Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Warner, to introduce pro-consumer wireless legislation, which will improve wireless coverage and go a long way toward preventing the annoying dropped phone calls that many of us frequently experience indoors and in rural areas. Specifically, the Federal Wi-Net Act would require the installation of small wireless base stations, such as femtocells or similar technologies, and Wi-Fi hot-spots in Federal buildings to improve wireless coverage and network capacity. In addition, the bill would streamline Federal rights-of-way and wireless transmitter sitings on Federal buildings, which will simplify and expedite the placement of wireless and broadband network infrastructure, resulting in the expansion of coverage and more reliable service to consumers and businesses. Over the past year, there has been growing concern about a looming radio spectrum crisis given the significant growth in the wireless industry. Currently, there are more than 276 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. According to the Pew Research Center, 56 percent of adult Americans have accessed the Internet via a wireless device. And ABI Research forecasts there will be 150 million mobile broadband subscribers by 2014--a 2,900 percent increase from 2007. To meet this growing demand, a multi-faceted solution is required that includes fostering technological advancement and more robust spectrum management. Such technologies as femtocells and Wi-Fi hotspots will help alleviate growing wireless demand by offloading that traffic onto wireline broadband networks. To that point, approximately 40 percent of cell phone calls are made indoors and more than 25 percent of U.S. households have ``cut-the- cord,'' relying solely on cell phones to make voice calls. On the data side, Cisco's Virtual Network Index reports that approximately 60 percent of mobile Internet use is done inside--either at home or at work. As the Federal Communications Commission's National Broadband Plan highlights, most smartphones sold today have Wi-Fi capabilities to take advantage of the growing ubiquity of wireless networks. According to a November 2008 report from AdMob, 42 percent of all iPhone traffic was transported over Wi-Fi networks rather than AT&T's cellular network. So installing more mini-base stations, such as femtocells, and Wi-Fi hotspots will improve indoor coverage and wireless network capacity. But in addition to improving indoor coverage and network capacity, we must take steps to expand wireless coverage--primarily in rural areas. The General Services Administration, GSA, manages approximately 8,600 buildings across the country that can be used to house wireless and broadband infrastructure. As the National Broadband Plan acknowledges, ``to effectively deploy broadband, providers often need to be able to place equipment on this federally controlled property, or to use the rights-of-way that pass through the property.'' So we must make it a priority to streamline the processes, zoning, and permitting to ensure that carriers have reasonable, timely, and appropriate access to Federal buildings. Doing so will, without question, dramatically improve the service availability on which more than 276 million wireless subscribers rely daily. The increasing importance of wireless communications and broadband has a direct correlation to our Nation's competitiveness, economy, and national security and therefore demands that we make the appropriate changes to current spectrum policy and management to avert a spectrum crisis and continue to realize the boundless benefits of spectrum-based services. That is why I sincerely hope that my colleagues join Senator Warner and me in supporting this important legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Warner, to introduce pro-consumer wireless legislation, which will improve wireless coverage and go a long way toward preventing the annoying dropped phone calls that many of us frequently experience indoors and in rural areas. Specifically, the Federal Wi-Net Act would require the installation of small wireless base stations, such as femtocells or similar technologies, and Wi-Fi hot-spots in Federal buildings to improve wireless coverage and network capacity. In addition, the bill would streamline Federal rights-of-way and wireless transmitter sitings on Federal buildings, which will simplify and expedite the placement of wireless and broadband network infrastructure, resulting in the expansion of coverage and more reliable service to consumers and businesses. Over the past year, there has been growing concern about a looming radio spectrum crisis given the significant growth in the wireless industry. Currently, there are more than 276 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. According to the Pew Research Center, 56 percent of adult Americans have accessed the Internet via a wireless device. And ABI Research forecasts there will be 150 million mobile broadband subscribers by 2014--a 2,900 percent increase from 2007. To meet this growing demand, a multi-faceted solution is required that includes fostering technological advancement and more robust spectrum management. Such technologies as femtocells and Wi-Fi hotspots will help alleviate growing wireless demand by offloading that traffic onto wireline broadband networks. To that point, approximately 40 percent of cell phone calls are made indoors and more than 25 percent of U.S. households have ``cut-the- cord,'' relying solely on cell phones to make voice calls. On the data side, Cisco's Virtual Network Index reports that approximately 60 percent of mobile Internet use is done inside--either at home or at work. As the Federal Communications Commission's National Broadband Plan highlights, most smartphones sold today have Wi-Fi capabilities to take advantage of the growing ubiquity of wireless networks. According to a November 2008 report from AdMob, 42 percent of all iPhone traffic was transported over Wi-Fi networks rather than AT&T's cellular network. So installing more mini-base stations, such as femtocells, and Wi-Fi hotspots will improve indoor coverage and wireless network capacity. But in addition to improving indoor coverage and network capacity, we must take steps to expand wireless coverage--primarily in rural areas. The General Services Administration, GSA, manages approximately 8,600 buildings across the country that can be used to house wireless and broadband infrastructure. As the National Broadband Plan acknowledges, ``to effectively deploy broadband, providers often need to be able to place equipment on this federally controlled property, or to use the rights-of-way that pass through the property.'' So we must make it a priority to streamline the processes, zoning, and permitting to ensure that carriers have reasonable, timely, and appropriate access to Federal buildings. Doing so will, without question, dramatically improve the service availability on which more than 276 million wireless subscribers rely daily. The increasing importance of wireless communications and broadband has a direct correlation to our Nation's competitiveness, economy, and national security and therefore demands that we make the appropriate changes to current spectrum policy and management to avert a spectrum crisis and continue to realize the boundless benefits of spectrum-based services. That is why I sincerely hope that my colleagues join Senator Warner and me in supporting this important legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, it is essential that today's small businesses be flexible and responsive when it comes to changing demands and conditions if they wish to be successful and truly distinguish themselves. My home State of Maine boasts a number of these highly innovative companies, which are poised to lead our economic recovery in the coming years. I rise today to recognize one of these firms, Tilson Technology Management, a small independent information technology project management company based in Portland, which is helping businesses grow through the creative and comprehensive training it offers its customers. Mike Dow founded Tilson Technology Management in 1996 with the goal of improving the day-to-day operations of construction companies through the unique technology consulting training it offers to its clients. Tilson quickly met this goal and, adjusting to the needs of a variety of other industries, set its sights on providing technology solutions to businesses on a broader, global scale. As such, Tilson expanded its expertise, offering its critical technology services to a wider range of markets, including the biotechnology, banking, and manufacturing industries. All the while, Tilson has maintained its reputation as a leading example of solid and principled business management. At its core, Tilson is a company of solutions, helping businesses meet their customers' needs while also helping to improve Maine's high- tech infrastructure. As a result of the company's hard work and determined success, Tilson was recognized this year with the Governor's Award for Technology Company of the Year. This honor is bestowed annually on a business that takes great pains to ensure that Maine is a cutting-edge technology State. The company's work to find solutions to everyday technology problems is never-ending. In Maine, this includes constructing 1,100 miles of fiber optic cable that will expand the reach of broadband and the countless opportunities that will come as a result. I look forward to the completion of this project and the doors it will open for the citizens of Maine and local industries seeking a wider, global reach. At the same time, Tilson is helping to improve the lives of Americans abroad. The company is taking on the crucial task of developing ways to furnish U.S. troops with the food and supplies they need while serving our country in Iraq and Afghanistan. A member of such organizations as the Portland Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Maine International Trade Center, and Maine's Software and Information Technology Industry Association, Tilson has been a driving force in the vitality of Maine's business community. On a daily basis, this impressive company makes the lives of the people of my home State easier by helping businesses better serve their customers. There are no bounds to what the future holds for Tilson and its remarkable innovations that are helping Maine become a more competitive and global State. I thank Mike Dow and everyone at Tilson Technology Management for making their company an outstanding example of a successful business, and I offer them best wishes for continued growth.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, our Nation's 27.5 million small businesses all have their own unique characteristics and touching stories. Today, I rise to recognize the contributions of one of those small businesses from my home State of Maine--Darling's Auto that not only has provided exceptional service to greater Bangor but has also invested its time and heart into the community itself. Darling's Auto has been ingrained in Bangor since 1903, when it first began selling cars, trucks, and bicycles. Over a century later, through hard work and care for the customer, Darling's Auto has become one of Maine's largest auto dealership groups, with additional locations in Brewer, Ellsworth, and Augusta. For over 100 years, Darling's Auto has provided Mainers with the vehicles they use every day to go to work, visit their loved ones, and embark on new journeys. Over the years, Darling's has employed hundreds of Mainers and has earned a reputation of excellence and integrity throughout eastern and central Maine. Darling's Auto's rich history of perseverance and innovation alone would merit distinction. Yet, today, I honor Darling's Auto for an exemplary and magnanimous gesture that is truly inspirational. Maine is among the States with the highest percentage of military servicemembers per capita. When our servicemembers are deployed, the effects reverberate throughout families, businesses, and communities. Fortunately, Mainers have a reputation for taking care of one another in difficult times, and Darling's Auto certainly has fit that mold. One of Darling's Auto's valued employees, Susan Maiden, is the mother of PFC Andrew ``Andy'' Chic. Susan typifies Maine's famed work ethic and independent spirit, values which she instilled in her son. Andy volunteered to join the National Guard and most recently was deployed to Afghanistan with Bravo Company, Third Battalion of the 172nd Infantry Division with the Maine National Guard. During his heroic service in Afghanistan, Andy's company was ambushed by insurgents. On May 22, 2010, Bravo Company was conducting convoy operations with Private First Class Chic in the ``gunner'' position in the lead vehicle of a convoy--a Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected--MRAP--vehicle. Private First Class Chic's MRAP sustained two direct hits from rocket-propelled grenades, or RPGs, and other small arms weapons. While he was knocked down when the first RPG hit, he resumed his gunner position and returned fire against insurgents despite continuing RPG and small arms fire against his MRAP and the convoy. The vehicle was also carrying satchels of mail and care packages from family members in Maine, which absorbed some of the shrapnel and mitigated the injuries to Private First Class Chic and his fellow soldiers. Following the barbaric attack, Andy was taken to Walter Reed Medical Center to address his wounds and for rehabilitation. Knowing the concern and anxiousness any mother would have in Susan's situation, Darling's Auto stood up and gave assistance to Susan. The company has provided tremendous support to Susan during her time of need by giving her extra time off to see Andy and even purchasing an EZ Pass to help with Susan's expenses when she would drive all the way to Washington, DC, to visit her son. In light of Darling's Auto's understanding and assistance, the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve will soon be presenting Darling's Auto with its ``Above and Beyond Award,'' honoring those who help Guard members and Reservists, and their families, in times of need. Given the tremendous care and compassion extended for Susan and Andy's well-being, I can think of no business more deserving of this tremendous recognition than Darling's. Darling's Auto has been a consistent presence in the Bangor community for over a century, and the company has thrived over that time because it operates in a manner consistent with Maine values. Darling's has treated its customers and employees with honesty, respect, and compassion, building a legacy of trust. I am so often reminded of the empathy that Mainers demonstrate, and it always reaffirms my belief in the exceptional nature of our State and our Nation. I am proud of the incredible example that Darling's Auto has set by its notable acts of kindness, and I wish the company another 100 years of success in all of its endeavors.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as lobster bakes and vacations along the picturesque northeastern coast fade with the summer months, today I honor a craftsman and small business owner in my home State of Maine who keeps the feeling of the season alive by marrying function, comfort, beauty, tradition, and love of the outdoors--quintessentially Maine characteristics--with the iconic Adirondack chair. Located along the Saco River in the town of Buxton, Dirk Leach Rustic Arts is a one-of-a-kind business devoted to one man's dream of creating the perfect Adirondack chair. The company's owner, Dirk Leach, maintains the tradition of ``rustic artistry'' by walking through Maine's woodlands in late fall and winter to gather materials for one of his Shaker creations. An artist and an innovator, Mr. Leach describes himself as ``obsessed with the Adirondack chair form,'' and draws inspiration from the simple, functional forms of Shaker design. Mr. Leach's sketches help him translate his varying ideas into unique prototypes and, finally, innovative seating pieces with wide seat planks, thick arm rests, and clean lines. Since the mid 1990s, Dirk Leach has fashioned Adirondack chairs and settees from a variety of trees native to Maine, such as red oak, white ash, yellow birch, and sugar maple. Perhaps most creatively, Mr. Leach transforms pin cherry and gray birch into hand-hewn candlesticks and a number of accessories. Mr. Leach lovingly builds, paints, signs, and dates his exceptional and unique creations, which are all beautifully handcrafted and guaranteed for life. While his most popular designs include the traditional Weekender chairs to the more eclectic Nor'easter chairs, Mr. Leach has pledged to design 100 variations of the outdoor classic by alternating back height, seat angles, hardware, and color. Moreover, chairs can be built to withstand even the coldest of Maine's winters, as they are constructed of weather tight white oak and finished in the finest exterior house paint on the market. And although Mainers have come to anticipate traditional white Adirondack chairs assembled along campfires and lazily arranged in the backyard, Dirk Leach is renowned for applying layers of paint in colors inspired by nature itself, from colors such as iris, prairie grass, and warm earth, to vivid shades of crocus, coral, and pistachio. Touted as the ``Best Maine Adirondack Chair'' by Down East Magazine in July 2010, Dirk Leach Rustic Arts has been working to keep up with demand since the Maine publication hit newsstands. And when he wasn't drawing up his newest designs, Mr. Leach has spent time traveling to Wisconsin, New York, and throughout Maine--from July to September-- demonstrating his rustic woodworking craftsmanship and techniques. While small businesses are most notably touted as drivers of our national economy, and rightly so, they can sometimes be overlooked for their often more subtle contributions to design, quality, and innovative vision. Whether his customers utilize these chairs to gaze out at the ocean or sit around a campfire, Dirk Leach's designs are functional works of art meant to last for generations. I commend Dirk Leach on the passion he lends to his craft, and I wish him nothing but success in the years to come.