Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Kerry to introduce the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2008. This measure is truly bipartisan in scope, and is the product of 9 months of negotiation. I am pleased that we have come to an agreement on a package that will further strengthen these programs--making them even more beneficial to small businesses. This bill would reauthorize the crucial Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR, and Small Business Technology Transfer, STTR, programs--which were last reauthorized in 2000. The SBIR and STTR programs award Federal research and development funds to small businesses to encourage them to innovate and commercialize new technologies, products, and services. These programs provide more than $2 billion in Federal research and development funding each year to small businesses, and the benefit to my State of Maine cannot be overstated. According to the most recent data, in fiscal year 2005, Maine's technology-based small businesses received more than $4.5 million in SBIR total awards. We simply cannot and must not allow these programs to expire at the end of this coming September. The legislation before us today which would provide key improvements to the SBIR and STTR programs are based on a comprehensive SBA Reauthorization bill that I introduced last Congress when I served as chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. This Congress, our committee has held two roundtables, with Federal agency heads and key interested stakeholders, in developing this measure. Specifically, our bill would increase the size of Phase I program awards from $100,000 to $150,000, and Phase II awards from $750,000 to $1 million. It would also tie future award increases to inflation. These pivotal reforms represent a well-spring of indispensable technological-fuel to the small business engines that drive our Nation's innovation. Since the SBIR program was created, small hi-tech firms have submitted more than 250,000 proposals, resulting in more than 60,000 awards worth approximately $19 billion. By doubling the percentage of Federal research and development dollars that the STTR program receives each year, and increasing the SBIR percentage by 1 percent over 10 years, we will infuse another $1 billion into the small business economy. At a time when our national economy is flagging due to skyrocketing energy prices and a correcting housing market, the SBIR program is more essential then ever, if we are to capitalize on the groundbreaking capacities of Nation's pioneering small businesses. While innovation in areas such as genomics, biotechnology, and nanotechnology present new opportunities, converting these ideas into marketable products involves substantial funding challenges. Many small businesses simply cannot afford the exorbitant cost of developing and bringing a product into the marketplace. In order to confront this challenge, our legislation offers a compromise solution to the venture capital or ``VC'' issue that has recently divided members of this committee and the SBIR community. This bill would allow limited involvement by majority-owned venture capital firms in the SBIR program which could receive only a maximum 18 percent of SBIR funding at the National Institutes of Health and 8 percent at all other qualifying agencies. These percentages correspond to the most recent Government Accountability Office data regarding VC investment in the SBIR program. Additionally, we leave in place well- established SBA rules designed to limit participation in the SBIR program to small businesses. Other key provisions in this vital legislation include the reauthorization and enhancement of my SBIR Defense Commercialization Pilot Program. Senator Kerry and I created this program in 108th Congress to encourage the award of contracts to SBIR firms. The bill also includes a provision to reauthorize and increase funding to the Federal and State Partnership, FAST, program which would allow each state--including Maine--to receive funding in the form of a grant to make available an array of services in support of the SBIR program. Now, more than ever, we in Congress must do everything within our power to help small businesses drive the recovery of our economy. It is imperative that we reauthorize the SBIR and STTR programs, particularly before the program terminates at the end of this fiscal year--fewer than 2 months away. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this vital measure in the full Senate, and then negotiating with the House Small Business Committee, so that the President can sign this package into law.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I want to make sure that the benefit of improved compliance from information reporting is outweighed by the cost of compliance. Can the Chairman expand on the benefits of the proposal versus the burden?

Ms. SNOWE. I concur with Senator Kerry, and appreciate the Senator's efforts on addressing the tax gap. While small businesses should not be excused from meeting their tax obligations, I also want to ensure that tax gap proposals such as this one meet a delicate balance of improving compliance in the least burdensome manner possible for the majority of small businesses who are already in compliance. I look forward to working with the Senator on the implementation of this provision in a manner that does not negatively impact small businesses. Section 2203

Ms. SNOWE. I am also concerned of the impact of this proposal on small businesses. Senator Kerry and I both want to make sure the additional tax compliance burden on small businesses will be minimal and the new information that will be collected will be protected. Can the chairman expand upon how this information will be used by the IRS?

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I rise in strong support of the Warm In Winter and Cool In Summer Act as the lead Republican cosponsor, along with 52 of my colleagues on both sides of the political aisle. I first thank the Senator from Vermont, Senator Sanders, for his tireless leadership on this vital issue of heating and cooling assistance and for his steadfast vigilance throughout the last few months in pressing for this debate on energy assistance when there is not a moment to waste in preparing for what could be the worst winter in a generation, given the historic cost of energy today. At a time when skyrocketing energy prices are at the forefront of our national agenda--when heating oil prices have increased from about $2.77 per gallon a year ago in my home State of Maine to a staggering $4.81 cents a gallon today, and when electricity has risen 3.6 percent in the last 12 months, and gas prices have jumped from $3.05 a gallon to $4.05 in the last year--as we know, it should come as no surprise that countless American families are faced with choices that, frankly, no family should have to make. Indeed, as a direct result of spiraling energy costs, 70 percent of low-income Americans are buying less at the grocery store, 31 percent are purchasing less medicine, and 19 percent say they have changed plans for the education of their children. Even now, in the midst of July, in truth, Americans--and certainly Mainers across my home State--are wondering how exactly they will pay for the fundamental necessity of heating their homes this coming winter, just as many others cannot afford the costs for critical cooling during these dangerously hot summer months in so many States. In fact, in South Carolina, electricity services have been suspended to 39,000 homes that are falling behind on their bills, leaving these individuals with no assistance to alleviate the stifling heat. In Arizona there has been a 40-percent spike in shutoffs for residential electricity users. The bottom line is this issue knows no boundaries regionally or politically. The reality is the stunning effects of these astronomical energy costs are not a regional problem, they are a national problem requiring national attention and a national solution. In fact, as I think about it, with the Low-Income Heating Assistance Program pending before the Senate--at least the motion to proceed; and I hope we will proceed, Mr. President and Members of this body, because I think we ought to be translating words into action--I think there is no better place to start than on this very crucial and vital program. In fact, if I recall, it was back in 1979 and 1980 when we first had the debate on whether to create this program called the Low-Income Fuel Assistance Program, and it was my first term in the House of Representatives. I, along with the late Speaker O'Neill, testified before the then House Appropriations Committee to create such a program. It was born out of the energy crisis that was engulfing our Nation at that time when we had gas lines here in the District of Columbia and across this country. It was interesting to think that at that time, in the midst of an energy crisis, that previously--6 years previously or 7 years previously--we had another energy crisis and, unfortunately, didn't learn from that event. Out of that crisis in 1979 and 1980, we created the Low-Income Fuel Assistance Program in order to give low-income families the ability to heat their homes and to cool their homes in other parts of the country. That is how this program was created. So I think this program was created as a result of a crisis--as a result of the failure of this country to create and enact a comprehensive energy plan. I think too today, 30 years later, we are in the same circumstance, regrettably and tragically, and the people who rely on this program should not be the victims of our inability, or our unwillingness, to address the energy problem. That is what we should come to terms with here in the Senate, that we should proceed to consider this legislation and have it become law. I think absolutely it is our responsibility and obligation to give peace of mind to our constituency as they are despairing about the oncoming winter and how they are going to meet the costs of home heating oil that is now close to $5 per gallon. I think we do have an obligation to continue to support this social safety net that is so essential. It is a matter of life and death, and I don't think they should be the victims of our political failure or our failure to address a comprehensive energy policy. That should happen. No doubt it should. Frankly, I hope we can reconcile our rhetoric here on the floor of the Senate with legislative action that becomes law that has an actual, direct impact on people's daily lives. They deserve that. They deserve for us to take action. Irrespective of the time or place we are in, in the Senate--whether or not it is a political year--we ought to reconcile our differences to do what is right for America on this mighty challenge that is facing so many across this country, including my constituency. Here we are in the third energy crisis of recent times, and we see that the program was at least designed to minimize the burden for the least fortunate for years and has provided a level of funding. However, as you can see, with the historically high home heating oil prices you see over time, and yet, even though we have provided funding for low- income fuel assistance basically on a consistent basis, it never addressed the gap between the level of funding and the costs for home heating oil. So we are seeing, as you can see in the recent times, in the recent months, what has happened to the cost of home heating oil. Yet at the same time the level of funding for low-income fuel assistance has leveled off. That is why we need the legislation that is pending before the Senate. My colleague Senator Sanders is absolutely right, we need to double this funding. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee as well for doubling the authorization. I appreciate his leadership on this question because we are in very different times, and that is the reason why we need to increase the level of support for this valuable program. This program is for the most vulnerable. We are talking about income limits of $17,680 for an individual, and the average individual recipient earns around $13,000 per year. Think about it. The assistance we are providing is for those who have income eligibility of somewhere between $17,000 and $13,000 on an individual basis. That is who we are talking about when it comes to the income eligibility standards for low-income fuel assistance--$13,000 for an individual and as high as $17,000, and for a family of four the limit is $36,000. In Maine, in terms of the projected costs for paying for a household for home heating oil during the course of a winter, based on today's prices, is close to $5,000, just to keep warm this winter--$5,000. So if the eligibility standards are $33,000--$36,000 for a family of four, and for an individual it is anywhere from $13,000 to $17,000, it costs $5,000 to heat one's home or residence for a winter. These are hard- working individuals and families who, quite frankly, were in desperate need of assistance back in 2006 when we witnessed the first major increase in home heating oil. So we were able to provide additional funding at that time of $1 billion for a total of $3.1 billion. At that point, again, it was a crisis that, given the sharp hike, New Englanders were paying about $2.39 per gallon. Well, fast forward 2 years to today and you will see, based on our charts we have provided, that oil costs $4.81. That is a 75-percent increase in only 2 years--75 percent. So we augmented the funding back in 2006 up to $3.1 billion when home heating oil was $2.39. Today, it is at $4.81, and of course we are in July, so we have no idea in terms of what we can anticipate or expect for home heating oil costs when it comes to winter. So a 75-percent increase as we know it today. So when winter actually arrives, New England could spend, under today's prices, more than $19 billion on home heating oil--$19 billion on home heating oil alone. That is a staggering price increase compared to back in 2006 when it was approximately $9 billion. That gives us a dimension of the escalation of the problem as we face it today and still not knowing what we can expect when winter approaches. As we see on this other chart I have presented, here is the cost of home heating oil, and as we have seen, it has increased 147 percent since 2004. So basically, in the last 3\1/2\ years, we have seen an increase in home heating oil of 147 percent. Yet when you look at the wage increase, it has only been 17.1 percent. So you see that the cost of home heating oil in Maine has outpaced wages by 174 percent. Prices are now well ensconced in the stratosphere, with the legitimate fears that the sky may not, in fact, be the limit. It is a huge disparity when you see how little wages have grown over the last 3\1/2\ years and what has happened with a basic commodity such as home heating oil having increased 147 percent. Yet given all of these alarming numbers, what has happened to the level of low-income fuel assistance? It has actually dropped. It has actually declined to $2.5 billion from the $3.1 billion that we provided and that I sought, very actively, back in 2006, when the prices had spiked. So we were able to augment, as I said, that funding by an additional billion dollars to reach $3.1 billion, but unfortunately, the funding for low-income fuel assistance fell back to $2.5 billion. So it obviously doesn't make sense. We are actually regressing in terms of a level of funding at a time when home heating oil is actually skyrocketing and we don't know where the boundaries are, we don't know where the limitations are. As I said, the sky could be the limit, given what the unknown presents for the future with respect to home heating oil. In testimony before the Senate Committee on Small Business that Senator Kerry and I convened last month to discuss the dimensions involving small businesses and home heating oil and what the impact would be in our region, I had an individual from my State--her name is Jennifer Brooks--who is the community relations manager at Penquis Community Action Program. They are on the front lines of providing critical services to Maine in multiple counties during these difficult times. Last year, the community action program provided fuel assistance to more than 9,000 Maine households. The average benefit received by each household was $736. In order to qualify for low-income fuel assistance this upcoming heating season, a family of four must earn less than $31,800. So under the best case scenario, if a household does qualify for LIHEAP and benefits remain constant, a household on average can expect to receive 158 gallons of oil for the season, which isn't even enough to fill a 250-gallon tank one time. We know it takes, on average, to get through a Maine winter, 850 gallons of heating oil--850 to 1,000 gallons--and it costs $4.81, which we know is the price today. When you look at what is available in the low-income fuel assistance program, if we fail to take action and increase funding, as this legislation would prescribe, to $5.1 billion, our lowest income families will receive a mere 19 percent of their home heating oil costs through this program--the lowest in the program's history. Now, it is unbelievable to think people can anticipate this winter facing, at the minimum, spending close to $5,000 for home heating oil. Yet given the dimensions of this program, we will only be able to provide support for 19 percent of the entire cost for the entire winter. As you can see from the previous support of this program, the percentages have declined over the years. Over the last 25 years, the average Maine low-income fuel assistance recipient received assistance that provided 41 percent of their heating oil costs. Last year, that started eroding, and it declined from $3.1 billion to $2.5 billion. For the nearly 50,000 Maine households that received benefits, they were only provided 35 percent of the entire cost for the season. At today's prices, if we fail to increase or double the funding of the low-income fuel assistance program to $5.1 billion, then we can only provide 19 percent of the entire cost of winter for home heating oil. Obviously, I think that speaks volumes, in terms of the dimension of the problem we are facing and what families are facing in my State, in New England, and across the country. Whether you are living in a cold- or hot-weather region, you depend on this program either for air- conditioning or heating during the winter. It is a basic social safety net program. I think it is absolutely incumbent upon us to do everything we can to double funding for this program and to do it now and provide the assurances, instead of the rhetoric about what we will do sometime down the road. I think we do have a responsibility, individually and collectively, to make the process work in the Senate and in the Congress, with the President, to do what is right for this country, for these families who are agonizing over the anticipation of what next winter will bring in terms of costs. Here, with this program, we are talking about the lowest of incomes. When it comes to $13,000, $17,000 for a family of four, or even $31,000 or $33,000, we need to help these families and these individuals, without question. As my constituent Jennifer Brooks said in her testimony before the Small Business Committee: If the average person on fuel assistance makes about $14,000 a year and the benefit only pays for 158 gallons of oil, I don't know how they come up with any more money . . . they can't, with the cost of food