Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona. Nuclear Submarine Fire Before I do that, I want to recognize and acknowledge the tremendous and outstanding and remarkable work done by the crew at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and the local firefighters from numerous departments from the State of Maine, as well as from New Hampshire, because of the fire that occurred on the nuclear-powered submarine at the shipyard last evening, which was burning for more than 9 hours. It was the extraordinary teamwork and coordination among all of the crews, as well as the firefighters and departments from both States, that managed to put out the fire. It is now smoldering. I offer my commendations and congratulations to those who did the exceptional and outstanding work, which exemplifies the kind of teamwork that already occurs at that shipyard. I wanted to offer my recognition to that extraordinary work in a very difficult circumstance. Amendment No. 2107 I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, in authorizing a very limited drug importation program, whereby Americans can purchase medications from accredited online Canadian pharmacies. I am supporting this amendment, as I have in the past. In fact, we have had broader amendments offered on the floor of the Senate for almost more than a decade with respect to allowing importation of prescriptions from other countries that offer more competitive prices. I applaud Senator McCain, who obviously has been a very valuable ally in this effort for many years. But he proposed a very limited approach to address those who have concerns with the idea of importing prescription drugs. I, for one, cannot understand why there is such a fundamental concern about this issue because, first of all, Americans have been facing tremendous increases in prescription drug prices for far too long. I think it is at a point at which Congress should address this issue, and precisely on this particular piece of legislation that is before us today. It could not be more appropriate to have this amendment offered on this legislation. In 2010, AARP found that retail prices for the most popular brandname drugs increased 41.5 percent, while the Consumer Price Index rose just 13 percent. In other words, the cost of prescription drugs rose more than three times as much as the inflation rate. That is completely unacceptable. What has occurred as a result of this trend? First of all, American consumers are increasingly choosing to risk living without taking critical medications. According to the Commonwealth Fund, in 2010, 48 million Americans did not fill a prescription due to high costs. That represents an increase of 66 percent since 2001. If the Senate and the overall Congress were to adopt the McCain amendment, it would allow Americans to purchase safe medications at a lower price than they are available for us in this country. We could begin to turn this disturbing trend around. I know people in Maine deserve access to affordable drug prices. Millions of Americans, and certainly those in Maine, have purchased drugs from Canada safely, at a significant savings over the years. They have had to go to great lengths in order to purchase lower price medications. They have taken bus trips to Canada to purchase that medication because that was the only way they could have access to the prescriptions they so desperately need. The McCain amendment builds on that foundation. If we look at this first chart, Mr. President, an April 27, 2012, survey comparing average Canadian drug prices against major U.S. retail pharmacy prices, we find the average U.S. price for a 90-day supply of Nexium, which is a common blood thinner, is $560 in America but only $265 in Canada. So Americans are paying twice as much for Nexium as Canadians do. I think that is simply outrageous. Why should American consumers pay twice as much for a medication that so many Americans depend upon? Here is another example of a drug that is a blood-thinning drug that is also very crucial in this process, and that is Plavix. That costs $585 in the United States versus $398 in Canada for a 90-day supply. So, again, American consumers are paying 50 percent higher costs for the same prescription drugs as Canadians do. Then let's look at the very popular anticholesterol medication Lipitor. This chart illustrates, again, what Lipitor costs the American consumer. The cost is $478 in the United States as compared to $278 in Canada for a 90-day supply. So for patients who are already trying to make ends meet in this very difficult economy by rationing their medications, splitting their pills, or even skipping medications entirely, why would we deny them access to safe drug products at these dramatically lower prices? That is why I have cosponsored Senator McCain's amendment. It would allow Americans to import medication from accredited Canadian pharmacies from a list approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. These accredited pharmacies must commit to ongoing quality assurance programs and product testing to determine the safety and efficacy of these products. This amendment is more narrowly focused than even the one that our former colleague Senator Dorgan and I had offered previously. This provides a pathway to a more limited approach for Americans to access affordable medications. In fact, there has been a very recent study conducted by Roger Bate of the American Enterprise Institute entitled ``Unveiling the Mystery of Online Pharmacies: An Audit Study.'' Let me quote from him as to what he discovered: If some foreign Web sites sell safe prescription drugs with substantial price discounts, but American consumers are guided to buy from U.S. Web sites only, the FDA could potentially discourage price competition between the U.S. and foreign pharmacies and, thereby, reduce drug affordability within the United States. The danger of reducing price competition depends on whether consumers can distinguish trustworthy Web sites from the vast pool of foreign Web sites. So here we have the documentation by a very significant study that talks about how Americans can access these affordable medications. We shouldn't be discouraging price competition, as this study illustrates. That is one of the points I have been arguing over the years; that the real problem in this country with respect to prices for prescriptions is that we don't have competition within the industry and competition for those medications. Americans have learned that citizens in other countries use the very same medications as we do. They are made in the very same plants. Yet they pay less. We talk about injecting greater free market competition in the health care marketplace as a way of achieving greater affordability, and this amendment attempts to address that very issue. As we look at what other countries do, when we are talking about accessing cheaper medications, we know in Canada that is the case, and it is certainly true in other industrialized nations. I should add, in fact, they pay 35 to 55 percent less for their drugs because of the higher prices Americans pay, which is about $90 billion more for prescription drugs every year than we would otherwise. I think that is totally unacceptable. Why should American consumers be paying 35 to 55 percent more or nearly $90 billion more than consumers in other countries for the very same medications? It simply doesn't make sense. According to former Pfizer CEO Hank McKinnell--looking at the quote on this chart: Competition is good medicine for economies. . . . Name an industry in which competition is allowed to flourish-- computers, telecommunications, small package shipping, retailing, entertainment--and I will show you lower prices, higher quality, more innovation, and better customer service. There's nary an exception. Okay, there's one. So far, the health care industry seems immune to the discipline of competition. When we last considered the legislation I introduced along with former colleague Senator Dorgan, we allowed importation only from Canada, the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, and the Congressional Budget Office estimated the Federal Government would save almost $20 billion--$20 billion--if we allowed the importation of those medications. So we know for a fact allowing drug importation generates considerable cost savings to the government, to individuals, and businesses that provide health insurance coverage to their employees. The bottom line is where nations institute safe, regulated trade in pharmaceuticals they achieve results. When Sweden entered the European Union system of trade, they saw a reduction of 12 to 19 percent in the price of traded drugs. In fact, Europe has had parallel trading for more than 30 years and has never had an incident. Industries see the advantage in being a part of the global market when it comes to manufacturing costs. For example, according to a Pew study in 2011, the number of prescription drugs made at non-U.S. sites doubled between 2001 and 2008. That means they doubled at a sizable increase with respect to the number of prescription drugs that are made at non-U.S. sites. There are more than 50 plants where our medications are manufactured, and not all of those facilities are even inspected-- not even inspected. Yet those are medications we use in this country because they are manufactured at other plants in other countries. As I said, there are more than 50 countries in which we have our prescriptions manufactured. So let me see if I have this straight. It is fine for some foreign countries to manufacture drugs in their own plants for the U.S. market, ship those drugs here where the American people are given the privilege of paying higher prices than anywhere else in the world, but somehow we can't safely import those very drugs into the United States directly. It simply doesn't make sense. The American taxpayer is underwriting more than $30 billion of research--basic and applied research--at the National Institutes of Health alone, so consumers in all those other nations are benefiting from the investments the American taxpayer is making with respect to research. That U.S. research produces these medications and these prescriptions that other nations pay 35 to 55 percent less for than the American consumer. The American taxpayer is paying more for those drugs, as I said, and also paying more of their tax dollars for the research that is ongoing at the National Institutes of Health. It simply doesn't make sense. With all of the additional profit, industry invests nearly equally in R&D in the United States and in Europe and is increasingly moving research to low-cost Asian countries. So paying the world's highest prices for drugs doesn't ensure us more research, but it decreases our access to drugs. So that is the contradiction that Americans confront each and every day when they are purchasing their medications at a much higher cost than consumers in other countries. The amendment that is offered by the Senator from Arizona is allowing importation solely from Canada, and it is for online pharmacies based on a list that has been drafted by the Department of Health and Human Services. That is a very prescribed, targeted, limited approach to allowing American consumers to benefit from those lower priced drugs that are offered in Canada. It is very important we take this step. It is important for American consumers who otherwise are not going to be able to afford these medications when they are paying two to three times more than their counterparts in Canada, for example. The prices are rising five times more than the inflation rate year after year, so the compounding effect is significant and overwhelming for most American consumers and families. So what I hope is we will support the amendment that has been offered by Senator McCain. Some have suggested that providing support for the McCain amendment will hinder efforts to quickly move on the underlying legislation for the FDA. That concern is certainly not persuasive because the McCain amendment is a very narrowly focused approach. It represents a good- faith effort to find common ground. It has included strong safety- related measures and is done under very limited circumstances so the American consumer can take advantage of the lower prices I have demonstrated today with regard to some of the commonly used drugs, such as the anticholesterol medication Lipitor and the drug-thinning drugs such as Plavix. It is explicitly designed to make it more broadly acceptable to those who might have concerns in taking the approach of drug importation. We must create a more competitive, more affordable health care system for the American people. The prescription drug market needs competition. Competition will lower prices. For some reason, even though we are underwriting all of the research that benefits consumers in so many other countries, and even though our medications are manufactured at other plants in 50 countries, the American consumers are paying up to 55 percent more than their counterparts around the world. It simply doesn't make sense. In fact, I would suggest it is outrageous. So that is why I am supporting this amendment. We need to take this limited, modest first step that I think goes a long way to addressing any reservations anyone might have in this Chamber with respect to the issue of importation. I hope we will allow American consumers to benefit from the much lower prices, especially during these very difficult economic times. This is a first step toward a larger system of safe, regulated drug importation. I commend the Senator from Arizona for offering this amendment, and I hope the Senate will adopt it. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, each year on the last Monday in May we, as a nation, remember those who gave their lives while serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. Memorial Day is a chance to honor those who protect our freedom, giving others the opportunity to pursue the American dream. And it is our veteran entrepreneurs who know the sacrifices and struggles both of military service and of pursuing that dream firsthand. Today I rise to recognize and commend a family and veteran-owned small business that embodies the American entrepreneurial spirit, Nexstraps located in Blue Hill, ME. For those who have had the pleasure to visit my home State, they know that it is blessed with an abundance of natural beauty. From the rugged wilderness of Mount Katahdin at the northern terminus of the Appalachian Trail, to the picturesque rivers and expansive forests, to the shores of Acadia National Park, Maine's beauty is derived from the physical splendor of the land. Moreover, Maine's great outdoors delivers a wealth of activities throughout every season. That is why Jeff and Kate Wright, who share a love of nature and believe life should be lived actively, outdoors, founded Nexstraps in 2007 based on those principles. Together with their family, they pursued a business plan and way of life that harmoniously marries their love of nature with creative and practical problem-solving products designed with an active lifestyle in mind. In starting Nexstraps, necessity truly was the mother of creation. Jeff, a former Reconnaissance Marine and Navy Seal with tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, was confronted with the simple challenge of holding on to his glasses during daily operations. With the goal of remedying this problem, Jeff and Kate endeavored to design and manufacture a solution. Unlike a conventional sports glasses strap that merely connects the two eyewear legs with a band behind the head, the Nexstrap secures the glasses with a single band which serves as a tether looping from the legs of the frame, around the front of the neck, and meeting at a point behind the head. This unique design ensures that should the glasses become displaced over the head, they will remain leashed around the wearer's neck. The strap can further be looped through a baseball cap, securing the hat as well. Handmade from neoprene, the Nexstrap is designed to withstand whatever challenge the extreme sportsman can throw at it, whether that is rock climbing, snowboarding, or base-jumping. They even float! This problem solving innovation is a perfect example of the ingenuity that is characteristic of Maine entrepreneurs. I applaud Nexstraps for demonstrating the epitome of Maine innovation and entrepreneurship. The Wrights' creativity and can-do attitude is truly a reflection of the talent and entrepreneurial spirit found in my home State of Maine. As we pay tribute to our servicemembers this coming Memorial Day, I offer my gratitude and congratulations to our Nation's veteran-owned small business and extend my best wishes to Jeff and Kate Wright at Nexstraps for their continued success.

