Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, outdoor recreational activities are a staple of Maine's winter, past and present. From skiing to snowmobiling, visitors have flocked to Maine for decades to get a chance to enjoy the mounds of fresh snow our State enjoys every year. I rise today to recognize Lost Valley Ski Area, located in the city of Auburn, which this year is celebrating its 50th year of operation. Lost Valley has been an Auburn staple since it was founded by Otto Wallingford and Dr. Camille Gardner in 1961, when it first began enticing people from the Twin Cities and the surrounding areas to its slopes to learn how to ski. It was then that a 700-foot tow rope was installed in a little known area named Perkins Ridge, where children used to navigate through the trees to a clearing, or ``The Lost Valley,'' as it was called. That clearing now holds ``the Lodge,'' where after a long day on the slopes, newly minted skiers can enjoy a hot cup of cocoa by the stone hearth. Additionally, the 55 acres of trails are now co-owned by Linc Hayes and Connie King, two small business owners who have dedicated their time to continue the mountain tradition. Mr. Wallingford is not only known for opening Lost Valley for Mainers and tourists alike, but is also considered one of the fathers of snowmaking and grooming. He was the originator of the ``fan gun,'' a piece of snowmaking equipment that sprays a mist that is fanned to cover a large area. His first attempts created more ice than snow, but that was eventually remedied by removing water from the snowmaking system. He then developed, 30 years before they became a fad, snow guns on elevated poles. It was not, however, Mr. Wallingford's penchant for creating snow, but his dedication to improving skiing conditions that brought him to the forefront of the ski industry. In order to create a more skiable terrain, Otto transformed old farm equipment into the predecessor of the modern ``snow groomer.'' An agricultural engineering graduate from the University of Maine, Mr. Wallingford used a tractor and attached a roller with a chain-like material that pulverized the snow. His ``Powder Maker'' was so successful that he crafted and sold them to other ski resorts both in the U.S. and abroad. A majority of his original snowmaking equipment is still in use at Lost Valley today! Following the tradition of providing a mountain that caters to all ages and skill levels, Lost Valley Ski Area offers the Central Maine Adaptive Sports Program, or CMAS. The CMAS provides a disabled person the chance to ski, and ``focuses on student's abilities rather than their disabilities.'' The program is staffed by volunteers who coach skiers one-on-one in order for them to learn the basic skills. It is both the physical activity and the focus on gaining self confidence that keeps students coming back. Through this and other programs at Lost Valley, students are able to train for the Olympics and ``Go for the Gold,'' like famed skier and three-time Olympian Julie Parisien, who grew up skiing at Lost Valley. Maine is home to scores of innovators and philanthropists. Linc Hayes and Connie King are following in that tradition by keeping Lost Valley Ski area a beacon of history, learning, and fun. Their commitment of providing a place for all to enjoy snow sports is what makes Lost Valley such a special place. I thank them and everyone at Lost Valley for their efforts, and wish them 50 more years of success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to submit a sense of the Senate resolution that clarifies my opposition to tax increases on the job- creating sector of our economy--small business. It is becoming increasingly clear, and increasingly concerning, that the administration is proposing to raise taxes on America's small businesses, either by forcing them to reorganize as subchapter C corporations solely for tax reasons and be subjected to new and additional taxes, or, by allowing them to remain organized as flow- through entities, where they will face massive increases after 2012 when current tax rates expire. Our Nation simply cannot afford an impending tax increase of over $800 billion. Subjecting small businesses to the double taxation of corporate-entity status would be a major mistake. There has been tremendous growth in the number of flow-through entities--that is, non-C corporations--over the past 30 years and this growth has only accelerated in the last decade. Since 1997, S corporations have outnumbered C corporations. Fifty percent of all income above $250,000 currently is attributable to flow-through businesses. By 2007, only 5.9 million out of a total 32.1 million U.S. businesses, or just 18 percent, were C corporations, meaning the overwhelming number of businesses in this country organize as flow- through entities. The administration is proposing to eliminate choice and require C corporation formation purely to generate revenue. C corporate form helps generate revenue because it is inherently a double tax, first at the entity then at the individual shareholder level. The Treasury Secretary said that this proposed change could subject up to $3 trillion to new and additional income taxes. In this regard, the administration is proposing to raise taxes on America's small businesses: either by forcing them to reorganize as C corporations solely for tax reasons and be subjected to new and additional levies, or if the administration deigns to let them remain organized as flow-through entities, then they will be hit with massive increased taxes after 2012 when current tax rates expire--an impending tax increase of over $800 billion that job creators cannot afford. Individual income tax rates absolutely affect these businesses. The growth in the number of flow-through businesses is critical to understanding why the increase in individual rates is so damaging to small business job generation. When we talk about flow-through entities what we really mean are America's small businesses. A discussion of tax reform must not ignore the small businesses that make up the backbone of America. The administration continues to talk about corporate tax reform but it should be talking about business tax reform, which of necessity must include a real discussion of individual tax rates. Many of America's small businesses choose the flow-through option to avoid double taxation. Forcing them to convert to C corporate status is simply another way to increase their costs and raise their taxes. This would hurt job creation since 70 percent of our good American jobs are created by these businesses. I urge my colleagues to review my proposal and join me in telling those who would raise taxes on the millions of businesswomen and businessmen we are counting on to create the jobs we need to put the recession firmly behind us--no thank you.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Kerry, to re-introduce comprehensive spectrum reform legislation to modernize our nation's radio spectrum planning, management, and coordination activities. Taking this corrective action will allow us to meet the future telecommunications needs of all spectrum users. For consumers, these fixes will lead to additional choices, greater innovation, lower prices, and more reliable services. Over the past year, there has been growing concern about a looming radio spectrum crisis. It is not without reason--growth and innovation within spectrum-based services have exploded over the past decade. In particular, the cellular industry has been a prominent driver of this expansion. Currently, there are more than 290 million wireless subscribers in the U.S., and American consumers use more than 6.4 billion minutes of air time per day. While the foundation for wireless services has been voice communication, more subscribers are utilizing it for broadband through the use of smartphones and netbooks--smartphones actually outsold personal computers in the last quarter of 2010. According to the Pew Research Center, 56 percent of adult Americans have accessed the Internet via a wireless device. ABI Research forecasts there will be 150 million mobile broadband subscribers by 2014--a 2,900 percent increase from 2007. Spectrum is so important that both the Federal Communications Commission and the President have made it a priority to find additional spectrum for wireless broadband so providers have the necessary capacity to meet the growing demand of consumers and businesses alike. There are constraints however, spectrum is a finite resource, and we cannot manufacture new spectrum. Making matters worse, the government's current spectrum management framework is inefficient and has not kept up with technological advancements. As evidence, the Government Accountability Office, in a series of reports, concluded ``the current structure and management of spectrum use in the U.S. does not encourage the development and use of some spectrum efficient technologies.'' The legislation we are re-introducing today fixes the fundamental deficiencies that exist in spectrum management and promotes efforts to improve spectrum efficiency. Specifically, the Reforming Airwaves by Developing Incentives and Opportunistic Sharing, RADIOS, Act tasks the FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, NTIA, to conduct the fundamental first step of a comprehensive inventory of radio spectrum and to perform much-needed spectrum measurements to determine actual usage and occupancy rates. This data would provide decision makers at the FCC, NTIA, and Congress a clearer, more detailed, and up-to-date understanding of how spectrum is currently being used and by whom--data essential to sound policy decisions and spectrum management. The bill also requires a cost-benefit analysis of spectrum relocation opportunities to move certain incumbent users and services to more efficient spectrum bands. Many legacy wireless services could employ newer technologies to provide more efficient use of spectrum. The legislation would also establish Wi-Fi hot-spots and allow the installation of wireless antenna systems and base stations, such as femtocells, in all publicly accessible Federal buildings as well as streamline Federal rights-of-way and wireless tower sitings on Federal buildings. Such efforts would improve wireless and broadband coverage for Americans and also result in lower costs to taxpayers since spectrum would be utilized more effectively by Federal agencies. In addition, my bill requires greater collaboration between the FCC and NTIA on spectrum policy and management related issues, implementation of spectrum sharing and reuse programs, as well as more market-based incentives to promote efficient spectrum use. It also sets a deadline for the creation of the National Strategic Spectrum Plan, which will provide a long-term vision for domestic spectrum use and strategies to meet those needs. While the National Broadband Plan touches on several of these areas, this legislation will provide greater assistance in developing the 21st Century comprehensive spectrum policy necessary to meet the future spectrum needs of all users. It should be noted the RADIOS Act is intended to complement the National Broadband Plan and the recently announced Presidential Wireless Initiative in promoting more efficient use of spectrum and ensuring that the proper framework is in place to meet America's future telecommunications needs. But it also encourages greater focus on other areas outside the Plan and the Initiative by promoting technological innovation and more robust spectrum management. Senator Kerry and I envision this legislation to be a supplement to other legislative efforts related to spectrum. And we look forward to working with our colleagues in the Senate and with all stakeholders to advance comprehensive 21st Century spectrum policy necessary to meet the future spectrum needs of all users. Our Nation's competitiveness, economy, and national security demand that we allocate the necessary attention to this policy shortcoming--it is the only way we will be able to avert a looming spectrum crisis and continue to realize the boundless benefits of spectrum-based services. That is why I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join Senator Kerry and me in supporting this critical legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Kerry, to re-introduce comprehensive spectrum reform legislation to modernize our nation's radio spectrum planning, management, and coordination activities. Taking this corrective action will allow us to meet the future telecommunications needs of all spectrum users. For consumers, these fixes will lead to additional choices, greater innovation, lower prices, and more reliable services. Over the past year, there has been growing concern about a looming radio spectrum crisis. It is not without reason--growth and innovation within spectrum-based services have exploded over the past decade. In particular, the cellular industry has been a prominent driver of this expansion. Currently, there are more than 290 million wireless subscribers in the U.S., and American consumers use more than 6.4 billion minutes of air time per day. While the foundation for wireless services has been voice communication, more subscribers are utilizing it for broadband through the use of smartphones and netbooks--smartphones actually outsold personal computers in the last quarter of 2010. According to the Pew Research Center, 56 percent of adult Americans have accessed the Internet via a wireless device. ABI Research forecasts there will be 150 million mobile broadband subscribers by 2014--a 2,900 percent increase from 2007. Spectrum is so important that both the Federal Communications Commission and the President have made it a priority to find additional spectrum for wireless broadband so providers have the necessary capacity to meet the growing demand of consumers and businesses alike. There are constraints however, spectrum is a finite resource, and we cannot manufacture new spectrum. Making matters worse, the government's current spectrum management framework is inefficient and has not kept up with technological advancements. As evidence, the Government Accountability Office, in a series of reports, concluded ``the current structure and management of spectrum use in the U.S. does not encourage the development and use of some spectrum efficient technologies.'' The legislation we are re-introducing today fixes the fundamental deficiencies that exist in spectrum management and promotes efforts to improve spectrum efficiency. Specifically, the Reforming Airwaves by Developing Incentives and Opportunistic Sharing, RADIOS, Act tasks the FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, NTIA, to conduct the fundamental first step of a comprehensive inventory of radio spectrum and to perform much-needed spectrum measurements to determine actual usage and occupancy rates. This data would provide decision makers at the FCC, NTIA, and Congress a clearer, more detailed, and up-to-date understanding of how spectrum is currently being used and by whom--data essential to sound policy decisions and spectrum management. The bill also requires a cost-benefit analysis of spectrum relocation opportunities to move certain incumbent users and services to more efficient spectrum bands. Many legacy wireless services could employ newer technologies to provide more efficient use of spectrum. The legislation would also establish Wi-Fi hot-spots and allow the installation of wireless antenna systems and base stations, such as femtocells, in all publicly accessible Federal buildings as well as streamline Federal rights-of-way and wireless tower sitings on Federal buildings. Such efforts would improve wireless and broadband coverage for Americans and also result in lower costs to taxpayers since spectrum would be utilized more effectively by Federal agencies. In addition, my bill requires greater collaboration between the FCC and NTIA on spectrum policy and management related issues, implementation of spectrum sharing and reuse programs, as well as more market-based incentives to promote efficient spectrum use. It also sets a deadline for the creation of the National Strategic Spectrum Plan, which will provide a long-term vision for domestic spectrum use and strategies to meet those needs. While the National Broadband Plan touches on several of these areas, this legislation will provide greater assistance in developing the 21st Century comprehensive spectrum policy necessary to meet the future spectrum needs of all users. It should be noted the RADIOS Act is intended to complement the National Broadband Plan and the recently announced Presidential Wireless Initiative in promoting more efficient use of spectrum and ensuring that the proper framework is in place to meet America's future telecommunications needs. But it also encourages greater focus on other areas outside the Plan and the Initiative by promoting technological innovation and more robust spectrum management. Senator Kerry and I envision this legislation to be a supplement to other legislative efforts related to spectrum. And we look forward to working with our colleagues in the Senate and with all stakeholders to advance comprehensive 21st Century spectrum policy necessary to meet the future spectrum needs of all users. Our Nation's competitiveness, economy, and national security demand that we allocate the necessary attention to this policy shortcoming--it is the only way we will be able to avert a looming spectrum crisis and continue to realize the boundless benefits of spectrum-based services. That is why I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join Senator Kerry and me in supporting this critical legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague and friend Senator Boxer to hail the inclusion of the passengers' bill of rights in the reauthorization of the FAA. We have worked together for 5 years to protect passengers, and