and the cost of gas and everything else. There is no money left over to pay even in the summer months . . . there is talk [of having] ``warming places'' so people can shut their furnaces down real low during the day and go to libraries and stay warm during the day . . . we are in a crisis. Last year, I heard many stories. After we were expecting $2.50 to $2.70 a gallon for home heating oil, I heard stories of desperation then. One TV station, channel 13, in Portland, ME, decided they would initiate a program where they would provide a few hundred gallons of heating oil to four families requiring assistance. They were asked to submit e-mails or letters if they believe they qualified for this assistance. They received an astounding response, with more than 2,000 requests. Again, there is no doubt as to the magnitude of the problem. That was for last winter. One hesitates to think about what we can expect for this winter, when prices have increased by more than $2 since last winter. Here we are in July. So we must step up to our responsibilities in this crisis and fully fund the low-income fuel assistance program at the $5.1 billion. That is the least we can do. It is not that it will address all the problems or fulfill the needs for all those individuals who rely on this program, but certainly it will be a very important step forward. We must do it now. We should be proactive and preemptive and prescriptive in our measures, not reactive, and not wait until after the August recess and continue to dither and talk but fail to take action. We have a responsibility to provide assurances to those people we represent in this country, to take the strong measures, and to take those actions that are so vital and instrumental to providing peace of mind during these very difficult times when people are facing these mighty challenges. There are many ways to debate this energy problem. Certainly, we should have a comprehensive energy solution, no doubt. I don't think we should place the burden on those individuals who rely on this program, who are concerned--deeply concerned--and anguishing about the future because of our failure to reconcile our differences to reach out across the political aisle. I question as to why we cannot do it. I don't think we should live in an all-or-nothing world because that is not the world our constituents live in. These issues are not mutually exclusive. It is not that we cannot do one because we were haven't done the other. How about starting someplace? We can start with this program, which was born because of an energy crisis 30 years ago. We are in a similar circumstance today. These people should not bear the brunt of our political failures or unwillingness or inability to resolve these differences. I think the Senate should not be a roadblock to results but a pathway to hope. What I see here today, regrettably, is, again, my way or the highway. Here, at a time when we are dealing with monumental challenges confronting this Nation--and they are affecting our country simultaneously. Look at our economy and the job picture, the housing, energy, and we are in a war in Iraq and in Afghanistan and we continue to dither, to remain intractable, intransigent about achieving results. Truly, it is not in keeping with the legacy of this institution, which has done so much throughout our history. That is why Senator Nelson, from Nebraska, and I sent a letter to the President, along with 14 other colleagues, asking the President for a bipartisan summit. After all, we think these times demand it. The President should convene a national energy summit, bringing together the congressional leadership, on a bipartisan basis, and other Members of the House and Senate from the committees of jurisdiction, environmental leaders, industry leaders and scientists, to sit around a table to see what we can do for the good of this country now. It is immaterial that we are in an election year, that we are 7 months away from the election. The American people deserve to have us honor our obligations as elected officials. After all, there was an election in 2006, as I recall. We promised our constituents we would work on the problems facing this country. Here we are today with an abysmal 14 percent approval rating. I don't know, that may be the lowest approval rating in the history of Gallup Polls. We all bear a responsibility, individually and collectively. We should care how Americans feel about this institution and what can we do every day to make it better. Some days, I wonder if we wake up and say: Well, this is going to be another ``can't do'' day. We are not going to achieve anything for the people. We are going to see if we can continue to be a roadblock to results and action. We are going to do everything we can to be a barrier to solutions. We will wait for the next election or next year or maybe some other time. Yet people are suffering. They are losing their jobs. They are wondering how to heat their homes next winter. They are losing their homes. This is a time for us to step up to the plate and demonstrate to the American people that we can do it. Frankly, we are experiencing a crisis in confidence in America, in a variety of institutions, not the least of which is Congress. People are not only despairing about their individual situations, they are also despairing about the inability of elected officials in our political institutions to address these problems. It is not so much that America has these problems, it is the question of our inability to address them and to reach across the political aisle. I hope we can find a way to extricate ourselves from this confrontational morass and not constantly engage in all-or-nothing politics and scoring political points, making it all about the election, and not live up to the expectations the people rightfully have of their elected officials and political institutions to address the mighty challenges confronting this Nation. Without question, we can and we must have answers to this national emergency. That is why I thought it would be an important step forward if the President convened an emergency energy summit. There are short- term and long-term solutions. There are many pieces to the energy pie. The low-income energy assistance program is a critical aspect of that in terms of mitigating the impact on the most vulnerable in our society. We have an obligation, at a very minimum, to address that for these individuals. It is not their burden and it should not be; they should not have the responsibility of our failure to address the energy problem. That is why we need to double the funding for this critical program. Yes, we should pass legislation with respect to speculation. It is something most of us agree on. Why can't we do it? There are other aspects to energy policy we have failed to address. Everybody is agreeing we should extend the tax credit for renewables. So why haven't we done that? It should have been part of the stimulus package--and it was, to a point. But, regrettably, again, there were those who opposed it. Yet it could have very well been stimulative to this economy. It would have created up to 100,000 jobs. In Maine, we get $1.5 billion for wind projects, but we didn't extend the tax credits for renewables beyond this year. Why couldn't we do it? Everybody talks about it. Yet we failed to address that problem. We keep postponing, deferring, delaying, and denying that the problem exists. Yet this is something that could be readily accomplished. My constituents are looking into alternatives; for example, wood pellet stoves or other energy-efficient means of heating our homes. Yet the tax credits for those have expired. They expired at the end of last year. So they cannot even resort to that as an alternative because, regrettably, we have not extended that tax credit. The question is, Why? Why are we at an impasse on those issues upon which we agree? I think that is the most startling dimension to the problems facing this country--that in the Senate, where we should be taking and adopting the can-do approach, why can't we do the right thing and address this energy crisis? We all agree extending tax credits for renewables is something we should do. So why aren't we doing it? Because individuals or companies or entities aren't going to make investments in renewables if they don't have the assurance of tax credits. That is abundantly clear. They have no way of knowing how long or whether they are going to be extended. They are not going to put themselves on the line financially without the certainty of knowing they will be extended. Why are we not doing that? It will create jobs and, certainly, we need job creation in America, at a time when unemployment is rising at high levels. We should be concerned about creating jobs, and that is one dimension. We should be concerned about creating alternatives, creating incentives, inspiring innovation, entrepreneurial spirit. We should do all of that and more, and we hesitate and fail to take action on issues on which we agree, which is truly dismaying and disconcerting, most certainly to the American people who depend on us to take those measures and those steps that can begin to resolve effectively the problems that are at hand. We can do all of these things. We are certainly capable of doing them, unless we are stuck in the status quo and the gridlock that constantly is where we try to score the political points time and time again to no avail. I hope we can proceed and take action on this very basic social safety net program for the most vulnerable in our society and demonstrate that we do have the opportunity, these rare moments, to reach across the political aisle and proceed to double the funding for this program at this moment in time because, certainly, it is one program that is of immense value to the people of my State and throughout this country, and it is certainly at the very least, at the minimal, what we should be able to accomplish. I hope we can do more. I hope we can find the political wherewithal to search within ourselves to reach across the political aisle so the monkey wrenches don't continue to grind down the deliberative process with polarization and partisanship that yields no achievements, no accomplishments, no opportunity, and provides no hope for the people we represent. The American people deserve more than what they are receiving today. Frankly, I cannot believe that we would adjourn for the August recess without addressing the energy crisis--this program, speculation, and much more. The American people do deserve to have a comprehensive approach. They do deserve to have their elected officials stay here as long as it takes, as much time as it requires for bold action that will be so essential and can measure it with the problems we are facing in this country today. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, with summer in full swing, I wish to celebrate a small business from my home State of Maine that has been satisfying our sweet tooth with delicious ice cream for several decades. Gifford's Ice Cream, a family-owned and operated firm with a long history of dairy farming in central and western Maine, provides its customers with creamy indulgences for all tastes. A familiar sight in Maine, people come from all around to enjoy Gifford's dozens of scrumptious, mouth-watering flavors. Serving Maine for over 100 years in the dairy business, a span of five generations, Gifford's began focusing its operations on summer treats in 1980, having previously supplied milk, cream, and other dairy products. Presently, Gifford's utilizes original family recipes to create more than 100 tempting varieties of ice cream and frozen yogurts. Crafting its rich ice cream with premium ingredients, including fresh milk and cream from local dairy farmers, Gifford's consistently churns out top- quality ice cream for its customers. While its main location is in Skowhegan, known as the heart of Maine's farm country, Gifford's has branched out to open ice cream stands in Auburn, Bangor, Farmington, and Waterville. Its ice cream is additionally available at supermarkets and other locations throughout the Northeast. Gifford's employs 25 people year-round, as well as an additional 75 during the busy summer months. Gifford's offers a wide array of flavors to choose from, including seasonal delights and new selections each year. From the staple vanilla and chocolate, to the eclectic orange pineapple and smurf cotton candy, Gifford's covers all its bases. Furthermore, Gifford's has recently added a number of frozen yogurt flavors, such as fudge overboard and strawberry banana, as well as no fat/no sugar added options, sherbets, and sorbets. Best of all, Gifford's offers quintessential Maine-related flavors, such as Maine maple walnut, birch bark, black bear, wild blueberry, and even deer tracks and lobster tracks. And while most everyone enjoys a good ice cream on occasion, Gifford's hasn't forgotten our four-legged friends, offering them Dog Bone Sundaes, complete with a scoop of ice cream and a dog biscuit. Throughout its illustrious history, Gifford's has garnered numerous awards, particularly for its ice cream. Among the recognitions are first place awards from the National Ice Cream Retailers Association for its strawberry and chocolate ice creams, as well as ``World's Best Vanilla'' at the World Dairy Expo in Madison, WI, in 2005 and ``World's Best Chocolate'' at last year's expo. The Skowhegan Area Chamber of Commerce also named Gifford's Ice Cream its Large Business of the Year earlier this year. In 2002, Gifford's began Cones for Kids, a program that rewards children 14 and younger who excel in academics, advance in scouting, or make a difference in their community. From earning an A on a reading quiz to volunteering at the neighborhood 4-H club, students can receive a free ice cream cone by enriching their lives through a host of positive and engaging activities. What has made Gifford's so successful both in the dairy business and at its ice cream stands is a passion for pleasing its customers. Setting out to create new flavors of ice cream every year, whether it be apple pie or peanut butter caramel cookie dough, Gifford's has transformed itself from a small dairy farm to Maine's largest statewide, independent, family-owned ice cream company. I congratulate president Roger Gifford, treasurer John Gifford, and everyone at Gifford's Ice Cream for their tremendous success, and wish them well this summer and beyond.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to mark a dark anniversary for the Hellenic-American community, and its Cypriot members in particular. Thirty-four years ago this week, the armed forces of Turkey violated the sovereignty and territory of the Republic of Cyprus by illegally invading and ultimately occupying its northern third. The continued division and military occupation of Cyprus by Turkey remains a gross violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all Cypriots and a blatant disregard for the rule of law. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly condemned Turkey for violating fundamental rights of Cypriots such as the right to life, the right to liberty and security, the right to the protection of property and the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment--rights we as Americans also regard as sacrosanct. Throughout these decades of injustice, the Greek Cypriot community has sought a just resolution to the ``Cyprus Question.'' And we are certainly at a potentially historic crossroads in the effort to end this tragic division. With the February election of President Christofias and his focus on engaging the Turkish Cypriot community, the coming months may turn out to be among the most consequential in the island's long history. Certainly, for the people of the Republic of Cyprus, the illegal occupation of the north cannot come to an end soon enough. Meeting with Cypriot Foreign Minister Markos Kyprianou in early April, I was therefore heartened to hear in detail about the progress made at President Christofias' March meeting with Mehmet Ali Talat, the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community, which resulted in the establishment of working groups on the outstanding substantive issues to be resolved between the two communities. Shortly thereafter, the two communities opened a critical border crossing on Ledra Street in the heart of Nicosia in early April. The two leaders have met twice more to review the progress of the working groups, and are scheduled to again meet at the end of this week. These efforts only strengthen my long-held commitment to work to ensure that the United States stands by its close ally, the Republic of Cyprus, to achieve a resolution to the tragic division of the island that is fair to Greek Cypriots. As we learned from our experience with the justified rejection of the Annan Plan by Greek Cypriots in 2004-- the Cyprus Question is one that can only be resolved through mutual agreement on a solution, not an imposition of one. The magnanimity of the Greek Cypriot community in seeking a fair solution to the division of the island despite the injustices they have suffered for nearly three and a half decades was also highlighted for me in October, when I met with the Mayor-in-exile of Famagusta, Alexis Galanos, concerning the Republic's hope for the orderly resettlement of the ``ghost neighborhood'' of Varosha by its rightful inhabitants under U.N. administration, which would also open the harbor for use by both communities. Support for this plan--which the international community called for in United Nations Security Council Resolution 550 of 1984-- demonstrates not only the willingness but also the wisdom of the Greek Cypriot community in seeking just and workable outcomes to seemingly intractable problems on the island. I am pleased to be working with Ambassador Andreas Kakouris of Cyprus to garner congressional support for this initiative. Moreover, the United States should be doing its part to address one of the most devastating effects of the occupation on Cypriot-American families by providing the means for U.S. citizens with claims to property in the Turkish-occupied north of Cyprus to seek redress for the homes that have been destroyed or taken from them. The invasion by the Turkish troops in 1974 forced nearly 200,000 Greek Cypriots--nearly one-third of the Cypriot population at the time--from their homes, making them refugees in their own country. A large proportion of the properties from which the Greek Cypriot owners were expelled was unlawfully distributed to the tens of thousands of illegal settlers from Turkey. An estimated 7,000 to 10,000 U.S. citizens of Cypriot descent have claims to such properties. That is why my colleague Senator Menendez and I have introduced the American-Owned Property in Occupied Cyprus Claims Act, which would direct the U.S. Government's independent Foreign Claims Settlement Commission to receive, evaluate, and determine awards with respect to the claims of U.S. citizens and businesses that lost property as a result of Turkey's invasion and continued occupation of northern Cyprus. The bill would further grant U.S. Federal courts jurisdiction over suits by U.S. nationals against any private persons occupying or otherwise using the U.S. national's property in the Turkish-occupied portion of Cyprus. The act would expressly waive Turkey's sovereign immunity against claims brought by U.S. nationals in U.S. courts relating to property occupied by the Government of Turkey and used by Turkey in connection with a commercial activity carried out in the United States. More than just providing redress to Cypriot-Americans who have had their ancestral homes taken from them, this legislation would uphold the larger shared values of justice and personal dignity that the citizens of both the United States and the Republic of Cyprus value so highly. It is my hope and pledge that, whatever progress is made in the current talks between the two communities on the island, the United States will continue to stand by its close ally to ensure that fairness is not sacrificed in the interest of expediency. For it is not just the rights of the Greek Cypriot community that are at stake, but the viability of the human and civil rights that all democracies--that most enduring of Hellenic institutions--hold most dear.