegation in February of 2002, just 4 months after the horrific terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. One of the first American delegations to travel to Afghanistan after the tragedy, we consulted with NATO leaders to discuss international support for anti-terrorism efforts worldwide and met with President Pervez Musharref of Pakistan and Chairman Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan to signal America's commitment to defeating terrorism. And Dan was instrumental in these formative post-9/11 efforts in combating the combat the scourge of terrorism. And so as we reflect upon his unequaled career, we as a people and as a Nation can find solace in knowing that he has left to us an incredible legacy of service that will not only resonate for generations to come, but that will inspire all of those who are fortunate to follow in his footsteps, just as it has inspired all of us who have had the privilege of serving with him. Perhaps most importantly, though, he was indisputably what our forefathers quite likely had in mind when they envisioned a United States Senator, and his beloved Aloha State--and indeed our Nation-- could not have asked for a more eloquent and powerful champion fighting on their behalf. I will most certainly always remember the sincerity and warmth of our conversations and forever treasure our friendship. As I conclude, today, I remember a powerful statement of Senator Inouye's, which speaks to his unparalleled humility and integrity. Having recently been asked how he hoped history would remember him, he replied, ``I represented the people of Hawaii and this nation honestly and to the best of my ability. I think I did okay.'' Mr. President, I believe, as do my colleagues, that history will recall Senator Inouye as one of our most distinguished and iconic legislators, and just as he joins the pantheon of exemplary leaders who have shaped our Nation for the better, his memory will, too, forever live on in the collective heart of an eternally grateful Nation. Indeed, the Senate, the State of Hawaii, and the Nation, are immeasurably enhanced by his service.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in remembrance of an extraordinary man, an exceptional public servant, and a dear friend, Senator Warren B. Rudman. As the U.S. Senate, the people of New Hampshire, and the entire Nation mourn his loss, I wish to add my voice to the chorus of tributes that continue to reverberate from every corner of the country in commemoration of a man whose contributions to our Nation and our world are as numerous as they are invaluable. I also want to express my heartfelt condolences to his wife Margaret his daughters, Laura and Debra, and his entire family at this most difficult of times. With a Senate that is profoundly dysfunctional and in an era when bipartisanship and compromise are both seemingly lost arts, we recall with tremendous admiration the intelligence and exemplary judgment of a distinguished and iconic legislator whose paramount purpose was to rise above and beyond the din of partisanship to effectively serve the citizens of New Hampshire and the people of our great Nation. The child of immigrants, Warren grew up in his beloved Granite State. And from an early age, he was instilled with New England's hallmark sense of independence and frugality and its spirit of grit and tenacity qualities which he first brought to bear during his heroic service as combat platoon leader and company commander in the Korean war, rightfully earning him the Bronze Star. Returning from the horrors of war, Warren emerged with a renewed commitment to duty and service, this time in the public sphere, where he applied himself to delivering justice for the people of New Hampshire as their attorney general. His colleagues would later recall that he was one of the finest public servants to ever grace that office and that all who followed aspired to the example he established. Mr. President, I stand here today to declare, like so many of my colleagues have, that those sentiments ring true for Warren's service in the U.S. Senate as well. Indeed, he was an exemplary and consummate public servant, thoroughly understanding that the very essence of good governance was problemsolving and that as an elected official he was entrusted with a responsibility to work across the aisle to accomplish the business of the Nation. In fact, all one has to do is look to his signature piece of legislation, the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget Act, to witness that fact. This bipartisan piece of legislation brought under control the Nation's ballooning deficits and directly contributed to the economic prosperity and growth that is so fondly associated with the 1990s. In that light, we can look to Warren with grateful eyes because in bringing to bear his credibility, his intellect, and his experience, he pursued a course that was not necessarily expedient but that was ultimately right. A longtime fiscal visionary, he was a leader whose voice we should heed today. But that spirit of integrity, decency, and honor was a mainstay of Warren's character, and those principles were ingrained into the unwavering set of beliefs which remained with him throughout his lifetime. They guided him during the Keating 5 investigation, informed him during the Iran-Contra deliberations, and inspired him in seeing through the Supreme Court nomination of his good friend from New Hampshire and exceptional jurist, Supreme Court Justice David Souter. Indeed, they were the ever-present and indispensable tenets that both firmly grounded him in his Granite State roots while also spurring him to the legislative heights that became the capstones of his landmark tenure in public service. That is why I will forever admire Warren's passionate, unvarnished, and classic straightforward approach, which helped build consensus throughout his time in the U.S. Senate and which served the country so well. While I missed serving with him in the Senate by 1 year, I had the privilege of working with him on bicameral basis as a Member of the U.S. House of Representative, and during that time and through those experiences, my husband Jock and I were fortunate enough to become friends with Warren. In fact, he had a tremendous affection for Maine, owning a home on beautiful Bailey Island and while we know his heart forever belongs to New Hampshire, we are still proud to consider him an honorary Mainer. Undoubtedly, though, Warren was a man ahead of his time. From championing the watershed legislation which reduced our deficit, to helping found the bipartisan Concord Coalition, which offers serious solutions for our Nation's significant fiscal challenges, Warren's is a legacy that Jock and I are proud to carry forward by serving on the board of advisors at University of New Hampshire's Warren B. Rudman Center for Justice, Leadership, and Public Policy. And as students across the country continue to learn about Senator Rudman, we take great pride in knowing that history will remember him as a statesman of the highest caliber who served America and his beloved New Hampshire with unsurpassed distinction.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, our Nation's small business owners know what it means to sacrifice every day for a dream. The risks, the fears, and the uncertainty are all familiar to those brave enough to strike out on their own and open a small business. Our country's entrepreneurs routinely prove that through dedication, hard work, and spirit, any vision can be realized. Few know the challenges of opening a small business like Jen Burton, who has overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles to build from scratch one of Brunswick, Maine's most popular restaurants. I rise today to recognize Jen and her outstanding achievements at Jen's Place. Jen Burton understands the value of hard work. An inspiration and an example of the can-do spirit of Maine, Jen worked her way from welfare recipient to entrepreneur and restaurateur. As a single mother, she balances the personal demands of family with the professional challenges of running a restaurant. Jen's Place is now so popular that customers happily wait in a line that stretches out the door and around the side of the building. It is clear that her popularity is no passing trend. Jen's Place is a favorite of locals, students, and visitors, with its mouthwatering reputation constantly bringing hungry new patrons to its tables. Jen spent many years working in restaurants before opening Jen's Place. From those experiences, she learned the right and wrong way to run a restaurant. She learned the priorities and details that were important to master in her own business. Jen devoted months to perfecting her menu items, focusing on quality and taste rather than cost efficiency. She also values supporting other Maine small businesses and buys many of her ingredients locally. Her menu features dishes named after frequent patrons, and the eclectic decor is reminiscent of a family's cozy kitchen. The relaxed hometown feel and delicious comfort food is the essence of Jen's Place and is a product of Jen's tireless effort, perseverance, and culinary know-how. From humble beginnings to successful entrepreneur and local favorite, Jen Burton embodies the American dream. When the restaurant landscape seems dominated by fast-food and chain restaurants, it is heartening to see the success of restaurants like Jen's Place. Her passion and commitment to quality set her apart. I am proud to offer my congratulations to Jen and best wishes for her continued success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today with an infinite appreciation for the institution of the U.S. Senate as well as a profound sense of gratitude as I prepare to conclude my 18 years in the Senate and my nearly 40 years in elective office on behalf of the people of Maine. It has been difficult to envision this day when I would be saying farewell to the Senate, just as it was impossible to imagine I would one day become a U.S. Senator as I was growing up in Maine. But such is the miracle of America, that a young girl of a Greek immigrant and first-generation American, who was orphaned at the age of 9, could in time be elected to serve in the greatest deliberative body the world has ever known and become the third longest serving woman in the history of the U.S. Congress. So in contemplating how to begin my remarks today, I was reminded of the words of the renowned American poet and son of New England, Ralph Waldo Emerson, who said: Cultivate the habit of being grateful for every good thing that comes to you, and to give thanks continuously. And because all things have contributed to your advancement, you should include all things in your gratitude. That perfectly encapsulates how I am feeling on this day--thankful and blessed. In that light, I first and foremost want to thank the people of Maine for allowing me to be their voice, their vote, and their champion for 16 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and for three terms in the U.S. Senate. One of the definitions of the word ``trust'' is ``a charge or duty imposed in faith or confidence.'' And to have had the trust of Maine people, who have placed their faith and confidence in me, is an honor of indescribable magnitude. Indeed, serving my magnificent State over the past 34 years in the Halls of Congress has been the greatest privilege of my life. I also want to thank my amazing husband, Jock McKernan, who is with us today and who, as you know, was a former Congressman and former Governor of Maine. In fact, when Jock was Governor while I was serving in the House of Representatives, we used to joke that our idea of quality time together was listening to each other's speeches. But truly, we have shared a passion for public service and quite a unique journey together, with 56 years between us in elective office, and we have never regretted a single moment. I am also pleased to say he is joined today by our very wonderful, longtime friends, Dan and Sharon Miller from Maine. On this occasion, I also think of my family, without whom none of this would have been possible. I have often joked that the secret to my electoral success is coming from such a large extended family--some of whom we started on campaigns at birth, I might add. But they have been a source of boundless love and support over the years, through the struggles as well as the celebrations, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart. It is also impossible to serve for this long and at this level without dedicated and exceptional staff, and during my tenure in the House and Senate, I have had nearly 400 people on my staff who have helped to make all the difference for me, for Maine, and for Washington. Here we have had tremendous support with the invaluable guidance and efforts on the part of my staff through the extraordinary events of more than three decades, and they have represented the very best and brightest the Nation has to offer. They are here today in the back of the Chamber and up in the gallery, and I applaud them time and time again. In fact, we had a wonderful reunion of all of my staff, and I realize it just simply would not have been possible to have been on this legislative journey without them. The same is true of my staff in Maine, who have not only been my eyes and ears but also my stalwart surrogates in assisting Mainers with their problems and in navigating the Federal bureaucracies. Like me, they have never been inclined to take no for an answer, and in so doing they have touched literally thousands of lives, helping to soften the hardest days and brighten the darkest. I thank and commend the stellar staff of the Senate, from all of those ensuring the operation of the Senate here on the floor, to the cloakroom staff, the legislative counsel, to all of our pages who are here from all across America, to all those who actually keep the facilities running, and certainly to the officers who are on the front lines of Capitol security, protecting our visitors and all of us. You have my deepest admiration for your immeasurable contributions to the Senate and to our country. I want to express my gratitude to the minority leader for his gracious remarks about my service. Senator McConnell has worked tirelessly in leading us through extremely challenging moments for the Senate and for the country. His longevity of legislative experience has made him a true asset to this body, for our Republican caucus, and I have the most heartfelt respect and appreciation for his contributions to his home State of Kentucky and to this country. To my friend and colleague Susan Collins, I want to thank her for her very kind and extremely generous words on the floor last week. Public service was imbued in Senator Collins from her earliest days in Caribou, ME, where, incredibly, both her parents, Don and Pat, were former mayors of the city. I happened to have served with her father Don when he was also in the State legislature. For the