Ms. SNOWE

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

Ms. SNOWE

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

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 3196 and S. 3197. This legislation will strengthen the resources and support that we provide to women entrepreneurs, and to strengthen oversight of the SBA's technical assistance programs. The SBA's Entrepreneurial Development programs are a vital source of training and management support for entrepreneurs, and I am pleased to work with Chair Landrieu to improve these programs and ensure that the taxpayer dollars that support them are being utilized in the most efficient and effective way possible. The Women's Small Business Ownership Act of 2012 builds upon our commitment to providing assistance to women entrepreneurs, whose firms have grown at ice the rate of other firms. The SBA's Women's Business Center, WBC, program provides critical assistance to economically or socially disadvantaged entrepreneurs, especially women. The bill I am introducing today with Chair Landrieu holds funding for the WBC program at current levels for the next three years, in recognition that now is not the time to grow Federal programs, including proven ones like the SBA's technical assistance efforts. Our bill also makes necessary improvements to the WBC program, such as establishing a process and criteria that the SBA must follow in administering grants under this program, and expanding eligible entities that can host Women's Business Centers to include local economic development organizations and community colleges. It also improves the transparency of project funds to ensure that WBC hosts are not comingling their grant funds with those for separate purposes and initiatives. To further strengthen growth in women-owned businesses, we are also introducing the National Women's High-Growth Business Bipartisan Task Force Act of 2012. This legislation would repeal the National Women's Business Council and replace it with a Women's High-Growth Business Bipartisan Task Force charged with developing and promoting initiatives, policies, and programs designed to encourage the formation of startups and high-growth small business concerns owned by women. Under current law, the Council receives funding to employ an executive director and four additional employees, who may receive a maximum pay rate of GS 15. However, most other advisory committees across the government and SBA operate without staff, and under this bill we will save taxpayers nearly $1 million by transitioning the current Council into a Task Force, similar to the Interagency Veteran's Task Force at the SBA, which was established in 2008. Additionally, this legislation places an emphasis on high-growth small businesses owned and controlled by women. Recently, the Kauffman Foundation, based in Kansas City, MO, researched the effects of startups as part of the American economy. These reports demonstrate the necessity of new and young start-ups to act as mechanisms for reviving the American economy; particularly those of high-growth entrepreneurs. In this rapidly growing area of high-growth firms, which often incorporate intellectual property endeavors, this bill ensures that women's small business concerns are being addressed, with an emphasis on achieving and maximizing high-growth potential. Finally, I am pleased to join Chair Landrieu in introducing the Strengthening Resources for America's Entrepreneurs Act. This legislation aims to improve oversight and coordination among the SBA's existing entrepreneurial development, ED, programs, including the Women's Business Centers, WBC, the Small Business Development Centers, SBDC, and the Service Corps of Retired Executives, SCORE, by setting performance measures, reducing duplication, and increasing partnerships with local entrepreneurial training providers to make them more effective and responsive to the needs of small businesses. Importantly, this legislation makes several changes to the SBA's entrepreneurial development programs at no cost to taxpayers. The bill instructs the SBA to develop a plan outlining how to use ED initiatives to create new jobs over the next 2 years, improves cross-program coordination to maximize use of program resources, establishes a consistent data collection process for all of its technical assistance programs, and ensures that someone is available to assist small businesses at all SBA district offices. By requiring the SBA to collect data will provide important insights into the strengths of the ED programs and highlight where there is room for improvement. Now, more than ever, we in Congress must do everything within our power to help small businesses drive our Nation's economic recovery, and the SBA programs we are reauthorizing today are critical elements of that support. In the coming weeks, I look forward to working with the Chair and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move these bills through the full Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 3196 and S. 3197. This legislation will strengthen the resources and support that we provide to women entrepreneurs, and to strengthen oversight of the SBA's technical assistance programs. The SBA's Entrepreneurial Development programs are a vital source of training and management support for entrepreneurs, and I am pleased to work with Chair Landrieu to improve these programs and ensure that the taxpayer dollars that support them are being utilized in the most efficient and effective way possible. The Women's Small Business Ownership Act of 2012 builds upon our commitment to providing assistance to women entrepreneurs, whose firms have grown at ice the rate of other firms. The SBA's Women's Business Center, WBC, program provides critical assistance to economically or socially disadvantaged entrepreneurs, especially women. The bill I am introducing today with Chair Landrieu holds funding for the WBC program at current levels for the next three years, in recognition that now is not the time to grow Federal programs, including proven ones like the SBA's technical assistance efforts. Our bill also makes necessary improvements to the WBC program, such as establishing a process and criteria that the SBA must follow in administering grants under this program, and expanding eligible entities that can host Women's Business Centers to include local economic development organizations and community colleges. It also improves the transparency of project funds to ensure that WBC hosts are not comingling their grant funds with those for separate purposes and initiatives. To further strengthen growth in women-owned businesses, we are also introducing the National Women's High-Growth Business Bipartisan Task Force Act of 2012. This legislation would repeal the National Women's Business Council and replace it with a Women's High-Growth Business Bipartisan Task Force charged with developing and promoting initiatives, policies, and programs designed to encourage the formation of startups and high-growth small business concerns owned by women. Under current law, the Council receives funding to employ an executive director and four additional employees, who may receive a maximum pay rate of GS 15. However, most other advisory committees across the government and SBA operate without staff, and under this bill we will save taxpayers nearly $1 million by transitioning the current Council into a Task Force, similar to the Interagency Veteran's Task Force at the SBA, which was established in 2008. Additionally, this legislation places an emphasis on high-growth small businesses owned and controlled by women. Recently, the Kauffman Foundation, based in Kansas City, MO, researched the effects of startups as part of the American economy. These reports demonstrate the necessity of new and young start-ups to act as mechanisms for reviving the American economy; particularly those of high-growth entrepreneurs. In this rapidly growing area of high-growth firms, which often incorporate intellectual property endeavors, this bill ensures that women's small business concerns are being addressed, with an emphasis on achieving and maximizing high-growth potential. Finally, I am pleased to join Chair Landrieu in introducing the Strengthening Resources for America's Entrepreneurs Act. This legislation aims to improve oversight and coordination among the SBA's existing entrepreneurial development, ED, programs, including the Women's Business Centers, WBC, the Small Business Development Centers, SBDC, and the Service Corps of Retired Executives, SCORE, by setting performance measures, reducing duplication, and increasing partnerships with local entrepreneurial training providers to make them more effective and responsive to the needs of small businesses. Importantly, this legislation makes several changes to the SBA's entrepreneurial development programs at no cost to taxpayers. The bill instructs the SBA to develop a plan outlining how to use ED initiatives to create new jobs over the next 2 years, improves cross-program coordination to maximize use of program resources, establishes a consistent data collection process for all of its technical assistance programs, and ensures that someone is available to assist small businesses at all SBA district offices. By requiring the SBA to collect data will provide important insights into the strengths of the ED programs and highlight where there is room for improvement. Now, more than ever, we in Congress must do everything within our power to help small businesses drive our Nation's economic recovery, and the SBA programs we are reauthorizing today are critical elements of that support. In the coming weeks, I look forward to working with the Chair and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move these bills through the full Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, in February, the New York Times ran a heartbreaking story about Robert and Wilma Hartford, two elderly Peru, ME residents unable to pay for basic heating during the State's bitter cold winter, and a heating oil dealer's personal struggle to assist them. As a result, the outpouring of support for this couple was astonishing, as neighbors, generous New York Times readers across the country, and local small businesses sought to help. One such business, Upright Frameworks in Wilton, ME, was happy to lend a hand. This small firm's assistance to the Hartfords during their time of need illustrates the generosity of Mainers, consistently rising to the occasion to help a neighbor, while demonstrating enormous potential for curbing our exorbitant energy costs. Today I wish to recognize Upright Frameworks for their compassion and tireless efforts to improve energy efficient building techniques. Owner and founder Josh Wojcik began Upright Frameworks in 2008, after moving back home to Maine following a 9-year term in environmental policy in New York. As a trained environmentalist and graduate from the Structural Insulated Panel, SIP, School in West Virginia, Josh is dedicated to ensuring that buildings take full advantage of energy efficiency. Josh developed the idea for Upright Frameworks while assisting his father, Tom Wojcik, a long-time Mainer Builder, on construction projects throughout the State. As individuals continually inquired about energy efficiency and going ``green,'' Josh saw an opportunity to utilize his skills in Maine. Despite the challenging construction market, today Upright Frameworks employs 12 individuals. As a new innovative construction solution, this small firm specializes in installing structural insulated panels which have been on the forefront of energy efficiency. For existing structures, the company performs energy audits and weatherization retrofits to ensure that buildings have the most cost-effective energy systems in places. When Josh learned of the Hartfords' struggle, he was determined to help. With an existing home such as the Hartfords, the first step was to evaluate the project and determine the most cost-effective method to reduce energy costs. For Josh, reducing the heat loss in the attic was paramount to addressing energy efficiency. In collaboration with several other local Maine businesses and donations from across the country, Josh was able to effectively make a difference by reducing air leakage in the Hartfords' home by an astonishing 63 percent. This drastic reduction will allow the couple to substantially reduce their home heating costs for years to come. While energy costs are still a major issue facing my State, I applaud Upright Frameworks' ability to achieve real results with their creative use of energy efficiency to alleviate the burdens of home-heating costs. This company's selfless commitment to helping fellow Mainers in need truly warms my heart. I am proud to extend my praise to Josh Wojcik and everyone at Upright Frameworks for their dedication and offer my best wishes for their continued success in building a new energy future and improving the daily lives of Mainers.