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak today on the legislation that is pending before the Senate, the Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act of 2008. I believe it does represent a significant action that Congress can take right now to help reclaim our energy markets, to ensure the prices that Americans pay at the pump truly reflect supply and demand dynamics and not the additional, backbreaking costs added to a barrel of oil as a result of market manipulation and rampant speculation. I do not come late or lightly to the issue of speculation. I have worked closely with Senators Feinstein, Levin, and Cantwell, and I could not commend their leadership enough as we have worked to enhance transparency in our energy markets for more than 2 years. We have successfully collaborated to close the enron loophole through an amendment to the farm bill, which Senator Feinstein and I spearheaded. And I am particularly pleased that this legislation incorporates components of legislation I introduced with Senator Cantwell, which would significantly enhance regulations on foreign markets that trade U.S. energy assets. Now, I understand there is a great deal of discussion, debate, and even dispute about the process surrounding this legislation. Let me say, having returned to maine almost every weekend, having spoken to countless Mainers and Americans from all walks of life who are literally frightened and desperate because they do not know how they are going to fill their gas tanks, how they are going to heat their homes this coming winter, how they are going to even survive this winter. and the only thing they care about is results. It is the beginning of the process, as it should be, to debate a larger question on energy policy. Obviously, this is not the end-all and be-all, but it is a beginning of the legislative process that must start. We must move forward on this legislation. It is not mutually exclusive with considering a far more comprehensive package. In fact, I would say that it must not be mutually exclusive. This body must debate and consider additional measures as a wide ranging package, in my view, that addresses the additional pressing energy issues that will both move our country toward self-sufficiency in the short term as well as, of course, in the long term. Again, I believe acting on speculation as well as our long-term energy strategy must not be mutually exclusive. The fact is, we can and should enact this speculation measure and then move immediately to energy legislation. If that means spending every minute of the remaining days of this session on energy legislation, then that is what we must do. The issue is not a matter of time but political will. For the moment, with respect to the legislation before us, this bill today does begin the process of enhancing the transparency of our energy markets. It should be debated, amended, and improved. I do not agree with every provision in the legislation, but I do think it moves the process forward. After all, Congress has had more than 40 hearings on speculation. While I strongly support the intent of this legislation, and believe it would be a vast improvement over the current regulatory structure, I think we can agree we should utilize our collective knowledge and insight of energy experts to further enhance this pending legislation. With the price of oil up $11 one day and down $8 the next, with testimony and studies indicating that speculation is contributing as much as $25, if not $60, a barrel, there is no question that swift, decisive action of this kind is required. In fact, last month, during a Senate Commerce Committee hearing, chaired by Senator Cantwell, Professor Michael Greenberger, the CFTC's former Director of Trading and Markets, testified that foreign trading of U.S. commodities is increasing energy prices that Americans are paying, and, worse, the regulation of foreign markets is inferior to U.S. standards. Americans have a right to know what is occurring in these markets, that trade commodities can be costly and wreak financial havoc on them. The Government Accountability Office study, which I requested nearly 3 years ago, demonstrated just how futures markets play a key role in price discovery but that these markets require three fundamental criteria: first, current information about supply and demand; secondly, a large number of participants; and, third, transparency. It is transparency that is conspicuously missing from these markets today, especially with regard to foreign markets that trade U.S. commodities. Unequivocally, if U.S. commodities are being traded overseas, then the foreign market must incorporate the core principles established by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission for the New York Mercantile Exchange, including position limits and accountability, emergency authority, and daily publication of trading information. The absence of these principles along with a lack of transparency could foster corruption and a gaming of the system in these markets, as we witnessed with Amaranth and Enron. There are traders active on the New York Mercantile Exchange as well as the ICE Exchange in London who are buying the same U.S. West Texas Intermediate oil on both exchanges. How does that happen? Well, I ask my colleagues, what is the effectiveness of two markets if they sell the same product but one has relaxed regulations? I posed this very question, with Senator Feinstein, to the CFTC Chairman in a letter 2 months ago. The Acting Chairman responded that even if the CFTC instructed a trader to reduce the size of his NYMEX West Texas Intermediate position, nothing under the Commodity Exchange Act or the Commission's regulations would prevent that trader from establishing a similar position for West Texas Intermediate on the ICE London Exchange. What good are regulations if you can simply sidestep them and move to another exchange? To its credit, the CFTC has since reversed its position after Senator Cantwell and I pressed the Acting Chairman by introducing legislation. The CFTC has now moved forward to establish position limits for U.S. traders making transactions on U.S. commodities on foreign exchanges. I am pleased the legislation before us today would codify this CFTC rule for all foreign exchanges. However, at the same time, we should heed Professor Greenberger's admonition and regulate futures markets which are physically located in a foreign country but that operate in the United States and trade U.S. commodities--exactly like NYMEX. This stipulation is exactly what Senator Cantwell's and my legislation would accomplish by requiring that these foreign markets, which trade a third of all the contracts for America's West Texas Intermediate, be subject to the 18 core principles established by the CFTC. Only when foreign markets adhere to these principles will we be able to ensure our energy futures markets are secure and not susceptible to manipulation. With that said, this legislation significantly improves the regulations for foreign trading of U.S. commodities, and I will be supporting this package because of this basic provision. This brings me to the larger point I want to convey to this Chamber today. This bill is indeed a step in the right direction. But the problem is, instead of steps, America should be making giant strides. Instead of adding yet another year to 30 years of a failed, piecemeal approach to energy policy, we should be developing a bipartisan consensus, one committed to landmark, comprehensive energy legislation. As a result, I call on my colleagues to join to move forward with other policies that could be implemented now that will make a difference for our constituents struggling with inordinate prices when it comes to energy. In a world in which gasoline at the pump costs $4.10 per gallon, according to AAA--obviously, prices vary across the country--and the price of oil is still approximately $130 per barrel and could easily spike depending on the day, or the events, where the Consumer Federation of America estimates that the amount spent annually by American households on energy in the last 6 years soared from approximately $2,600 to an astonishing $5,300, where the United States is sending as much as $700 billion overseas this year for oil--the largest transfer of wealth in human history--and where energy costs are boosting the price of groceries and transportation, commuting, plane fares--arguably every aspect of our daily lives--I ask my colleagues, in the area of energy policy, can we not pass a speculation bill that then leads to consideration of a larger energy measure? I think of the taxpayer who could use a $300 tax credit to purchase a high-efficiency oil furnace, which would save $430 annually, according to calculations based on Department of Energy data and recent home heating oil prices. But what did we do? We allowed the tax credit to expire--and to date, there are no Federal incentives for homeowners to save money and for our country to reduce energy demand. I think of our Nation's vast reservoir of renewable resources that is available to us yet lies virtually dormant. As this chart highlights, our entire country has access to significant wind that may be developed into electricity. On May 12, the Department of Energy, in a groundbreaking report, stated that wind energy alone could produce up to 20 percent of our Nation's electricity--20 percent. If you look at the map of the United States, you see the potential for wind energy. In my State alone, we have $1.5 billion pending for investments awaiting the outcome of whether we are going to extend the tax credits for renewables. But what has Congress done? Increased uncertainty for renewable energy companies by not extending incentives that are scheduled to expire this year, causing a precipitous decline in investment. Projects currently underway may soon be mothballed. We have already seen this occur, when our renewable production tax credit expired in the past, as indicated by this chart. Looking at these years, in 2000, 2002, and 2004, the production tax credit expired, and there was a pronounced downturn in electricity production from a clean American resource. If you look at this chart, you can see the vast difference in what we did in 2007, when there was a bill. When the production tax credit was available, we saw the investments being made. You see the red arrow going down shows where we did not have it, and it had a significant and marked impact in lessening the investment and causing the underwriting of investments to fail. That is unfortunate because clearly the Federal Government and the Congress have a role to play when it comes to spurring incentives and investments in alternatives, and certainly this is the case with the production tax credit. Seven months ago, we could have begun to put more than 100,000 Americans to work with an extension of clean energy production tax credits, if we had passed these incentives as I called for in the stimulus package almost, what, 6 months ago now. This is evidenced by the growth in the industrial production of wind blades, turbines, fiberglass, and towers. I recognize that wind energy cannot be produced everywhere in our country, but the manufacturers of wind infrastructure are growing throughout the country. Wind is a resource that our country could be developing right now, if we only extended the modest tax incentive. Again, I think this chart is an illustration of the potential for wind energy across this country; as I said, including in my State, where we have $1.5 billion worth of wind power projects available, awaiting the outcome of whether the Congress is going to extend the tax credits for renewables. Why aren't we doing this now? I do not understand why we did not include this as part of the stimulus package 6 months ago. Certainly, this was stimulative in terms of what it could accomplish in job creation. We well know that. As I said, 100,000 jobs, so obviously the tax credits would have had an impact on the economy. It would have had an impact on job creation. It would have had an impact on energy production, investments for the future, and moving this country forward. These would have been concrete steps that would have sent the right message to those who are prepared to make the investments in alternatives, but we are fiddling while people are scrambling to figure out how they are going to make ends meet with soaring energy prices. Here we could take up the simple act of extending what we know will be extended--that is the ridiculous nature of this whole debate, that we know we are going to be extending the tax credits. We know, so why don't we take the steps proactively and be aggressive in addressing the problems facing this country, rather than reacting, rather than stalling, rather than hesitating to take action on a critical and fundamental issue when it comes to alternative energy sources. There are sizeable geothermal resources we could tap into right now. Last year I met with President Grimsson of Iceland who related to me how geothermal power now provides 93 percent of the heat for residential homes on his island. This achievement marked the culmination of a 30-year undertaking, the dividends of which Iceland is only now beginning to reap. Not only is the United States the greatest producer of geothermal power, as the President noted, but we also possess the world's largest potential for additional geothermal capacity, as indicated in this chart again, yet we don't have policies in place to tap this tremendous energy alternative. Again, it demonstrates our abilities and our capabilities when it comes to geothermal, yet we have not tapped into this mighty resource as an alternative. We have not taken the proactive position and actions, nor created the incentives that would encourage this as an alternative, as an investment, whether it is commercial or residential--and it could be both--yet we are not taking any action when it comes to this resource that we have in abundance across this country. The evidence in favor of maximizing this particular resource is overwhelming. In fact, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology report published in January of 2007 provided an extensive assessment of the future of geothermal power in the United States and concluded it is possible to produce nearly 10 percent of total electricity generation by 2050 at a cost of between $600 million and $900 million, which would be extremely attractive today to the energy market. The findings posited that geothermal power can be expanded because of a new drilling technology that artificially produces the geothermal process at deep levels in the Earth's crust. We could begin this process, but yet again, we are investing little to nothing toward the production of geothermal power, and there are currently no incentives for homeowners to develop clean, American, geothermal heating or cooling systems for their own homes. I ask the question: Why? There are actions we in this Chamber could take right now to soften the blow being incurred already by our citizens in every region, every sector, and at every income level in this country. Why can't we move on legislation I introduced last week with Senator Kerry authorizing $1 billion in funding from 2009 to 2013 to help States design and implement a crisis response to addressing the rising cost of heating oil, natural gas, and diesel? In very short order, grants could be administered to States to help provide heating shelters for communities, as well as energy assistance and information to the elderly, to consumers, and to small businesses. Why can't we move on legislation I joined with Senators Dodd and Kerry in introducing last month, which would stipulate that if the price of home heating oil exceeded $4 per gallon this winter, the Home Heating Oil Reserve would be released on a staggered schedule throughout the winter? There are nearly 2 million barrels--2 million-- currently available and going unused in the Northeast. It would be an egregious dereliction of duty for the Government to withhold this vital heating source when the health and safety of our population is at risk. Why can't we move on legislation I have introduced which would extend energy efficiency tax credits for new homes, new commercial buildings, and home retrofits that were included in the 2005 Energy bill? These tax credits are working to make a difference right now. Since 2006, when the new homes tax credit was first put in place, 30,000 new homes have qualified for the tax credit, cutting the energy use of those homes by half. According to a Harvard School of Public Health study, 65 percent of homes are under-insulated. With 100 million homes nationwide, there is a considerable amount of savings if we would provide incentives for homeowners to make the investments in efficiency. It is hard to believe we have yet to pass tax credits, for example, for my constituents to retrofit their homes with a wood pellet furnace, for example, which they are trying to do right now. We can't pass it here at a time when we are facing the crisis of home heating oil of more than doubling, could be close to $5. We have yet to get close to winter, so no one can predict what the cost of home heating oil will be as we approach the winter or even as we approach fall. Right now it is somewhere between $4.62 and 4.79 per gallon, depending again on where you live. These are the projections and these are what people are paying, and yet we cannot pass a tax credit for people to retrofit their homes to alternative furnaces because we are dithering once again. It is regrettable that we can't take these simple but concrete steps that can make a difference. We could take many steps that could constitute viable actions that could truly assist this country, yet we remain timid, stagnant, and polarized. Instead of earning the public trust, we continue to lose it. It is no wonder the approval levels for Congress are now hovering around 14 percent. Some of us are working to transcend party, to reach across the aisle, to put political posturing aside for something larger than scoring a point here or a point here. I am advocating that we join forces, not out of some idea of getting something done, but because circumstances are grave and the potential peril we face is that ominous that bold cooperation is the only answer. In a recent column entitled ``Dumb as We Wanna Be,'' Thomas Friedman said as much with regard to our unbelievable squandering of these tax credits. He said: Few Americans know it, but for almost a year now, Congress has been bickering over whether and how to renew the investment tax credit to stimulate investment in solar energy and the production tax credit to encourage investment in wind energy. The bickering has been so poisonous that when Congress passed the 2007 Energy bill last December, it failed