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, it has been nearly 2\1/2\ months since the majority leader first brought small business jobs legislation to the floor, and now this bill will pass the Senate through a constrained process under which the majority has continually stunted our ability to offer amendments, dictating to our side which amendments they considered worthy--something I find abhorrent and antithetical to this institution. And I might add, before the votes we held Tuesday on the Johanns and Nelson amendments on the 1099 issue, we had voted on just one amendment during consideration of this bill--an amendment to reinstate an ill-conceived and divisive lending fund into the bill. And with the failed votes on the 1099 issue, we inexplicably and regrettably punted on a chance to help millions of small businesses save the time, cost, and effort of sending billions of new information reporting forms to the IRS and to other businesses. As ranking member of the Senate Small Business Committee, I have come to the floor several times during recent months to express my regret over the procedural twists and turns that have gotten us to this point. Clearly, we have had ample opportunity to consider and pass meaningful small business jobs legislation. Yet time after time other priorities have taken precedence. Most recently, it was the August recess that took us away from Washington for 5 weeks while small businesses continued to call for help. They didn't get an August recess. They didn't have the luxury of putting things on hold while the economic situation failed to improve. As I said in July on the Senate floor, it seems as if we have forgotten how to talk to one another here, how to work together and forge a bipartisan and sensible solution to a problem that plagues our economy. A prime example of this is the recent votes we took to repeal the onerous and imprudent mandate in the health care legislation regarding the filing of 1099 forms by millions of businesses. It will require that, starting in 2012, every business in America must report to the IRS on business purchases that exceed a threshold of only $600 per vendor or supplier. This mandate would include purchases of supplies and equipment, as well as purchases of services ranging from cell phone coverage to window washing to utilities. This new mandate was imposed in the health reform law, yet it has nothing to do with health insurance reform. It makes 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. They look to 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 like this new 1099 filing requirement. This new system of 1099s has absolutely nothing to do with a direct tax liability in a given year. Instead, this reporting regime will allow the IRS to track business purchases that exceed $600. Businesses typically have an intense focus on carefully tracking their sales to customers with marketing professionals. Rather than tracking sales to customers, this new government mandate will force a change in business focus to a detailed accounting of purchases from suppliers. While controlling costs is clearly a vital component of business profitability, this new government mandate on cost accounting and reporting to the IRS is an inordinate shift of priorities that will harm competitiveness and profitability because it will shift focus and resources away from customers. We had bipartisan support to eliminate this provision, and yet we couldn't agree to repeal this provision because 52 Democrats opposed Senator Johanns amendment. How out of touch and disconnected can the majority be? American business owners are desperate for relief from taxes and regulation, and we can't even agree to help them. Instead, we are going to impede their ability to thrive and grow. Indeed, for the small businesses that attempt to comply with this tax reporting mandate, this paperwork burden will be imposed with a crushing effect. New tracking systems will have to be implemented for purchases in order to ensure that aggregated purchases exceeding $600 are reported to the IRS. In fact, according to a National Federation of Independent Business, or NFIB, small business survey, at $74 an hour, tax paperwork is the most expensive paperwork burden placed on small businesses by the Federal Government. The Small Business Administration has found that the cost of tax compliance is already 67 percent higher in small firms than in large firms. And because this new 1099 reporting burden would be so ubiquitous for firms attempting to be compliant--by requiring new processes of making business purchases and tracking of business purchases--this compliance cost statistic is likely to become woefully outdated as costs soar ever higher. Mr. President, we ought to be reducing the small business regulatory compliance burden, not augmenting it. So, once again, here we are, and the only amendment that the majority has seen prudent to approve reinstates an ill-conceived Treasury lending fund that has been widely recognized as ``TARP Jr.,'' while we fail to vote in favor of an amendment introduced by Senator Johanns that could have helped small businesses. Simply put, we will rely on small businesses to lead us out of the present economic morass. According to the Small Business Administration, or SBA, small firms have created 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years. And since they represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms and employ slightly more than half of all private sector employees, it is more than evident that our overall economy's health is based on the well-being of our Nation's almost 30 million small businesses. With our Nation's unemployment rate hovering near 10 percent since last August--over a whole year ago--and standing at a regrettable 9.6 percent today, it will require nearly unprecedented economic growth to reverse this trend. We have 14.9 million Americans on the unemployment rolls, searching for opportunities in what often seems to them a hopeless situation. According to the most recent ADP Employment Report, we learned that private-sector companies actually shed 10,000 jobs in August--news which the firm noted ``. . . confirms a pause in the recovery, already evident in other economic data.'' From February through July, ``. . . the average monthly gain in employment was 37,000 with no evidence of acceleration.'' By any measure, these job creation figures are lackluster and insufficient. Yet if we are to spur a full-fledged recovery that recoups the jobs we have lost since the start of the recession in December 2007, the NFIB's latest Economic Trends survey notes that ``. . . to restore 2007 employment levels and unemployment rates by 2013, we need a net 400,000 new jobs every month for 3 years''--which, given the numbers coming from both the Department of Labor and ADP, would be next to impossible. We have hit the mark of 400,000 jobs in 1 month only once this year--in May--and that was due to the hiring of 411,000 census workers. Indeed, the private sector only grew by 41,000 jobs that month. Furthermore, with respect to our economic growth, the Bureau of Economic Analysis late last month revised its estimate of GDP growth downward to an astonishingly low 1.6 percent for the second quarter of 2010, from an earlier prediction of 2.4 percent. Let's be clear. This kind of growth is insufficient to reduce unemployment and bolster our economic future, and it certainly will not instill the level of confidence that small business owners require in decisions to take risks and invest in their businesses. In fact, just before the July 4th recess, I met with the president of the Boston Federal Reserve, Eric Rosengren. And as he noted, the ``growth'' the economy has shown thus far is for the most part in inventory--and this is not actually ``real growth.'' Right now, our government is the only real growth industry in this country, and that is not a recipe for future prosperity and the kind of innovation that has always placed America on the vanguard in an exceptionally competitive global marketplace. So what will be required? In the Federal Reserve's analysis, roughly a 6-percent growth in GDP will be necessary just to equalize the job losses we have suffered by the end of 2012. That rate would be almost the same level of growth we experienced during the recovery from the 1982 recession and approximately double the growth following the 1991 and 2001 recessions. Indeed, even to attain a 5-percent unemployment rate by the end of 2015, it would require annual growth of 4.2 percent. The last time we witnessed sustained annual GDP growth near that level was the late 1990s, peaking at 4.8 percent growth in 1999. So we have our work cut out for us. Yet, while small businesses are looking to Washington for some certainty in the tax and regulatory policies they deal with on a daily basis, there has been a stark disconnect between Washington and the entire rest of the country. This vast chasm is vividly discernible in the NFIB's July Small Business Economic Trends report, which describes small businesses' optimism as being at an ``unprecedented'' low. The report went on to state that ``the U.S. economy faces hurricane force headwinds and the government is at the center of the storm, making an economic recovery very difficult.'' The NFIB's June survey noted that the optimism index remained in ``recession'' territory, and even with some signs of life in our economy, ``Washington, D.C. . . . seem[s] determined to undermine any economic forward momentum for small business owners.'' That report further stated that ``Congress continues to pass and propose legislation that increases the cost of running a business and create huge uncertainty about future costs.'' And the U.S. Chamber of Commerce added its own dire analysis of Washington's actions in an open letter in mid-July, asserting that, ``By straying from the proven principles of American free enterprise, policymakers are needlessly prolonging the economic agony of the recession for millions of Americans and their families.'' These candid assessments of how small business owners view the actions of this Congress and this administration must unquestionably be heeded if we are to ever regain the trust of the American people. As I said earlier, the majority is detached from reality. So clearly there is a demonstrable necessity for a broad jobs package that will get our Nation's small businesses back on track and spark the idling engines of our economy. The substitute amendment that has been laid down contains a solid foundation for investing in jobs that includes many of the provisions I have championed over the last year and a half and that formed the core of my Small Business Job Creation Act, S. 3103. This includes crucial measures to bolster Small Business Administration, or SBA, lending, increase the number of small companies that export to foreign markets, and provide immediate tax relief to our Nation's true job creators. In fact, the Small Business Committee has approved many of these provisions unanimously, and the President of the United States has called for them to be included a jobs package. One of the critical starting points of this legislation is taking steps to stem the endemic credit crisis our Nation's business community is still facing. This bill will address this stifling credit crunch that is placing a perilous chokehold on our economy across the country so that we can do something viable and bold to confront such a universally-acknowledged problem. We can begin to turn around this deplorable trend by boosting the SBA's capacity for facilitating access to credit. This bill includes key lending provisions from a measure I introduced with Small Business Committee Chair Landrieu, which was reported out of our committee by a vote of 17 to 1, to increase the maximum limits for SBA 7(a) and 504 loans from $2 million to $5 million; raise the maximum microloan limit from $35,000 to $50,000; and allow for the refinancing of conventional small business loans through the SBA 504 program. These loans are critical to small businesses that utilize this capital in starting their firms and investing in equipment and expansion. It should be evident to everyone in this Chamber why 81 business organizations have endorsed these provisions. I would note that enhancing SBA loans has already paid tremendous dividends. In the stimulus, we included initiatives to increase SBA maximum 7(a) loan guarantees from 80 percent to 90 percent and to reduce certain 7(a) and 504 lender and borrower fees. But, regrettably, these provisions have lapsed, and these initiatives, which are credited with increasing loan volumes by a remarkable 90 percent nationwide and 236 percent in Maine, have, to my dismay, come to a close. At a time when unemployment hovers at unsustainable levels and consumer confidence hangs in abeyance, nothing could be more counterintuitive than to allow these provisions to remain moribund. In fact, we have seen the dramatic results to SBA lending since the expiration of these critical enhancements. In August alone, the SBA approved only $1.097 billion in SBA 7(a) guaranteed loans, a 43-percent decrease from the $1.9 billion in 7(a) loans it approved in May, the last month of the fee relief and higher guarantees. That is why I introduced an amendment to this bill along with Senators Grassley, Enzi, Isakson, and Collins, to resuscitate these highly effective programs--and I am pleased that the majority leader has included a modification of our amendment in the most recent substitute. This language would provide $505 million to reinstate SBA fee reductions and the elevated guarantee on SBA 7(a) loans through the end of 2010. Additionally, we must provide tax incentives to the small business community in order to foster job creation. We know from survey after survey that small business owners consider taxes to be one of the biggest impediments to the growth of their firms. 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 three most significant challenges to the future growth and survival of their businesses--a category trumped only by the ongoing economic uncertainty pervading our Nation. To help mitigate this uncertainty, the tax portion of this bill that Chairman Baucus and ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, helped negotiate includes three critical components: cash flow, investment incentives, and fairness. The lifeblood of a small business is its cash flow, and so this bill contains several provisions that will improve the cash flow status of a company. The provision that is most remarkable will also address a fundamental injustice of the TAX CODE: permitting the self-employed, like realtors, a full deduction for the first time ever for health insurance premiums against not only income taxes but also against payroll taxes. At a rate of 15.3 percent, for many small business owners the self-employment tax, or SECA tax, imposed on the health benefits of the business owner is an expensive injustice that only adds to the already exorbitant cost of health insurance. Regrettably, the health reform bill that was jammed through Congress earlier this year fell far short for small businesses. So allowing the full deduction for health insurance for the self-employed is critical for affordability. This substitute will also allow for general business credits to be carried back 5 years and taken against the alternative minimum tax, or AMT. When Congress implements policies through the TAX CODE, we expect businesses to utilize these incentives. Unfortunately, during a downward business cycle as we have been in for 2 full years, businesses do not have income tax liability that can be offset with a credit. The 5-year carryback of credits will allow business owners to reach back to prior years when they had taxable income and offset prior tax liability with these credits to get an immediate cash infusion. They can use this cash as they choose, but, as we have seen with net operating loss relief, they use these funds for anything from meeting payroll to investing in new equipment. This same principle applies with respect to the provision that allows credits to be used against the alternative minimum tax. And with regard to investing in new equipment, more businesses will be incentivized to make equipment purchases or upgrade their physical spaces. Real property has never been included in ``expensing,'' and this would allow ``Main Street'' businesses such as retail, restaurants, and dentist offices, to renovate and make other improvements to their buildings in 2010 and 2011 and immediately deduct those costs. In this legislation, we also increase the expensing limitation to $500,000 for equipment. This is double the amount previously permitted. However the bill would also bifurcate that amount so that up to $250,000 of expenses for real property can be expensed and the business can still purchase up to $250,000 of equipment. One final tax provision I would like to discuss concerns investment in small business. Senator Kerry and I have long championed allowing for the complete exclusion on capital gains attributable to small business stock held for 5 years. The President touted this effort in his State of the Union Address. I hope this will help jumpstart critical investment in our Nation's small businesses. Furthermore, this bill would take critical steps to inject some fairness into the Federal contracting process for small businesses. And it also includes $50 million in funding for small business development centers, which provide critical technical assistance and counseling to small businesses at over 1,000 locations nationwide. The SBDC program has a proven track record of job creation. According to an annual report by Dr. James Chrisman at Mississippi State University, between 2007 and 2008, employment levels of SBDC clients increased 10 percent more than for U.S. businesses in general. As a result of the additional funding included in this package, Dr. Chrisman estimates that over 20,000 new jobs would be created, while tens of thousands more will be saved. Just as there is much we can do right away domestically, our legislation will also take action to help our small businesses compete globally. Given that fewer than 1 percent of U.S. small businesses export, it is all the more vital that we take advantage of this untapped market and help those enterprises sell their goods and services to the 95 percent of the world's customers who live outside our borders. In his State of the Union Address, President Obama made clear that we must double our exports over the next 5 years, and small businesses are a critical component of the administration's strategy and our national competitiveness. For this reason, this bill includes small business exporting provisions from legislation I introduced with Chair Landrieu. The provisions in this bill--larger SBA export loan limits, expanded export technical assistance, and enhanced assistance for trade promotion--have bipartisan support, they were reported unanimously by our committee last December, and they have administration support and have also been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These provisions could create roughly 46,000 new American jobs in the year after enactment and 200,000 jobs over the next 5 years. Another theme that I frequently hear from small businesses is that the regulatory environment promoted by Washington is too complex and often detrimental to their ability to expand operations and create jobs. As such, this legislation strengthens the Regulatory Flexibility Act by requiring agencies to respond to the SBA Chief Counsel of Advocacy's comments in the final rules that they promulgate. This will help to ensure that the potentially devastating impacts to small business job creation are fully considered during the Federal rulemaking process. It also seeks more independence for the Office of Advocacy by mandating a separate line item in the administration's annual budget. These provisions are strongly supported by a variety of groups, including the National Federation of Independent Business, the U.S. Chamber, and the National Small Business Association. Yet, despite all of these provisions--many of which I helped craft and many of which have broad, bipartisan support--regrettably, I cannot support this bill as it stands because of the reckless and wrongheaded $30 billion lending fund contained in the legislation. I have spoken at length about this on the Senate floor before, but let me remind my colleagues--once again--what we are voting on with this lending fund. First, regardless of what proponents of the lending fund will say, it is essentially an extension of the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, which just terminated with the enactment of financial regulatory reform legislation. This is not simply my analysis. In a May 17, 2010, letter that Mr. Barofsky, the special inspector general of TARP, wrote to the Members of the House of Representatives, he states that ``. . . in terms of its basic design, its participants, its application process, and, perhaps its funding source from an oversight perspective, the SBLF [Lending Fund] would essentially be an extension of TARP's CPP [Capital Purchase Program] program. . . .'' So if the experts tell us that it looks like TARP--well, let's not kid ourselves--regardless of how the proponents want to spin this, it is still TARP. Additionally, there are unintended consequences that may result from Treasury's Small Business Lending Fund which certainly raise a red flag for me. It is possible that instead of promoting quality loans, the proposal could encourage unnecessarily risky behavior by banks. The Treasury Department proposes to lend funds to banks, at a 5-percent interest rate, which can then be reduced to as low as 1 percent if the institutions in turn increase their small business lending. However, if the banks fail to increase their small business lending, the interest rate they pay could rise to a more punitive 7 percent. This could lead to the ``moral hazard'' of banks making risky loans to avoid paying higher interest rates. Finally, I have serious concerns about the cost of the program. The lending fund provision that is in the Reid substitute remains virtually identical, for scoring purposes, to how it was in the House-passed small business bill, H.R. 5297. That score is based on a cash--based estimate. Under a cash-based estimate, the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, listed the official score for the lending fund as raising $1.1 billion over 10 years. Although CBO was bound to score the provision under a cash-based estimate, the office also highlights in that same score--and I quote-- ``Estimates prepared on a `fair-value' basis include the cost of the risk that the government has assumed; as a result, they provide a more comprehensive measure of the cost of the financial commitments than estimates done on a FCRA basis or on a cash basis. CBO estimates that the cost of the SBLF [Lending Fund] on such a fair-value basis (that is, reflecting market risk) would be $6.2 billion.'' That is right, CBO is warning that although it is bound to score the provision using a cash-based estimate, a more comprehensive scoring method reveals a potential $6.2 billion loss to taxpayers. I raised this issue on the floor during the debate on the lending fund, but my opponents have simply ignored this concern. Certainly, this should have been taken into full consideration when evaluating the potential costs and benefits of the program and its effect on our increasing budget deficit. Finally, I note that this past Tuesday, the Washington Post ran an article demonstrating that, while larger banks are generally associated with TARP, ``. . . it's a collection of smaller banks that continued to plague the Treasury Department's bank bailout program.'' In fact, the article cited that ``the latest report from the agency shows that more than 120 institutions--nearly all of them small banks--have missed their scheduled quarterly dividend payments.'' So I do not understand why the majority wants to create a new program for small banks that has the same characteristics of TARP, when many of those banks are already participating in TARP and have been delinquent on their payments. So I am truly disappointed that we have arrived at this point. This bill could have been better. We could have considered amendments from the outset, and we could have moved on this bill months ago. I know that I have been calling for sensible legislation to help small businesses since January. Yet, regrettably, for the reasons I have discussed, I cannot support it. Cloture Motion

