Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today the Senate is addressing the future of health care in our Nation--both Americans' access to care and its cost. As we confront projections of escalating health spending-- exceeding $33 trillion in the coming decade--the imperative is clear that we must address rising costs, or affordable access to coverage simply cannot be achieved and sustained. That is why I am joining Senator Dorgan, who has been a relentless champion on the issue of drug reimportation, in proposing the amendment to this legislation, so that Americans can safely and affordably access the medications which they rely upon to improve their health and which the industry has reminded us time and again are critical to reducing severe illness and hospitalization and, of course, extending life. Senator Dorgan has long been the Senate's tireless leader. In fact, it has been more than a decade, as I recall, that he began to pursue this endeavor and this journey in seeking to end the inequity which resulted when Americans were barred from importing less expensive medications. He has reminded us regularly of the trade inequity which has been imposed on consumers. He also has reminded his colleagues that drug importation, conducted with proper safety measures, provides a route to improving access to lifesaving medications. I am pleased to have joined him in this effort, once again, along with Senator McCain, who has been a stalwart on this issue from the very outset and a tremendous advocate and a driving force. Of course, the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Sanders, throughout his career has been pursuing and advocating this inequity to be remedied once and for all. We introduced this legislation back in 2003 for the very first time. We worked on a comprehensive approach required to address the safe, economical importation of medications. I well recall the efforts--the yeoman efforts--of the late Senator Kennedy who worked relentlessly to remedy this flaw in our policy, along with Senator Grassley, Senator Stabenow, and Senator Vitter, whose bipartisanship on this vital question has also been instrumental as we advanced this cause for the better part of a decade. It has been a greater undertaking than I think many would have surmised or anticipated, frankly. There can be little doubt that the effort to reduce health costs poses one of the greatest challenges in health care reform. That is why the Senate Finance Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Baucus, has worked mightily to incorporate provisions in the pending legislation to ``bend the cost curve.'' Let there be no mistake, the resistance to reforming spending has been immense. That is in part because, as so often has been said: ``One man's waste is another man's profit.'' So while other nations pay 35 to 55 percent less for their prescription drugs than the United States, we have continued to pay the world's highest prices for brand drugs for the past decade, despite nearly 10 years of effort to provide for the safe importation of prescription drugs. Fortunately, that has not deterred a broad bipartisan call to arms on this issue, despite the industry's actions that have blocked attempt after attempt to provide Americans both access and assurances that imported drugs would be safe. Indeed, this issue of both safety and affordability has drawn a bipartisan coalition which has been a model for how we can work together to address this health care problem. We created legislation which the Congressional Budget Office previously estimated would save our Nation approximately $50 billion over 10 years. The CBO has not yet estimated the total savings to consumers but has projected a savings to the Federal Government alone of $19.4 billion. Since Federal savings was about 20 percent of total savings in the past, one can hypothesize dramatically increased consumer savings likely approaching $80 billion. These are exactly, precisely the kinds of savings we must advance today. One can easily see that the failure to act on this legislation since its introduction in April 2004 has needlessly carried a high cost for the American people, made all the more egregious and unacceptable given these difficult economic times, as more Americans are reducing or skipping doses or forgoing medication altogether. And this problem is not going to get better. It is regrettably only going to get worse. The trend is undeniable and unabated. We are all painfully aware of the price increases in brand-name prescription drugs this year that bear absolutely no relationship whatsoever to our overall economy. Manufacturers have increased prices of brand drugs by an average of 9 percent, just as inflation measured by the CPI actually fell by nearly 1 percent. We can look at this chart and demonstrate the contrast in increases. Brand drugs increasing 9 percent, and here are generics and here is the CPI. It truly is emblematic and reflective on this chart how actually prices have been decreased by the same amount that brand drug prices have escalated. In other words, just as we are working to expand coverage to tens of millions of more Americans, we have the industry establishing a new pricing baseline that is entirely off kilter with the rest of the economy, in comparison between the CPI and the cost of brand-name drugs. It is widely unaffordable for the American people and clearly unsustainable for the future. How can we possibly not act on this amendment? This is an industry that has offered $80 billion in concessions toward health care reform--approximately $8 billion over the next 10 years. When one considers that our annual spending, while this single price increase of 9 percent imposed over $290 billion in drug spending, with over two-thirds of that amount representing brand drugs, it is clear that this single price increase alone at this 9 percent will yield at least twice as much as the industry has pledged to reform in the pending health care reform legislation. Frankly, that is cost shifting of the worst kind because it occurs on the back of the American taxpayer, most especially on those in greatest need who are also the least able to afford these exorbitant prices. There should be no mistake, these most recent increases are following the patterns we have witnessed year after year. How do we know? Following passage of the Medicare Modernization Act, Senator Wyden and I requested that the GAO track drug price trends, including looking back to before the bill was enacted. What did we find? First, that the price of brand drugs has escalated two to three times the rate of inflation. That means $100 in drug costs in 2004 has grown to more than $140 today. Tell me whose income has increased by that amount in the last 5 years alone. These unabated, escalating costs for drugs are only widening the already yawning gulf of unaffordability for the American people. But that is not all. When Senator Wyden and I examined the GAO data, we also discovered that as we neared the achievement of a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, the rate of price increases actually rose faster. History also appears to be repeating itself once again to the everlasting detriment of all those whose health security depends on medications. One year ago, the Associated Press reported a startling find that for the first time in a decade, prescription drug use was down. Given the rising costs imposed on struggling American families, that should come as no surprise. It also should serve as a wake-up call, an alarm bell. We are long past the point where we should heed Einstein's timeless truism that one should not keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a new result. The fact is, we simply cannot assume pledges of savings in the form of the industry's monetary concessions to health reform actually amount to real, fundamental reforms or that drug assistance programs are a substitute for a market which brings consumers better value. They are not. It is clear that the time for enactment of this legislation is long overdue and, frankly, more urgent than ever, as illustrated by this second chart of unfilled prescription drugs. Just looking at it, you can see how the unmet need for medications has actually increased since 2003. Among working age adults, only those with Medicare coverage experienced any improvement in their ability to fill their prescriptions. All others saw a rise in their inability to obtain the necessary medications. Among the uninsured, more than one in three individuals went without a required prescription. And in those with chronic diseases, that number doubles. This is a travesty. Indisputably, despite manufacturer assistance programs, despite the increased use of generics, the high and escalating cost of brand-name drugs is directly and negatively affecting the health of millions. That is why our voices today echo those of an overwhelming 7 out of 10 Americans who have called for lifting the ban on prescription drug importation. Let there be no doubt, this is a mandate for action. The President has added his voice to ours, calling for safe drug importation as one means to address health care costs which threaten the health of Americans in perilous economic times. The bottom line is, when nations institute safe, regulated trade in pharmaceuticals, they achieve results, as Sweden did when it entered the European system of trade and saw a reduction of 12 to 19 percent in the price of traded drugs. Opponents claim importation will cause American consumers harm. For those who did express concern about safety, no one shares that sentiment more than I do. So let me be unequivocal in stating that safety is the foundation of this legislation. Our constituents have taken action repeatedly to purchase drugs which they could afford mostly in Canada. That is certainly true in my State of Maine. It is true in the State of Vermont, the Presiding Officer's State. It has been demonstrated time and again that importation is safe. We can ensure Americans safe access to imports. In Europe, over 30 years of parallel trading of pharmaceuticals has demonstrated indisputable safety. In fact, a former Pfizer executive, Dr. Peter Rost, has stated from his firsthand experience in Europe: I think it is outright derogatory to claim that Americans would not be able to handle reimportation of drugs, when the rest of the world can do this. Yet some will point to a recent FDA letter cautioning that drugs must be demonstrated to be safe and effective, that they must be manufactured under the highest standards, that an imported drug must be demonstrated equivalent to existing products used domestically, and that we must guard against contaminated and counterfeit drugs. This amendment does each of these things and much more to ensure that Americans can safely have access to safe imports. Under this legislation, we see with this next chart, we would import drugs from 31 countries which meet high regulatory standards. Those are shown in blue on this chart. There are nations which meet our high standards. In most cases, individuals will purchase an imported prescription drug from their local pharmacists. Pharmacies will receive these drugs from U.S. wholesalers which import them. These wholesalers will be registered, inspected, monitored by the FDA. This higher level of safety is a first step in establishing a higher standard in the handling of prescription drugs in the United States. Our legislation also allows individuals to directly order medications from outside the United States when using an FDA-registered and approved Canadian pharmacy. Again, just as with wholesalers handling prescription drugs, the FDA will examine, register, and inspect these facilities on a frequent basis. FDA will assure the highest standard for such essential functions as recording medical history, verifying prescriptions, and tracking shipments. Regardless of whether the purchase is from the local pharmacist or a Canadian pharmacy, we assure that a legitimate prescription and a qualified pharmacist are required to help assure safety. For those who say that consumers could unwittingly purchase an unapproved or suspect drug, our legislation assures that drugs received will always be FDA approved. If any difference exists in a foreign drug--even the most trivial of distinctions--our legislation assures FDA will evaluate the product and determine its acceptability. For those who say counterfeiting is a threat, our legislation requires the use of anticounterfeiting technologies to protect drugs. Today we can thwart counterfeiting by employing technologies like the one now used on $20 bills. Our bill not only requires the use of such counterfeit-resistant technologies but also a standardized numerical identifier unique to each package of a drug. Moreover, this bill supports the development of future anticounterfeiting and track-and- trace technologies which we hope will be used to protect all drugs. For those who say the consumers won't know who has handled an imported prescription drug, our bill requires a chain of custody-- otherwise known as a pedigree--be maintained and inspected to help ensure the integrity of imported drugs. A pedigree for medications was mandated by law in 1988 and has still not been implemented. This bill will change that. For the first time, in fact, this legislation will include resources to inspect all facilities handling medications. So we are not just making imported drugs safer but also domestic drugs. Some attempt to alarm Americans about the countries from which we would import drugs, citing nations such as Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia. The last time I checked, these are members of the European Union. The same is true for Ireland, for example, where Lipitor is made. So let me get this straight: It is fine for those countries to manufacture drugs in their plants for domestic U.S. companies and ship those drugs here where we then have the privilege of paying higher prices than anywhere else in the world, but we somehow cannot safely import drugs made in those same countries. Exactly what kind of sense does that make? In fact, going back to this chart where the European Union and