to extend any stimulus for wind and solar energy production. Oil and gas kept all their credits, but those for wind and solar have been left to expire this December. I am not making this up. At a time when we should be throwing everything into clean power innovation, we are squabbling over pennies. In my own State of Maine, the absence of an energy policy is creating a bleak picture for the future that only gets more dire as winter gets closer. Eighty percent of Maine households use heating oil to get through winter. For those of us in Maine, like all of New England and those of us in the West, access to home heating oil is not just a matter of economic survival, it can be the difference between life and death. Last year at this time prices were at a challenging $2.70 a gallon. For the Mainer who, on average, goes through 1,000 gallons of oil, that is $2,700. The price now is $4.62, meaning it will cost those of us in Maine $4,600 to stay warm--and that is here in July. We haven't come into the fall; we are not even approaching winter. That is not even taking into account the gasoline prices. This is a looming crisis in Maine, one that requires immediate attention, not only for Maine but throughout this country. Because of the anxious concern about the price of heating oil that is mounting in my State, because our economy continues to teeter on the brink of recession and even stagflation, and because efforts to craft an energy policy have remained mired in political machinations year after year, we can ill afford to stand idly by. That is why I, along with 15 of my colleagues--Senator Ben Nelson and I wrote a letter, and we were joined by 15 other colleagues, including Senators Wicker, Gregg, Bayh, Levin, Collins, Sununu, Specter, Johnson, Cardin, Coleman, Lieberman, Dole, Landrieu, and Barrasso, asking the President to convene an emergency summit to address what is a growing energy crisis. We recognize the status quo must change with regard to our energy paralysis, and we have to sit down and forge a bipartisan and bicameral agreement with the President. We are calling on the President to convene this emergency summit on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. We ought to be able to sit down around the table, convening the bipartisan congressional leadership and other Members of both the House and Senate on committees of jurisdiction, along with industry leaders, environmental leaders, and all stakeholders, because this is a national emergency that requires urgent attention by the President and by the Congress to take immediate action. Because families are facing painful choices on a daily basis between filling up their cars with gas or feeding their family, I have called on Congress to do everything to address every needless dollar our country spends on energy as a result of price manipulation and rampant and unchecked speculation. The bill under consideration today helps achieve that, but we have to do much more. So while I agree we must move forward with this legislation, I hope at the end of the day, at the end of this process, we will consider other measures that are so instrumental to crafting a comprehensive energy policy. The President too has a responsibility to join us in this process. We should be working individually and collectively in bringing the best minds in this country together to begin the process of addressing our energy policy based on the short term, on intermediate and long-term proposals that are so essential to eliminating our dependency on imported foreign oil once and for all. We need to develop strategic independence, and that is going to require urgent attention on our part. It requires consensus and compromise that has paved the way for landmark legislation in the past and it obviously requires crossing the political aisle to advance these historic initiatives--principles ingrained in our Constitution and keystones from our Nation's inception. When considering the vision of the Framers and the times in which we find ourselves, I am compelled to say today that unless we in Congress depoliticize these monumental issues of our time--as we have neglected to do time and again on energy policy--unless we set aside our partisan self-interests, we risk marginalizing this institution we cherish, and we will not only have failed those who have elected us, but we will have failed the test of history. As we are witnessing every day, the stakes couldn't be higher economically, militarily, and globally. The core challenge is--as it has always been--for this, the greatest democracy on Earth, our ability to govern ourselves. Good governance doesn't mean full agreement or comity 100 percent of the time within the walls of this venerable, deliberative body, but it does mean that we, as elected officials, have an individual and collective responsibility to make the system work, and that can only happen when we are willing to take the risk of working with each other instead of against each other. We would engender a renewed integrity to this process if we were simply to allow it to work. We should begin to make every possible effort to make it happen. If we truly accept working together, there is nothing we cannot achieve. We could realize, I think, milestone accomplishments that would be so important for this Nation at this very anxious time. I hope this is the beginning of the process of crafting a comprehensive energy policy. It is rightfully what the American people expect and deserve from their elected officials and this institution. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, at a time when people from my home State of Maine and throughout the Nation are struggling to cope with an unrelenting climb in energy prices, I rise today to recognize a small business that sells innovative, technological solutions to families and enterprises in Southern and Central Maine. R.C. North Plumbing & Heating Inc. of Naples provides energy-efficient heating and cooling equipment and expertise, which, in turn, enables Mainers to save money and decrease their energy consumption. R.C. North Plumbing & Heating Inc., though less than 5 years old, offers years of technical experience in residential heating, cooling, and plumbing, which helps its customers remain confident that their heating and cooling systems are operating at maximum efficiency, thereby saving water, energy, and ultimately money. Furthermore, many of the products that R.C. North sells and installs are designated ENERGY STAR products by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy because of their energy efficiency. In addition to providing traditional heating and plumbing services, R.C. North has a burgeoning solar division that offers customers technologies to convert the Sun's power into a safe and reliable energy source for heating water. Additionally, R.C. North participates in the Maine Solar Energy Rebate Program, founded in 2005, to encourage the growth of solar energy in Maine by providing rebates to individuals who purchase solar energy systems. The firm is also certified by the Maine Public Utilities Commission as an installer of solar thermal heating systems. Featured on OurMaine Homes, a local television program highlighting local businesses in the construction and home maintenance industry, R.C. North has received praise from fellow contractors and customers alike. The business is also an active member of the State of Maine Plumbing Heating Cooling Contractors Association and is engaged in the community as a member of the Sebago Lakes Region Chamber of Commerce. Last month, Senator Kerry and I held a hearing in the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship that focused on the devastating impacts that the rising price of home heating oil is having on homes and small businesses. During that hearing, what has long been apparent was reiterated for all to hear--namely, that without a proactive approach to stem this crisis and achieve real results, the unmistakable tsunami that is heading for Maine as winter approaches will be far worse than we have seen. The American people have come to recognize this fact, and companies such as R.C. North Plumbing & Heating have filled the demand that Americans have for energy-efficient heating and cooling systems. The company's foresight and persistence in leading Maine's development of solar heating is commendable. I thank everyone at R.C. North for their dedication, and wish them success in continuing to broaden Maine's exposure to energy efficiency as well as alternative forms of energy.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Wyden, in introducing legislation that will stop the increasing financial burden being placed on wireless consumers by discriminatory taxes. On average, the typical consumer pays 15.2 percent of his/her total wireless bill in Federal, State, and local taxes, fees and surcharges--this is compared to the 7.07 percent average tax rate for other goods and services. The Mobile Wireless Tax Fairness Act of 2008 would ensure that these tax rates don't increase further by prohibiting States and local governments from imposing any new discriminatory tax on mobile services, mobile service providers, or mobile service property for a period of 5 years. The bill defines ``new discriminatory tax'' as a tax imposed on mobile services, providers, or property that is not generally imposed on other types of services or property, or that is generally imposed at a lower rate. The wireless era has changed the way the world communicates. More and more people are using the cell phone as their primary communication device as well as for data and Internet services. The increased mobility and access wireless communications provide have improved our lives, our safety, and the productivity of our work and businesses. To date, there are more than 260 million wireless subscribers in the U.S., and total usage exceeded 1 trillion minutes in June 2007 alone. However, as more consumers embrace wireless technologies and applications, more States and local governments are embracing it as a revenue source and applying these excessive and discriminatory taxes, which show up on consumers' bills each month. In fact, the effective rate of taxation on wireless services has increased four times faster than the rate on other taxable goods and services between January 2003 and January 2007. These excessive and discriminatory taxes discourage wireless' adoption and use, primarily with low-income individuals and families that still view a cellular phone as a luxury when many Americans consider it a necessity. By banning these taxes, we can equalize the taxation of the wireless industry with that of other goods and services and protect the wireless consumer from the weight of fees, surcharges, and general business taxes. We cannot allow this essential and innovative industry as well as the consumers who benefit from its amazing services and applications to suffer excessive tax rates. Placing a moratorium on new discriminatory wireless taxes will make certain consumers continue to reap the benefits of wireless services. Congress took similar action with the Internet--passing the Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments Act of 2007 this past fall--because of the incredible impact the Internet will continue to have on consumers and businesses alike. The future of wireless is just as bright and that is why we must ensure its continued growth. That is why I sincerely hope that my colleagues join Senator Wyden and me in supporting this critical legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Wyden, in introducing legislation that will stop the increasing financial burden being placed on wireless consumers by discriminatory taxes. On average, the typical consumer pays 15.2 percent of his/her total wireless bill in Federal, State, and local taxes, fees and surcharges--this is compared to the 7.07 percent average tax rate for other goods and services. The Mobile Wireless Tax Fairness Act of 2008 would ensure that these tax rates don't increase further by prohibiting States and local governments from imposing any new discriminatory tax on mobile services, mobile service providers, or mobile service property for a period of 5 years. The bill defines ``new discriminatory tax'' as a tax imposed on mobile services, providers, or property that is not generally imposed on other types of services or property, or that is generally imposed at a lower rate. The wireless era has changed the way the world communicates. More and more people are using the cell phone as their primary communication device as well as for data and Internet services. The increased mobility and access wireless communications provide have improved our lives, our safety, and the productivity of our work and businesses. To date, there are more than 260 million wireless subscribers in the U.S., and total usage exceeded 1 trillion minutes in June 2007 alone. However, as more consumers embrace wireless technologies and applications, more States and local governments are embracing it as a revenue source and applying these excessive and discriminatory taxes, which show up on consumers' bills each month. In fact, the effective rate of taxation on wireless services has increased four times faster than the rate on other taxable goods and services between January 2003 and January 2007. These excessive and discriminatory taxes discourage wireless' adoption and use, primarily with low-income individuals and families that still view a cellular phone as a luxury when many Americans consider it a necessity. By banning these taxes, we can equalize the taxation of the wireless industry with that of other goods and services and protect the wireless consumer from the weight of fees, surcharges, and general business taxes. We cannot allow this essential and innovative industry as well as the consumers who benefit from its amazing services and applications to suffer excessive tax rates. Placing a moratorium on new discriminatory wireless taxes will make certain consumers continue to reap the benefits of wireless services. Congress took similar action with the Internet--passing the Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments Act of 2007 this past fall--because of the incredible impact the Internet will continue to have on consumers and businesses alike. The future of wireless is just as bright and that is why we must ensure its continued growth. That is why I sincerely hope that my colleagues join Senator Wyden and me in supporting this critical legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, today I wish to recognize a small business from my home State of Maine whose roots spring from both our State's seafaring heritage and agricultural legacy. Raye's Mustard Mill in Eastport has long provided locals with the perfect condiment to top almost any meal from the once traditional sardine to the timeless summer classic of burgers and hot dogs. Raye's Mustard, founded in 1900 by J. Wesley Raye, has been operating at its current location in Eastport, America's easternmost city, since 1903, when a young Wes Raye decided to move out of the family smokehouse and into a more commercially viable location. When the company's mustard was first produced, it provided the perfect complement to the sardines being caught and consumed by Maine fishermen. While times have changed, Raye's mustard has consistently remained a Maine culinary staple. It has continued to accompany new dishes while it is still made using many of the same techniques that Mr. Raye employed over 100 years ago. Indeed, Raye's is the only remaining traditional stone ground mustard mill in America, and the firm uses a time-honored cold grind method for preparing its product, slowly grinding mustard seeds and other ingredients together using massive pieces of stone. Raye's distinctive technique has succeeded in producing numerous award-winning mustards that have been recognized by culinary organizations nationwide. Raye's 21 mustard varieties have been featured in publications, including ``Martha Stewart Living'' and ``Yankee Magazine.'' With varieties ranging from the Downeast Schooner, Raye's classic yellow mustard; to more innovative flavors, like the spicy Heavenly Jalapeno, the firm has managed to produce mustards to satisfy any palate. Furthermore, its special line of select mustards provide a hint of Maine in every jar, as the company has partnered with local restaurants and breweries to produce signature items such as Raye's Jameson Tavern Style and Raye's Sea Dog Beer Mustard. While Raye's Mustard is sold in stores regionally and worldwide via the internet, just as unchanging as the mustard itself are the Mustard Mill and The Pantry Store, Raye's on-site retail location. In fact, in 2006, these Eastport institutions garnered the Maine Tourism Association's Down East and Acadia Regional Tourism Award. Tours of the mill give visitors the opportunity to learn about the history of one of the most universal food products in the world and to see first hand the valiant spirit and commitment to quality that have driven Raye's to the impressive heights that it has achieved. In addition to the respect that I have for Raye's Mustard Mill as a small family-owned business, I also have a great personal esteem for its fourth generation of owners. I have long known Kevin and Karen Raye as friends and colleagues, and I have been particularly pleased to see the successes they have achieved since Kevin left Capitol Hill after serving as chief of staff for many years. It is with great admiration that I wish Raye's Mustard the best of luck as it continues to excel at making distinct products that have earned accolades from discerning clients and culinary greats alike.