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise in support of legislation with Senator Lincoln, Senator Collins, and Senator Chambliss, which would officially recognize The American Legion and its vital role in communities across the Nation, by designating September 16, 2010, as ``The American Legion Day.'' Nothing describes the role of The American Legion more beautifully than the preamble to its constitution which is recited by its members at the beginning of every official meeting. ``For God and Country, we associated ourselves together for the following purposes: to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America; to maintain law and order; to foster and perpetuate a one hundred percent Americanism; to preserve the memories and incidents of our associations in the Great Wars; to inculcate a sense of individual obligation to the community, state and nation; to combat the autocracy of both the classes and the masses; to make right the Master of Might; to promote peace and good will on earth; to safeguard and transmit to posterity the principles of justice, freedom and democracy; and to consecrate and sanctify our comradeship by our devotion to mutual helpfulness.'' I think we all would agree that these are extremely lofty goals for any organization, but amazingly for over 90 years The American Legion has worked towards these objectives--not for themselves, but for America. Most people are surprised to learn that The American Legion was actually founded in Paris, France. World War I veterans remembered the challenges facing wartime veterans from previous generations and vowed not to let their fellow comrades face the same hardships, especially those with service-connected disabilities. They wanted employment opportunities for returning combat veterans. They were concerned about the survivors of combat veterans who had paid the ultimate sacrifice in service to their country. And most importantly, they wanted medical care provided to the wounded and ill returning service members. Now, as it did at its founding, The American Legion remains focused on supporting veterans, military service members, and their families. Since December 2008, The American Legion's Operation Comfort Warriors has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy merchandise for Wounded Warriors in military medical centers around the country. Through the ``Heroes to Hometowns'' program The American Legion helps local communities prepare ``welcome home'' events when wounded warriors are finally released from military or veterans' affairs medical centers. Since the first gulf war, The American Legion has maintained its Family Support Network which assists deployed service members and their families, especially members of the National Guard and Reserves. Some requests are for financial assistance, but other requests are simply for household chores, such as lawn work or car maintenance, that would normally be done by the soldier, sailor, airmen, or marine, were they not deployed. No request is too large or too small. Many Legionnaires can be found in public schools on Veterans' Day or Memorial Day talking about their military service during periods of armed conflict to make sure the next generation of Americans understands the sacrifices and hardships of previous generations of wartime veterans. Legionnaires also teach students about the proper display and care of the flag of the United States. The American Legion works closely with the American Red Cross--the largest organization of blood donors and a working partner in disaster assistance. Many American Legion Posts serve as Red Cross and Federal Emergency Management Agency work centers in areas hit by natural disasters. Members of more than 14,000 American Legion Posts donate nearly 100,000 pints of blood to the American Red Cross each year. The American Legion is also proud of its membership's spirit of volunteerism. Each year, Legionnaires volunteer about 1 million hours of services in VA and military medical facilities, State veterans' homes, and other such community volunteer opportunities. And one of the most solemn of functions performed by The American Legion is providing burial details for fallen comrades of every generation. The American Legion Color Guards, Buglers and Rifle Squads perform thousands of burials in veterans' and private cemeteries around the Nation. As all of us in this Chamber know, The American Legion remains today an active and vigorous advocate for service members, veterans, and their families here on Capitol Hill. Among its greatest legislative achievements was the enactment of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, the GI Bill of Rights. The initial draft of the GI Bill was written by Legionnaires at the Mayflower Hotel here in Washington, DC. Many consider the GI bill to be one of the greatest pieces of legislation ever enacted. Congress presented The American Legion its Federal charter on September 16, 1919. Therefore, I think it only fitting that we proclaim September 16, 2010, ``The American Legion Day.'' I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this well-earned measure, demonstrating our respect and esteem for this outstanding organization.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Johanns amendment to repeal an onerous mandate included in the health reform bill that would require millions of businesses to send billions of new information reporting forms to the IRS and other businesses. If Senator Johanns' amendment is 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 has 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. 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 like this new 1099 filing requirement. Most Americans recognize forms 1099 as the statements they get from a financial institution when they earn interest on savings or from their mortgage lender for the deductible interest the borrower pays to a bank or credit union for their home mortgage. The purpose of these 1099s is to accurately report income or deductions for a particular tax year so that income is appropriately taxed that year. However this new system of 1099s does not have anything to do with a direct tax liability in a given year--instead, this reporting regime will allow the IRS to track business purchases that exceed $600. Businesses typically have an intense focus on carefully tracking their sales to customers with marketing professionals. Rather than tracking sales to customers, this new government mandate will force a change in business focus to a detailed accounting of purchases from suppliers. While controlling costs is clearly a vital component of business profitability, this new government mandate on cost accounting and reporting to the IRS is an inordinate shift of priorities that will harm competitiveness and profitability because it will shift focus and resources away from customers. A separate dimension of this new cost accounting mandate is that purchases will also have to be separately tracked by type of payment because only payments made by check and cash would be reported on a 1099 but payments by credit card would be excluded from this mandate and misreporting transactions by including credit card purchases might be subject to penalties. So for each supplier from which aggregate purchase might exceed $600 per year, purchases would have to be tracked by payment method. For instance, a construction contractor would have to make sure that employees know to use only a credit card at Home Depot but at the local lumber yard to only pay by check or invoice. The intent of this 1099 provision may have been to track the cash flow of businesses that operate in a cash economy in order to root out those that do not pay taxes. Ensuring that tax cheats pay their taxes is an admirable and necessary function of government. However, instead it has become clear that this provision could simply further expand the cash economy. The very businesses that currently evade taxation are not likely to become compliant with this new burdensome reporting regime. In fact, a predominantly cash-based business will likely further retrench and thrive absent both tax liability and the new reporting regime while tax compliant businesses either muddle through or fail under this new burden. For instance, a small plumbing business or a roofing business would likely thrive by simply working in an all-cash system for residential customers and evading both income taxes and information reporting while a similar business attempting to comply with tax liability and compliance would struggle. For the small businesses that attempt to comply with this tax reporting mandate, this paperwork burden will be imposed with a crushing effect. New tracking systems will have to be implemented for purchases in order to ensure that aggregated purchases exceeding $600 are reported to the IRS. In fact, according to an NFIB Small Business Survey, at $74 an hour, tax paperwork is the most expensive paperwork burden placed on small businesses by the Federal Government. The Small Business Administration has found that the cost of tax compliance is already 67 percent higher in small firms than in large firms. Because this new 1099 reporting burden would be so ubiquitous for firms attempting to be compliant--by requiring new processes of making business purchases and tracking of business purchases--this compliance cost statistic is likely to be woefully outdated and more onerous. I fully expect the new Chief Counsel for Advocacy at the Small Business Administration, Winslow Sargeant, who President Obama recently recess appointed, to assess this new paperwork mandate and have his office recalibrate that statistic on cost of tax compliance which was last updated in 2005. Dr. Sargeant will also have the opportunity to fully use his office--the independent, ``regulatory watchdog'' for small business--to comment, by September 29, to a Treasury Department and IRS request for information on these expanded 1099 filing requirements. I want to quote from the SBA web site about the mission of the Office of Advocacy: In 1976, the U.S. Congress created the Office of Advocacy within the U.S Small Business Administration to protect, strengthen and effectively represent the nation's small businesses within the federal government's legislative and rule-making processes. The Office of Advocacy works to reduce the burdens that federal policies impose on small firms and maximize the benefits small businesses receive from the government. Advocacy's mission, simply stated, is to encourage policies that support the development and growth of American small business. I expect Dr. Sargeant to fulfill his duties as the Chief Counsel for Advocacy by serving as a strong voice in this IRS rulemaking. In voicing the concerns of small businesses, Dr. Sargeant would be standing shoulder to shoulder with the IRS National Taxpayer Advocate, Nina Olson, who has stated that the administrative costs to small businesses of this provision are so high that it ``may turn out to be disproportionate as compared with any resulting improvement in tax compliance.'' Separate from the burden of compliance, I fear the onerous and pervasive nature of this mandate, for it will surely change business purchasing decisions and disadvantage small businesses. Should the Johanns amendment to repeal this provision not be adopted, it would incentivize centralized purchasing from large integrated companies and away from smaller specialized ones. Rather than a roofing company putting out a bid to different suppliers for materials, this new government mandate would be another reason to consolidate purchasing in order to ease paperwork burdens of the 1099 process. With fewer businesses willing to put out bids to a wide variety of suppliers, a constricting spiral will take effect resulting in fewer and fewer specialty suppliers. While large big-box retailers serve a critical role, they don't need to have the heavy hand of government pushing customers through their doors instead of through the local building supply business or local office supply businesses. This further consolidation of suppliers is bad for innovation, bad for price competition, and bad for small business. No wonder a broad coalition of businesses has come together to form the Coalition for Fairness in Tax Compliance. This group includes dozens and dozens of business organizations including Washington mainstays such as the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Associated Builders and Contractors, the National Restaurant Association, and the US Chamber of Commerce, to groups as varied as the Electronic Security Association, the Independent Community Bankers of America and the American Road & Transportation Builders Association. Finally, I want to turn to an aspect of this issue that has not been discussed widely. The process of tracking business-to-business purchases, aggregating information on purchase prices and then reporting this information to the IRS on those purchases would largely put in place the infrastructure for a value added tax--or VAT--tax system. A typical value added tax is a credit-invoice method system where one business tracks the purchases it makes from others and then when it sells goods, it remits a tax for the increase in value of those goods. The increase in value is through either a manufacturing process or by adding value through a retail sale of goods. A VAT depends upon reporting the price of goods purchased and sold. Imposing a system whereby virtually every business-to-business sale of goods or services is aggregated and reported to the IRS certainly puts in place all of the infrastructure of a VAT. This provision would be implemented and become effective in 2012. It would certainly take a year to two for taxpayers and the IRS to work through all of the administrative hassles associated with its implementation. By 2014, when the health benefit subsidies become effective, all of the machinery necessary for a VAT would be functioning and the machine would simply have to be turned on to start generating the money necessary to pay for these benefits at a time when our national deficits are likely to continue at atrocious levels. Early in the debate for health reform, Obama advisers were proponents of a VAT to fund health reform, but were quickly publicly disavowed. Even in the Senate, last April, I joined 84 colleagues on the floor in April to repudiate the concept of a VAT. Putting in place the machinery of a VAT to not expect that machinery to be switched on is a test of faith that millions of small businesses across America are not willing to take. We cannot tinker with this 1099 provision. We cannot amend this provision. We cannot leave a vestige of it to sprout in the future. We must repeal it. Now. I urge my colleagues to support the Johanns amendment and oppose the Nelson amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today with the heaviest of hearts to observe the ninth anniversary of the terrible tragedy that befell our country on September 11, 2001, and changed America--and Americans-- forever. We remember those whom we lost that terrible day, but also celebrate the freedoms we cherish and which make our nation the greatest in the world. On this September 11, as on all that have preceded it, we mourned the loss of those eight individuals from Maine who were taken from us all too soon--Anna Allison, Carol Flyzik, Robert Jalbert, Jacqueline Norton, Robert Norton, James Roux, Robert Schlegel, and Stephen Ward. We remember the heroic acts of valor that will always distinguish the thousands of men and women who went to work that day, or boarded a plane, or rushed to the aid of strangers whose lives they believed were as vital as their own. Indeed, if 9/11 was a snapshot of horror, it also became a portrait of consummate humanity. If it laid bare the unimaginable cruelties of which humankind is capable, it also imbued forever within our minds the heights to which the human spirit can rise--even and especially in the face of mortality. And nowhere was that more evident than with the first responders who, in the face of unspeakable adversity and peril, heroically ran toward the very dangers others were desperately trying to escape, placing their lives in harm's way in the most courageous and valiant of endeavors to save others without regard for their own safety. Their service and sacrifice are also a vivid reminder of the exceptional men and women who have donned our country's uniform to safeguard and defend our Nation. Whether on our shores or soil here at home or around the globe, their steadfast sense of duty and love of country are an inspiration to us all, their commitment fortifies our determination, and their professionalism steadies our hands in an uncertain world. I will always remember here in Maine, firefighters from throughout the State rushed to aid in the rescue and recovery efforts, the Portland Symphony Orchestra gave an inspiring ``Concert of Remembrance and Healing,'' dedicated to those with close ties to Maine who lost their lives, and the 554 employees of a pulp and paper mill in Baileyville who donated more than $6,000 to help people whom the workers had never met, in places many of them had never visited. One employee contributed his entire $600 tax-relief refund to the cause, saying it was the least he could do to help. That is the America our enemies could never understand--and never will. How clear it is then that, out of the rubble rose our resolve, out of despair grew our determination, and out of the hate that was perpetrated upon us proudly stood our humanity. It was an unmistakable message to the world that we would never be deterred--that our freedoms could never be crushed by the blunt and tortuous instruments of terror that are no match against a resilient people certain in the knowledge that good ultimately triumphs over evil.