Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I recognize one of the oldest continually operating businesses in my home State of Maine that has been truly successful at adapting to the changing times. Mathews Brothers has been manufacturing high quality windows and doors in the coastal town of Belfast for over 156 years, showing that resilience, innovation, and hard work can overcome even the worst economic downturns in American history. Currently employing more than 120 individuals, Mathews Brothers provides a prime example of how small businesses can weather economic downturns to emerge stronger time after time. Mathews Brothers was founded in 1854 as a sawmill and millworks company by brothers Noah Merrill Mathews and Spencer Walcott Mathews. Throughout the years, the firm has set out to add a variety of different products to its repertoire, from blinds and shutters, to coffins and spiral staircases. Today, the company uses state-of-the-art equipment and materials to produce traditional wood, vinyl and contemporary composite windows and doors out of its three manufacturing plants in Belfast, Rockland, and Bangor. As continual innovators, Mathews Brothers launched Dream Kitchen Studio in 2008 as a separate division providing windows, doors, and kitchens to businesses, homeowners, and contractors throughout the Midcoast region of Maine. Indeed, the company has been breaking barriers and achieving a host of accomplishments from its inception, including being the largest woman-owned business in Maine at the start of the 20th century, as well as building the Jennie Flood Kreger, the largest and only 5-masted schooner ever built in Belfast. In recent years, Mathews Brothers has sought to improve its business model by cutting costs while maintaining quality. Toward this end, they recently completed a two month train-the-trainer lean manufacturing initiative with the Maine Manufacturing Extension Partnership that instructed 116 employees and helped save the company at least $75,000. In addition to this critical project, the company has sought to expand into overseas markets to sell its products, including participation in trade missions to Brazil, Korea, and Japan in the past several years. Furthermore, Mathews Brothers maintains a strong commitment to our environment, as it recycles 100 percent of its scrap glass, vinyl, metal, paper, and cardboard from the manufacturing process. The company also uses a recycling glass washer, helping it save 67,000 gallons per month in water consumption. Leftover sawdust is sent to local farms for use as stall bedding, while scrap wood is sold off as kindling or firewood. The firm takes its role as steward of the land seriously through its membership in the Maine Chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Maine Forest Products Council. Mathews Brothers has also shown a continued commitment to its local community and actively encourages their employees to engage in community service activities. This commitment originated over a century ago in 1904 with then-President Orlando Frost's commitment to help start up the Waldo County General Hospital. Their employees still volunteer in the oncology department and eagerly participate in the hospital's annual fall oncology walk. Mathews Brothers' commitment to community service was on display again in 2007 when the company raised over $7,000 to purchase phone cards for soldiers from Maine deployed in Iraq. Not surprisingly, Mathews Brothers has earned numerous awards for manufacturing and customer service excellence. The firm was recently awarded the Maine Manufacturing Extension Partnership's Manufacturing Excellence Award in June 2010. The award recognizes the company's success in achieving world-class manufacturing status and implementation of best manufacturing practices to stay ahead of the competition, all while maintaining a commitment to loyally serving its customers and assisting the community at large. The company has also received the Governor's Award for Business Excellence in 1994, and was chosen as the Belfast Area Chamber of Commerce's Business of the Year in 2007, among other distinctions. While rising to the top of its field over the past century and a half, Mathews Brothers has never forgotten the community that helped it get there. Its consistent and enthusiastic endeavors to serve the community and its customers have not gone unnoticed, and I praise them for their efforts to modernize in the face of globalization, a process which has not been kind to American manufacturers. I thank everyone at Mathews Brothers for their philanthropic efforts and tremendous perseverance, and offer my best wishes for another 150 years of success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues today to express my profound and heartfelt sadness on the passing of Senator Robert C. Byrd, as the U.S. Senate, the people of West Virginia, and our entire Nation mourn the loss of a giant of public service--a distinguished, iconic legislator whose life and legacy will forever be synonymous with the greatest deliberative body the world has ever known. Senator Byrd's counsel, wisdom, and knowledge of the Senate was unmatched and awe-inspiring. As the longest-serving Member of Congress and a former majority and minority leader of the Senate, Senator Byrd was time and again the conscience and champion of Congress and a vigorous and stalwart sentinel of the first branch of our government. Protector, steward, advocate, and guardian these descriptions only begin to convey Senator Byrd's lifelong commitment to the Senate in which he served for a record 51 years and an unprecedented nine terms. No one fought more to ensure the preservation of the U.S. Senate and its constitutional prerogatives than Senator Byrd. No one was more masterful in comprehending and harnessing the powers of parliamentary procedure in the upper Chamber. No one was fiercer in battling against any encroachments that would dilute or diminish the role of Congress as a coequal branch of government. And no one possessed greater command of Senate history and used it to better effect than Senator Byrd, who himself authored a four-volume history of the Senate. The same zeal with which Senator Byrd demonstrated his allegiance to the legislative branch was every bit as evident in his unshakable dedication to the U.S. Constitution itself--a pocket-sized copy of which he carried at all times. In fact, like many of my colleagues, I will never forget as a member of the ``Gang of 14,'' which was forged at a time when the very institution of the Senate was caught in the crosshairs of a struggle over judicial nominations, how each of us received a copy of the Constitution from Senator Byrd. With one symbolic gesture as only he could, Senator Byrd spoke volumes about the historic imperative that was ours to seize if we were to jettison the partisanship that threatened our Chamber. Senator Byrd's reverence for history stemmed of course from the premium he placed on education, and as much as anyone who ever occupied a seat in the Senate, Senator Byrd exemplified the American story of the self-made individual. During his remarkable trajectory from humble beginnings in the southern coalfields of West Virginia, Senator Byrd was an ardent believer in learning not only as the great equalizer in American life, but as a catalyst for personal and professional success. A self-educated man, Senator Byrd's knowledge of Shakespeare, the Holy Bible, and the pillars of thought from Ancient Greece and Rome formed the basis of an eloquence and service that will reverberate not only in the hallowed Halls of Congress, but also throughout his beloved home State--which he served so passionately--for generations to come. Indeed, his roots in West Virginia were ever-present and the indispensable lifeblood that spurred him to political and legislative heights that were the capstone of his landmark tenure in public service. Indisputably, he never forgot where he came from, and in fact, always remembered he stood on the shoulders of every West Virginian who sent him back to the U.S. Senate term after term. And as much as Senator Byrd revered Congress, the Constitution, and his fellow West Virginians, nowhere was his devotion greater than with his beloved Erma, his wife of nearly 69 years, and they now are finally together in their eternal resting place. As a Senator from Maine, it is only fitting that I pay tribute to Senator Byrd by citing the opening lines by the immortal American poet and Son of Maine, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, that I so often heard him quote from memory on the Senate floor . . . ``Thou, too, sail on, O Ship of State!/ Sail on, O Union, strong and great!/Humanity with all its fears, /With all the hopes of future years . . .'' Our Ship of State sails better for Senator Byrd's having lived, served, and led. But today, our Ship of State sails at a slower pace as we pause to pay our respects and mourn the loss of a man whose like we will never see again. The Senate will not be the same without the Senator from West Virginia, Robert C. Byrd.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, this summer, thousands of Mainers and Americans will be drawn to the town of Millinocket to enjoy the natural beauty of Maine's outdoors. This year, however, they will also have the opportunity to enjoy the bountiful meals provided by the Pelletier family at the Pelletier Loggers Family Restaurant. Besides serving up hearty Maine cooking to locals and tourists alike, the Pelletier family performs the herculean task of delivering many thousands of cords of firewood each year to the people of Maine through their extensive logging operations. As such, I rise today to honor the Pelletier family and their small business, Gerald Pelletier, Inc., which has continued to embrace the spirit of entrepreneurship by providing critical jobs to rural Mainers as well as serving the people of our State for over 50 years. What began as a log hauling operation in 1954 by a father that wanted to put extra food on the table during the winter months, eventually developed into a successful logging operation employing family members and dozens of Mainers alike. Gerald Pelletier Inc., produces over 200,000 cords of firewood each year, much of which is hauled over the Golden Road, a treacherous logging highway cutting through the Maine woods to the Canadian border. The company's logging operation is carried out with the utmost care thanks to the training many of the workers receive through the Certified Logging Professionals program, which trains and certifies loggers in safe, efficient, and environmentally sound logging practices. The company is also a member of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, the Maine Forest Products Council, and the Professional Logging Contractors of Maine. Today, with brothers Eldon and Rudy Pelletier at the helm, Gerald Pelletier Inc. has over 100 employees during the frigid winter months that, in addition to logging, build and maintain roads and bridges throughout Maine. Gerald Pelletier Inc. has become a very attractive operation thanks in large part to the television show American Loggers, which airs on the Discovery Channel. This popular show has catapulted the company into a bright spotlight, and thrust the family into a form of reality- stardom. Produced by a native son of Maine, the show portrays the struggles and successes of the family as it continues its work in one of Maine's most remarkable and historic industries. With this newfound nationwide appeal, Gerald Pelletier Inc. was recently able to undertake another entrepreneurial endeavor, the Pelletier Loggers Family Restaurant in Millinocket. Their restaurant serves up hearty Maine meals prepared from scratch to an array of locals and visitors alike. Customers can order from a wide variety of creatively titled menu items like the Moose on the Loose, a 10 oz. filet mignon, or for those interested in sampling fresh seafood, the Triple Trailer, which is a seafood medley of lobster, scallops and shrimp. While at the restaurant, customers from across the country can also get a true visual taste of the Maine logging experience. In front of the building, a tractor trailer truck can be seen bursting from the second floor. Inside, various tools used in the logging trade adorn the walls, including a rugged chainsaw that is stuck through one of the beams. Clearly, the Pelletiers have invested a great deal of effort in providing visitors with a thorough and fulfilling traditional experience. Truly, Gerald Pelletier Inc. embodies the entrepreneurial spirit that makes America so great. The Pelletier family has shown that a small business can succeed through hard work and personal sacrifice. I extend my congratulations to Rudy and Eldon Pelletier, the two coowners, and everyone at Gerald Pelletier Inc. for their remarkable enterprises, and offer my best wishes for their future success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the conference agreement on H.R. 2194, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010. Through both its actions and statements, the government of Iran has proved itself to be a destabilizing and dangerous regime in an already volatile region. The Iranian government's ongoing uranium enrichment program, its deplorable human rights record, and its material support of terrorist organizations dictate that we confront the threat it poses to the world. Two weeks ago, the United Nations Security Council voted to approve a fourth round of sanctions against Iran, and I commend President Obama and his Administration for working with our partners at the U.N. to send a powerful message about the willingness of the global community to stand firmly in the face of Iranian aggression. However, the specter of an Iran which has the fissile materials necessary to fuel a nuclear weapon is too great a threat to leave entirely to multilateral institutions. The United States and other concerned nations must buttress the U.N. Security Council's actions individually to ensure maximum pressure on the Iranian government. That is why I am proud to vote today in support of the conference agreement on the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act. The bill before us would impose new economic penalties against foreign companies that sell Iran goods and services that assist it in developing its energy sector, and it would give the President the tools to hold accountable those entities linked to Iran's brutal Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, its illicit nuclear program, or its support for terrorism. By broadening the categories of transactions that trigger sanctions and increasing the number of sanctions available to the President, this legislation will bolster our diplomatic efforts by targeting the Iranian regime at its weakest point: its economy, which is still highly dependent on its petroleum sector. Lastly, while this legislation represents a vital step forward in our efforts to constrain the Iranian government's hostile policies, it is absolutely crucial that this Congress work closely with the administration to make certain these new tools are implemented and applied effectively to achieve our objectives. Many of our global partners maintain trade and investment ties with the Iranian regime, and I implore the President and the Secretary of State to utilize this month's growing momentum to ensure the global community is speaking with one voice when it comes to preventing the rise of a nuclear Iran. I am proud to join my colleagues in the Senate in passing the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, and I am hopeful this will send a compelling message to the rest of the world as the global community works together to halt Iran's uranium enrichment program.