past 16 years, Senator Collins has provided exemplary representation not only for Maine but for America with her voice of reason, pragmatism, and thoughtfulness, and Maine will truly be in outstanding hands with Susan Collins as our senior Senator. I am also indebted to my great friend Senator Mikulski, the dean of the women in the Senate and for all women, for the warm and wonderful comments she made yesterday on the floor. I have known Barbara for more than 30 years, beginning with our mutual service in the House of Representatives. She is truly a dynamo who has always brought to bear an unyielding tenacity that has consistently been reflected in her vigorous advocacy for those she represents. As I said, in 2011 she became the longest serving woman in the Senate, and there is no one I would rather have surpassing the length of service of Maine's legendary Senator, Margaret Chase Smith, than Senator Barbara Mikulski. What a reflection on her legislative stature that she has now assumed the mantle of longest serving woman in the history of the U.S. Congress. To our Presiding Officer, I would say that I have enjoyed serving with her as well in this august Chamber and getting to know her. I know she will do well into the future, and I have enjoyed working with her over the years. I see two of my colleagues here: Senator Isakson, who is my neighbor in the Russell Office Building--a gentleman in every way. He has been magnificent to work with. And, of course, my colleague Senator Murkowski from Alaska, who has made some great contributions to the Senate with her consensus-building, her dedication, and her exceptional abilities. I want to thank them because I have certainly enjoyed working with them and getting to know them. To all of my Senate colleagues, past and present, this Chamber would simply be another room with fancy walls without the lifeblood of passionate service and dedication you bring to this institution and our Nation. We all have our stories about where we came from, about what shaped our values and aspirations and why we care so much about public service as a vehicle for securing for others the American dream, for all who seek to embrace it. In my instance, my own legislative journey commenced when I was elected to fill my late husband's seat in the Maine House of Representatives. I felt then, as I have throughout my career, that our role as public servants, above all else, is to solve problems. I have often reflected on my 6 years in the State house and the State senate in Augusta, ME, because that is where I found politics and public life to be positive and constructive endeavors. Once the elections were over, my colleagues and I would put the campaigns and the party labels behind us to enact laws that genuinely improved the lives of Mainers. I also inherited a legacy of bipartisanship and independence from Senator Margaret Chase Smith, who is best remembered for her remarks made during only her second year of her first term in the U.S. Senate when, with truly uncommon courage and principled independence, she telegraphed the truth about McCarthyism during the Red Scare of the 1950s with her renowned ``Declaration of Conscience'' speech on the Senate floor. In 15 minutes she had done what 94 of her colleagues-- male colleagues, I might add--had not dared to do, and in so doing slayed a giant of demagoguery. So when people ask me why I may be challenging a particular party position or why I don't simply go with the flow, I tell them: Please don't take it personally. I can't help it, I am from Maine. That is what Maine people truly expect from their elected officials--they expect you to do what you believe is right for the right reasons and in the right way. We have seen that reflected time and again, not only with Margaret Chase Smith but in the distinguished service of great Senators who have preceded me from Maine, from Ed Muskie to Bill Cohen and the former majority leader of the Senate, George Mitchell. Throughout my tenure, I have borne witness to government's incredible potential as an instrument for that common good. I have also experienced its capacity for serial dysfunction. Indeed, as I stated in announcing I would not seek a fourth term in the Senate, it is regrettable that excessive political polarization in Washington today is preventing us from tackling our problems in this period of monumental consequences for our Nation. But as I prepare to conclude my service in elective office, let me be abundantly clear: I am not leaving the Senate because I have ceased believing in its potential or I no longer love the institution, but precisely because I do. I am simply taking my commitment to the Senate in a different direction. I intend to work from the outside, to help build support for those in this institution who will be working to reestablish the Senate's roots as a place of refuge from the passions of politics, as a forum where the political fires are tempered, not stoked--as our Founding Fathers intended. Because the Senate in particular is our essential legislative mechanism for distilling the vast diversity of ideologies and opinions in America, so that we might arrive at solutions to the challenges we face. The fact is, we are a can-do country, infused with an irrepressible can-do spirit. It is in our blood, and in the very fiber of who we are. It is in our hardworking families, and in the limitless entrepreneurship and innovation of our people. And it is profoundly reflected in our heroic men and women in uniform--whose unflagging bravery and professionalism I have been privileged to witness firsthand throughout my tenure in Congress as they answer the call in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, with many having made the ultimate sacrifice so that we may live and that freedom may always ring. Here in this chamber, I have spoken with many of you who came here to get things done, to solve problems and achieve great things for our Nation. I have heard you lament the inability to accomplish more in today's polarized atmosphere. And as I have traveled throughout Maine and America--even overseas, people ask me, has it always been this way? I tell them, I am so passionate about changing the tenor in Congress because I have seen that it can be different. It has not always been this way. And it absolutely does not have to be this way. I have been in the Congress long enough to have experienced firsthand what can be accomplished when individuals from various political backgrounds are determined to solve a problem. For instance, when I first came to the House of Representative in 1979, I joined the bipartisan Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, which I ultimately cochaired for 10 years with Democratic Congresswoman Pat Schroeder. We certainly did not agree on everything, but with only 17 women in the House and Senate, we simply could not afford to draw political lines in the sand when it came to matters of importance to women. So when we spoke on these issues, we spoke as women, not as Republicans or Democrats. That is what drove our agendas at the caucus--and, together, we started to make a real difference for women. That was a time in America when child support enforcement was viewed as strictly a woman's problem, a time when pensions were cancelled without a spouse's approval, a time when family and medical leave wasn't the law of the land, and a time when, incredibly, women were systematically excluded from clinical medical trials at the National Institutes of Health--trials that made the difference between life and death. As Senator Mikulski eloquently described yesterday in this chamber, she was waging a battle for equity in women's health research in the Senate while Pat Schroeder, Connie Morella and I were fighting in the House. At a pivotal juncture, Senator Mikulski launched a key panel to explore this shocking discriminatory treatment which further galvanized national attention. And in the end, together, we produced watershed policy changes that, to this day, are resulting in life-saving medical discoveries for America's women. In the House, we often worked across party lines to craft our Federal budgets, in sharp contrast to today's broken process where we cannot pass a budget in 3 years, even with unprecedented deficits and debt. When President Reagan was elected in 1980, he knew he had to build coalitions to pass budgets that would address the tumultuous economy. And the result was that the moderate northeast Republican group called the Gypsy Moths and the conservative-to-moderate Democratic group called the ``Boll Weevils'' negotiated budgets together, to help reconcile our political and regional differences and in a model for bipartisanship, all of us spent days and weeks fashioning budgets, literally going through function by function. Arriving at compromise was not easy by any means. It never is. But the point is, we can undertake the difficult work, if we choose to do so. I was able to make a difference even as a member of the minority throughout my entire tenure in the House, by reaching across the political aisle. And in 1995, when the voters of Maine entrusted me to be their voice and their vote in the U.S. Senate and I was finally serving in the majority, I believed this kind of cooperative disposition would remain an indispensable commodity in meeting the challenges of the times. That is why I joined the Senate Centrist Coalition shortly after arriving in the Senate, which had been formed by Senators John Chafee and John Breaux during the 1994 health reform debate to bridge the political divide. After Senator Chafee passed away in 1999, Senator Breaux and I thought it was an imperative that we revive the Coalition to help foster bipartisanship following the divisiveness of the Senate impeachment trial. And following the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Bush v. Gore that adjudicated the presidential election, and an evenly split Senate with 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats, Senate leaders Lott and Daschle joined with nearly one-third of the Senate at a meeting of the coalition to explore how to move forward in a bipartisan fashion. And it is precisely this kind of approach that is crucial, because it is only when we minimize the political barriers that we can maximize the Senate, allowing it to become an unparalleled incubator for results that truly matter to the American people. It was a cross-aisle alliance that produced the so-called E-Rate program in 1996. This was a landmark law ensuring every library and classroom in America would be wired to the revolutionary resources of the Internet, which one publication has ranked as fourth in a list of innovations and initiatives that have helped shape education technology over the past generation. My good friend and colleague Senator Rockefeller, with whom I have been privileged to work on so many issues, was doggedly determined to enact this benchmark initiative. In typical fashion, Jay was not going to take no for an answer--which made us perfect partners and co-authors, as I was equally determined. And by working with Members of both parties who were willing to hear the facts and judge on the merits, we overcame the hurdles and the E-Rate program was born. During the 2001 tax debates, Senator Blanche Lincoln and I as members of the Finance Committee joined together to increase the amount of the child tax credit and make it refundable, so that low income families who didn't earn enough to pay Federal taxes could still benefit from the credit. Ultimately, our measure was enacted, becoming only the second refundable tax credit ever, and ensuring the child tax credit would assist an additional 13 million more children and lift 500,000 of those children out of poverty. I also think of how my friend, Senator Landrieu who is sitting here in the chamber as well, and I formed the Senate Common Ground Coalition in 2006, to rekindle cross-party relations. And not only have Mary and I made history as the first women to serve simultaneously as chair and ranking on a standing committee, but we have worked together on numerous measures that are assisting America's greatest jobs generators, our small businesses. In a shining example of what is possible with civility and bipartisan teamwork, Senator Ted Kennedy and I coauthored the landmark Genetic Nondiscrimination Act--to stop insurance companies and employers from denying or dropping coverage based on genetic tests, so individuals would not forgo those potentially life-saving tests. At that juncture, Democrats were in the majority--and traditionally, the chair of a committee takes the lead name on legislation. But Ted approached me and said essentially that, because my work on GINA had made it possible, it should be ``Snowe-Kennedy'' not ``Kennedy-Snowe''--a magnanimous legislative gesture from the legislative lion of the U.S. Senate. And I am proud to say GINA passed in 2008 and has been referred to as ``the first major civil rights act of the 21st century.'' So there are templates for working together effectively in the U.S. Senate on behalf of the American people. But on occasion, it is the very institution of the Senate itself that is preserved when we stake out common ground. Even in the highly charged atmosphere of the presidential impeachment trial, we made the process work. During a gathering of the Republican Caucus, I advocated that we hold a bipartisan meeting in the Old Senate Chamber, to generate agreement between the parties on the conduct of the trial. The Senate had been about to decide the guidelines of the trial on a purely partisan basis, but by convening both parties, we were able to chart a logical, reasonable and judicious course. In 2005, I joined the so-called ``Gang of 14,'' comprised of 7 Republicans and 7 Democrats and spearheaded largely by Senators John Warner, John McCain, Robert Byrd, and Ben Nelson. The group was formed to avert an institutional crisis as a result of repeated, systematic filibuster of President Bush's judicial nominees that had been a corrosive force on the Senate. In response, the Republican majority was seeking to break the logjam by exercising the so-called ``nuclear option,'' that would have jettisoned longstanding rules requiring 60 votes to end a filibuster. That 60 vote threshold had always been a bulwark protecting the rights of the minority, but would have become just a simple majority vote. Yet, just as we were about to cross this political Rubicon, the Gang of 14 forged a pact based on mutual trust, that we would only support a filibuster of judicial nominees under what we labeled ``extraordinary circumstances,'' and we would oppose the ``nuclear option,'' an agreement that embodied the very manifestation of the power of consensus building. So as this body contemplates changes to its rules in the next Congress, I would urge all of my colleagues who will return next year to follow the Gang of 14 template and exercise a similar level of caution and balance. Because what makes the Senate unique, what situates this