other countries from which we would import appear in blue. So all those countries that are in blue are areas in which this amendment would allow the importation of drugs, which we see infrequent FDA inspections are in these red countries. All of these countries that are designated in red are the ones in which we have manufacturers importing ingredients for the final product. Yet there are infrequent FDA inspections. There are plants right now--today--shown on the chart in red that are making drugs that are sold and consumed in the United States, plants where there are few FDA inspections. In fact, it has been estimated that approximately 40 percent of the active ingredients in prescription drugs consumed in the United States are actually made in India and China, and we know oversight there is lacking. In fact, such plants may be inspected as infrequently as every 12 years. Currently, there are more than 3,200 foreign manufacturing plants that make medications for the United States market according to GAO. The GAO also found that FDA, in the words of an Associated Press article on the matter, ``isn't even sure how many foreign facilities are producing for the American market. One government database suggests it's 6,760. Another says about 3,000.'' With the explosion of drugs coming in from nations such as India and China, as reported in the Washington Post, the FDA's ``budget for foreign inspections has not kept pace,'' and as a result, as of 2007, ``foreign drug and drug ingredient makers are inspected on average once every eight to 12 years, while American-based manufacturers must be inspected at least once every two years.'' The article also reported that China itself has more than 700 plants, but the FDA only has the resources to conduct about 20 inspections a year there. So let me just indicate, on this chart again, that we, under this amendment that is pending before the Senate, would allow drugs to be imported from those countries designated in blue. The countries that are designated and reflected in red are those countries where we currently manufacture the ingredients of the final product. We are not suggesting that drugs be imported from these nations. Yet our legislation will make it safer because of the resources that we have incorporated in this legislation before the Senate and all of the standards that will be required for FDA to inspect these facilities that are currently not inspected. We have seen the dangers in ignoring these problems, and that is why this legislation would fund enhanced FDA foreign inspections to fundamentally improve the safety of drugs consumed in the United States. But that is not all. While opponents will cite current law on drug importation, the fact is, in the Medicare Modernization Act--the current drug importation statute which has never been implemented-- there are just six safety provisions over as many pages--as detailed in this chart--versus the 31 major provisions in our amendment. So when we passed the Medicare Modernization Act back in 2003, we included safety features because we heard from many of our colleagues who simply did not want to have drug importation. They claimed we had to have a safety certification process, which we have had numerous times for the last decade, to which nothing has advanced with respect to importation. Obviously, a safety certification hasn't been made because we haven't given any resources. We haven't implemented that certification in good faith. Under the pending amendment, we incorporate 31 major provisions in our legislation to address each and every issue. We systematically analyze and identify every issue that has been raised by the opponents to the drug importation legislation--every safety-related issue, every standard-related issue, every failure that has occurred with respect to the FDA inspection system on where they are importing drugs currently and where they have not inspected those facilities. We have 31 different provisions in order to address every facet of safety-related issues. So for those who say importation isn't safe, we show that it shall be. This legislation will set a model and a mandate for improving safety in the handling of not only imported prescription drugs but of all medications--even domestic ones. But if that is not enough, let me also suggest to the opponents of this legislation that they are failing to observe the greatest safety threat to Americans--that the inability to take a drug as it is prescribed undoubtedly exacts a toll on thousands of American lives every year. So beyond question, our measure addresses the crucial issue of safety. I think it is certainly indicative and reflective in this chart today, all the provisions that have been incorporated in the pending amendment before the Senate. This clearly will deliver the real savings as well as safety for consumers. Organizations across the board are supporting this legislation. They represent more than 50 million Americans who realize that extending this coverage is fundamentally critically important to the well-being of all Americans.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my opposition to the Nelson-Hatch amendment. In deliberating how to construct a fair equitable solution to such a divisive question, the one thing that our Group of 6 agreed on during our meetings prior to the markup of legislation in the Finance Committee was that we wanted to remain neutral and preserve the status quo. I am pleased that Majority Leader Reid chose to reflect the Finance Committee's work because I believe that we achieved that careful balance. Federal funds continue to be prohibited being used to pay for abortions unless the pregnancy is due to rape, incest or if the life of the mother is in danger. Health plans that choose to cover abortion care must demonstrate that no tax credits or cost-sharing credits are used to pay for abortion care. The Finance Committee adopted this solution primarily because the policy of separating Federal dollars from private dollars has been achieved in other instances and there is a precedent for that approach. Today, 17 States cover abortion beyond the Hyde limitations with State- only dollars in their Medicaid Programs. States and hospitals, which in no way want to risk their eligibility for Medicaid funding, use separate billing codes for abortions that are allowable under the Hyde amendment, and those that are not. And let me emphasize, there have never been any violations among the States in this regard. Moreover, a similar approach has also been taken with Title X family planning funds and the United Nations Population Fund. We ought to hew to current law and what we know already works. Yet some want to prohibit women from using their own money--beyond taxpayer dollars--towards purchasing a plan in the exchange that covers abortion or limit coverage only through a supplemental policy. I have strong reservations about taking such an approach. Under the Nelson-Hatch amendment, a woman must try to predict whether or not she will require that coverage. This is an unfair proposition. Half of all pregnancies in this country are unplanned and most women do not anticipate the necessity for abortion coverage. Furthermore, in most cases, women already have that coverage. Today, between 47 and 80 percent of private plans cover abortion services. So for a middle income woman who already purchases coverage in the individual market and could now receive a subsidy, let me be clear about the effect this change would have. This would take away coverage she currently has essentially creating a two tiered system for women who don't have coverage through their employer and instead receive it through the exchange. That is fundamentally wrong, and it is patently unfair. And the fact is, over time, more and more individuals will receive coverage through the exchange, which means that the number of women who will confront these restrictions will grow. Not only that but this amendment threatens to reach even further than the exchange. According to a study by the George Washington University School of Public Health that reviewed the Stupak/Pitts provisions from the House ``the size of the new market is large enough so that Stupak/Pitts can be expected to alter the `default' customs and practices that guide the health benefits industry as a whole, leading it to drop coverage in all markets in order to meet the lowest common denominator in both the exchange and expanded Medicaid markets.'' As opposed to the demonstrated evidence from States that separating Federal funds can and does work, we cannot say the same about the availability of supplemental, abortion-only coverage. In the five States that have similar prohibitions on abortion coverage to the Nelson-Hatch amendment, supplemental coverage is generally not offered--as a result of a lack of market demand for riders. And even if supplemental coverage were available, there are significant privacy concerns. If a woman opted to purchase supplemental abortion coverage, it could be inferred that she plans to obtain an abortion. Confidentiality is vital to women who are making this choice and the possibility that this information could be disclosed is both serious and disturbing. Women may face harassment and intimidation on what should be a private matter between her family and her physician. The fact of the matter is, whether to undergo an abortion is one of the most wrenching decisions a woman can ever make--and we shouldn't ignore the real life circumstances that lead them to this choice. For some expecting mothers, tragedy strikes when a lethal fetal anomaly is discovered. Other times there may be adverse health consequences to continuing a pregnancy. In these heartbreaking cases, a woman without coverage can face severe financial hardship in paying for these health costs--not to mention emotional anguish from ending a planned pregnancy. Rather than focusing on abortion, we should concentrate on the significant obstacles women of child-bearing age face under our current health care system. And we have achieved some clear victories for women in this bill. For example, maternity and newborn care is specifically included as an essential health benefit. Pregnancy is typically the most expensive health event for families during their childbearing years and there are significant consequences in a lack of coverage or even minimal coverage. Maternity coverage in the individual insurance market is difficult to find and exceedingly expensive if it is available. Maternity coverage riders alone ranged from $106 to $1,100 per month, required waiting periods of one to 2 years with either no or limited coverage during that period and capped total maximum benefits as low as $2,000 to $6,000. Yet expenditures for maternity care average $8,802. I am also pleased that we passed the Mikulski amendment, which I was proud to cosponsor, that will enhance preventive services for women. This could include preconception care, where doctors counsel women on nutrition and other health interventions before they become pregnant, as well as proper prenatal care. This is critical as mothers who receive no prenatal care have an infant mortality rate more than six times that of mothers receiving early prenatal care. Yet 20 percent of women of childbearing age are uninsured and approximately 13 percent of all pregnant women are uninsured. This bill also at long last ends the discriminatory practice of gender rating. For years, women in this age group seeking insurance coverage have faced clear inequities compared to men. A study conducted by the National Women's Law Center found that insurers who practice gender rating charged 25-year-old women anywhere from 6 percent to 45 percent more than 25-year-old men, and charged 40-year-old women from 4 percent to 48 percent more than 40-year-old men. These critical improvements will enhance both access and health care outcomes for women. This is precisely the direction we should be heading in . . . rather than placing additional obstacles in front of women. Throughout my tenure in Congress I have opposed Federal funding for abortion. At the same time, as a champion of women's health, I have profound reservations about limiting coverage options for women when they are contributing private dollars. Women who are subject to an individual mandate and are contributing private dollars to the cost of their insurance should not have coverage choices dictated for them by the Federal Government. We are making decisions that will affect women on an intensely personal level and if we fail to craft the right solution, it could have serious implications for women's health and privacy. I appreciate the Finance Committee's effort to navigate this difficult issue and hope we can concentrate on the task at hand-- providing coverage to the 30 million uninsured Americans. In that light, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Nelson-Hatch amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I wish to honor a Maine small business with a long standing reputation for producing elegant and practical instruments used by the maritime industry. Founded in 1858, Shaw and Tenney of Orono, ME, has been producing renown, specialty handcrafted wooden oars and paddles for over a century and a half. Indeed, Shaw and Tenney is the oldest continuing producer of solid wooden paddles and oars in America, as well as the third oldest manufacturer of marine products in the country. This historic company got its start on the banks of the Stillwater River near Orono where its founder, Frank Tenney, first launched his signature oars and paddles as part of the Orono Manufacturing Company. During the 19th century, Maine rivers and coastal waters served as a critical highway network for transporting people and goods throughout the State. Small boats such as skiffs, peapods, and canoes were several of the major vessels employed in promoting greater commerce, and Mr. Tenney's quality oars and paddles served as an indispensible tool in helping to propel major industries to new heights across the State. In the 1890s, Mr. Tenney merged his small manufacturing company with the Boston-based George Shaw Company, which produced similar goods. Together