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, today I rise to express my concerns about the pending tax extenders legislation that we are debating and will be voting on in the Senate shortly. As you know, we have had a series of votes on this particular question, to no avail. There is no substantive reason for the impasse at which we have arrived on this package. It certainly could have been different. I have been involved in a number of discussions over the last 2 weeks with respect to how we could reach a resolution on some of these questions, so I think it is important to set the record straight. Frankly, I think it is the result of the yawning chasm that exists between the artificially generated political landscape in Washington and the actual real-world state of our economy that Americans have been experiencing on a daily basis beyond the Capital Beltway. If we are serious about creating jobs, we absolutely could identify a pathway to extend the expiring tax provisions in this legislation which are important to America's job generators, without simultaneously and inexplicably raising taxes on our small businesses--the very entities we look to in order to lead us out of this recession--in the name of increased spending and a more expansive tax extenders package. This approach simply makes no sense and lays bare the stark disconnect between Washington and the entire rest of the country. We hear the mantra of ``jobs, jobs, jobs'' as our No. 1 priority, as it should be. Concerns about the economy are foremost on the minds of the American people, rightfully. That is why there is so much anxiety across America today on Main Street. They do not think it is being replicated in the Senate and the overall Congress with respect to the actions we should be taking. Yet what is proposed for legislation today--which highlights the disconnect between here and the rest of America--is ``taxes, taxes, taxes'' and ``spending, spending, spending,'' which will do nothing to grow our economy. In fact, we still have not considered a small business jobs package, and it is now almost July. What is it that we do not understand? What is happening on the economic landscape and among small businesses upon whom we depend to create jobs? It is not exactly that we are mass producing jobs in America's economy today. In fact, I met yesterday with the president of the Boston Federal Reserve, Eric Rosengren, and as he pointed out, the growth the economy has demonstrated thus far is, for the most part, in inventory. This is not exactly real growth. It is drawing down inventory. But the economy has not demonstrated an ability to create jobs and real economic growth because there is uncertainty among the business sector and, in particular, small businesses that do not want to take the risk of investments or hiring additional people because of the uncertainty of the policies that are emanating from Washington. Last month, as we discovered with the unemployment numbers: of the 431,000 jobs that were created, 411,000 were due to temporary government workers--that is why our national unemployment rate is not worse than it is. So, ultimately, our government is the only real growth industry in this country, and I challenge anyone to seriously argue that is a sustainable path to a brighter economic future. The fact is, growth is not occurring in our economy. I have heard that time and time again. I have heard that from small businesses, medium-sized businesses, large businesses, every organization that represents businesses in America. They are saying there is no real growth in our economy, and they are not going to be hiring, they are not going to be making the investments necessary because of the uncertainty coming from Washington with respect to taxes, with respect to regulation, with respect to the health care legislation that became law this year. So what will it require? In the Federal Reserve's analysis, it will require, in terms of reducing the unemployment rate in this country-- just in order to reduce the unemployment rate to, let's say, 5 percent by 2012--in the charts they gave me yesterday, it would require at least a 6-percent annual growth rate in GDP in order to equalize the losses in jobs we have already experienced and suffered. That rate would be slightly higher than the level of growth we experienced during the recovery from the 1982 recession and approximately double the growth following the 1991 and 2001 recessions. So when you think about it, in order to achieve a 5-percent unemployment rate by 2012, it would require approximately a 6-percent annual growth rate in 2011 and 2012. Would it be possible under the scenario that is occurring? Probably not because the growth is not occurring, and job creation certainly is not. That is disturbing, and it is deeply troubling. In fact, I was talking to someone today who is in the business community who said small businesses are not going to take those risks. You will not see the kinds of startups in America because of the state of the economy, because of the policies that are coming out of Washington that mean more taxes and more spending, which gets to the tax extenders package that is before us today. And that is my concern, with the detachment we have between what is happening in America on Main Street and what is happening in Washington, DC, in the House of Representatives and the Senate. There isn't that reality check, and that is obviously exemplified by the kind of legislation we are trying to ram through the Congress, once again, that means more taxes and more spending and that is going to cost more jobs. It is going to provide more risk in the economy. Therefore, we are not going to see the kind of economic growth the American people deserve. Somehow, we think there is not a cause and effect and a correlation between what we do here and what happens across America. I know that in speaking to my constituents and to small businesses, I hear it day in and day out. I go home and I talk to them and I listen, more importantly, and I hear what they are saying. They are uniformly saying the same thing: that the policies coming out of Washington cause them great pause. It causes them alarm. Therefore, they will not take the risk. They will not make the investments to increase the number of employees and to add to their personnel or to make the capital investments, because they do not know how much the Federal Government is going to cost them with respect to taxes, with respect to regulation and, of course, the new health care law, as well as all of the other tax consequences that have now resulted in this legislation that is pending before the Senate. Somehow, people think it won't matter. Then I am beginning to think that maybe people haven't read these provisions to understand exactly how they work, and that is why there is so much concern and apprehension across America. That is why Congress has such a low approval rating that has certainly crossed the historic thresholds in terms of how low it is, and understandably so, because there is no connection. There is no correlation between what we are doing and what is happening in America and in small businesses and in family households which have lost their jobs and are enduring anxiety and apprehension about where the next job is going to come from and how they are going to make ends meet. So we truly have our work cut out for us when we look at the low economic growth, the inability to create jobs and, frankly, the fear. When we think about what has been created in this economy, from their standpoint, it isn't so much the problems we are dealing with today, it is the direction Congress is taking with respect to the issues that matter most to them in order to take the risks we need them to take in order to reverse this economic cycle. Also, when we think about the projections for economic growth, this bill doesn't take into account the potential effects of what is happening in Europe and the economic turmoil that certainly could engulf our own economy or the potential fallout from the BP disaster in the gulf. That has not manifested itself in the unemployment numbers or economic growth. It is a travesty what is happening there, and it certainly is devastating a way of life and so many small business owners. So that is another dimension and component we will have to incorporate in our calculations for the future. Certainly, that will have an impact on the bottom line with respect to job creation and our ability to see the kind of growth we require in order to reverse the declining growth in America. We certainly have our work cut out for us. That is what makes me wonder exactly what world we are living in here in Congress as we pay lip service to job creation, when in reality we are instead on a glidepath toward higher taxes on America's job generators and at precisely a moment in time when we should be providing the kind of relief I have been advocating for through small business legislation. I have been championing it for 6 months now--6 long months. I started in January. I thought it was going to be on the front burner. It is still languishing on the back burner. So much for jobs being a priority. So much for depending on small businesses to create those jobs. So we have paid no deference to the greatest issue that is facing America today, and that is job creation and the economy. That is the No. 1 priority of the American people. But here we are approaching July and it is yet to be on the legislative calendar, even though I have been promised. I know the Presiding Officer, who serves on the Small Business Committee, has been a great advocate and a champion for small business tax relief and creating jobs and how vital it is. We have had numerous hearings on that question before our committee which underscores the imperative of passing a small business tax relief program so they can generate jobs because they are the one entity that creates jobs in America. But we have yet to consider the small business tax relief jobs package. It is approaching July. I had a package prepared in mid-March and I was asked to defer because we were promised that we will be considering a small business jobs package before the April recess. Well, April has come and gone. May has come and gone. June has come and gone. Obviously, July will come and go, before it becomes law--so it is regrettable. It is a red herring to suggest that a potential $12 billion small business jobs bill might mitigate the damage of some of the initiatives that are incorporated in this tax extenders bill that is now pending before the Senate and that we will vote on shortly with respect to cloture. That is my point here today. Because when we do consider a small business jobs relief package, and we provide the billions of dollars that are necessary to jump-start our economy to small businesses with tax relief, at the same time we are imposing additional taxes on small businesses in the tax extenders package, that will not neutralize the circumstances for small businesses. It only makes it worse. So on one hand we could provide some benefits and on the other hand we take them away. Let us remember that those increases will be in addition to the tax increases on the small business flow-through income that is expected to increase from the current rate of 35 percent to 39.6 percent, as well as a tax on capital gains that is scheduled to rise from 15 percent to 20 percent at the end of this year. Astoundingly, the tax rate on dividends 6 months from now will rise from 15 percent to as high as 39.6 percent, which is a 264-percent increase. That is not even taking into account some of the marginal tax effects such as the phaseout of itemized deductions that will raise the rate even higher, or the tidal wave of uncertainty headed toward the business community as they evaluate and grapple with, as I said earlier, the health mandates resulting from the legislation that was passed in December. It doesn't even incorporate the Medicare payroll taxes that were imposed on small business in the health care reform law: $210 billion worth of taxes that were inserted in the health care legislation that became law in December, that imposes a payroll tax on small businesses. It also taxes unearned income and investments for the purposes of the Medicare payroll tax that also will affect small businesses to the point that there will be a net increase of 67 percent in capital gains on small businesses as a result of that legislation that became law in December. So the cumulative effect of all of these tax increases is going to be pronounced on the ability of small business to create jobs, let alone make investments in equipment that is so essential to expanding and to growing. As my colleagues see on this chart I have on display that was issued in May of 2010 by the National Federation of Independent Business, the foremost organization that represents small businesses in America, small business optimism at an unprecedented low. It is not surprising, given the status of the economy today. In fact, there is virtually no economic growth occurring, because we don't have a growth strategy. We have a tax strategy, we have a spending strategy, but we don't have a growth strategy. The administration doesn't have a growth strategy. Congress doesn't have a growth strategy. There has been no regard or deference to a growth strategy that ultimately would encourage small businesses, or any size business in America today, to take the risks to make those investments, because there is too much uncertainty, in addition to all of the potential tax increases that will occur at the end of this year, not to mention those that have already occurred and the ones that are pending in this tax extenders legislation we will be voting on shortly with respect to cloture. In the tax extenders bill, we are imposing a $9 billion tax on small businesses and $13 billion of retroactive new taxes on global businesses. On companies that do business abroad, there are retroactive taxes as well. Retroactive tax increases are a bad habit. It is a bad practice. It is bad policy to reach back and now tell businesses: Oh, by the way, we have changed our mind. Let's reach back and tax you. You might ask: Well, how far back? Because that is the question I have asked. How far back do you tax? Well, guess what. Back to the first event that represents a capital gains event, as far back as it goes because we have changed our mind. Well, it is very difficult, when you have to meet a bottom line-- which is anathema to Congress because we don't have to meet a bottom line. We don't have to balance our budgets. We don't have to worry about how much we spend and how much we tax, because we don't have to balance it out, but businesses do, in a very challenging and fragile economy. Yet we are suggesting, oh, by the way, let's have retroactive tax increases. It is regrettable that we have to go that far, exhibiting a total disregard for the effect it is going to have ultimately on the average person in America who is seeking to get a job and can't find one because businesses aren't hiring. They are virtually at a standstill, and rightfully so, in their hesitancy and their reluctance, because they don't know what is coming next out of Congress. We don't even know, because a lot of these provisions were sort of dumped in there that we didn't have hearings about. So by the way, we have changed our mind and we are going to reach back and tax you. Maybe it is a year, maybe it is 2 years. Whenever you have that first event that is taxable under this provision, we will reach back and we will tax you. The tax offsets in this bill are worse than the lack of an extension of the existing policy. That is why the provisions in the bill are too high a price for any major business or organization, from the Chamber to NFIB to Business Roundtable, to support it in its current form. It didn't have to be this way. I certainly laid out a blueprint. I want to be very clear about this. I laid out a blueprint of how we could proceed to a consensus solution to passing a responsible tax extenders package. I worked diligently. I answered every call. I went to every meeting for the last few weeks since this became an issue, in good faith, to attempt to extend the unemployment benefits that I think people rightfully deserve, as well as to help with the reimbursement for doctors that, by the way, we have known has been a problem for more than a year. I