institution better than any other to secure the continued greatness of our Nation, is that balance between accommodation of the minority and primacy of the majority. And regardless of who is in the minority, any suppression of the ability to debate and shape legislation is tantamount to silencing millions of voices and ideas-- which are critical to developing the best possible solutions. I have mentioned all of these examples as illustrations of the boundless potential of the Senate--and that our problems are not insurmountable, if we refuse to be intractable. It is not about what is in the best interests of a single political party, but what is in the best interests of our country. As far back as the fledgling days of our Nation, our Founding Fathers warned of the dangers of undue allegiance to political parties--a potential that Alexander Hamilton and James Madison specifically cited in the Federalist Papers. Now, one study by three political scientists pegs Congress at its highest level of polarization since the end of Reconstruction in 1877. It is true that, in the intervening years, we have had no duels to settle disagreements and no canings on the Senate floor as occurred in the earlier years of the Senate--although there was a physical brawl on the Senate floor in 1902. Yet, the fact we are still more polarized now than at any moment in 140 years speaks volumes. So instead of focusing on issues as the Senate was uniquely established to do, we've become more like a parliamentary system where we simply vote in political blocks. And we have departed and diverged from the Senate's traditional rules and norms in a manner that is entirely contradictory to the historical purpose of the Senate and the role of the Founding Fathers intended for the Senate to play. The very name of our institution, the Senate, derives from the Latin root senatus, or council of elders, where the council of elders represented the qualities of experience and wisdom and not just some experience and some wisdom in a deliberative body, but more experience and more wisdom in the highest deliberative body. For thousands of years, and for the Greeks and our Framers alike, the Senate has stood as an assembly where the lessons of individual experiences were translated by measured wisdom into stable collective judgments. Therefore, understanding through patience, appreciation through tolerance, and consensus through moderation are all required to reach such judgments and to do the work of the people. Indeed, I would argue it is only by recognizing and striving to meet the institutional ideals of the Senate that we can aspire to fill our obligations to those we represent. We all take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I have always believed this oath necessarily included a duty to support and defend the Senate as an institution and the integrity of its deliberative process. That requires the ability to listen before judging, to judge before advocating, and to advocate without polarizing. It also includes a capacity to differ with one's own party, and even to reach agreement and compromise with another party when one's own party is unable to prevail. Such leadership necessarily requires all Members to recognize their individual duty to serve the people best by serving our Chamber with the highest standards of consideration, deliberation, and explanation. Former Supreme Court Justice Souter once said, and I am paraphrasing: All of the Court's hard cases are divisive because one set of values is truly at odds with another, and the Constitution gives no simple rule of decision. For, in truth, we value liberty as well as order, we value freedom as well as security, and we value fairness as well as equality. So in the tough cases judges have a hard job of choosing not between those things that are good and those that are evil, but between the many, and often competing, good things that the Constitution allows. Justice Souter could have been talking about the work of the Senate and the often difficult choices we too are required to make. This observation accepts the intrinsic competition that defines these difficult choices but resolves to rely on reason, meaning, and the reputational integrity of the process to make and explain the ultimate decisions. Indeed, the Justice concluded his remarks by saying he knew of ``no other way to make good on the aspirations that tell us who we are--and who we mean to be--as the people of the United States.'' We have witnessed the heights the Senate is capable of reaching when it adheres to its founding precepts. Just think about how we came together in the aftermath of the catastrophic events of September 11 to secure our country and to help heal our Nation. Just think about the major debates of the 20th century on such watershed issues as the establishment of Social Security, Medicare, and the Civil Rights Act. None of these profound advancements would have been woven into the fabric of our society today if they had been passed simply on party- line votes rather than the solidly bipartisan basis on which each of them was enacted. I am not claiming there was some kind of golden age of bipartisanship where everyone all sang from the same legislative hymn book, and I am not advocating bipartisanship as some kind of an end unto itself. That is not the point. What I am saying is we have seen how cooperation in the past has resulted in great achievements, which likely never would have occurred if bipartisanship had not intervened as a means to attaining those most worthy ends. Our grandest accomplishments in the Congress were also a reflection of the particular compromises and level of urgency required by the times in which they were forged. Recently, New York Times columnist David Brooks summarized this concept well when he wrote that there are policies that are not permanently right and that ``situations matter most. Tax cuts might be right one decade but wrong the next. Tighter regulations might be right one decade, but if sclerosis sets in then deregulation might be in order.'' As we confront the impending confluence of issues known as the fiscal cliff, we are at a moment of major significance that requires the application of the principle that Brooks describes. For the sake of the country, we must demonstrate to the American people that we are, in fact, capable of making the big decisions by putting in place an agreement and a framework to avoid the fiscal cliff before we adjourn this year. We are surrounded by history perpetually in the Senate as well as throughout the Capitol. How could we not be inspired by it to rise to this occasion? Indeed, if you know history, you understand the very story of America's most formative days was defined by an understanding that effective governance requires the building of consensus, and such consensus is achievable even after the exercise of passionate advocacy, which, in conclusion, brings us back to the creation of a document we all cherish and revere; that is, our United States Constitution. Madam President, 225 years ago, 55 leaders from divergent geographic and philosophical backgrounds converged on the city of Philadelphia to draft a new structure of government to strengthen our fledgling country. These were no shrinking violets. They had risked their lives and fortunes to establish a new nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all. They were strong-willed and unabashedly opinionated. They disagreed and argued about a great many matters, both petty and consequential. Thomas Jefferson even considered Virginia, and not the United States, as his country. Yet by September of that year, 39 of the original delegates signed the most enduring and ingenious governing document the world has ever known, the Constitution of the United States. It didn't happen because 55 people who shared identical viewpoints gathered in a room and rubber-stamped their unanimous thinking. It happened because these visionaries determined that the gravity and the enormity of their common goal necessitated the courage to advance decisionmaking through consensus. I worry that we are losing the art of legislating. When the history of this chapter in the Senate is written, we don't want it to conclude it was here that it became an antiquated practice. So as I depart the Senate that I love, I urge all of my colleagues to follow the Founding Fathers' blueprint in order to return this institution to its highest calling of governing through consensus. For it is only then that the United States can ascend to fulfill the demands of our time, the promise of our Nation, and the rightful expectations of the American people. Thank you, Madam President. May God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business and that I be allowed to consume as much time as needed.

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of a bill that I am cosponsoring today with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, that will ensure that the Small Business Administration's, SBA, Historically Underutilized Business Zone, HUBZone, program will support the many communities around this Nation that have been negatively impacted by base closures. Over the course of my career, my state has experienced two major base closures--Loring Air Force Base was closed by the 1991 BRAC round and Brunswick Naval Air Station was closed by the 2005 BRAC round. Like every community around the Nation that has experienced a base closure, Brunswick and Loring have fought tirelessly to replace the jobs and economic impact of their military installations. Unfortunately, theirs is an exceptionally difficult task. Consider, for instance, that the closure of Brunswick Naval Air Station directly eliminated nearly 3,300 military and federal civilian jobs, and indirectly caused the loss of approximately 3,800 additional jobs from the region. Overcoming the effects of such dramatic changes in a local employment and economic market is, without question, a long-term challenge that is made even more difficult in a period of prolonged economic recession. That is why I have always argued that the Nation has a responsibility to do everything within our power to help those communities that have supported our military infrastructure for decades to recover from the devastating economic impacts of a base closure. One way that we can assist in their recovery is to encourage the location and growth of small businesses in and around closed military installations. As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I frequently talk with small business owners and employees about their challenges and needs. In many cases, they tell me about the difficulties they face in competing against larger and more established businesses for federal contracts. That is why, in my efforts to champion our Nation's small businesses and to promote their interests, I have supported the Small Business Administration's HUBZone Empowerment Contracting program. Congress established this program as part of the Small Business Reauthorization Act in 1997 in order to spur business development and employment opportunities in economically distressed areas of the country. In 2004, with my support, we took the critical step of expanding the HUBZone program to include ``base closure areas,'' which directly addressed military installations that have been closed through any of several military base closure and realignment authorities, including BRAC rounds. Although this was an important step forward, the 2004 expansion to include closed military installations in the HUBZone program was limited to areas within the physical boundaries of the military base. Current law requires that 35 percent of the employees of a HUBZone qualified small business concern also must live within the HUBZone designated area. However, small businesses that are interested in establishing a location at a closed military installation in order to gain the benefits of becoming a HUBZone small business concern are likely to discover that not very many people live on the grounds of that closed base, leaving them without sufficient workers to meet the 35 percent requirement. This, of course, defeats the very purpose of the HUBZone designation for closed military installations by serving as a disincentive for small businesses to open shop at a redeveloping base. In light of these facts, and considering that the economic and employment impacts of closing a military installation are unquestionably and disproportionately felt by the people who reside in the communities around former military installations--not just within the fencelines of former bases--it is clear that the HUBZone designation for closed military installations needs to be clarified. That is why the bill that I have cosponsored with my colleague adjusts the designation of a base closure area to include the geographic area that is the municipality, county, or census tract in which the installation is located (as well as the adjacent census tract), which incorporates up to 50,000 people. And so, to my friends and colleagues here in the Senate, I urge you to join me in supporting this bill and showing your strong support for providing the maximum benefits of the HUBZone designation to the many communities around our nation that have been impacted by base closures.