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish today to recognize the Kenway Corporation, an outstanding small business from my home State of Maine that recently earned the distinguished recognition of Manufacturer of the Year by the Maine Manufacturing Extension Partnership, or Maine MEP. A fiberglass manufacturer located in Maine's capital city of Augusta, the Kenway Corporation has for over 60 years been known for its high-quality products. The MEP's Manufacturer of the Year award is presented every year to a company that has achieved world-class status and has applied the best manufacturing practices necessary to succeed in the marketplace. The Kenway Corporation formally began operations as Kenway Boats in 1947 in the rural community of Palermo, ME. Originally focused on building wooden crafts, the firm switched its concentration to composites in the 1960s and has since grown into a tremendously successful manufacturing company. Today, Kenway manufactures corrosion- resistant fiberglass for a variety of industries, including marine, pulp and paper, and power. Notably, in 1991, Kenway moved its venture to Augusta and increased its manufacturing facilities to more than 10,000 square feet. The firm is expanding again this year by doubling its current size while consolidating its operations. Additionally, since 2003, the company has increased its staff more than twofold, to nearly 80 employees, and Kenway is seeking to provide even more jobs in the near future. Kenway has attracted a loyal customer base ranging from coast to coast and even to Puerto Rico. The Kenway Corporation's products are highly advanced and heavily sought after by numerous companies. Kenway makes process piping that is used in petrochemical and wastewater treatment facilities, as well as in power plants and paper mills. In addition, the firm manufactures an assortment of custom designed dampers, tanks, scrubbers, shower pipes, and railcar drip pans to prevent corrosion and chemical leakage. Kenway's employees engage in an array of intensive manufacturing processes, including laminating, vacuum resin transfer molding, and pultrusion. Since its inception 61 years ago, the Kenway Corporation has wisely taken advantage of tools available to small businesses. In 2007, the Maine Department of Economic and Community Development designated Kenway a Pine Tree Zone business, making it eligible for targeted tax benefits to better compete in today's global economy. The company had previously won a $100,000 grant from the Maine Technology Institute, which allowed Kenway to install sensor systems in its piping to transfer hazardous materials. Early last year, Kenway returned to its historic roots of shipbuilding by purchasing Maritime Skiff from its retiring Massachusetts owners. Now operating under the name Maritime Marine, the company makes small, fuel-efficient skiffs and family fishing boats with fiberglass decks and hulls. Kenway received a $400,000 community development block grant to properly incorporate Maritime Skiff into its present operations, a transition that has thus far yielded positive results. To generate additional interest in Maritime's line of vessels, the company recently began offering a lifetime no-rot warranty on all of its models. A powerhouse and leader in fiberglass manufacturing for nearly a half century, the Kenway Corporation's name is synonymous with quality craftsmanship and innovative production. Through intelligent growth and adjusting to economic conditions, Kenway has been successful at staying ahead of the curve and maintaining its preeminent position. I commend Ken Priest, company president, and everyone at the Kenway Corporation for their accomplishment in garnering the respected Manufacturer of the Year award from the Maine MEP and wish them well in their continuing endeavors.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2008. This bill would enhance the research programs established in the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 and reauthorized in 2004, which have greatly enhanced our ability to predict outbreaks of harmful algal blooms and the extent of hypoxic zones. But knowing when outbreaks will occur is only half the battle. By funding additional research into mitigation and prevention of HABs and hypoxia, and by enabling communities to develop response strategies to more effectively reduce their effects on our coastal communities, this legislation would take the next critical steps to reducing the social and economic impacts of these potentially disastrous outbreaks. I am proud to continue my leadership on this important issue and I particularly want to thank my counterpart on this key piece of legislation, Senator Bill Nelson. My partnership with Senator Breaux on the first two harmful algal bloom bills proved extremely fruitful, and I am pleased that the Gulf of Mexico--whose coastal residents are severely impacted by both harmful algal blooms, also known as HABs, and hypoxia--will continue to be so well represented as this program moves into the future. I also want to thank the bill's additional co- sponsors, Senators Cantwell, Kerry, Vitter, Voinovich, Boxer and Levin for their vital contributions. We all represent coastal States directly affected by harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, and we see first hand the ecological and economic damage caused by these events. In New England blooms of Alexandrium algae, more commonly known as ``red tide'', can cause shellfish to accumulate toxins that when consumed by humans lead to paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP), a potentially fatal neurological disorder. Therefore, when levels of Alexandrium reach dangerous levels, our fishery managers are forced to close shellfish beds that provide hundreds of jobs and add millions of dollars to our regional economy. Red tide outbreaks--which occur in various forms not just in the northeast, but along thousands of miles of U.S. coastline--have increased dramatically in the Gulf of Maine in the last 20 years, with major blooms occurring almost every year. In 2005, the most severe red tide since 1972 blanketed the New England coast from Martha's Vineyard to Downeast Maine, resulting in extensive commercial and recreational shellfish harvesting closures lasting several months at the peak of the seafood harvesting season. In a peer-reviewed study, economists found that the 2005 event caused over $2.4 million in lost landings of shellfish in the State of Maine alone, and more than $10 million throughout New England. In May of this year, scientists once more predicted an abundance of Alexandrium off the New England coast, marking the onset of yet another severe harmful algal bloom in the area. Just yesterday, Maine's Department of Marine Resources announced the closure of additional shellfish beds covering many areas from Cutler east to the Canadian border, and today the Food and Drug Administration asked the National Marine Fisheries Service to issue a closure of a section of Federal waters near George's Bank to the harvest of ocean quahogs and surf clams. Still, while this year's bloom has tracked the pattern of the 2005 event, thanks to previous investments in HAB programs, localized testing has led to fewer closures. Unlike 2005 when nearly the entire coast of Massachusetts and much of Maine was declared off-limits to shell fishermen, in this year's bloom, some unaffected areas remain open despite being directly adjacent to contaminated beds. These detailed forecasting and testing measures will greatly reduce the economic impact such outbreaks impose on our coastal communities, and is directly attributable to the efforts authorized in previous HAB legislation. Mr. President, while we have made great strides in bloom prediction and monitoring, it is clear that these problems have not gone away, but rather increased in magnitude. Harmful algal blooms remain prevalent nationwide, and areas of hypoxia, also known as ``dead zones'', are now occurring with increasing frequency. Within a dead zone, oxygen levels plummet to the point at which they can no longer sustain life, driving out animals that can move, and killing those that cannot. The most infamous dead zone occurs annually in the Gulf of Mexico, off the shores of Louisiana. In 2007, researchers there predicted the biggest hypoxic zone ever recorded, covering more than 8,500 square miles. Dead zones are also occurring with increasing frequency in more areas than ever before, including off the coasts of Oregon and Texas. The amendments contained in this legislation would enhance the Nation's ability to predict, monitor, and ultimately control harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. Understanding when these blooms will occur is vital, but the time has come to take this program to the next level--to determine not just when an outbreak will occur, but how to reduce its intensity or prevent its occurrence all together. This bill would build on NOAA's successes in research and forecasting by creating a program to mitigate and control HAB outbreaks. This bill also recognizes the need to enhance coordination among State and local resource managers--those on the front lines who must make the decisions to close beaches or shellfish beds. Their decisions are critical to protecting human health, but can also impose significant economic impacts. The bill would mandate creation of Regional Research and Action Plans that would identify baseline research, possible State and local government actions to prepare for and mitigate the impacts of HABs, and establish outreach strategies to ensure the public is informed of the dangers these events can present. A regional focus on these issues will ensure a more effective and efficient response to future events. Mr. President, if enacted, this critical reauthorization would greatly enhance our Nation's ability to predict, monitor, mitigate, and control outbreaks of HABs and hypoxia. Over half the U.S. population resides in coastal regions, and we must do all in our power to safeguard their health and the health of the marine environment. The existing Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program has done a laudable job to date, and this authorization will allow them to expand their scope and provide greater benefits to the Nation as a whole. I thank my cosponsors again for their efforts in developing this vital legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2008. This bill would enhance the research programs established in the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 and reauthorized in 2004, which have greatly enhanced our ability to predict outbreaks of harmful algal blooms and the extent of hypoxic zones. But knowing when outbreaks will occur is only half the battle. By funding additional research into mitigation and prevention of HABs and hypoxia, and by enabling communities to develop response strategies to more effectively reduce their effects on our coastal communities, this legislation would take the next critical steps to reducing the social and economic impacts of these potentially disastrous outbreaks. I am proud to continue my leadership on this important issue and I particularly want to thank my counterpart on this key piece of legislation, Senator Bill Nelson. My partnership with Senator Breaux on the first two harmful algal bloom bills proved extremely fruitful, and I am pleased that the Gulf of Mexico--whose coastal residents are severely impacted by both harmful algal blooms, also known as HABs, and hypoxia--will continue to be so well represented as this program moves into the future. I also want to thank the bill's additional co- sponsors, Senators Cantwell, Kerry, Vitter, Voinovich, Boxer and Levin for their vital contributions. We all represent coastal States directly affected by harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, and we see first hand the ecological and economic damage caused by these events. In New England blooms of Alexandrium algae, more commonly known as ``red tide'', can cause shellfish to accumulate toxins that when consumed by humans lead to paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP), a potentially fatal neurological disorder. Therefore, when levels of Alexandrium reach dangerous levels, our fishery managers are forced to close shellfish beds that provide hundreds of jobs and add millions of dollars to our regional economy. Red tide outbreaks--which occur in various forms not just in the northeast, but along thousands of miles of U.S. coastline--have increased dramatically in the Gulf of Maine in the last 20 years, with major blooms occurring almost every year. In 2005, the most severe red tide since 1972 blanketed the New England coast from Martha's Vineyard to Downeast Maine, resulting in extensive commercial and recreational shellfish harvesting closures lasting several months at the peak of the seafood harvesting season. In a peer-reviewed study, economists found that the 2005 event caused over $2.4 million in lost landings of shellfish in the State of Maine alone, and more than $10 million throughout New England. In May of this year, scientists once more predicted an abundance of Alexandrium off the New England coast, marking the onset of yet another severe harmful algal bloom in the area. Just yesterday, Maine's Department of Marine Resources announced the closure of additional shellfish beds covering many areas from Cutler east to the Canadian border, and today the Food and Drug Administration asked the National Marine Fisheries Service to issue a closure of a section of Federal waters near George's Bank to the harvest of ocean quahogs and surf clams. Still, while this year's bloom has tracked the pattern of the 2005 event, thanks to previous investments in HAB programs, localized testing has led to fewer closures. Unlike 2005 when nearly the entire coast of Massachusetts and much of Maine was declared off-limits to shell fishermen, in this year's bloom, some unaffected areas remain open despite being directly adjacent to contaminated beds. These detailed forecasting and testing measures will greatly reduce the economic impact such outbreaks impose on our coastal communities, and is directly attributable to the efforts authorized in previous HAB legislation. Mr. President, while we have made great strides in bloom prediction and monitoring, it is clear that these problems have not gone away, but rather increased in magnitude. Harmful algal blooms remain prevalent nationwide, and areas of hypoxia, also known as ``dead zones'', are now occurring with increasing frequency. Within a dead zone, oxygen levels plummet to the point at which they can no longer sustain life, driving out animals that can move, and killing those that cannot. The most infamous dead zone occurs annually in the Gulf of Mexico, off the shores of Louisiana. In 2007, researchers there predicted the biggest hypoxic zone ever recorded, covering more than 8,500 square miles. Dead zones are also occurring with increasing frequency in more areas than ever before, including off the coasts of Oregon and Texas. The amendments contained in this legislation would enhance the Nation's ability to predict, monitor, and ultimately control harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. Understanding when these blooms will occur is vital, but the time has come to take this program to the next level--to determine not just when an outbreak will occur, but how to reduce its intensity or prevent its occurrence all together. This bill would build on NOAA's successes in research and forecasting by creating a program to mitigate and control HAB outbreaks. This bill also recognizes the need to enhance coordination among State and local resource managers--those on the front lines who must make the decisions to close beaches or shellfish beds. Their decisions are critical to protecting human health, but can also impose significant economic impacts. The bill would mandate creation of Regional Research and Action Plans that would identify baseline research, possible State and local government actions to prepare for and mitigate the impacts of HABs, and establish outreach strategies to ensure the public is informed of the dangers these events can present. A regional focus on these issues will ensure a more effective and efficient response to future events. Mr. President, if enacted, this critical reauthorization would greatly enhance our Nation's ability to predict, monitor, mitigate, and control outbreaks of HABs and hypoxia. Over half the U.S. population resides in coastal regions, and we must do all in our power to safeguard their health and the health of the marine environment. The existing Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program has done a laudable job to date, and this authorization will allow them to expand their scope and provide greater benefits to the Nation as a whole. I thank my cosponsors again for their efforts in developing this vital legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I honor Arrows Restaurant of Ogunquit, ME, on the occasion of its 20th anniversary and to recognize the tremendous talent and innovative environmental stewardship of its owners, award-winning chefs Mark Gaier and Clark Frasier. Quite simply, Arrows is one of America's great restaurants. It has received recognition from national publications such as Gourmet magazine, which ranked it 14th on its list of ``America's Top 50 Restaurants in 2006,'' and Bon Appetit, which named Arrows ``one of the country's 10 most romantic restaurants.'' Arrows has also received some of the highest and most consistent ratings in the annual Zagat survey. In addition, Mr. Gaier and Mr. Frasier were nominated as Best Chefs in the Northeast by the James Beard Foundation, a national organization whose annual awards have been deemed the ``Oscars of the food world'' by Time magazine. Arrows has further distinguished itself by its extraordinary garden, which offers more than 300 varieties of herbs, flowers, fruits, and vegetables. It provides Mr. Gaier and Mr. Frasier with the source of most of the ingredients for their menu and serves as a wonderful illustration of how sensitive environmental stewardship and entrepreneurial spirit can go hand-in-hand. It should come as no surprise that Arrows has been featured on television programs such as PBS's ``Victory Garden,'' and NBC's ``Today Show.'' Like the restaurant, the garden has received tremendous acclaim in the press. Bon Appetit noted that ``[Arrows] helped pioneer the idea of growing your own food and paying attention to what's seasonal in a place that is unforgiving in its climate.'' Earlier this year, the Daily Green--a Web site that reports on the environmental concerns of everyday Americans--praised Mr. Gaier and Mr. Frasier as `` . . . stalwart forerunners of the sustainable movement.'' As ranking member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am eminently proud of all of Maine's small firms, and am particularly impressed by Mr. Gaier's and Mr. Frasier's dedication to making Arrows the premier dining establishment that it has become. These two restaurateurs have helped transform American cuisine, and have brought the world to Maine--as well as Maine to the world. They are truly deserving of our admiration and praise, and I wish them well in all that they do.