moving the passengers' bill of rights off the ``to-do'' list and into law will be a victory for the traveling public. Senator Boxer and I have worked diligently as far back as the spring of 2007 to move this essential safety measure forward. Last year's passage of the FAA reauthorization bill brought us closer to our goal, but the legislation expired as the House and Senate grappled with other issues. Undeterred, Senator Boxer and I continued to stand up for this common sense safety and consumer protection proposal. Make no mistake, providing airline travelers with access to food, water, restrooms, and medication is not just an issue of comfort-- passengers who are pregnant, elderly, or ill require access to clean water and appropriate facilities--and no passenger should be held against their will just steps from an airport facility. When passengers are able to safely deplane in the event of a delay, they absolutely should be given the choice to do so. This proposal ensures that passengers are given the right to get off a plane after 3 hours of delay on the tarmac. In 3 hours, a passenger could drive from Portland, ME, to Boston, complete an Olympic triathlon, or watch a full length movie. In that time, airlines can certainly ascertain whether or not they will actually be able to get off the ground. In March of last year, American Airlines flight 160 from San Diego to New York sat on the runway in Philadelphia for more than 5 hours, with passengers wondering if they ever would make it to New York. Passengers already compete for window and aisle seats, and hope for exit rows with a bit more legroom. In fact, a Web site has made a business of providing charts of each air carrier's planes to show which have the best seats. The average airline seat is 17.2 inches wide, and passengers stuck in middle seats are given so little space to move. We have reached the point where we consult the Web to find which seat is least painful. Consumers want assurances that they will not be confined to their seats for any longer than necessary, and this bill helps assure passengers that their time in these tight spaces won't be longer than absolutely necessary to get to their destination. We have gone from a record high of 268 flights delayed on the tarmac in June of 2009, to zero planes delayed on the tarmac for more than 3 hours in 2 consecutive months in October and November of last year. In the 8 months since the DOT rule was put in place, only 15 flights were delayed for more than 3 hours; in the same 8-month period the year before 586 flights with thousands of passengers aboard were held on the runway for hours on end. After so many years of hearing horror stories of passengers being held hostage aboard aircraft for 9, 12, and even, what I believe is a record, 16 hours, passengers will be able to point to Federal law that protects them. I hope the only runway record we set in the near future is the number of consecutive months without a single tarmac delay. To its credit, the Department of Transportation took our bill, and wrote much of it into regulation, and for that, I commend Secretary LaHood and his predecessors. Flights will no longer be stranded on U.S. runways for hours on end, with passengers on board just hoping for clean water, lights, or appropriate facilities. The Department will also impose a fine of $27,500 per passenger on a stranded flight. Airlines that neglect the welfare of passengers aboard their aircraft won't soon forget the hefty fines they face. The rules and regulations drafted by the Department of Transportation go a long way towards addressing our concerns. While it would be easy to say the job is done, and passengers are protected, I am pleased the FAA reauthorization will codify the passengers' bill of rights provisions. It is critical that the Department of Transportation understands that the passengers' bill of rights will extend these passenger protections to international flights using U.S. airports. A passengers' final destination should not dictate his or her rights on the runway. Let us be clear, this passengers' bill of rights applies to every passenger on every commercial plane taking off from or landing in the United States or its territories. At the end of a flight, there is simply no excuse for trapping people aboard an aircraft for hours on end with airport facilities only yards away. On December 26, 2010, four international flights were held at their U.S. destinations for upwards of 10 hours. While the airport and airlines continue to bicker over who was responsible for the delay, we want to make sure it never happens again. This legislation will ensure that airlines operating international flights will have a strong incentive to find a way to give passengers a way out. It is my hope that in the future all airlines will move heaven and earth to ensure that passengers are not trapped aboard aircraft without access to basic needs. Airports and airlines have worked hard to improve service and reduce delays. In Portland, one of the major airports in Maine, the number of cancelled flights has dropped from 702 in 2001, to 213 in 2010, and the airport had the greatest percentage of on time departures since 2002. The naysayers who told travelers that these new rules would cause hundreds of cancellations have been proven wrong. Now, if we could only tame our famous New England winter storms, we could reduce that number even more. This bill also provides recourse to consumers who have complaints or concerns about their air travel experience. When you have an issue with air travel, a consumer complaint hotline at DOT will be available to take your call. While it is our hope that this bill will improve the flying experience for travelers, passengers should have a clear path to addressing concerns with airlines. DOT should serve as a clearinghouse for collecting these concerns so a ``big picture'' view of the entire industry is available. I am pleased that this legislation puts into Federal law the clear right of passengers to be treated with dignity while traveling. Reasonable treatment aboard aircraft should not just be a rule, it should be a legal right of passengers. I look forward to working with Senator Boxer on other vital transportation issues that affect our rail lines, ports, and highways, and the entire Nation. With the reauthorization of many of our transportation programs this year, I am confident that improving the movement of passengers and freight will remain a congressional priority.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today, with my colleagues, Senator Collins, Coburn, and Brown of Massachusetts to discuss an amendment to the S. 223, the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act. Currently this bill contains language which adjusts for inflation the personal net worth cap in the Small Business Administration's 8(a) program. This would expand the net worth level established by the SBA in 1989 from $750,000 to approximately $1.4 million. Our amendment aims to strike that language from the bill. In March of 2010, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, issued a report detailing extensive fraud within the 8(a) program. The report revealed that 14 ineligible firms received $325 million in sole-source and set-aside contracts even though these firms were not eligible for the 8(a) program. As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I take very seriously our committee's responsibility of vigorous oversight and am concerned with efforts to expand the SBA's 8(a) program when these issues have not been fully vetted through the regular order in the Small Business Committee. Moreover, there has not been a hearing to examine the GAO reports of fraud. The SBA's 8(a) program is designed to help socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses gain access to Federal contracting opportunities. I support these goals and applaud the Federal Government for consistently meeting the goal for small disadvantaged businesses. However, I am deeply troubled by the program's current vulnerabilities to fraud and abuse which results in legitimate firms being excluded in favor of bad actors who have infiltrated the program. This is not a partisan issue. I recently sent a letter along with SBC Chair Mary Landrieu to Administrator Mills' where we stated unequivocally that our first priority in the 112th Congress is to ensure the SBA is taking the requisite steps to purge the contracting programs of any and all fraud and abuse. When calculating an individual's net worth, the SBA currently excludes the value of their primary residence and the equity in the 8(a) company. The language contained in the FAA bill would result in allowing potential multimillionaires to be considered economically disadvantaged. Therefore, I wonder about the further effects this change would have on the program. I question whether expanding the net worth would result in crowding out of business owners with significantly lower net worth. Additionally, I worry lower income individuals would be at a disadvantage competing with those with substantially more resources. In light of all these concerns, I fear the current net worth expansion is fraught with unintended consequences and ignores the recent reports of fraud in the 8(a) program. I urge my colleagues to support the Snowe- Collins-Coburn-Brown amendment to strike this language. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as we have heard time and time again, the American manufacturing sector is struggling. Manufacturers face a whole host of challenges, from oppressive regulations to increased energy costs to foreign competition. Indeed, it has been predicted that China will surpass the United States in 2011 as the world's biggest manufacturing nation in terms of output. In Maine, wood products manufacturers have been particularly harmed by the effects of unfair competition from overseas countries. Indeed, only three American factories still manufacture wooden dowels, which are often used to join pieces of furniture. When one of those factories that operated in my home State was shuttered last year, a group of Maine investors stepped forward to restart operations and provide economic opportunity to the region. Today I wish to recognize that company--Saunders Brothers--and the individuals who made the purchase of the firm. Saunders Brothers was founded in 1900 by siblings Harry and Arthur, who built the small woodworking operation from the ground up, making wooden dowels. When the original mill in North Waterford burned down in 1916, the brothers moved their operation to Westbrook, near Maine's largest city of Portland, and finally settled at the present-day site in the western Maine community of Locke Mills, a small village in the town of Greenwood. Its recognizable smokestack is a local landmark, and its doors have welcomes hundreds of workers over the years. However, with the calamitous economy, the owners were simply unable to keep the doors opens, and the facility was forced to close last spring, leaving 55 employees without jobs. Yet just a few months later, investors Louise Jonaitis and Steve LaFreniere purchased the mill for $450,000 at a foreclosure auction, and have begun the process of re- employing some of those who lost their jobs. In September, they reopened the factory's doors and began operating the rolling pin line, with seven employees. The owners are also looking at ways to make the plant more energy efficient as well as examine which products and processes will make the factory most successful for years to come. For instance, Saunders Brothers also makes a number of other wood products, including rolling pins sold by companies like Williams Sonoma, in hopes of becoming ``the Rolling Pin Capital of New England.'' Furthermore, Ms. Jonaitis and Mr. LaFreniere have purchased a number of mills across the State during these tough economic times, seeking to bring economic prosperity to Maine's struggling mill towns. Mr. LaFreniere has noted that ``Our goal is to keep them from being torn down during these hard times so when the economy recovers, they can make a profit and be successful again.'' This unbridled optimism is a hallmark of America's entrepreneurial spirit, and I thank them for their actions. The United States of America is a resilient nation. We know there will always be tough times, but we can never shake the notion that our best days are still ahead of us. That belief is what makes the actions of Louise Jonaitis and Steve LaFreniere so laudable. I sincerely wish everyone at Saunders Brothers much success as they continue their miraculous recovery in support of the company's motto, ``Let's Get Maine Rolling.''

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act of 2011. I am enormously grateful to partner with Senator Stabenow in this endeavor and to have the support of 17 additional bipartisan cosponsors. I also want to salute former Senator Byron Dorgan, who was such a tremendous ally on this issue for nearly a decade. During health reform, I was disappointed with the $80 billion deal struck by the drug industry in exchange for supporting the legislation. Make no mistake--this is hardly a generous offer from the industry. Consider the fact that last August, a report issued by AARP on retail prices of brand-name drugs showed that the 217 products most used by older Americans increased by an average of 8.3 percent during 2009, even as inflation was negative. So in other words, we have the industry setting a new pricing baseline that is entirely off kilter with the rest of the economy . . . widely unaffordable for the American people . . . and clearly unsustainable for the future. Negotiating concessions is no substitute for instilling market competition--which is exactly what this legislation will do. It is unconscionable that more and more individuals are forced to skip doses or split pills as prices increase while our economy contracts. Today our bill could already be providing the access that Americans deserve to the more affordable drug prices available in other industrialized nations. It is simply indisputable that Americans pay far too much for prescription drugs--when other countries pay 35-55 percent less. And the cost of brand drugs in the U.S. increases at two to three times the inflation rate. When nations institute safe, regulated trade in pharmaceuticals they see results--as Sweden did when it entered the European system of trade and saw a reduction of 12-19 percent in the price of traded drugs. Now, opponents claim importation will cause harm, but they fail to note the greatest prescription drug threat to the safety of Americans . . . that the inability to take a drug as it is prescribed . . . exacts a tremendous toll on thousands of American lives every year. The bottom line is that safety is the foundation of our bill--our legislation not only addresses the safety of imports, but also was the first to provide FDA with the resources to improve inspection of foreign drug plants--many of which today produce medications marketed here by U.S. firms which consumers assume to be ``domestic.'' They have also failed to understand or acknowledge we have left no stone unturned to assure importation will be safe . . . why we require FDA approval of all imported drugs . . . that the agency regulate, inspect and monitor those who handle medications . . . that we require strong prescription controls, improved labeling, anticounterfeiting technology and tracking of shipments to assure the security of medications. We don't rely on ``certifying safety''--this legislation ensures safety. Indeed when all the provisions of this legislation are considered, this legislation will set a new standard for domestic drug safety. Because, right now--today--many of the drugs which Americans use every day are in fact manufactured in foreign factories. Yet today foreign plants are seldom inspected--it can be as many as 12 years between inspections. The fact is, global sourcing of production to lower cost countries--including those with inadequate regulatory oversight--means that FDA simply must be examining all facilities where our medications are made. Under our bill, such plants--and in fact every step in the drug supply chain--are to be inspected and regulated by FDA. And we include long-sought incentives, to improve drug safety such as anti- counterfeiting technologies, drug ``pedigrees,'' and improved regulation and oversight of the handling of prescription drugs. At the same time, this legislation will ensure that importation is effective in delivering savings to consumers. The Congressional Budget Office reports our bill will generate savings of $19.4 billion to the Federal Government alone. Isn't that exactly the kind of savings we should achieve at a time of escalating health care costs? So it is clear that the time for enactment of this legislation is certainly long overdue--and today the need for this legislation is actually greater . . . not less. Among working age adults--only those with Medicare coverage saw any improvement in their ability to fill their prescriptions. All others saw a rise in their inability to obtain needed medications! Among the uninsured more than 1 in 3 individuals went without a required prescription--and in those with chronic disease that number doubles! So despite manufacturer assistance programs-- despite the increased use of generics--the high and escalating cost of brand name drugs is directly impacting the health of millions. It is indeed time to engender more competition, and the more affordable pricing that will bring. That is why I look forward to moving forward together to see passage of our bill this year.