they formed what is now formally known as Shaw and Tenney. The newly merged business soon moved to downtown Orono's Main Street and remained there until nearly 1950, when it relocated again to the company's current location at 20 Water Street. The Tenney family retained ownership until about 1970 when the company underwent three short-lived transitions to new owners. The current proprietors, Steve and Nancy Holt, share the privilege of carrying forward the legacy of this unique novelty company. Since the Holts came aboard, they have expanded the company's product line to include other specialty products such as masts, spars, boat hooks, and flagpoles. At the same time, the Holts take pride in producing the same quality product that's earned Shaw and Tenney its stellar reputation for dependable marine instruments. More than just ordinary oars and paddles, the Shaw and Tenney product line is composed of individual pieces of art specially handcrafted to be both practical and refined. Much of the company's well-earned success lies in the quality of the raw material used to construct its distinguished oars and paddles. To make its flat- and spoon-bladed oars, Shaw and Tenney mostly utilizes clear, solid, eastern red spruce supplied by two mills located within a 50-mile radius of the company's facility. In fact, clear red spruce has the highest strength-to-weight ratio of any North American softwood, providing the finished products with a noticeable lightweight durability. Each piece of lumber is carefully critiqued before generating the exceptional, distinct oar or paddle. Shaw and Tenney's artifacts are showcased across the country and, indeed, the world. Its traditional rowing oars can be found at places as diverse as California's Disneyland and the Royal Saudi Naval Force's whale boats. Domestic travelers will also notice Shaw and Tenney oars in Las Vegas as gondoliers ferry visitors around the city's reproduction of Venice's Grand Canal. Furthermore, many U.S. Marines give the company's paddles as a gift when an officer leaves the ranks and it is not uncommon for customers to request fancy oars to use as balusters or stair rails in their homes. Shaw and Tenney has truly crafted a legendary product that highlights the ingenuity and craftsmanship of Mainers. Since its start on the banks of a small Maine river, this impressive small business has blossomed into a trusted and worldwide leader in its specialized industry. Congratulations to everyone at Shaw and Tenney for over 150 years of their extraordinary handiwork, and I offer my best wishes for their continued success in the future.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Landrieu, to introduce legislation to make permanent a critical tax incentive currently being utilized by our Nation's small businesses, which will enable them to continue to make vital investments in new plant and equipment. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA, included a crucial provision that extended enhanced small business expensing at $250,000 through 2009. My legislation would make the incentive permanent and, in turn, provide valuable assistance to America's 26 million small firms that represent over 99.7 percent of all employers. I have long championed enhanced section 179 expensing, which allows small businesses to elect to deduct the cost of qualifying property in the year it was purchased, rather than to recover such costs through depreciation deductions over a number of years. In 2007, I introduced legislation to make permanent section 179 expensing, and in 2008, Congress, as part of the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, allowed small businesses in Maine and across the Nation to expense up to $250,000 of their investments, including the purchase of essential new equipment. Congress further reinforced the necessity of this legislation by extending the provision through 2009 in the ARRA. Unfortunately, the ARRA extension was written to last just 1 year, as a result, in 2010, absent additional action, small firms will be able to expense just $134,000 of new capital investment. The provision will be further reduced to $25,000 in 2011, and instead of being able to write off more of their equipment purchases immediately, firms will have to recover their costs over 5, 7, or more years. Small businesses continue to struggle as a result of the current recession, and many are having trouble finding capital to make job- creating new investments. We simply cannot allow this pattern to continue, Accordingly, my bill would allow small businesses to continue expensing up to $250,000 of new investment permanently. By permitting small businesses to write off more of their equipment purchases today, they will retain substantial savings instead of waiting 5, 7, or more years to recover their costs through depreciation. Additionally, this will save them the vital time that is required to comply with complex and confusing depreciation rules. Accordingly, this provision encourages stable investment in new equipment that will contribute to continued productivity and growth in the business community. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There begin no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Landrieu, to introduce legislation to make permanent a critical tax incentive currently being utilized by our Nation's small businesses, which will enable them to continue to make vital investments in new plant and equipment. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA, included a crucial provision that extended enhanced small business expensing at $250,000 through 2009. My legislation would make the incentive permanent and, in turn, provide valuable assistance to America's 26 million small firms that represent over 99.7 percent of all employers. I have long championed enhanced section 179 expensing, which allows small businesses to elect to deduct the cost of qualifying property in the year it was purchased, rather than to recover such costs through depreciation deductions over a number of years. In 2007, I introduced legislation to make permanent section 179 expensing, and in 2008, Congress, as part of the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, allowed small businesses in Maine and across the Nation to expense up to $250,000 of their investments, including the purchase of essential new equipment. Congress further reinforced the necessity of this legislation by extending the provision through 2009 in the ARRA. Unfortunately, the ARRA extension was written to last just 1 year, as a result, in 2010, absent additional action, small firms will be able to expense just $134,000 of new capital investment. The provision will be further reduced to $25,000 in 2011, and instead of being able to write off more of their equipment purchases immediately, firms will have to recover their costs over 5, 7, or more years. Small businesses continue to struggle as a result of the current recession, and many are having trouble finding capital to make job- creating new investments. We simply cannot allow this pattern to continue, Accordingly, my bill would allow small businesses to continue expensing up to $250,000 of new investment permanently. By permitting small businesses to write off more of their equipment purchases today, they will retain substantial savings instead of waiting 5, 7, or more years to recover their costs through depreciation. Additionally, this will save them the vital time that is required to comply with complex and confusing depreciation rules. Accordingly, this provision encourages stable investment in new equipment that will contribute to continued productivity and growth in the business community. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There begin no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as I rise this evening after months of effort and countless hours of meetings, discussions, and markup in the Senate Finance Committee to craft a health care reform bill, I have come to the floor to talk strictly about the substance and policy of one of the most complex and intricate undertakings the Congress has ever confronted. Instead, we are confronted with procedural gyrations that are as baffling to those living outside the beltway as they are, unfortunately, for those who would prefer to achieve broader agreement on some of the most critical elements of health care reform. As one who has worked constructively to forge solutions to this endemic problem plaguing our health care system, I think it is absolutely an imperative to ensure affordable health insurance coverage to the people of this country. But it must be done in an effective, commonsense, and bipartisan way. It matters what is in those 2,000 pages. That is why I find it deeply disconcerting that the Senate, in its artificially generated haste to begin debate, has resorted to this convoluted process before us in which we first vote to proceed to an empty shell bill, which is then replaced with actual health reform legislation that is the result of behind-the-scenes integration of the two bills that were passed by the Senate Finance Committee as well as the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. The reality is, beginning our deliberations in the Senate with tactics rather than transparency does nothing to enhance credibility with the American public at a time when so many are already understandably wary of the speed and direction of Congress on this transformational issue. As I have mentioned on numerous occasions, it took a year and a half to pass Medicare to cover 20 million seniors. So we simply cannot address health care on the legislative fast track. I am truly disappointed we are commencing this historic debate on one of the most significant and pressing domestic issues of our time with a process that has drawn a political line in the sand and forestalled our ability to arrive at broad consensus on some of the most crucial elements of health care reform. Again, I arrive at this moment as one who has been fully immersed in this issue with the Senate Finance Committee process and the so-called Group of Six within the committee, where we engaged in deliberations for almost 4 months, intensively, on a weekly basis--recognizing the perilous state of health care coverage in America and also recognizing the looming trajectory of unsustainable costs in our health care system is a critical problem that, indeed, must be solved. Ten million more Americans have lost their insurance since the last attempt at health care reform in 1993. Today, 75 million Americans are burdened by inadequate or nonexistent coverage. Over the last decade, insurance premiums alone have risen by 131 percent--if you look at this chart, 131 percent, contrasting that with the growth in wages of 38 percent and inflation at 28 percent. That is what has happened over this last decade alone when it comes to health insurance costs. In my home State of Maine, from 2001 to 2009, we have been hammered with a stunning 271-percent increase in average health insurance premiums in our small group insurance market. It has been estimated by the Business Roundtable that we can expect premiums to grow 166 percent by 2019, absent any reform. So given this current trend, health care costs will continue to grow, and more than double the rate of inflation, further driving up premiums, sending the entirety of our health insurance system into a death spiral. Health care spending could total over $33 trillion in the next decade, and average costs of an employer-based family health plan will reach $30,800 just a decade from now, should we fail to act. So even as everyone has differing opinions on how to address this issue, virtually everyone I have encountered agrees the system is broken. In a recent poll that asked: ``How much, if at all, should the health care system in the U.S. be changed,'' an astounding 84 percent said either ``a great deal'' or ``a moderate amount''--84 percent. The National Small Business Association reports that 62 percent of all small business owners want Congress to enact some kind of reforms-- and no wonder, as our small businesses have experienced annual premium increases of at least 20 percent, year after year after year. The reality that this is not simply a solution in search of a problem is what brought us together in the Senate Finance Committee in the so- called Gang of 6 that I--and I commend Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley as well. Chairman Baucus wanted to convene on a bipartisan basis earlier this year, which was the only bipartisan effort in any committee of the House or Senate. We met more than 31 times to debate policy, not politics, in attempting to reach a bipartisan consensus on reform legislation. This reflected the kind of extensive, meticulous process that an issue of this magnitude requires. Because the American people understand intuitively that when you are debating the future of one-sixth of our economy, and a matter of such personal and financial significance to every American, we should not be railroading solutions along partisan lines. To that point, on a cautionary note for all of us, a recent Gallup poll concluded that neither party can boast that a majority of Americans are currently behind them on this issue. Without question, people are already apprehensive about Congress's ability to reform this system--with Gallup also finding that 66 percent of Americans also believe their Member of Congress does not have a ``good understanding'' of the issues involved in the current debate. Well, if there is one thing I have learned from my more than 30 years of legislative experience, it is that the only way to allay people's fears is by systematically working through the concerns, the issues, and the alternatives. In fact, it was an adherence to those very tenants that led up to the Finance Committee markup that was reported out of the committee and which I supported because, while far from perfect, it produced watershed, bipartisan market reforms and navigated the ideologies on both ends of the political spectrum--by bolstering what works in our current system, building upon the employer-based system, and fostering choices, competition in coverage, and