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. After a careful and considered review of her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, her overall record, and my personal meeting with her in May, I have concluded that General Kagan should be confirmed as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. General Kagan would succeed Justice John Paul Stevens who has served our country as a decorated war veteran, a distinguished Federal appellate judge, and a Supreme Court Justice for nearly 35 years. I appreciate his service to our Nation, and believe that all of us in public service can learn from his dignified manner and sound advice to ``understand before disagreeing.'' As with the previous nominees to the Court that I have had the responsibility to review, I have not arrived at my decision lightly. It has been said that, of all the entities in government, the Supreme Court is the most closely identified with the Constitution--and that no other branch or agency has as great an opportunity to speak directly to the rational and moral side of the American character; to bring the power and moral authority of government to bear directly upon the citizenry. The Supreme Court passes final legal judgment on the most profound social issues of our time. The Court is uniquely designed to accept only those cases that present a substantial and compelling question of Federal law; cases for which the Court's ultimate resolution will not be applied merely to a single, isolated dispute--but, rather, will guide legislatures, executives, and all other courts in their broader development and interpretation of law and policy. Ours is a government of liberty and order, of State and Federal authority, and of checks and balances, and the remarkable challenge of calibrating these fundamental balance points is entrusted ultimately to the nine Justices. To help meet this extraordinary challenge, any nominee for the Court must, as I stated for previous nominees under both Republican and Democrat administrations, have a powerful intellect, a principled understanding of the Court's role, and a sound commitment to judicial method. A nominee must have the capacity to engender respect among the other Justices in order to facilitate the consensus of a majority. And to warrant Senate confirmation, the nominee must have a keen understanding of, and a disciplined respect for, the great body of law that precedes her. It is with these high standards that we should also evaluate the record of General Kagan to serve as the Court's 112th Justice. General Kagan is a distinguished graduate from Princeton, Harvard, and Oxford Universities where she earned several distinct honors. She served as a law clerk to two judges, United States Court of Appeals Judge Abner Mikva and United States Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. General Kagan then worked in private practice as an associate at a leading D.C. law firm and a law professor at two of the Nation's most regarded law schools. General Kagan has also served as a special counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee; a lawyer in the Office of the Counsel to a President; a policy advisor to a President; and dean of the Harvard Law School. Most importantly, she has served as the 45th Solicitor General of the United States where she has participated in six oral arguments and overseen briefs and certiorari petitions in approximately 100 cases. For her work as Solicitor General, Ms. Kagan has won the support of every one of the 10 Solicitors General who have served since 1985, including 5 Republican appointees. She has also earned the support of over 50 deputy and assistant solicitors general who have served over the last 42 years. As these highly skilled professionals have noted, the ``job of Solicitor General provides an opportunity to grapple with almost the full gamut of issues that come before the Supreme Court and requires an understanding of the Court's approach to numerous issues from the criteria for certiorari review to the Justices' approach to oral argument. The constant interaction with the Supreme Court that comes with being the most-frequent litigator before the Court also ensures an appreciation for the rhythms and traditions of the Court and its workload.'' Prior to her 15 months as Solicitor General, Ms. Kagan had relatively little experience as an active practitioner. The American Bar Association's principle expectation for a Federal appellate nominee is ``at least'' 12 years experience actually practicing law, and even now she continues to fall short of that. This is due in part to the fact that she does not appear to have performed any amicus curiae or pro bono work while serving as a law professor. Such practical experience often helps the Justices remain connected to the effect of their decisions on the lives of everyday people. All Supreme Court Justices, regardless of judicial philosophy, weigh the Constitution's text, history, context and precedents when deciding the landmark cases. Active practice of law experience helps with that process because, as prior Justices and distinguished scholars alike have observed, the Justices' decisions in landmark cases are inevitably ``channeled and constrained by who [they] are and what they have lived through.'' General Kagan has not given us the clearest insight into those experiences that she has ``lived through'' that will ``channel and constrain'' her sense of constitutional boundaries. At the same time, I find that her experience in working at the highest levels of all three branches of government will provide her with valuable insights as she approaches her work on the Court. I also accept her comments from our personal meeting that she did indeed have a ``formative experience'' as a young lawyer in learning that ``behind legal questions are real people with real lives.'' As regards General Kagan's lack of prior judicial service, I do not find that to be disqualifying. Nearly 40 Justices have served on the Court without prior judicial experience, including in more recent times Louis Brandeis, Hugo Black, Robert Jackson, Earl Warren, Lewis Powell, and William Rehnquist. Especially on the current Court where all of the existing members come from the Federal appellate courts, General Kagan should bring a new and different perspective. This brings us to the additional factors we must consider when providing our consent on a President's nominee for Associate Justice-- judicial temperament, methodology, integrity and philosophy. By their very nature, these attributes are often challenging to measure, but they can be assessed through a careful analysis of a nominee's complete record. With regard to the first consideration, judicial temperament, we all agree that it is absolutely essential that a judge be fair, open-minded and respectful. Our citizens simply must have confidence that a judge who weighs their legal claims does so with an even temperament. A judge must be truly committed to providing a full and fair day in court, while projecting a sincere equanimity and respect for the law. When these attributes are not clearly present in our judges, the public justifiably begins to lose faith in the integrity of our courts. By all accounts, whether from conservative former Solicitors General Ken Starr and Ted Olson, and Assistant Solicitor General Miguel Estrada, General Kagan has a clear reputation for a sound judicial temperament. She projected poise throughout this process, during her hearing and in our personal meeting. Likewise, she has testified and spoken about the necessity of courts to provide a ``level playing field,'' of maintaining a fidelity to the law, and of the essential requirement not to prejudge any case, stating during her hearing that judging is about ``what the law says, whether it's the Constitution or whether it's a statute . . . the question is always what the law says . . . it's what the text of the Constitution says . . . what the law says, not a judge's personal views.'' Turning to the considerations of judicial methodology and integrity, General Kagan does not have a judicial service record to review. We can, however, examine her scholarship. Here, she has six scholarly articles, two scholarly book reviews and a variety of other commentaries. I have some concern that this collection is, by academia's standards, not especially prodigious, and that General Kagan did not continue her scholarship during her six years as Harvard's dean. Her eight scholarly publications do, however, tackle the difficult subjects of Presidential power, the delegation doctrine, and hate speech. In particular, her Presidential Administration and Chevron's Non-delegation Doctrine article from 2001, as well as The Changing Faces of First Amendment Neutrality article from 1992, demonstrate both close attention to complicated legal detail and careful legal analysis--skills essential for the difficult work of the Court. We can also review her approach to judicial methodology from her answer to my request to identify three of the Court's constitutional opinions--majority, concurring or dissenting--that in her view exemplify sound judicial methodology. First, General Kagan chose Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' 1905 dissenting opinion in Lochner v. New York. In that case, the Court invalidated a State law prohibiting an employer from requiring a baker to work more than 60 hours per week. The Court reasoned that the statute ``necessarily interferes with the right of contract between the employer and employees,'' a right that is ``part of the liberty of the individual'' protected by the 14th amendment. General Kagan cited this opinion as a ``concise and persuasive formulation of the proper role of the judiciary in relation to the political branches of government,'' highlighting these passages: I strongly believe that my agreement or disagreement [with the law] has nothing to do with the right of a majority to embody their opinions in law. . . . The Constitution is . . . made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar, or novel, and even shocking, ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States. [Justices should not use their office] to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion, unless it can be said that a rational and fair man necessarily would admit that the statute proposed would infringe fundamental principles as they have been understood by the traditions of our people and our law. Next, General Kagan selected a 1927 concurring opinion in Whitney v. California where the Court unanimously upheld a conviction for conduct threatening to overthrow our government by unlawful means. Calling the concurrence an ``inspiring example of a commitment to protecting constitutional rights'' and a ``stirring reminder of the value of freedom of speech in our society, including its importance to democratic self-governance,'' General Kagan cited her admiration for this paragraph: Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Finally, General Kagan identified a 1952 concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. There, the Court held that President Truman exceeded his constitutional authority when he ordered the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of most of the Nation's steel mills in the face of a labor strike during the Korean war. Respecting a concurring opinion as the ``definitive framework for evaluating the constitutionality of presidential action,'' General Kagan observed that: Two aspects of the opinion are notable. First, Justice [Robert] Jackson's opinion is a classic formulation of the propositions that executive authority is not unlimited even in wartime and that the President is not above the law. That is all the more remarkable given that its author had served in the Executive Branch for much of his career, including as Solicitor General and Attorney General. Second, Justice Jackson refused to oversimplify constitutional analysis. . . . [H]is analysis depended in large measure on an assessment of relevant historical practices and political processes. That analysis was resolutely legal in its nature; it was not based on the Justice's political preferences or personal views. But the analysis took into account the full complexities of constitutional interpretation in its relation to modern governance. That is what has given Justice Jackson's concurrence its staying power and has made it the Court's principal precedent on executive power. These three replies by General Kagan are informative. Together they argue for a limited judicial role, and demonstrate her command of the philosophical underpinnings of core constitutional doctrine and her insight into the necessity of aligning those theories with the functional ``complexities of modern governance.'' They also convey an awareness of, and therefore perhaps a capacity for, judicial statesmanship. As Justice Felix Frankfurter once noted, ``breadth of vision'' and ``capacity to transcend one's own experience'' are often the defining qualities that matter most in guiding a Justice's work on landmark cases. As regards her views on substantive subjects of law, conservative attorneys such as Charles Fried, Michael McConnell and Paul Clement have agreed that General Kagan is in the mainstream. For example, she has affirmed forcefully that stare decisis is a critical command for the Court. As she wrote to the committee, that command requires a careful inquiry into whether the precedent has ``been found unworkable, whether subsequent legal developments have left the rule an anachronism, or whether premises of fact are so far different from those initially assumed as to render the rule irrelevant or unjustifiable.'' Moreover, she testified that: The entire idea of precedent is that you can think a decision is wrong. You can have decided it differently if you had been on the court when that decision was made. And nonetheless you are bound by that decision. That's--if the doctrine of precedent enabled you to overturn every decision that you thought was wrong, it wouldn't be much of a doctrine. . . . I think when the court looks as though it's flipping around and changing sides just because the justices have changed, that's bad for the credibility of the institution and it's bad for the system of law. General Kagan has also stated that the Constitution protects a right of privacy and that Roe v. Wade is not only ``settled law'' but has been ``doubly settled'' by Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Likewise, she has stated that foreign law should not have precedential weight in ``any but a very, very narrow set of circumstances,'' such as limited cases involving ``ambassadors'' or the ``law of war.'' And finally, she has testified, as noted above, that Youngstown Sheet & Tube remains the ``determinative'' governing standard in assessing Presidential wartime powers. With respect to the second amendment, in my view, as a long-time, ardent supporter of second amendment rights, I have carefully examined General Kagan's work as the President's attorney a decade ago on a variety of legislation affecting gun ownership rights. This is a fair question and, here, General Kagan testified as follows: The work that I did in the Clinton White House was all work . . . before Heller was decided, and so we really . . . did not consider . . . regulations through the Heller prism . . . because Heller didn't exist at that time. . . . What President Clinton was trying to do back in the 1990s and what I as his policy aide was trying to help him do, was to propose a set of regulations that had very strong support in the law enforcement community, that had actually bipartisan support here in Congress to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, to keep guns out of the hands of insane people. It was very much an anti-crime set of proposals that I worked on back then in the '90s. A former White House colleague corroborated General Kagan's testimony: ``In all these cases, [President] Clinton had already settled views on these questions. Our job was to make sure the government's policy reflected what he wanted. He'd already made up his mind on most of these contentious issues.'' As several members of the committee during General Kagan's hearing noted, this same point--that a lawyer's job is to represent the client's views, and not the lawyer's own views--was also made by Justices Roberts and Alito when they were asked during their confirmation hearings about advice they gave while serving as executive branch attorneys. Both nominees testified that their executive branch legal counsel reflected ways to advance their elected client's, not their own personal, legal interests and policy preferences. With respect to the fact that, more recently, General Kagan did not file a brief for the United States in McDonald v. City of Chicago-- McDonald did present an important question regarding the interplay of the second and 14th amendments, and I joined an amicus brief in support of Mr. McDonald's claim to incorporate the second amendment through the 14th amendment, so that the protections of the second amendment would apply not just against Federal acts, but against the acts of State and local governments as well. Here, several observations are warranted. First, McDonald presented only the question of whether the second amendment applied to State and local governments, and not what the scope of the protections of the amendment is. As a result, McDonald, unlike Heller, presented no implications for the constitutionality of Federal gun laws. Accordingly, the United States was not a party in the case. Second, the issue of incorporation is by its very nature one of primarily State and local, and not Federal, concern. This explains the amicus brief signed by 38 States in this case. This also explains why the Solicitor General's Office has a tradition of not weighing in on incorporation cases. General Kagan wrote to the committee in response to a supplemental question that: It has long been the practice of the Office of the Solicitor General not to file an amicus brief in cases concerning the application of a constitutional provision to the states (so-called incorporation cases). Although incorporation cases raise important issues of constitutional interpretation, and may matter greatly to individual citizens, those issues do not implicate the responsibilities and obligations of the federal government under the Constitution. Incorporation cases therefore do not fall within the category of cases in which the Office of the Solicitor General files amicus briefs: those where the federal government itself has a clear and specific interest in the resolution of the case. This response is consistent with the reported statement of former Solicitor General Erwin Griswold, who was uniquely appointed by a Democratic President, President Johnson, and retained by his Republican successor, President Nixon. In 1970, General Griswold reportedly wrote that incorporation cases are rarely of direct interest to the Federal government because ``fundamental considerations of federalism militate against executive intrusion'' into issues of State and local law. Further, although former Solicitor General Paul Clement did appear in Heller for the United States, under the Bush administration, Heller was not an incorporation case. Moreover, the broader question presented by Heller, unlike McDonald, did implicate the basic scheme of Federal firearms regulations. Yet even then, General Clement argued in Heller for a somewhat narrower ruling regarding personal rights. He also argued for a somewhat higher level of judicial scrutiny of challenges to regulation of such rights in order to ensure that the longstanding existing Federal laws--like possession of machine guns, possession by convicted felons, or possession on Federal property--that his office is required to defend were protected. A majority of the Court ultimately respected and accepted General Clement's concern in both Heller and McDonald. As Senator Cornyn noted at the hearing, Justice Alito wrote for the majority in McDonald that: We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as `prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, . . . laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.' We repeat those assurances here; . . . incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. Perhaps most importantly, General Kagan testified repeatedly that both McDonald and Heller are settled law. As regards McDonald, General Kagan said, ``I do think that . . . decision [McDonald] [is] settled law; entitled to all of the weight that any precedent of the Supreme Court has; [and] . . . can only be overturned if there is strong evidence the ruling [among all of the other stare decisis factors] is unworkable.'' On Heller, she said: ``I think that Heller is settled law and Heller has decided that the Second Amendment confers such an individual right to keep and bear arms. I have absolutely no reason to think that the court's analysis was incorrect in any way. I accept the court's analysis and will apply it going forward.'' She also said that Heller's finding that a personal right of possession is ``deeply rooted in this Nation's history and traditions'' is a ``central part of the rationale'' of Heller and, again, is ``settled law.'' Moreover, she testified that she has ``never believed that the president had the power to prohibit [the sale of firearms] without legislative authorization. . . . In fact, that's one [issue] that Heller and McDonald don't effect, that the president didn't have that power before and doesn't have that power after.'' She also testified that ``the Second Amendment question, as defined by Heller, was so peculiar to our own constitutional history and heritage that . . . foreign law didn't have any relevance.'' Turning to another important issue, I also share the concern for how General Kagan approached the issue of military recruiting at Harvard Law School. Under the Solomon amendment, universities like Harvard that receive Federal funding are required to permit military recruiters on campus. Opposing the military's don't ask, don't tell policy, General Kagan was one of several deans to relegate military recruiters to a less preferred position by withholding Office of Career Services' sponsorship. General Kagan also participated in a lawsuit challenging the Solomon amendment as unconstitutional. Had she prevailed in that suit, colleges and universities across the country could have denied the military on- campus access to students across the country. Fortunately, the Supreme Court summarily and unanimously rejected this challenge in 2006 in Rumsfeld v. F.A.I.R. General Kagan continues to defend her decision as a difficult mediation of competitive on-campus interests. But the prevailing recognition here is that the Nation was fully engaged in two wars designed to advance national security, and so I continue to be troubled that General Kagan chose to relegate the military rather than her institution's financial or policy interests. Reviewing the final consideration of judicial philosophy, General Kagan has spoken directly to the important but appropriately limited role that the Court plays in our constitutional scheme of government. She recognizes that the Court is the ``least accountable'' of our governmental institutions and that the Court is not ``self-starting.'' Citing Alexander Bickel and his 1961 seminal article, General Kagan stated in our personal meeting that the ``passive virtue'' of the Court rests in what it does not do, and that the Court should work hard ``not do more than is called for'' and ``not go too far.'' Likewise, she said in her questionnaire that ``I think it is a great deal better for the elected branches to take the lead in creating a more just society than for courts to do so.'' We recently witnessed what happens when the Court does not adhere to such decision-making restraints. We are all familiar with