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act of 2011. I am enormously grateful to partner with Senator Stabenow in this endeavor and to have the support of 17 additional bipartisan cosponsors. I also want to salute former Senator Byron Dorgan, who was such a tremendous ally on this issue for nearly a decade. During health reform, I was disappointed with the $80 billion deal struck by the drug industry in exchange for supporting the legislation. Make no mistake--this is hardly a generous offer from the industry. Consider the fact that last August, a report issued by AARP on retail prices of brand-name drugs showed that the 217 products most used by older Americans increased by an average of 8.3 percent during 2009, even as inflation was negative. So in other words, we have the industry setting a new pricing baseline that is entirely off kilter with the rest of the economy . . . widely unaffordable for the American people . . . and clearly unsustainable for the future. Negotiating concessions is no substitute for instilling market competition--which is exactly what this legislation will do. It is unconscionable that more and more individuals are forced to skip doses or split pills as prices increase while our economy contracts. Today our bill could already be providing the access that Americans deserve to the more affordable drug prices available in other industrialized nations. It is simply indisputable that Americans pay far too much for prescription drugs--when other countries pay 35-55 percent less. And the cost of brand drugs in the U.S. increases at two to three times the inflation rate. When nations institute safe, regulated trade in pharmaceuticals they see results--as Sweden did when it entered the European system of trade and saw a reduction of 12-19 percent in the price of traded drugs. Now, opponents claim importation will cause harm, but they fail to note the greatest prescription drug threat to the safety of Americans . . . that the inability to take a drug as it is prescribed . . . exacts a tremendous toll on thousands of American lives every year. The bottom line is that safety is the foundation of our bill--our legislation not only addresses the safety of imports, but also was the first to provide FDA with the resources to improve inspection of foreign drug plants--many of which today produce medications marketed here by U.S. firms which consumers assume to be ``domestic.'' They have also failed to understand or acknowledge we have left no stone unturned to assure importation will be safe . . . why we require FDA approval of all imported drugs . . . that the agency regulate, inspect and monitor those who handle medications . . . that we require strong prescription controls, improved labeling, anticounterfeiting technology and tracking of shipments to assure the security of medications. We don't rely on ``certifying safety''--this legislation ensures safety. Indeed when all the provisions of this legislation are considered, this legislation will set a new standard for domestic drug safety. Because, right now--today--many of the drugs which Americans use every day are in fact manufactured in foreign factories. Yet today foreign plants are seldom inspected--it can be as many as 12 years between inspections. The fact is, global sourcing of production to lower cost countries--including those with inadequate regulatory oversight--means that FDA simply must be examining all facilities where our medications are made. Under our bill, such plants--and in fact every step in the drug supply chain--are to be inspected and regulated by FDA. And we include long-sought incentives, to improve drug safety such as anti- counterfeiting technologies, drug ``pedigrees,'' and improved regulation and oversight of the handling of prescription drugs. At the same time, this legislation will ensure that importation is effective in delivering savings to consumers. The Congressional Budget Office reports our bill will generate savings of $19.4 billion to the Federal Government alone. Isn't that exactly the kind of savings we should achieve at a time of escalating health care costs? So it is clear that the time for enactment of this legislation is certainly long overdue--and today the need for this legislation is actually greater . . . not less. Among working age adults--only those with Medicare coverage saw any improvement in their ability to fill their prescriptions. All others saw a rise in their inability to obtain needed medications! Among the uninsured more than 1 in 3 individuals went without a required prescription--and in those with chronic disease that number doubles! So despite manufacturer assistance programs-- despite the increased use of generics--the high and escalating cost of brand name drugs is directly impacting the health of millions. It is indeed time to engender more competition, and the more affordable pricing that will bring. That is why I look forward to moving forward together to see passage of our bill this year.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, America is home to millions of innovative and forward-thinking small businesses, which is critical to our future. And, as President Obama said in this State of the Union Address, ``We need to out-innovate the . . . rest of the world'' to maintain our position of global economic power. As such, I rise today to recognize a small company from my home State of Maine that represents a shining example of America's ingenuity and innovative spirit. North East Wipers got its start a little over a year ago after a conversation between two long-time friends. Gerard Dubois, the owner of Pioneer Transport in Waterville, told his friend Ray Lawrence, a machinist with 25 years experience, about an idea to create mini wiper blades that can be affixed to rearview mirrors on big rig trucks, so that the driver would not have to stop every few minutes during inclement weather to clear off snow or remove dirt and salt. Not only was this a commonsense idea, it was a matter of safety for truckers who are often forced to drive in unforgiving weather conditions to deliver timely goods on which the American people rely. As a result of the conversation, Ray and Gerard gathered $10,000 in startup costs and set to work on creating a number of prototypes. They eventually coalesced around a simple yet durable model that attaches to mirror mounts without using electrical or motorized parts that cannot clog or freeze. Once affixed to the mirror, all the driver has to do is push a button for the wipers to work. Even more appealing is that the system costs $500, roughly the amount it costs to fill a tractor trailer with diesel fuel. While originally designed for logging trucks facing difficult conditions on roads across Maine and other snow-plagued States, Gerard Dubois and Ray Lawrence are seeking to make their invention available to other major commercial vehicles on the road. Recognizing the merits of North East Wipers' product, the Maine Technology Institute recently announced it will be providing the company with a seed grant to support further development and commercialization of the wiper blades. Such capital is critical for the success of a project like this, and it recognizes the value and practicality of this unique invention. Gerard and Ray's ultimate goal is to work with a truck manufacturer on making the wipers standard equipment for its big rigs. Maine is home to scores of groundbreaking entrepreneurs and creative thinkers, and clearly Gerard Dubois and Ray Lawrence fit that bill. I am extremely proud of the ingenuity they have demonstrated and the dedication they have shown in making their product a reality. I thank them for their inventiveness, and wish them much success in the future.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleagues in this august Chamber, especially Senators Feinstein, Hatch, and Webb, members of the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission, as we pause to pay tribute to the indelible legacy of one of America's truly great Presidents, Ronald Reagan, who would have turned 100 years old on February 6, 2011. It is indeed fitting that as this month of February is filled with historic birthdays of transformational Presidents like George Washington, who founded our Nation, and Abraham Lincoln, who preserved it, that we honor the President who reignited its spirit, Ronald Reagan. A friend of freedom, a foe of tyranny, and always--always an advocate for America, President Reagan inspired our Nation eloquently and powerfully to recapture and reaffirm our founding ideals of individual freedom, common sense, and limited government. He reminded us with unshakable optimism that America, as the great experiment in self- government, had planted an eternal stake along the timeline of human history as, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, ``the last best hope of Earth.'' Many of my colleagues will be sharing their own personal remembrances of this threshold figure whom we rank as among the most rarefied of American Presidents. What I recall is a President who brought his passionate belief in the ideals of America to bear in advancing our Nation and projecting the hope of freedom as a force for good in the world and a leader who was, contrary perhaps to conventional wisdom, not averse to consensus-building in implementing his vision for this country. Like those rising to speak in this venerable Chamber today, I remember well the arduous challenges facing our Nation in 1980. At the time, I had just completed my freshman term as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Internationally, our country was precariously mired in the Cold War, and reeling from the Iran hostage crisis. On the domestic front, our economic vitality had been sapped by double-digit inflation, hampered by interest rates that would soar to 21 percent, stifled by massive tax burdens including a top tax rate of 70 percent, and idled by an energy crisis, exemplified by half mile long lines at the gas pump. Against that backdrop, President Reagan arrived in Washington with an unflagging conviction that the greatest untapped potential lies in the American people themselves. And by embracing hope, not resignation, he charted a course for America that led to greater prosperity and security. As Commander-in-Chief, President Reagan was steadfast in his uncompromising foresight and ultimate success in building up our military, and displayed unequivocal mettle in confronting the world's only other superpower, laying the foundation for victory in the Cold War. With peace through strength, Ronald Reagan called America to a purpose he described in his own hand in 1980. He wrote: ``I believe it is our pre-ordained destiny to show all mankind that they too can be free without having to leave their native shore.'' And nothing evoked that immutable faith in humanity and belief in the possibilities for a better future more than his demand at the Brandenburg Gate forever etched in our memory: ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!'' Two years later, that wall did crumble, and not long after, so too did the Soviet Empire. President Reagan battled to reduce the size of the Federal bureaucracy--to return tax dollars to the families who had earned them and disseminate power out of Washington and back to local governments. And I well recall meeting with President Reagan numerous times to discuss issues as far ranging as the MX missile, the budget, women's issues, or the impact of proposed trade policies on traditional Maine industries such as potatoes or lumber. And I can attest to the fact that, as a problem solver on every front, President Reagan understood that in order to bring to fruition his core principles and also ensure he could be resolute in implementing his vision for the country, he had to make it happen with persuasion and openness. After all, it was President Reagan who believed ``if I can get 70 or 80 percent of what it is I'm trying to get . . . I'll take that and then continue to try to get the rest in the future.'' In the end, President Reagan's deeds and words summoned America's resolve and essential goodness, and his steady hand guided this great land in working to foster liberty and kindle the fires of freedom that have always made America as President Reagan said better than anyone-- ``a shining city on a hill.'' On the occasion of his 100th birthday, we express our eternal gratitude to President Reagan for his timeless leadership of our Nation which he aptly described in his first inaugural address as ``the breed called Americans.'' Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I support Senator McConnell's effort to fully repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Act. I opposed the final passage of this new law because it was the product of a seriously flawed process that was rushed on a host of artificial timelines resulting in fundamentally defective policy that did not resolve the issue of affordability of health care in Maine and across the country. In addition, the preponderance of the beneficial reforms and subsidies do not kick in until 2014, so between now and then most Mainers will continue to experience what they know all too well--a continuation of premiums that have skyrocketed by 426 percent over the past decade and diminishing competition and plan choices in our markets. Regrettably, what the Democratic majority rushed through the Senate floor last Congress was a 2,740-page bill, which we were forced to complete by Christmas day after a mere 21 days on the floor. As the result of this massive bill, we have a bloated and overextended new law that dramatically augments the reach of the Federal Government in health care. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the new health reform law mandates 41 separate rulemakings, at least 100 additional regulatory guidance documents, and 129 reports. In addition, the new law is paid for with a job-killing $210 billion increase in Medicare taxes on businesses and an estimated $500 billion overall increase in taxes at this time of economic peril. I happen to believe the details matter of what we do here in Congress. And I also believe the American people would agree. It is not irrational for them to expect that we actually know what is in this bill, how it will work, and whether we can reasonably expect it to be effective and bring down costs for the American people. And there is mounting evidence that it will not, as a recent study projects an 8.8- percent premium increase for employer-sponsored coverage in 2011--up from 6.9 percent in 2010 and 6 percent in 2009--and out-of-pocket premium costs for employees will rise 12.4 percent next year. During consideration of the health reform bill, I had serious concerns about affordability--and whether an affordable coverage option would be available to all Americans in the private insurance market. That is why I requested an analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, back in December 2009, with a State-specific analysis of premium affordability, but regrettably a complete analysis was never provided. So I support efforts to fully repeal of the health care reform law. And because the majority has endorsed once again their misguided health law by defeating today's full repeal vote, I will also support targeted efforts to repeal other provisions--starting with the onerous 1099 mandate that we have just repealed that would have required millions of businesses to send billions of new information reporting forms to the IRS and other businesses. I want to commend Senator Johanns for his recognition of this onerous burden and his tireless efforts to repeal it. Since last summer he has done a yeoman's job of leading on this issue. If this amendment was not adopted here in the Senate, every business in America, starting in 2012, must report to the IRS on business purchases that exceed a threshold of only $600 per vendor or supplier-- for purchases of supplies and equipment and also services ranging from cell phone coverage to window washing to utilities. This new mandate was imposed in the health reform law, yet it had absolutely nothing to do with health insurance reform. What it does is make the Federal Government a more intrusive and burdensome presence in every aspect of American business--which is the very last thing American business needs during these tumultuous economic times. What small firms are clamoring for is certainty and relief from these extreme regulatory nuisances. They need the Federal Government to help foster an entrepreneurial environment under which they can do what they do best--create new jobs--and not saddle them with an incessant and unnecessary paperwork burden such as this new 1099 filing requirement. Missing from the amendment we just passed is the fact that rental real estate would still be subject to this 1099 reporting requirement. Rental real estate was added to this paperwork morass as part of the Small Business Jobs Act last year at a time when the 1099 reporting quagmire was already known. Yet, remarkably, the majority forged ahead regardless and inexplicably expanded rather fixing this problem. For those parts of the country that have tourism as an economic foundation, rental real estate is a major factor, and for Maine, for which the State motto is ``Vacationland'' this is a major problem--and it is something we need to repeal this year. We also need to strike the employer mandate from the bill, which is something of critical importance to me as ranking member of the Senate Small Business Committee. Under the new law, starting in 2014, firms with more than 50 workers would have to pay $2,000 per employee with just the first 30 employees exempted. And if that is not enough, part- time workers will be counted in determining if the mandate would apply. That means countless more middle-sized firms such as restaurants and retailers would be subject to the mandate, which will raise $52 billion in revenue. Mr. President, exactly how is this going to help our Nation's greatest job generators--our small businesses--to lead us out of this recession, especially since we are also now going to hit them with increased Medicare taxes? And that is another tax increase we must