changing the accelerating cost curve of our health care spending. At the same time, that was one, albeit significant, step in the process. As said in my remarks at the conclusion of the markup, it would be imperative moving forward that our course of action give deference to the scope and complexity of the issue--and there should be an inclination by the majority to earn broader support. The bottom line is, policies that will affect more than 300 million people simply should not be decided by partisan, one-vote-margin strategies. Thinking back over the last century, just consider for a moment if Social Security, civil rights, or Medicare could have been as strongly woven into the fabric of our Nation had they passed by only one vote and on purely partisan lines. Instead, as you can see from this chart, these votes all occurred during a time when Democrats controlled both the Congress and the White House. Social Security passed the Senate with 64 percent of Republican support, 79 percent of Republican support in the House; civil rights, 82 percent of the Senate Republicans, and in the House, 80 percent of Republicans; Medicare, when it passed, in 1965, had the support of 41 percent of Senate Republicans, and in the House, 50 percent of the Republicans. So there was significant bipartisan support because it engendered a process that yielded bipartisanship and a consensus-based approach. Those are not only impressive numbers illustrating the strong bipartisan support that landmark legislation has garnered in the past, but they would be nothing short of mythological in today's political environment. Because at a time when we are supposed to be in a world of postpartisan politics, here we are facing a vote along partisan lines. When it comes to the subject at hand, the most consequential health care legislation in the history of our country and reordering $33 trillion in health care spending over the coming decade, surely, we can and must do better. In a recent column, David Broder captured perfectly the path we should be following. He wrote: Scholars will also make the point that when . . . complex legislation is being shaped, the substance is likely to be improved when both sides of the aisle contribute ideas. I could not agree more. So when it comes to procedural gymnastics designed to move us to a purely partisan bill as quickly as possible, on an issue as monumental as health care, that only serves to enhance public cynicism at a time when congressional approval ratings already hover consistently in the 20th percentile range and after a vote on the House reform bill that occurred after a grand total of two amendments and 12 hours 32 minutes of debate on almost 2,000 pages of a document. Consider that it has been more than a month since the Finance Committee completed its work on legislation--even as it concluded that, work remained to be done--a month in which progress might have been made toward building greater consensus on some of the most critical and contentious matters in this debate. But that opportunity was regrettably forsaken. I cannot support moving to a health care reform bill on a procedural motion designed to prevail not on policy grounds but on partisanship. Because the result is, this procedural vote tomorrow presents a serious obstacle if you have substantial concerns about the legislation--as the process going forward will likely require a threshold of 60 votes to add, change, or remove any major provision, including a public option plan, that was not included in the final Finance Committee legislation. I think we all appreciate the impetus for the public option; that is, a fundamental mistrust of the insurance industry. That is a sentiment I strongly share, as many have been victimized by their egregious practices in denying coverage based on preexisting conditions, rescinding coverage because someone actually has the temerity to get sick, or discriminating based solely on one's gender. In my home State of Maine, that mistrust couldn't be more profound-- where two companies controlling 88 percent of the market has resulted not only in the inconceivable increases in premiums I described earlier but has forced thousands in my State to purchase plans with a remarkable $15,000 deductible for an individual and $30,000 for a family. As I was told by one of our insurance companies--one of the two in Maine that dominate the market--it has become one of the most popular plans by virtue of its affordability, by virtue of the fact that it is all people can afford in the State of Maine and certainly among small business owners. Well, that is unconscionable. That is unacceptable. When we think of their basic coverage having a $15,000 deductible for an individual, $30,000 for a family, that is not what you would describe as reasonable coverage. In response to that, I have worked to implement principles on which many of us have been adamant: ending flagrantly unfair practices so no American can be denied coverage, no policy can be rescinded when illness strikes, and no plan can be priced based on health status or gender. To address the dearth of competition in the market, we created health insurance exchanges to become a powerful marketplace for creating competition and lowering premiums by bringing in potentially 30 million new customers, which CBO believes could reduce costs up to 10 percent. That is not even talking about the tax credits and the subsidies. So clearly the exchanges will have a significant effect on lowering prices through administrative changes in competition. I would argue that we have taken these groundbreaking steps to alter the competitive landscape. I strongly believe that inserting a government-sponsored plan in today's dysfunctional marketplace--before reforms can work to improve the market--could actually inhibit the entry of new competitors and could undermine achieving the highly competitive environment we must have to make industry deliver lower cost coverage. Just when we want to provide Americans a wide variety of competitive plans, can inserting a public option into smaller States such as my own actually encourage new plans to enter those markets or will we see just a pair of plans--the existing dominant insurer and the government, and is that limited option really the choice Americans want? When we also consider the difficulties we have experienced in improving care and assuring prompt, fair, and accurate payments in Medicare and Medicaid, we certainly must ask whether a public plan would spur the innovation that is so vital in health care coverage. But we also cannot leave the performance of insurance companies and the success of reform to chance. I have proposed there is a role for a Federal safety net plan if affordable choices that are specifically defined aren't offered in a given State. Moreover, under my provision, companies would submit their pricing a year prior to the open enrollment period, and if it is determined that affordable plans aren't available in a State, the insurer would have 30 days to resubmit their bid. At that point, if affordable plans still aren't offered, a Federal fallback is provided without delay. This will provide the certainty that affordable options exist so that no one falls through the cracks, while CBO also reports that the threat of a fallback in a State would also pressure industry to lower premiums. In stark contrast, the bill we will consider on the floor not only incorporates a public option but also a State opt-out provision that will allow any State at any time to drop that public plan for any reason whatsoever, irrespective of whether their residents in that State actually have access to affordable plans. So if affordability is our goal--and it certainly is--then will someone explain to me exactly how an indiscriminate opt-out achieves that end when a State could decide on a political whim it would not allow a public plan and leave its residents without affordable choices? It simply makes no sense. Rather, we ought to take the safety net approach at the forefront as we did in Medicare Part D, which spurred competition and, as a result, it never was triggered, and to ensure affordability not just in some States but in all 50 States. I happen to believe a person's Zip Code should never dictate their ability to access affordable health care coverage. So the public option provision is of paramount concern. At the same time, in examining the proposed legislation, it is not my only concern. There are practicalities to what we are doing, and I am concerned, quite frankly, that this legislation misses the mark as far as addressing the needs of Main Street America. Just yesterday, the NFIB released a statement opposing the bill--the National Federation of Independent Businesses--saying that enactment of it would make health care for small businesses more expensive than what they can afford today--a ``disaster for small business'' is how NFIB describes it. That is coming from a group that supported the Senate Finance legislation and has been a constructive voice throughout the debate, so that ought to grab our attention. Furthermore, in the Finance Committee I insisted that CBO provide an affordability analysis of what a ``silver'' plan would look like, for example, and I used that analysis to do my own modeling on all of the plans. It helped me to assess premium affordability and render an informed evaluation about the approach overall. For the measure before us now, the CBO has yet to assess the question of affordability on this revised, integrated bill. So exactly how do we go forward on this legislation and consider it when we don't even understand some of the most fundamental aspects of this legislation? None of us can tell with adequate specificity at this point what an average plan will look like, which is what Americans are going to be asking us. What are the premiums? What are the deductibles? What are the copays? What are the coinsurance requirements? These are questions Americans rightfully will ask and are asking. What will reform mean to them? What will it look like? What will they pay for? Those are the answers to the questions we do not have because we haven't had a chance to evaluate this legislation, and we are going to have a vote tomorrow night to move along party lines--to ram it, to jam it--and that is what I am hearing from my constituents. They say: Do you really know what is in those 2,000 pages? They are asking the right questions with great validity. They believe their lives are out of control because they see Washington and they think Washington is out of control because we don't have a profound understanding of what we are doing. That is why it took so long in the Finance Committee for 4 months. It wasn't enough to be immersed in intensive discussions and deliberations. There were artificial deadlines that were set time and time again from March to April to May to June, July, August, September, October. It has gone on. Christmas now is the deadline. The State of the Union is the deadline. Why not just try to get it right? I have heard time and again people say we just have to do something. Well, what I am hearing from my constituents and from many Americans is that it is not just doing something, it is doing the right thing. Every line and every word in this 2,000-page document matters because it is going to have profound ramifications and implications. There are unintended consequences. It is not just about cobbling something together in the dark of night. It is about making sure those mechanics work and what it is going to cost the average consumer, what it is going to do to small businesses, what it is going to do in this time of perilous economic climate. We simply must ensure that an affordable coverage option is available to every individual and small business. I get back to the affordability question because that is the heart and soul of this matter. We have to be assured that we are going to provide affordable health insurance plans. That is why I recommended-- and I am going to push that through the amendment process--that we open the ``young invincible'' or the catastrophic plan as described in the majority leader's bill. We should open up to everybody. It is now available to those under the age of 30, but we should open these plans to all to ensure that no one has to buy up into a more expensive plan if they don't choose to. I have also advocated throughout this process for the very first time national plans which I included in the Finance bill, as small businesses should be able to purchase plans with uniform benefit packages sold across State lines which is vital to enhancing competition and increasing choices for consumers, and portability, and driving down premiums. In fact, we drive down premiums by more than 12 percent. I will be introducing an amendment--because, regrettably, it is not going to be in the bill we will be considering--that States cannot opt out of these national plans because these plans should be able to be available to every State in the country. Finally, with our mounting deficits and our struggling economy, if anything, we should be scaling back the scope of health care reform wherever possible. We should take our cues from the American people who rightly reject more taxes and expanded government bureaucracy that will constrain our future economic prosperity. So I am disturbed that the legislation we will be considering will increase Medicare payroll taxes by $54 billion over the next 10 years. That is diametrically opposed to the tack we should be taking. We should be finding ways for cutting back and scaling back. ``Practicality'' should be the word of the day. Then we have the insertion of another new and costly program, the so- called CLASS Act. I understand its laudatory goals. If it is going to be providing long-term care, it is obviously very important. Proponents point to the fact that it will raise $72 billion over the first 10 years, but that is a bad timing shell game as it collects premiums in 2011 but doesn't begin paying benefits until 2016, near the end of our current budget window. CBO has concluded in the decade following 2029 the CLASS Act will begin to increase the deficit. How much sense does it make to create this new bureaucracy, this new program, that will begin providing similar benefits just 4 years before the Social Security disability insurance trust fund is expected to be exhausted as opposed to first fixing that program? I intend to offer amendments as legislation is considered on the Senate floor, and the impending amendment process will be a true test of whether there is a will to improve this legislation in a nonideological, bipartisan manner. On that note, I hope the past is not a predictor of the direction we are headed because in the final analysis, no one has a monopoly on good ideas. It is not a conservative idea, moderate idea, or a liberal idea. It is a good idea to improve this legislation because that is what is going to be our most pressing, most focused, singular goal--to improve the legislation that will be before us, irrespective of who is offering the amendment or who has the votes or whether it is the 60 votes. That is my concern, if it is going to take 60 votes to undo and change those provisions that are absolutely essential to be modified. The American people have expressed a sharp and legitimate note of caution as we pursue health care reform, especially during these challenging economic times. It is a message we would do well to reflect. So let the tone we set for this unprecedented debate rise to the level of the problems we have a responsibility to resolve. This is already an undertaking of historic proportions. Let's ensure this isn't the only historic legislation passed in the last half century on purely partisan lines. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish today to extol the enormous legacy of selfless service, contribution, and, above all, patriotism of an extraordinary Mainer and American, William J. Rogers, and to recognize with the highest esteem the American Legion Post in Auburn, ME, founded by Bill and his fellow veterans, which will be appropriately named the ``William J. Rogers American Legion Post 153'' in his honor on November 29, 2009. This fitting accolade pays tribute to an individual who devoted his life to serving and defending our country, as well as tirelessly advocating for those who placed their lives in harm's way on our behalf--our courageous veterans. Bill was one of the great sons of my hometown of Auburn, ME, where my roots run deep. In fact, on a personal note, I am proud to say we both graduated from the same high school, Edward Little. As fate would have it, years later, I enjoyed the pleasure of having Bill and his lovely wife, Connie, as wonderful neighbors of mine on Nottingham Road. As a young man, Bill answered his country's call to serve during World War II and joined the U.S. Navy, training to be a pilot at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill along with Boston Red Sox legends, Ted Williams and Johnny Pesky Bill's roommate. As a naval aviator, Bill fought heroically and was awarded the Air Medal and Presidential Unit Citation for his wartime service, having deployed to fight in the Pacific, where he valiantly flew F6F Hellcats and Lockheed Venturas. While Bill departed from active military service in 1946, his commitment to veterans and a lifetime of advocacy on their behalf was just beginning. Bill was a founding member of American Legion Post 153 in Auburn, where he held several offices at both the local and State levels including adjutant, vice commander, and department commander. On the national level, Bill became Maine's national executive committeeman, a member of the liaison committee to the National Public Relations Commission, and from 1965 to 1966 national vice commander. In 1976, Bill received the tremendous distinction of being elected national commander of the American Legion, the first national commander from the State of Maine--and we could not have been more proud. Traveling more than 300,000 miles throughout the world in all 50 States and 17 countries, Bill was the voice of Legionnaires and veterans, meeting with leaders such as President Ford and President Carter. Maine and our Nation could not have had a better champion for the American Legion and our brave and noble veterans than Bill Rogers. Throughout his life, in word and deed, Bill placed service above self and country above self-interest. He held sacred our country's obligation to stand by those who have stood by us, and I cannot imagine a more perfect testament to this outstanding Mainer and American who placed such a high premium on contributing to our Nation than to name Auburn's American Legion Post after him.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as we prepare to celebrate Thanksgiving next week, we should be mindful of the thousands of Americans who make possible the celebration as we know it today. Farmers of all kinds grow and harvest the sweet potatoes, turkeys, and cranberries that we enjoy on our dinner tables every fourth Thursday in November. In recognition of one such business, I rise today to honor a small family farm that has been harvesting delicious fruits in western Maine for over two centuries. Located in the scenic town of Turner in Maine's foothills, Ricker Hill Orchards primarily grows apples of all varieties, most notably the McIntosh, a tradition the Ricker family started in 1803. The small family-owned farm, now in its ninth generation, has expanded over the years to grow other fruits, including pears and peaches, as well as other items like North American ginseng. Of course with apples comes cider, and Ricker Hill presses its own cider on the premises. Similarly, the company sells numerous apple-related products at its county store, such as apple cider donuts--a fall treat in Maine--pies, turnovers, dumplings, and other sweets. For those without the good fortune of visiting Maine during the crisp fall months, Ricker Hill has an online store where customers can order sweet cortland and gala apples, refreshing cider, and other unique gifts. Additionally, during the early fall months, Ricker Hill adds cranberries--one of only three commercially grown fruits that are native to America--to its repertoire. The orchard dry harvests its small bright berries, as opposed to employing wet harvesting, allowing Ricker Hill to sell fresh berries at market that last longer. To produce the fruit, Ricker Hill must irrigate the bogs starting in the spring, while maintaining and repairing existing fields, and building new ones, throughout the summer. Finally, the company harvests the cranberries in early fall, using a small lawnmower-like instrument to collect the fruit. To entertain the whole family, Ricker Hill has taken great strides towards making a visit to their farm a day-long event. Complete with a corn maze, hay barn, obstacle course, and cider making tour, the company packs a plethora of activities into its Farm Fun Day Pass. Ricker Hill also offers tours to school groups of the farm's apple picking and packing operations. And something one would not expect at a farm, Ricker Hill even has a challenging disc golf course that winds through the farm's acres of bogs and woods. Ricker Hill Orchards excels at providing visitors with a quintessential Maine fall experience. And for over 200 years, the farm has been producing some of New England's freshest and most delectable fruits, a practice that has helped the company garner a matchless reputation. As Thanksgiving approaches, and families across the country sit down to plates of cranberry sauce and apple pie, I wish everyone at Ricker Hill Orchards many more years of successful harvests of the ingredients that make this holiday so special.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the current recession has caused unemployment to balloon to 10.2 percent and with small businesses creating over \2/3\ of all net new jobs, the road to recovery leads through our Nation's small businesses. For this recovery to occur, we must ensure that our small businesses have access to affordable credit so that they can keep their doors open and start hiring some of the 15.7 million Americans who are currently unemployed. The Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship has been extremely active on this issue, and I thank Chair Landrieu for her leadership. The Committee has held a series of hearings on the credit crunch, to explore topics from alternative sources of credit to what policies government can enact that will help small businesses create jobs and weather this recession. In these hearings, the one constant message we have heard is that small businesses need access to capital. This message is borne out by the most recent Federal Reserve's Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey which shows that banks continue to tighten access to credit for small businesses--and have since the start of this recession. To help small businesses access credit I have introduced two bills, the 10 Steps for a Main Street Economic Recovery Act, and the Next Steps for a Main Street Economic Recovery Act, which contain provisions that would reduce fees for small business borrowers and lenders, allow refinancing of 7(a) and 504 loans; create a lender platform to give small business borrowers more lending options, and to increase the maximum amount borrowers can take out in 7(a), 504, and microloan loan sizes to give small businesses who have capital needs in excess of the Small Business Administration's current loan sizes more borrowing options. Many of the key provisions of my 10 steps bill were included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA, most notably, fee reduction for 7(a) and 504 loans. This provision, along with increasing the guarantee rate on 7(a) loans to 90 percent, has been credited with increasing small business lending by over 70 percent since the passage of the ARRA. I was also pleased that President Obama recently announced his support for the loan limit increases in my Next Steps bill as a part of his plan to expand access to capital for small businesses. These provisions have helped cushion the shock of the credit crisis for small business borrowers; however, I am concerned with one provision which has not lived up to its initial promise. The American Recovery Capital, ARC, loan program was included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as a result of a combined effort from both the Chairs and the Ranking Members of the House and Senate with the laudable goal of extending a lifeline to small business borrowers. The program allowed viable small businesses that were having difficulty paying their existing debts to access a 100 percent SBA- guaranteed bank loan to repay these debts. These small business borrowers would receive payments for up to 6 months, and then have a 1- year grace period before repayments on their ARC loan began. However, since its implementation in June, the ARC loan program has been plagued with difficulties, most notably, the Office of Management and Budget has estimated that based on the underwriting requirements put forth by the administration, 60 percent of borrowers utilizing this program may default on their loans. The ARC program was intended to assist viable small businesses that will be able to repay the loan, not to add additional debt to those who will not. Proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars demands that we put a stop to any Federal program which does not achieve its stated goals. ARC loans are one such program. My legislation immediately suspends the ARC loan program and returns all unobligated funds back to the Treasury. We must ensure that above all else, taxpayer funds are protected. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the current recession has caused unemployment to balloon to 10.2 percent and with small businesses creating over \2/3\ of all net new jobs, the road to recovery leads through our Nation's small businesses. For this recovery to occur, we must ensure that our small businesses have access to affordable credit so that they can keep their doors open and start hiring some of the 15.7 million Americans who are currently unemployed. The Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship has been extremely active on this issue, and I thank Chair Landrieu for her leadership. The Committee has held a series of hearings on the credit crunch, to explore topics from alternative sources of credit to what policies government can enact that will help small businesses create jobs and weather this recession. In these hearings, the one constant message we have heard is that small businesses need access to capital. This message is borne out by the most recent Federal Reserve's Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey which shows that banks continue to tighten access to credit for small businesses--and have since the start of this recession. To help small businesses access credit I have introduced two bills, the 10 Steps for a Main Street Economic Recovery Act, and the Next Steps for a Main Street Economic Recovery Act, which contain provisions that would reduce fees for small business borrowers and lenders, allow refinancing of 7(a) and 504 loans; create a lender platform to give small business borrowers more lending options, and to increase the maximum amount borrowers can take out in 7(a), 504, and microloan loan sizes to give small businesses who have capital needs in excess of the Small Business Administration's current loan sizes more borrowing options. Many of the key provisions of my 10 steps bill were included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA, most notably, fee reduction for 7(a) and 504 loans. This provision, along with increasing the guarantee rate on 7(a) loans to 90 percent, has been credited with increasing small business lending by over 70 percent since the passage of the ARRA. I was also pleased that President Obama recently announced his support for the loan limit increases in my Next Steps bill as a part of his plan to expand access to capital for small businesses. These provisions have helped cushion the shock of the credit crisis for small business borrowers; however, I am concerned with one provision which has not lived up to its initial promise. The American Recovery Capital, ARC, loan program was included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as a result of a combined effort from both the Chairs and the Ranking Members of the House and Senate with the laudable goal of extending a lifeline to small business borrowers. The program allowed viable small businesses that were having difficulty paying their existing debts to access a 100 percent SBA- guaranteed bank loan to repay these debts. These small business borrowers would receive payments for up to 6 months, and then have a 1- year grace period before repayments on their ARC loan began. However, since its implementation in June, the ARC loan program has been plagued with difficulties, most notably, the Office of Management and Budget has estimated that based on the underwriting requirements put forth by the administration, 60 percent of borrowers utilizing this program may default on their loans. The ARC program was intended to assist viable small businesses that will be able to repay the loan, not to add additional debt to those who will not. Proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars demands that we put a stop to any Federal program which does not achieve its stated goals. ARC loans are one such program. My legislation immediately suspends the ARC loan program and returns all unobligated funds back to the Treasury. We must ensure that above all else, taxpayer funds are protected. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, today I pay tribute to the Auburn Lions Club which will commemorate the receipt of their charter on November 13th during their magnificent ``Charter Night.'' Although I deeply regret that I am unable to attend in person, I will be there very much in spirit! I cannot tell this Chamber how inspired and impressed I am by the phenomenal history of the Lions Club and all it has accomplished and exemplifies to this day. For 92 years, the men and women of the Lions Club have been on the front lines of compassion and good will for countless individuals throughout America and the world with their extraordinary commitment to community and humanitarian service that has been the cornerstone of the Lions Club's exceptional mission as well as the impetus behind its founding by Melvin Jones in 1917. Speaking of the enormous legacy of the legendary Melvin Jones, I want to take a moment to express the profound distinction I felt this past May when I was honored as a Melvin Jones fellow, the most prestigious form of recognition conferred by the Lions Club International Foundation. And I can tell you, receiving that accolade from the Lions Club which I hold in such high esteem as well as from my cousin, Duke Goranites, 1st Vice District Governor of Maine and District Governor- Elect of the Lions Club--who is like a brother to me and is the brother of my wonderful cousin, Georgia Chomas, was truly one of the most gratifying experiences of my life! And let me just say, Duke has really outdone himself this year! Believe me, we are all well aware of how busy he is these days. His schedule could not be more rigorous as he's traveling around the State, and so I am even more grateful to Duke who not only will emcee the Charter Night event, but has been vital in helping Auburn bring this charter to fruition. What a truly landmark accomplishment this charter represents--one that is emblematic of the initiative, generosity, and resolve of my hometown of Auburn, ME, where my roots run deep, as well as the enduring purpose of the Lions Club which has a longstanding legacy of contribution on behalf of others in Maine, America, and the world. And let me say, how pleased I was to send an American flag to the Auburn Lions Club that was flown over the U.S. Capitol in honor of this marvelous occasion. The Auburn Lions Club will be joining the ranks of the largest international service organization in the world which has a presence in more than 200 countries and with 1.3 million members and 45,000 clubs worldwide. They will be committed in word and deed to advancing the Lions Club motto ``we serve.'' And Melvin Jones' time-honored precept that ``you can't get very far until you start doing something for somebody else'' will be in good hands in Auburn. The Auburn Lions Club will not only celebrate their newly acquired charter status but will also install the respective officers, whose leadership throughout the process has been instrumental. In that light, I commend Adam Smith, Auburn chapter president; and Georgia Chomas, vice-president, who coordinated the Charter Night event with Sandy Tassinari. I also commend Celeste Yakawonis, second vice-president, Nicole Andree, treasurer, and Sherry Bonawitz, secretary. I also convey my immense appreciation for the stewardship and support of Glen Aho, Auburn city manager and charter member of the Auburn Lions Club, as well as to Ron Johnson, international director of the Lions Club, Lewis B. Small, Sr., past international director, and Roger Blackstone, district governor. I also recognize the Gray/New Gloucester Lions Club for their sponsorship of the Auburn Lions Club. In keeping with the high caliber of individuals who have dedicated their enormous time and talent to this sterling endeavor, I am proud to say, the Auburn Lions Club can already point to community projects its members will be tackling, from addressing challenges confronting Auburn school students with a focus on homeless teens to working with the Lions' statewide effort to raise funds to purchase and install a standby generator for the Good Shepherd Food Bank. The Auburn Lions Club has established a goal of raising $76,000 to match the Lions Club international grant of $75,000. To say they will be hitting the ground running is an understatement! The achievement of this charter is a memorable moment for the Auburn Lions Club, and I have no doubt what is said of Lions Clubs throughout Maine and around the world will be said of the Auburn Lions Club many times over--``whenever we get together, problems get smaller. And communities get better.''

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, tomorrow, our Nation pauses to honor those brave men and women who have served our country so admirably in the Armed Forces. Veterans Day affords us the tremendous opportunity to reflect on the freedoms we enjoy and to acknowledge those who have sacrificed so much to protect those liberties. Today I wish to recognize a small business in my home State of Maine that is doing its own part to celebrate the contributions that veterans have made to our country. The Muddy Rudder--which has locations in Yarmouth and Brewer--has been a mainstay on the Maine dining scene since 1976, when it opened its first location overlooking Yarmouth's Cousins River. The restaurant's Brewer location was opened in 2002 at the site of the former Harborside Restaurant, on the town's scenic and revitalized Penobscot River waterfront. Affectionately known to frequent guests and locals as ``the Rudder,'' these remarkable restaurants have gained a solid following in the communities they serve. Noted for its nautical themed decor and picturesque water views, the Muddy Rudder has also gained welcome attention from people near and far for its expertly prepared fresh seafood. The reason the Muddy Rudder can lay claim to such a delectable menu comes directly from the talent in the restaurants' kitchens. Brewer's Muddy Rudder is home to award-winning executive chef David Smith, an active member of the American Culinary Federation, who makes frequent appearances on local television preparing creative and exciting dishes for people to attempt at home. And the Yarmouth location boasts the expertise of renowned chef Tom Schwarz, a former fisherman who began his culinary journey as a fishmonger for some of New York City's finest restaurants, hotels, and bistros. But more than just a place to enjoy a hearty meal, the Muddy Rudder is a visible and active member in the communities they serve. As such, in celebration of Veterans Day, both Muddy Rudder restaurants are providing veterans and active military servicemembers with a free meal tomorrow. And unlike many larger national chains that are offering similar incentives, the Muddy Rudder is giving veterans and active duty servicemembers the option to choose a free entree from any menu item, with no restrictions. From the Rudder's delicious baked stuffed lobster or Fisherman's Platter to meals preferred by landlubbers, including a New York strip steak or chicken marsala, America's bravest can select a wholesome and appetizing meal as a small but meaningful thank you for the commendable service they have given to our Nation. The Muddy Rudder's cuisine has long been a staple of the culinary landscape in Yarmouth, and more recently in Brewer. And as demonstrated by their actions this week, it is no secret why they are so popular in the community. I am proud that Peter Anastos, the restaurants' owner, and everyone at the Muddy Rudder have set such a thoughtful and timely example as we celebrate those who protect our freedoms. I thank them for their creativity and passion, and wish them success in all of their endeavors.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator Webb, Senator Lincoln, and Senator Landrieu to introduce the Cold War Medal Act of 2009. This legislation would provide the authority for the secretaries of the military departments to award Cold War Service Medals to the courageous American patriots who for nearly half-a- century defended the Nation, and indeed, freedom-loving peoples throughout the world, against the advance of communist ideology. From the end of World War II to dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Cold War veterans were in the vanguard of this Nation's defenses. They manned the missile silos, ships, and aircraft, on ready alert status or on far off patrols, or demonstrated their resolve in hundreds of exercises and operations worldwide. The commitment, motivation, and fortitude of the Cold War Veterans was second to none. Astonishingly, no medal exists to recognize the dedication of our patriots who so nobly stood watch in the cause of promoting world peace. Although there have been instances where medals or ribbons, such as the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Korean Defense Service Medal, and Vietnam Service Medal, have been issued, the vast majority of Cold War Veterans did not receive any medal to pay tribute to their dedication and patriotism during this extraordinary period in American history. It is only fitting that these brave servicemembers who served honorably during this era receive the recognition for their efforts in the form of the Cold War Service Medal. Specifically, the Cold War Service Medal Act of 2009 would allow the Defense Department to issue a Cold War Service Medal to any honorably discharged veteran who served on active duty for not less than two years or was deployed for thirty days or more during the period from September 2, 1945, to December 26, 1991. In the case of those veterans who are now deceased, the medal could be issued to their family or representative, as determined by the Defense Department. The bill would also express the sense of Congress that the secretary of Defense should expedite the design of the medal and expedite the establishment and implementation mechanisms to facilitate the issuance of the Cold War Service Medal. The award of the Cold War Service Medal is supported by the American Cold War Veterans, the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and many other veterans' services organizations. With November 9, 2009, the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall which marked the beginning of the end of the Cold War, quickly approaching, Senator Webb, Senator Lincoln, Senator Landrieu, and I invite our colleagues to cosponsor this significant legislation to honor our Cold War Veterans.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator Webb, Senator Lincoln, and Senator Landrieu to introduce the Cold War Medal Act of 2009. This legislation would provide the authority for the secretaries of the military departments to award Cold War Service Medals to the courageous American patriots who for nearly half-a- century defended the Nation, and indeed, freedom-loving peoples throughout the world, against the advance of communist ideology. From the end of World War II to dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Cold War veterans were in the vanguard of this Nation's defenses. They manned the missile silos, ships, and aircraft, on ready alert status or on far off patrols, or demonstrated their resolve in hundreds of exercises and operations worldwide. The commitment, motivation, and fortitude of the Cold War Veterans was second to none. Astonishingly, no medal exists to recognize the dedication of our patriots who so nobly stood watch in the cause of promoting world peace. Although there have been instances where medals or ribbons, such as the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Korean Defense Service Medal, and Vietnam Service Medal, have been issued, the vast majority of Cold War Veterans did not receive any medal to pay tribute to their dedication and patriotism during this extraordinary period in American history. It is only fitting that these brave servicemembers who served honorably during this era receive the recognition for their efforts in the form of the Cold War Service Medal. Specifically, the Cold War Service Medal Act of 2009 would allow the Defense Department to issue a Cold War Service Medal to any honorably discharged veteran who served on active duty for not less than two years or was deployed for thirty days or more during the period from September 2, 1945, to December 26, 1991. In the case of those veterans who are now deceased, the medal could be issued to their family or representative, as determined by the Defense Department. The bill would also express the sense of Congress that the secretary of Defense should expedite the design of the medal and expedite the establishment and implementation mechanisms to facilitate the issuance of the Cold War Service Medal. The award of the Cold War Service Medal is supported by the American Cold War Veterans, the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and many other veterans' services organizations. With November 9, 2009, the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall which marked the beginning of the end of the Cold War, quickly approaching, Senator Webb, Senator Lincoln, Senator Landrieu, and I invite our colleagues to cosponsor this significant legislation to honor our Cold War Veterans.