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, it is my privilege and honor to recognize and commend Saco & Biddeford Savings Institution, the oldest bank in Maine, which this month celebrates its milestone 185th anniversary. Saco & Biddeford Savings Institution, located in Saco, ME, opened its doors on May 23, 1827. It is hard to believe, but at that time--7 years after Maine was granted Statehood--relatively few banks existed in the United States and none in Maine. However, in February of 1827, 48 citizens of Saco changed this path by appealing to the State legislature for a banking charter. Since that time, this community bank has taken remarkable strides and made breakthrough achievements, including opening the first branch of any bank in Maine. Further, in 1922, it began encouraging Maine's youth to save and learn the value of fiscal responsibility when it started the first school savings program in the State's history. Whether a customer is interested in personal banking, obtaining a mortgage, or even starting or investing in a small business, Saco and Biddeford Savings offers a broad array of services and products. Today, this bank has expanded beyond Saco and includes locations in Biddeford, Old Orchard Beach, Scarborough, South Portland, and Westbrook. As the eleventh largest Maine-based community bank for total assets, it continues to grow, recently announcing total assets of over $759 million. Notably, Saco & Biddeford Savings continues to be a leader in the community, employing 165 individuals, and was named by Best Companies Group in 2011 as one of the ``Best Places to Work in Maine.'' As is evidenced by their remarkable success for nearly two centuries, this financial institution is highly regarded for its impeccable customer service and outstanding charitable contributions. In 2011 alone, Saco & Biddeford Savings donated nearly $350,000 to local charities. Already, in 2012, this community bank has donated to 14 local food pantries and meal programs and assisted with the Project Heat Telethon which ultimately raised $223,550 to assist Maine families with fuel costs. Saco & Biddeford Savings' generosity to the community demonstrates why Southern Maine has embraced this organization for 185 years. Throughout our Nation's great history, we have experienced tremendous highs and lows, particularly in our financial sector. While this has presented unique challenges to banking establishments, Saco & Biddeford Savings Institution's ability to thrive and prosper for 185 years is a monumental achievement. I am proud to extend my congratulations to everyone at Saco & Biddeford Savings Institution on their 185th anniversary. I offer my best wishes for their continued success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of The Violence Against Women Act. This consequential measure reauthorizes a landmark federal law and, once the Senate has finished a free and open debate including a full range of amendments, we should pass this bill with a strong, bipartisan majority. Approving this measure offers the Senate an opportunity to demonstrate to the American people that we still have the capacity to meet the challenge of forging effective solutions to monumental matters affecting Americans in their daily lives. For far too long, domestic violence has been an extremely serious and common crime that devastated families and silently took a great toll on our society. Decades ago, domestic violence went largely unreported, in part because the victim viewed the violence as personal, or because of they were afraid of retribution, or they were embarrassed and did not want family members, friends, or neighbors to know. I well recall in 1990, when I was serving as the co-chair of the House Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues with Pat Schroeder, and Congress started to focus greater attention on these kinds of heinous transgressions and those who perpetrate them. Just as we fought vigorously for women's health equity, as well as economic security for women, the Caucus was a driving force for change in combating domestic violence, with then-Congresswoman Boxer taking a leadership role in authoring legislation, along with Connie Morella. As we were building legislative momentum in the House, then-Senator Joe Biden was shepherding this initiative through the Senate. This culminated in the original Violence Against Women Act, enacted in 1994, a truly landmark piece of legislation. For the first time, Congress enacted legislation that sought to comprehensively address the problem of violence against women. We provided assistance to States to improve law enforcement and prosecution efforts, and funded shelters and services to help women and their families extricate themselves out of these violent and abusive situations and into safety. Here we are, 18 years later, and yes, we can feel fortunate for the progress we have made on this critical issue. The evidence clearly bears this out. According to the National Network to End Domestic Violence, reporting of domestic violence has increased as much as 51 percent. Reporting is an instrumental first step to ensuring that women receive the support they want, need, and deserve. As a result, hundreds of thousands of women have been helped through VAWA-supported programs such as hotlines, individual and court advocacy, emergency shelters, transitional housing and housing assistance. Furthermore, the annual incidence of domestic violence has fallen by more than 50 percent. While women are the most frequent targets of domestic violence, children are also too often victims in these tragedies as well. For this reason, the best approach must be comprehensive in scope and the urgent necessity for action, such as early intervention, is paramount. Earlier this month, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and the Institute of Child Development at the University of Minnesota released a study--the first of its kind--that prospectively examined the effects of interpersonal trauma on children--particularly young children. On average, children exposed to such trauma had cognitive scores that were the equivalent of 7 IQ points fewer, with the most significant and enduring cognitive deficits appearing in children exposed to trauma between birth and 2 years of age. As study leader Dr. Michelle Bosquet Enlow observed, ``If we wait until children are identified by the school . . . a lot of the damage will have already been done.'' Well, I could not agree more, and that is why along with early intervention, we must also increase access to quality early childhood health and education programs. The challenge in 2012 is to understand and act upon the systemic, reverberative consequences of this violence. Consider the reality that domestic violence does not merely occur at home. In fact, the one place where an abuser can be confident to find his victim is at work. In a survey conducted by the Maine Department of Labor, 74 percent of abusers had easy access to their partner's workplace, with 21 percent of offenders reporting that they contacted the victim at the workplace in violation of a no contact order. At the same time, among female employees who experienced domestic violence, 87 percent received harassing phone calls at work; 78 percent reported being late to work because of abuse; and, incredibly, 60 percent lost their jobs due to domestic abuse. As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I find these facts chilling, because not only do these alarming invasions of privacy threaten women's financial independence, they can also erode elements of a woman's critical support system that can often be found in the workplace as well. Turning now to my own State of Maine where approximately half of all homicides each year stem from domestic violence, I want to begin with the tragic case of Amy Lake. A kindergarten teacher from Dexter, ME, Amy, and her two children, Coty and Monica, were killed last year by her abusive husband before he killed himself. Domestic violence experts and law enforcement authorities contend that Amy did everything possible to protect herself and her two children. Amy and her children lived in seven different places the year before their deaths. Amy sought and received a protective order, which her husband proceeded to violate five times. This wrenching incident has galvanized the local community and the entire state of Maine at large to redouble our efforts to end domestic violence. And frankly it is cases like Amy's that tell us in no uncertain terms our work is far from finished. Our job is NOT completed. And our task remains for us all to strive to solve. In fighting domestic violence, engaging men is a fundamental part of the answer. I salute the efforts of Maine's Governor, Paul LePage, who himself has overcome tragedy as a child and has courageously and aggressively pursued changes aimed at protecting victims, such as reforming bail rules, and strengthening notification requirements. Additionally, Black Bears Against Domestic Violence--an initiative involving male athletes from all of the sports teams from the University of Maine--has done an outstanding job in speaking out against dating violence both on campus and at local high schools. This bill before us today, which I am pleased to cosponsor, successfully builds upon past strides at both the State and Federal levels. We include a number of judicial improvements, such as encouraging the use of best practices among law enforcement and court personnel to better assess the risk of domestic violence homicide and to provide immediate, crisis intervention services for those at risk of escalating violence. Maine is already moving in that direction in light of the tragedy that befell Amy Lake, which is vividly emblematic of the imperative to get the right information to the right people at the right time. Our legislation also reauthorizes grants to encourage arrest policies and enforce protection orders. At the same time, it explicitly calls on law enforcement to identify and inventory backlogs of sexual assault evidence collection kits and to develop protocols for responding to and addressing such backlogs in the purpose area of Services -Training-- Officers--Prosecutors, STOP, grants and Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforce Protection Orders, GTEAP. Human Rights Watch points out two astounding facts--first, that the arrest rate for rape, which stands at 24 percent, has not changed since the late 1970s. Second, it estimates that the number of untested rape kits reaches the hundreds of thousands. Indeed, a recent Newsweek article profiled Detroit prosecutor Kym Worthy, who was attacked at law school while on a run but never reported it, is spearheading an effort to ensure that more than 11,000 police rape kits are tested in Detroit. As she rightfully surmises, ``when victims go through a 3-hour plus rape kit exam, they expect the police to use the evidence to catch the rapist.'' Now, I am cognizant that some of my colleagues--especially those who have enthusiastically supported the original law and past reauthorizations--are fully committed to fighting violence against women but have concerns about the version before us. I hope we can cooperatively work through these issues in an effort to ensure that at the end of the day the overall passage of a significant reauthorization is NOT jeopardized. Let me be clear, quelling domestic violence is too vital, too urgent, and too necessary a challenge to countenance division along party lines. Our answer must be to counter the impulse to create a political wedge with a desire to legislate in good faith. What is effective fodder for campaign vitriol has no place in a measure like this endeavor to reauthorize The Violence Against Women Act. Time is of the essence when it comes to legislation with life and death ramifications. Politically, this law has a strong bipartisan pedigree, which has been crucial to its success and enduring legacy. In deference to that tradition, rather than focusing on how to parlay our differences into political advantage, I urge my colleagues try to bridge the divide first. As someone who has dedicated her life in public service to empowering women, I know this much to be true we can adopt measures that promote and enhance women's health, but if we achieve those noble goals, yet fail to ensure women's security, the victory is pyrrhic at best. If we make strides in education and economic opportunity, but jettison efforts to protect women from abuse, the gains we make will have come at a steep price. The opportunities to rally around a common cause have been regrettably rare in this chamber so far this Congress. Let us seize this moment and send the strongest signal possible to the nation that on our watch women will receive the protections they require and deserve.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support a one-year extension of the Small Business Administration, SBA, 504 loan refinancing program that was originally authorized in the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. This bill would allow small business owners to use 504 loans to refinance up to 90 percent of existing commercial mortgages. The 504 loan program provides approved small businesses with long- term, fixed-rate financing used to acquire fixed assets for expansion or modernization. According to the SBA, as of February 15, 2012, the $50 billion in 504 loans has created over 2 million jobs. The refinancing option in the Small Business Jobs Act authorized $7.5 billion in refinancing until September 27, 2012. Unfortunately, because of a delay in promulgating regulations to enable refinancing, the program did not become operational until a few months ago, significantly shortening the period of time that business could refinance existing 504 loans. The 504 loan program also comes at no cost to taxpayers, has created jobs and will provide much needed relief to businesses for one additional year. America's small business owners face a daunting business life cycle that is volatile at best: according to the SBA, while seven out of 10 new employer firms survive for at least 2 years, only \1/3\ of these firms exist after 10 years. These failure rates are quite constant for different industries. Yet one factor that is a bell-weather for success is access to capital. The SBA identifies the major factors in a firm's survivability as including: an ample supply of capital, being large enough to have employees, the owner's education level, and the owner's reason for starting the firm. Clearly, the drive of an entrepreneur is a major factor in start-ups where statistics from the 2008 ``Report to the President on the Small Business Economy'' delivered by SBA's Office of Advocacy, show that in 2005, more than 12 million individuals were involved in starting 7 million ventures. After six years, only one third of entrepreneurs have a working business despite the fact that they put in 9.9 billion hours of uncompensated time in 2005 launching their businesses. These uncompensated hours represented 2.7 percent of total paid work in the United States that year and almost one half of the hours for all American self-employed workers. That is an incredible effort of time and talent and a show of great risk taking. A number of small businesses utilize 504 loans as long-term, fixed- rate financing used to acquire fixed assets for expansion or modernization. These 504 loans are made available through Certified Development Companies, CDCs, SBA's community based partners for providing 504 loans. The 504 loan program offers small businesses both immediate and long-term benefits, so business owners can focus on growing their business. These benefits include 90 percent financing, longer loan amortizations, no balloon payments, fixed-rate interest rates, and savings that result in improved cash flow for small businesses. Generally, a business must create or retain one job for every $65,000 guaranteed by the SBA under this program. Small manufacturers must create or retain a ratio of one job for every $100,000 guaranteed. In addition, the 504 program serves to revitalize a business district, expand exports, promote small businesses owned and controlled by women, minorities and veterans, especially service-disabled veterans, aid rural development, and increase productivity and competitiveness. As I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, the 504 program is a job creator that does not receive any appropriated funds. The 1-year extension of the refinancing for the 504 loan program will allow businesses to retain employees and it also comes at zero cost to taxpayers. These are solid measures that will help small businesses at a time when many small enterprises are struggling to keep their employees and run basic operations. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation as swiftly as possible, as our Nation's capital-starved small businesses deserve no less.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support a one-year extension of the Small Business Administration, SBA, 504 loan refinancing program that was originally authorized in the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. This bill would allow small business owners to use 504 loans to refinance up to 90 percent of existing commercial mortgages. The 504 loan program provides approved small businesses with long- term, fixed-rate financing used to acquire fixed assets for expansion or modernization. According to the SBA, as of February 15, 2012, the $50 billion in 504 loans has created over 2 million jobs. The refinancing option in the Small Business Jobs Act authorized $7.5 billion in refinancing until September 27, 2012. Unfortunately, because of a delay in promulgating regulations to enable refinancing, the program did not become operational until a few months ago, significantly shortening the period of time that business could refinance existing 504 loans. The 504 loan program also comes at no cost to taxpayers, has created jobs and will provide much needed relief to businesses for one additional year. America's small business owners face a daunting business life cycle that is volatile at best: according to the SBA, while seven out of 10 new employer firms survive for at least 2 years, only \1/3\ of these firms exist after 10 years. These failure rates are quite constant for different industries. Yet one factor that is a bell-weather for success is access to capital. The SBA identifies the major factors in a firm's survivability as including: an ample supply of capital, being large enough to have employees, the owner's education level, and the owner's reason for starting the firm. Clearly, the drive of an entrepreneur is a major factor in start-ups where statistics from the 2008 ``Report to the President on the Small Business Economy'' delivered by SBA's Office of Advocacy, show that in 2005, more than 12 million individuals were involved in starting 7 million ventures. After six years, only one third of entrepreneurs have a working business despite the fact that they put in 9.9 billion hours of uncompensated time in 2005 launching their businesses. These uncompensated hours represented 2.7 percent of total paid work in the United States that year and almost one half of the hours for all American self-employed workers. That is an incredible effort of time and talent and a show of great risk taking. A number of small businesses utilize 504 loans as long-term, fixed- rate financing used to acquire fixed assets for expansion or modernization. These 504 loans are made available through Certified Development Companies, CDCs, SBA's community based partners for providing 504 loans. The 504 loan program offers small businesses both immediate and long-term benefits, so business owners can focus on growing their business. These benefits include 90 percent financing, longer loan amortizations, no balloon payments, fixed-rate interest rates, and savings that result in improved cash flow for small businesses. Generally, a business must create or retain one job for every $65,000 guaranteed by the SBA under this program. Small manufacturers must create or retain a ratio of one job for every $100,000 guaranteed. In addition, the 504 program serves to revitalize a business district, expand exports, promote small businesses owned and controlled by women, minorities and veterans, especially service-disabled veterans, aid rural development, and increase productivity and competitiveness. As I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, the 504 program is a job creator that does not receive any appropriated funds. The 1-year extension of the refinancing for the 504 loan program will allow businesses to retain employees and it also comes at zero cost to taxpayers. These are solid measures that will help small businesses at a time when many small enterprises are struggling to keep their employees and run basic operations. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation as swiftly as possible, as our Nation's capital-starved small businesses deserve no less.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, in anticipation of the warm spring weather upon us and the long summer days ahead in my home State of Maine, our thoughts quickly turn towards fun in the sun and cool refreshing treats. Today, I rise to commend and recognize The Gelato Fiasco, located in Brunswick, ME, for developing and growing a niche market serving delectable frozen gelato treats while expanding and creating economic opportunities across the State. In 2002, the founders of The Gelato Fiasco, Josh Davis and Bruno Tropeano, were students at Bentley University in Waltham, MA, and dreamed of starting their own company and becoming successful entrepreneurs. As the two students spent their time exploring various ventures, this team decided to open a homemade gelato store as a result of being dissatisfied with the gelato options available to them throughout the Northeast. Made mostly from milk and sugar, gelato has less fat than standard ice cream and also contains less air, making the final product denser. Taking advantage of the small gelato market that existed with an estimated 1,500 gelaterias total in the United States Bruno and Josh saw an opportunity to market a superior version of the delicious Italian treat. Determined to serve a top quality gelato, The Gelato Fiasco features only the best local ingredients available. In these uncertain economic times, as young entrepreneurs, Josh and Bruno faced unique challenges while attempting to accomplish their dream and receive funding for their first store. Initially, they pursued loans from about 20 banks but were turned down by all of them. However, with persistence and determination, they were able to acquire a $225,000 SBA-backed loan which covered the majority of their startup costs. Their premier store, The Gelato Fiasco, opened in 2007, and has served more than 450 flavors since its start. Even with the complex challenges of trying to grow during these tough economic times, Bruno and Josh's initial success allowed them to garner additional support from Coastal Enterprises Inc., CEI, a local community development financial institution. CEI granted this small business a $140,000 loan through a new crowdfunding initiative established by Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz called ``Create Jobs for USA.'' The Gelato Fiasco utilized these critical funds to expand to a second location in Portland, ME, buy equipment, and hire at least 10 new employees to help staff it. As this small firm continues to grow, introducing more customers to their gelato treat, the shop diligently produces 25 to 35 different flavors each morning in their store. Despite the tumultuous economy, Josh and Bruno remain focused on ensuring the fun-loving experience and quality of their gelato are consistent. Their remarkable vision has become a reality as their Italian style ice cream has continued to find its way throughout Maine and New England in various coffeehouses, restaurants, and grocery freezer cases. Despite difficult economic times and the obstacles faced by young entrepreneurs, the dynamic duo of Bruno Tropeano and Josh Davis has clearly fostered a winning strategy. I am proud to extend my praise to Josh and Bruno and everyone at The Gelato Fiasco for their entrepreneurial spirit and successful company. I offer my best wishes for their future endeavors.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise support of my amendment, which has been modified in consultation with the managers of the Postal Reform bill, S. 1789. I am very pleased that both Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Minority Member Collins have agreed to accept my amendment to further strengthen the segment of the bill governing proposed consolidations for the Postal Service's processing and distribution facilities. With my amendment as part of the underlying bill, the Postal Regulatory Commission, PRC, will now independently verify the Postal Service's methodology and estimated costs savings from proposed plant consolidations. In other words, starting with those facilities currently under review, the Postal Service will no longer have unchecked authority to close or consolidate these important facilities. The Postal Service has unfortunately proven itself unable to make these decisions, many of which have far-reaching implications for the quality of service of postal customers, without proper oversight, fact- checking and third-party verification. As part of a major restructuring of the Postal Service's mail delivery infrastructure, Postmaster General Donahue proposed closing and consolidating 232 mail processing and distribution facilities across the United States. Unfortunately for the people of Maine, his proposal included the consolidation of the Eastern Maine Processing and Distribution Facility in Hampden into the Southern Maine Processing and Distribution Facility located in Scarborough. This was a fundamentally flawed proposal from its inception. The Eastern Maine Processing and Distribution Facility, located approximately 144 miles away from Maine's other mail processing facility in Scarborough, ME, currently processes mail destined for eastern, western, and northern Maine. Without this facility, mail service to communities, families, the elderly, and businesses throughout most of Maine would be severely delayed. I strongly opposed this proposed consolidation from the beginning. In December, I visited the facility and met with the plant's manager and employees. During the visit, I conveyed my strenuous opposition to the plan and questioned the ability of the Postal Service to save money by shifting jobs from Hampden to Scarborough. As part of its consolidation process, the Postal Service holds public meetings in communities facing the loss of a Processing and Distribution facility. For Hampden, the Postal Service held a public meeting on January 11 2012, which I attended, along with approximately 300 other Mainers, all of whom opposed the Postal Service's recommendation. In advance of the public meeting, my staff carefully reviewed the Postal Service's Area Mail Processing--AMP--report, which contained the estimated cost savings for consolidating the Hampden facility. In reviewing the AMP report, we discovered a very large mathematical error. The Postal Service originally claimed that eliminating two white collar management positions at the plant would save almost $800,000. When my office started asking questions about this, the Postal Service backtracked to claiming that eliminating these jobs would save only $120,000 in advance of its public meeting. Shockingly enough, the Postal Service's final AMP report which was released in February retained the obviously mistaken claim that eliminating these two positions saved almost $800,000. In all, the Postal Service has resumed mistakenly claiming almost 400 percent more in savings than would be accurate. Under my amendment, if a local community is opposing a proposed consolidation, it can appear that recommendation to the Postal Regulatory Commission--PRC--which will be able to independently review the Postal Service's methodology and estimated cost savings to guard against facilities being closed due to faulty calculations by the Postal Service. If the PRC concludes that the AMP report was mistaken or inaccurate, the PRC has the authority to prevent closure or consolidation from moving forward until the facts are corrected. With my amendment being added to the underlying bill, local communities will now be assured of an even playing field and a thorough and accurate assessment of the impact of any closure or consolidation. In closing, I wish to thank the managers of the bill for accepting my amendment and I urge the Senate to adopt it by voice vote.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, very briefly, first I want to thank the chair of the committee and my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, for working and assisting me in modifying this amendment. I thought this amendment was important from the standpoint and based on our experience in Maine with the recent proposal by the Postal Service to close a distributional and processing facility. As my colleague Senator Collins will attest as well, we discovered that much of their methodology was indeed faulty in the savings that they had suggested would be achieved by closing this facility. There were many questions raised with those numbers and reports. As we know, before the U.S. Postal Service can make any determination for closing a facility, they have to prepare and publish an area processing study. Based on that study, I have recommended that we now have independent verification of the numbers and proposals by the U.S. Postal Service so that we can make sure those numbers are accurate and that we verify the methodology in addition to the savings. One of the examples I can give from this proposal is one they made for a facility in the State of Maine to eliminate two management positions, for a savings of $799,000. When we questioned the veracity of that number, they backtracked and said it was only $120,000. Incredulously, they have now submitted their final area processing study this year and returned to the higher figure of $800,000 for the two management positions. We know that cannot be accurate. Therefore, given the evidence of these proposals, we need to have independent verification by the Postal Regulatory Commission before any closure can go forward.