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of a bill that I am cosponsoring today with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, that will ensure that the Small Business Administration's, SBA, Historically Underutilized Business Zone, HUBZone, program will support the many communities around this Nation that have been negatively impacted by base closures. Over the course of my career, my state has experienced two major base closures--Loring Air Force Base was closed by the 1991 BRAC round and Brunswick Naval Air Station was closed by the 2005 BRAC round. Like every community around the Nation that has experienced a base closure, Brunswick and Loring have fought tirelessly to replace the jobs and economic impact of their military installations. Unfortunately, theirs is an exceptionally difficult task. Consider, for instance, that the closure of Brunswick Naval Air Station directly eliminated nearly 3,300 military and federal civilian jobs, and indirectly caused the loss of approximately 3,800 additional jobs from the region. Overcoming the effects of such dramatic changes in a local employment and economic market is, without question, a long-term challenge that is made even more difficult in a period of prolonged economic recession. That is why I have always argued that the Nation has a responsibility to do everything within our power to help those communities that have supported our military infrastructure for decades to recover from the devastating economic impacts of a base closure. One way that we can assist in their recovery is to encourage the location and growth of small businesses in and around closed military installations. As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I frequently talk with small business owners and employees about their challenges and needs. In many cases, they tell me about the difficulties they face in competing against larger and more established businesses for federal contracts. That is why, in my efforts to champion our Nation's small businesses and to promote their interests, I have supported the Small Business Administration's HUBZone Empowerment Contracting program. Congress established this program as part of the Small Business Reauthorization Act in 1997 in order to spur business development and employment opportunities in economically distressed areas of the country. In 2004, with my support, we took the critical step of expanding the HUBZone program to include ``base closure areas,'' which directly addressed military installations that have been closed through any of several military base closure and realignment authorities, including BRAC rounds. Although this was an important step forward, the 2004 expansion to include closed military installations in the HUBZone program was limited to areas within the physical boundaries of the military base. Current law requires that 35 percent of the employees of a HUBZone qualified small business concern also must live within the HUBZone designated area. However, small businesses that are interested in establishing a location at a closed military installation in order to gain the benefits of becoming a HUBZone small business concern are likely to discover that not very many people live on the grounds of that closed base, leaving them without sufficient workers to meet the 35 percent requirement. This, of course, defeats the very purpose of the HUBZone designation for closed military installations by serving as a disincentive for small businesses to open shop at a redeveloping base. In light of these facts, and considering that the economic and employment impacts of closing a military installation are unquestionably and disproportionately felt by the people who reside in the communities around former military installations--not just within the fencelines of former bases--it is clear that the HUBZone designation for closed military installations needs to be clarified. That is why the bill that I have cosponsored with my colleague adjusts the designation of a base closure area to include the geographic area that is the municipality, county, or census tract in which the installation is located (as well as the adjacent census tract), which incorporates up to 50,000 people. And so, to my friends and colleagues here in the Senate, I urge you to join me in supporting this bill and showing your strong support for providing the maximum benefits of the HUBZone designation to the many communities around our nation that have been impacted by base closures.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the outstanding service provided by one of my long-serving staff members, Matthew Walker, to the Small Business Committee, our beloved home State of Maine, and indeed our Nation. Matt is a dedicated individual whose enthusiasm and insights will be sorely missed. As he moves on to the next step in his professional life, I wish him the best and thank him for his years of service. A native son of Bangor, ME, Matt attended my alma mater, the University of Maine, before earning his Juris Doctor from the Maine School of Law. I first met Matt when he served as an intern in my office in 1994, when I was still a Member of the House of Representatives, and since then he has been an integral part of my staff for nearly 14 years collectively. Among his experiences, he has been a volunteer on my first Senatorial campaign, worked in two of my district offices handling constituent casework, served in my personal office in Washington, and most recently, Matt performed the absolutely crucial role of Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel on the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. From these roles he has gained diverse and invaluable knowledge from many areas, from providing effective constituent services to the people of Maine to drafting and introducing significant legislation. His flexibility and wide range of experience have made him a vital member of my staff. On the Small Business Committee, Matt has been a trusted advisor on a host of legislative issues that have come before the Committee since 2003, as well as shaping the Committee's agenda during my tenure as chair and ranking member. Anyone who knows Matt can attest to the crucial role service to our Nation plays in his life. A recent retiree from the National Guard and a veteran, Matt served a 1-year tour of duty in Afghanistan in 2006 and 2007. And I certainly gained an even greater sense of what it was like to experience the gratification and honor--as well as trepidation--that service members feel when we saw Master Sergeant Walker deploy. I was so touched when Matt had an American flag fly over Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan for me, and when he sent it to me, I had it framed and displayed in my front office. Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't mention Matt's boundless energy, personable demeanor, and infectious sense of humor. Over the years, I have been truly fortunate to benefit from Matt's indispensable wisdom and thoughtful guidance. I will miss his strong work ethic and cheerful demeanor, which have been nearly constant in my office for so long. Matt's strengths and attributes will serve him well as he moves off the Hill. I wish Matt, his wife Rhonda, and their beautiful children, Riley and Logan, all the best as they begin an exciting new chapter.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, a piece of jewelry can tell a story, trigger a memory, or commemorate a special occasion. The beauty and charm captured in a ring or a necklace can precisely convey a meaning without words. For birthdays, engagements, celebrations, and sometimes ``just because,'' a piece of jewelry is a popular and personal gift. Today I wish to recognize a jewelry store whose emphasis on detail, creativity, and quality sets it apart. A downtown staple for nearly two decades, Folia Jewelry in Portland, ME, specializes in custom-made pieces of jewelry fashioned from precious metals and gemstones. The owner and creative mind behind these beautiful pieces of wearable art is Edith Armstrong. Edith studied jewelry making and metalsmithing at the Rhode Island School of Design and brings more than 25 years of expertise to the custom jewelry market. It is her passion and imagination that first brought Folia to Portland. Her work is now known throughout the area and even the world for its excellence and originality. The custom design and quality of Edith and the other designers at Folia is exquisite. Folia showcases the talents of several of Maine's gifted and experienced artisans. The designers at Folia individually sit down with each customer interested in specially crafted pieces to discuss, sketch, and render models to exact specifications prior to work on the actual piece. This detail-oriented process yields pieces which are unique, beautiful, and personal. The philosophy of Folia is all in the personalization. If you do not see exactly what you're looking for in the many display cases, Edith and her team of artists will happily work with you to give form to your vision. Through their dedication to their craft and attention to detail, the designers at Folia have garnered a reputation as one of the best jewelry stores in Maine, and it is easy to see why. Along with custom jewelry making, Folia also offers a wide array of prefabricated designs for customers to choose from, all made from the highest quality stones and metals. These designs are ready-made but each has that artistic flare so characteristic of Folia's custom creations. The intricacy with which each piece is fashioned is truly outstanding. Their expert craftsmen also specialize in restoration and repair of older jewelry. In a world increasingly concerned with on-demand and instant gratification, it is comforting to know that there are delightful shops like Folia, run by designers who care more about their final product and intimate relationships with customers than the bottom line. I proudly offer my congratulations to Folia on their success and wish Edith and everyone at Folia all the best in the future.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, our Nation's entrepreneurs understand the rigors and fears of starting a new business from scratch. The creativity, adaptability, and courage it takes to open a business are immense. However, because of that risk and uncertainty, the rewards seem all the greater. The drive and determination required of a new business can be seen prevalently in the entrepreneurs of my home State of Maine. Many of today's businesses create a meeting ground where classic and traditional meets the new and innovative; refurbishing nostalgia and revamping tradition. I rise to recognize a business steeped in history which embraces the challenges of today with youthful vigor. The Bankery located in downtown Skowhegan, ME seamlessly blends antique charm and history with an innovative repurposing of space. Opened in 2008 by owners Michael Hunt, graduate from the University of Maine, and Matthew DuBois, alumnus of the Connecticut Culinary Institute, The Bankery is more than a classic bakery. The sweets and confections of this bakery are kept under lock and key, literally. The Bankery is housed in a renovated bank that was built in 1864. The owners preserved the history of the architecture by carefully restoring the original vaults and displaying many nostalgic mementos from the building's original purpose. After expanding from a simple menu of classic baked goods to include meal items such as soups, sandwiches, and meat pies, The Bankery continues on an upward and outward trajectory. In 2010, Michael and Matthew acquired their next door neighbor, Skowhegan Fleuriste, a florist and formal wear shop. Now they offer a one-stop-shop for many events. It is their ambition and continued desire to pursue the next challenge and grow in new ways that gives them a competitive edge and is so characteristic of Maine's small business owners. With an eye to the future and a nod to the past, The Bankery has met the challenges of growing a new business with excellence. I know that, through their hard work and delicious products, this Skowhegan staple will continue to flourish. I offer Matthew and Michael and everyone at The Bankery congratulations on their success and best wishes for a sweet future.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise to both support the bill we are considering today but also to discuss the implications of Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization, WTO. I was proud to be part of a unanimous vote for this measure coming out of the Finance Committee and I expect tomorrow we will see a similarly strong showing of support for this significant trade measure. It is not often these days that we see such bipartisan agreement and I welcome it and encourage its expansion into other key areas. Russia was formally invited to join the WTO on December 16, 2011, and its entry into the WTO became official and effective this past August. There are more than 150 countries in the WTO, and with Russia's entry, now each of those countries have gained an improvement in trade conditions with Russia in the form of lower tariff barriers, easier access to markets and credit, and a variety of less tangible but certainly meaningful benefits including greater transparency and more enforceable mechanisms for securing property and other rights. We are promised that all WTO member countries will enjoy these privileges in their trading with Russia, but so far we are not among them: if the Congress does not take the opportunity to enact the bill before us, then we are only harming ourselves, as American businesses will be at a serious disadvantage relative to other nations' enterprises in terms of their ability to access the Russian markets. This is not merely theoretical, as my own home State of Maine exported $13.9 million worth of goods to Russia in 2011 alone. To recognize Russia's entry into the WTO and gain the advantages for American interests that such recognition brings, we must now consider the granting of Permanent Normal Trade Relations or PNTR with Russia. The United States provides PNTR to nearly all nations, but routinely has denied PNTR to communist or non-market countries. Specifically, this restriction has reflected our desire as a Nation that all peoples should be allowed to move freely in and out of their own countries--and the restriction is a reaction to the regimes that do not allow the free movement and emigration of their citizens. America memorialized this freedom-of-emigration concept in the Jackson-Vanik amendment, in large part as a response to the then-Soviet Union's consistent and often harsh limitations on the free movement of its people. The Soviet Union is no more, and now we must repeal Jackson-Vanik before PNTR can be granted. The bill before us accomplishes this significant objective. But we cannot simply applaud this vote without also accounting for some very troubling issues that remain with Russia. This year and the recent past for Russia have been clouded by a disturbingly long list of concerns about just how modern and democratic Russia may truly be. There are very serious questions regarding the integrity of Russia's electoral process, its support for brutal regimes such as in Syria, its abuse of human rights within its own borders and with its neighbors, its new promise of a massive arms and nuclear warhead build-up, and its near-flagrant disregard for intellectual property rights. We are told that entry into the WTO establishes Russia's willingness to abide by a rules-based system, but reports of corruption throughout Russia seem to belie its ability or willingness to follow the rules it set for itself--so we must ask, how can we trust them to follow the rules when working with others? I am saddened at the thought that, by taking action to provide PNTR to Russia, we are potentially condoning if not rewarding outright the manifold abuses that Russia continues to perpetrate under the guise of, but seemingly in defiance of, the concept of an open and lawful democracy. It is with that firmly in mind that I applaud our colleague Senator Cardin, along with Senator McCain, for identifying one way to deal with at least some of our serious concerns about Russia. I am speaking of the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2011, or S. 1039. This bill recognizes the tremendous courage that Mr. Magnitsky showed in seeking to expose corruption and fraud in Russia, for which he paid the ultimate price. He was imprisoned and allegedly tortured in an attempt to make him recant the charges he was making, charges that turned out to be accurate, and he died in the hands of his jailers. The legislation would impose visa and asset forfeiture restrictions on those responsible for these foul deeds, and it could set a new standard for addressing future human rights abuses in Russia. I am proud to see this measure included in the bill we are voting on today and its inclusion was critical to my support and, I am sure, that of many of my colleagues. I believe its inclusion helps make this bill a holistic approach that does not punish honest American interests while also not rewarding questionable actors within Russia. Mr. President, thank you and my colleagues for this vital vote. I look forward to today's debate.