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Charles Earle Crafts of Livermore, ME, who is to be awarded three exceptional valor awards on November 9, 2009, for his extraordinary service to this Nation. Charles will be presented with the prestigious Silver Star Medal for his heroic role in combat against an overwhelming Viet Cong force at the Battle of Binh Gia, South Vietnam, on December 29, 1964. In addition, he will be awarded the Bronze Star Medal in honor of the 2 years, 1 month, and 24 days he spent in brutal jungle captivity as a prisoner of war--and the Bronze Star Medal with a ``V'' (valor) device for his outstanding achievement in smuggling out critical information for the United States--risking further retribution--I might add. Indeed, all Americans owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to Charles for his inexhaustible service to this country contributions that we will never forget and that truly epitomize the valor of every man and woman courageous enough to wear our Nation's uniform. In fact, a year before most Americans became aware that there was a violent war being fought against the democratic government of South Vietnam, Charles was drafted into the U.S. Army and trained as a radio operator. Then, in November of 1964, he was sent to Saigon and became a military advisor to the Army of South Vietnam, ARVN, which was engaged in a bloody struggle against the Viet Cong insurgents. That December, as Viet Cong forces attacked and held the village of Binh Gia which is located about 50 miles east of Saigon, Private Crafts, in his capacity as the radio operator for Sergeant Harold George Bennett, accompanied the 33rd ARVN Ranger Battalion in an attempt to retake Binh Gia. As they approached the village, their much smaller force of approximately 350 men came under heavy fire from an enemy force that was later estimated to be near 5,000 strong. The majority of the ARVN Rangers were killed, wounded, or captured during the horrific battle that followed, but despite all of the challenges, Crafts successfully rebuffed attempts by the Viet Cong to jam radio transmissions during the deadly carnage around them. And due to his deft and flawless operation of their portable radio, they were able to warn approaching American helicopter pilots not to attempt a rescue of them in the Viet Cong killing zone. Shortly thereafter, Sergeant Bennett and Private Crafts were captured as prisoners of war--forced to survive disease including several bouts of malaria, as well as malnutrition and even terrible retribution for attempting to escape--being told, on myriad occasions, that, ``dying is easy; surviving is much more difficult.'' Both Crafts and Bennett would later be joined by CPT Donald G. Cook, a U.S. Marine Corps officer who was severely wounded at Binh Gia 2 days after their capture. And under the steadfast leadership of Captain Cook, all upheld the military Code of Conduct to the utmost of their individual ability while resisting frequent Viet Cong interrogation and indoctrination sessions--facing untold hardships on behalf of each and every American. These brave men, in the face of such profound adversity, sustained themselves by their faith, trust in their country, and above all, each other. And through all of the trials and tribulations, in light of the countless reasons to give up hope, Charles remained resolute--and that unwavering determination to survive and to return home came to fruition as the Viet Cong political leadership decided to release two American POWs, choosing Charles and Sgt Sammie Womack. A brief ceremony was held on February 16, 1967, in the midst of the jungle, but it was after they boarded a Vietnamese bus, stopping at a U.S. military checkpoint, that they again tasted freedom on February 23 that our Nation holds so dear. And as if all that Crafts had endured and accomplished had not been enough, he smuggled documents out of the jungle, providing even further intelligence for our country. Following several months of hospitalization--growing stronger with each passing day--Charles was honorably discharged on May 17, 1967, with the rank of specialist four class, E-4. Throughout the entire ordeal, his parents, the late Leroy Bradford Crafts and Virginia (Voter) Crafts, never gave up hope for the return of their only son. And return to Maine he did to a welcoming and loving family, to a most grateful community and State, and, although he didn't know it at the time, his future wife Juanita during a ceremony where his high school alma mater dedicated their yearbook to him. Now that is fate! Throughout his entire life--from his time at International Paper Company to his role as a national service officer for the Disabled American Veterans and, of course, his tireless service to this country while serving in the Army--Charles has exemplified the very best that this Nation has to offer, and he is a shining example for why we celebrate Veterans Day every year. It goes without saying that Charles Crafts is a true American hero who risked his life, time and again, so that our lives could be better. There are no words to adequately thank or appropriately honor Charles for all that he has done, but it gives me, and surely everyone in Maine, immeasurable pride that the Department of the Army has now approved three awards for Charles Earle Crafts: the Silver Star Medal for gallantry in action during the Battle of Binh Gia, on December 29, 1964, the Bronze Star Medal with ``V'' device for valorous achievement in smuggling out several documents--hiding those documents among his few possessions and memorizing those which he was unable to sneak past the guards--and finally, the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious service while caring for his fellow prisoners under extreme duress by his captors. These awards reflect Charles' unending patriotism and boundless spirit that, quite literally, saved lives and made this country stronger. And as we laud Charles for his limitless contributions to our Nation, I cannot help but also thank Retired Colonel Doug Moore, whose sterling efforts over the past decade were critical to collecting and providing the necessary information to ensure this fitting recognition for Charles' heroic service in Vietnam. I could not be more pleased to join with Charles' friends and family in celebrating these phenomenal accolades and his remarkable service with his wife of 15 years, Juanita; his son, Jason, and wife, Julie, of Jay, ME; his two stepsons, Alan Levesque of Lewiston, ME, and Andy Levesque and fiancee Tara Averill of Poland, ME; his two sisters, Patricia Ridley of Wilton, ME, and Ann Crafts of North Jay, ME; as well as his four grandchildren, soon to be five--Sarah, Emma, Whitney and Bailey. It goes without saying that families and loved ones are undeniable pillars of strength for their tireless support and indispensable devotion to our veterans and to our country. The enduring truth is that neither a single day nor single ceremony is enough to honor America's veterans. We owe them and we owe Charles Crafts our praise and thanks on every day that we enjoy the blessings of liberty and benefits of security. These medals presented to Charles will be a lasting testament, commemorating his unflagging spirit of placing love of homeland above all else which has been the string upon which our pearls of freedom, liberty, and democracy have always been strung.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, four centuries ago, in my home State of Maine, a group of colonists settled on the mouth of the Kennebec River. There, they built the Virginia, a 30-ton pinnace that voyaged across the Atlantic Ocean at least twice. By constructing the first English-built ship in North America, these early Mainers engendered a rich tradition of shipbuilding that continues still today. In this time of economic volatility, Maine shipbuilders who carry on this lofty practice are some of the many small businesses that are piloting our Nation out of this recession. I rise today to note the achievements of one of these remarkable companies, Morris Yachts, which is headquartered in the picturesque Maine village of Bass Harbor. Since his business first set sail in 1972, Tom Morris has added immensely to the abundant history of Down-east shipbuilding. Mr. Morris's passion for sailing spawned from summer vacations in Maine with his family. Similarly, he instilled his zeal into his son, Cuyler, who joined him at the wheel of Morris Yachts in 1995. With father and son at the helm, the company outgrew its home of 27 years in Southwest Harbor a decade ago and now operates a complete yacht service company just down the road at its present facility. During the company's near three decades in the Maine boatbuilding arena, Morris Yachts has become a trusted and dependable name for hundreds of clients. Its yachts generally range from 29 to 62 feet in length, and provide customers with semicustom boats of superb quality and beautiful woodworking. A testament to the Morris's remarkable craftsmanship, there are presently over 269 Morris Yachts sailing all over the world. Morris Yachts also has a connection to Hollywood, as its Pemaquid Friendship sloop was utilized as a prop in the popular film ``The Truman Show.'' Most recently, Morris Yachts has been asked to build four 44-foot sailing vessels for the U.S. Coast Guard Academy for use in training programs. With this new contract, Morris Yachts will be able to hire up to 20 employees, including mechanics, electricians, carpenters, and composite craftspeople this fall to work on the Coast Guard project, bringing the total number of Morris employees close to 100. While the initial contract asks for four boats, the Coast Guard Academy hopes to potentially double its order. Not only does the company provide a valuable service to its local community, but with this contract, Morris Yachts will be able to serve the entire Nation. Providing ships to the U.S. Coast Guard is a true honor, and the firm's critical work will better equip our Nation's bravest men and women to protect our shores. Despite the difficulty facing countless yacht manufacturers over the past year and a half, Morris Yachts has continued to produce sturdy and reliable boats. As a result, the company has been nominated for the 2010 Boat of the Year Award by Cruising World and Sailing World magazines. I congratulate everyone at Morris Yachts for this honor and look forward to the announcement of the award in January. The Morris family story serves as an inspiration to all who pursue the American dream. I commend the Morris family for being chosen by our Nation's military to build these watercraft and congratulate them for their well-deserved accolades. Just as the colonists on the Kennebec River did centuries ago, I am certain the Morris family will continue the great tradition of Maine shipbuilding as they have for the past 37 years. Their success is proof that commitment, resolve, and hard work still lead to great things.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, our Nation has long recognized that small businesses are the true innovators in our economy. Indeed, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration, our Nation's 27 million small firms generate a majority of the innovation coming from American businesses and produce 13 times more patents per employee than their larger counterparts. But to continue this trend, we need a new, younger generation of entrepreneurs to rise to the forefront and open their own small businesses. That is why I am proud to rise today to recognize the entrepreneurial spirit and ingenuity of a young woman from my home State of Maine whose graphic and Web design company is providing clients with, in her words, `` fresh ideas that grow results.'' iBec Creative was founded in 2006 by entrepreneur Becky Stockbridge. As a senior at the University of Southern Maine, Ms. Stockbridge wrote a business plan to start a Web and graphic design business for medical professionals. She realized that this critical segment of our economy was in desperate need of innovative and creative ways to promote their expertise, including through brochures, logos, and informational Web sites. With a $4,200 grant from the Libra Future Fund, a Maine-based nonprofit organization that supports young entrepreneurs, as well as free office space awarded by the Maine Center for Enterprise Development, she embarked upon her fledgling entrepreneurial career. To overcome a slow start, Ms. Stockbridge soon began designing Web sites and graphic designs for small businesses in other fields and by seizing upon these additional opportunities, she greatly broadened her client base. In her continued efforts to present clients with cutting-edge technology, Ms. Stockbridge's innovative assortment of development, design, and monitoring services have turned iBec Creative into a well- respected five-person small company with an expected $350,000 in revenue for 2009. iBec currently specializes in providing a wide range of marketing and consulting services to its clients, such as Web design and search engine optimization, SEO, consulting, branding, internet marketing, traditional marketing, and project management. Additionally, iBec Creative utilizes emerging media to promote its clients various brands. Ms. Stockbridge's creativity, vigor, and entrepreneurial commitment were recently recognized by BusinessWeek as she was named a 2009 finalist in the America's Best Young Entrepreneurs competition. She is the only person nominated from my home State of Maine and the first finalist from Maine since the contest began 5 years ago. Ms. Stockbridge is competing against 24 other young entrepreneurs from around the Nation in this unique online challenge, and I look forward to hearing about her successful outcome at the end of the competition. iBec Creative is a remarkable small business whose story demonstrates how community involvement and encouragement can help entrepreneurs of all ages realize their aspirations and dreams. I commend Becky Stockbridge for her innovation and determination and wish Ms. Stockbridge and everyone at iBec Creative the best of luck with their burgeoning business.