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I call up Snowe amendment No. 2080 with a modification at the desk.

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, my home State of Maine, with its vast acres of trees, has traditionally been a hub for the lumber industry since the advent of wood pulp in paper making. In recent years, the lumber industry has suffered due to the economic downturn, and the resulting decline in the housing market has reduced the need for wood products to build homes such as hardwood flooring and cabinet construction. Despite this, there are companies that persevere in the face of such hardships, confronting economic challenges with innovation and creativity. Today, I rise to commend and recognize one such company, West Branch Heritage Timber, for helping to revive the lumber industry while creating a beautiful and artistic product inscribed with Maine's rich history. Since 2010, West Branch Heritage Timber located in Millinocket, ME, has harvested 20,000 tons of wood from Quakish Lake--part of the Penobscot River system--which became a repository for thousands of tons of lost timber cut by river-driving loggers over a century ago. The extensive wood inventory remained preserved under the water for over 100 years, until coowners Steve Saunders and Tom Shafer developed an idea to retrieve the unique and magnificent lumber. To put it simply, these two innovators have been ``fishing'' this timber from the bottom of the lake for the commercial value it holds today. Currently, West Branch Heritage Timber is in the process of reclaiming an estimated 1 million cord of timber at the bottom of the West Branch of the Penobscot River, making it the largest timber reclamation project ever conducted in New England. The quality of their product has not gone unnoticed as this small firm was recently selected by another local business, Shaw & Tenney of Orono, as the primary wood supplier for the paddles they are producing for L.L. Bean's 100-year anniversary. Lake wood contains aesthetically impressive designs which develop and evolve as minerals from the lake's water seeps deep into the wood over many years, creating rich earth tones. Shaw & Tenney saw an opportunity to utilize this niche-commodity offered by West Branch Heritage Timber to demonstrate the beauty of Maine in L.L. Bean's commemorative paddles. However, the artistic preservation of history is only one purpose that the wood of Quakish Lake serves. Steve hopes that the business will soon obtain a paper mill contract as West Branch would be able to provide pulping wood at a substantially less cost than competitors. Steve has attested to the feasibility and value of such a venture by estimating the potential to produce 40,000 tons of wood annually for the next 20 years. While the company currently employs nine full-time employees, obtaining a pulp contract would allow for expansion and job creation. The ingenuity and creativity of the West Branch Heritage Timber team embodies the entrepreneurial spirit of our country's history and serves as an exemplary small business that so ardently comprises the backbone of the American economy. I am proud to extend my congratulations to Steve and Tom, as well as everyone at West Branch Heritage Timber, for their hard work in providing a product that is both beautiful and vital to the resurgence of Maine's lumber industry.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to John Rowe, an individual whose keen intellect and indefatigable work ethic have transformed him into one of the country's most respected voices in the energy industry--and one that I have relied on throughout my congressional career as a source for honest analysis of public policy relating to climate change and energy markets. Earlier this month, John spent his first day of retirement teaching students at a charter school that he financed and founded in Chicago-- an action which embodies a career that has prioritized responsibility, competition, and above all, a commitment to embracing challenges. Indeed, John not only leaves Exelon a stronger company, but he bequeaths a legacy of vision and innovation to the utility sector that will truly reverberate for generations to come. It has often been noted that John holds the distinction of being the longest serving utility executive in the United States, which is also a remarkable reflection of the degree to which he is considered a preeminent and trusted voice on a range of issues from national climate policies to transmission and environmental regulations. To think that it all began in Maine. In reflecting upon the origins of his career, John described to the New York Times last summer that he was told he could either try to become a CEO through a long and arduous climb up the corporate ladder, or he could ``go to some fairly small company that is in really big trouble and is willing to take a lot of risk.'' And the rest, as they say, is history--to the everlasting benefit of the energy industry. John, who had virtually no experience in the energy sector, moved to Maine and joined Central Maine Power, or CMP, as CEO in 1984--as the company was confronting unparalleled challenges. It was also after he came to CMP that my husband, the former Governor of Maine Jock McKernan, and I first met John. In Maine, John quickly demonstrated exceptional business acumen and quickly altered the discussion in Maine from one of confrontation to one of collaboration that involved regulators and the rest of the business community. He carried that experience forward to New England Electric Systems where he became a forceful voice for deregulation of the electricity markets in the 1990s. Always a strong proponent of increasing competitiveness in the electricity market, John realized that the electricity industry was on course toward a new paradigm when he remarked to the Bangor Daily News in 1995, ``We're on a route to increasing competition, and that is unlikely to be turned around.'' John steadfastly maintained that ideology throughout the rest of his career, and while he left Maine and New England for his work at Exelon and its predecessor, Unicom, he indisputably continued to influence public policy throughout the country--garnering him numerous industry accolades, including Edison Electric Institute's Distinguished Leadership Award, the Keystone Center Leadership in Industry Award, Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce Burnham Award for Business and Civic Leadership, as well as an induction to the Chicago Business Hall of Fame. But most invaluable to the Nation has been his ever-steady and thoughtful commentary on the development of sensible policies that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions while providing certainty for business investments. Rather than challenging regulations, John has led the effort to replace antiquated Clean Air Act rules with market-based solutions that provide environmental dividends at a reduced cost to industry and consumers. Specifically, as cochair of the National Commission on Energy Policy, he developed the report, ``Ending the Energy Stalemate,'' which called for increasing and reforming fuel economy standards, addressing climate change through a mandatory market-based trading program, and increasing the development and distribution of energy-efficient products. Specifically, the report stated that, ``improving passenger vehicle fuel economy is by far the most significant oil demand reduction measure proposed by the Commission.'' As a coauthor of the ``Ten-in- Ten'' Fuel Economy Title of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, I took these recommendations to heart, and with Senator Feinstein, embarked on an initiative to achieve historic fuel economy standards based upon this law--which, given the increasing prices for gasoline, could not be more imperative. However, John's true expertise, starting with his initial effort to stop the campaign to close a nuclear plant in Maine, focuses on developing a regulatory environment that provides safe nuclear power to consumers. As the operator of the largest nuclear fleet in the United States, John has meticulously worked to address the current challenges confronting additional nuclear power in the United States, while also preemptively positioning the industry for unanticipated impediments. The American nuclear power fleet is the safest in the world in part because of his unparalleled contributions. At a time when trust of institutions, companies, and public policymakers has eroded, it is difficult to lose John's voice as a head of one of the most influential companies in the United States. John has always demonstrated a trust with his colleagues as well as policymakers, and I look forward to watching his continued contributions following his retirement as chief executive officer of Exelon. I wish John and his wife, Jeanne, the very best in the next chapter of their lives, and I look forward to continuing to work with an individual who believes in cost-effective development of clean energy in the United States, is champion of competition, and is committed to responsibility throughout society.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in light of last week's celebration here in the Senate, to recognize the truly historic and remarkable accomplishment of my good friend and colleague, Senator Barbara Mikulski. As we all know, Senator Mikulski just last week achieved another stunning milestone as she became the longest-serving woman in the history of the United States Congress, surpassing Congresswoman Edith Nourse Rogers. Of course, it was at the outset of this 112th Congress that Senator Mikulski overtook Maine's legendary Senator Margaret Chase Smith. To say it's been quite a Congress for the Gentle Lady from Maryland is the height of understatement indeed. In the process of paying tribute to Senator Mikulski, I discovered some interesting information, namely that three out of the four longest serving women in the Congress were actually born in Maine-- Congresswoman Rogers, Senator Smith, and myself as third longest serving woman in both the Senate and the House. Senator Smith of course served Maine and Congresswoman Rogers represented the 5th District of Massachusetts. Both were Republicans, and both were born in Maine. And so, let me just say, as one who is privileged enough to fall into the same categories, on behalf of the great State of Maine which appears to produce women of tremendous endurance at both ends of the U.S. Capitol, we could not be more proud of the Senator from Maryland. But the commonalities don't end there--far from it. In addition to the overlapping biographical information I just referenced, it is a point of tremendous pride that all three of us also placed the highest of premiums on serving those who have served our Nation by giving every fiber of their being to protect, defend, and secure our cherished freedoms--our courageous men and women in uniform and our veterans. Born in Saco, ME, Edith Nourse Rogers authored legislation that made her one of the great champions of our men and women in the military as well as our Nation's veterans. As a Member of Congress, Edith Rogers displayed a work ethic worthy of her Maine roots and was known as ``the busiest woman on Capitol Hill.'' During her storied 35-year career spanning from 1925 to 1960--still the longest tenure of any woman in the history of the U.S. House of Representatives, Congresswoman Rogers counts among her long-lasting achievements the securing of $15 million to develop a national network of veterans' hospitals in the Veterans' Administration Act, the creation of both the Women's Army Corp and the landmark GI Bill of Rights. She also proposed the establishment of a Cabinet-level Department of Veterans Affairs immediately after World War II an achievement that would finally take place in 1989. She was held in such high esteem by our veterans that the American Legion presented her with the Distinguished Service Cross--the first woman ever to receive that prestigious honor. The incredible inroads and contributions that Edith Rogers made on behalf of our military, Senator Smith mirrored in the Senate. And just as an aside, I think it is worth noting that both shared a floral trademark, demonstrating that they could legislate in what was then very much a man's world without sacrificing their femininity or grace. Representative Edith Rogers wore an orchid or gardenia, and Senator Smith would don her signature rose. A lifelong native of Skowhegan, Maine, Senator Smith was also a trailblazer and a woman of phenomenal firsts--the first woman to be elected in her own right to the United States Senate; the first woman to serve on the Armed Services Committee; the first woman to serve on the Appropriations Committee; the first woman to have her name placed in nomination for the Presidency by either major political party, in 1964; the first civilian woman to sail on a United States destroyer in wartime; the first woman to break the sound barrier in a U.S. Air Force F 100 Super Sabre Fighter--at 800 miles per hour, I might add. In fact, that reminds me of the time in 1992 when Senator Nancy Kassebaum came to visit me in Maine, and we traveled together to see Senator Smith at her home and library. Senator Smith gave us a wonderful tour--despite her failing health at the time, and I recall asking her about a bright orange suit I saw that was hanging on one of the walls. And she replied that it was her flight suit from the time she broke the sound barrier. She then told me about how she had initially questioned the less than flattering color tone until she learned that the bright orange would help them find her if she had to eject! But for all of her courage, fearlessness, and monumental leadership, one of Senator Smith's indelible achievements was shepherding the historic Women's Armed Services Integration Act. Mr. President, I am forever humbled by the shoulders I have been so proud to stand upon. As I recall the milestones of both Congresswoman Rogers and Senator Smith, especially for our veterans and armed forces, I cannot help but think of how they paved the way for my service as the only Republican woman Senator on the Personnel Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, battling as I was at the time in the late 1990s for the fair and equitable treatment of women in the services, including assurances that men and women would train as they fight--side-by-side! For all of their joint accolades, neither Senator Smith nor Congresswoman Rogers set out to forge news paths for women in politics. In fact, upon winning her first election to the House, Congresswoman Rogers declared, ``I hope that everyone will forget that I am a woman as soon as possible.'' What we remember about these amazing women, born in Maine, is their great integrity, love of country, and a desire to serve. No wonder they have inspired legions of women, myself included. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as the American economy becomes increasingly global, small businesses specializing in telecommunications and direct-response marketing provide essential services to businesses throughout the world. Today, I rise to commend and recognize Argo Marketing Group, located in Lewiston, ME, for being among the best in this expanding industry. Jason Levesque founded Argo in 2003 to provide consulting and direct- response marketing services to companies in Maine and throughout the world. Since that time, this small firm has continued to expand despite the turbulent economy, adding numerous jobs throughout the State. In 2011, Argo Marketing moved from Auburn to Lewiston to allow for a company expansion, which included the doubling of employees from 25 to 51. Moreover, the firm recently added 25 additional employees in January of this year to its new location in Pittsfield. This remarkable expansion provides high-quality jobs for Mainers, which is especially vital after the closing of Global Contract Services in Pittsfield, leaving 65 employees without jobs. With cutting-edge technology, Argo is a leader in call center service and support. The company prides itself on having the best integrated system in the industry that is customized to handle a vast array of clients. Moreover, Argo has always firmly believed that having dedicated professionals as part of the Argo family helps direct the path of any given project. There is a pervading philosophy in the telecommunications, marketing, and customer service industry that retaining a current customer is easier than finding a new one. Indeed, customer care is a top priority, especially for small businesses competing with larger companies with more resources and cheaper products. This quality investment in customer service has been a key component in Argo's success. Further, Jason understands the importance of an engaged staff and giving back to the local community. He consistently works to increase company morale and provide an atmosphere where people enjoy coming into work every day with a positive attitude. As a dedicated part of the Lewistown-Auburn community, this company also donated to Sand Castle Pre-School in Lewistown which assists disadvantaged youths. Small businesses drive the American economy by consistently creating jobs in the private sector while spurring investment in their local community. Argo's success and expansion is a glowing example of why these firms are so critical to America's economy. It is innovative entrepreneurs like Jason Levesque who are going to lead us out of our economic morass by creating jobs and opportunity all across our Nation. Despite these difficult economic times, he has clearly fostered a winning strategy, and I congratulate him and everyone at Argo Marketing for their dedication to excellence and for maintaining an impressive record of job creation in central Maine. I offer my best wishes for their future endeavors.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, each year as winter makes way for spring, across my home state of Maine you will see maple trees lined with metal buckets poised to collect delectable maple syrup. Maine is the third largest producer of maple syrup in America, and last year experienced a 14 percent increase, generating a remarkable 360,000 gallons. As maple sugar season commences and Maine looks forward to celebrating the time-honored Maple Sugar Sunday, I rise to commend Jackson's Sugar House & Vegetable Stand located in Oxford, ME. Often times a small request sparks a marvelous business enterprise. For Roger Jackson, owner of Jackson's Sugar House & Vegetable Stand, his passion for maple syrup was reignited a few years ago when his granddaughter sought help for a school project on how to make the sweet liquid. Although Roger had been producing maple syrup on and off since he was 6 years old, his granddaughter's question renewed his love for this New England staple. And the results have been incredibly sweet. As a veteran in maple syrup production, Roger is familiar with the trials and tribulations that go along with this endeavor. While it is often hard to turn a profit as a small producer, the smiles on his customers' faces truly make it all worthwhile. Further, compared to when Roger was a child, improvements in technology have certainly enhanced and eased the process of turning sap into maple sugar. For example, today Jackson's Sugar House uses a stainless steel evaporator--equipment that enables them to easily remove water and ensure better control over the quality of their product. This evaporation process is a vast improvement over Roger's childhood maple making experiences involving boiling sap over an open flame. Roger's expertise in maple syrup has certainly not gone unnoticed. He was recently appointed by the Maine Department of Agriculture Commissioner, Walter Whitcomb, to the Maine Maple Task Force Study Group to represent producers of maple sugar products with 1,000 or fewer taps. This Task Force was created in May of 2011, as part of the State's legislation ``To Study the Promotion and Expansion of the Maine Maple Sugar Industry.'' Roger's participation on the task force has been instrumental in ensuring that the needs of small producers and mom and pop sugarhouse operations are vigorously advocated. Maple syrup and all maple sugar products are certainly among the sweetest commodities produced in Maine. Thanks to the proficiency and resolve of individuals such as Roger Jackson, Maine continues to produce the highest quality maple products. I am proud to extend my congratulations to Roger Jackson and everyone at Jackson's Sugar House & Vegetable Stand for their dedication to excellence, and offer my best wishes for their continued success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I couldn't be more pleased as well as privileged to join all of my colleagues today in congratulating a very good friend and colleague, the dean of the women of the Senate, Senator Barbara Mikulski, on overtaking Congresswoman Edith Nourse Rogers as longest serving woman in the history of the Congress. As someone who has had the privilege of knowing Senator Mikulski since 1978 when I was first elected to the House of Representatives, for me, this milestone represents a watershed moment in the life of American politics. For nearly 35 years, I have witnessed Barbara Mikulski summon and harness a seemingly limitless reservoir of energy as a fierce advocate and a champion on behalf of the people of Maryland as well as the country. With equal parts vigor and vigilance, she has demonstrated a devotion to her constituents that has been unerring in its promise and ironclad in its purpose. It is precisely that caliber of service that the people of Maryland have rewarded time and time again. As I stated on this very floor at the outset of this Congress when she surpassed the length of service of Maine's legendary Senator Margaret Chase Smith, Senator Mikulski is synonymous with ``the special bond of trust which should exist between the governing and the governed.'' She has ``recognized injustice and acted boldly to quell it . . . giving a voice to the voiceless . . . power to the powerless.'' What Senator Margaret Chase Smith and Congresswoman Edith Nourse Rogers exemplified as standard bearers in the last century for length of service, Senator Mikulski embodies in this century--that the commitment to advancing the common good is bound neither by geographic region nor political affiliation but, rather, by an undaunted desire to serve others. A consummate role model and admired mentor, Senator Mikulski always stands as a shining example that the robust pursuit of policy and the willingness to hear and consider dissenting views are not mutually exclusive. As I have often said, Senator Mikulski knows only one speed, and that is full speed ahead. But by the same token, she only knows one way to govern--through what she aptly referred to as the zone of civility. That approach, so integral to making this institution work, is indisputably one of the hallmark measures of Senator Mikulski's longstanding success in public life. Indeed, it is the blueprint for interaction that she has imbued in all of us who are women serving in the Senate. She has worked to establish a tone of respect that infuses our conversations, our collegiality, our collaboration. It is a personal cause to Senator Mikulski that is exemplified by the monthly dinners for women Senators that she initiated along with the Senator from Texas Mrs. Hutchison, a tradition that has become a catalyst for camaraderie and central to what Senator Mikulski calls our ``unbreakable bond.'' There has been no greater friend for women who have come to serve in the Senate, and I am sure it is a result of Senator Mikulski having arrived here as the second woman to serve in the Senate, along with the Senator from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, as she said at the time--and that is why she was so willing to serve as a mentor for other women who arrived in the Senate, because she was only one of two women who were serving in this institution. As she said, the Senate had a long tradition of every man for himself. She was determined, she said, that it would not be every woman for herself while she was in the Senate. As my colleagues also well know, when it comes to having an ally in the legislative foxhole, there is none more feisty, none more formidable, and certainly none better than Senator Barbara Mikulski. I have witnessed her tenacity firsthand, having worked with her side by side over the decades, whether on matters of equity for women in the workplace, ensuring gender-integrated training in the military, working on cybersecurity, working on every other issue where we are bringing justice to those who have borne the brunt of injustice. Nowhere has her leadership been more unmistakable, of course, or more monumental than in the area of women's health. I well recall, when I arrived in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1979, I joined what was then known as the Congresswomen's Caucus on Women's Issues, which is where I ultimately became the cochair for a better part of the decade. Senator Barbara Mikulski, at that time being in the House of Representatives, served in that caucus as well. When I arrived in the House of Representatives in 1979, there were only 16 women serving in that institution. That is why the congresswomen's caucus was formed, to focus on those issues that mattered to women and to family and to children. We recognized that it was our obligation and responsibility to work, to focus on those issues because otherwise they would languish on the back burner rather than being on the front burner. We also understood that if we did not focus on these issues, if we did not advance these issues, no one else would. So we began to tackle systematically many of the discriminatory laws or inequities that were embedded in Federal law that failed to recognize the dual role women were playing, both at home as well as in the workplace. We began to work on