Citizens United v. F.E.C. where the Court overruled a mere 7-year-old precedent to strike down the electioneering communications provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act. There, the majority effectively converted on its own motion an as- applied challenge into a facial challenge through its order for re- argument. According no deference to our 100,000-page factfinding record that took Congress over 10 years to assemble, and further dismissing the commands of stare decisis, the majority then rejected the relatively recent 1990 precedent of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the very recent 2003 precedent of McConnell v. F.E.C. Instead, the majority inflated the precedential value of the majority's very recent--only decided in 2006--and readily distinguishable F.E.C. v. Wisconsin Right to Life and eschewed arguments to decide the case on narrower statutory grounds. Consequently, and in striking contrast to claims of ``judicial modesty,'' the majority then struck down the electioneering communications provision of BCRA on the broadest of grounds. Even granting that General Kagan was an advocate in the case, I was pleased to hear her say in our personal meeting that the Citizens' majority ``did not respond in the right way. Congress had gone through an enormous record and the Court had ruled only a few years earlier. From where I sat, the Court was wrong.'' I also agree with Justice Stevens' dissent in Citizens that the activist ``path'' taken by the Citizens'' majority will ``do damage'' to the Court itself. Citizens is not, of course, the only recent case in which Justices and scholars from across the political spectrum have viewed the Court's majority as overreaching. Indeed, opinions in Montejo v. Louisiana, Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, and related commentaries have all expressed the same concern. Finally, I note that, if confirmed, General Kagan will become the fourth female Justice ever to serve on the Supreme Court. She will follow Sandra Day O'Conner and join Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. General Kagan has already become the first woman to serve as Solicitor General of the United States, and the fact remains that it does make a difference who women and girls see at the pinnacles of government and industry. As Justice Ginsburg observed at the time of Justice Sotomayor's nomination, ``women belong in all places where decisions are being made.'' Ultimately, when the Framers accorded us the special role of confirming judicial nominees that we are exercising here today, having delegated the power of nomination to the Office of the President, and having recognized that elections to that office may affect the overall composition of the Court, the Framers expressly intended that we review judicial nominees not by their affiliations, but by their qualifications. This is why Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 76 that the Senate should deprive a duly elected President of his or her nominee only for ``special and strong reasons.'' In reviewing the record of General Kagan's scholarship, the to, evidence of her reputation, and her responses to the committee and other Members throughout this process, I find in that General Kagan has a very capable intellect and a deep respect for the rule of law. She has a command of the important but limited role of the courts, and a demonstrated commitment to stability in the law. It is therefore my conclusion that Solicitor General Elena Kagan is qualified to serve as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, small businesses are not only the lifeblood of our economy, they are often quite literally the heart of our neighborhoods and communities. One such business is the Courtyard Cafe in the northern Maine town of Houlton, which is at the top end of Interstate 95 in the United States. Houlton is the county government seat for Aroostook County--the largest east of the Mississippi River geographically--and it serves as a major border crossing with our State's largest trade partner, Canada. Yet, despite Houlton's critical role in international commerce, it is at its core a prime example of small town America. And although downtowns across America, including Houlton, have been suffering over the past several years, people like Joyce and Henry Transue, the owners of Courtyard Cafe, have stepped forward to help revitalize these regions by opening small businesses that bring new customers and increases revenues to downtown stores. In recognition of their efforts, today I honor Courtyard Cafe and its owners for the tremendous work they have done to bring their world-class dining establishment to Houlton. The Courtyard Cafe got its start over a decade ago, when Chef Joyce Transue and her husband Henry opened the quaint restaurant on Main Street in downtown Houlton. But the restaurant's origins date back to 1993, when Chef Transue began small catering business that she called the Traveling Gourmet. This operation allowed Chef Transue to merge her passion for cooking with her zeal for beautiful presentation and exceptional hospitality. The Courtyard Cafe continues this tradition as Chef Transue offers her catering services to local clients either at the restaurant or at a location of their choosing. The Courtyard Cafe has quickly earned a reputation for fresh and exciting meals prepared with tremendous skill and attention. Given the abundance of local fruits and vegetables in Aroostook County, most notable potatoes, Chef Transue takes painstaking efforts to carefully incorporate these items into her divergent menu options, while also utilizing other items such as farm-fresh eggs and locally produced maple syrup. All breads, salad dressings, and desserts are homemade at the Courtyard Cafe, and the restaurant sells its famed Raspberry Vinaigrette, Greek, and White Wine Vinaigrette salad dressings to customers in store or online thanks to a small manufacturing grant she accessed through the Northern Maine Development Center. The restaurant offers delicious and affordable lunch dishes, and provides fresh seafood, poultry, and meat dishes for its dinner entrees. Desserts made from scratch include seasonal fruit crisp, cheesecake, and tiramisu. In addition, guests can sit at the newly renovated Garden Bar for a more casual dining option. As a truly hands- on owner, Chef Transue takes her craft seriously, and can always be seen in the kitchen arranging meals for customers, starting early in the morning preparing fresh sauces and soups for the day ahead. She has certainly succeeded in providing clients with a small, intimate restaurant tailored to producing exquisite gourmet food in a comfortable setting and relaxing atmosphere. The Courtyard Cafe has rightfully gained recognition as an upscale dining destination, with customers travelling from as far away as Presque Isle and beyond just to enjoy the delicious meals prepared by Chef Joyce Transue. Her dedication and enthusiasm for culinary excellence have been exemplary, and I wish her and everyone at the Courtyard Cafe continued success in their delectable endeavors.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I pay tribute to a Maine champion for the wilderness and a strong proponent of protecting our natural world. John ``Jack'' Biscoe, who died last year on November 20, possessed a stirring passion for the uninterrupted forests of Maine, the mighty Penobscot and Kennebec Rivers, and the White Mountains which extend from Maine into New Hampshire. Jack's passion for the environment was not limited to Maine, and in fact extended to the breathtaking wilderness of Alaska. He first traveled to Alaska in the 1950s tagging salmon in the Aleutian Islands for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Subsequently, his involvement in the cleanup of the Exxon Valdez oil spill only spurred his engagement in wildlife conservation. At the end of his career, Jack was one of Maine's most renowned organizers behind protecting Alaska's wilderness, and he frequently reminded me that Mainers care about protecting the environment throughout the world. Upon his return to Maine, Jack's concern for wildlife was channeled through the Sierra Club, and other groups, of which he was an avid member, including the Alaska Wilderness League and the Alaska Coalition of Maine. Jack's zeal for environmental protection never waned and his vision for a better environment never faltered, and we will long remember him as an inspiration of what one person can contribute to the greater good. Jack's life and legacy were emblematic of Maine's deep commitment to retaining our quality of life, and I appreciate the effort that he provided on behalf of our Nation's wilderness.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article titled, SPIN METER: Program risks $30B to save weak banks,'' published on August 1 by the Associated Press, be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, all I can think of, in listening to the Senator from Maryland, is if we could have limited this legislation before the Senate to the provisions we agreed to on a bipartisan basis--in fact, many of which passed unanimously in the Senate Small Business Committee--clearly, we would be in a far better position than we are today. That is the regrettable dimension to the situation we are facing procedurally in the Senate. I know from the majority side there is not an inclination to accommodate the rights of the minority, but that is the tradition in the Senate. The majority rules, but you accommodate the rights of the minority. That is the essence of what the institution of the Senate is all about. I regret we are where we are today in the Senate on this issue that I have been championing since January of this year. It seems to me we are all worried about the legislative train running out of the station. If we are all concerned about the limited time we have available to address the issues of small business and job creation, which are the foremost issues in the United States of America, I would have suggested--and I did and I asked and I pleaded--that we should have addressed this issue in January, at the outset of the legislative session, not, at the end of July, when we are about to recess for August. So everybody is worried about the recess. We only have 1 week left. Well, that is right. What do we know today that we didn't know earlier? Jobs and the economy are the foremost issues facing the country, facing Americans. If it took several months to address those issues, then we should have taken several months to address those issues. But now we are faced with a procedural impasse because we are being denied the opportunity to offer some amendments to this legislation. Now, you would think we ran out of time. We didn't run out of time. We didn't run out of time. We had 81 days this year--81 days--in which we did not have rollcall votes; 81 days excluding weekends and Federal holidays, all through yesterday, when we didn't have any recorded votes. We could have addressed this issue long before now, given it the attention it deserved, rather than treating it as a mere afterthought in the legislative process that we have to ram through here and deny the minority the opportunity to offer a few amendments. That is all we are asking. Now, you think we just dropped this bill on the floor of the Senate yesterday? This bill was on the floor more than 3 weeks ago. How many amendments have we been able to offer on this bill on our side? Zero. I will give them the lending facility that was offered by Senator LeMieux. But, obviously, that was an amendment the majority wanted. I recognize the Chair here, and that was one of her major issues, an area in which I disagreed in creating a $30 billion lending facility. But we have not been able to offer any amendments. We have had this bill on the Senate floor for 3 weeks. We have had three substitutes--three substitutes. No amendments. No amendments. Then yesterday, no votes on anything. We could have been finished with this bill by now, if you had given the minority the right to offer a few amendments. We are shutting down this process, Madam President, denying the opportunity to debate the foremost issue facing America-- creating jobs. We have a 9.5-percent unemployment rate. We need to create jobs in America. As illustrated last month, only 83,000 jobs were created in the private sector, and we are saying we don't have time to address this issue? It is not only frustration, Madam President, it does a disservice to the American people. They know better. We have had plenty of time to address this issue. This bill has been on the floor of the Senate for 3 weeks and we have had three substitutes and 81 days that we have had no rollcall votes. We had no rollcall votes yesterday. Then, suddenly, what appeared last night was that we have a substitute and we have side-by-sides, or alternatives, to Republican amendments. No opportunity to review them, no opportunity to have a discussion or to reach a true unanimous consent. The majority has said we have a unanimous consent agreement, but actually it is an ultimatum to the minority--take it or leave it. So we had no opportunity to review these alternatives because they were just filed. Actually, the amendments were not even filed. The majority leader posed them in his unanimous consent agreement that we either had to accept or reject. There was no opportunity to have a discussion yesterday. How could we reach an agreement, maybe on several amendments that would be important to this legislation, Madam President? So we had four amendments that were filed on the majority side, and now we are faced with a cloture vote today at 10:40. Why are we rushing to a cloture vote? Why don't we spend more time talking to each other to get the policy right? Is it something that we are not familiar with anymore--how to sit down and talk to one another, to discuss the issues? What are the alternatives the majority provided in the unanimous consent agreement that wasn't a consent agreement because nobody talked to anybody about it? Well, it is adding issues that were in the supplemental. It is basically taking the supplemental, the tax extenders bill, fiscal assistance to the States, education funding, and agricultural appropriations disaster funding that is actually in the new substitute that was filed. Those are the alternatives that have been offered to this bill. So this has become a mega bill. It is a mega supplemental, it is a mega tax extender bill, it is now an agricultural disaster bill on the small business bill. So if we were to take the issues that we agreed to on a unanimous and bipartisan basis in the Senate Small Business Committee, we could have had 75 to 80 votes. But that wasn't sufficient for the majority. It wasn't sufficient. So here we are today with a cloture motion--take it or leave it-- because we only have 1 week left. Well, why do we have 1 week left? Why don't we take as long as it requires to do what is right, to try to get the best policy to create jobs in America instead of facing this figurative legislative brick wall that is artificially contrived? It is all political theater. It is not about legislating anymore. It is all political theater. It is scoring political points. It is all for the next election, which is coming very shortly. It is not about getting the right policy for America--for small businesses that are suffering, for the 8 million who have lost their jobs, the nearly 15 million who are a part of that, with the underemployed who are desperate and who need certainty. The House is adjourning tomorrow. So where is this legislation going? This was supposed to be a jobs agenda legislative session. That is what we were told by the majority. That is what we were told by the President of the United States. I said back in January--I sent letters to the President, to the Small Business Administrator, to the majority--saying let's do it now. I had a major initiative that I filed in early March, and I was asked by the majority leader to defer because he said we were going to be addressing this on the floor of the Senate before the April recess. Well, according to my calendar, we are at the end of July, and here we are. We are not even going to get done before the August recess because the House is adjourning tomorrow. So we have to get this done. So we are going to ram it and jam it and take it or leave it, but we are not going to be able to offer any amendments on this side. We are not going to be allowed to offer any amendments because the majority is going to dictate the will of the minority on a few amendments. Madam President, this is unacceptable. I regret this. I deeply regret this, as one who has worked across the political aisle. I wish more would do it on both sides--look at the policy and see what is right and what works. Now we are talking about these side-by-sides offered by the majority last night--the night before a cloture vote. We filed a cloture vote on the third substitute that has disallowed any amendments to be offered by the majority; the third substitute in the third or fourth week this bill has been pending. The third substitute was filed on Tuesday and we are having a cloture vote at 10:40 this morning, Madam President, with no amendments because the majority is going to tell us what amendments we can offer. But they are going to offer plenty of amendments that aren't even related to the small business bill. Enough is enough. This has been anything but a jobs agenda. The American people are suffering. I suspect we will all go home and talk to our constituents. What do you think is happening on Main Street? Yet here we are, all for jobs. Oh, but by the way, we are going to offer the supplemental that we dropped last week. Last week, before we voted on the lending facility amendment, I deferred my remarks on the lending facility out of deference to one of our colleagues on the other side. I never made my final arguments because we went to the supplemental. They stripped everything and sent it to the House. Now they are taking all the rest of it and putting it in this package on top of tax extenders, the fiscal assistance and education funding? They are talking billions and billions. $40 billion here, $20 million there, all that added to the small business bill. For what purpose? Is that the way we legislate? Well, the American people know. They know it. They can see through this masquerade. They see it all the time. They know it. That is why they have lost confidence. That is why we are at a historic low, Madam President, in terms of public approval. It is a disgrace for this institution. It is a disgrace and a shame, and I am speaking as one who has worked mightily across the political aisle for more than 30 years, in both the House and the Senate. My career and my legislative record is replete with examples of bipartisanship. I think this is nothing but a disgrace and a shame and I regret that--more than anything else, for the people who are suffering in America in every one of our communities. We all know better. We had no votes yesterday. It was possible to sit down and talk and see what unanimous consent request could be agreed to between the minority leader and the majority leader. But, no, we decided we are going to forgo all that. We are going to play a political game. Isn't this nice, offer these side-by-sides so the American people should know there are so-called alternatives to whatever the majority would allow us to offer. It is a sad commentary because two-thirds of the American people disagree with the direction we are going. But more than anything else, they need jobs to support their families. I supported the unemployment benefit extension, much to the consternation of the minority leader and others on this side, because they wanted to pay for it and I would have preferred to also, but I knew that would not be acceptable on that side. But I was willing to do it because I didn't want to put people in the terrible position of making a choice in their lives about how they are going to put food on their table. I have talked to people in Maine. I talk to my constituents and I listen, so that is why I supported it, because I thought it was important to do it for the American people, and I hope there could be some reciprocity here, to do what is right for America. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I extend my heartfelt congratulations to Sharon Campbell, regional representative for my office in Presque Isle, ME, as she was recently honored with the prestigious Frank Hussey Award from the Presque Isle Rotary Club, named for a highly regarded former Presque Isle Rotarian. Sharon could not be more deserving of this prestigious accolade as it recognizes her selfless commitment to Aroostook County and our great State of Maine. As I have witnessed firsthand, whether through her outstanding tenure with me which began more than a decade ago to her exceptional examples of giving back as a Rotary member, Sharon is the epitome of our State's motto, ``Dirigo or I Lead,'' many times over. Just in the past 2 years alone, Sharon has diligently promoted greater literacy in The County, leading the Rotary's Literacy and Thesaurus Project, which distributes thesauruses to area children, and raising close to $2,000 to start a ``Children's Book of the Month Club,'' where books are purchased every month for school libraries. Described by her Rotary peers as a ``get it done'' Rotarian, Sharon strives to make a substantive difference in the lives of others and in a way that garners lasting results. And when it comes to galvanizing support for a new task, it is helpful that people find it incredibly difficult to say ``no'' to her. By the same token, she is the last person who would say ``no'' herself to a challenge to help someone else. She is that caring and that determined. Sharon truly exemplifies the can-do spirit and tireless work-ethic that are the hallmarks of the people of Maine she serves, in particular those who proudly call The County home. Nothing crystallizes Sharon's contributions as a Rotarian and as someone devoted to public service than the Rotary motto of ``Service Above Self.'' Her receipt of The Frank Hussey Award is an enduring testament to her dedication to that precept.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the city of Portland, ME, is quickly becoming one of America's most recognized locations for five-star dining experiences. Recognized as the 2009 ``Foodiest Small Town in America'' by Bon Appetit, it has been reported that visitors and residents alike spend more money in Portland restaurants per capita than in any other U.S. city, with the exception of San Francisco and New York. The demand for delicious, well-prepared food has drawn a plethora of culinary artists to the city, inspired by both the challenge of cooking for an avid audience and incorporating the bounty of Maine's natural resources into their recipes. Using native ingredients such as corn, blueberries, fiddleheads, and off-the-dock seafood, Portland restaurants have transformed even casual dining into something brilliant. As such, today I wish to recognize Hugo's, one of the many restaurants that has been an integral part of this lively city's culinary renaissance. Hugo's is among the restaurants that stay true to the Portland tradition of local and organic food. As a member of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, Hugo's is active in increasing local food production and simultaneously supporting other Maine small businesses. Working with these organic ingredients, Hugo's puts a modern twist on American cuisine with various international influences. They produce imaginative dishes that make the restaurant not only a favorite to the locals, but also to out-of-town ``foodies'' looking for an elegant meal as well. Chef Rob Evans, the driving force behind Hugo's turned his restaurant job into a career after he landed positions at the famed Inn at Little Washington in Virginia and French Laundry in California, studying under some of the best chefs in the world. In 2000, Chef Evans took over the former Hugo's Portland Bistro with his wife, Nancy Pugh. Soon Hugo's became distinguished as one of the top restaurants in Maine, as well as throughout New England. Indeed, Chef Evans's culinary creativity has not gone unnoticed by both his peers and others in the industry. In 2004 Food & Wine Magazine recognized him with the ``Best New Chef Award.'' Hugo's has also been given the Four-Diamond title by the American Automobile Association, or AAA, for the past 5 years. Most notably, Chef Evans was named the recipient last year of the James Beard Award, arguably one of the most coveted honors in the culinary world, as the best chef in the Northeast. Since receiving the award, traffic at Hugo's has significantly increased, with more locals intrigued by what Chef Evans can do with the resources that make Maine the unique place that it is. But even with an uptick in new patrons, Chef Evans insists that Hugo's will stay the same and not forget its humble origins. Additionally, Chef Evans and his wife Nancy are also the proud owners of Duckfat, another popular restaurant situated just down the street from Hugo's serving European fries and sandwiches. Duckfat, whose name derives from the manner in which they cook their fries, is yet another example of Evans' and Pugh's efforts to promote all that Maine's restaurant industry has to offer. Hugo's is an excellent representative of a trend in Maine's dining culture that showcases a wide variety of exciting, creative chefs and restaurants eager to put Maine on the map when it comes to food. The initiatives of Rob Evans and Nancy Pugh have helped foster a revitalization of Portland's restaurant scene, and I commend them for their outstanding work. I thank everyone at both Hugo's and Duckfat, and wish them much success in their future endeavors.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I have long held the belief that the availability of broadband undoubtedly contributes to business expansion, employment growth, and greater educational opportunities. Indeed, the Internet can truly transform the way small firms do business. This is particularly the case in places like my home State of Maine, which is not only largely rural, but is home to over 150,000 small businesses. As such, it is with great admiration that today I recognize Axiom Technologies, based in the town of Machias, for the firm's outstanding commitment to the goal of bringing broadband Internet service to rural Maine communities that have not previously known its remarkable power. Founded in 2004 by Nelson Geel and Chris Moody, Axiom originally sought to provide inexpensive consulting services to small businesses and communities in Washington County, Maine's easternmost county. Yet the two quickly realized that there was a growing desire for affordable broadband in the area, which was largely overlooked by corporate providers. As such, the company reevaluated its business vision in an attempt to allow rural areas of the State to benefit from the same advantages of broadband Internet provided to Maine's more urban regions. In addition to operating on a sustainable financial basis, Axiom Technologies prides itself on always attempting to hold true to a unique social mission as well. Axiom is well aware ``of the central role that business plays in society'' and seeks to solidify this responsibility ``by initiating innovative ways to improve the quality of life in the communities in which [it] operate[s].'' Not only has the company done this by spreading equality of access to information through broadband services, but its employees also take it upon themselves to improve their community. One shining example is Susan Corbett, Axiom's CEO, who was instrumental in the development of a type of community-minded, service- based listserv for Washington County called Mighty Women. In 2006, she, along with some of her entrepreneurial and social service peers, created the ``rolodex'' of e-mail contacts that could be solicited to assist those in need throughout eastern Maine. Indeed, in 2009, the Mighty Women listserv mobilized to raise last minute funds for Washington county children who were in need of toys and warm clothing for the holiday season. With just a week before Christmas, the group raised approximately $3,000 to help give the children the holiday joy that they deserved. People such as Susan Corbett are representative of the family-like mentality which Axiom Technologies hopes to foster among its employees and within the greater community. Small businesses around the country have historically helped build a sense of community in the areas in which they operate, and Axiom is no exception. The ability to access information via broadband should be something available to all people across America, and Axiom Technologies has built its business around fulfilling this goal. The company has done it economically, but most inspiringly, Axiom has attempted to promote the well-being of the people in the communities they serve. When a business cares about helping others as does Axiom, the community can rest assured that Axiom's employees share their goals and aspirations for improving the overall community. While small businesses are duly noted as the drivers of the Nation's economy, they cannot be overlooked for their positive social impacts on the communities in which they operate. Although they may serve a relatively small market, Axiom is certainly on the cutting edge when it comes to promoting broadband equality, a goal of national importance. I thank everyone at Axiom for their numerous and varied contributions to the health of Maine's economic future and general welfare, and I wish them much success in the years to come.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as I rise today to join Senator Whitehouse in introducing the National Endowment for the Oceans Act, our Nation continues to bear the brunt of what has now become the biggest offshore oil spill in recorded history. Since April 20, 2010, when the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon exploded and sank 50 miles off the coast of Louisiana, claiming the lives of 11 men, as much as 180 million gallons of oil has spewed into the Gulf of Mexico. The ecosystem, environment, and the culture of the Gulf coast region will feel the effects of this spill for decades to come in the aftermath of an event that has focused National attention on one of our most productive, beautiful, and beloved resources: our oceans and coasts. I also want to acknowledge the support of the Chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Senator Rockefeller for his cosponsorship of this initiative. As Ranking Member on the Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, and as a Senator from a state which relies heavily on our marine and coastal resources, I have long appreciated the tremendous value of America's oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. Throughout my time in this body I have pursued policies that would enhance our stewardship of these treasured regions, and permit sustainable use of the bounty they provide. This legislation would ensure a brighter future for these areas that heal our souls and drive our economy. Investment in our oceans is investment in our future. The United States' exclusive economic zone, encompassing the area 200 miles out from our shores, covers more of the earth's surface than our land area, and ultimately what affects our coastal economy drives our Nation's economy. More than 75 percent of growth in this country from 1997 to 2007, whether measured in population, jobs, or gross domestic product, occurred in coastal States. Coastal counties, covering just 18 percent of our land area, contributed 42 percent of U.S. economic output in 2007 according to a report published last year by the National Ocean Economics Program. Tourism, inherently reliant on pristine beaches, healthy habitat to foster fish, shellfish, and marine mammals, and fishable, swimmable waters, contributed over half a trillion dollars to our national GDP. This is why in the 2004 report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, one of that body's fundamental priorities was the creation of an ocean policy trust fund to supplement existing appropriations for ocean and coastal programs. The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, comprised of members of that body and the Pew Oceans Commission, has consistently listed establishment of an ocean trust fund among its highest priorities. The National Endowment for the Oceans will at long last meet this demand and provide a consistent stream of supplemental funding to enhance our commitment to protecting and sustaining these most fragile resources. The fact is, our oceans and coastal regions face more challenges today than at any time in our history. Global climate change is already being felt more pressingly off our shores than our scientists yet understand. In the past few years alone, ocean acidification, a threat so new it was not even mentioned in the Ocean Commission's report, has begun to change the fundamental makeup of the ocean food web and destroy coral reef structures that have for eons girded our shores and provided nursery grounds for countless species of fish. Scientists believe increasing ocean temperatures are to blame for a steep and sudden decline in the southern New England and Long Island Sound lobster populations. This problem is so grave that fishery managers are considering closing the entire fishery in this area that has been rich with lobster throughout the duration of recorded human history. Hypoxic areas known as ``dead zones'' are cropping up off our shores in areas where they never before existed, and the annual hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico regularly encompasses an area the size of the state of New Jersey. I could go on and on, but my point is abundantly clear--our oceans need our help. This vital legislation would set aside a portion of revenues from offshore oil and gas and renewable energy development on the outer continental shelf and would apply interest generated by the oil spill liability trust fund to a dedicated National Endowment for the Oceans. This endowment would fund three targeted grant programs--one to coastal states, a second to support regional ocean partnerships, and a third to fund the activities of additional ocean research not covered by the other two programs. This money would be available at the discretion of State and Federal resource managers for activities proven to restore, protect, maintain, or understand living marine resources and their habitats and ecosystems. Funding will supplement, not replace, annual appropriations for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations, NOAA, and other Federal agencies already carrying out critical work in our ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes regions. In the past I have pressed the Administration and others in this body to increase Federal support for these agencies. I will continue to call for increases in NOAA's base funding until our investment in the agency meets the requirements of its missions. In the meantime, this program would provide a significant boost to our efforts to protect, conserve, restore, and understand the oceans, coasts and Great Lakes so vital to our national heritage, culture, economy, and identity. I would like once again to thank Senator Whitehouse for his tireless ocean advocacy and his invaluable work to introduce the National Endowment for the Oceans Act, and Senator Rockefeller for his cosponsorship of this initiative, and I look forward to working with them on this and many more ocean issues in the future.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I express my profound gratitude to the Senator from Rhode Island for his leadership on this initiative. It will have far-reaching implications and importance to our most vital resource, the oceans, and all they represent. I look forward to working with him to transform this legislation into a reality that will protect the oceans in perpetuity and understanding and amassing all the resources that are essential to the preservation of the oceans and what they represent to our environment and to the ecosystem and, of course, to the fisheries that are so important to our respective States and to the country. I thank him for his visionary initiative. I am pleased to join him in that effort. Hopefully, we can bring it to fruition in this Congress. There are a number of issues with respect to the small business legislation pending before the Senate, although pending in a way I would prefer otherwise, given the fact that it addresses the foremost issue facing the country today; that is, jobs and the status of the economy. The economy is not creating the jobs the American people deserve. That is why I joined across the aisle in extending unemployment benefits, because we have a very high unemployment rate of 9.5 percent, with 8 million people having lost their jobs and more than 15 million either unemployed or underemployed. We have not seen the kind of economic growth that will produce the jobs the American people deserve and create the kind of security they deserve as well. From that standpoint, I thought it was important to extend unemployment benefits. I ultimately think it is important to do what we can for small businesses, as the chairman of the Small Business Committee indicated, the job generators in America. Frankly, I would have hoped we could have considered this legislation long before now. It is certainly long overdue. We are in July. I have been urging from the outset of the year, in January, that we should address this most profound issue when it comes to creating jobs. We clearly have to be concerned about the well-being of small businesses. The legislation before the Senate has a number of good provisions that will go a long way in creating incentives and helping and buttressing this key component of America's economy. I regret that we are in a position where we have not been able to reach agreement allowing the minority to offer amendments, which is confounding and perplexing as well as disappointing. After all, I know the majority rules. But certainly the traditions of the Senate accommodate minority rights as well. That should mean, on the foremost issue facing the country today, the economy and jobs, that the minority would be allowed to offer a few amendments. That is all we are asking. After all, this issue has been languishing for the last 6 months. It should have taken the highest priority back in January, as I indicated; It is that important to the American people, as reflected in the historic low approval ratings of Congress. We are not addressing the key issues facing America today, and that is how we will turn this economy around and create jobs for the American people. Here we are today in a deadlock because we are not allowed, on the minority side, to offer a few amendments. As I look back on the calendar, we had 78 days we were not either in session or voting. We could have spent all that time considering amendments for the key issue confronting America. In fact, over the last 2 weeks, since this bill has been pending, not one amendment has been offered or allowed to be offered to the small business bill. We have wasted all this time when, in fact, we could have been considering amendments. Last night on the unemployment benefit extension bill, we were able to vote on six different amendments. We had six votes last night on issues. The process worked well. That is the way it should work in the Senate, where we are supposed to accommodate a variety of positions and build consensus on the key issues facing America. I know today we are lacking patience, when it comes to governing and legislating and reviewing issues and working with people with whom we disagree. That is regrettable. The American people understand what is happening here in Washington these days, where it is an all-or-nothing proposition. I hope we can turn the corner on this issue above all else because it does matter to the American people. It matters to people what is happening on Main Street. That is as true in my State of Maine as it is true across the country. It is no wonder more than 70 percent of the American people think the country is going in the wrong direction when it comes to the economy--understandably so. Because they go down on Main Street and see what is happening. They see businesses closing, the anxiety that permeates not only the main streets but communities and households all across America because of the lack of job security, financial security, personal security, all of which has created a picture of anxiety and desperation on the part of so many, wondering where the next job will come from, if they lose their jobs, or whether they will get a job having lost a job. That is what it is all about. I can't understand why we couldn't come together in the Senate, consistent with the tradition of this body, which is to consider a variety of ideas across the political aisle, build consensus, and support. The more ideas, the better. It will make the legislation certainly much improved because we will have a variety of ideas that are important when it comes to improving our economic status in America. It is disconcerting when we know that the Federal Reserve has adjusted their growth rates for the economy, lowering them because of what they anticipate in the future in terms of economic growth, unemployment, the lack of investments being made by companies today either in hiring or capital equipment. The combination has created a much more pessimistic picture for the future in terms of our economy. Then, of course, we have the uncertainty emanating from Washington, from Congress, in terms of a variety of policies, whether it is health care, whether we are talking about increased taxes or increased regulation, as we saw with the tax extender bill, having subchapter S and increasing Medicare payroll taxes and, in fact, applying them for the first time on retained earnings which is the greatest source of capital for a small business investment. Yet we want to tax that as well. We are seeing all that uncertainty. People say: Businesses are not sitting on their cash. Businesses won't sit on their cash, if they think