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, my colleague Senator Landrieu and I have an amendment to remove inequities that exist in the women-owned small business contracting program, when compared to other socioeconomic programs. As former chair and now ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have long championed women entrepreneurship and have urged both past and present administrations to implement the woman-owned small business, WOSB, Federal contracting program, which was enacted into law 10 years ago. On March 4, 2010, the Small Business Administration, SBA, finally proposed a workable rule to implement the women's procurement program. And I am pleased to report that today there is a functional WOSB contracting program, however, the program lacks the critical elements that the SBA's 8(a), historically underutilized business zones, and the service-disabled veteran-owned government contracting programs include. To remedy this, our bipartisan amendment will help provide tools women need to compete fairly in the Federal contracting arena by eliminating a restriction on the dollar amount of a contract that a WOSB can compete for, thus putting them on a level playing field with the other socioeconomic contracting programs. Women-owned small businesses have yet to receive their fair share of the Federal marketplace. In fact, our government has never achieved its goal of 5 percent of contracts going to WOSBs, achieving only 3.98 percent in fiscal year 2011. This amendment would greatly assist Federal agencies in achieving the small business goaling requirement for WOSBs. Mr. President, I also wish to speak to an amendment to S. 3254, the National Defense Authorization Act, to cease Federal involvement in the National Veterans Business Development Corporation. This bipartisan amendment would cease, once and for all, Federal involvement in the National Veterans Business Development Corporation, also known as The Veterans Corporation or simply TVC. Let me begin by thanking the bill's cosponsors, Small Business Committee Chair Mary Landrieu, former Small Business Committee Chair John Kerry and Senator Tom Coburn. Senator Coburn, as most in this body will recognize, is a true leader in efforts to streamline the Federal government. Recently he spoke with us about ideas for federal entities or programs that could be eliminated and we readily provided TVC as an example of an entity that we had already identified that the Federal government should sever its ties with. I want to say at the outset that an amendment, with identical text as this one, passed the Senate by a vote of 99-0 in May of 2011, but the bill it was attached to did not pass. We are introducing this repeal as a stand-alone bill because TVC has been ineffective and controversial since its inception as part of the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act--P.L. 106-50--in 1999. In December of 2008, former Small Business Committee Chairman Kerry and I investigated TVC, and issued a report detailing the organization's blatant mismanagement and wasting of taxpayers' dollars. The report found, among other things, that TVC (a) failed to support Veteran Business Resource Centers; (b) had wasteful programs; (c) lacked outcomes-based measurements; (d) provided it's employees with unacceptably high executive compensation; (e) engaged in dubious expenditures, and (f) failed to properly fundraise. For instance, our report concluded that TVC had spent only 15 percent of the federal funding that it had received on veterans business resource centers, which TVC was required to establish and maintain under law. In FY 2008, the percentage dropped to about 9 percent. We also found that TVC's executives received unacceptably high levels of compensation given the organization's limited resources and reach. While an average of 15 percent of TVC's federally appropriated funds went to the Centers, 22 percent of TVC's FY 2007 federal appropriation dollars were spent on its top two executives' compensation packages alone. Moreover, the organization miserably failed to fundraise--which was required by law in order for it to become self-sufficient--and during fiscal years 2005 through 2007, TVC leaders spent $2.50 for every $1.00 they raised through the organization's fundraising efforts--almost entirely at the taxpayers' expense. Additionally, through broad decision-making powers granted to TVC's executive committee under the organization's bylaws, the committee approved a number of measures without proper approval or ratification form the full Board, including $40,000 in employee bonuses in one year alone. Since the issuing of the Small Business Committee's report, Congress has appropriated no further funding for TVC, and the Small Business Administration has incorporated the Veteran Business Resource Centers that TVC previously funded into its existing network of Veteran Business Outreach Centers. These moves were publically supported by a variety of veteran service organizations, including the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW). For instance, in August of 2008, the American Legion passed a resolution at its national convention, Resolution No. 223, stating that the Legion ``no longer support[s] the continuing initiatives or existence of the national Veterans Business Development Corporation.'' At present, TVC is still Federally chartered. At the same time, it receives no Federal funds, has no department or agency oversight. In light of everything I have discussed, it is my belief that the Federal government must take the next step and fully sever all ties with the organization. I ask my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, 70 percent of the earth is covered by water. Of that, 98 percent can be found in our oceans, which makes it unusable for drinking due to the salt content. Only about 2 percent of the world's water is fresh and, once polar ice caps and glaciers are subtracted, it is a very small percentage that is available for human consumption. Here in the United States we are blessed with, and rely on, an abundance of available clean drinking water. However, even here, mechanical failures, natural disasters, and remoteness of location, can diminish the availability of this vital resource. I rise today to recognize Hydro-Photon, located in Blue Hill, ME, a company that has identified this problem and works diligently to supply innovative, accessible solutions. By harnessing and shrinking the ultraviolet--UV--technology used by many municipal water treatment plants, Hydro-Photon founder Miles Maiden created the SteriPEN which offers the same safe, efficient water purification used by the treatment plants in a portable, personal device. The SteriPEN, originally patented in 1999, was the first portable UV water purifier on the market. The product kills viruses, bacteria, and protozoa by emitting UV light that is absorbed by the microbes, preventing their reproduction. With this compact purifier, users are able to have safe drinking water anywhere. A company conscious of the need to preserve and protect our natural beauty and resources seems right at home in my home State where we are blessed with serene mountains and foothills, dense untouched wilderness, and a shoreline both beautiful and bountiful. Hydro-Photon is dedicated to the preservation and enjoyment of our natural splendors and with the clean water supplied by their SteriPEN, they are making it easier and safer for all to enjoy the great outdoors not only in Maine but around the world. Not only useful to the active outdoorsmen, the SteriPEN finds use in a vast array of situations and locations. One example is the recent hurricane Sandy that had devastating affects along the northeastern coast. Hydro-Photon recognized the necessity of clean water in such dire situations and selflessly stepped up to help, donating SteriPENs to those affected by the storm in New York and New Jersey. For their inventiveness, dedication, and compassion for supplying an element so basic to human life, Hydro-Photon is truly a remarkable company. I am proud to extend my congratulations on their success and offer my best wishes for the future.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of this amendment, which will require that every military service must establish a crystal-clear, zero-tolerance policy that military personnel who are convicted of a sexual offense will not be permitted to continue to serve our Nation in uniform. According to the Department of Defense, approximately 3,000 sexual assaults were reported in the military in 2011. Yet some estimate that the actual number of sexual assaults in our military in 2011 is closer to 19,000, accounting for the terrible reality that many attacks are never reported. Without question, this is an entirely unacceptable situation, and is another compelling reason that the Department of Defense, as well as Congress, must continue to do what is necessary to eliminate, once and for all, sexual assaults from occurring within our military ranks. Unfortunately, as my colleague Senator Gillibrand has noted, each of the services have different policies for dealing with military personnel who are convicted of a sexual offense. As a result, according to the Department of Defense's April 2012 Sexual Assault Prevention and Response report, approximately 40 percent of servicemembers who have been convicted of a sexual offense in a courts-martial are not discharged or dismissed as part of that judgment. Our honorable and law-abiding military personnel deserve far better. And that is why our amendment is so important. By requiring all military services to establish a policy that all who are convicted of sexual assaults must be processed for administrative separation from the military, we will remove from our military ranks sexual assault offenders who threaten the welfare of the men and women of our armed services, as well as their families. I was very pleased to join with Senator Gillibrand in crafting this amendment, and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its passage today. Unfortunately, our work is not yet done, which is why I have also joined with Senator Klobuchar to develop several additional amendments to this bill in furtherance of the effort to eradicate sexual assault in the military. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting each of these amendments as well. We owe it to our military personnel to do everything possible to stop sexual assaults from occurring within our armed services.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, each year on the November 11, as a nation, we celebrate the service of all U.S. military veterans. Veterans Day is a chance to honor those who protect our freedom while they give others the opportunity to pursue the American dream. It is our veteran entrepreneurs who know the sacrifices and struggles both of military service and of pursuing that dream first hand. Today I rise to recognize and commend two such veteran entrepreneurs, Chris and Jen Tyll, who own and operate Pat's Pizza Old Port located in Portland, ME. Chris and Jen Tyll are graduates of the U.S. Naval Academy. Chris is a former Navy SEAL and platoon leader, and served four tours in Iraq. Chris and Jen have 23 years of military experience between them and have completed six deployments in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Chris first visited Maine at the age of 18 while visiting with his Naval Academy roommate. He fell in love with the State and believed Maine would be a great place to raise a family. After moving around the country and living in eight States, the Tylls decided to establish roots in Maine. As Chris transitioned out of the military, he knew he wanted to own a business. Subsequently, he opened a Pat's Pizza in the heart of Portland's Historic Old Port in 2009. The original Pat's Pizza, located in Orono, is an undeniable favorite of University of Maine students. It has been said that an education at the University of Maine at Orono is not complete without sampling a pizza from Pat's. Pat's Pizza is known for its sauce, developed by the founder, which gives its pizza a distinct home-grown flavor. The dough is made fresh daily, delivering customers the same authentic taste in every location. Pat's Pizza Old Port offers the same great Pat's taste and all of the amenities Mainers and their families have come to enjoy. While Pat's Pizza Old Port provides Chris the opportunity to be a successful business owner, he has not forgotten his former comrades and finds time to reach out to veterans. Chris understands the challenges that await current veterans as they transition from the military into civilian life. He is the chairman of the new Portland Veterans Network, a Portland Regional Chamber of Commerce program. The network offers free career assistance to veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, including mentoring, wellness services, resume writing and interview skills training, and chamber membership. At its heart, the program consists of pairing 50 Portland-area veterans with business leaders who will act as mentors, introducing the veterans at networking events and guiding them in their job search. I applaud Chris and Jen Tyll for demonstrating the leadership and can-do attitude that are truly a reflection of the talent and entrepreneurial spirit found in my home State of Maine. As we pay tribute to our servicemembers on Veterans Day, I offer my gratitude and congratulations to our Nation's veteran-owned small businesses and extend my best wishes to Chris, Jen, and Pat's Pizza Old Port for their continued growth and success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, it is astounding to me that after putting the Nation through the self-inflicted travesty of last year's debt ceiling debacle that we are facing another manufactured crisis this year. With a fiscal cliff that never would have existed if the Senate had remained in session, had fewer recesses, and maximized every legislative day, based on the job we were elected to do, as I have argued virtually throughout this entire Congress. According to a recent study, illustrated by this chart, deferring last year's debt ceiling to the eleventh hour in August produced the highest level of policy uncertainty of any event that occurred over the last 20 years. That includes 9/11, the financial crisis, the fall of Lehman, and the Iraq war. We have now heard from CBO as well as Fed Chairman Bernanke. Both have indicated we could trigger another recession next year if we fail to address the fiscal cliff. Yet here we are in the Senate in September scheduled to adjourn sometime this week for nearly 2 months after just returning from a 5-week break. When I was running for reelection in 2000 when the Republicans were in the majority, we had our last vote on November 1 and did not adjourn until November 3, a few days before the election. I call on the majority leader to have us remain in session to lay the groundwork for a bipartisan solutions on these monumental issues. I have urged this in a letter I sent last April, because it is absolutely pivotal for this country. If we had not had the policy uncertainty of 2006 through 2011, we would have 2\1/2\ million more jobs in America today. The Senate has wasted years, 2 precious years in the life of America with intransigence and inaction. America deserves better.