these issues one by one because there were so many issues across-the-board that were affecting women, where they were ultimately bearing the burden and the consequences of these inequitable laws. We did that with respect to pensions, for example, where women discovered that after their husbands died, their pensions had been canceled. We discovered it when it came to family and medical leave, which took us the better part of 7 years to enact that legislation. But, again, women were bearing the burden of taking care of their ailing parents or their children at home and paying the consequences in the workplace. Then, of course, there was the issue we discovered of discriminatory treatment in our clinical study trials. Regrettably, at the time our National Institutes of Health were actually discriminating against women and minorities, excluding them from clinical study trials because it was too complicated to include women in these study trials because we were biologically different. As a result, any of those treatments that were developed as a result of those trials could not be applied to women. Ultimately, this could make the difference between life and death because the kinds of procedures and treatments that were derived from these clinical study trials could not be applied to women. When we discovered that these inequities and this discriminatory treatment existed, we set to work on how to redress this wrong. It is hard to believe there was a time in America where women and minorities were systematically excluded from these trials that, as I said, had lifesaving implications. Who would have thought that women's health would have been the missing page in America's medical textbooks or merely an afterthought. So I, as a cochair along with Congresswoman Pat Schroeder in the House, on behalf of the caucus, and, of course, then-Senator Barbara Mikulski in the Senate teamed up in a close bipartisan, bicameral collaboration to establish the groundbreaking Office of Research on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health so that never again would women be overlooked when it came to key clinical study trials that were underwritten by the Federal taxpayers and Federal funds. In fact, Senator Mikulski, as I well recall, launched the key panel of stakeholders at Bethesda to give this initiative critical national attention and momentum--as only she could--as well as fundamental policy changes that ultimately resulted from that panel that reverberate to this day, resulting as well in lifesaving medical discoveries for America's women. That is the passion and power of Senator Mikulski that has led her to this historic day. Barbara is not about legacy, she is about problem- solving. As somebody described it, her ideology is grounded in the practical, and that is so true. It is not only the practical but giving power to the people and developing practical solutions in their everyday lives. She is a guardian of the common good, a woman who redefines the word ``trailblazer,'' a pioneer of public policy. Senator Mikulski continues to shape the landscape of our Nation for the better, with a force and a might and a stature, one of the giants of public service, not just in our time but for all time. On the occasion of Senator Mikulski's recordbreaking service, we congratulate her, we salute her, and we are honored to be able to express a profound appreciation for her extraordinary and legendary tenure in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3606, Reopening American Capital Markets to Emerging Growth Companies Act of 2011, or JOBS Act, that passed in the House with 390 votes. The components of this legislation have received bipartisan support in the House and broad bipartisan support from the Senate, President Obama, successful entrepreneurs, and a broad coalition of startups, small and large businesses. I urge my colleagues to also support the amendment I offered with Senator Landrieu to increase access to capital for small businesses and entrepreneurs. First, I want to say a few words regarding the JOBS Act. This is a solid measure that would allow more companies to access capital without the burdens of unnecessary compliance. Most of us agree that well- intentioned regulations aimed at protecting the public and investors have unintentionally placed significant burdens on the large number of smaller companies. As a result, fewer high-growth entrepreneurial companies are going public, and more are opting to provide liquidity by selling out to larger companies, thus hurting job creation. At a time when millions of Americans have been unemployed for the longest period in post-WWII history, we simply cannot afford to be in the way of job creation. The amendment I and Senator Landrieu introduced would also help small companies access capital by modifying the Small Business Investment Company, SBIC, Program to raise the amount of SBIC debt the Small Business Administration, SBA, can guarantee from $3 billion to $4 billion. It would also increase the amount of SBA guaranteed debt a team of SBIC fund managers who operate multiple funds can borrow. The SBIC provisions in this amendment have bipartisan support, are noncontroversial, come at no cost to taxpayers and will create jobs. We do not get many bills of this kind in the Senate anymore. One of the most difficult challenges facing new small businesses today is access to capital. The SBIC Program has helped companies like Apple, FedEx, Callaway Golf, and Outback Steakhouse become household names. As entrepreneurs and other aspiring small business owners well know, it takes money to make money. This legislation ensures that our entrepreneurs and high-growth companies have access to the resources they need so they can continue to drive America's economic growth and job creation in these challenging times. There is no reason why Congress should not approve this amendment to ensure capital is getting into the hands of America's job creators. This amendment will spur investment in capital-starved startup small businesses, which will play a critical role in leading the Nation of the devastating economic downturn from which we have yet to emerge. For those who may be unfamiliar, despite significant entrepreneurial demand for small amounts of capital, because of their substantial size, most private investment funds cannot dedicate resources to transactions below $5 million. The Nation's SBICs are working to fill that gap, especially even during these challenging times. According to the SBA, over 300 SBICs have more than $17 billion of capital under management. During fiscal year 2011, the SBA licensed an additional 22 SBICs, which amounts to additional $840 million in private capital. Further, during fiscal year 2011 SBA issued approximately $1.8 billion in new debenture commitments to SBICs, a 50- percent increase over the 4-year average from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2009 of $750 million. In fiscal year 2011, the SBA provided $2.6 billion in debenture capital to SBICs, which in turn was distributed to over 1,300 small businesses, which SBA estimates supported 61,000 jobs. In the most recent budget request for fiscal year 2013, SBA requested $4 billion in authority for the SBIC debenture program, which operates at zero subsidy and requires no congressional appropriations. The amendment I and Senator Landrieu introduced would also extend for 1 year the refinancing option provided in the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 to allow small business owners to use 504 loans to refinance up to 90 percent of existing commercial mortgages. The 504 Loan Program provides approved small businesses with long-term, fixed-rate financing used to acquire fixed assets for expansion or modernization. According to the SBA, as of February 15, 2012, the $50 billion in 504 loans has created over 2 million jobs. The refinancing option in the Small Business Jobs Act authorized $7.5 billion in refinancing until September 27, 2012. Unfortunately, because of a delay in promulgating regulations to enable refinancing, the program did not become operational until a few months ago, significantly shortening the period of time that business could refinance existing 504 loans. Like the SBIC Program, the 504 Loan Program also comes at no cost to taxpayers, has created jobs, and will provide much needed relief to businesses for 1 additional year. Mr. President, as I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, the SBIC Program is a true job creator that does not receive any appropriated funds. The 1-year extension of the refinancing for the 504 Loan Program will allow businesses to retain employees, and it also comes at zero cost to taxpayers. There are solid measures that will help small businesses at a time when many small enterprises are struggling to keep their employees and run basic operations. I ask my colleagues to support this critical legislation as swiftly as possible, as our Nation's capital-starved small businesses deserve no less.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, it has now been more than 890 days since the last long-term surface transportation bill, SAFETEA LU, expired. And what has Congress accomplished since September 30, 2009, when it comes to crafting a new Federal policy regime for our roads, bridges, mass transit, and safety programs? Sadly, Congress has managed once again to successfully abandon its responsibility to the American people by adopting a series of eight short-term extensions since 2009. In effect, Congress has placed our national transportation policy on ``Auto-Pilot'' for more than 2 years. So my question is this: Why has the time for procrastination long since passed and the time for urgent action finally arrived? First, we face the March 31 expiration of the current, eighth short-term highway bill extension. So, it is imperative that the Senate approve a new highway bill promptly in order for us to extricate ourselves from this vicious cycle of robotically approving short-term extension after short-term extension. That is not legislating and it is not fair to the American people. Not at all. Secondly and more broadly, the Senate faces a larger and more serious deadline: ensuring the solvency of the highway trust fund, which has been the primary funding source for all Federal roads, bridges, mass transit, and safety programs for decades. The trust fund is running out of money, and rapidly. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, reports that the highway trust fund will be bankrupt by October, barring action on a comprehensive highway reauthorization bill. If this looming specter does not signal a clarion call to move a bill, I don't know what does. The legislation before us, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, or MAP 21, is a 2-year highway authorization that takes a modest step in the right direction toward meeting the March expiration deadline as well as the urgency of shoring up the trust fund. Now, is this the bill I wish we were debating? Frankly, I would have preferred a much stronger, 6-year highway bill--the kind of legislation which, I would like to add, is the norm and not the exception. Indeed, Congress has traditionally approved highway and mass transit bills not by limited extensions or quick-fix panaceas but for the long-term. That was true for the 2005 highway bill, it was true for the 1998 highway bill, and it was true for the 1991 highway bill. All of these measures were 6-year authorizations. All of them enjoyed bipartisan consensus. And what was the result? The longer time frames engendered greater certainty, especially for those States whose expiration dates for construction seasons are much shorter. Now, if only the past were actually prologue in this case. If only today we were actually debating a multiyear authorization and not putting more dents in the can that we are kicking further and further down the road--a road that needs to be repaired, I might add. If only we were deliberating policy that fostered more than a modicum of predictability. But we are not, and that is a problem. It is a problem for David Bernhardt, Maine's transportation commissioner, who has observed that ``given the choice between a short- term and a long-term extension, the long-term extension is preferable as it provides more certainty and predictability for our construction season.'' It is a problem for the Maine Better Transportation Association, which has stated that ``Maine's rural transportation system--our roads, rail, ports--are woven into the future viability of every Maine business; the uncertainty created with no long-term reauthorization creates uncertainty, impeding job creation and investment.'' What we have as a consolation prize is a ``accept a half a loaf or get nothing'' proposition. So if this venerable Chamber can't muster the will to produce a new long-term highway reauthorization bill--and there is no reason, unfortunately, to think otherwise--then at the very least, can there be any doubt whatsoever that we must