repeal. That is right--starting in 2013, the new law includes $87 billion in Medicare taxes that disproportionally harm small businesses because they apply to the income those businesses would normally reinvest. Plain and simple, this 0.9 percentage point increase in Medicare HI payroll taxes, coupled with a 3.8-percent Medicare tax that is unprecedented because it will imposing a payroll tax on investment income, will result in a grand total of $210 billion in new Medicare taxes--a job killer as it essentially takes away capital from the very small business owners who are the most likely to employ between 20 and 250 employees. Furthermore, I am deeply troubled by the manner in which the Medicare tax increases in this bill are to be utilized. According to CBO--and these are their exact words--``To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the government's ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government's fiscal position.'' Speaking of double counting, we need to repeal the so-called CLASS Act. Now, while proponents point to estimates that this provision would raise $72 billion over the first 10 years, that savings only occurs as a result of a fiscal shell game of using funds promised to beneficiaries later to lower the deficit today. As CBO says, ``The program would pay out far less in benefits than it would receive in premiums over the 10-year budget window,'' raising $70 billion in premiums that will fund benefits outside the window. As a result, CBO further concluded that ``in the decade following 2029, the CLASS program would begin to increase the deficit.'' Again, this is exactly the wrong direction for America. We also need to repeal the administration's ``grandfathering'' regulations. Not even a year after the administration promised that if you like the coverage you have, you can keep it, we find out that buried in 121 pages of regulations, which resulted from just 2 pages of legislative text, I might add that, no, that is not exactly true--far from it. In fact, the administration itself projects that up to 69 percent of all businesses and 80 percent of small businesses will not be able to retain the coverage they currently provide and will be forced to offer more costly coverage as opposed to hiring new workers and growing their businesses. So we must repeal these regulations this year. Finally, I also strongly oppose the individual mandate in the new law, which would require, starting in 2014, Americans to have maintain insurance coverage or be subject to a financial penalty that would ultimately be the greater of $695 per uninsured individual or 2.5 percent of income. How can the Federal Government require its citizens to purchase health coverage without first guaranteeing that an affordable coverage option will be available to all Americans in the private insurance market? Numerous court challenges are underway questioning the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Last November, I joined with Republican Leader McConnell with 30 other GOP Senators to file a friend-of-the-court brief in the lawsuit in a Florida Federal court brought by the National Federation of Independent Business and now 26 States, including Maine, and I am pleased that just this week, the Florida judge agreed with us and struck down not just the individual mandate but the entire bill. In its ruling, the court held that the ``individual mandate is outside Congress' Commerce Clause power'' and that it is not constitutional. The court concluded that the new law has ``450 separate pieces, but one essential piece (the individual mandate) is defective and must be removed. It cannot function as originally designed.'' In the courts view, and I agree, ``that the individual mandate and the remaining provisions are inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit.'' So moving forward, with serious questions about the constitutionality and workability of this new law, a top priority this Congress must be to repeal the health reform bill and replace it with workable alternatives that would result in more competitive health insurance markets. That is why, first and foremost, we must expedite allowing individuals and small businesses to purchase health insurance across State lines, which, as I have long said, would interject unfettered competition and new coverage options into stagnant insurance markets like those in Maine, where we have just two carriers offering coverage in the individual insurance market. That is why in the Senate, I long championed association health plan, AHP, legislation--and developed regional compact proposals--that would have allowed small business and the self-employed to band together, across State lines, to secure quality coverage made affordable through administrative cost savings and greater bargaining power. We must also develop a plan for affordability by maintaining certain widely agreed upon elements of reform, such as outlawing unconscionable insurance industry practices, banning preexisting condition limitations, and allowing parents to keep children on plans until age 26.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have the privilege of hearing countless small business success stories from hard-working entrepreneurs across the country. And these stories are all the more gratifying when they involve companies located in my home State of Maine. Today I recognize the extraordinary achievements of Wells Wood Turning & Finishing, Inc., a small firm which recently celebrated several major milestones in the company's history. Wells Wood Turning, located in the western Maine town of Buckfield, specializes in turning, finishing, and manufacturing a variety of custom wood products. Wells fashions a number of traditional wooden handles, knobs, and table legs, in addition to all manner of custom craft turnings, like bird houses, salt and pepper shakers, and napkin rings. The company also produces wooden toy parts, and miniature and promotional baseball bats. Wells Wood Turning primarily uses white birch in the construction of its products, but also utilizes other species of wood, such as ash, maple, and hickory. In December, Wells Wood Turning marked two significant milestones. First was the company's 25th anniversary, which is a major accomplishment in any industry, much less Maine's competitive wood products industry. And December 24 marked the company's 18th year without a lost time accident at its plant, a truly remarkable feat. These milestones are a testament to the company's skilled workforce and their diligent efforts to promote a strong and safe working environment. I congratulate Tom Wallace, the company's president, and everyone at Wells Wood Turning for their dedicated service and impeccable record of quality and safety over the past quarter century. A member of the Maine Wood Products Association and the Wood Products Manufacturers Association, Wells Wood Turning & Finishing has proven itself to be an exemplary small business. With a commitment to serving the customer by providing striking wood products, designed to the customers' specifications and in a timely manner, Wells Wood Turning has earned a reputation for fine craftsmanship. I again thank Tom Wallace and everyone at Wells Wood Turning for their strong work ethic and extraordinary safety record, and wish them continued success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, there are certain occasions in the life of our Nation and this esteemed institution that are so steeped in history they remain indelibly etched in our minds and upon our hearts. This is one of those iconic moments as we share in recognizing Senator Mikulski's venerable achievement with her colleagues, her family, loved ones, friends, constituents, staff, and indeed the Nation. This is also a special day of pride most especially for those of us who are women Senators for whom Senator Mikulski has been a role model and mentor as well as coleading numerous efforts with Senator Hutchison, our senior Republican woman, to foster camaraderie among all of us. Having been privileged to know Senator Mikulski for more than 30 years, beginning with our mutual service in the House of Representatives, I cannot conceive of anyone I would rather witness overtaking such a sacrosanct milestone than the senior Senator from Maryland, a beloved, vigorous champion of the people of her State and unquestionably the women of America. Indisputably, for both of her Maine colleagues, Senator Collins and me, the landmark occasion we are commemorating is all the more personal and poignant given we are both colleagues and dear friends of Senator Mikulski and also direct inheritors and beneficiaries of Senator Margaret Chase Smith's groundbreaking service. It is in that light that I am deeply privileged today to stand at the very desk she once graced, and having sat across her desk when I first met her in Washington years ago, to also pay tribute to Senator Smith by wearing her pin given to me by a very good friend from Maine, Susan Longley, one of the actual pins in which Senator Smith would famously place the trademark rose she wore daily on the floor of the Senate. Indeed, there are numerous similarities between Senator Margaret Chase Smith and Senator Mikulski that transcend longevity. They both live the ideals of hard work and earning their own way in life. Senator Mikulski, the proud descendent of Polish immigrants, worked in her parents' grocery store during her formative years in Baltimore, and years later, after she graduated from college, acquired a master's degree and pursued the noble calling of social work. Senator Smith was a textile worker, telephone operator, newspaper woman, teacher, and an office manager. The point is, neither started at the top, but they most certainly arrived there. Senator Smith rose from the humblest beginnings to represent Maine in the House of Representatives and the Senate for more than 32 distinguished years with unequalled courage, civility, compassion, and integrity. She was a visionary of endless firsts, but, undoubtedly, Senator Smith will best be remembered for the moment during her only second year in the Senate, with truly uncommon courage and principled independence, she telegraphed the truth about McCarthyism during the Red Scare of the 1950s with her renowned ``Declaration of Conscience'' speech on the Senate floor. In 15 minutes she had done what 94 of her colleagues, male colleagues I might add, had not dared to do, and in so doing slayed a giant of demagoguery prompting American financier Bernard Baruch to say: Had a man made that speech, he would have become the next President of the United States. Yet even as Senator Smith was a political pioneer, she never deliberately set out to establish some sort of precedent for women. Rather, what her life proved is that gender was not the key factor in public service but dedication and energy, confidence, ability, and sheer guts were. If those foundational qualities do not also encapsulate the essence of the public service of Senator Barbara Mikulski, then I do not know what does. It is, therefore, all the more appropriate and fitting that of anyone it would be a person of Senator Mikulski's legislative stature who would exceed Senator Smith's length of service in the Senate. As if this benchmark established today were not enough, on March 17, 2012, we will all be back on the floor of the Senate because Senator Mikulski will become the longest serving female Member in the history of the Congress, House or Senate. She probably did not even have a chance to think about that one. Moreover, like Senator Smith, Senator Barbara Mikulski has always brought an unyielding tenacity, a cornerstone of her fighting spirit and character, that has time and again been reflected in her legislative fight on behalf of the people she represents. This will not be a news flash to my colleagues or even those, our new colleagues, who will soon discover that taking no for an answer is simply not in Senator Mikulski's vocabulary nor her DNA. As she has often said, she is not ``caffeine free.'' And nowhere have I witnessed that ardent focus and commitment more intensely than in Senator Mikulski's signature battle for equity in women's health research, one that Congresswoman Pat Schroeder and I were waging from the House side as well. We all set aside our partisan labels at a time when, incredibly, women and minorities were systematically excluded from clinical medical trials at the National Institutes of Health, trials that often made the difference between life and death. At a pivotal juncture, Senator Mikulski tackled this travesty head on and launched a key panel of stakeholders, as she can do, to explore the shocking discriminatory treatment which further galvanized national attention, and, in the end, we produced watershed policy changes that to this day are resulting in lifesaving medical discoveries for America's women. Ultimately, what we are celebrating today are two legislative juggernauts who have defined the standard of principled public service by exemplifying a special bond of trust that should exist between the governing and the governed. They have seen problems confronting their constituencies and the Nation and left no stone unturned to solve them. They recognized injustice and acted boldly to quell it. They have given a voice to the voiceless, power to the powerless, and they were always at one with those they represent because they never ever forgot their roots. That is why, as Senators from the State of Maine, where Senator Margaret Chase Smith's legacy has been forever enshrined, Senator Collins and I are profoundly honored to share in this rarified moment as Senator Mikulski assumes the historic mantle of longest serving woman in the Senate. Indeed, it bodes well for the venerable institution of this Senate and our great Nation to have the senior Senator from Maryland to be at the vanguard of our ranks. Congratulations.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to express my support for the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, known as New START, which was signed by the United States and Russia on April 8 and transmitted for the advice and consent of the Senate on May 13. Since then, Chairman Kerry, with the unwavering support of Ranking Member Lugar, has navigated the treaty through 18 hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations, Armed Services, and Intelligence Committees--and I commend the chairman for his determination to see this paramount accomplishment through to the finish. Without equivocation, since his election to the U.S. Senate in 1976, Ranking Member Lugar has been an overriding force of nature in reducing the threat of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons--and his work with then-Senate Armed Services Chairman Sam Nunn to lay the groundwork for the deactivation of more than 7,500 of these dangerous weapons in the former Soviet Union is legendary. Throughout the negotiations and consideration of New START, Ranking Member Lugar has once again demonstrated his incredible depth of knowledge and expertise on these issues, which has been of the utmost benefit to the Senate. President George H.W. Bush and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed the original START Treaty on July 31, 1991--5 months before the collapse of the Soviet Union. The agreement represented the culmination of more than 20 years of bilateral arms control agreements between our two nations. Much has changed over what is almost two decades since the original START agreement was signed in Moscow. The world has witnessed the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the rise of terrorist organizations with nuclear weapons ambitions, and growing threats from hostile regimes in such locations as Tehran and Pyongyang. As a result, when START expired 1 year ago this month, we found ourselves at a crossroads--without the ability to inspect Russian missile silos, which, frankly, is unfortunate given that last year Senator Lugar suggested that the administration obtain a short-term ``bridging agreement'' with the Russians to ensure there was not a verification gap between the expiration of START and approval of New START. Yet despite this missed opportunity to secure a short-term bridging agreement, I believe the debate we have had in this body over the last 12 months has made clear that it is in our vital national interests to, first and foremost, maintain strategic stability between the United States and Russia-- the two countries that hold more than 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons--and furthermore to upgrade the original START agreement to reflect the new realities of the post-Cold War era. On the first point, I have supported New START's goal of reinstating a more stable, transparent, and legally binding mechanism based on proven methods for monitoring compliance with treaty provisions and deterring potential violations. For example, New START requires essential data exchanges detailing the numbers, types, and locations of affected weapons, mandates up to 18 short-notice on-site inspections each year to try and confirm information shared during such exchanges, and it calls for the parties to notify each other and to update the database whenever they move such forces between facilities. Since the early years of nuclear weapons agreements between the United States and the Soviet Union, beginning with Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, known as SALT, in May 1972; to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF Treaty, in December 1987 and the original START agreement in July 1991; our nations have gained from the structure and degree of transparency that these agreements provide. As former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said in May, New START is ``an evolution of treaties that have been negotiated in previous administrations of both parties'' and ``its principal provisions are an elaboration'' of existing agreements. Secretary Kissinger went on to note that the continued absence of this vital agreement would undoubtedly ``create an element of uncertainty in the calculations of both adversaries and allies'' and have an ``unsettling impact on the international environment.'' In other words, without the comprehensive and overlapping system of inspections, notifications, and data exchanges that both the original START and New START provide, our strategic commanders and civilian leaders may be forced to position their assets in a way that anticipates the worst case scenario, which as we witnessed during many overwrought days of the Cold War is an incredibly precarious--and often more costly--approach in terms of the prioritization of our intelligence and defense resources. Therefore, I believe firmly that, when combined with our Nation's overhead intelligence assets, remote sensing equipment, and other classified methods, the New START agreement will provide our government better insight into the accuracy of Russia's declarations on the numbers and types of deployed and nondeployed strategic offensive arms subject to the treaty, thereby engendering greater confidence in our comprehension of the state of affairs, enhancing global stability and our security here at home. Still, in addition to maintaining the framework of our nuclear arms reduction program with Russia, it is crucial that this treaty be thoroughly vetted to reflect the reality of the threats we face in the 21st century. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution states that the President ``shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur''--and as such we must make absolutely certain that questions regarding our ability to verify Russian compliance with New START's limits, to develop and deploy effective missile defenses, and to modernize our nuclear weapons complex, have been satisfactorily resolved. Senator Kyl, in particular, has brought great value to this process--and I extol all of my colleagues for their dedication to meeting our constitutional responsibilities. Among the most significant questions that have been raised are those that deal with our ability to monitor Russian compliance with the treaty's limits. As part of its overlapping monitoring and verification regimes, New START permits up to 18 short-notice on-site inspections at ICBM bases, submarine bases, and air bases each year. U.S. inspectors will use these inspections to help verify data on the number of warheads located on deployed ICBMs and deployed submarine launched ballistic missiles and the number of armaments located on deployed heavy bombers. Over the course of this debate, some of my colleagues have questioned the utility and effectiveness of New START's on-site inspections. As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I have worked with my colleagues to scrutinize this proposed agreement and have closely reviewed the National Intelligence Estimate pertaining to this subject as well as a number of other classified reports. It is important to understand that we do not depend only on the treaty's monitoring and verification provisions to ensure the Russians are complying with the warhead limit and other clauses. To the contrary, the treaty is but one critical instrument which, as with the 1991 START agreement, is intended to augment information collected through our overhead assets, and via other technical tools that leverage the larger U.S. Intelligence system--known as our National Technical Means. Since the treaty was transmitted to the Senate in May, the Intelligence Committee has conducted a comprehensive review, and my staff and I have questioned key officials, including the Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen, and Secretary Gates' Representative to Post-START Negotiations Dr. Ted Warner. Additionally, my staff has held classified discussions with former START inspection team members and delegates to the START Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission. Consequently, I would underscore two significant areas of advancement where New START's verification and monitoring provisions will be distinctly different from its predecessor. First, under the original START agreement, the treaty database listed the number of warheads attributed to a type of ballistic missile, and each missile of that type counted as the same number of warheads. Notably, New START advances this standard by enabling our inspectors to in fact count the actual number of reentry vehicles deployed on the missile to confirm that it equals the number designated by the Russians for that particular weapon. Secondly, New START includes the innovation that unique identifiers-- which mean numeric codes--be affixed to all Russian missiles and nuclear-capable heavy bombers. Under the original START agreement, unique identifiers were applied only to Russian road-mobile missiles. As Ranking Member Lugar has noted, while this does not insure a ``foolproof'' verification system, it will provide enhanced confidence and transparency under the Treaty structure. Taken as a whole, I believe the treaty's notification requirements, the use of unique identifiers on each ICBM, submarine launched ballistic missile, and heavy bomber, and the 18 annual short-notice on- site inspections, combined with our National Technical Means, will further our critical national security objectives by helping us observe and evaluate Russian activities--an objective that is fundamental to our strategic stability. Additionally, when it comes to our ballistic missile defense capabilities, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wrote on December 7 that ``The Russians need to understand that the U.S. will use the full-range of American technology and talent to improve our ability to intercept and destroy the ballistic missiles of hostile countries.'' In an effort to make certain that our intentions are unambiguous, the U.S. issued a unilateral statement at the signing of New START, which affirms that our government ``intends to continue improving and deploying its missile defense systems in order to defend itself against limited attack and as part of our collaborative approach to strengthening stability in key regions.'' Furthermore, Ranking Member Lugar also worked to ensure that the Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification that was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 16 addresses this question by declaring that ``it is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as technically possible an effective National Missile Defense system'' and that nothing in the Treaty limits ``further planned enhancements'' to missile defense programs. President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Secretary Gates have reaffirmed this commitment and the Administration's Ballistic Missile Defense Review, released in February, outlines a detailed plan to continue to expand international missile defense efforts to defend the United States, our deployed forces, and our allies and partners around the world. It is also important for the record to reflect that Russia issued a similar statement when the original START was signed in 1991, saying that the treaty would be viable only under conditions of compliance with the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which at the time restricted ballistic missile defenses. History clearly shows that following ratification of START the United States did not restrain its missile defense programs or reduce its expenditures on ballistic missile defenses in an effort to ensure that Russia remained committed to the original START Treaty. To the contrary, U.S. spending on ballistic missile defense programs increased dramatically following the signing of the original START agreement--from less than $4 billion for Department of Defense-wide ballistic missile defense funding support in 1991 to nearly $10 billion this year. Moreover, in spite of this threat in 1991, Russia remained a party to START and continued to negotiate further reductions on strategic offensive weapons after the U.S. withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002. Still, despite this precedent and Ranking Member Lugar's considerable efforts to make certain that the resolution addresses the issue of missile defense, questions have been raised about potential restrictions on our ability to deploy effective missile defenses, and some of my colleagues have rightly criticized the preamble's recognition of an ``interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms.'' It has been argued--and I agree--that this language, when combined with Russia's unilateral statement asserting its concern about a United States ``build-up'' in missile defense system capabilities, needlessly gives Russia a leverage point with which to attempt to compel our government to pull back from our missile defense objectives by threatening to withdraw from the Treaty if we seek to increase our capabilities. As a result, I supported Senator McCain's effort to amend the Treaty to strike any reference to the ``interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms.'' Finally, when it comes to the modernization of our nuclear forces, meaningful concerns have been raised about the deplorable state of our deteriorating Manhattan Project-era nuclear laboratories and weapons stockpiles. Senators Kyl and Corker should be commended for their diligence in shedding light on the undeniable truth that these facilities are sorely out-dated, and continue to erode as safety and security costs have grown exponentially, maintenance is deferred, and layoffs and hiring freezes deprive our government of highly skilled scientists and technicians needed to maintain our nuclear deterrent. Credible modernization plans and long-term funding for the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and the infrastructure that supports it are central to the effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent, and we have posed serious questions about the veracity of the administration's modernization report that was submitted to Congress with the New START agreement on May 13th, pursuant to section 1251 of the fiscal year 2010 Defense Authorization Act. Specifically, we have sought greater detail and assurances regarding the administration's plans to retool and sustain our national weapons labs--including construction of the vitally important plutonium processing facility, known as the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement nuclear facility, in Los Alamos, NM, and the Uranium Processing Facility at Oak Ridge, TN. These two projects are essential for meeting our life extension program requirements for existing warheads and certifying the safety and readiness of the current stockpile. On November 17, due in large part to the unyielding persistence of Senators Kyl and Corker, the administration released an updated 1251 modernization report that directly answered many of our concerns and elaborated on our modernization objectives by providing more detailed 10-year timelines and specific budget projections to sustain funding for stockpile surveillance at over $200 million over the next 10 years, and cost estimates for the plutonium and uranium processing facilities at upwards of $5.8 billion and $6.5 billion respectively. In total, the administration has now committed more than $85 billion to modernize our nuclear weapons complex over the next 10 years--$15 billion more than initially proposed by the administration--and I am confident this undertaking will ensure continued support for these indispensable activities. It is now the responsibility of President Obama and his administration to, in the months ahead, communicate even more specific details regarding any lingering concerns about our Nation's long-term modernization programs. The Resolution of Advice and Consent, which is currently before the Senate, includes strong language requiring direct notification to Congress if at any moment more resources are required-- or if appropriations are enacted that fail to meet our modernization needs--and we as a body must hold this government true to these commitments. In summary, the original START agreement was signed over 19 years ago, at a time when we still lived in a decidedly bipolar, and some might argue less complicated world. But with the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, we are now facing new threats from volatile governments intent on the proliferation of dangerous weapons, and decentralized terrorist groups focused on launching attacks more devastating even than 9/11. Confronted with these daunting challenges, America must be prepared to defend our homeland, our forces in theatre, and our allies--and I believe this treaty allows future administrations to meet this responsibility, to maintain a safe and effective deterrent, and at the same time to continue to reduce the number of deployed and ready to launch long-range nuclear weapons. And as former Secretary of State James Baker noted in May, a more stable and cooperative relationship between Washington and Moscow ``will be vital if the two countries are to cooperate in order to stem nuclear proliferation in countries like Iran and North Korea.'' Simply put, the ratification of New START, and the cooperation and transparency it requires, has the potential to set the stage for expanded NATO and Russian collaboration when it comes to confronting terrorists and other dangerous proliferators--so together we may face those who threaten stability in the post-Cold War world. Mr. President, the New START treaty has the unanimous support of our Nation's military and diplomatic leadership, Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper, and the endorsement of President George H.W. Bush and prominent former national security officials such as Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen, and every living Secretary of State--including Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I am convinced that this agreement, when combined with our intelligence assets, will enhance global stability, and most importantly, our national security. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in paying tribute to Senator Christopher Dodd, a longtime public servant and fellow New Englander whose dedication to advancing the common good with common sense, independence, and a genuine desire to solve problems has served both his constituents of Connecticut as well as his country for 36 years. With trust, comity, and a love for the institution of the Senate, Senator Dodd has for more than three decades contributed to creating a legislative environment where at crucial moments in the life of the greatest deliberative body in human history, the upper Chamber was able to work its will to the lasting benefit of the American people, and we could not be more grateful. Indisputably, and as countless colleagues have noted, public service has always been at the center of Senator Dodd's life--literally, as he is the first son of Connecticut to follow his father into the U.S. Senate, and remarkably, for the past 30 years, Senator Dodd has had the privilege of sitting at the same desk used by his father, Senator Thomas Dodd, during his 12 years in the Senate. Chris Dodd's longstanding devotion to the public arena has spanned from his three terms in the U.S. House--the last of which I was privileged to serve with him--to his five terms in the U.S. Senate. And Senator Dodd earned the lasting gratitude of his constituents and admiration of his colleagues with his stalwart leadership in foreign policy, his vigorous and unwavering battle to enact the Family and Medical Leave Act, and his longstanding stewardship of our Nation's most precious resource-- our children. And on this last point, like many in this Chamber, I cannot begin to justly measure the depth and breadth of the legacy Senator Dodd has forged in safeguarding the most vulnerable in our society. Consider for example the issue of child care. Time and again, Senator Dodd has battled to ensure both the quality of child care in America as well as the funding for it, and as he keenly and presciently understood, in this matter, our Nation could not have one without the other. An undeniable focus of Senator Dodd's, child care has unquestionably become one of his crowning achievements and legislative hallmarks--and nowhere was his imprint on the issue greater than during the landmark welfare reform debate in 1995 and 1996. I well recall working with Senator Dodd as we made the case that there was indeed a pivotal link between viable welfare reform and child care--that for families struggling to reduce their dependency on welfare--especially single parents--unaffordable, unavailable, or unreliable childcare was the chief barrier to steady employment, and one that could and should be lessened, if not eliminated. That is why I was pleased to join with Senator Dodd on our amendment to add $6 billion in child care funding to welfare reform legislation, especially at a time when that funding was very much imperiled. Arriving at a consensus required leaders from both parties to jettison their competing and hardened ideologies in favor not just of making dependable childcare more accessible, but in support of welfare reform that would effectively move more Americans from welfare to work. Senator Dodd, as colleague after colleague can attest, heeded his own beliefs that ``you don't begin the debate with bipartisanship--you arrive there. And you can do so only when determined partisans create consensus.'' Because he never lost sight of the primacy of working across the aisle, we were victorious in including the funding we sought in the Senate-passed bill. That bipartisan effort to garner concrete results designed to make a difference in the daily lives of the American people was not an isolated instance. Senator Dodd and I collaborated