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will boost America's small businesses and help them escape unnecessary regulations that are stifling creativity, growth, and job creation. This legislation will encourage small businesses to invest and hire, giving the economy a much needed lift. Two of the most vital issues looming over small business job creators are tax and regulatory uncertainty. This bill aims to, among other things, deliver targeted tax relief to small businesses with eight different tax provisions, and protect small businesses from burdensome regulations. The Restoring Tax and Regulatory Certainty to Small Businesses Act of 2012 will provide small business owners and entrepreneurs with the confidence they need to expand, thrive, and prosper in today's insecure economy. My friend and colleague, Small Business Committee Chair Landrieu, recently proposed a small business relief act with some similar measures. However, Chair Landrieu's bill lacks many of the tax and regulatory reforms that small businesses are seeking. While her bill does contain some measures that I support, and which I have worked with her to include in a freestanding bipartisan small business jobs bill, it does not include any provisions to protect small businesses from arduous regulations. Additionally, it omits tax provisions that were included in our joint bill, S. 2050, that need to be addressed. By and large, this bill has some merits and I commend Chair Landrieu for pressing forward the national conversation on these critical issues, but the bill I am introducing today goes further by including both regulatory, and additional tax relief for small businesses. The Restoring Tax and Regulatory Certainty to Small Businesses Act includes eight indispensable tax extenders that will provide targeted tax relief to small businesses and extend the essential tax relief provisions that were included in the bipartisan Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, P.L. 111-240. We have endured more than 40 straight months of unemployment over 8 percent and have yet to see changes implemented to ease the burdens on job creators. With this bill, the Nation's small businesses, which create at least two-thirds of all new jobs, will finally enjoy tax relief in many different forms. Small businesses should be rewarded for taking risks and increasing investments. Under this bill, the 100-percent capital gains exclusion will be extended, as will the availability of Section 179 expensing, which gives businesses the option of writing off the cost of qualifying capital expenses in the year of acquisition in lieu of recovering these costs over time through depreciation. Additionally, the carryback of general business credits to offset 5 years of taxes as a cash-flow tool for businesses that are currently not realizing profits will be extended, giving small businesses even more funds to put toward future endeavors. Prior to the enactment of the Small Business Jobs Act, taxpayers could generally only claim allowable general business credits against their regular tax liability, and only to the extent that their regular tax liability exceeded their alternative minimum tax--AMT--liability. With this bill, qualified small businesses will now be able to reduce their AMT liability for general business credits by allowing credits to be applied against regular income tax and AMT liability. Additionally, this bill will permit contractors that do not complete contracts within a single year to benefit from bonus depreciation. Another provision was designed to benefit businesses that were initially C corporations, but elected to be taxed as S corporations and had net built-in gains when they made the S corporation election. Under this bill, small businesses will also be able to deduct more for startup costs, and be able to deduct health insurance premiums against payroll taxes, both of which are significant matters to new and developing small business owners. Thanks to these new tax provisions, business owners will be empowered to increase participation in domestic and global markets. Besides these critical tax provisions, the bill also provides real, meaningful regulatory relief for job creators. Since the enactment of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, P.L. 104-121, more than 50,000 new rules have gone into effect, each with an estimated impact of more than $100 million annually. More than 3,000 new Federal rules are established each year. And alarmingly, small firms with fewer than 20 employees bear a disproportionate burden of complying with Federal regulations. These small firms pay an annual regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee, which is 36 percent higher than the regulatory costs facing larger firms. This bill will strengthen existing laws and enable the SBA Office of Advocacy to protect small businesses from these burdensome regulations. The Restoring Tax and Regulatory Certainty to Small Businesses Act incorporates the latest version of the Freedom from Restrictive, Excessive, Executive Demands and Onerous Mandates, FREEDOM, Act--a necessary, targeted regulatory reform bill that will provide small businesses with much needed relief from onerous, one-size-fits-all Federal regulations. These provisions would: (a) require agencies to consider foreseeable indirect costs of rules; (b) increase the number of small business review panels charged with helping agencies better consider small businesses during the rulemaking process; (c) add teeth to the existing requirement that agencies regularly review the regulations on their books to determine if they are outdated or needlessly burdensome; and (d) allow small businesses to seek judicial review during the proposed rule stage, concerning whether an agency complied with its legal obligation to conduct an economic impact analysis with the rulemaking. Regrettably, current law does not allow small businesses to challenge this in court until after a burdensome rule is finalized, when it is already too late. A recent survey of 500 small business owners along the east coast found that 71 percent of employers plan to maintain current employee levels and only 21 percent plan to hire one or two more workers in the near future. Business owners are reluctant to hire because of the sluggish pace at which the U.S. economy is recovering, the uncertain fiscal future, and the overly burdensome regulations currently in existence. The NFIB reported that small business optimism is also at its lowest level since October 2011. Now is the time to reverse these trends and give small businesses, our one bright spot of job creation, the certainty and motivation they need to grow and provide more jobs.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, it is no secret that my home State of Maine boasts an expansive coastline, unmatched in beauty. With its numerous bays and inlets, this coastline provides endless opportunities for the many industries that have come to be known as quintessentially Maine, including commercial fishing, shipbuilding, and pleasure boating. One excellent example is Yale Cordage of Saco, ME, a small business dedicated to manufacturing quality products used by industries throughout Maine and the world. Founded in 1950 by O. Sherman Yale, Yale Cordage introduced synthetic fiber to the commercial fishing industry when it began manufacturing ropes. For 20 years its focus remained on commercial fishing; however, it expanded its product line to provide ropes for the pleasure marine marketplace when Yale's son Tom, an avid sailor, joined the company. From there, Yale Cordage began building its reputation as a leader in the pleasure marine industry by introducing technologically innovative products and, through Tom's leadership as President of the Cordage Institute, influencing industry standards. Moreover, in 1983 Australia II won the America's Cup for yacht sailing using all Yale Cordage rigging. But Yale Cordage's desire to seek new markets did not stop there. Recognizing certain limitations of the pleasure marine market, Yale Cordage sought new ways to use its products in different industries. Now, Yale Cordage's products are not only found on boats but throughout the world and in a variety of capacities. For example, Central Maine Power uses Yale Cordage's products to string new power lines while Bath Iron Works uses them in the destroyer class of naval warships. You can find Yale Cordage products in the ocean for use with offshore oil rigs, beneath the Earth's surface in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, in the sky on the Hood Blimp, at the tops of trees with arborist climbers, and recently at Niagara Falls when Yale Cordage rope was used in the hoisting and securing process for the world's first tightrope walk directly over the falls. The National Data Buoy Center trusts Yale Cordage products to moor weather buoys critical in the tracking of storms, including the recent hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. Even our armed services have taken advantage of Yale Cordage's quality products: the U.S. Army uses Yale Cordage ropes to remove tanks from ditches in Afghanistan, and the Navy SEALs use it when rappelling from helicopters. Through hard work, ingenuity, and determination, Yale Cordage has evolved from a commercial fishing rope supplier to a $20 million company that manufactures rope for a wide range of industries. It now operates a state-of-the-art facility, and provides jobs for 75 people in my home State. Yale Cordage is a shining example of the entrepreneurial spirit of Maine. I am proud to commend everyone at Yale Cordage on their success and offer my best wishes for the future.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as you are aware, baseball is considered our national pastime. Every spring millions of Americans eagerly await the crack of a wooden bat as baseball and softball season begin. With this in mind, today I rise to recognize and commend the success of LaCasse Bat Company, located in Skowhegan, ME and its owner, Jesse LaCasse. Mr. LaCasse is a former local baseball standout, playing at Saint Joseph's College of Maine, where he earned a degree in Sports Management. While in college, he was inducted into the Saint Joseph's Athletic Hall of Fame. As a hitting fanatic who was driven by his love of the game, he began manufacturing wooden bats for his personal use in 2006. The custom bats caught on with his summer league teammates, and soon he was making bats for individual players, adding a logo and the player's name to the design. LaCasse Bat Company, a one-person operation, was founded in 2008 using local Maine materials in production. From cutting the trees to the final product, each step of the development of these bats is meticulously crafted. LaCasse Bat Company uses premium quality wood and makes bats from solid ash, birch, beech, and maple. Mr. LaCasse turns each bat by hand on a wood lathe, a process which takes roughly 15 to 20 minutes, and brands it with his logo. Through this careful method, Mr. LaCasse is able to fine-tune the balance of the bat and make each bat distinctive to the individual player. This personal touch and dedication to craftsmanship contributes to the truly unique nature of each handmade bat. In 2010, LaCasse Bat Company teamed with Subway Restaurants to handcraft four custom-colored bats to be donated at the 2010 Senior League World Series held in Bangor, ME. These were the first colored bats made by LaCasse Bats and each features the green, yellow, and white colors of the Subway franchises. Since the exposure of the 2010 Senior World Series, LaCasse has seen a high demand for tailor-made and colored bats. LaCasse Bats takes every aspect of personalization into account, offering customization of handle, barrel, and logo colors and sizes, as well as the specific bat weight and type of wood. LaCasse Bats currently supplies teams from Little League through college in the United States and Europe, with most of its sales coming from Maine. As sales continue to grow, Mr. LaCasse hopes someday one of his bats will make it to the plate in Major League Baseball. As a small business, LaCasse Bat Company's success in just a few short years has been exceptional. It is inspiring to know that entrepreneurs such as Mr. LaCasse continue to draw upon their passion, ingenuity, and energy to develop new businesses. I extend my congratulations to Jesse LaCasse for his tremendous effort and offer my best wishes for the continued growth and success for LaCasse Bat Company.