break the current cycle of short-term extensions and that a 2-year authorization will have to suffice for now? As far as the State of Maine is concerned, MAP 21 is a slight improvement over present law. MAP 21's $109 billion in funding for 2012 2013 will provide Maine with $195 million this year and $198 million next year, up from the $192 million Maine received last year. While I would have preferred if Maine were receiving larger increases in funding, because its transportation funding needs are serious, I am nonetheless pleased to see Maine receive an increase in Federal transportation funding. A strong Federal highway reauthorization bill will help Maine maintain our bridges and roads, while we wait to invest in the future for the demands of the 21st century. We are considering this measure as a stop-gap at a time when my State of Maine contains twice as many miles of poor roads, 548 miles, as we have of very good roads, only 265 miles, and at a time when 369 bridges are currently classified as structurally deficient, which means that 15.4 percent of our bridges require significant repair, well above the 11.4 percent national average. Indisputably, the 2-year time frame of this bill is woefully short, and in total, this bill fails to make the requisite investments necessary to bolster our transportation infrastructure. That said, working within the strictures of a 2-year authorization bill, there are some elements of MAP 21 that I would like to briefly highlight-- provisions I was particularly pleased to see incorporated. This bill reduces burdensome redtape and bureaucracy that represent major speed bumps in streamlining. For example, it takes the more than 150 highway infrastructure programs and consolidates them into five core programs that address highway and bridge construction and maintenance, freight improvements, safety, and nonmotorized transportation. These changes will eliminate the bottlenecking emanating from Washington and will allow States to focus on their individual areas of concern rather than Federal mandates. As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and one who is fighting tooth and nail to curb meddlesome bureaucratic rigamarole, this undertaking is welcomed indeed. Furthermore, MAP 21 rightly places a premium on enhancing vehicle safety by making significant, vital changes to vehicle standards. In the 21st century, cars are no longer just mechanical machines, they are high-tech, complex systems with the capacity to diagnose and communicate critical problems and convey that information to drivers. This bill takes this new reality into tremendous account and will codify industry standards for electronic data, providing cars with electronic data recorders that will serve as the black boxes of new cars and help investigators determine the cause of crashes and prevent future accidents. I am also particularly proud of the leadership of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation evident in its portions of MAP 21, and for that I want to express gratitude to my longtime friend and colleague, our chairman, Senator Rockefeller, who serves with me on both the Senate Commerce Committee and the Finance Committee. Specifically, I want to recognize Chairman Rockefeller for his collaboration with me and for supporting my antifraud amendment, which is included in the underlying bill. My amendment will ensure that brokers of transportation services have the skills and knowledge required to aid in transportation of shipments within the rules of the law, marking a major reform of the brokering process which will ensure that commercial truck drivers are paid for their work. I want to publicly thank Barry Pottle, president of Pottle Transportation in Maine, who brought to light that some fraudulent brokers were successfully contracting commercial truck drivers to deliver freight, but then these brokers would not pay the truck drivers for the work they had performed. In effect, these fraudulent brokers were repeatedly taking advantage of truck drivers. When Barry alerted me to this deplorable outrage, I started drafting an amendment to end this scam immediately. I am very pleased this common-sense solution has been included in the MAP 21. I would also like to thank the bill's managers, Chairman Boxer, and Ranking Member Inhofe for accepting my three amendments to the bill. The 2005 highway bill provided Maine's Department of Transportation with the flexibility to draw upon Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program funds to cover the operating expenses of The Downeaster, Amtrak's passenger rail service in Maine. I am pleased that my amendment to continue this policy, which enhances flexibility for States to focus funding on local priorities, was accepted by the bill managers. At issue is an undertaking that curtails congestion and improves air quality in a State that prizes the outdoors for recreation and tourism. We certainly did not want to turn away passengers coming to and from my State who patronized The Downeaster to the tune of half a million trips in 2011--or equivalent to nearly 40 percent of my State's population riding the train once in a single year? In addition, I was pleased to work with Senators Cardin, Klobuchar, Rubio, Wicker, Rockefeller, and Tester to develop an amendment that has been accepted by the bill managers that will streamline the process for veterans with equivalent military driving experience to acquire commercial driver's licenses, also known as CDLs. I should also thank the many veterans service organizations, including the Air Force Association, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Fleet Reserve Association, and American Legion, which lent their expertise and support to this effort. Furthermore, I would like to thank Representative Randy Hultgren, whose leadership resulted in a similar provision being included in the House version of this bill, which provided the inspiration for the language before us today. As my colleagues would undoubtedly agree, it is unconscionable that our Nation's veterans, including those who have most recently returned from service in Iraq and Afghanistan, find themselves facing unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles as they seek to transition into a civilian profession for which they have already received world-class training provided by our Federal Government. Instead, at a time when job creation is our No. 1 priority, our government should be working to eliminate redtape, delays, costs, and unnecessary testing--where it is prudent to do so--to allow veterans to quickly pursue and secure employment in the private and public sectors. Indisputably, Congress has made milestone strides over the past year, including the passage of provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act and the VOW to Hire Heroes Act that require the Federal Government to identify equivalencies in military and civilian job skills and to carry out a pilot program to reduce or curb barriers to providing credentials, certifications, and licenses to qualified veterans. These yeoman efforts are vital and timely, and they dovetail with our amendment, which directly addresses one specific opportunity to remove roadblocks to veteran licensing. Over the past decade, many of our veterans safely drove large trucks on some of the most dangerous roads in the world. They have also safely operated these same vehicles on local, State, and national highways during their service, demonstrating their capabilities and qualifications to operate similar vehicles as civilian commercial drivers. As such, our amendment requires the Secretary of Transportation to immediately convene a joint study with the Secretary of Defense, the States, and other stakeholders to assess the barriers to obtaining a CDL faced by our current servicemembers and veterans who possess the proper training and experience to operate commercial vehicles. As part of this study, the Secretary of Transportation must make recommendations for legislative, regulatory, and administrative actions necessary to overcome these challenges, and, most important, upon completion of the study, the Secretary must implement those recommendations for which he has the legal authority. Although specific CDL requirements are a responsibility of the States, our amendment will ensure that the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Defense take a leadership role in helping States to understand the extraordinary skills and experience driving large vehicles that many of our veterans bring to the table when they apply for a CDL. As a result, I am very hopeful that our efforts here will soon eliminate unnecessary barriers to CDL licensing for qualified veterans. And, perhaps of equal importance, by adopting our amendment, we will have established a template for legislation that this and future Congresses may follow for streamlining licensing and certification processes for our Nation's veterans. Quite simply, our best and bravest deserve nothing less than our Nation's unwavering support and gratitude upon their return home, in order to rightly honor their enormous sacrifices. Frankly, who better for any job than those trained to be the greatest fighting force on the planet? Mr. President, overall, I will agree that in the case of this highway bill we cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good--that a 2- year authorization is preferable to yet another round of extensions. But make no mistake, Congress has failed to do its due diligence in addressing this highway bill over the last 2 years. It is because of that negligence that we have placed ourselves in the unenviable position of having to play beat the clock, as both the House and the Senate must confront a fast-approaching March 31 deadline when the current extension expires. This bill represents the best we can offer the American people right now, but it is not and I know my colleagues will agree--indicative of the best this institution can offer. The American people deserve better.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the American manufacturing sector is critical for economic expansion and job creation, employing nearly 12 million Americans across the country. Today, due to global economic downturns and increasing competition from abroad, American firms must adapt to compete in an international marketplace by incorporating creative and innovative designs. With this in mind, I rise to commend Xuron Corporation, located in Saco, ME, a shining example of an American company adapting and succeeding in an increasingly complex international economy. Xuron, originally founded in Danbury, CT, began producing high-grade precision hand tools in 1971. In 1986, this small firm relocated to Maine to take advantage of expansion opportunities and the State's expert workforce. For over 40 years, this company has been an industry- leading developer, manufacturer, and seller of high-grade precision hand tools for multiple industries from aerospace to jewelry. With hundreds of distributors, Xuron tools can be found in factories and workshops around the world. Just recently, the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, program recognized Xuron for ``Making it in America'' due to their innovative designs, access to foreign markets, and continually creating jobs for American workers. While the great recession drastically affected businesses across the United States, Xuron surmounted all obstacles by readjusting their operations to combat the economic downturn. For instance, the company began cross-training its employees to perform a multitude of tasks ranging from manufacturing to accounting. Furthermore, the company actively removed inefficiencies along its shipping and receiving chain, enabling it to save jobs and eliminate waste in the process. These resourceful changes have created a sense of company-wide camaraderie and further enhanced Xuron's competitiveness overseas. While Xuron's products can be found around the world, the company's success directly helps people in the United States. For example, after Hurricane Katrina ravaged the gulf coastline in 2005, Xuron generously gave employee and corporate donations to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Relief Fund to rebuild areas damaged by the catastrophic natural disaster. The company's donations helped Gulf State Americans rebuild after an unprecedented tragedy, demonstrating Xuron's selfless commitment to helping individuals across the country. Throughout history, Americans have shown a unique ability to overcome and succeed through hard times. Xuron is a shining example of American resilience as employees have worked together, retrained, and excelled through tough and uncertain economic climates. Their inspiring story demonstrates the tenacity of American small businesses, and particularly illuminates the strength found within the American manufacturing sector. I am extremely proud of Xuron's ingenuity and sincerely wish the company continued success in the coming years.