on legislation to support campus-based child care for low income mothers trying to further their education, and we authored legislation to help states improve training in early childhood development to make improved child care more available to more people. With innate New England pragmatism and a desire for solutions, Senator Dodd saw impediments to success that were impinging upon a segment of our society that if only reduced or removed would aid not only families striving to improve their lives, but a Nation seeking to help stem the tide of dependency. Ultimately, what occupied Senator Dodd's agenda was the active pursuit of an even better America. We didn't always agree on what that path should be, but where we did find common ground, as in child care, we cultivated it. That dynamic was at work recently as Senator Dodd and I, as the former chair and current ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, collaborated to help the economic engines and catalysts of our economy--America's small businesses, the very enterprises that will lead us out of recession and into recovery. During the consideration of what would become The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, I truly appreciated Senator Dodd's perseverance in including a provision I authored allowing small businesses to raise concerns over burdensome regulations through small business review panels within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Senator Dodd and I also worked to reduce the regulatory compliance burden for small banks by striking a provision of the bill which would have required these lending institutions to report their transactions to the Federal Government down to each individual ATM. This kind of rapport was emblematic of how Senator Dodd viewed good governance. In his valedictory address on the floor of the Senate, he observed that ``in my three decades here, I cannot recall a single Senate colleague with whom I could not work.'' Indeed, Senator Dodd always saw adversaries as potential allies--and foes as unwon friends. From the days of his youth, Senator Dodd grew up steeped in the tradition of and respect for the Senate--and an abiding admiration for this venerable institution that runs at its own pace and by its own rules. Instead of exhibiting rancor and a burning desire to win at all costs, Senator Dodd sought instead to build relationships and by doing so, strengthened his capacity for legislating and contributed mightily to the advancement of this esteemed Chamber. Legendary American poet and son of Maine, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, once wrote that ``if you would hit the mark, you must aim a little above it.'' Chris Dodd has always aimed high--and met his target--leaving a legacy of enormous accomplishment to his constituents in Connecticut and to the American people. In closing, let me just extend my personal appreciation to his wife Jackie and their daughters Grace and Christina for sharing Christopher Dodd with us judd gregg Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in paying a well- earned tribute to Senator Judd Gregg, a fellow New Englander and one of New Hampshire's much-admired icons of public service over the last three decades. Senator Gregg has been immersed in public service his entire life, beginning with his father's election as Governor of New Hampshire in 1952 when Judd was only 5 years old. And through the years, he has amassed a record of leadership at every level of government that is truly remarkable. It comes as no surprise that Judd is the first public servant from the Granite State ever to realize the political trifecta of being elected to the three offices of Congressman, Governor, and Senator. Serving others goes to the very core of Judd Gregg's persona and DNA. It always has and always will. And let me just say, at every step along the way, it has been a privilege for me to witness Senator Gregg's impressive trajectory in public life firsthand. In fact, it was during Judd's years in the U.S. House of Representatives, where my husband, Jock McKernan, and I first got to know him as well as his wonderful wife Kathy. And that friendship grew further during Judd's time as Governor as both he and Jock were chief executives of their respective States during the same period. And having served with Judd for nearly his entire tenure in the Senate, I have been proud to work side by side with an individual whose organizing principle behind public service has always been driven by common sense, pragmatism, and the imperative to forge solutions across the aisle. Time and again, Judd has sought to bridge the political divide to garner results, whether by tackling our Nation's fiscal challenges, promoting land conservation, or most notably, co-authoring the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 with the late Senator Edward Kennedy. Indeed, Senator Gregg's rigorous intellect, financial acumen, and budgetary expertise have earned him the respect and admiration of his Senate colleagues from both parties and made him one of the Nation's most well-regarded, leading champions of fiscal discipline and accountability, and one of the most knowledgeable voices and authorities in addressing our Nation's deficits and debt. In fact, the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, created by President Obama, is modeled after legislation first introduced by Senator Gregg, the former chair and current ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, and the current Chair, Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota--both of whom are commissioners. What a fitting coda for one of this generation's stalwart guardians of our Nation's budget. And Senator Gregg's service could not be more emblematic of his overall approach to public service which has always hewed to principle with a genuine desire to forge solutions across the aisle. No wonder that earlier this month, Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus wrote that in ``both parties, there are too few Greggs, and too many of them . . . are leaving public office.'' I couldn't agree more! Just as Senator Gregg has rightly earned national acclaim as a fiscal steward and sentinel on behalf of the American taxpayer, the heart of his leadership has always remained with his beloved Granite State as well as our region of New England. I well recall the ironclad solidarity our two delegations have shared, particularly in defending against efforts to close the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. Through each of the five Base Realignment and Closure, BRAC, rounds from 1988 through 2005, we have left no stone unturned to champion the cause of the U.S. Navy's oldest and best shipyard--and to ensure that the BRAC Commission recognized the legendary work-ethic and world-class craftsmanship of a workforce that is second to none. Former Senate majority and minority leader, Senator Robert Dole, with whom Senator Gregg and I both served, once observed ``as long as there are only 3 to 4 people on the floor, the country is in good hands. It's only when you have 50 to 60 in the Senate that you want to be concerned.'' When Judd Gregg was on the floor the people of New Hampshire and, indeed, the Nation knew that our country was in tremendously capable and conscientious hands, and we could not be more grateful! In thanking Senator Gregg for his immeasurable contributions to this storied chamber, I know I join all of my colleagues in wishing him and his beloved wife Kathy, Godspeed, as they embark on the well-earned, next chapter of their lives.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, small businesses are the engine of our economy. There are literally millions of unique stories about how these companies had developed since they opened their doors. Some of the most impressive businesses are family-owned entities that start with a handful of workers and a commitment to filling a niche in their city or town. Today I recognize Agren Appliance, a company that started with the basics and has blossomed into a familiar name to residents of Lewiston-Auburn, ME, for over 40 years. The Agren family began serving the community in 1969, when they operated two repair trucks to fix appliances for families and individuals throughout the greater Lewiston-Auburn area. Their only technology was a rotary telephone to receive calls from those requiring assistance. Over time, the family developed a reputation for its reliability, gaining regular customers and parlaying that recognition into future success. As a result of its strong and growing standing, Agren opened its first brick-and-mortar store in Auburn in 1978, carrying the Whirlpool brand of products. Over time, the company further expanded its reach, opening branches in the coastal town of Brunswick in 1983, as well as south Paris, in western Maine, in 1986. Later, Agren Appliance opened stores in south Portland and midcoast Maine, covering a large swath of the State's population. And on Monday, Agren Appliance moved from its former south Paris location to a newer, larger, 25,000-square-foot space in the neighboring town of Norway. The company has been recognized as one of the Nation's top 100 appliance retailers, an impressive feat in such a competitive market. Agren now offers its customers a variety of products and brands-- including televisions, beds, mattresses, and dining room sets. Nonetheless, each store is still a one-stop shop for all appliance needs, from dishwashers and refrigerators, to laundry machines and dryers. And the business stays true to its roots, boasting Maine's largest independent appliance repair team, as well as a fleet of repair trucks. Furthermore, Agren Appliance is still family-owned and remains an integral part of the communities which it serves. The company frequently makes donations to organizations across the State, often providing gift certificates or various small appliances for silent auctions to benefit those in need. Additionally, at certain locations, Agren posts messages on their large electronic outdoor signs, advertising upcoming events and fundraising efforts from various members of the community--a generous act that helps promote worthwhile occasions and causes. With five stores spread across the southern part of the State, Agren has developed from a small-town appliance repair business into a trusted name for appliance and furniture needs. I am always impressed by the ingenuity of small businesses like Agren, which has witnessed marked growth because of a strong work ethic and dedication to knowing and serving the community. I thank all of the company's employees for their hard work, and wish them much success in the years to come.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the tax legislation that will not only enable millions of American families to keep more of their paychecks, but will also provide a stable and predictable economic platform upon which American businesses can operate, and pull our economy from the economic morass of the past 2 years. This legislation certainly cannot remedy all of our economic struggles, but it is essential that we provide necessary certainty in Federal tax policy, which is the foundation upon which our Nation's entrepreneurs make decisions about taking risks, investing in the future, and creating jobs. As the end-of-the-year deadline looms for the biggest tax increase in history, American employers have been retrenching and bracing for the possibility of Washington taking a larger share of taxes out of their businesses--and that is inhibiting our economic potential at a time when we can least afford to fetter the forces of our private sector. Frankly, the debate over whether extending these tax provisions is the right thing to do is now past. What we are experiencing right now is a jobless recovery, which isn't a true recovery at all if you cannot find a job or earn a paycheck. For 2 years of debating and legislating in Washington about how to fix the economy, our economy should be in more than just the ``holding pattern'' Harvard Economics Professor, Martin Feldstein, has described. I am afraid that at this historic juncture--with the unemployment rate of 9.8 percent, or roughly 15 million people out of work, poverty in America is at its highest in over a generation, and we are experiencing historically low investor and consumer confidence--we do not have the luxury to take the gamble and increase taxes. A consensus has developed among economists and policymakers that extending these tax provisions will benefit the economy. Indeed, according to the White House, extending these tax provisions will result in more than 1.5 million jobs. Back in September, Mark Zandi released data indicating that increasing taxes from 33 and 35 percent up to 36 and 39.6 percent on small business and high-income taxpayers would reduce gross domestic product by 0.4 percent in 2011 and would reduce payroll employment by 770,000 jobs by mid-2012, precipitating a double-dip recession in the first half of 2011. Mr. Zandi is now estimating that this legislation will create 1.6 million jobs. Further, even the Center for American Progress estimates job growth at 2.2 million jobs as a result of this legislation. The Congressional Budget Office has been stating since September that extending the tax rates through 2012, as this legislation would do, would add between 600,000 and 1.4 million jobs in 2011 and between 900,000 and 2.7 million jobs in 2012. Further, CBO estimates that this legislation would enhance the gross national product by 1.1 percent. Also back in September, a group of 300 economists recognized this reality and sent a letter to Congress imploring an extension of the current rules. Perhaps the phrase ``better late than never'' is most applicable to the impending passage of this legislation that will avert the tax increases that loom a mere 3 weeks away and would lead to a double-dip recession, and drive our unemployment rate even higher. It is simply long past time that we extend the 2001/2003 tax relief and expiring provisions such as the R&D tax credit and the child credit. It is incumbent upon this Congress to enact stable tax rules that will help Americans to get back to work and plan their lives--our political Hippocratic Oath of ``First Do No Harm'' should apply at this moment, just as there are glimmers that our national economy is past its low ebb. At this juncture we cannot veer onto a dangerous path and increase taxes, which is exactly what would happen if this legislation does not become law. Indeed, the tax increases scheduled to take effect in a matter of 3 weeks would be the biggest tax increase in history--an $800 billion tax increase that will be averted by this legislation. And the agreement on which this legislation is based is something that has been rare in Washington in the last 2 years--a hard fought consensus among the leaders of both parties. Both sides of the negotiating table were required to make concessions to reach this point and, as a result, a significant majority of 83 to 15 voted to move this legislation forward. Undeniably, one of the key components of this legislation is the 10- percent tax rate that was a hallmark of the original 2001 legislation. While other tax rates have been the object of more heated--and highly polarizing--debate, it is undeniable that this 10 percent rate is the most significant. If this legislation is not enacted into law, roughly 27 million tax returns will witness a 50 percent increase in taxes, from 10 percent to 15 percent. With consumer spending representing 70 percent of gross national product, we must be cognizant of how this tax increase would eradicate any sign of economic recovery. This is not even an issue of individuals bracing for a higher tax bill--on January 1 employers would withhold more taxes from paychecks leaving less for the rent, grocery bills, a tank of gas or utilities. Of course, all taxpayers benefit from the initial 10-percent tax rate, but for these low-income individuals and families, having the 10- percent rate revert to a 15-percent rate would be particularly burdensome. For individuals making less than $8,000 per year and couples making under $16,000, this 10-percent rate is a lifeline. For taxpayers slightly higher up the income stream, having this initial portion of their income taxed at only a 10-percent rate can significantly help reduce their effective tax rate. Another hallmark of the 2001 tax legislation that would be extended is marriage penalty relief. The initial two tax rates, those at 10 percent and 15 percent rates, allow for twice the amount of income for a married couple than is taxed for an individual, so individuals earning up to $34,000 are taxed at 15 percent and couples can earn up to $68,000 and still remain in the 15-percent bracket. This was certainly not the case before the 2001 law, and thus an extension of this provision is nothing short of an imperative for low income and middle income married couples today. Indeed, if this legislation is not enacted, rather than having up to $68,000 taxed at a 15-percent rate, couples would face a 28-percent rate on family incomes over $58,200. For families where both the husband and wife are working, at a 28-percent rate rather than a 15- percent rate, that second income starts to face diminishing returns all too quickly--especially if the second income involves placing children in expensive day care. And speaking of children and daycare, there are two more significant provisions in this bill that are being extended--the child tax credit and the dependent care tax credit. In 2008, the most recent year for which data is available, there were 25,287,874 children claimed for child tax credits. As the primary sponsor of the child credit in 2001, I am particularly proud of the fact that American families received an economic boost of $1,000 for 25 million children. The child tax credit benefits working parents and their dependent