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help expand wireless broadband to rural areas. Specifically, the Rural Spectrum Accessibility Act would direct the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, establish a program that would provide an incentive, a three year extension to a spectrum license, to wireless carriers that make available, through partitioning and disaggregation, unused spectrum to smaller carriers or carriers serving rural areas. As the FCC National Broadband Plan reports ``most areas without mobile broadband coverage are in rural or remote areas.'' This legislation would provide an additional incentive to increase wireless broadband to these areas and make more spectrum available to smaller and rural wireless carriers through secondary market mechanisms. This bill is loosely based on a wireless carrier's existing program, which creates a partnership with rural carriers to build and operate Long Term Evolution, LTE, wireless networks in rural areas. Through the cooperation the carrier provides spectrum and core network equipment and the rural carrier supplies the cell towers and backhaul. The Rural Spectrum Accessibility Act is an effort to get other large carriers to implement similar initiatives to create more opportunities for the smaller and rural carriers. It should be noted the FCC actually already has partitioning and disaggregation rules, see 47 C.F.R. 22.948, this legislative proposal just provides a simple but attractive incentive for carriers to utilize them. The main goal of this legislation is to provide another catalyst to expand next generation, 4G, Wireless broadband service to rural areas, which will mean more reliable service, more innovation, and more choice to rural consumers and businesses. The increasing importance of wireless communications and broadband has a direct correlation to our Nation's competitiveness, economy, and national security. We must reform existing spectrum policy and management to ensure that all Americans continue to realize the boundless benefits of wireless broadband. Congress has taken some steps but more can and must be done. That is why I sincerely hope that my colleagues join me in supporting this important legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help expand wireless broadband to rural areas. Specifically, the Rural Spectrum Accessibility Act would direct the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, establish a program that would provide an incentive, a three year extension to a spectrum license, to wireless carriers that make available, through partitioning and disaggregation, unused spectrum to smaller carriers or carriers serving rural areas. As the FCC National Broadband Plan reports ``most areas without mobile broadband coverage are in rural or remote areas.'' This legislation would provide an additional incentive to increase wireless broadband to these areas and make more spectrum available to smaller and rural wireless carriers through secondary market mechanisms. This bill is loosely based on a wireless carrier's existing program, which creates a partnership with rural carriers to build and operate Long Term Evolution, LTE, wireless networks in rural areas. Through the cooperation the carrier provides spectrum and core network equipment and the rural carrier supplies the cell towers and backhaul. The Rural Spectrum Accessibility Act is an effort to get other large carriers to implement similar initiatives to create more opportunities for the smaller and rural carriers. It should be noted the FCC actually already has partitioning and disaggregation rules, see 47 C.F.R. 22.948, this legislative proposal just provides a simple but attractive incentive for carriers to utilize them. The main goal of this legislation is to provide another catalyst to expand next generation, 4G, Wireless broadband service to rural areas, which will mean more reliable service, more innovation, and more choice to rural consumers and businesses. The increasing importance of wireless communications and broadband has a direct correlation to our Nation's competitiveness, economy, and national security. We must reform existing spectrum policy and management to ensure that all Americans continue to realize the boundless benefits of wireless broadband. Congress has taken some steps but more can and must be done. That is why I sincerely hope that my colleagues join me in supporting this important legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, my home State has a worldwide reputation of excellence in the seafood industry. The natural blessings of our rich, rugged coast coupled with our fishermen's hard work and commitment to quality is a recipe for success. Maine's seafood industry has blossomed to prestige and is known for its superior product. This reputation has been cultivated by Maine's industry leaders through years of careful quality control and efforts to foster brand recognition. I rise today to commend one such company--Shucks Maine Lobster of Richmond, ME that exhibits the ingenuity and innovative spirit so characteristic of the small businesses in Maine. Founded in 2007 by CEO John Hathaway, Shucks Maine Lobster is a seafood processing company with an inventive solution to the most common predicament with lobster--extracting the meat is so much work. Buying wild-caught lobster straight from local fishermen, Shucks then processes the whole lobster using highly pressurized water to loosen the shell from the meat. The lobsters are then carefully shucked by hand and packaged in a vacuum-sealed container for freshness and extended refrigerator shelf life. This allows for the lobster meat to be extracted whole--no easy feat, I assure you. This unique method yields fresh, never cooked, preshucked lobster meat that is now available on a large commercial scale. It is through the exceptional effort of companies such as Shucks Maine Lobster that Maine's seafood industry has garnered its world renowned reputation for premium quality products. The worldwide acclaim Shucks Maine Lobster continues to receive at international food shows and chef competitions adds to the long tradition of Maine's superior seafood. Their well-deserved accolades also promote Maine as a brand. By producing such a delicious and more user-friendly way to enjoy Maine's fresh lobster, Shucks introduces and expands to new markets and furthers the positive reputation of all Maine seafood. The creativity, dedication, and can-do spirit, so characteristic of Maine entrepreneurs, can be seen at Shucks Maine Lobster in abundance. From a small lobster shack in Kennebunkport to a leader in the frozen lobster industry, Shucks has seen both the challenges and rewards of seeing an opportunity and sailing towards it. I commend Shucks Maine Lobster for all their success and wish them well in the future.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for finding a path to legislation that will at long last confront our Nation's 21st-century vulnerability to cyber crime, global cyber espionage, and cyber attacks. This legislation has been a long time in the making, and over the last several years I have been privileged to work with colleagues on the Senate Intelligence and Commerce Committees to address some of these consequential matters, including Senator Rockefeller, whom I collaborated with closely on cyber security legislation that passed the Commerce Committee unanimously in 2010; Senator Hutchison, who has worked tirelessly with us on these issues as ranking member on the Commerce Committee; Senators Mikulski and Whitehouse, with whom I served on the Intelligence Committee's Cyber Security Task Force; Senator Warner, who has joined me in underscoring the urgency of considering cyber security legislation in a transparent and nonpartisan manner; and Senators Lieberman and Collins, who have led the effort to craft this revised cyber security bill. Nothing less than the very foundation of our national and economic security is at risk, and it is essential that we be prepared to defend against cyber activity that could cause catastrophic damage and loss of life in this country. Still, some of my colleagues will undoubtedly make poignant and convincing arguments for why this Chamber should delay consideration of a comprehensive cyber security bill--stressing the complexity of the questions involved, the competing jurisdictions, and the many unknowns associated with a medium where innovation in functionality will continue to outpace innovation in security. However, last fall the National Counterintelligence Executive warned that the rapidly accelerating rate of change in information technology and communications is likely to ``disrupt security procedures and provide new openings for collection of sensitive U.S. economic and technology information.'' In fact, the counterintelligence report cited Cisco Systems studies predicting that the number of devices such as smartphones and laptops in operation worldwide will increase from about 12.5 billion in 2010 to 25 billion in 2015. Thus, as a result of this proliferation in the number of operating systems connected to the Internet, the Counterintelligence Executive has assessed that ``the growing complexity and density of cyber space will provide more cover for remote cyber intruders and make it even harder than today to establish attribution for these incidents.'' So as I said during the Senate Commerce Committee's bipartisan, unanimous markup of the Rockefeller-Snowe cyber security legislation over 2 years ago in early 2010, when it comes to the threat we face in cyber space, time is not on our side, and this is further evidence of that irrefutable fact. This Congress could spend another 2 years debating the merits of various approaches and continuing to operate based on a reactive hodgepodge of government directives and bureaucratic confusion. But at the end of the day, the only way to begin preparing our Nation to defend against this emerging threat is to allow the Senate to work its will in a full and unrestrained debate. In June, Senator Warner and I urged the Senate's leadership to reach an agreement ensuring cyber security legislation receives an open debate on the Senate floor during the July work period. In calling for a fair amendment process, we in fact were simply repeating the cyber security debate commitment made by the majority leader at the start of the year when he said that ``it is essential that we have a thorough and open debate on the Senate floor, including consideration of amendments to perfect the legislation, insert additional provisions where the majority of the Senate supports them, and remove provisions if such support does not exist.'' So I welcomed the majority leader's commitment to allow an open amendment process, and I joined my colleagues in voting to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill. As I have said repeatedly, only a bipartisan agreement will achieve our shared goal of passing cyber security legislation to prevent a devastating cyber attack. That process must begin now, and as one who has served on the Select Committee on Intelligence for the last decade, I believe it is essential to begin by elucidating the nature of the indisputable threat we now face. In June 2010, the Intelligence Committee's Cyber Security Task Force, on which I served along with Senators Whitehouse and Mikulski, delivered its classified final report illustrating the myriad of challenges to the security of our physical, economic, and social systems in cyber space. I urge my colleagues to review this classified report. As for some examples we can discuss in an open forum such as this, I encourage my colleagues to read the National Counterintelligence Executive's unclassified report to Congress entitled ``Foreign Spies Stealing U.S. Economic Secrets in Cyberspace.'' The Counterintelligence Executive's report, which was released last fall, is truly the authoritative document when it comes to portraying in detail the nature of the threat and its ramifications on our lives and--increasingly--our livelihoods. s The report is incredibly eye-opening and represents the first time in which our government has explicitly named China and Russia as the primary points of origin for much of the malicious cyber activity targeting U.S. interests. In fact, the report states that the Governments of China and Russia ``remain aggressive and capable collectors of sensitive U.S. economic information and technologies, particularly in cyberspace'' and it links much of the recent onslaught of computer network intrusions as originating from Internet Protocol addresses in these two countries. For example, the Counterintelligence Executive's report cites a February 2011 study attributing an intrusion set called ``Night Dragon'' to an IP address located in China. According to the report, these cyber intruders were able to exfiltrate data from computer systems of global oil, energy, and petrochemical companies with the goal of obtaining information on ``sensitive competitive proprietary operations and on financing of oil and gas field bids.'' As the report notes, such activity on behalf of our economic rivals undermines the U.S. economy's ability to ``create jobs, generate revenues, foster innovation, and lay the economic foundation for prosperity and national security.'' And the report estimates that our losses from economic espionage range from ``$2 billion to $400 billion or more a year,'' reflecting the scarcity of data and underscoring how little we currently understand about the total effect these malicious cyber intrusions have on our economic future. In addition to the threat posed to our Nation's prosperity, the Counterintelligence Executive's report noted that foreign collectors are stealing information ``on the full array of U.S. military technologies in use or under development,'' including marine systems, aerospace and aeronautics technologies used in intelligence gathering and kinetic operations, such as UAVs, and dual-use technologies used for generating energy. In April, James Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies testified in an unclassified Senate hearing that the delays and cost overruns in the F-35 program may be the result of cyber espionage, which in turn could be linked to the rapid development of China's J-20 stealth fighter. He went on to note that Iran has also been pursuing the acquisition of cyber attack capabilities, noting that FBI Director Mueller has testified that Iran appears increasingly willing to carry out such attacks against the United States and its allies. As Director of National Intelligence James Clapper remarked during his unclassified testimony to the Select Committee on Intelligence in January, we are observing an ``increased breadth and sophistication of computer network operations by both state and nonstate actors'' and despite our best efforts ``cyber intruders continue to explore new means to circumvent defensive measures.'' To illustrate this point, Director Clapper cited the well-publicized intrusions into the NASDAQ networks and the breach of computer security firm RSA in March 2011, which led to the exfiltration of data on the algorithms used in its authentication system and, subsequently, access to the systems of a U.S. defense contractor. Consequently, as Director Clapper put it, one of our greatest strategic challenges in the coming years will be ``providing timely, actionable warning of cyber threats and incidents, such as identifying past or present security breaches, definitively attributing them, and accurately distinguishing between cyber espionage intrusions and potentially disruptive cyber attacks.'' As I listened to Director Clapper's assessment of the cyber threat at the Intelligence Committee's annual unclassified worldwide threat hearing this past January, I was reminded of similar statements by several of his predecessors. In fact, on February 2, 2010, then DNI Dennis Blair provided the following cautionary warning: This cyber domain is exponentially expanding our ability to create and share knowledge, but it is also enabling those who would steal, corrupt, harm or destroy the public and private assets vital to our national interests. The recent intrusions reported by Google are a stark reminder of the importance of these cyber assets, and a wake-up call to those who have not taken this problem seriously. Similarly, the preceding year, on February 12, 2009, Director Blair said: Over the past year, cyber exploitation activity has grown more sophisticated, more targeted, and more serious. The Intelligence Community expects these trends to continue in the coming year. As far back