they are going to make money. That is the point. They would invest. They would make the investments, if they thought the economy was going in the right direction. But they have to be more conservative, if they don't know exactly what is going to come out of Washington in terms of policies and more regulation. I have talked to numerous business people in my State, including bankers. They all say the same thing. We don't know what is going to come out of Washington in terms of the types of policies that are going to add to the cost of business. I was talking to one individual who is in charge of a big corporation in America, making an adjustment of one facet on the close to 1,000 regulations in the health care bill. He said one adjustment already has cost him $5 million. Multiply that, and it grows exponentially. The point is, it is a challenging picture for the private sector in terms of taking steps or taking the risky steps in investing in the future for their company. They want to make sure they are making the right decisions, the prudent decisions to make money and not to lose it. That is where we come in, in terms of creating certainty with respect to our policies, not adding more in terms of taxes and spending that adds another overlay to the cost of doing business. Because they are going to be far more reluctant to take those steps that we think are necessary to turn this economy around. That gets to the point of the pending legislation and, in particular, an amendment I know has been offered by the chairman of the committee, Senator Landrieu, with respect to the lending facility. It is a provision I have had a great deal of concern with respect to, this lending capacity that would be created that would extend from the Treasury to banks across the country. I know the majority leader has taken this provision out of the underlying bill, and I certainly appreciate that because I do think it is important that this facility is not included in the overall legislation. First, it has not had a single hearing with respect to the issue. In my view, it certainly does resurrect the controversial TARP that we just terminated in the bill that passed last week in the Senate and was signed by the President which is, of course, the financial regulatory reform bill. It is definitely a facsimile of that approach and that program that has created a great deal of concern. The lending fund was debated in the House, certainly on the House floor in the House Financial Services Committee, where significant concerns were raised about the program's similarities to TARP. In stark contrast to the Small Business Committee provisions in the substitute amendment we are now considering, many of these measures certainly are going to add a great deal of concern in terms of whether we should be extending more than $30 billion to banks across the country. I hope we will rely on the key provisions in the underlying legislation; for example, raising the 7(a) guarantee rate from 80 to 90 percent and increasing and also reducing certain lenders' and borrowers' fees in the 7(a) and 504 loan program. I am pleased those measures that were included in the stimulus plan that we passed last year resulted, as this chart indicates, in a 90- percent national increase in SBA lending since Recovery Act's passage and a 236-percent increase in Maine. It is a strong indication of the value of increasing the guarantee rate, which we have now done in the underlying legislation because those provisions expired in May. That is certainly one way of extending the lending capacity of the Federal Government through existing models that have been proven to be effective and workable, and that is a 7(a) guarantee program. As a result, in June the SBA approved $647 billion in 7(a) guarantee loans, a 56-percent decrease from May's $1.9 billion, because we allowed those provisions to terminate that were included in the stimulus bill. Had we allowed them to extend, we would have seen continuity of lending to small businesses in this country. That is why I think those measures are extremely effective. They have already demonstrated their efficiency and their workability across the country. That is what will work for small businesses, if we were to increase those guarantee rates and reduce the lenders' and borrowers' fees. That is why I am pleased the majority leader included in his substitute a modified version of my amendment that provides $505 million in funding to reinstate the fee waivers and increase guarantees through the remainder of this year. The SBA has estimated that the reinstatement of these provisions could leverage $13.2 billion in SBA lending. This is precisely the type of effect we could have for the taxpayers that maximizes the efficiency and the return on the dollar rather than reincarnating the speculative nature of TARP. These appropriations, coupled with the SBA lending provisions in the substitute amendment, will raise the maximum 7(a) and 504 loan limits from $2 million to $5 million and the maximum microloan limit from $35,000 to $50,000, which play an invaluable role in providing affordable credit to small businesses. Obviously, when it comes to expanding access to capital, Congress must work in tandem with the administration and the Treasury Department. Let me begin by noting that I appreciate the hard work of individuals in the Department of the Treasury in trying to develop methods to spur small business lending. I understand how complicated it can be to devise workable, strong initiatives. The department has certainly attempted to do so. Unfortunately, I continue to have significant reservations with the lending fund for several reasons. First, regardless of what the proponents will say about this lending fund, it is essentially an extension of TARP, known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which, as I said earlier, has been terminated in the financial regulatory reform legislation the President signed into law just yesterday. But let's look at what some of the experts have to say on this particular issue. In a May 17, 2010, letter that Mr. Barofsky--who is the special inspector general of TARP--wrote to Members of the House of Representatives, he states: . . . in terms of its basic designs, its participants, its application process, and, perhaps its funding source from an oversight perspective, the [small business Lending Fund] would essentially be an extension of TARP's CPP program. . . . Moreover, in its May Oversight Report, the bipartisan Congressional Oversight Panel for TARP states that the Treasury lending fund ``substantially resembles'' the TARP program. They say: . . . it is a bank-focused capital infusion program that is being contemplated despite little, if any, evidence that such programs increase lending. ``An extension of TARP'' and ``substantially resembles'' TARP--that is how the experts of all things TARP--TARP's IG, the inspector general, and the bipartisan Congressional Oversight Panel--characterize this program. So obviously we are talking about the experts who are the watchdogs of the TARP, and they say that regardless of how you want to describe this program, it is what it is. It is an exact duplicate of TARP. That is what it is. In addition to characterizing the Treasury lending fund as TARP, we had three Democrats and two Republicans on the Congressional Oversight Panel who also laid out a series of substantive concerns with the program. I would like to outline these for my colleagues as well. First, the panel explained that the Treasury lending fund will be ``less relevant if declining business sales play a larger role in lending contraction than banks' rejections of loan applications.'' What does that mean? Well, it means that although lending contraction remains a significant concern, the root cause of that contraction may primarily be a lack of demand because borrowers are not as interested in taking on debt until their sales increase as opposed to banks' mere unwillingness to make loans they otherwise should be making. As the NFIB has long maintained, ``What small businesses need most are increased sales, giving them a reason to hire and make capital expenditures and borrow to support those activities.'' Secondly, according to the bipartisan Congressional Oversight Panel, the program will likely be branded with a TARP stigma, which will diminish banks' willingness to participate. Third, additionally, the Congressional Oversight Panel has also concluded that the Small Business Lending Fund may reward banks that would have increased their lending even in the absence of government support, as the fund's incentive structure is calculated in reference to 2009 lending levels, which were low by historical standards. I know the proponents of the lending fund may try to disagree with Mr. Barofsky and the bipartisan Congressional Oversight Panel's comments, but in doing so they will be arguing against the experts established to oversee TARP in the first place. Moreover, it is not as if we are talking about partisan entities here. Again, the Congressional Oversight Panel is comprised of three Democrats and two Republicans, who have collectively agreed to include these statements in their report. There are other unintended consequences that may result from Treasury's Small Business Lending Fund, which certainly raises a red flag for me. It is possible that instead of promoting quality loans, the proposal could encourage unnecessarily risky behavior by banks. The Treasury Department proposes to lend funds to banks at a 5-percent interest rate, which then can be reduced to as low as 1 percent if the institutions in turn increase their small business lending. However, if the banks fail to increase their small business lending, the interest rate they would pay could rise to a more punitive rate of 7 percent. Well, this could lead to an untenable situation where banks would make risky loans to avoid paying higher interest rates--a behavior known as ``moral hazard.'' Some have argued that the banks will not engage in risky behavior because they will remain liable for the underlying debt. We know that certainly was not the case with the mortgage crisis that got us into this economic mess in the first place. So in the final analysis, the possibility that this program could lead to poor lending decisions is something that, in the long run, will not help borrowers, lenders, or our overall financial system. Incidentally, proponents of the lending fund highlight that several major banking associations support this initiative. Well, that would not be surprising. Who would not support receiving millions upon millions of dollars from the Federal Government at a 5-percent interest rate that could be reduced all the way to 1 percent? While I am in no way questioning the bankers' motives, I do point out that they are not viewing this from a perspective of objective third parties. Moreover, it does not alleviate my concerns, and that is, obviously, the public's interests when it comes to issuing more than $30 billion of taxpayer funds. Another key concern of mine is about the cost of the administration's lending fund. I am very apprehensive about whether Congress has taken into full consideration the program's true cost to the taxpayers. The previous scores for the Small Business Lending Fund are convoluted, to say the least. I say this because there are three different methodologies that the Congressional Budget Office has discussed when scoring various versions of the lending fund--specifically, the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 estimates, cash-based estimates, and fair value basis estimates. So those are the three different methodologies. In the House version that was reported by the House Committee on Financial Services, the lending fund was scored by the Congressional Budget Office as costing taxpayers $1.4 billion. That level was determined by using the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 scoring. That Federal Credit Reform Act methodology is used when there is a disbursement of funds by the government to a non-Federal borrower under a contract that requires the repayment of such funds. In other words, the Federal Credit Reform Act methodology is used when scoring loans. After this score was released, the House modified the lending fund to eliminate a requirement that the funds be repaid. Of course, there is every intent that the funds will be repaid, and in an effort to make this certain, the dividend rate that banks pay rises to a punitive 9 percent after 4\1/2\ years. But there is no absolute requirement to repay the loan. Well, this change had two effects: First, it allowed the banks to treat the money it receives as an investment as opposed to a loan and therefore to count the funds as tier 1 capital, the core measure of the bank's financial strength. Second, it allowed Congress to claim that these are not loans, although for all intents and purposes they are, so that the bill can be scored under a more favorable cash-based estimate. Once these adjustments were made, CBO issued another score that examined the lending fund as revised. The lending fund provision we are discussing today remains virtually identical, for scoring purposes, to how it was in that revised version that passed the House. That score is based on a cash-based estimate rather than the Federal Credit Reform Act because the funds were no longer considered as loans. Under a cash- based estimate, CBO listed the official score for the lending fund as raising $1.1 billion over 10 years. So this is the official score that has been touted by proponents of the lending fund. However, what they fail to mention is that very same CBO score stated that ``Alternately, the potential costs of the [Small Business Lending Fund] under [the House legislation] can be measured using procedures similar to those specified by [the Federal Credit Reform Act] but adjusted for market risk--as is specified by law for estimating the cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program.'' This was referring to a fair value basis estimation. CBO goes on to note that when measured in this manner, the score would be a $6.2 billion loss. Incidentally, to ensure accurate accounting, the legislation that created TARP required that it be scored using a fair value estimate. So in that case, it would cost--if you were to use the same estimate--it would be a $6.2 billion loss as opposed to a $1.1 billion gain in revenues, as the pending amendment suggests. So putting this all together, we have the Federal Credit Reform Act score which highlights that if these were treated as loans--which for all intents and purposes they are--this program would cost taxpayers around $1.4 billion. But because of a change to not technically or officially require that the funds be repaid, it is now scored under different methodology, on a cash basis, as a $1.1 billion revenue raiser, which is what the underlying pending amendment does. Moreover, CBO expressed that if it were scored on a fair value basis, the program would score as costing taxpayers $6.2 billion. What does CBO state about which of the three scoring methods is more comprehensive? In the score, it states: Estimates prepared on a ``fair-value'' basis include the cost of the risk that the government has assumed; as a result, they provide a more comprehensive measure of the cost of the financial commitments than estimates done on a [Federal Credit Reform Act] basis or on a cash basis. So I ask the question, when I hear colleagues claim this is a $1.1 billion revenue raiser, is that accurate? Shouldn't we be concerned that this may not truly be the investment they are claiming? And critically, has all of this been taken into consideration when weighing the effects of this program on the Federal budget and when evaluating the efficacy of this program and utilizing it as an offset in the underlying legislation? So I am concerned with various aspects of this pending amendment that creates this lending facility for more than $3 billion. In my conversations with Treasury officials, I stressed how critical it was to reach out to colleagues on both sides of the political aisle prior to having introduced this piece of legislation and before advancing and championing it here on the floor of this Senate to obtain input on how to devise lending funds in a way that would address the concerns I have raised and to structure it in a way that could achieve broad bipartisan support. Unfortunately, that did not happen, and this, of course, produces the amendment that is pending here today. Also in my conversations with Treasury officials, I was under the impression this was going to be addressed through the Senate Banking Committee. That was the other issue I raised. I think, after all, given the fact that this is a banking initiative--it is the lending of more than $30 billion to commercial banks across this country--clearly the Senate Banking Committee should have been involved in examining this issue, that it should have been thoroughly reviewed and vetted and whatever objections existed on both sides of the aisle could have been examined and hopefully resolved. I would have been happy to have had an opportunity to discuss this issue in a way that could have alleviated and addressed these concerns. Let's not forget this is a brand new program, the nature and magnitude of which is more than $30 billion, which justifies a thorough evaluation and certainly those that have been raised by the Congressional Budget Office in the variety of methodologies that can produce either a $6.2 billion loss or a $1.1 billion revenue increase. The point is we are not using a true, accurate estimate of what this lending facility will ultimately cost the American taxpayers. If you would use a similar methodology as they did in TARP--which this is a TARP facsimile in terms of duplication and a reflection of TARP--then clearly you have to use the same method of addressing how this legislation either is costing the taxpayers money or is raising revenues for the taxpayer. It is clear, if you use the fair cash basis estimate, the fact is, it would lose the taxpayers money because you have to take into account all the risks that will be involved during the life of the loan, and that is totally excluded on the estimate and the analysis of the method that was used in the pending amendment. I outline all of these concerns because I do think it is important for my colleagues to consider very carefully the implications and the ramifications of this lending facility. It is a new program. It is similar to TARP. And it is not just my saying so; as I said, it is the inspector general who oversees TARP, the Congressional Oversight Panel that oversees TARP, which have all expressed that it has similar and equivalent features to the Troubled Asset Relief Program that we have just terminated in the financial regulatory reform program. It is a concern, and again, it is what the TARP experts call an extension of TARP. They call this lending fund an extension of TARP because it has all of the components of TARP. So I think we should be very circumspect and hesitant about utilizing a similar program at a time in which we have to minimize the expansive nature of government programs in the spending that occurs here in the Senate, in the overall Congress, and on the part of government. I think it is important. I have heard that when it comes to the TARP program, that money was distributed to small and medium-sized institutions. But according to the Congressional Oversight Panel, by December 31, 2009--which was the deadline for Treasury's capital purchases--20 percent of all TARP funds did go to small and medium-sized institutions and 98 percent of all recipient institutions were small and medium-sized institutions. It is not whether a bank is good and that is why we should lend this money. Obviously, there are excellent community banks that do a great job; they did not contribute to the problem all across America. It is really a question as to whether this is good policy. That is the bottom line. Is this good policy? It raises a number of questions. It raises the specter that we are really recreating TARP in another manner; it is just directed to different institutions. I think we have to be very careful and cautious and prudent at this time. Is there another way to extend the lending capacity of the Federal Government? Yes, there is. It is through the small business lending programs which I talked about earlier, and the majority leader has included some of the provisions that I and the chair recommended, which is to increase the guarantee rates that have demonstrated their effectiveness, that have demonstrated their workability. They work. They have increased lending across this country by more than 90 percent and, in my State, 236 percent. It has demonstrated its capacity for working. So why not use those models we have adopted in the past and that have proven their effectiveness? I think that is what it is all about. How much can we do? Well, we know we are limited in terms of what we have as far as deficits and the national debt is concerned. So I think we have to be very prudent about how we extend taxpayer dollars. I have a great deal of concern in terms of, No. 1, not only spending the $30 billion but the cost to the taxpayers if we use an accurate, realistic measurement similar to what CBO had indicated and similar to what was used in TARP; and, No. 2, how that legislation works because it creates a perverse incentive. It increases the interest rates to those banks that don't increase their small business lending but decreases it for those that do. So we do encourage the prospects of moral hazard and the likelihood that poor, risky loans might be made because of the fact that their interest rates will be reduced as a result. So I think we have to be circumspect about that. I hope we do not accept this lending facility because I do believe it does raise serious and significant concerns and that it is duplicative of TARP. I think we need to be moving in a different direction in this country. Also, there are a number of issues that have been raised that cannot be addressed. I hope we could, rather, build upon the underlying amendment, the substitute amendment to be offered by the majority leader; allow for some amendments from both sides of the political aisle so we can strengthen the legislation that is before us with respect to providing incentives, tax breaks, and tax relief to small businesses that rightfully deserve those initiatives so we can incent them to create jobs and to feel certain about their futures as well as this country. So with that, I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, first of all, I hope that we could offer other amendments as well in addition to this. I think that is critically important, first and foremost. Just as you have had an opportunity to offer an amendment, our hope is that on our side of the aisle, we would have the ability and the prerogative to offer amendments as well, and then we would look at it at the end of the day. Obviously, I know the Senator from Louisiana feels very strongly about this amendment. Obviously, I have some deep concerns. I certainly hope to support this legislation without this amendment, but if it is the will of the Senate, then obviously I will continue to support it and hopefully we can move forward. But I just think it is critically important with respect to this particular initiative that a number of these issues have to be addressed. In the final analysis, when we are talking about $30 billion, we can't do that lightly. Certainly, there are a number of issues that have been raised, ones that I have raised today, that clearly would have to be resolved in my estimation. So I think from that standpoint I would have considerable concerns if it were left in that manner because I think it raises the costs to the taxpayers indisputably. Secondly, as to whether it is going to create risky behavior on the part of banks that are assuming this legislation, and if it does add costs to the taxpayers, we have to think about that very carefully because, as my colleague knows, it does raise $1.1 billion, at least according to your projections. But if we use a true realistic analysis, as we did with TARP, it would cost the taxpayers $6.2 billion.