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish to speak to an amendment that I will offer which will increase the trustworthiness of the Nation's mortgage security market by creating the Federal Board of Certification for mortgage securities. The recent collapse of Bear Stearns and the huge losses suffered throughout the financial industry demonstrate a catastrophic failure to accurately assess the dangers of imprudently made subprime mortgages to the American public and our financial markets. In hindsight, it appears that it was the inability to gauge risk in mortgage-backed securities that caused much of this financial turmoil. For markets to operate properly, it is imperative that they have effective metrics for calculating the level of risk securities pose to investors. The secondary mortgage market has been a largely unregulated playground where poorly underwritten, low-quality loans were sold as high-quality investment products. Although mortgage-backed securities can be a positive market force, which increases the available pool of credit for borrowers, without an accurate picture of the risk involved in each mortgage security, buyers have no idea whether they are buying a high-risk investment or a safe, secure investment. My legislation would work to curb the excesses of the secondary market, combat future attempts at deception, and protect investors by making securitized mortgage investments more reliable and trustworthy. The inability of major corporations to properly assess the risk of the mortgage securities they were trading is a problem whose effects have not been confined to Wall Street. To put it simply: When big banks sneeze, the rest of America gets a cold. By 2009, more than a trillion dollars of the subprime mortgages originated during the housing boom will reset to higher interest rates. Currently, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association, 43 percent of subprime adjustable rate mortgages are already in foreclosure. In my home State of Maine, we are struggling with falling home prices and a record number of foreclosures. Some Maine borrowers, with rising monthly payments, are unable to refinance out of their predatory loans. Small business owners, many already hurt by the economic downturn, are also finding credit tight. The bad economic climate caused by the subprime credit crunch is roiling the stock market causing Americans to loose billions in their IRAs and retirement funds. We need to fix this crisis before it gets any worse and make sure it never happens again. Francis Bacon said that ``knowledge is power.'' My amendment would give investors the knowledge to make intelligent calculations of risk and, as a result, it would give them the power to decide how much risk they could collectively handle. Turning to specifics, my amendment creates the Federal Board of Certification, which would certify that the mortgages within a security instrument meet the underlying standards they claim in regards to documentation, loan-to-value ratios, debt service to income ratios, and borrowers' credit standards. The purpose of the certification process is to increase the transparency, predictability, and reliability of securitized mortgage products. Certification would aid in creating settled investor expectations and increase transparency by ensuring that the mortgages within a mortgage security conform to the claims made by the mortgage product's sellers. The proposed Federal Board of Certification would not override any current regulations and would not, in any way, stifle any attempts by private business to rate mortgage securities., This legislation would, however, create incentives for improving industry rating practices. Open publication of the board's certification criteria would augment the efforts of private ratings agencies by providing incentives for increased transparency in the ratings process. The board's certification would also serve as a check on the industry to ensure that ratings agencies carefully scrutinize the content of mortgage products before issuing evaluations of mortgage-backed securities. Significantly, the Federal Board of Certification would also be voluntary and funded by an excise tax. Users could choose to pay the costs for the board to rate their security, or they could elect not to submit their product to the board. We must quickly restore confidence in the U.S. mortgage securities if we are to stabilize our housing markets and enable families to refinance their expensive loans. To do this, we must certify the quality and content of our mortgage securities and enable those markets working again to create liquidity and lending. This is why it is urgent to create the Federal Board of Certification for mortgage securities. This legislation would create a ``good housekeeping seal of approval'' for the mortgage security industry and certify that the mortgage products are in fact what they claim to be. Accordingly, I call on Congress to take up and adopt this commonsense amendment as expeditiously as possible. I encourage my colleagues to strongly support the creation of the Federal Board of Certification. This legislation will restore trust in U.S. financial markets and mortgage securities which will help American businesses and ultimately, most crucially, American families.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, as this Saturday marks the official beginning of summer, I rise to recognize a small nonprofit from my home State of Maine that has championed the activities that have made the State a long-time destination for seasonal travel and exploration. Since 2005, the Greenland Point Center, Inc., on Long Lake in Princeton, has served to educate both youth and adults on issues of conservation and leadership while promoting outdoor activities and learning. Originally founded in 1978, the Greenland Point Center previously operated under the auspices of the University of Maine at Machias. Facing closure in 2004, community members and conservation groups from around the state rallied behind it, purchasing the land that housed the camp from the University and revitalizing the program. Today the Greenland Point Center, which has become a perennial favorite for Mainers and their families, hosts a series of camps designed to allow children and families to explore the natural world and grow as individuals. At the same time, the center works to empower campers by teaching them many of the vital safety skills that are imperative to the successful enjoyment of this Nation's natural resources. The center's exciting camp programs range from the more traditional Wet 'N' Wild Camp, where campers learn to canoe and sail, to the Downeast Teen Leadership Camp, where middle-school students from Maine's Washington County have an opportunity to learn the skills necessary to help them lead healthy lifestyles as they progress through the often challenging adolescent years. Thousands of young men and women who have attended the Greenland Point Center's camps have come to appreciate the solemn responsibilities of environmental stewardship while being encouraged to enjoy the boundless energies of youth. The firm has a deep commitment to making the opportunities that it offers available to all youth, regardless of their financial situation. To promote that goal, the Greenland Point Center works tirelessly to provide scholarships for financially disadvantaged individuals who wish to experience the natural wonders of the State of Maine. Of particular note, each year's Maine Moose Permit Auction raises scholarship money for the Center, affording numerous youngsters from across the State the chance to take part in discovering Maine's beautiful surroundings. Additionally, the Greenland Point Center is an active participant in the nationwide ``Hooked on Fishing--Not On Drugs'' program. Founded by the Future Fisherman Foundation and funded through the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, ``Hooked on Fishing--Not On Drugs'' seeks to keep Maine's youth off drugs by teaching angling skills, conservation efforts, and social skills, preserving proud traditions while promoting a healthy way of life. The State of Maine has long been a proud bastion of outdoor adventure and protecting the environment. The Greenland Point Center has served to help maintain the appreciation of nature and all of its wonder. Coupled with lessons in healthy physical, mental, and emotional lifestyles, the Greenland Point Center has served the youth of Maine and the Nation while shaping a new generation of leaders and entrepreneurs. I congratulate the Greenland Point Center on its past achievements and wish everyone involved success as the Center continues to nurture America's youth.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Baucus in sponsoring this bipartisan legislation, which both abrogates severe cuts to provider payments, and also takes steps to reform Medicare spending to address the distressing fiscal trajectory of this critical health entitlement. The bill before us today represents a product of what has become an annual--and recently a semiannual task--that of extending Medicare financing. It is a sad state of affairs when we see two Medicare bills emerge from the Finance Committee. For months Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley have worked to build consensus on Medicare-- just as they did last year. In fact, their reputation for bipartisanship is legendary. Ranking Member Grassley saw that we achieved the landmark benefit that is in part enhanced in this bill--the coverage of prescription drugs under Medicare. I have long regarded his leadership so highly, and I am confident that--as this debate continues--we will see him forge agreement to address critical Medicare issues because of his bipartisanship. And in fact--but for intransigence to compromise from the administration last December--we would not need to be here today debating these issues. But instead only a 6-month extender bill could be enacted--and now our providers and beneficiaries face cuts on July 1. The fact is, that just a few weeks ago, with compromise achieved on so many issues, we appeared to be separated by approximately $3 billion in spending directed to beneficiaries. The fact is, that amount of funding represents less than what should be committed to meet critical needs of our most economically challenged beneficiaries, and it represents less than two-tenths of 1 percent of total Medicare spending. And under this legislation, these funds would be obtained from fiscal savings which Medicare must begin to realize. Not from taxes. Not from deficit spending. And as we debate this difference between these two Medicare bills, we must enact sound fiscal policy--not ideological dogma. As CBO has told us repeatedly, the factors of an expanding senior population--and more significantly, as this chart illustrates, a rise in per capita health care spending--are working together to make Medicare the number one fiscal concern on the horizon. So it is critical that we take substantial steps to ensure the fiscal health of Medicare for future generations. It was an attempt to do so which set us on this course. The creation of the sustainable growth rate formula--or ``SGR''--was originally intended to serve as a limiter of spending, and it did so effectively for a time. Yet, today, the SGR operates crudely and irrationally to simply restrain payments to physicians. Next month, without intervention, physician payments will be reduced 10.6 percent. Yet it is also essential to recognize that these annual Medicare bills encompass more than just the SGR. A number of other programs are renewed on this same schedule. We call these ``extenders'' and they represent critical parts of Medicare--including items such as assistance to low income beneficiaries and programs which support rural health delivery--and they face termination without our action. As we consider this bill today, it must be viewed in the light of how it will address two crucial issues. First, does it fairly assure reasonable payments to those who serve our beneficiaries to preserve access to care? And second, does it take action to change the course of health spending to help assure the fiscal security of Medicare-- particularly when you see the growth and trajectory of growth in Medicare spending? First, as it must, this legislation takes action to prevent a large reduction in payments to physicians. So too it enacts a number of critical extensions to programs critical to assure that beneficiaries will have secure access to health care. We act to see that health centers receive relief from an artificial cap which prevents them from being fully reimbursed for the services they provide to beneficiaries. This bill grants some relief from that cap and is a step towards the reform which my legislation with Senator Bingaman would achieve to prevent health centers from serving Medicare at a loss. In similar fashion this bill would ensure that pharmacies will be paid promptly for the medications they provide seniors under the Part D drug benefit. And just as critical, we assure that Medicaid payment policy does not discourage the dispensing of generic drugs through inadequate reimbursement. And as we avert a pending physician payment cut it is unconscionable that we would leave the most vulnerable beneficiaries behind. In passage of the Medicare Modernization Act in 2003, we worked in a bipartisan fashion to assure that our most vulnerable beneficiaries would receive a low income subsidy, LIS, to provide extra assistance with drug costs. Today, a beneficiary qualified for full LIS support must have income below 135 percent of the Federal poverty level and assets not exceeding $7,790 for an individual and $12,440 for a married couple. Yet, our Medicare Savings Plans--which assist very low income beneficiaries outside of Part D--utilize a very different assets test standard--just $4,000 for an individual and $6,000 for a couple-- despite even more stringent income standards. In fact, the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary--Quimby program--enacted in 1988--has not seen an update in the assets test over two decades. Were the amount to have been indexed to a measure of inflation such as the Consumer Price Index, today that amount would nearly equal the assets limit for full Low Income Subsidy under Part D. So it is common sense that we align the assets tests for Medicare savings program with the full LIS limit so that truly needy seniors will realize the help we intended. We act to index these asset tests to inflation, and critically, extend outreach including through the Social Security Administration. These provisions represent long-overdue corrections--not an entitlement expansion. As I stated earlier, this bill should also help us to change our spending trajectory. Because what we spend is in fact more critical to Medicare's fiscal health than even the aging demographics of our population, this legislation aims to help re-orient our spending to assure that Medicare implements more ``best practices,'' beginning with greater support for preventive services. This follows what we began with the enactment of the Medicare Modernization Act in 2003. This bill allows the HHS Secretary to add support for services recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. This is a key step in payment reform. Because the fact is, we can no longer expend our first dollar on a disease for an individual's hospitalization. We must be more proactive and cost effective. Similarly, we address the inequity of access to mental health services. Today, beneficiaries pay 50 percent of the cost of outpatient mental health services--compared to 20 percent for other care. So as the Senate acts to ensure mental health parity in the private sector, we must not leave our beneficiaries behind. Tragically, only half of seniors with mental health problems receive treatment, and the toll is seen in the fact that suicide rates among older Americans far exceed those of other age groups. This legislation includes provisions of legislation that I introduced with Senator Kerry and accomplishes a phased-in elimination of the copayment disparity. This legislation takes a balanced approach, one which averts unfair cuts to providers, and meets the critical needs of our most vulnerable beneficiaries. Then one could rightly ask: Why are we here? If there was some agreement on such priorities, what is the obstacle? The answer to that question, as it is so often, lies in how spending is paid for. Today, as we consider legislation affecting provider payments in particular, the issue of equity is central. When equity is considered, the subsidies of private plans in Medicare constitute an issue which must be addressed. Today we are subsidizing such private Medicare plans by paying an average of at least 112 percent above the rate of traditional fee-for- service Medicare. Last year, the 5-year subsidy cost was estimated at $50 billion over 5 years. This year, we have already received revisions of cost projections which may indicate the total cost is much higher. One might ask why, at a time when we are concerned about the fiscal health of Medicare and when we face critical needs, such as those of the lowest income beneficiaries, would we spend this sort of subsidy? The Chairman of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, Glenn Hackbarth, succinctly stated the problem last year when he stated that ``right now, Medicare is sending the signal that we want private plans even if they cost substantially more than the traditional Medicare.'' He added: I think what we need, not just in Medicare, but in the country more broadly, is to send the signal that we want plans that more efficiently manage care. I think we have an agreement that we expect these plans to deliver value for beneficiaries and taxpayers alike--to employ prevention, early screening and detection, and prompt effective care to improve health and reduce costs. Yet what we have seen in Medicare Advantage is deeply troubling. First, there is the paucity of data regarding outcomes. This chart quotes the CBO Director Orszag, who decried the absence of substantiation of performance, stating he was ``continuing to beg'' for data from plans demonstrating performance. He noted the subsidies these plans enjoy. He said: It's almost as if they're conducting a variety of experiments in disease management and various other things. And they are doing so with public subsidies. Yet while the average Medicare Advantage plan receives a subsidy at least 12 percent above traditional Medicare, a new plan type receives much more, as much as 121 percent of fee-for-service rates. These private fee-for-service plans primarily involve a redesign of the Medicare benefits package. So a beneficiary might initially see a plan as offering better value, such as offering vision benefits. Yet while private fee-for-service plans must cover the same benefits as fee for service, they can substantially alter a senior's cost sharing so one's out-of-pocket costs can be much higher. But the enticement of new benefits and aggressive and even abusive marketing practices, as we learned in a number of hearings--I know, Mr. President, you were there at some of those hearings in the Senate Finance Committee--has resulted in explosive growth in these plans. As we see on this chart, it demonstrates the increased enrollment from less than 26,000 beneficiaries in 2003 to 1.5 million at the beginning of this year. So far this year, another 400,000 beneficiaries have enrolled. I am pleased we have seen bipartisan agreement to address the grievous marketing abuses which have plagued beneficiaries. Many of our constituents have been confronted in their homes by high-pressure, door-to-door, and telemarketing sales efforts. We have seen seniors enticed to events by free meals and gifts and frequently enrolled unknowingly in new plan coverage they neither needed nor wanted. Much of this has been fueled by high commissions. Such abuses led me to introduce a bill with Senator Rockefeller in March to ban these practices and protect beneficiaries. In fact, I can say my State of Maine has been in the forefront passing legislation on its own. States are taking unilateral action to foreclose these practices that get people to join plans unnecessarily and adding to their costs and their problems. The legislation Senator Rockefeller and I introduced has provisions that will include prohibitions on the activities I described earlier. It is abundantly clear such plans not only cost more and are plagued by marketing abuses, but they lack the mandates which HMO and PPO plans carry to actually act to improve care. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office Director, Peter Orszag, said again, ``The type of things we are talking about--disease management, care coordination--is much less salient and much less prevalent in private fee-for-service.'' Also, because private fee-for-service plans are not required to establish contracted networks of providers, such plans use deeming, a practice in which, by serving a patient, a provider is deemed to have accepted the plan's terms. That shortchanges providers. Since these plans are also not required to provide care management, they shortchange beneficiaries. So we are paying more through subsidies and they are providing less and are capturing them through the deeming process, which is inherently unfair and extremely costly. With these deficits, private fee-for-service plans require subsidies to function, and today they are paid far more than the traditional fee for service--which I mentioned earlier--and are a large and growing share of Medicare Advantage costs. They are subsidized, as I said, as much as 121 percent above the rates Medicare was paying local providers before this so-called innovation. So as we see an escalation in the cost of subsidizing Medicare Advantage, it is wholly appropriate that we examine a reduction in unfair subsidies to these plans, subsidies that are provided by the taxpayers. We recognize, as does the administration, that built into these higher Medicare Advantage rates is a duplication of the institutional medical education payment which institutions already receive directly today. The cost of that duplication was estimated at $8.7 billion earlier this year. Yet today, with rapid growth in these plans, the Congressional Budget Office tells us the cost of the unnecessary subsidy is now an estimated $12.5 billion. The fact is, that estimate does not reflect a deeper rate of reduction than we discussed 6 months ago. It simply reflects the escalation in costs as a growth of these subsidized, uncompetitive plans continue. So as we examine areas in which we could save, there can be no doubt that the duplicate payment is a prime candidate. In fact, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, recommended we bring all Medicare Advantage plans to parity and specifically recommended eliminating this duplicate payment, as indicated by their comments on this chart. On the latter recommendation, the President has agreed we must eliminate the duplicate payment. I note the President included a proposal in his budget this year to eliminate it, but he has imposed reductions which would affect the rate of reduction we have now discussed, which would reduce subsidy spending by $12.5 billion. The President also prefers to eliminate payments to the institutions responsible for this Institutional Medical Education Program and instead would rely on plans to funnel payments to teaching institutions. Although we differ with him in terms of how to eliminate the duplicate payment, reducing the plan subsidy for this savings is reasonable, and agreement should be possible. As I said earlier in my statement, it is a difference of $3 billion, and therein lies the difference in the subsidy. The Congressional Budget Office recalculated the original cost of savings of achieving this reduction in the Institutional Medical Education Program earlier this year at $8.5 billion. They recalculate to $12.5 billion. You say: Why won't the President support that now? It is the same savings, the same plan. It has been recalculated, and we achieve greater savings in order to offset the additional provisions we provided for the lowest income beneficiaries. So it seems to me this is an area in which we should achieve agreement. If we agree we should eliminate the duplicate payment--and it has now been estimated in savings from the Congressional Budget Office at $12.5 billion instead of $8.7 billion-- we ought to be able to agree on the pending legislation. This legislation effects a second savings in Medicare Advantage by eliminating deeming wherever two managed care plans have succeeded in establishing networks. It simply makes sense that if managed care plans can contract providers, these private fee-for-service plans should as well. By reducing the duplicate IME payment by $8.7 billion and modifying the deeming provisions for plans, this legislation realizes $12.5 billion in savings. Still just less than one-fourth of the current Medicare Advantage subsidy cost. I note these savings fall far short of the fiscal responsibility which MedPAC, the Congressional Budget Office, and others suggest is absolutely necessary and vital. Yet some still claim these savings jeopardize Medicare Advantage. But the fact is, they are modest in terms of changing an environment which is both fiscally irresponsible and anticompetitive. For those who suggest subsidies should be maintained, they must answer some critical questions: When will these plans be economically viable? When will savings be realized by the taxpayers who are providing these subsidies to private insurance companies, in fact, far more than the traditional fee for service? When will more effective care be demonstrated? Again, they don't provide for prevention, effective disease management, screening or many of those tests that are so essential today that a provider in traditional fee for service, and yet not under these private plans, who are getting paid more than what we pay under fee for service in Medicare. What costs must the rest of Medicare bear as a result of these anticompetitive subsidies? The fact is the limited savings we accomplish in this legislation do not even threaten the continued operations of these uncompetitive plans. Even Wall Street knows that. I note in this final chart that an analyst for Goldman Sachs actually stated that savings exceeding those we make here do not affect the viability of these plans and that the Medicare Advantage Programs actually could ``absorb $15 billion in cuts over 5 years without materially undermining the fundamentals.'' As I said earlier, we are using $12.5 billion, not even $15 billion, and they are saying it would have no negative impact on those private programs. Further, we should, in fact, be fostering competition. In fact, that is what it was all about originally, providing those subsidies so there would be some competition. Business will respond, they said, and thereby achieve some of the objectives on which these plans were predicated. There is always political risk. As Simon Stevens of United Health Care noted, ``There is always political risk in government programs,'' he said, ``but we will weather it by evolving as Medicare evolves.'' There are urgent Medicare financing needs today which must be met. We must fix the physician payment formula. We must reform Medicare to see that care is improved and beneficiaries and taxpayers receive better value. We have so much more to do. Yet here we are being stymied by a difference of less than two-tenths of 1 percent of Medicare spending, that all is accomplished by reducing the subsidies to private health insurance companies. That is the difference in the pending legislation and those who object to it. This legislation, in fact, reflects many issues on which we have had bipartisan agreement. It bridges the critical gap between us in considering the vital and essential requirements of beneficiaries, by taking actions to see best practices emphasized and low-income assistance standards are at least updated for inflation. It also acts to see that Medicare policies are not penny-wise and pound-foolish. I hope we will see this very modest compromise on this legislation that will produce progress for the providers, for current beneficiaries, and for generations to come to achieve the savings we think is essential--and it is offset because we think that is the fiscally responsible approach to take--and also not to skew disproportionately the subsidies we are providing to private health insurance companies for private fee for service, for both to work in a competitive fashion, and what we are seeing are subsidies growing by leaps and bounds. To reach that compromise, we have to support this legislation. Hopefully, the Senate will express its support for sound fiscal policy. Hopefully, we can override the cloture. If that fails, I hope we can, again, come to together and resolve these differences and demonstrate to the American people that we have the capacity to solve problems at this very crucial juncture in our Nation's history.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, today I celebrate an inventive Maine small business that is helping to support our country's National Guard and Reservist families. Honor Grounds LLC distributes its own brand of high-quality coffee to convenience stores and supermarkets, and a portion of the sales go to helping some of our country's most deserving citizens. Honor Grounds LLC is an enormously innovative project of Dan Boudreau, who is a longtime coffee distributor, as well as Catherine and John Salterio, principals at Consolidated Services, a beverage distribution consulting firm in Minot. Several years ago, Mr. Boudreau, who is a Maine Army National Guard veteran himself, sought a unique avenue to give back to the Guard. Mr. Boudreau, together with the Salterios, developed a program to sell specially packaged Honor Grounds coffee and to donate some of the profits to assist military families. They launched the company earlier this year and report that retailers have demonstrated immense support for the initiative. In fact, Hannaford Brothers, one of the supermarket chains participating in the program, generously waived its usual stocking fee for Honor Grounds in recognition of the program's significance. They offer three military- themed flavors of coffee--Reveille Dark, Five Star Joe, and D-Day Decaf. All donated proceeds from Honor Grounds go specifically to The Patriot Fund, which was designed to concentrate money in the hands of groups that aid America's military personnel and their families. Already, Honor Grounds has succeeded in funding several organizations nationwide, including the Maine Department of Veterans Affairs, as well as Tee It Up For The Troops, a golf fundraising nonprofit that supports the families of disabled and fallen servicemembers. Honor Grounds coffee consists of choice 100 percent roasted Arabica beans, which translates to an exceptional cup of coffee. But more notably, each bag of Honor Grounds coffee includes the story of a member of the National Guard or Reserves. Each biography details the life of one of our Nation's defenders, the heroes among us. More than just a nice touch, these narratives provide a link between soldier and civilian, which makes the purchase of Honor Grounds coffee all the more meaningful. To expand the scope of its reach, supplement its retail sales, and ultimately generate more funds for the Nation's military families, Honor Grounds recently implemented a fundraising partnership program. Schools, veterans and civic organizations, as well as other groups sell Honor Grounds coffee with their association's logo on the box, thereby promoting both the group and Honor Grounds. Notably, Honor Grounds donates an extra $1.50 to that club's home State military families for each box sold. Honor Grounds is not only a patriotic small business, but it also represents a truly creative approach to bolstering our Nation's support of those who serve. With the motto of ``Helping Military Members and Their Families, One Cup at a Time,'' Honor Grounds is seeking to reinvigorate the gratitude our country's finest citizens have earned. I thank Mr. Boudreau and the Salterios for their selfless efforts, and wish them continued success in their magnificent achievement.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to join me in voting to proceed to the tax extenders legislation on the floor. This legislation represents a fiscally responsible and balanced approach to ensure that necessary tax provisions for hardworking American families and indispensable small businesses do not expire. At a time when our economy teeters on the brink of recession--when unemployment increased 5.5 percent last month--the biggest monthly jump in 12 years--when gasoline at the pump is more than $4 a gallon and climbing, when the cost of a dozen eggs has risen 38 percent in the last year alone, when oil costs are set to reach $140 per barrel and analysts are predicting a rise to $150 by July 4th, and when foreclosures have hit historic levels--is there any question that the American people expect--even demand, not just action but action leading to results. We must forge together the results that address these central issues facing the U.S. economy and the millions of Americans who are anxiously awaiting action from leaders. And while Congress will be forced to make difficult choices on some of these issues in the coming months, this issue-- whether to extend critical tax incentives right now should be, frankly, a straightforward decision. And now before us is legislation that would extend critical energy tax credits--including the catalyst that caused a 45-percent growth in wind energy last year and energy efficiency tax credits that creates an incentive to reduce energy demand. And we are really debating this question when we saw oil rise by $11 per barrel in a single day to $139? To be blunt, this country must wake up and recognize the ramifications of an energy crisis that we have not addressed for 30 years--and counting. Dr. Cooper of the Consumer Federation of America has estimated that from 2002 to 2008 annual household expenditures on energy increased from about $2,600 to an astonishing $5,300. The impact in Maine, where 80 percent of households use heating oil to get through a winter, is even worse. Last year at this time, prices were at a challenging $2.70 a gallon--for the average Mainer who goes through 1,000 gallons of oil that is $2,700. The price now is $4.70 meaning that it will cost a Mainer $4,700 just to stay warm not even considering gasoline costs. That is the difference between a burden and a crisis. Indeed, the energy efficiency tax incentives and the renewable production tax credit--critical vehicles for moving our country to self sufficiency--are set to expire at the end of this year and some have already expired at the beginning of this year. This is the antithesis of the energy policy that our nation must be employing to address rising energy costs. Energy efficiency is singlehandedly the most effective investment that our country can make to address the calamity of our energy policy. It is derelict that we would allow energy efficiency tax credits to expire. In fact, some tax credits have already expired, and as a result, there are currently no incentives to purchase efficient furnaces. At a time when Americans are worried about heating bills in June, we must provide the assistance to allow Americans to invest in energy efficient products that will reduce our collective demand for energy, and save Americans money. For example, included in this package is a $300 tax credit to purchase a high efficiency oil furnace, which would save over $180 in annual savings for an average home--according to calculations based on Department of Energy data and recent home heating prices. In addition, this includes an extension of a tax credit for highly efficient natural gas furnaces that saves an individual $100 per year. However, this tax credit ended at the beginning of this year--right when oil prices began their historic climb. For businesses that are competing against countries that subsidize oil the situation is simply untenable. Two weeks ago, Katahdin Paper Company announced that the cost of oil used to run its boilers has caused the company to consider closing the mill's doors. Now, talks are under way to find alternative solutions to preserve the mill's operations and its accompanying jobs, but make no mistake; we are at the tipping point where our economy could well be in ruins directly as a result of high energy costs. With jobs being lost because of high energy costs, it is crucial that we invest in renewable energy jobs--that will put our economy back to work and invest in secure energy future. Indeed over one hundred thousand Americans could be put to work in 2008 if clean energy production tax credits were extended. However, because the incentives are set to expire this year, renewable energy companies are already reporting a precipitous decrease in investment due to uncertainty. Projects currently underway may soon be mothballed. Clean energy incentives for energy efficient buildings, appliances and other technologies, as well as additional funding for weatherizing homes, would similarly serve to stimulate 2008 economic consumption, lower residential energy costs, and generate new manufacturing and construction jobs. It is irresponsible to allow a bright spot in our economy, the renewable energy industry and energy efficiency industries, to falter, when the product of these industries are so essential to the future of this country. Failing to act on these crucial incentives could choke off promising business investment in 2008 and miss an opportunity to address high energy costs, a critical contributor to sinking consumer confidence and our Nation's long-term economic challenges. Extending these expiring clean energy tax credits will help ensure a stronger, more stable environment for new investments and ensure continued robust growth in a bright spot in an otherwise slowing economy. This bill presents another opportunity to raise the bar for our future domestic energy systems and energy efficiencies, benefitting our economy, our health, our environment, and our national security. Not only does the legislation address these critical energy tax provisions, but also extends relief for lower and middle-income Americans, as well as small businesses. In particular, there are a number of provisions that I have championed that have been included by the House legislation and Chairman Baucus' amendment. Fed Chairman Bernanke testified before the House Budget Committee earlier this year that, ``a fiscal stimulus package should be implemented quickly and structured so that its effects on aggregate spending are felt as much as possible within the next twelve months or so.'' Without a doubt, one way to affect spending and help working Americans meet the challenges ahead of us and provide for the families is providing a tax rebate. Another measure that Senator Lincoln and I have long championed would enable more hard-working, low-income families to receive the refundable child credit by reducing the income threshold for the refundable credit to $10,000 and deindexing it from inflation just as it originally passed the Senate in 2001. The consequences of inaction are serious for low-income Americans living paycheck-to-paycheck, and our proposal will ensure that those low-income, hard-working families that benefit from this credit the most receive it. And, I am very pleased that the House included a version of our proposal, one in which, I might add, would already be putting money in people's pockets had it already been enacted into law providing further economic stimulus during these challenging times. To ensure that much needed capital investment reaches all corners of the country, the extenders package rightly includes an extension of the new markets tax credit. This program has proven extremely successful in encouraging investment and spurring growth in impoverished areas all across the country, both rural and urban. Senator Rockefeller and I have championed extending this vital incentive with the New Markets Tax Credit Extension Act, S. 1239, a bill that enjoys the bipartisan support of 27 cosponsors. To provide relief and equity to our Nation's 1.5 million retail establishments, most of which have less than five employees, I have introduced with Senators Lincoln, Kerry, and Hutchison. This provision would reduce from 39 to 15 years the depreciable life of improvements that are made to retail stores that are owned by the retailer. If the motion to proceed passes, I believe that we will have an opportunity to address this inequity given the support for this provision expressed by the chairman of the Finance Committee. In 2004, I fought for the inclusion of incentives to stop the flow of film productions offshore into the FSC-ETI bill. Consequently, I was very pleased to see the House include an extension of this vital incentive for film production companies planning whether and where to film. The House also included a critical modification to the incentive. Specifically, it would remove the $15 million cap on film productions eligible for the incentive and instead limiting the deduction