as February 5, 2008, then-DNI Michael McConnell warned: It is no longer sufficient for the US Government to discover cyber intrusions in its networks, clean up the damage, and take legal or political steps to deter further intrusions. We must take proactive measures to detect and prevent intrusions from whatever source, as they happen, and before they can do significant damage. It was in response to this cavalcade of wake-up calls and threat briefings that Senator Rockefeller and I, in our role as crossover members of both the Intelligence and Commerce committees, initiated a series of hearings before the Commerce Committee to begin considering proposals for collaborating with the private sector to prevent and defend against attacks in cyber space. On April 1, 2009, Senator Rockefeller and I introduced one of the first bills aimed at tackling some of our Nation's most vexing challenges when it comes to this issue. Our legislation, the Cybersecurity Act of 2010, was meant to focus the Senate's efforts on several key priorities, including conducting risk assessments to identify and evaluate cyber threats and vulnerabilities, clarifying the responsibilities of government and private sector stakeholders by creating a public-private information sharing clearinghouse, and investing in cyber research and development to expand activities in critical fields like secure coding, which is indispensable in minimizing our vulnerability to cyber intrusions. Our bill also sought to expand efforts to recruit the next generation of ``cyber warriors'' to implement these defenses through the creation of a cyber scholarship-for-service program. Our cyber security bill was one of the first attempts to confront our vulnerabilities in cyber space, and with approximately 90 percent of the Nation's digital infrastructure controlled by private industry, we made a concerted effort to collaborate with businesses and ensure our bill incorporated input from experts covering the complete spectrum of this issue. Along the way Senator Rockefeller and I have worked together closely, holding meetings with the White House Cyber Security Coordinator, conducting hearings at the Commerce Committee with experts like James Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies and former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, and collaborating on a Wall Street Journal op-ed entitled ``Now Is the Time to Prepare for Cyberwar.'' As a result, our legislation was marked up in a unanimous, bipartisan effort by the Commerce Committee in 2010. Moreover, our proposal received praise from a major telecommunications industry leader who said our 2009 bill ``puts the nation on a much stronger footing'' to confront the cyber threat and a leading telecom association, which said that ``passage of the Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity Act is a necessary and important step in protecting our national infrastructure.'' Additionally, in February 2011, following the Egyptian Government's attempt to quell public protests by denying access to the Internet, I pledged to oppose so-called ``Internet kill switch'' authority here in the United States. Consequently, I was pleased when earlier this year Senators on both sides of the aisle joined me in protecting critical first amendment rights by agreeing to reject any provisions that could be construed as giving our government new authority to restrict access to the Internet. Thus, although I am not a cosponsor of the legislation before the Senate, I recognize that this proposal reflects many of the core ideas first offered by Senator Rockefeller and I in 2009, and I commend my colleagues for working with us over the last few years to ensure that these essential provisions were made part of the revised cyber security legislation. Specifically, I support steps taken in the revised bill that require collaboration between the government and the private sector to share information about cyber threats and identify vulnerabilities to protect networks. Such information sharing and sector-by-sector cyber risk assessments were a fundamental part of the Rockefeller-Snowe bill in 2009. Likewise, I support provisions establishing an industry-led-- rather than government-led--process for identifying best practices, standards, and guidelines to effectively remediate or mitigate cyber risks, with civil liability protection for those owners and operators of critical infrastructure who have implemented these standards. And I support the cyber outreach, awareness, recruitment, and workforce development provisions that were an essential component of our original bill. That being said, the private sector is rightly concerned about the prospect of over-regulation by the Federal Government. Specifically, many of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle have expressed concerns that passage of a comprehensive cyber security bill could lead to more government redtape, stifling innovation and impeding growth. Yet I firmly believe these are not insurmountable challenges, and I am optimistic that there is tremendous potential for the Senate to forge a viable solution that incentivizes private sector participation and collaboration. Although the revised bill takes steps to incentivize the adoption of voluntary cyber security practices, many continue to voice concerns when it comes to the provisions governing ``covered critical infrastructure,'' or in other words, those information systems for our transportation, first responders, airports, hospitals, electric utilities, water systems, and financial networks whose disruption would interrupt life-sustaining services, cause catastrophic economic damage, or severely degrade national security. I support an effort to raise the bar when it comes to cyber security standards for our most critical, life-sustaining systems. Yet in order to pass a bill that has the momentum to become law, we absolutely must find some middle ground with those who have raised valid concerns about the potential of over-regulation by the Federal Government. For example, I have heard concerns from the private sector that subsection 103(g) of the revised bill may cause confusion and has led many to believe that the voluntary rules will eventually be forced upon companies who may already have strong security practices in place. Specifically, this subsection mandates that all Federal agencies with responsibilities for regulating critical infrastructure must submit an annual report justifying why they have not acted to make the voluntary standards proposed through this legislation mandatory within their jurisdiction. To remove any confusion about the intent of the bill, I am working with Senator Warner and several of my colleagues on straightforward language to clarify that nothing in the bill should be construed to increase, decrease, or otherwise alter the existing authority of any Federal agency when it comes to the security of critical cyber infrastructure. Likewise, I share some of my colleagues' concerns that provisions designed to bolster the Department of Homeland Security's role in managing efforts to secure and protect critical infrastructure networks could lead to an unsustainable DHS bureaucracy. Such provisions were not part of the original Rockefeller-Snowe bill, which took a different approach by creating a Senate-confirmed National Cybersecurity Adviser within the Executive Office of the President. Yet, again, this hurdle is not insurmountable--and I welcome the establishment of the National Cybersecurity Council in the revised bill as an interagency body with members from the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Justice, the Intelligence Community, and other appropriate Federal agencies--in addition to DHS--to assess risks and ensure the primary regulators for each critical system are involved in any final decision. Furthermore, I remain concerned that the bill lacks specific provisions to assist small businesses in complying with any new cyber security standards adopted by Federal agencies with responsibilities for regulating the security of critical infrastructure. Small businesses remain the primary job creators in this country, responsible for more than two-thirds of all new jobs created. As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have advocated tirelessly for targeted regulatory reform because there is no doubt that regulations are stifling small business. Small firms with fewer than 20 employees bear a disproportionate burden of complying with Federal regulations. These small firms pay an annual regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee, which is 36 percent higher than the regulatory cost facing larger firms. In response, I have proposed several amendments to ensure the Small Business Administration and other constructive stakeholders are involved in analyzing the implications of cyber security performance standards on small businesses and recommending options for mitigating any costs or unnecessary burdens. And I have filed an amendment that would identify the challenges that prevent the Federal Government from leveraging the capabilities of small businesses to perform classified cyber security work and to develop security-cleared cyber workers. I have also filed amendments that ensure sector specific regulators have the technical resources and staffing to adequately address cyber threats facing their industry and that focus research efforts on promising technologies that will secure our wireless infrastructure. Additionally, I have joined my colleague, Senator Toomey, in offering an amendment that would implement a national data security breach standard to simplify compliance for businesses and notifications to consumers to reduce undue burden and confusion. More than 540 million records have been reported breached since 2005 according to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and research from Symantec estimates the average organizational cost of a breach is approximately $5.5 million. Finally, I have filed an amendment to prohibit our government from signing new trade agreements with countries that have been identified by the National Counterintelligence Executive as using cyber tools to steal our trade secrets and threaten our economic security. It is time to send the message that these malicious activities will come with a price, and I view this as a sound and practical means of deterrence. So again let me reiterate the imperative fact that time is not on our side. As former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and several of his intelligence community and defense colleagues recently wrote in a letter to our Senate leadership, the risk of failing to act on comprehensive cyber security legislation is ``simply too great considering the reality of our interconnected and interdependent world, and the impact that can result from the failure of even one part of the network across a wide range of physical, economic and social systems.'' Therefore, as I wrote in a letter to the majority and minority leaders in June, ``given the nature of the threat we face . . . it is essential that we not miss an opportunity to consider cyber security legislation in a non-partisan manner and pass a bill that has the momentum to become law.'' Now is the moment to prove that the Senate is capable of forging a viable solution to address what Director Clapper called ``a critical national and economic security concern.'' I welcome this debate on what I view as one of the defining national security challenges of our generation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in working for passage of comprehensive cyber security legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I wish to honor and recognize with the highest esteem the many volunteers, veterans' organizations and civic and municipal entities responsible for establishing the Midcoast Area Veterans Memorial Wall in Rockland, Maine, that honors the extraordinary service and sacrifice of all our Nation's military veterans. Established and managed by the Midcoast Area Veterans Memorial Corporation, a nonprofit corporation comprised of members from the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), the Marine Corps League, Rockland Rotary, Rockland Kiwanis, the Benevolent and Protective Order (BPO) of Elks, and the City of Rockland, the Memorial Wall is located on upper Limerock Street in Rockland on property owned by the American Legion Post No. 1. The location of the Memorial is, appropriately, also the site of an 1861 Civil War encampment of the local Fourth Regiment of Maine Volunteers. Undeniably, nothing unites us more as Mainers and Americans than the limitless pride we take in our revered and noble veterans. Indeed, in Maine, we also cherish the tremendous distinction of having, on any given day, the second most veterans per capita of any State in the Nation. Such devotion to country is the embodiment of the self- sacrificing principles that Mainers live by and have passed down from one generation to the next. This selfless way of thinking also inspired and motivated a small group of individuals more than 16 years ago to begin formulating plans to establish a memorial to honor our veterans in Midcoast Maine. After a long, dedicated effort and several site location changes, the Midcoast Area Veterans Memorial Wall has finally secured a permanent home. The Midcoast Area Veterans Memorial Wall is by all accounts a beautifully designed and landscaped tribute to the unfathomable service and sacrifice of the many Americans exceptional enough to wear the uniform--not only the 21.8 million veterans alive today, including more than 134,000 from the State of Maine, but also those who are no longer with us. Featuring stunning black granite tiles etched with digitized pictures of veterans, the wall serves as a fitting and moving tribute to those who so ably and courageously served under the Stars and Stripes to protect and preserve the cherished principles that have made our nation the greatest on earth. And, while new tiles are added twice yearly--at Memorial Day and Veterans Day--the Midcoast Area Veterans Memorial Wall is always open and provides an opportunity for each of us to express our boundless gratitude to those who have placed service above self not just on national holidays, but on every day of every month of every year. On August 3, 2012, the Midcoast Area Veterans Memorial Wall will officially be dedicated and will feature remarks from Maine's esteemed First Lady Ann LePage, as well as officers and representatives of USCGC Abbie Burgess, USCGC Tackle, USCGC Thunder Bay, USS San Antonio, the United States Marine Corps, and the Maine Army National Guard. On the occasion of the official dedication of the Midcoast Area Veterans Memorial Wall, I convey my deep and abiding appreciation to the many dedicated volunteers who have worked tirelessly over the past 16 years to bring this day to fruition. This faithful and successful effort exemplifies the very best of what it means to be a Mainer and an American.