know I stood on this floor last fall, during the time we were considering the health care bill that was pending before the Senate, and after which $210 billion worth of Medicare taxes were inserted in the health care bill--$210 billion that was a tax on small businesses. I said: If you are going to take that route, if that is the policy you are going to embrace, then why not defer it and pay for the doctors reimbursement to avert the 21-percent reduction. Why not use it for that purpose? If you are going to raise Medicare payroll taxes, at least use the revenues from Medicare, within the Medicare system-- knowing this was a serious problem. With a 21-percent reduction in doctors reimbursements in the Medicare Program that was scheduled for January, we knew we had a problem. Yet, on one hand, we raised Medicare taxes on small businesses, and we used it for other purposes--to expand other programs--rather than targeting it to the very problem and issue that existed in the Medicare Program that we knew about. How practical is that? Of course, it is not practical. We knew with that $210 billion we could have arrived at a permanent solution at least for 10 years on the doctors reimbursements--for 10 years. We would have had a decade solution, rather than this ad hoc approach, where we are reconsidering it every 6 months or every year and putting the patients as well as the doctors through this endless cycle, which has almost become perpetual, as to whether we are going to provide for the reimbursements or allow the cuts to go forward. It becomes gamesmanship that is, unfortunately, at the expense of Medicare patients, because they hear from the doctors: We don't know what we are going to be able to do. We hear it from the providers who are challenged, because Medicare rates are hardly reflective of the true cost of delivering that care. My State has the second lowest rate of Medicare reimbursements in the country. We know doctors are dropping Medicare patients. So it has a pernicious effect. We could have taken care of that proactively and done something reasonable and pragmatic. We could have funded a 10-year solution that we knew was in the area of $200 billion, because we had another bill on the floor that said let's do the doctor fix but let's not pay for it. It was in the approximately $200 billion range. But that wasn't to be. It certainly didn't have to be this way. I have sought to balance the necessities by identifying tax offsets, urging that the stimulus money be reprogrammed so these funds are spent in a timely manner, as was the intention when this body passed the stimulus bill. With respect to the unemployment benefits extension in this legislation, I have long advocated for this, and I voted for them in the past, obviously. I think we have a responsibility to pass extensions until the economy improves and until we can demonstrate that the economy can create jobs. I understand and appreciate some of my colleagues who believe these extensions should be fully offset. I just don't happen to be in that category, until we can turn the economy around and produce jobs--particularly at this time of high unemployment, which is at the rate of 9.7 percent, and that has been the status quo with minimal changes. That means Congress has to enact economic policy to foster job creation. I would not impede unemployment benefits by insisting they are not emergency spending and should be fully paid for. I believe there is a majority that supports that policy. I recommended, why not separate the unemployment benefits and move that along? Why put people at risk who are unemployed? We could have done that and separated this out several weeks ago, which I proposed and recommended, and we could have separated the doctor fix and paid for it. Actually, we ended up doing that. That is what we did 2 weeks later. We could have done the same with unemployment benefits-- separated it and moved it along, assuming that, of course, we had unanimous support on the majority side for that. We could have done that. I certainly would have supported that. It is important so that people aren't kept in turmoil, wondering whether they are going to have additional benefits. I thought we should have addressed it as a separate matter, rather than entangle it with other muddled policies being swallowed up in this legislative morass pending today. I supported State aid for Medicaid. As I said, this program should be offset by unobligated stimulus funds. In the stimulus bill, we provided for additional funding for Medicaid. Had we known then what we know now, we could have provided an additional year, instead of lower priority, longer term, less effective spending. After all, stimulus is supposed to be timely, targeted, and temporary. If the money hasn't been obligated, obviously, it is none of those things at this point. So why not redirect it for more stimulative purposes? And certainly doing it for the Medicaid Program is highly stimulative, along with unemployment benefits. That is the maximum stimulus you can provide in the economy today. I said let's redirect those funds and spend them on FMAP. In the substitute extenders package proposed last night there was a breakthrough on that issue that became a consensus item for a brief and shining moment. Apparently, some on the other side objected to the overall package on several of the other issues I will get to in a moment. I have had some serious concerns with some of the proposals that small businesses in this legislation have, particularly when it comes to subchapter S corporations. There was an indication that, as I was told last week, those new taxes would be removed because of the punitive effect they would have primarily on small businesses, again, the group we are depending on to create jobs. Yet, last night, the tide turned again, and I was informed that they would in fact remain in the tax extenders legislation. These revenue provisions that have never been the subject of hearings, have never been seen by the public, would significantly damage the business environment for businesses both large and small, just at a time we should be creating businesses, not curtailing them. The egregious provision regarding subchapter S corporations would harm millions of small businesses in their ability to create those jobs. Under section 413, a new burdensome payroll tax of 15.3 percent is imposed on subchapter S corporations on the dividend distributions paid to employee owners, to family members, who are shareholders or partners, and unbelievably, retained earnings in the business when distributions are kept in the business for reinvestment. At a time of festering high unemployment, this is exactly the wrong prescription for job creation. The provision is aimed, as I have been told, at a specific abuse of the S corporations wrapped in a partnership, which is a business format that allows a business owner to inappropriately divert more money than is justified to nonsalary distributions that are not subject to payroll taxes. Unfortunately, in order to prevent this specific abuse, the authors had to write a very expansive anti-abuse provision causing collateral damage to taxpayers who are not abusing the system and imposing payroll taxes on retained earnings on small businesses. This is a job killer, because retained earnings are the most reliable form of capital available to small businesses. While there have been clear abuses of existing law regarding reasonable compensation, it should be noted that the IRS successfully prosecutes cases where business owners inappropriately divert salary income to dividend distribution. In fact, the ruling as recent as May 27 of this year in David E. Watson PC v. United States proves that the ``reasonable compensation'' standard can be workable. Yet, it is not a clear bright line test that is either easy for the IRS to enforce or for taxpayers to understand. That is why I worked diligently, along with my staff, to find a way to address this abuse and agree that if we could find a way to improve upon and make clearer the ``reasonable compensation'' standard, we should do so. In fact, my staff, last week, was at Joint Tax to do just that. Then I was informed that the subchapter S provision would be removed in its entirety from the tax extenders bill, so we didn't proceed any further, because I was told it was not going to be in this legislation. Obviously, that all changed last night when it summarily was reinstated. Unfortunately, the new regime that would be created in this legislation is less effective for either compliance by taxpayers or enforcement by the IRS; it is the current reasonable compensation standard. One week ago, the majority leader offered to remove the provision from the bill and I accepted this. Unfortunately, negotiations must not have been as clear, because last night that offer to drop that provision was fully rescinded. The provision in S. 4213 replaces 20 years of law with wholly untested, expensive, very difficult to administer new standards that attempt to address situations that, under current law and practices, are already not permitted. Specifically, this provision would impose Medicare and Social Security taxes at a rate of 15.3 percent on the first $106,800 of both wages and dividends, as well as 2.9 percent on amounts retained in the business, even when distributions are kept in the business for reinvestment. Retained earnings are the most reliable form of capital for a small business because the owner doesn't need to go to a bank to apply for a loan or to investors to seek infusion of equity. This tax would appreciably reduce that capital at a time when other sources remain exceedingly difficult to access. At a time of high unemployment, this is exactly the wrong direction for job creation. In fact, this new levy would kill jobs and discourage hiring throughout the economy. While I commend the authors of the bill for attempting to rein in the game playing that can take place, this bill is extraordinarily more broad than addressing just that problem. Unfortunately, in their critique of my efforts to address these problems, neither the Washington Post nor the New York Times editorial pages have taken into account anything but a pithy one-line description of the effects of these provisions. It is unfortunate because this new tax on small businesses and medium-size businesses is a broadside attack on what has been for decades a job-creating engine of the economy. The substitute pending before the Senate would create vague new terms and tests for the IRS interpretation and taxpayer confusion as to whether payroll taxes are owed. These new terms and tests would replace the reasonable compensation standard for a list of specific service- based businesses. The new test would impose payroll taxes on certain professional service businesses, if 80 percent of the income of the business is attributable to three or fewer shareholders of the firm. While these terms are certainly less onerous than an earlier version of the substitute, each of these new terms will be subject to IRS rulings and inevitable litigation. I will start outlining my concerns with the ``attributable'' to shareholders'' concepts. This standard is no easier for the IRS to inform or taxpayers to understand than is the current ``reasonable compensation'' standard. Does ``attributable'' mean that if a law firm partner brings another partner and an associate to meet with a prospective client, that the income generated is ``attributable'' three ways? Or does it depend on who performs the most billable hours? If the associate performs the majority of billable hours with only sign-off from the partner, to whom is this income ``attributable''? Frankly, this new proposed standard is no clearer than the current ``reasonable compensation'' standard that is also very dependent upon specific ``facts and circumstances.'' Why would we replace one standard with something no more enforceable by the IRS and is just a trap for taxpayers? Another component of the bill that is no clearer than ``reasonable compensation'' is the test of ``substantially all of the activities'' of the firm. Two issues arise with respect to this phrase. First, this is clearly not an objective revenue test; it is a subjective ``activity'' test, meaning that these employers would now be required to keep timesheets of all their employees, even if a firm or profession doesn't currently track billable hours. This would create a whole new expensive paperwork morass with no point other than compliance with mindless tax rules. Further, whether ``substantially all'' means more than half, three- quarters, or 90 percent of ``activities'' is not defined in the statute. We simply do not know the definition of ``substantially all.'' Neither would the IRS or the business owners. This doesn't advance compliance or enforcement to a level any better than the existing ``reasonable compensation'' standard. Turning now to the additional provisions, I want to point out that the list of ``professional service businesses'' in the legislation is at best obtuse, and at worst, it is simply a quagmire for litigation. Professions targeted for this tax include services ``in the fields of: health, law, lobbying, engineering, architecture, accounting, actuarial science, performing arts, consulting, athletics, investment advice or management, or brokerage services.'' While it is sometimes clear which businesses are included, for other businesses and professions the new definition is not so clear-cut. We can only assume that with the expansive regulatory authority granted in this bill that other service providers would be ensnared. Years of regulatory effort and litigation will eventually sort out whether the following would be subject to this provision: Web designers, who are not software ``engineers;'' interior designers, who are not ``architects;'' tax preparers, who are not ``accountants;'' real estate or insurance agents, who are not ``brokers;'' writers, who are not ``performers;'' beauticians, who are not in ``health.'' Then there are other service providers who would be ensnared the next time Congress is seeking additional revenues, including plumbers, electricians, hairdressers, construction contractors, heating oil distributors, car mechanics, recruiting and staffing firms, and professional fundraisers, just to name a few. Every day this provision has been public--and that is a total of only 1 month 4 days--we seem to find another unintended consequence of the provision. Five days from now, we are likely to find five more unintended consequences. I wish to specifically raise two additional unintended consequences that have been brought to my attention. The first of these, of which my colleagues may be unaware, is that this provision would reduce the Social Security benefits of early retirees who invest in a family member's business. This issue was raised by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and results because the shareholder would be deemed to have additional wages through the proposal's family attribution rules, which then reduces Social Security early retirement benefits. I am disappointed that the sponsors of this provision have not addressed this problem despite having known about it for at least two iterations of their bill. If a parent invests as a shareholder in the business being set up by their adult child, then this legislation would count the dividend distributions as earned income subject to a payroll tax, which reduces the early retirement benefit of the parent. This tax would either be a shock to investors who had no idea about this complication or invariably, to the extent it is known, it would reduce investment by family members in entrepreneurial businesses. Of course, this would reduce a critical form of capital for startup businesses. Why does the majority feel the need to starve young entrepreneurs of the ability to get startup capital from their parents? A second specific unintended consequence concerns the complex web of anti-abuse rules that is created to prevent ``leakage'' from the S corp shareholder provision. It ensnares limited partners of