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as I rise today to join Senator Whitehouse in introducing the National Endowment for the Oceans Act, our Nation continues to bear the brunt of what has now become the biggest offshore oil spill in recorded history. Since April 20, 2010, when the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon exploded and sank 50 miles off the coast of Louisiana, claiming the lives of 11 men, as much as 180 million gallons of oil has spewed into the Gulf of Mexico. The ecosystem, environment, and the culture of the Gulf coast region will feel the effects of this spill for decades to come in the aftermath of an event that has focused National attention on one of our most productive, beautiful, and beloved resources: our oceans and coasts. I also want to acknowledge the support of the Chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Senator Rockefeller for his cosponsorship of this initiative. As Ranking Member on the Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, and as a Senator from a state which relies heavily on our marine and coastal resources, I have long appreciated the tremendous value of America's oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. Throughout my time in this body I have pursued policies that would enhance our stewardship of these treasured regions, and permit sustainable use of the bounty they provide. This legislation would ensure a brighter future for these areas that heal our souls and drive our economy. Investment in our oceans is investment in our future. The United States' exclusive economic zone, encompassing the area 200 miles out from our shores, covers more of the earth's surface than our land area, and ultimately what affects our coastal economy drives our Nation's economy. More than 75 percent of growth in this country from 1997 to 2007, whether measured in population, jobs, or gross domestic product, occurred in coastal States. Coastal counties, covering just 18 percent of our land area, contributed 42 percent of U.S. economic output in 2007 according to a report published last year by the National Ocean Economics Program. Tourism, inherently reliant on pristine beaches, healthy habitat to foster fish, shellfish, and marine mammals, and fishable, swimmable waters, contributed over half a trillion dollars to our national GDP. This is why in the 2004 report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, one of that body's fundamental priorities was the creation of an ocean policy trust fund to supplement existing appropriations for ocean and coastal programs. The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, comprised of members of that body and the Pew Oceans Commission, has consistently listed establishment of an ocean trust fund among its highest priorities. The National Endowment for the Oceans will at long last meet this demand and provide a consistent stream of supplemental funding to enhance our commitment to protecting and sustaining these most fragile resources. The fact is, our oceans and coastal regions face more challenges today than at any time in our history. Global climate change is already being felt more pressingly off our shores than our scientists yet understand. In the past few years alone, ocean acidification, a threat so new it was not even mentioned in the Ocean Commission's report, has begun to change the fundamental makeup of the ocean food web and destroy coral reef structures that have for eons girded our shores and provided nursery grounds for countless species of fish. Scientists believe increasing ocean temperatures are to blame for a steep and sudden decline in the southern New England and Long Island Sound lobster populations. This problem is so grave that fishery managers are considering closing the entire fishery in this area that has been rich with lobster throughout the duration of recorded human history. Hypoxic areas known as ``dead zones'' are cropping up off our shores in areas where they never before existed, and the annual hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico regularly encompasses an area the size of the state of New Jersey. I could go on and on, but my point is abundantly clear--our oceans need our help. This vital legislation would set aside a portion of revenues from offshore oil and gas and renewable energy development on the outer continental shelf and would apply interest generated by the oil spill liability trust fund to a dedicated National Endowment for the Oceans. This endowment would fund three targeted grant programs--one to coastal states, a second to support regional ocean partnerships, and a third to fund the activities of additional ocean research not covered by the other two programs. This money would be available at the discretion of State and Federal resource managers for activities proven to restore, protect, maintain, or understand living marine resources and their habitats and ecosystems. Funding will supplement, not replace, annual appropriations for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations, NOAA, and other Federal agencies already carrying out critical work in our ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes regions. In the past I have pressed the Administration and others in this body to increase Federal support for these agencies. I will continue to call for increases in NOAA's base funding until our investment in the agency meets the requirements of its missions. In the meantime, this program would provide a significant boost to our efforts to protect, conserve, restore, and understand the oceans, coasts and Great Lakes so vital to our national heritage, culture, economy, and identity. I would like once again to thank Senator Whitehouse for his tireless ocean advocacy and his invaluable work to introduce the National Endowment for the Oceans Act, and Senator Rockefeller for his cosponsorship of this initiative, and I look forward to working with them on this and many more ocean issues in the future.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in remembrance of a deeply tragic anniversary for the Cypriot-American community, their friends and relatives in Cyprus, and for people everywhere who believe in timeless values such as liberty and human dignity. Thirty-six years ago today, the armed forces of Turkey invaded Cyprus in flagrant violation of international law, occupied the north of the island state, and put in place a heavily armed force that continues to occupy nearly 37 percent of Cyprus' territory. There are more than 43,000 Turkish troops on Cyprus--that is approximately one Turkish soldier for every two Turkish Cypriots. Meanwhile, the occupation, expropriation, and destruction of Greek Cypriot-owned property in the north of the island continues unabated. Indeed, thousands of U.S. citizens of Cypriot descent have claims to such properties. So too continues the egregious desecration of Greek Orthodox churches and sacred religious artifacts that are not only sacred to hundreds of millions of faithful believers but beautiful and historic sites and objects of inherent cultural value to all of humanity. The international community, speaking through resolution after resolution by the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly, has since 1974 called for an end to the division of Cyprus and the return of refugees to their homes. After 36 frustrating years of diplomatic stops and starts, a cavalcade of U.N. special representatives and envoys, and untold hours of negotiations, the time has come for Turkey to concede that the Cyprus question is one that can only be resolved through mutual agreement on a solution, not the imposition of one. It is essential for Turkey to contribute practically and substantively to the negotiating effort and embrace in concrete terms a reunified and prosperous Cyprus where Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots can live together in peace. Unfortunately, in a world that has witnessed the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the fall of communism, Cyprus remains as the last divided country in Europe. Yet despite a generation of suffering such injustices, the Greek Cypriot community continues to demonstrate remarkable magnanimity in seeking a fair solution to the division of the island. Cyprus and the U.S. share a deep and abiding commitment to upholding the ideals of freedom, democracy, justice, human rights, and the international rule of law. We must, in our solemn role as a nation that champions human rights and adherence to the rule of law, stand with the Cypriots to bring peace and stability to their island. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me today in bearing witness to the 36 years of injustice wrongfully brought upon the people of the Republic of Cyprus, and in recommitting ourselves to the urgent task of fairly and finally reuniting the island.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Kerry, to 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--there has been an explosion of growth and innovation with spectrum-based services over the past decade. In particular, the cellular industry has been a prominent driver of this expansion. Currently, there are more than 276 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. 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 the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, has made it a major focal point of its National Broadband Plan in order to meet the growing broadband demands 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 introduce today fixes the fundamental deficiencies that exist in our policy and spectrum management and promotes efforts to improve spectrum efficiency. Specifically, the Spectrum Measurement and Policy Reform Act tasks the FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, NTIA, to perform much needed spectrum measurements to determine actual usage and occupancy rates. This data will assist policymakers and the public in making informed decisions about future spectrum uses. Also required is 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. 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 a 21st Century comprehensive spectrum policy necessary to meet the future spectrum needs of all users. It should be noted that the Spectrum Measurement and Policy Reform Act is intended to complement the National Broadband Plan and the recently announced Presidential Memorandum 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 or Memorandum by promoting technological innovation and more robust spectrum management. For example, a technology known as femtocell, that can increase capacity by offloading wireless traffic onto broadband wireline networks, wasn't mentioned once in the National Broadband Plan even though Cisco's Virtual Network Index indicated that at least 23 percent of smartphone traffic could be offloaded onto fixed wireline networks by 2014 through femotcells and dual-mode phones. These technologies and spectrum management practices such as spectrum sharing and reuse need to be fully explored and this legislation will assist in doing that. Senator Kerry and I envision this legislation as a starting point to initiate an ongoing discussion about how to make the best use of this national asset and, in turn, encourage innovation and unleash opportunity. We look forward to continuing to work with all stakeholders as this bill advances. 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 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--there has been an explosion of growth and innovation with spectrum-based services over the past decade. In particular, the cellular industry has been a prominent driver of this expansion. Currently, there are more than 276 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. 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 the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, has made it a major focal point of its National Broadband Plan in order to meet the growing broadband demands 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 introduce today fixes the fundamental deficiencies that exist in our policy and spectrum management and promotes efforts to improve spectrum efficiency. Specifically, the Spectrum Measurement and Policy Reform Act tasks the FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, NTIA, to perform much needed spectrum measurements to determine actual usage and occupancy rates. This data will assist policymakers and the public in making informed decisions about future spectrum uses. Also required is 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. 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 a 21st Century comprehensive spectrum policy necessary to meet the future spectrum needs of all users. It should be noted that the Spectrum Measurement and Policy Reform Act is intended to complement the National Broadband Plan and the recently announced Presidential Memorandum 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 or Memorandum by promoting technological innovation and more robust spectrum management. For example, a technology known as femtocell, that can increase capacity by offloading wireless traffic onto broadband wireline networks, wasn't mentioned once in the National Broadband Plan even though Cisco's Virtual Network Index indicated that at least 23 percent of smartphone traffic could be offloaded onto fixed wireline networks by 2014 through femotcells and dual-mode phones. These technologies and spectrum management practices such as spectrum sharing and reuse need to be fully explored and this legislation will assist in doing that. Senator Kerry and I envision this legislation as a starting point to initiate an ongoing discussion about how to make the best use of this national asset and, in turn, encourage innovation and unleash opportunity. We look forward to continuing to work with all stakeholders as this bill advances. 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 to speak of an amendment, cosponsored by Senators Grassley, Enzi, Isakson, and Collins, which has proven small business job creating power. It should come as no surprise to anyone that it remains difficult for small businesses to access credit. We have all heard the justifiable frustration and outrage expressed by entrepreneurs nationwide in response to the albatross of tight credit which has a chokehold on our economy. And frankly, who could blame them, when just this past April, the Federal Reserve's Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey found the percentage of banks easing credit terms for small businesses was just a meager 1.9 percent--after it was an astonishing zero percent in both the past January and October surveys! Is this any way to jumpstart an anemic economy? As ranking member of the Senate Small Business Committee I, along with Chair Landrieu, have vigorously championed measures to ease credit and increase small business lending. Together, we fought to include in the Recovery Act key provisions to increase the maximum government guarantee on Small Business Administration, SBA, loans to 90 percent and to appropriate $375 million to reduce fees for SBA 7(a) and 504 borrowers. This program proved to be so popular and viable that its funds were expended first in November 2009, then in February 2010, and again in March 2010, following short term extensions. But regrettably, these provisions have lapsed, and a program that paid tangible dividends, having been credited with increasing loan volumes by a remarkable 90 percent nationwide and 236 percent in Maine, has to my dismay come to a close. At a time when unemployment hovers at near ten percent and consumer confidence hangs in abeyance, nothing could be more counter-intuitive than to allow this to happen. And the numbers speak for themselves. In June alone, the SBA approved only $647 million in SBA 7(a) guaranteed loans, a 65.9 percent decrease from the $1.9 billion in 7(a) loans it approved in May. No wonder in a July 11 New York Times article, SBA Administrator Karen Mills urged Congress to continue these programs, stating that ``we've been able to put $30 billion in the hands of small businesses and now is not the time to pull back . . . .'' Talk about the proverbial snatching defeat from the jaws of victory! Our amendment would resuscitate this highly effective program, providing $485 million to reinstate SBA fee reductions and the elevated guarantee on SBA 7(a) loans through the end of 2010. And we pay for it by using unobligated Recovery Act funds. In fact, according to the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, there are approximately $50 billion in unobligated stimulus funds, and our amendment, which would cost less than 1 percent--.97 percent to be exact--of the overall amount, is paid for by rescinding, on a pro rated basis, from these funds. While we all must make difficult spending decisions, it should be clear that reinstating these vital provisions represents a commonsense approach to providing capital to small businesses across our Nation. These are actions we can take right here and right now that complement this bill's SBA related provisions which increase the maximum limits for SBA 7(a) and 504 loans from $2 million to $5 million, raise the maximum microloan limit from $35,000 to $50,000, and allow for the refinancing of conventional small business loans through the SBA 504 program. They will begin providing capital immediately to small businesses, and they have strong industry support from the National Association of Development Companies, which represents 504 lenders and the National Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders, which represents 7(a) lenders. In conclusion, this initiative ought to be a simple way to swiftly provide assistance to those economic engines that are the lifeblood of our economy--our Nation's small businesses. It is my hope that this body can accept this amendment quickly, by unanimous consent, so that we can provide our economic catalysts with at least a modicum of capital security, financial stability, and economic certainty.