to the first $15 million as the provision was originally passed in the Senate before being amended in conference. This is an issue that I have also worked on with my good friend, the senior Senator from Arkansas, and am so pleased with this provisions inclusion. So as we can see, this bill provides the Senate an opportunity to consider a number of provisions that are vital in helping our economy weather the recent downturn it is experiencing. The provisions that I have just outlined will unleash renewable energy projects creating jobs, provided targeted tax relief to low-income working families struggling to pay for the high cost of food and fuel, encourage an infusion of capital into rural and urban communities, provide tax incentives for retail businesses looking to grow their business, and help keep the jobs associated with film production within our borders. Not to mention, the tax extenders bill also includes provisions such as the R&D tax credit, the tuition deduction and the teachers classroom expenses deduction that are widely supported on both sides of the aisle. Clearly, this tax extenders package is critical to Congress's ongoing efforts to reverse the economic slowdown that our Nation is facing. For the fifth month this year, U.S. employers have cut jobs including 49,000 in the month of May alone. The number of Americans filing first- time claims for unemployment benefits is at its highest level since October of 2004 and the increase in the rate was the largest since 1986. The Senate should move forward on extending expiring tax relief. There are some aspects of the House bill that I believe should be improved upon, such as providing an AMT patch to stop the expansion of this mass tax. Some on the other side of the aisle believe we should at least attempt to pay for tax relief, a position I happen to agree with. Others on my side of the aisle believe that shouldn't continue to be a maintenance Congress, continually passing short-term temporary tax relief, a position that I also happen to agree with. There are differences of opinion, but what is the Senate afraid of? What are we afraid of? To debate and to vote on various positions? Some of those issues and positions I would disagree with. But does that mean to say the Senate cannot withstand the conflicting views of various Members of the Senate? It is not unheard of, that both sides of the political aisle will have differing views. So, I would urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the motion to proceed. If the motion succeeds, I am hopeful that we can do what the Senate ought to do--that is find some common ground on an amendment process and a way forward to finally dispose of the legislation and enact this legislation sooner rather than later. I came to this discussion to work on this issue, to debate, which is consistent with the traditions and principles of this institution, which has been its hallmark. That is why it has been considered the greatest deliberative body in the world. Unfortunately, it is not living up to that expectation or characterization, regrettably. Let's have an open and unfettered debate, which is consistent with this institution that is predicated on our Founding Fathers' vision of an institution based on accommodation and consensus. You have to get 60 votes. So let's work it out. Let's clear this first hurdle and proceed to the bill. My side of the aisle will still have another 60 vote threshold to ensure that their concerns are heard. The Senate is based on consensus. It is based on compromise. It is based on conciliation. It is based on the fact that you have to develop cooperation in order to get anything done. It is not unusual. If historically we took the position: You missed your chance because there are disparate views, so that there would be no opportunity to further discuss or negotiate--we missed our chance? Are we talking about scoring political points? Are we talking about what is the best tax policy for this country? I am concerned we are taking a political U-turn away from the message in the last election. I was in that last election. I heard loudly and clearly. I don't blame the people of Maine or across this country for their deep-seated frustration. They are right. There was too much partisanship and too much polarization. What's required now is leadership. We need leadership for this country. They are thirsting for a strong leadership, an honorable leadership that leads us to a common goal. No one expected unanimity in the Senate but we would give integrity to this process to allow it to work and not cynically say who is winning and who is losing today politically. We are not shedding the political past. We have made a political U-turn. We are returning to it. This isn't about party labels. This isn't whether it is good for Republicans or good for Democrats. It is what is good for America. It is not about red States and blue States. It is about the red, white, and blue. Fact is that with every day that we delay, there are millions of taxpayers in all 50 States who literally will pay the price for our inaction. I hope we can find a way. What could be of higher priority than to be able to debate and to vote on our respective positions, to give a vote on AMT relief and expiring tax provisions that is so important that a majority of Senators support? Is there anyone in this Chamber who does not think we should extend expiring tax relief?? I know we can build the threshold for the 60. It is imperative we do it. It is inexcusable, frankly, that on the process for debating, we cannot reach an agreement. We are failing the American people on a colossal scale. We are held up by arcane procedural measures that could be worked out, if only we reached across the political aisle. If my remarks sound familiar, then well they should because regrettably I said much the same thing in February of last year at the start of this Congress on another pressing issue of our time. Sadly as we now approach the end of the first session of the 110th Congress, things seemed to have not changed very much. I would hope when we finally adjourn after hopefully extending this critical tax relief that each and every one of us will return to our homes and when the clock strikes midnight on December 31, that we all make a New Years resolution to make the next Congress a more productive session with Members reaching across the aisle looking for consensus. If we do not, there is one thing that is for certain; the American public is watching.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, with Senator John Kerry, to introduce the Small Business Information Security Act of 2008. Not only is this a bipartisan bill in the United States Senate, but it is also a bicameral bill. Congressmen Manzullo and Michaud are also introducing companion legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives. This bill would establish within the Small Business Administration, SBA, a Small Business Information Security Task Force to advise the SBA and help small businesses both understand the unique information security challenges they face, and identify resources to help meet those challenges. As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, one of my goals is to ensure small businesses are protected from the mounting information security threats they face every day. This legislation will create a clearinghouse of information, resources, and tools--compiled by a task force consisting of public and private sector experts in the field--that will ease the complexity, confusion, and cost often associated with enhancing information security measures within a small business. The task force will continually update information and resources as new technologies and threats arise. Currently, small business owners turn to the SBA for resources regarding a number of aspects, but information security resources remain largely unavailable within the agency. This legislation will present an opportunity for the SBA to develop and create a repository of data to help small business owners meet their information security needs. This legislation will enable industry experts to come together and immediately provide meaningful strategies to enable small businesses to safeguard their customer's personal information. Computer networks are increasingly susceptible to hackers, intruders, and other cyber criminals. In fact, in my home state of Maine, the retail supermarket chain, Hannaford Bros., was recently affected by an intrusion into their computer system which led to the exposure of 4.2 million credit and debit card numbers. What many people do not realize is that a breach like Hannaford's impacts not only the millions of customers whose personal data was compromised, but it also has serious downstream impact on our Nation's small businesses. For example, throughout Maine there are many small banks; these banks are responsible for protecting and alerting their depositors upon fraudulent activity. Following the Hannaford breach, many small banks had to replace their customers' credit and debit cards, clearly a costly enterprise that diverts resources from more productive activities, such as small business lending. The bill we are introducing today will help ameliorate this problem. Unfortunately, these attacks are becoming more frequent and more severe, and the perpetrators are becoming harder to identify and bring to justice. According to a survey by the Small Business Technology Institute, more than half of all small businesses in the U.S. experienced a security breach in the last year. Furthermore, the study concludes that nearly one-fifth of small businesses do not use virus- scanning for e-mail, over 60 percent do not protect their wireless networks with encryption, and two-thirds of small businesses do not have an information security plan. As these statistics illustrate, small businesses are increasingly at risk of data breaches and other forms of malicious attacks on their information technology infrastructure. Cyber attacks launched by a small group of people can devastate America financially, it is conceivable that a few individuals working together could disable millions of computers at a cost of hundreds of millions to the U.S. economy. Cyber-criminals can hold hostage not just a few individuals, but millions of small businesses. This legislation provides best practices to help small business owners decrease the risk cyber attacks pose to their customers. The information security threat posed to our Nation's small businesses is serious, and our efforts to prevent and reduce this risk carry a tremendous sense of urgency. We must continue to focus on ways we can protect small businesses, and their customers, from the serious consequences of cyber crimes. In order to take an important first step, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this critical legislation, and I hope we can see this commonsense legislation enacted into law as expeditiously as possible. 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, with Senator John Kerry, to introduce the Small Business Information Security Act of 2008. Not only is this a bipartisan bill in the United States Senate, but it is also a bicameral bill. Congressmen Manzullo and Michaud are also introducing companion legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives. This bill would establish within the Small Business Administration, SBA, a Small Business Information Security Task Force to advise the SBA and help small businesses both understand the unique information security challenges they face, and identify resources to help meet those challenges. As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, one of my goals is to ensure small businesses are protected from the mounting information security threats they face every day. This legislation will create a clearinghouse of information, resources, and tools--compiled by a task force consisting of public and private sector experts in the field--that will ease the complexity, confusion, and cost often associated with enhancing information security measures within a small business. The task force will continually update information and resources as new technologies and threats arise. Currently, small business owners turn to the SBA for resources regarding a number of aspects, but information security resources remain largely unavailable within the agency. This legislation will present an opportunity for the SBA to develop and create a repository of data to help small business owners meet their information security needs. This legislation will enable industry experts to come together and immediately provide meaningful strategies to enable small businesses to safeguard their customer's personal information. Computer networks are increasingly susceptible to hackers, intruders, and other cyber criminals. In fact, in my home state of Maine, the retail supermarket chain, Hannaford Bros., was recently affected by an intrusion into their computer system which led to the exposure of 4.2 million credit and debit card numbers. What many people do not realize is that a breach like Hannaford's impacts not only the millions of customers whose personal data was compromised, but it also has serious downstream impact on our Nation's small businesses. For example, throughout Maine there are many small banks; these banks are responsible for protecting and alerting their depositors upon fraudulent activity. Following the Hannaford breach, many small banks had to replace their customers' credit and debit cards, clearly a costly enterprise that diverts resources from more productive activities, such as small business lending. The bill we are introducing today will help ameliorate this problem. Unfortunately, these attacks are becoming more frequent and more severe, and the perpetrators are becoming harder to identify and bring to justice. According to a survey by the Small Business Technology Institute, more than half of all small businesses in the U.S. experienced a security breach in the last year. Furthermore, the study concludes that nearly one-fifth of small businesses do not use virus- scanning for e-mail, over 60 percent do not protect their wireless networks with encryption, and two-thirds of small businesses do not have an information security plan. As these statistics illustrate, small businesses are increasingly at risk of data breaches and other forms of malicious attacks on their information technology infrastructure. Cyber attacks launched by a small group of people can devastate America financially, it is conceivable that a few individuals working together could disable millions of computers at a cost of hundreds of millions to the U.S. economy. Cyber-criminals can hold hostage not just a few individuals, but millions of small businesses. This legislation provides best practices to help small business owners decrease the risk cyber attacks pose to their customers. The information security threat posed to our Nation's small businesses is serious, and our efforts to prevent and reduce this risk carry a tremendous sense of urgency. We must continue to focus on ways we can protect small businesses, and their customers, from the serious consequences of cyber crimes. In order to take an important first step, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this critical legislation, and I hope we can see this commonsense legislation enacted into law as expeditiously as possible. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would expand and strengthen the guaranteed home loan program administered by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This action is particularly timely given the many readjustment challenges faced by our veterans and their families in this time of war, challenges that have been compounded for veterans by the current subprime mortgage market crisis and credit crunch. Mr. President, this legislation is intended to be the companion legislation to H.R. 4884, Helping Our Veterans Keep Their Homes Act of 2008, introduced in the House by Chairman Filner of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. For some time, we have heard from many veterans that the current structure of the VA Home Loan guarantee program has not been responsive to the needs of veterans in today's market. For example, the current home loan limit is $417,000. Unfortunately, in many states with the largest population of veterans, reservists, and active duty personnel, the average home price is well above the national average and above the current loan ceiling. In contrast, the Federal Housing Authority home loan program constrains the loan dollar value by State and county. I strongly believe that veterans and service members should not be penalized for geographic differences in the housing market-- particularly when, for many, where they live is not of their own choosing but directed by the military organization in which they are serving in the defense of the Nation. We have also learned that for veterans and lenders, the VA loan process can be costly, both with respect to personal finance and time. The fees that are required for participation in the program impose costs on the veteran and family that reduce the financial attractiveness of the VA loan. In fact, it has been suggested that those fees, the bureaucratic red-tape, and the loan dollar value constraints that I previously noted, contributed to the conditions that resulted in far too many veterans being steered toward subprime loans in the first place. Equally disturbing are reports that veterans and reservists did not have access to prime rate loans because of the tumult created in their lives due to repeated deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, or both. Unbelievably, despite their wartime service, these patriots were assessed to have less than the desired level of personal financial stability sought by prime rate lenders and received low credit scores. With access to prime loans limited, subprimes became an option of necessity for many veterans. What has become a point of frustration for veterans now trapped in the mortgage debacle is that the guaranteed home loan program is limited in its ability to provide relief for veterans who have fallen victim to unscrupulous lenders who prey on military families. Given the sacrifices of our veterans and their families, and the disruption in their lives created when they patriotically answer their Nation's call to service, we must do better by our veterans by providing a readjustment benefit that reflects the realities of today's housing market. The legislation that I am introducing today would provide for the following: (1) increase the maximum home loan guarantee amount to $729,750; (2) decrease the equity requirement to refinance a home loan; (3) require the VA Secretary to review and streamline the process of using a guaranteed home loan to purchase a condominium; (4) eliminate the home loan funding fees; (5) reduce the home loan refinance fees to one percent; (6) extend the adjustable rate mortgage demonstration project to 2018; (7) extend the hybrid adjustable rate mortgage demonstration project to 2012; (8) raise the maximum loan guarantee for refinancing a home to $729,750; and (9) authorize the VA to offer a 30 percent guaranty for loans made on homes determined by VA and HUD to be affordable housing. Clearly, this is the right thing to do. I should note that this legislation is supported by the veterans' services organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion. I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join me and offer their support for this important legislation.