partnerships. The bill imposes payroll taxes on the limited partnership income of employees for whom these limited partnership shares are like an employee stock purchase plan. Employees are not subject to payroll taxes on stock purchase plans distributions. Further, limited partners are not subject to payroll taxes because this is investment income. But to combine the two and for some reason to impose a 15.3-percent payroll tax on the investments of middle-income employees is inexplicable. Despite this known problem, it was not addressed even in the version of the bill that was released last night and pending before the Senate. I want to be clearly understood that this provision was publicly released on May 20 and was adopted by the other body on May 28 with virtually no debate on an $11 billion tax hike. There have been no hearings on this proposal in either the House or the Senate. While the chairman has modified his initial proposal and it is now a $9 billion tax, significant concerns remain. Notably, the number of groups that are supporting my amendment to strike this provision sent a letter to both the chairman of the committee and the ranking member about that earlier version, emphasizing that ``this new tax is an excellent example of what happens when the legislative process is short circuited.'' This chart is an illustration of the number of organizations that have written letters to Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley of the Senate Finance Committee about this legislation. It says new taxes would hurt job creation, would reduce the capital these employers have to create jobs and invest in their businesses--an excellent example of what would happen when you short-circuit the legislative process. That is exactly the end result of this legislation. It is ill-timed, and it is poorly targeted. I appreciate the support from Senators Enzi and Ensign, who joined me in offering an amendment--unfortunately, we have not had the ability to offer it--to strike it in its entirety so we can take a step back and address only the abusive situations without capturing everybody else. That is going to affect job creation in small businesses and entrepreneurs in America at a time when we desperately need them. We are now making a broadside attack on job generators. Regrettably, this will affect small and medium-size businesses. They are not in a position to shoulder this enormous burden as we look to them to create the jobs our economy so desperately requires right now. I have been asking for months on end, as I said earlier in my statement, for a small business tax relief and jobs package that is so central to what we require in our economy today because of virtually no economic growth, no job creation. We are nearly into July, so 6 months into this legislative calendar and there is no legislative package on small businesses yet. What are we doing? More taxes and more spending-- that is exactly what is represented in the tax extenders bill. I attempted to address these issues over the last few weeks and to reach a consensus and solution. As I said, removing the doctor fix and paying for it separately--eventually that happened, and that was important; removing unemployment benefits to move that along so people can get their unemployment benefits without having them lapse and expire during this challenging economy; and then, of course, address all the other issues to make sure we are getting it right. That is what it is all about. It is a matter of practicality and reasonableness that we get it right and not force more taxes on the very entities we depend on to create the jobs people deserve in America today to go back to work and to support their foundation of financial security rather than removing it. At a time when we should be encouraging and nurturing small businesses, we are stifling the entrepreneurial spirit by adding $9 billion more in taxes with an ill-conceived provision that has had no hearings, no examination, no evaluation. It is a terrifying template for additional taxes on small businesses when they are already facing more taxes as a result of the health care bill. No wonder small businesses are bewildered and are unwilling to hire new employees. In the final analysis, America's small businesses would benefit greatly from the extension of myriad tax provisions, but they do not want this bill at any cost, not when they are going to have to be paying some very onerous and punitive taxes under this legislation. Because it will be virtually all small businesses that are going to face and bear the brunt of the consequences of this legislation and the taxes it represents. It is going to continue the stagnation with respect to job creation. It is going to further that and the deteriorating trend within our economy with respect to job creation and with the lagging economic growth that is reflected in today's economic environment. For all those reasons, I will not be voting for the tax extenders package. I regret it because I thought we had reached a consensus. Obviously, that was not to be. Hopefully, we can continue our discussions at a time when we can reach a consensus. But I think it is important in the final analysis to state the fact that these impasses and the stalemate and the deadlock that result time and time again that require cloture votes are really not necessary if we are willing to listen to one another, to reach across the political aisle, and to build a consensus on the issues that are so important to America and so crucial to reversing the economic direction of our country, where more than 70 percent of the American people believe America is moving in the wrong direction with respect to the economy and yet we have failed to address it satisfactorily because we are not willing to listen, not willing to work, not willing to do the things necessary to create the right kind of legislation. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coastal Jobs Creation Act of 2010. This bill would establish a grant program within the Department of Commerce to enhance employment opportunities for coastal communities by increasing support for cooperative research programs, revitalization of coastal infrastructure, and stewardship of coastal and marine resources. As Ranking Member of the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, and as a Senator from a State which relies heavily on its coastal region as an economic driver, I am acutely aware of the hardships that have been visited on these areas in recent years. I particularly want to thank my lead cosponsor on this key piece of legislation, Senator Lautenberg. Clearly, his home State of New Jersey shares many of the same issues we face in Maine when it comes to ensuring the vitality of our historic fishing and coastal industries, and I greatly appreciate his support of this initiative. I also want to thank the bill's additional cosponsors, Senators Whitehouse, Collins, Shaheen, Boxer, Kerry, and Cantwell, for their vital contributions. As our Nation struggles to recover from the ongoing recession, it is critical that we do all we can to create employment opportunities. I have said it before, and I will say it again: the jobless recovery that our Nation is currently experiencing is not a true economic recovery. While the most recent unemployment figures may have shown a decline from 9.9 to 9.7 percent--of course, welcome news--the private sector is not creating jobs. Indeed, there were 411,000 temporary Census employees hired in May, as opposed to the 41,000 new jobs in the private sector. This does not bode well for our future economic health, and does not instill confidence in our fragile economy. Ultimately, what affects our coastal economy drives our Nation's economy. More than 75 percent of growth in this country from 1997 to 2007, whether measured in population, jobs, or GDP, occurred in coastal States, and more than half of U.S. citizens live in coastal communities. As the Nation's economy has struggled through the ongoing recession, maritime industries have experienced more than their share of hardship. This has been compounded in the fishing industry by regulatory changes mandated by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act which we reauthorized in 2006. The law now requires strict, science-based annual catch limits to be imposed in all fisheries by 2011. While we expect these changes will ultimately be beneficial to the health of the fish stocks, they have dire economic implications today. On April 18, 2010, Bumble Bee Foods shuttered the last sardine cannery in the United States, which had been located in Prospect Harbor, Maine. This closure can be attributed to a single cause: the National Marine Fisheries Service's decision to slash the catch limit for herring by 38 percent for 2010, meaning there were not enough fish available to supply the plant. Scientists did not recommend this reduction because herring is overfished--it is not--but rather because they did not have the data to provide sufficient confidence in the stock assessment. In addition to impacts on the herring and lobster fisheries, this lack of data has directly resulted in a century-old fish processing plant closing its doors, costing an economically depressed community 130 jobs and spelling the end of an entire industry in the United States. If the law's new mandates are to be effective, they will require an infusion of better scientific data. The grant program authorized in this legislation will lead to more cooperative research to improve fishery-dependent data and increase employment opportunities for fishermen by involving them in the research process. An additional concern this bill would help alleviate is the rapid decline in availability of working waterfront property. As Americans move to the coast in greater numbers, the demand for waterfront property increases, boosting prices and raising the tax burdens on waterfront property owners. According to a report by Maine Sea Grant and the Island Institute, a non-profit advocacy group, of the more than 5,300 miles of Maine's coastline, just 20 miles remain in use as working waterfront property--less than half of one percent of the potential area. This bill would authorize grants to recapitalize working waterfront property to stem the loss of this vital infrastructure without which our coastal industries will simply vanish. If enacted, this critical legislation would greatly enhance the health and vitality of our Nation's coastal communities, and help put our Nation on a path to a true economic recovery, driven by small businesses and private sector job creation. Once again, I thank Senator Lautenberg, and all of my cosponsors again for their efforts in developing this vital legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coastal Jobs Creation Act of 2010. This bill would establish a grant program within the Department of Commerce to enhance employment opportunities for coastal communities by increasing support for cooperative research programs, revitalization of coastal infrastructure, and stewardship of coastal and marine resources. As Ranking Member of the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, and as a Senator from a State which relies heavily on its coastal region as an economic driver, I am acutely aware of the hardships that have been visited on these areas in recent years. I particularly want to thank my lead cosponsor on this key piece of legislation, Senator Lautenberg. Clearly, his home State of New Jersey shares many of the same issues we face in Maine when it comes to ensuring the vitality of our historic fishing and coastal industries, and I greatly appreciate his support of this initiative. I also want to thank the bill's additional cosponsors, Senators Whitehouse, Collins, Shaheen, Boxer, Kerry, and Cantwell, for their vital contributions. As our Nation struggles to recover from the ongoing recession, it is critical that we do all we can to create employment opportunities. I have said it before, and I will say it again: the jobless recovery that our Nation is currently experiencing is not a true economic recovery. While the most recent unemployment figures may have shown a decline from 9.9 to 9.7 percent--of course, welcome news--the private sector is not creating jobs. Indeed, there were 411,000 temporary Census employees hired in May, as opposed to the 41,000 new jobs in the private sector. This does not bode well for our future economic health, and does not instill confidence in our fragile economy. Ultimately, what affects our coastal economy drives our Nation's economy. More than 75 percent of growth in this country from 1997 to 2007, whether measured in population, jobs, or GDP, occurred in coastal States, and more than half of U.S. citizens live in coastal communities. As the Nation's economy has struggled through the ongoing recession, maritime industries have experienced more than their share of hardship. This has been compounded in the fishing industry by regulatory changes mandated by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act which we reauthorized in 2006. The law now requires strict, science-based annual catch limits to be imposed in all fisheries by 2011. While we expect these changes will ultimately be beneficial to the health of the fish stocks, they have dire economic implications today. On April 18, 2010, Bumble Bee Foods shuttered the last sardine cannery in the United States, which had been located in Prospect Harbor, Maine. This closure can be attributed to a single cause: the National Marine Fisheries Service's decision to slash the catch limit for herring by 38 percent for 2010, meaning there were not enough fish available to supply the plant. Scientists did not recommend this reduction because herring is overfished--it is not--but rather because they did not have the data to provide sufficient confidence in the stock assessment. In addition to impacts on the herring and lobster fisheries, this lack of data has directly resulted in a century-old fish processing plant closing its doors, costing an economically depressed community 130 jobs and spelling the end of an entire industry in the United States. If the law's new mandates are to be effective, they will require an infusion of better scientific data. The grant program authorized in this legislation will lead to more cooperative research to improve fishery-dependent data and increase employment opportunities for fishermen by involving them in the research process. An additional concern this bill would help alleviate is the rapid decline in availability of working waterfront property. As Americans move to the coast in greater numbers, the demand for waterfront property increases, boosting prices and raising the tax burdens on waterfront property owners. According to a report by Maine Sea Grant and the Island Institute, a non-profit advocacy group, of the more than 5,300 miles of Maine's coastline, just 20 miles remain in use as working waterfront property--less than half of one percent of the potential area. This bill would authorize grants to recapitalize working waterfront property to stem the loss of this vital infrastructure without which our coastal industries will simply vanish. If enacted, this critical legislation would greatly enhance the health and vitality of our Nation's coastal communities, and help put our Nation on a path to a true economic recovery, driven by small businesses and private sector job creation. Once again, I thank Senator Lautenberg, and all of my cosponsors again for their efforts in developing this vital legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, one of the most beloved summer traditions we have in coastal Maine is enjoying fresh seafood from our State's numerous bays and harbors. While Maine is of course famous for its exquisite lobster, parts of our State are also undergoing a renaissance in oyster harvesting, particularly in the midcoast region. Today, I rise to recognize one of the companies involved in this reinvigoration of the industry, the Gay Island Oyster Company, a small family-run business founded in 2000 in the small seaside town of Cushing by Tara