children and it is essential to note that the Maine Children's Alliance of my home State reports that, in Maine, 21.8 percent of young children are poor and 16.5 percent of all children are poor. Currently, these families are eligible for a refundable credit--15 percent of earned income capped at a maximum of $1,000 per child--once they have earned at least $3,000. The legislation we are debating will maintain the threshold--set in 2009--at $3,000 rather than allowing it to triple to roughly $13,000, which would nationally result in millions of low-income working parents being excluded from receiving the refundable portion of the tax credit altogether, or having their benefit significantly reduced. In Maine, for example, the Maine Children's Alliance reports that 34,651 children who were members of 21,346 families in Maine benefitted from this expansion in 2009. This $3,000 threshold is an extraordinary one, which was not and is not envisioned to be permanent. Senator Lincoln and I have supported bringing the $13,000 threshold down to a more sustainable $8,500 level and then indexing that for inflation. In the next Congress, when we address tax reform and enter into a full negotiation about income tax burdens, I will be attentively working to ensure that tax policies for working families with children are progressive and mindful of these families' needs. The dependent care tax credit is also extended in this legislation. This year, the provision allows a taxpayer a 35-percent credit, rather than just 30 percent, of child care expenses for children under 13 and disabled dependents. The 2001 tax bill increased the amount of eligible expenses from $2,400 to $3,000 for one child and from $4,800 to $6,000 for two or more children. Under this legislation, these policies on dependent care will be extended for an additional 2 years, through 2012. Again, with Senator Lincoln, we have introduced legislation that would have improved rather than just maintained the dependent care credit. The most significant of these changes would be to increase the thresholds so that up to $5,000 per child or $10,000 for two or more children would be creditable. The legislation would also amend the flexible spending account rules for dependent care to increase the amount of pre-tax income that can be set aside for dependent care so that it is $7,500 for one dependent and $10,000 for two or more. Another major component of the legislation before us is relief from the alternative minimum tax--or AMT. In fact, the AMT relief in this legislation makes up roughly one quarter of all the relief--roughly $137 billion for just the 2-year ``patch''--that effectively holds harmless taxpayers from the unintended consequences of this alternative tax system. This is not taking into account the additional relief that holds harmless taxpayers who would otherwise have their child credits reduced as a result of the AMT. The onerous AMT is tax policy run amok--and I can find no policymakers who defend the manner in which it would be imposed on at least an additional 21 million taxpayers. AMT is essentially a flat tax at 26 and 28 percent tax rates for couples with combined incomes as low as $45,000 per year. Perhaps this is the understatement of the year, but these are not the super wealthy who were the intended targets of this tax. When the 112th Congress addresses the question of fundamental tax reform, this reckless component of tax policy must be our top single priority to be repealed and rationalized so that the tax rate is the tax rate, and we cease to have a parallel tax system that is simply out of control. As the former chair and now ranking member of the Senate Small Business Committee and a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, the issue of how individual tax rates affect small business is of profound concern to me. Whether it is on Main Street tours or from other constituent contacts with businesses large and small, the uncertainty of the Tax Code is the primary issue on the minds of business owners and managers. At that December 2 hearing on tax reform in the Finance Committee, we were presented data regarding the growth in the number of ``flow through'' businesses--those businesses that pay tax at the individual tax rates rather than at the corporate rate. Since the Tax Reform Act of 1986, but particularly since 2001, the growth in this form of ownership has been expanding. Further, we learned that S Corporations have supplanted C Corporations as the preferred form of business other than sole proprietorships. The Joint Committee on Taxation has reported that 50 percent of all income in the top two individual income tax brackets is attributable to flow-through businesses. These are the entrepreneurial firms that are generating the jobs necessary to pull us out of this recession, and it is imperative that we not increase taxes on these businesses from 33 and 35 percent up to 36 and 39.6 percent. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, over 70 percent of U.S. manufacturers file as S Corporations or other pass-through entities and NAM reports that most would be significantly and adversely impacted by increasing tax rates to 39.6 percent. Moreover, this legislation will reduce tax rates on capital gains and dividends that will boost capital investment and economic growth. According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses employ half of all private sector employees, and generated 65 percent of net new jobs over the past 17 years. These flow-through small businesses employ 20 million Americans and it is these business owners who must reinvest the profits of their businesses to continue serving as the economic engines of this Nation. The reinvested profits from a business are the lifeblood of these entrepreneurs and, at a time when access to capital from lending institutions is still difficult, current earnings must be available to business owners rather than sending those funds to Washington. Indeed, in the National Small Business Association's 2009 Year-End Economic Report, 38 percent of respondents to their survey noted Federal taxes as one of the most significant challenges to the future growth and survival of their businesses--a category trumped only by the ongoing economic uncertainty pervading our Nation. Small business owners across America can better deploy this capital than can policymakers in Washington. Although I believe that this package will demonstrably enhance GDP growth and critically lower unemployment, regrettably this package also unnecessarily adds to our Federal debt by retaining energy tax policies that are quite simply an ineffective use of taxpayers' money. Specifically, instead of considering the effectiveness of individual energy tax policies scheduled to expire this year, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 simply extends all policies that had Congress extended previously. By that standard the legislation conveniently continues subsidies at their current levels for ethanol, biodiesel, refined coal, natural gas and oil production--all at a cost of more than $11 billion in lost revenue for the Federal Government at a time of record deficits. These tax policies were enacted years ago, are extremely costly to U.S. taxpayers, and the merits of their extension have not been demonstrated to the Senate Finance Committee. In fact, according to a July 2010 study by the Congressional Budget Office, the ethanol tax credits cost taxpayers $1.78 for each gallon of gasoline consumption reduced, and $750 for each metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions avoided. The continuation of this tax credit is an ineffective method at reducing our consumption of foreign oil and will unfortunately cost taxpayers nearly $5 billion. In addition, the legislation extends the 1603 grant program for qualified renewable energy projects. While I support renewable energy, this program is far from standard tax policy and was developed to be timely, targeted and temporary in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as a direct result of the paralysis of the tax equity markets in 2009. Unfortunately, the Finance Committee has not reviewed the effectiveness of this policy and, as a result, I am not supportive of providing an additional $2.9 billion without government analysis demonstrating that this program's extension is an effective use of taxpayers' money. Again, the decision to include these costly energy provisions was made without Finance Committee hearings, mark-ups, discussions, or analysis. Energy markets are dynamic and technology develops rapidly-- Congress must demonstrate our capacity to end obsolete energy tax policies, and develop effective policies that will improve America's energy security. It is regrettable that the Middle Class Tax Relief Act includes these costly and misguided policies and hope that next year Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Hatch hold Finance hearings to assess the best use of tax policy to reduce energy prices in a fiscally responsible manner. Finally, I have been an ardent supporter of extended unemployment benefits during this economic calamity. At a time when the official national unemployment rate is 9.8 percent and 7.4 percent in Maine, and many industries and States clearly are experiencing rates that are alarmingly higher, it is imperative that we provide a safety net for these individuals. Rather than the halting, short term and month to month extensions that we have managed this year, the legislation before us would provide extended unemployment benefits through 2011-- recognizing that these unemployment numbers are not expected to rebound as quickly as any of us would hope. I support this legislation to extend current tax relief for two additional years. But it is critical to understand that this is merely a short term patch and that our Tax Code is woefully outdated, mercilessly complicated, and wildly out of control. While the extension of these tax rates is a step in the right direction, let us not forget that it is only a first step in a long journey to overhaul our broken Tax Code as our corporate tax rate is the highest in the world--Japan is reforming their tax system--and the Tax Code is so horribly complex that, according to the August 2010 report from the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, that taxpayers spend 7.6 billion hours and shell out about $140 billion trying to comply with tax filing requirements in 2008, which is roughly equivalent to 1 percent of the GDP. Further, the Treasury Department testified at the recent Finance Committee tax reform hearing that the instruction book for the primary individual income tax form has grown from 52 pages for 1980 to 174 pages for 2009. The income tax regulations have doubled, from less than 7,500 pages in 1980 to nearly 15,000 pages today. Between 1980 and 2008, tax returns filled out using paid preparers have increased from 38 percent of returns to 58 percent of returns. When software users are added in, about 85 percent of individual income tax returns rely on some form of assistance, either software used by the taxpayer or a practitioner. That, my colleagues, is what awaits us in the 112th Congress. I urge you to pass this legislation now so that we can focus on the big picture in the new year and the new Congress. Indeed, this legislation will provide the much needed building blocks for our future efforts. The legislation we will pass today gives us a brief but realistic window to address the multitude of flaws in the current Tax Code, and I have stated that my guiding principles for reform are as follows-- First, we should establish a progrowth Tax Code with the fewest number of economic distortions that raises sufficient revenue to finance our Nation's spending priorities. Second, our Tax Code should be simplified to reduce the burden of compliance. Third, we must end the fiscal ``shell game'' where we extend tax cuts for only a year or two at a time or make them temporary to mask their true long-term costs. Fourth, the Tax Code should promote savings and investment, the drivers of long-term growth. Fifth, the Tax Code must not be a barrier to American business competitiveness in the global economy. We have the second highest corporate tax burden in the industrialized world today. Finally, our Tax Code must remain progressive and distribute the tax burden fairly. With that, I urge my colleagues to extend existing tax relief--and plan to move expeditiously to enact a sustainable tax system very soon.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I have an amendment to the continuing resolution, H.R. 3082. My amendment will rectify an impediment to international commerce flowing through Maine, and protect Maine drivers and pedestrians. For the past year, Maine truckers have operated under a pilot program that allows trucks over 80,000 pounds to move from local roads to safer interstate routes, far from schools and homes. The pilot project has been a great success, and I seek to make it permanent. Unless we take action before December 17, trucks over 80,000 pounds traveling to or from the Canadian border or within upstate Maine will be forced onto secondary roads, many of them two-lane roads, which run through towns and villages. Trucks traveling between Houlton and Hampden, ME, on these local roads will pass more than three thousand homes, several schools, and hundreds of intersections. Tanker trucks carrying fuel will again be traveling past elementary schools and libraries, and competing with local traffic. Not only is this an inefficient method of moving goods, but it also unnecessarily increases risks on narrow local roads. What is the result of such truck traffic on local roads? According to a study conducted by the Maine Department of Transportation, traffic fatalities involving trucks weighing 100,000 pounds are 10 times greater on secondary roads in Maine than on exempted interstates. Serious injuries are seven times more likely. The past year's pilot program has proved that Maine's rural interstate is a safer place for large trucks. Maine Department of Transportation officials strongly support this program. Extensive studies and infrastructure inspections have left State DOT officials confident that heavier trucks carrying interstate and international loads belong on the interstate. I urge my colleagues to support this straightforward amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, every holiday season, Americans head to stores in droves to buy the perfect gift for their loved ones or friends during the holiday season. Many will visit small businesses, such as gift shops and local retailers, which offer a variety of products. There is one such store in my home State of Maine, Harbor Farm, that helps keep the Christmas spirit alive year round through a variety of products that celebrate the season. Harbor Farm is located on Little Deer Isle, a tiny island located off Maine's coast in Penobscot Bay. The island is both a picturesque summer vacationland as well as the year-round home to 300 residents. And Harbor Farm caters to locals and tourists alike with a variety of regional and international gifts, from candles to apparel and most everything in between. The store also carries gifts made by another local small business, the Deer Isle Granite Company, including beautiful clocks in the shape of the State of Maine as well as cutting boards and coasters. Additionally, Harbor Farm has a unique ``Christmas Room,'' with a plethora of thoughtful and creative goods and wares. More than simply holiday-themed gifts, the Christmas Room features exceptional items inspired by Maine, including blueberry jewelry made using blue sponge coral as well as moose and snowman ornaments. Harbor Farm also offers delightful Christmas wreaths, made from Maine balsam and beautifully decorated with traditional cones, berries, and bows. In that same vein, the store also sells a number of centerpieces of cedar, balsam, and pine, adorned with candles and faux fruits. Harbor Farm readily ships these special holiday gifts and decorations across the country to a growing list of customers each year. Another item Harbor Farm specializes in is remarkable tile. The company offers customers a wide array of beautiful tile from 17 States and 17 countries for any room in the home. The designs range from delicately painted lighthouses and landscapes to flowers and farmyards. The staff at Harbor Farm takes the time to assist clients looking to mix tiles for a more elegant and eclectic visual display. It is evident that the employees of Harbor Farm take great pains to offer their customers high quality items for a broad swath of uses in everyday life. From its reproductions of early American furniture to pottery to clothing accessories, Harbor Farm is a quintessential New England gift shop that has something for everyone. I thank everyone at Harbor Farm for their dedicated efforts to provide shoppers with a pleasant experience, and I wish them many years of success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I join with my colleague and friend. Senator Ron Wyden, to introduce legislation which we have sponsored since 2004 to ensure the sound fiscal management of the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Unquestionably, this new benefit marks a milestone for Medicare. Today millions of American seniors are at last receiving assistance with the high cost of prescription drugs. For so many, that will make a difference between choosing whether to take needed medications and providing the other necessities of life. We have indeed come a very long way. We look forward to realizing the many benefits of this coverage as we see the results of more affordable access to prescription drugs--better health for our seniors and substantial health care savings. At the same time, there is no doubt that this benefit can be improved. We have heard estimates that the average senior