and Barrett Lynde. A historic source of food in Maine, oysters have been gathered off the State's coast for over 5,000 years. Certain excavations have even found piles of shucked oysters, also known as ``middens,'' over 30 feet deep near the Damariscotta River near present-day route 1. Unfortunately, by 1949, climate changes, development, overfishing, and pollution had all but eliminated Maine's native oyster population. In response, Maine's Department of Sea and Shore Fisheries began a concerted effort to return this unique bivalve to local waters. The Gay Island Oyster Company is one of the pioneering small businesses to take advantage of this reintroduction and has helped to revolutionize Maine's aquaculture industry. The owners of the company, Tara and Barrett Lynde, also hold a special distinction as a dynamic mother-and-son oyster harvesting team. Their oyster farm is unique in its harvesting methods, using floating mesh bags which bring Gay Island's oysters to the water's surface exposing them to tidal water flows. Tara and Barrett say that by bringing oysters, which are normally found on the bottom of the ocean, to the surface, the oysters benefit from constant movement which translates into deeper oysters, narrower shells, and a cleaner taste. This method ensures that Gay Island oysters are full and sweet with perfect salinity and consistent taste. To harvest these oysters, Tara and Barrett first place oyster seedlings in the calmer and less salty waters of the Meduncook River. After about a year they are moved a short distance away to an area between Gay and Morse islands, just off the coast of Cushing. The oysters then remain there for 2 more years before they are ready for harvest and consumption. Gay Island Oyster Company is proud to remain a small business, and Tara and Barrett believe that their individual attention to detail allows them to ensure that the quality of their oysters will remain high. As a small family owned and operated business, Gay Island Oyster Company's efforts at responsible and sustainable oyster cultivation are a positive contribution towards a sensible use of such a precious resource. While Gay Island oysters are found in numerous restaurants, they can also be ordered from anywhere in the United States online, and are shipped the same day they are harvested to guarantee an unmatched freshness. Maine's coastal heritage is critical to the past, present, and future of our State. While we often recognize the lobstermen and fishermen who spend long hours hauling in their catches, oystermen and other shellfishermen deserve credit for the intensity of their labors. I congratulate Tara and Barrett Lynde for founding Gay Island Oysters and recapturing a lost part of Maine's aquaculture, and I wish them all the best for many more successful years to come.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along with Senators Kohl and Lieberman, to reduce the cost share amount that Manufacturing Extension Partnership, or MEP, centers face in obtaining their annual funding. The MEP is a nationwide public-private network of counseling and assistance centers that offer our nation's nearly 350,000 small and medium manufacturers services and access to resources that enhance growth, improve productivity, and expand capacity. In Fiscal Year 2009 alone, MEP clients created or retained roughly 53,000 jobs; provided cost savings in excess of $1.41 billion; and generated over $9.1 billion in sales. Similarly, clients of the Maine MEP reported saving or retaining 550 jobs, experiencing $8.3 million in cost savings, and generating over $78.3 million in sales in 2009. As such, the MEP's contribution to the health of American manufacturing is indisputable. At present, individual MEP centers must raise a full 2/3 of their funding after their fourth year of operation, placing a heavy burden on these centers. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, at the Department of Commerce, in turn, provides one-third of the centers' funding. MEP centers can meet their portion of the cost share requirement through funds from universities, State and local governments, and other institutions. In today's tumultuous economy, these centers are experiencing increased difficulties finding adequate funding from both private and public sources. As economic concerns weigh down on all of us, states, organizations, and groups that traditionally assist MEP centers in meeting this cost share are reluctant to expend the money--or do not have the resources to do so. Our bill, which is a modified version of S. 695 that I and several of my colleagues introduced last March, is simple and straightforward. It would reduce the statutory cost share that MEP centers face to 50 percent for fiscal years 2011 through 2013 as a temporary stimulative measure. Frankly, the Nation's MEP centers are subject to an unnecessarily restrictive cost share requirement. And it is inequitable, as the MEP is the only initiative out of the 80 programs funded by the Department of Commerce that is subject to a statutory cost share of greater than 50 percent. There is no reason for this to persist, particularly not during this trying economy when so many manufacturers are trying to remain afloat. Clearly, Congress must act swiftly to bolster our country's manufacturing industry rather than sitting on the sidelines as other countries surpass our nation's economic leadership in a variety of areas. Indeed, last Sunday's Financial Times included an article titled ``US manufacturing crown slips'' highlighting that, ``The U.S. remained the world's biggest manufacturing nation by output last year, but is poised to relinquish this slot in 2011 to China--thus ending a 110-year run as the number one country in factory production.'' This news should be a clarion call that investing in the manufacturing sector is critical given the detrimental ramifications that losing our leadership would have to our overall economy. The MEP is an essential resource for the small and medium manufacturers that will help reinvigorate our Nation's economy. With centers in all 50 states, as well as Puerto Rico, its reach is unmatched and its experience in counseling manufacturers is unrivaled. It is my hope that my colleagues will support this legislation as a direct way to bolster an industry that is indispensible to our nation's economy health.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along with Senators Kohl and Lieberman, to reduce the cost share amount that Manufacturing Extension Partnership, or MEP, centers face in obtaining their annual funding. The MEP is a nationwide public-private network of counseling and assistance centers that offer our nation's nearly 350,000 small and medium manufacturers services and access to resources that enhance growth, improve productivity, and expand capacity. In Fiscal Year 2009 alone, MEP clients created or retained roughly 53,000 jobs; provided cost savings in excess of $1.41 billion; and generated over $9.1 billion in sales. Similarly, clients of the Maine MEP reported saving or retaining 550 jobs, experiencing $8.3 million in cost savings, and generating over $78.3 million in sales in 2009. As such, the MEP's contribution to the health of American manufacturing is indisputable. At present, individual MEP centers must raise a full 2/3 of their funding after their fourth year of operation, placing a heavy burden on these centers. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, at the Department of Commerce, in turn, provides one-third of the centers' funding. MEP centers can meet their portion of the cost share requirement through funds from universities, State and local governments, and other institutions. In today's tumultuous economy, these centers are experiencing increased difficulties finding adequate funding from both private and public sources. As economic concerns weigh down on all of us, states, organizations, and groups that traditionally assist MEP centers in meeting this cost share are reluctant to expend the money--or do not have the resources to do so. Our bill, which is a modified version of S. 695 that I and several of my colleagues introduced last March, is simple and straightforward. It would reduce the statutory cost share that MEP centers face to 50 percent for fiscal years 2011 through 2013 as a temporary stimulative measure. Frankly, the Nation's MEP centers are subject to an unnecessarily restrictive cost share requirement. And it is inequitable, as the MEP is the only initiative out of the 80 programs funded by the Department of Commerce that is subject to a statutory cost share of greater than 50 percent. There is no reason for this to persist, particularly not during this trying economy when so many manufacturers are trying to remain afloat. Clearly, Congress must act swiftly to bolster our country's manufacturing industry rather than sitting on the sidelines as other countries surpass our nation's economic leadership in a variety of areas. Indeed, last Sunday's Financial Times included an article titled ``US manufacturing crown slips'' highlighting that, ``The U.S. remained the world's biggest manufacturing nation by output last year, but is poised to relinquish this slot in 2011 to China--thus ending a 110-year run as the number one country in factory production.'' This news should be a clarion call that investing in the manufacturing sector is critical given the detrimental ramifications that losing our leadership would have to our overall economy. The MEP is an essential resource for the small and medium manufacturers that will help reinvigorate our Nation's economy. With centers in all 50 states, as well as Puerto Rico, its reach is unmatched and its experience in counseling manufacturers is unrivaled. It is my hope that my colleagues will support this legislation as a direct way to bolster an industry that is indispensible to our nation's economy health.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I recognize a small telecommunications company from my home State of Maine that has proved itself to be a dedicated leader throughout northern New England. Oxford Networks, based in Lewiston with offices in Bangor and Norway, has been serving customers across Maine for over a century, and it has shown no signs of letting up. Alva Andrews, Oxford's founder, laid the foundation for the company in 1893 by setting up phone service between his family-owned business, located in South Woodstock, and the nearby railroad station in West Paris. Seven years later, in 1900, Mr. Andrews incorporated his firm as Oxford Telephone and Telegraph, a provider of telephone services to the local community in western Maine. The company has expanded and grown significantly over the last 110 years. In 1981, the company acquired Bryant Pond Telephone Company, and two decades later, purchased Revolution Networks to continue growing its reach. By 2004, Oxford was able to provide cable television, Internet, phone, and long distance service, one of Maine's only facility-based competitive providers to do so. Additionally, the company's fiber optic backbone network presently spreads north as far as Bangor and south down to Boston. A member of 12 different Chambers of Commerce throughout the State, Oxford Networks, which now employs 125, has been named a Best Place to Work Company for each of the last four years, indicative of the environment the company fosters for its employees. But beyond this remarkable feat, Oxford has demonstrated its commitment to others by becoming an active partner in the community, supporting a host of local charities and initiatives, from the United Way to the Maine Discovery Museum. Company employees raise money for Big Brothers/Big Sisters each spring during the Bowl for Kids Sake fundraiser, and also participate in walking teams for the American Heart Association's Heart Walk. The company has also been the Presenting Underwriter for the Maine Cancer Foundation's Pink Tulip Project since 2007. The project raises money for the Maine Cancer Foundation's Women's Cancer Fund while paying tribute to those who have courageously fought the disease. From its start in the 1890s with a simple telephone connection, Oxford Networks has transformed the way Maine connects with the world. Because of its forward-thinking and innovative efforts, Oxford is now able to offer a wide range of cutting-edge telecommunications options to its varied client base of small and large businesses, as well as individual residences. Indeed, no problem is too large or too small for this incredible company, which continues to impress its customers with its rapid responsiveness and quality service. I thank everyone at Oxford Networks for the great work they do in the community, and wish them continued success in the future.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that I believe will ensure that our motor vehicle operators, particularly those smallest businesses who rely on only one or two vehicles, are no longer subject to the nefarious practices of unscrupulous logistic companies and brokers. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics has indicated that by 2020, freight volume will double in this country. A critical component of moving that vast expansion of freight to distributors and retailers will be motor carriers--that is, trucks. However, for years, trucking operators, particularly the smallest companies who not only perform the back-breaking work of transporting freight across the country, but simultaneously run their own businesses, have fallen victim to fly-by-night brokers and intermediaries who connect the truck operators with shippers who need goods moved, then defraud the operators of their payments before vanishing in the night, depriving the operator of any legal recourse in an effort to recover their losses. How can they do this? Aren't these actions criminal? Unfortunately, the current regulations are long outdated. Beyond a prospective broker being required to pay a ten thousand dollar bond, there is little in the way of registration requirements or government oversight under present law. According to trucking experts, a broker can rake in revenues far in excess of that ten thousand dollar upfront payment in less than a month, allowing them to disappear in the night, losing their bond but more than making up for it in revenues stolen from hard- working truck operators who are left with nothing to show for their delivery, and no way to recoup those losses. The time has come to provide these operators that chance to defend themselves. That is why I have taken this opportunity to introduce the Motor Carrier Protection Act. This legislation will bolster the rather meager framework of regulations now in place to guard against deceitful behavior from the handful of freight forwarders who engage in these criminal practices. The bond necessary to serve as a broker will no longer be a paltry 10,000, but will be elevated to 100,000, a more reasonable amount reflecting the reality of today's shipping environment. It will also expand the requirements to become a licensed broker, giving the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to opportunity to collect licensing fees from brokers, intermediaries and freight forwarders--using those fees to fund greater enforcement capabilities. As a result of this legislation, the Federal Government will be able to revoke operating licenses for those brokers that do not meet these revamped strictures. These new licenses must be renewed annually. With these improvements to existing regulation, motor vehicle operators will no longer wonder if they will receive payment for a job well done. Why is this legislation necessary? We must be mindful that these scams are not easily discouraged. For example, in Georgia, one group of individuals operated twelve different freight broker companies over a period of 3 years--continuously evading law enforcement and the truckers they defrauded by changing the name and location of their business--while never paying the truck operators who actually moved the freight. In the end, this racketeering enterprise collected over $500,000, most of which was due to the operators. In fact, it was the diligent efforts of Georgia law enforcement that broke up this operation, not the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, who the government has charged with preventing these sorts of fraud. We must update these regulations, and provide FMCSA with more tools to prevent these kinds of criminal activities. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation as we move forward.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that I believe will ensure that our motor vehicle operators, particularly those smallest businesses who rely on only one or two vehicles, are no longer subject to the nefarious practices of unscrupulous logistic companies and brokers. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics has indicated that by 2020, freight volume will double in this country. A critical component of moving that vast expansion of freight to distributors and retailers will be motor carriers--that is, trucks. However, for years, trucking operators, particularly the smallest companies who not only perform the back-breaking work of transporting freight across the country, but simultaneously run their own businesses, have fallen victim to fly-by-night brokers and intermediaries who connect the truck operators with shippers who need goods moved, then defraud the operators of their payments before vanishing in the night, depriving the operator of any legal recourse in an effort to recover their losses. How can they do this? Aren't these actions criminal? Unfortunately, the current regulations are long outdated. Beyond a prospective broker being required to pay a ten thousand dollar bond, there is little in the way of registration requirements or government oversight under present law. According to trucking experts, a broker can rake in revenues far in excess of that ten thousand dollar upfront payment in less than a month, allowing them to disappear in the night, losing their bond but more than making up for it in revenues stolen from hard- working truck operators who are left with nothing to show for their delivery, and no way to recoup those losses. The time has come to provide these operators that chance to defend themselves. That is why I have taken this opportunity to introduce the Motor Carrier Protection Act. This legislation will bolster the rather meager framework of regulations now in place to guard against deceitful behavior from the handful of freight forwarders who engage in these criminal practices. The bond necessary to serve as a broker will no longer be a paltry 10,000, but will be elevated to 100,000, a more reasonable amount reflecting the reality of today's shipping environment. It will also expand the requirements to become a licensed broker, giving the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to opportunity to collect licensing fees from brokers, intermediaries and freight forwarders--using those fees to fund greater enforcement capabilities. As a result of this legislation, the Federal Government will be able to revoke operating licenses for those brokers that do not meet these revamped strictures. These new licenses must be renewed annually. With these improvements to existing regulation, motor vehicle operators will no longer wonder if they will receive payment for a job well done. Why is this legislation necessary? We must be mindful that these scams are not easily discouraged. For example, in Georgia, one group of individuals operated twelve different freight broker companies over a period of 3 years--continuously evading law enforcement and the truckers they defrauded by changing the name and location of their business--while never paying the truck operators who actually moved the freight. In the end, this racketeering enterprise collected over $500,000, most of which was due to the operators. In fact, it was the diligent efforts of Georgia law enforcement that broke up this operation, not the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, who the government has charged with preventing these sorts of fraud. We must update these regulations, and provide FMCSA with more tools to prevent these kinds of criminal activities. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation as we move forward.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, last Monday, our Nation paused to remember the sacrifices that the men and women of our Armed Forces have made over the past 235 years. Indeed, Memorial Day is a time to reflect on the freedoms and liberties we enjoy because of the heroic deeds of these brave service members. For those who made it back, many seek to continue giving back to the nation they love. Today I wish to recognize one such veteran, Philip Lander, who is the owner of Atlantic Defense Company, a small, service-disabled veteran-owned construction firm in my home State of Maine that provides other veterans with an opportunity to find meaningful employment upon their return. For his efforts, Mr. Lander has been named the Small Business Administration's 2010 Maine Veteran Small Business Champion, a truly prestigious honor that only begins to highlight his incredible work to help America's veterans. Indeed, Mr. Lander can lay claim to a distinguished record of service to our Nation dating back to 1970, when he enlisted in the U.S. Army during his time at the University of Maine. After 2 years of service, he returned to Maine to complete a degree in agricultural engineering during which time he joined the Air National Guard. Mr. Lander was called up to active duty during several notable conflicts, including Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm and the Bosnian war in the 1990s, and was recalled to duty after the tragic events of September 11, 2001. Mr. Lander founded Atlantic Defense Company in 2005, after retiring from the U.S. Air Force the year before. Atlantic Defense immediately got to work upon its inception, renovating the well-known Jordan Pond House in Maine's Acadia National Park, as well as taking on a contract for the New Jersey Air National Guard rebuilding ground support equipment. Shortly after the scandal at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Atlantic Defense sought to help America's veterans receive the care they are entitled to by assisting in the rehabilitation of the Nation's VA hospital system. The company performed work at several hospitals across New England, including Togus in Maine and Westhaven in Connecticut. Always seeking to give back to those who have served, Mr. Lander is involved in the Helmets to Hardhats program, which has the goal of helping veterans of the military, Reserves, and Guard transition from active duty to jobs in the construction industry. His company also transports a medical van to remote spots throughout the northwest portion of Maine, to ensure that veterans living in those areas are able to receive care from the Togus VA system. Mr. Lander also seeks to employ veterans in his company, which currently has 15 to 20 year-round employees, as well as through subcontracting opportunities with similar service-disabled veteran-owned firms. It has been said of the members of our Nation's Armed Forces that some gave all, but all gave some, and clearly, Philip Lander continues to give back even after his longtime career of service to our nation. His generous and selfless efforts to employ fellow veterans and provide them with critical opportunities back home is admirable. I congratulate him on his recognition as the 2010 Maine Veteran Small Business Champion, and wish everyone at Atlantic Defense Company success in future projects.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Smith & Wesson in Houlton, ME--an Aroostook County economic anchor and an undeniable beacon for businesses in our great State and the Nation, especially in these precarious economic times. Indeed, the name Smith & Wesson has been synonymous with excellence since 1852, and I am proud to say it has been part of Maine's history since 1966 when the Houlton facility first opened its doors. Over the Easter recess, I was privileged to visit the Smith & Wesson plant where its employees, in demonstrating their meticulous craftsmanship in manufacturing handcuffs and handguns, truly exemplify Maine's legendary work ethic and can-do spirit. As I toured the facility and spoke with these committed team members, I had the opportunity to learn about the vital role they play in assembling their products--and I couldn't help but beam with pride in their dedication to their craft. Their inexhaustible energy was palpable throughout their newly expanded plant, which now allows for shifts 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I was also impressed to meet and speak with Smith & Wesson's plant manager, Terry Wade, who has been with the branch since 1972. Terry clearly is deeply devoted to his work as he labors side by side with his employees. A humble individual who credits even his own successes to others, Terry is a force for innovation--and as I discovered, he invented a handcuff model, currently being produced by the company, for which he holds a patent. Terry is a shining testament to the loyalty and drive of Houlton's Smith & Wesson workers, many of whom have been there for more than 20 years. And let me just say, what began over 40 years ago as a small manufacturing arm of the larger parent company--making parts for revolver assembly and shipping just one 40-pound box of parts a week from a 2,000 square foot building--has evolved steadily from a staff of 18 to today's 160 dedicated men and women who are second to none. In fact, the Houlton plant just completed a hiring phase which, frankly, is outstanding when we consider the tenuous state of our economy and the herculean challenge of creating jobs. Individuals and families are still experiencing the troubling effects of the worst recession since World War II, with unemployment hovering near 10 percent nationwide, so I and, indeed, all of us in this Chamber cannot commend the Houlton facility enough for bucking this trend and hiring more staff. In addition to developing Smith & Wesson's exemplary line of restraints, the Houlton plant also makes all of the company's semi- automatic rimfire pistols, the Walther PPK and PPK/S, and the SW1911 Series pistols. Due in large part to the exceptional team in Houlton, Smith & Wesson ranks first in the supply of restraints to law enforcement and their weapons are highly sought after by police agencies, security divisions, and military organizations--who surely all recognize the invaluable expertise and reliable quality that goes into each item. The accomplishments of this phenomenal enterprise in Maine are remarkable. In March 2009, the plant reached an extraordinary milestone when after 30 years of producing high quality handcuffs, it made its six millionth pair. What a landmark occasion for a signature product used worldwide. And with the recent increase in the workforce--not to mention an impressive half-million dollar expansion to their firing range--Smith & Wesson in Houlton was recently named Houlton Business of the Year for 2009--a well-deserved accolade. President Theodore Roosevelt once said that, ``far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.'' Those words could not ring more true as we recognize this American success story. Smith & Wesson could not be more emblematic of the world-class industry and workforces that are associated with our great State of Maine. No wonder our State motto is ``Dirigo'' or ``I lead,'' as that is just what this Smith & Wesson plant in Houlton has been doing for more than 44 years.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the outstanding contributions of one of my staff members, Matthew Berger, during his nearly 5 years of service to the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and to the people of this country. Matthew has decided to begin a new professional chapter in his life, and when he leaves the Senate this month, there will be a noticeable void in my staff. Matthew began his work with the committee in September 2005, starting as a special assistant to the staff director and quickly transitioning to become a professional staff member the next year. In his role as professional staff, Matthew became my principal adviser on economic matters, and he helped me develop legislation and policy ideas on a host of issues, from the annual Federal budget process to Social Security and pensions. For the last 2 years, Matthew has served as economist and press secretary for my committee staff, a far-reaching role that afforded him the ability to display his many talents, including his strong writing style and vast knowledge of all matters pertaining to the Nation's financial system. Over the past several years, Matthew has played a critical role in assisting me to develop and introduce legislation on a variety of issues. His research efforts were crucial in my developing the Home Office Tax Deduction Simplification Act in both the 110th and 111th Congresses, as well as numerous amendments to a variety of bills, including the recent financial regulatory reform legislation. Matthew was my lead staff member for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as well as for the yearly budget resolution, and as such, he is certainly well versed in the Senate amendment process. Matthew's efforts to promote my legislative priorities frequently helped me attract a broad coalition of cosponsors. Matthew has also helped me draft detailed editorials for several national and local Maine publications. Prior to joining my committee staff, Matthew spent 5\1/2\ years working on tax issues for Deloitte Tax LLP and developing a solid understanding and knowledge of our Nation's tax policy, making him a tremendous asset as soon as he began his work on the Hill. As a national tax manager, Matthew advised numerous clients on the impacts of tax law, helping them anticipate and adjust to any changes in the law. During his time at Deloitte, Matthew authored several articles and portions of books, and contributed frequently to Tax News & Views, one of the company's publications for its clientele. Additionally, he was instrumental in the design, launch, and management of Tax News & Views: Health Care Edition, which highlighted recent judicial, regulatory, and tax developments regarding health care. Matthew also served as a research assistant at the Hoover Institution during his time at Stanford University, where he earned his degree in economics. Matthew's next endeavor takes him to the National Multi Housing Council, where he will be the vice president of tax. I am confident that they will benefit greatly from Matthew's unparalleled knowledge of the Tax Code, as well as his admirable work ethic and tremendous dedication to what he does. They will also be getting a true team player--someone who establishes and cultivates strong relationships with his colleagues. And despite the whirlwind Senate schedule, Matthew frequently found the time on Monday evenings to platoon at first base for my office's softball team, ``Snowe Business.'' Over the past 5 years, I have been consistently impressed by Matthew's passion for public service. I am grateful for his incredible willingness to work long hours to help me prepare for hearings and meetings, and I am indebted to him for his involvement in helping shape some of the most significant domestic legislation of our lifetimes. From the economic stimulus legislation we passed last February to the financial regulatory reform bill we completed just last week, Matthew has been a key asset in a number of considerable policy matters during his time on the Hill. I will miss his tremendous contributions to my office and his remarkable analytical skills and institutional knowledge. While I am sad to see him leave, I wish both he and his beautiful wife LaNitra the best in their incredibly bright futures.