is saving an average of $1,000 per year, but we should ask how that saving is being achieved. The discovery by many seniors--when they reached the doughnot hole--that their cost of medications was the same or even higher than what they paid prior to enrolling in Part D--that should be a red flag that we may not be seeing the purchasing power of seniors harnessed for the savings they deserve. Our system is working well in terms of subsidy, but certainly needs to improve in terms of negotiating substantial discounts. As Senator Wyden and I learned from GAO reports we have received, the prices of drugs used by seniors have inexorably increased since 2000 at two to three times the inflation rate. According to the New York Times, last year's brand drug price increase average of over 9 percent represents the highest annual rate of inflation for drug prices since 1992. So the costs of this program will remain a concern. Most of us envisioned that not only would the taxpayer contribute to helping seniors with drug expenses, but we also would realize substantial savings from lower prices on prescription drugs. That is why Senator Wyden and I proposed to achieve some balance in the public-private partnership which is Part D today, and it is why today we are again introducing the Medicare Enhancements for Needed Drugs Act--the MEND Act. In this drug benefit the HHS Secretary should have a proper role in negotiation--negotiation, not price setting. It is clear that what the Congress intended to do was to create a true public-private partnership, utilizing competitive forces to bring more choices to seniors--in drugs, benefit plan designs, pharmacies, and more. So seniors can vote with their pocketbooks, and we can see their choices in the market influence the kind of benefit they receive. That is not the same as a system in which the government sets prices, and that is why our legislation specifically bans such a practice. Under our legislation, the Federal Government cannot set either prices or formularies--that is absolutely clear. What I believe most of us desire to do is give the current system the best tools to achieve success. That means that the Secretary must have an oversight role. Our legislation rescinds the noninterference clause and directs the Secretary to negotiate for any necessary fallback plan, and in addition, to respond to requests for help from plans which cannot obtain reasonable negotiation. We have also added two areas in which the Secretary must negotiate. First, as the CBO has stated that negotiation of single-source drugs could yield savings, our legislation directs the Secretary to engage in negotiation regarding those unique products. We also know that some drugs exist because the taxpayer provides substantial support to see them developed. The public deserves a fair price on those products it made possible, so the Secretary should weigh-in in those cases. Finally, our bill protects beneficiaries by assuring that seniors will have access to a comprehensive coverage option--at least one plan in each region must provide the option to avoid the coverage gap, dreaded doughnut hole. Today, 47 percent of plans offer no coverage, 30 percent only cover generics, and 23 percent cover generics and some brand name drugs. The bottom line is that our bill protects both beneficiaries and taxpayers within the public-private partnership on which this benefit rests. I call on my colleagues to join us in this effort.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I join with my colleague and friend. Senator Ron Wyden, to introduce legislation which we have sponsored since 2004 to ensure the sound fiscal management of the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Unquestionably, this new benefit marks a milestone for Medicare. Today millions of American seniors are at last receiving assistance with the high cost of prescription drugs. For so many, that will make a difference between choosing whether to take needed medications and providing the other necessities of life. We have indeed come a very long way. We look forward to realizing the many benefits of this coverage as we see the results of more affordable access to prescription drugs--better health for our seniors and substantial health care savings. At the same time, there is no doubt that this benefit can be improved. We have heard estimates that the average senior is saving an average of $1,000 per year, but we should ask how that saving is being achieved. The discovery by many seniors--when they reached the doughnot hole--that their cost of medications was the same or even higher than what they paid prior to enrolling in Part D--that should be a red flag that we may not be seeing the purchasing power of seniors harnessed for the savings they deserve. Our system is working well in terms of subsidy, but certainly needs to improve in terms of negotiating substantial discounts. As Senator Wyden and I learned from GAO reports we have received, the prices of drugs used by seniors have inexorably increased since 2000 at two to three times the inflation rate. According to the New York Times, last year's brand drug price increase average of over 9 percent represents the highest annual rate of inflation for drug prices since 1992. So the costs of this program will remain a concern. Most of us envisioned that not only would the taxpayer contribute to helping seniors with drug expenses, but we also would realize substantial savings from lower prices on prescription drugs. That is why Senator Wyden and I proposed to achieve some balance in the public-private partnership which is Part D today, and it is why today we are again introducing the Medicare Enhancements for Needed Drugs Act--the MEND Act. In this drug benefit the HHS Secretary should have a proper role in negotiation--negotiation, not price setting. It is clear that what the Congress intended to do was to create a true public-private partnership, utilizing competitive forces to bring more choices to seniors--in drugs, benefit plan designs, pharmacies, and more. So seniors can vote with their pocketbooks, and we can see their choices in the market influence the kind of benefit they receive. That is not the same as a system in which the government sets prices, and that is why our legislation specifically bans such a practice. Under our legislation, the Federal Government cannot set either prices or formularies--that is absolutely clear. What I believe most of us desire to do is give the current system the best tools to achieve success. That means that the Secretary must have an oversight role. Our legislation rescinds the noninterference clause and directs the Secretary to negotiate for any necessary fallback plan, and in addition, to respond to requests for help from plans which cannot obtain reasonable negotiation. We have also added two areas in which the Secretary must negotiate. First, as the CBO has stated that negotiation of single-source drugs could yield savings, our legislation directs the Secretary to engage in negotiation regarding those unique products. We also know that some drugs exist because the taxpayer provides substantial support to see them developed. The public deserves a fair price on those products it made possible, so the Secretary should weigh-in in those cases. Finally, our bill protects beneficiaries by assuring that seniors will have access to a comprehensive coverage option--at least one plan in each region must provide the option to avoid the coverage gap, dreaded doughnut hole. Today, 47 percent of plans offer no coverage, 30 percent only cover generics, and 23 percent cover generics and some brand name drugs. The bottom line is that our bill protects both beneficiaries and taxpayers within the public-private partnership on which this benefit rests. I call on my colleagues to join us in this effort.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my profound appreciation for the Take a Veteran to School Day program in my home State of Maine with ceremonies that took place on November 9 and 10 of this year, appropriately right before Veterans Day on November 11. And it is especially fitting that we recognize these events this week as we paused this past Tuesday, on December 7, to remember those who perished 69 years ago at Pearl Harbor, a day that President Franklin Roosevelt declared ``will live in infamy.'' First and foremost, I want to extend my enormous gratitude to the Maine National Guard, and especially MG John Libby, Maine's Adjutant General, who not only reached out to our veterans to encourage their engagement in the program, but who also participated in the Rockland District Middle School ceremony. In addition, joining with the Guard in bringing the History Channel's national award-winning program to fruition in Maine was Time Warner Cable, which sponsored the program and should be commended for its example and dedication to this outstanding endeavor. Together, leaders of our military and our media have combined efforts in the noble undertaking of saluting our veterans through the Take a Veteran to School Day initiative, which brings veterans into our schools to share their personal stories of service and sacrifice for the Nation with students and educators. It has become an invaluable opportunity for students to learn what Veterans Day and serving our Nation in uniform truly means--and it provides a unique chance to express a heartfelt and well-earned ``thank you'' to the brave men and women who from generation to generation have woven the fabric of America's greatness. And I couldn't be more pleased that more than 650 students and educators, 200 local community members, and 100 veterans from every military conflict since World War II made Maine's inaugural Take a Veteran to School Day program a resounding success. This year, in my State of Maine, three schools--York Middle School, Biddeford High School, and Rockland District Middle School--shared in paying tribute to our veterans in our first ever program. I cannot thank the sponsors and supporters of this program enough for recognizing how vital it is that young Americans are able to hear the personal stories of service in the military, and to remember the sacrifices made by Maine veterans for our country. In fact, Time Warner Cable recorded 20 veterans' stories for the Library of Congress's Veterans' History Project, which will be added to its archives so that future generations will have an opportunity to hear veterans speak about their service to the Nation, bringing a personal perspective to military history that students otherwise would only learn about through books. As The York Weekly reported, York Middle School Principal Steve Bishop introduced the veterans in attendance by saying, ``my hope is that you gain a sense that the opportunities you have today are made possible by the veterans behind me.'' As you can imagine, I am looking forward to next year's program, and I hope that States and school districts around the Nation will follow suit in shining a spotlight on our veterans through this wonderful enterprise. Make no mistake, it is because of our veterans that America is the greatest Nation on Earth, and the Take a Veteran to School Day program is a shining testament to that immutable truth. When we pay homage to our courageous veterans, we are demonstrating that we always reserve our deepest respect and praise for those who have summoned the courage to place themselves in harm's way on our behalf. That they have done so in order to ensure the blessings of liberty makes us grateful beyond words.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, America has maintained its role as the world's most innovative and predominant economy in large part due to its 27.5 million small businesses. And many of these companies partake in significant Federal contracting and subcontracting opportunities, affording these businesses with the ability to participate in the development of new and cutting-edge technologies and products. I rise today to recognize one Maine company that has taken part in the Federal procurement process and contributed tremendously to a number of highly advanced projects. Fiber Materials was established in the southern Maine town of Biddeford in 1969 and has become a global leader in the design, manufacture, and testing of a variety of advanced composites in its 40 years of operation. The company produces a wide range of materials, from carbon/carbon composites used in the construction of heatshields and missile nosetips, to quartz products designed for printed circuit boards or electrical and thermal insulation. Fiber Materials now employs roughly 180 employees at its facilities in Biddeford and Presque Isle, and its Space Technology Division in Columbus, OH. Fiber Materials has earned a number of financial awards to fund the development of critical projects through the Small Business Innovation Research, or SBIR, program at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA. The SBIR program provides funding to small businesses with innovative, early stage ideas that align with the research and development goals of 11 different Federal agencies, including NASA, the Department of Defense, and the National Institutes of Health. One of the most recent systems that Fiber Materials contributed to under NASA's purview is ORION Launch Abort System, which will allow the crew to escape the spacecraft in the case of an emergency. The system was successfully tested in May 2010. In recognition of Fiber Materials' dedicated efforts to NASA, the Johnson Space Center recently recognized the company with its 2010 Small Business Subcontractor of the Year Award. According to NASA's Office of Small Business Programs, the award acknowledges `` successful and innovative practices that promote small business participation in the initiatives that NASA undertakes.'' Fiber Materials has been an invaluable resource to the Federal government from the beginning, and I commend the company for playing such an integral part in some of NASA's most critical initiatives. Small businesses that are versatile and multifaceted such as Fiber Materials will be critical as the United States seeks to continue in its role as a world leader. Undoubtedly, participating in programs like SBIR will provide the company with countless additional opportunities to simultaneously contribute to NASA's mission and create jobs in Maine. I thank everyone at Fiber Materials for their strong work ethic, ingenuity, and dedication, and I wish them continued success in the years to come.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, American manufacturers have faced a variety of persistent challenges over the past several decades, including competition from foreign markets and rising structural costs. Nonetheless, the manufacturing industry remains resilient in the United States. The sector still supports roughly 18.6 million jobs in the United States, or approximately one-sixth of all private sector jobs, and American manufacturing produces $1.6 trillion of value every year equaling 11 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. And just yesterday, we got word from the Institute for Supply Management, or ISM, that November marked the 16th straight month of positive growth for American manufacturing. And so, today I recognize one of Maine's remarkable small manufacturing companies, Sterling Rope Company, which has been producing high quality rope for more than a decade and a half. Sterling Rope got its beginnings in 1993, when president and founder Carolyn Brodsky opened her business in Massachusetts. By 1997, Ms. Brodsky decided to relocate her firm to Maine for a number of reasons, including our State's high-skilled workforce and quality of life. Over the past 13 years, Sterling Rope has grown in size, moving from its original Maine location in Scarborough to a larger facility in Saco, before settling at its present location in the Biddeford Industrial Park. The company manufactures rope for a plethora of activities an uses, including climbing, rope rescue, and industrial safety. In particular, Sterling Rope prides itself as a leader in the advancement and production of life safety rope and cord. One of the company's products, the FireTech 32, is the direct result of its partnership with New York City's Fire Department, which provided Sterling with feedback on how to best construct the rope. The FireTech 32 is now FDNY's official escape rope. Indeed, the firm is noted for its exceptionally creative and collaborative product development. The company has created a Sterling Athletes Team, which is a collection of expert climbers from around the world that test Sterling's products and provided critical feedback for the company. Additionally, Sterling helps promote and support a variety of climbing events and philanthropic efforts on its multifaceted Web site. One inspiring event that Sterling has publicized is the Climb for Cancer Cure, a mountain-climbing fundraiser held each summer since 2006 to raise both funds and awareness for people suffering because of cancer. All of the money raised from the climbs goes to help comfort cancer patients at the Marshall L. and Susan Gibson Pavilion at Maine Medical Center in Portland, by donating amenities like CD and DVD players. Climb for Cancer Cure also provides family members with baskets containing gift cards to help them defray the costs associated with visiting their loved ones, such as for lodging and gas. I thank Sterling Rope for recognizing this tremendous initiative. Sterling Rope is a prime example of a leading manufacturing company in my home State that is dedicated to making quality products and providing responsiveness to its customers. I am proud that Carolyn Brodsky moved her company to Maine nearly a decade and a half ago, and I hope she continues to expand her extraordinary operations. I thank her and everyone at Sterling Rope Company for their hard work, and wish them continued success.