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as the summer months are upon us, millions of Americans will indulge in the traditional summertime treat of ice cream. Almost nothing is as refreshing and enjoyable on a hot summer day as a cold scoop of ice cream, and a company in my home State of Maine is making it possible to enjoy this dessert year round. I rise today to honor Shain's of Maine, a family-owned and operated small business that has been serving this delicious frozen treat year-round to Mainers since 1979. Shain's of Maine is based in Sanford and began as a small retail ice cream company three decades ago. Over the years, Shain's has continued to grow and now operates a restaurant and a thriving wholesale division. It has been reported that Shain's dishes out as much as 3,000 quarts of ice cream a day in winter and 10,000 quarts a day in summer! Shain's credits the hard work and loyalty of its employees with their ability to keep up with the tremendous demand for its product. Shain's employees speak fondly of the atmosphere and fun working environment at Shain's and also boast about some of the ``sweet'' perks working at this small business, which include: free ice cream, breaks whenever the employees want, and the occasional half-filled quart of ice cream to take home. In order to attract new customers, Shain's markets its products by sending out samples to restaurants and other establishments that sell ice cream. Shain's has always taken pride in its superior quality and service, and attributes those same virtues with the company's longevity and success today. Shain's commitment to the customer and ability to respond to the needs of its loyal fans has allowed Shain's to grow tremendously throughout its existence. Indeed, Shain's currently delivers its 100 flavors of ice cream to 300 independent stores and 100 ice cream stands. Its Sanford location offers customers creative sundaes--including its famed Wipeout Sundae, including four ice cream flavors, four toppings, whipped cream, and cherries--as well as a variety of frappes, floats, sherbets, and frozen yogurts. One particular ice cream concoction has become wildly popular among Mainers because of its connection to the local minor league baseball team. The Portland Sea Dogs, Maine's AA affiliate of the Boston Red Sox, offer one of Shain's delicious creations, the classic Sea Dog Biscuit, at their home games. The Sea Dog Biscuit is Shain's take on the traditional ice cream sandwich, featuring vanilla ice cream and two giant chocolate chip cookies. It is this kind of creativity and clever marketing that allows Shain's to differentiate itself from other, larger ice cream companies. This marvelous story of a successful small business is a reminder to us all that caring for customers and valuing your employees can result in long term success in any industry. As countless tourists travel to Vacationland this summer, I am certain that many will be searching for a cool treat to satisfy their sweet tooth, and Shain's of Maine will stand ready with scoops in hand! I congratulate Shain's of Maine for its ongoing dedication to providing delicious ice cream for Mainers and tourists alike, and I wish the company many more years of success to come.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today, during National Small business Week, along with my colleague Senator Cardin, to introduce the Small Business Training in Federal Contracting Certification Act. This vital piece of legislation builds upon the Small Business Contracting Revitalization Act, S. 2989, which passed unanimously out of the Small Business Committee on March 4, and would require the development of small business training for contracting officials. The bill we introduce today would take an additional step by requiring contracting officials to successfully complete small business training prior to receiving certification in Federal contracting. During these devastating economic times, with small business owners struggling to retain jobs, much less create new jobs, it is paramount that small businesses have a fair opportunity to contract with Federal Agencies, because the Federal Government is the largest buyer of goods and services in the world, spending over $500 billion in fiscal year 2009 alone. I remain frankly dismayed by the myriad ways the Federal Government has time and again egregiously failed to meet its statutory, government-wide small business ``goaling'' requirements that 23 percent of all Federal procurement dollars must be allocated to small contracting firms. This legislation would help the Federal Government to meet--and even exceed--its 23 percent goal, because it would require investing time and training in contracting officials who make the ultimate determination on contract awards be trained in small business procurement issues. Contracting officials have a great deal of responsibility. They provide the Federal government with expertise when buying goods and services to enable agencies to achieve their mission by fairly and reasonably obligating taxpayer dollars while simultaneously addressing our Nation's socio-economic needs. I have heard from constituents and others in the contracting community that contracting officials do not understand their duty to provide opportunities to small businesses to the maximum extent practicable. So, it is imperative that we provide contracting officials the tools they need to bolster small business participation in Federal contracting--to include training on small business government contracting set-aside programs, understanding size standards and the North American Industry Classification System codes and how they apply to the contract award process, conducting market research, as well as all of the Small Business Administration's resources and programs available to them. Small businesses are the engine of our economy and in this time of economic hardship, the Federal Government must provide our Nation's entrepreneurs with every opportunity to succeed. Federal contracting can be an instrumental part of a larger strategy for broadening small businesses' customer base and creating jobs. In my leadership capacity on the Senate Small Business Committee, I have long been a champion of removing barriers to small businesses seeking entry into the Federal marketplace. Through the years, I have introduced numerous bills that combat contract bundling, mandate recurrent small business size standard adjustments, ensure equal opportunity to compete for Federal contracts among the various socio-economic small businesses groups, and reduce fraud and abuse in SBA's small business contracting programs. The Federal Government's inability to consistently meet all of its small business contracting goals is unjustifiable. Only one category of small business contracting goals--small disadvantaged businesses--has been met, while the goals for the three other programs--historically underutilized business zones, HUBZone, small businesses, women-owned small businesses, and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses-- has never been achieved. It is inconceivable as to why this remains a problem year after year, especially since contracts awarded using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act dollars have demonstrated that attainment of these goals is possible. In conclusion, I believe that requiring certification training for Federal contracting officers will help the Government meet the statutory small business contracting goals and will increase small business access to Federal contracts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today, during National Small business Week, along with my colleague Senator Cardin, to introduce the Small Business Training in Federal Contracting Certification Act. This vital piece of legislation builds upon the Small Business Contracting Revitalization Act, S. 2989, which passed unanimously out of the Small Business Committee on March 4, and would require the development of small business training for contracting officials. The bill we introduce today would take an additional step by requiring contracting officials to successfully complete small business training prior to receiving certification in Federal contracting. During these devastating economic times, with small business owners struggling to retain jobs, much less create new jobs, it is paramount that small businesses have a fair opportunity to contract with Federal Agencies, because the Federal Government is the largest buyer of goods and services in the world, spending over $500 billion in fiscal year 2009 alone. I remain frankly dismayed by the myriad ways the Federal Government has time and again egregiously failed to meet its statutory, government-wide small business ``goaling'' requirements that 23 percent of all Federal procurement dollars must be allocated to small contracting firms. This legislation would help the Federal Government to meet--and even exceed--its 23 percent goal, because it would require investing time and training in contracting officials who make the ultimate determination on contract awards be trained in small business procurement issues. Contracting officials have a great deal of responsibility. They provide the Federal government with expertise when buying goods and services to enable agencies to achieve their mission by fairly and reasonably obligating taxpayer dollars while simultaneously addressing our Nation's socio-economic needs. I have heard from constituents and others in the contracting community that contracting officials do not understand their duty to provide opportunities to small businesses to the maximum extent practicable. So, it is imperative that we provide contracting officials the tools they need to bolster small business participation in Federal contracting--to include training on small business government contracting set-aside programs, understanding size standards and the North American Industry Classification System codes and how they apply to the contract award process, conducting market research, as well as all of the Small Business Administration's resources and programs available to them. Small businesses are the engine of our economy and in this time of economic hardship, the Federal Government must provide our Nation's entrepreneurs with every opportunity to succeed. Federal contracting can be an instrumental part of a larger strategy for broadening small businesses' customer base and creating jobs. In my leadership capacity on the Senate Small Business Committee, I have long been a champion of removing barriers to small businesses seeking entry into the Federal marketplace. Through the years, I have introduced numerous bills that combat contract bundling, mandate recurrent small business size standard adjustments, ensure equal opportunity to compete for Federal contracts among the various socio-economic small businesses groups, and reduce fraud and abuse in SBA's small business contracting programs. The Federal Government's inability to consistently meet all of its small business contracting goals is unjustifiable. Only one category of small business contracting goals--small disadvantaged businesses--has been met, while the goals for the three other programs--historically underutilized business zones, HUBZone, small businesses, women-owned small businesses, and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses-- has never been achieved. It is inconceivable as to why this remains a problem year after year, especially since contracts awarded using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act dollars have demonstrated that attainment of these goals is possible. In conclusion, I believe that requiring certification training for Federal contracting officers will help the Government meet the statutory small business contracting goals and will increase small business access to Federal contracts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Senate Small Business Committee, I am delighted to rise today, during National Small Business Week, with Senator Landrieu, who is Chair of the Committee, to introduce the Small Business Tax Equalization and Compliance Act. Our bipartisan measure is a pro-small business bill and would allow the salon industry to have the same tax rules on tips paid to employees as is permitted in the restaurant industry. The legislation would increase compliance with payroll tax obligations and will make sure that the women who work in the salon industry earn all the Social Security retirement and disability benefits they should be entitled to. It would also help to prevent salons that do not follow the tax law from gaining a competitive disadvantage against those that do follow the law. The companion bill in the House is H.R. 3724, which was introduced Representative Shelley Berkley and Representative Kevin Brady. Clearly this legislation will help all parts of the salon industry, big and small, men and women. But the reality is that because 84 percent of the workforce in the salon industry is female, this issue has special relevance for women. When women work as independent contractors at hair salons, they are less likely to disclose all of their tips for purposes of paying Social Security taxes. As a result, they reduce their future right to earn retirement and disability benefits in the Social Security system and reduce the size of any benefit they do ultimately earn. Making sure that working women are correctly paying into Social Security is critical to their future retirement security because many of these women will have had no other retirement benefits available to them. We know that women are disproportionately dependent on Social Security for their retirement benefits, a March 2010 study by the Women for Women's Policy Research showed that women's Social Security benefits in 2008 were only about 75 percent of the benefits earned by men and it comprised about half of their total retirement income. By contrast, Social Security benefits comprised roughly one third of men's retirement income. Earning the right to collect a decent Social Security benefit is vital to women. As a small business issue, salons are a quintessential small business on Main Streets across America. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 98 percent of salon industry firms have only one establishment; 92 percent of salon establishments have sales of less than $500,000; and 82 percent of salon establishments have fewer than 10 employees. Extending the tip tax credit to salon owners would allow them to reinvest in their businesses and employees, create new jobs, granting new economic and employment opportunities in their local communities. I specifically want to explain what this legislation would do. First, it would provide the salon industry with the same type of tax credit currently available in the restaurant industry. The credit is for employers to offset the matching Social Security and Medicare taxes that the salon pays on the tips that employees receive from customers. Next, the bill would help to make more even-handed IRS enforcement of laws on payroll and income taxes. Without this legislation it is often the lopsided practice of the IRS to seek back taxes from the employer but rarely from the employee or independent contractor despite the requirement that taxes be paid in equal measure. The legislation will protect both legitimate independent contractors and employees who pay their taxes but frees up IRS resources to focus on those bad actors who are not complying with the law. Although non- employer salons comprise 87 percent of establishments, their reported sales represent only 36 percent of total salon industry revenues, implying a significant underreporting of income in the non-employer segment. This legislation includes education and reporting requirements which will help address the ``tax gap'' and reveal a valuable new source of tax revenues for the federal Government. This is a win-win- win for the salons, for employees, and for the government. This bill is supported by the Professional Beauty Association, the largest association in the professional beauty industry, which is comprised of salon and spa owners, manufacturers and distributors of salon and spa products, and individual licensed cosmetologists. Finally, I want to thank two salon owners who brought this issue to my attention, Alan Labos of Akari Salon in Portland, Maine and Tiffany Conway of bei capelli salon in Scarborough, Maine. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support our bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Senate Small Business Committee, I am delighted to rise today, during National Small Business Week, with Senator Landrieu, who is Chair of the Committee, to introduce the Small Business Tax Equalization and Compliance Act. Our bipartisan measure is a pro-small business bill and would allow the salon industry to have the same tax rules on tips paid to employees as is permitted in the restaurant industry. The legislation would increase compliance with payroll tax obligations and will make sure that the women who work in the salon industry earn all the Social Security retirement and disability benefits they should be entitled to. It would also help to prevent salons that do not follow the tax law from gaining a competitive disadvantage against those that do follow the law. The companion bill in the House is H.R. 3724, which was introduced Representative Shelley Berkley and Representative Kevin Brady. Clearly this legislation will help all parts of the salon industry, big and small, men and women. But the reality is that because 84 percent of the workforce in the salon industry is female, this issue has special relevance for women. When women work as independent contractors at hair salons, they are less likely to disclose all of their tips for purposes of paying Social Security taxes. As a result, they reduce their future right to earn retirement and disability benefits in the Social Security system and reduce the size of any benefit they do ultimately earn. Making sure that working women are correctly paying into Social Security is critical to their future retirement security because many of these women will have had no other retirement benefits available to them. We know that women are disproportionately dependent on Social Security for their retirement benefits, a March 2010 study by the Women for Women's Policy Research showed that women's Social Security benefits in 2008 were only about 75 percent of the benefits earned by men and it comprised about half of their total retirement income. By contrast, Social Security benefits comprised roughly one third of men's retirement income. Earning the right to collect a decent Social Security benefit is vital to women. As a small business issue, salons are a quintessential small business on Main Streets across America. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 98 percent of salon industry firms have only one establishment; 92 percent of salon establishments have sales of less than $500,000; and 82 percent of salon establishments have fewer than 10 employees. Extending the tip tax credit to salon owners would allow them to reinvest in their businesses and employees, create new jobs, granting new economic and employment opportunities in their local communities. I specifically want to explain what this legislation would do. First, it would provide the salon industry with the same type of tax credit currently available in the restaurant industry. The credit is for employers to offset the matching Social Security and Medicare taxes that the salon pays on the tips that employees receive from customers. Next, the bill would help to make more even-handed IRS enforcement of laws on payroll and income taxes. Without this legislation it is often the lopsided practice of the IRS to seek back taxes from the employer but rarely from the employee or independent contractor despite the requirement that taxes be paid in equal measure. The legislation will protect both legitimate independent contractors and employees who pay their taxes but frees up IRS resources to focus on those bad actors who are not complying with the law. Although non- employer salons comprise 87 percent of establishments, their reported sales represent only 36 percent of total salon industry revenues, implying a significant underreporting of income in the non-employer segment. This legislation includes education and reporting requirements which will help address the ``tax gap'' and reveal a valuable new source of tax revenues for the federal Government. This is a win-win- win for the salons, for employees, and for the government. This bill is supported by the Professional Beauty Association, the largest association in the professional beauty industry, which is comprised of salon and spa owners, manufacturers and distributors of salon and spa products, and individual licensed cosmetologists. Finally, I want to thank two salon owners who brought this issue to my attention, Alan Labos of Akari Salon in Portland, Maine and Tiffany Conway of bei capelli salon in Scarborough, Maine. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support our bill. 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, during National Small Business Week, along with my colleague Senator Gillibrand, to introduce the Fairness in Women-Owned Small Business Contracting Act. This vital piece of legislation builds upon a bill I introduced last summer, the Small Business Contracting Programs Parity Act, S. 1489. The purpose of the bill is to remove the inequities involved in the women-owned small business contracting program. As former Chair and now Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have long been a champion of women entrepreneurs and have urged both past and present administrations to implement the woman-owned small business, WOSB, Federal contracting program, which was enacted into law ten years ago. On March 4, 2010, the Small Business Administration, SBA, finally proposed a workable rule to implement the women's procurement program. The SBA's new proposed rule clarifies that individual Federal agencies do not have to certify that they have engaged in past discrimination against women in order for their contracting officials to reserve contracts for WOSBs. The proposed rule also identifies 83 eligible industries under the program as those in which women-owned small businesses are underrepresented or substantially underrepresented. These initiatives will help increase opportunities and access by women to Federal procurement. Although it is anticipated that the SBA will publish the final version of the women's procurement program by the end of the calendar year, the program will lack critical elements that the SBA's 8(a), historically underutilized business zones, and the service-disabled veteran-owned government contracting programs include. To remedy this, our bill will help provide tools women need to compete fairly in the federal contracting arena by allowing for receipt of non-competitive contracts, when circumstances allow. Moreover, the legislation would eliminate a restriction on the dollar amount of a contract that a WOSB can compete for, thus putting them on a level playing field with the other socioeconomic contracting programs. Women-owned small businesses have yet to receive their fair share of the Federal marketplace. As I have stated many times, I am dismayed that our Nation has repeatedly failed to meet all but one of its statutory small business contracting goals. In fiscal year 2008, the Federal Government missed meeting its overall goal for small business contracting by almost 2 percent. But not only did the Federal Government miss its overall small business goal, depriving small businesses of over $10 billion, it has never achieved its goal of 5 percent for WOSB, achieving only 3.4 percent in fiscal year 2008. Our bill would greatly assist Federal agencies in achieving the small business goaling requirement for WOSBs. 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, during National Small Business Week, along with my colleague Senator Gillibrand, to introduce the Fairness in Women-Owned Small Business Contracting Act. This vital piece of legislation builds upon a bill I introduced last summer, the Small Business Contracting Programs Parity Act, S. 1489. The purpose of the bill is to remove the inequities involved in the women-owned small business contracting program. As former Chair and now Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have long been a champion of women entrepreneurs and have urged both past and present administrations to implement the woman-owned small business, WOSB, Federal contracting program, which was enacted into law ten years ago. On March 4, 2010, the Small Business Administration, SBA, finally proposed a workable rule to implement the women's procurement program. The SBA's new proposed rule clarifies that individual Federal agencies do not have to certify that they have engaged in past discrimination against women in order for their contracting officials to reserve contracts for WOSBs. The proposed rule also identifies 83 eligible industries under the program as those in which women-owned small businesses are underrepresented or substantially underrepresented. These initiatives will help increase opportunities and access by women to Federal procurement. Although it is anticipated that the SBA will publish the final version of the women's procurement program by the end of the calendar year, the program will lack critical elements that the SBA's 8(a), historically underutilized business zones, and the service-disabled veteran-owned government contracting programs include. To remedy this, our bill will help provide tools women need to compete fairly in the federal contracting arena by allowing for receipt of non-competitive contracts, when circumstances allow. Moreover, the legislation would eliminate a restriction on the dollar amount of a contract that a WOSB can compete for, thus putting them on a level playing field with the other socioeconomic contracting programs. Women-owned small businesses have yet to receive their fair share of the Federal marketplace. As I have stated many times, I am dismayed that our Nation has repeatedly failed to meet all but one of its statutory small business contracting goals. In fiscal year 2008, the Federal Government missed meeting its overall goal for small business contracting by almost 2 percent. But not only did the Federal Government miss its overall small business goal, depriving small businesses of over $10 billion, it has never achieved its goal of 5 percent for WOSB, achieving only 3.4 percent in fiscal year 2008. Our bill would greatly assist Federal agencies in achieving the small business goaling requirement for WOSBs. 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, during National Small Business Week, along with my colleague Senator Gillibrand, to introduce the Fairness in Women-Owned Small Business Contracting Act. This vital piece of legislation builds upon a bill I introduced last summer, the Small Business Contracting Programs Parity Act, S. 1489. The purpose of the bill is to remove the inequities involved in the women-owned small business contracting program. As former Chair and now Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have long been a champion of women entrepreneurs and have urged both past and present administrations to implement the woman-owned small business, WOSB, Federal contracting program, which was enacted into law ten years ago. On March 4, 2010, the Small Business Administration, SBA, finally proposed a workable rule to implement the women's procurement program. The SBA's new proposed rule clarifies that individual Federal agencies do not have to certify that they have engaged in past discrimination against women in order for their contracting officials to reserve contracts for WOSBs. The proposed rule also identifies 83 eligible industries under the program as those in which women-owned small businesses are underrepresented or substantially underrepresented. These initiatives will help increase opportunities and access by women to Federal procurement. Although it is anticipated that the SBA will publish the final version of the women's procurement program by the end of the calendar year, the program will lack critical elements that the SBA's 8(a), historically underutilized business zones, and the service-disabled veteran-owned government contracting programs include. To remedy this, our bill will help provide tools women need to compete fairly in the federal contracting arena by allowing for receipt of non-competitive contracts, when circumstances allow. Moreover, the legislation would eliminate a restriction on the dollar amount of a contract that a WOSB can compete for, thus putting them on a level playing field with the other socioeconomic contracting programs. Women-owned small businesses have yet to receive their fair share of the Federal marketplace. As I have stated many times, I am dismayed that our Nation has repeatedly failed to meet all but one of its statutory small business contracting goals. In fiscal year 2008, the Federal Government missed meeting its overall goal for small business contracting by almost 2 percent. But not only did the Federal Government miss its overall small business goal, depriving small businesses of over $10 billion, it has never achieved its goal of 5 percent for WOSB, achieving only 3.4 percent in fiscal year 2008. Our bill would greatly assist Federal agencies in achieving the small business goaling requirement for WOSBs. 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, during National Small Business Week, along with my colleague Senator Gillibrand, to introduce the Fairness in Women-Owned Small Business Contracting Act. This vital piece of legislation builds upon a bill I introduced last summer, the Small Business Contracting Programs Parity Act, S. 1489. The purpose of the bill is to remove the inequities involved in the women-owned small business contracting program. As former Chair and now Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have long been a champion of women entrepreneurs and have urged both past and present administrations to implement the woman-owned small business, WOSB, Federal contracting program, which was enacted into law ten years ago. On March 4, 2010, the Small Business Administration, SBA, finally proposed a workable rule to implement the women's procurement program. The SBA's new proposed rule clarifies that individual Federal agencies do not have to certify that they have engaged in past discrimination against women in order for their contracting officials to reserve contracts for WOSBs. The proposed rule also identifies 83 eligible industries under the program as those in which women-owned small businesses are underrepresented or substantially underrepresented. These initiatives will help increase opportunities and access by women to Federal procurement. Although it is anticipated that the SBA will publish the final version of the women's procurement program by the end of the calendar year, the program will lack critical elements that the SBA's 8(a), historically underutilized business zones, and the service-disabled veteran-owned government contracting programs include. To remedy this, our bill will help provide tools women need to compete fairly in the federal contracting arena by allowing for receipt of non-competitive contracts, when circumstances allow. Moreover, the legislation would eliminate a restriction on the dollar amount of a contract that a WOSB can compete for, thus putting them on a level playing field with the other socioeconomic contracting programs. Women-owned small businesses have yet to receive their fair share of the Federal marketplace. As I have stated many times, I am dismayed that our Nation has repeatedly failed to meet all but one of its statutory small business contracting goals. In fiscal year 2008, the Federal Government missed meeting its overall goal for small business contracting by almost 2 percent. But not only did the Federal Government miss its overall small business goal, depriving small businesses of over $10 billion, it has never achieved its goal of 5 percent for WOSB, achieving only 3.4 percent in fiscal year 2008. Our bill would greatly assist Federal agencies in achieving the small business goaling requirement for WOSBs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.