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I honor the work of a small business from my home State of Maine that produces innovative machine products used to expand the capabilities of factories in all sectors of our nation's economy. Founded in 1967 by Dave Gushee and Fred Loring in a one-car garage, D&G Machine Products, Incorporated, of Westbrook, is now responsible for producing the custom machinery vital to the operation of some of our nation's largest manufacturers. With 79 highly-skilled employees and multiple facilities totaling more than 100,000 square feet, D&G's custom machine production has boundless possibilities. The company's highly trained designers utilize advanced engineering component modeling software to ensure an accurate and time-effective production process in creating a wide range of manufacturing equipment and machinery such as turbine parts, crank shafts, aerospace components, and food processing equipment. The company also provides products to myriad companies in the pulp and paper, high technology, power, petrochemical, and defense industries. Furthermore, because D&G is a full-service manufacturer, they are capable of producing manufacturing equipment from a ``build to print'' template, or they can design, install, and implement a new manufacturing model based on a company's request. D&G's commitment to quality and stellar reputation has led to partnerships with numerous American manufacturing giants, such as Georgia-Pacific, General Dynamics, and Raytheon. Notably, D&G's owner, Duane Gushee, sits on the Manufacturers Association of Maine's, MAMe, Board of Directors. MAMe does tremendous work to promote our State's remarkable manufacturers and to help them become increasingly more competitive. Additionally, as a member of the Maine Aerospace Alliance, one of MAMe's key initiatives, D&G is working to bolster our State's fledgling aerospace industry, which relies upon heavy manufacturing and holds significant promise for Maine's economic future. D&G's equipment design ingenuity is also helping our country keep its waters safe as this innovative small business provides advanced, custom-designed manufacturing tools to the U.S. Coast Guard. D&G has been consistently recognized for its commitment to quality and critical prowess in the manufacturing field. For example, in 2004, Mr. Gushee was recognized with the Southern Maine Community College Alumni Business Innovation & Entrepreneurial Spirit Award. In turn, D&G has given back to the community in many ways, including making generous yearly donations to the Bruce Roberts Toy Fund, which goes toward the purchase of gifts for needy children. Beginning as a garage business producing custom tools for manufacturers in Portland and becoming one of the most relied-upon manufacturing equipment suppliers in the nation, D&G and its founders Dave Gushee and Fred Loring provide us with a prescient example of the power of American ingenuity and determination. D&G's success is summed up by Duane Gushee's philosophy of ``constantly modernizing''--words of wisdom for companies seeking to become competitive in today's challenging global marketplace. I congratulate everyone at D&G Machine Products for their invaluable service to our Nation, and I wish them continued success in the future.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the First Congregational Church, United Church of Christ of South Portland, ME, on the momentous occasion of its 275th anniversary. What a tremendous milestone and enduring testament to the church's centuries of spiritual leadership and goodwill. Established in 1733, the church held its inaugural worship service in 1734 and has, through its steady growth and exemplary commitment to others, expanded its ministries, championed education for all, and engendered an abiding sense of fellowship for literally hundreds of years. Although the physical buildings of worship may have changed over time, the church's fundamental mission--to foster its congregation's spiritual life while offering outreach to others through words and actions--has not wavered. Although this church's history and time-honored presence within the South Portland area are truly remarkable, the First Congregational Church, United Church of Christ concentrates its energies and attention on its current and future role within the greater community--to serve members of its congregation and people whose lives are enriched by the interaction of the ministry, the congregants, and the faith that binds them to a benevolence of purpose that is an inspiration to all. Through such practical programs as the Discovery Center preschool, the Community Crisis Ministries Program, the Mission and Outreach Team--which offer soup kitchen and food pantry assistance--and the Social Witness Ministries that address current sociocultural and environmental challenges, this church truly extends its reach beyond its walls in the selfless quest to contribute to others. As 2009 represents a monumental moment of celebration in the life of the First Congregational Church, United Church of Christ, I wish to offer my heartfelt congratulations and profound gratitude to all who have sustained the dynamic work of this church in centuries past and who will do so for many more years to come.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I celebrate the vital work that a small business in my home State of Maine is doing to provide extreme temperature textiles to dozens of industries worldwide. Auburn Manufacturing, Incorporated--or AMI--of Mechanic Falls is a veritable leader in its field, and has been designing and manufacturing advanced industrial textiles since its inception in 1979. Auburn Manufacturing's name is synonymous with quality and dependability because of its longstanding dedication to providing customers with products made using the most cutting-edge technologies. AMI develops and manufactures top-of-the-line products for welding protection, gasketing and sealing, and pipe and hose covering, as well as safety apparel like gloves and clothing. And the company's 48 employees make all of its products at the company's central Maine facility. One of AMI's major new products is the Ever Green Cut 'n Wrap insulated cover. Designed for companies seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and heat loss while saving on energy costs, the custom- fit insulation blankets fit flexibly over valves and piping and reduce room temperatures for workers in extreme conditions. In fact, the Ever Green Cut 'n Wrap kits can reduce heat loss by over 85 percent, and they have a payback of less than 1 year. Last month, AMI received a seed grant from the Maine Technology Institute to help the company commercialize this forward-thinking, environmentally friendly product. Additionally, earlier this year Auburn Manufacturing announced that it had received dual contracts to provide the U.S. Navy with the company's remarkable AMI-SIL fabrics that are used for hot work protection during the repair of naval ships. The Navy has certainly demonstrated its approval of this impressive product, having awarded AMI five contracts over the past 15 years to supply it with more than 1.25 million yards of fabric. Another quality that makes AMI special is its status as a Women's Business Enterprise, a certification made by the highly regarded Women's Business Enterprise National Council. Additionally, AMI owner Kathie Leonard was recently named one of Mainebiz's 2009 Women to Watch. In my estimation, Kathie Leonard has been a woman to watch throughout her entire career. She founded AMI in 1979--at the age of 27--when she realized the vast potential of new heat-resistant fabrics which were developed to replace asbestos. Over the company's 30-year history, Ms. Leonard has been a part of several major professional organizations both national and local, including the National Insulation Association and the Lewiston-Auburn Economic Growth Council, which she previously chaired. She readily admits that these connections have helped her company grow into the giant it is today. The quality of AMI's numerous products afford its clients a sense of confidence that has solidified the company's status as a premier developer and manufacturer of extreme textiles nationwide. I congratulate Kathie Leonard and everyone at Auburn Manufacturing for the incredible work they do, and I wish them much success in the future.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as our Nation increases its efforts to be more environmentally friendly, individuals, families, and businesses, both large and small, wisely continue to invest in green energy innovation. As we enter an exciting era of remarkable technological advances that will change the course of America forever, we are creating a more energy efficient and competitive Nation. I wish to recognize a small contracting firm from my home State of Maine that has become a leader in the promising field of wind power technology. Located in the small midcoast town of Woolwich, Reed & Reed, Inc., is a general contracting company that focuses on a wide array of projects ranging from bridge construction to wind power services. Founded in 1928, the company was a partnership of Captain Josiah W. Reed and his son, Carlton Day Reed, with a mere $2,000 capital investment. Presently run by two Colby College graduates, president and CEO Jackson A. Parker and treasurer Thomas C. Reed, Reed & Reed is well positioned to remain the premier wind power services contractor in New England for decades to come. Throughout its storied history, Reed & Reed has been at the center of numerous critical projects across the region. From its early focus on constructing bridges, to more recent ventures including commercial buildings, marine terminals, and industrial facilities, the company has built a strong reputation based on the expansive breadth of its work. Among other efforts, Reed & Reed has helped construct facilities at the Brunswick Naval Air Station and Portland's International Ferry Terminal and has been involved in several transportation construction projects, including repairs to bridges on Maine's interstate highways and the Maine Turnpike Widening Project earlier this decade. One of the more impressive projects Reed & Reed has been associated with is the historic Penobscot Narrows Bridge, only the second cable-stayed bridge in all of New England and a massive accomplishment in its own right. Additionally, the company earned numerous recognitions and awards for this monumental task, including an Outstanding Civil Engineering Achievement Award from the American Society of Civil Engineers. Reed & Reed has most recently taken the leading role in several wind power service projects in various spots across Maine. The firm is presently at work on the Kibby Mountain Wind Power Project, slated for completion 1 year from now. And Reed & Reed was at the heart of what is now Maine's largest wind power producer, the Stetson Mountain Project, which was completed last year in Danforth. Earlier this year, the Maine Development Foundation selected Reed & Reed as one of its Champions of Economic Development because of the company's broad commitment to economic growth in Maine, high professional standards, and innovativeness. Among countless other awards, Reed & Reed has also received seven Build Maine Awards from the Associated General Contractors of Maine, the most recent in recognition of the firm's extraordinary efforts on the Stetson wind project. Awarded based on a firm's innovation, environmental sensitivity, safety record, and general excellence, the Build Maine Award is a truly fitting tribute to Reed & Reed's superior quality of work. Of note, leaders from Reed & Reed recently visited Spain and Germany with Maine Governor John Baldacci and other wind industry representatives as part of a weeklong trade mission. The trip provided a prime opportunity to showcase Maine's emergence as a leader in wind power, and it was a tremendous honor for such a deserving company to be invited to participate. A name synonymous with ingenuity, Reed & Reed is leading Maine and New England into a new frontier of innovation and environmental responsibility. I commend Messrs. Parker and Reed, and everyone at Reed & Reed, for eight decades of unparalleled work in a variety of fields and wish them continued success in their multiple endeavors.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, on Thursday, October 8, citizens of the city of Portland will gather at the steps of City Hall to witness the proclamation of John Calvin Stevens Day on the 154th anniversary of his birth. The most renowned architect in Maine's history, Mr. Stevens' distinctive style is recognizable in numerous structures throughout the region. Today, I rise to acknowledge the company he founded, now known as SMRT, as we celebrate the 125th anniversary of its founding. SMRT's founder, John Calvin Stevens, was born in Boston in 1855, and moved with his family to Portland 2 years later. On July 4, 1866, Mr. Stevens witnessed the devastating Great Fire of Portland, which was responsible for 1,800 buildings burning to the ground, as well as the subsequent reconstruction of the city. After completing high school, he joined Francis H. Fassett's architectural firm, which did much of the work to rebuild the city in the fire's aftermath. Following a decade at the Fassett firm, Mr. Stevens founded his own one-man architectural firm, John Calvin Stevens Architects, in 1884 in Portland. Mr. Stevens ran this business until his death in 1940, during which time he received over 300 commissions to design or update a variety of structures on the Portland peninsula alone, from government buildings to churches to residential houses. The Stevens family remains involved in the company's day-to-day operations, as Mr. Stevens' great- grandson, Paul Stratton Stevens, is one of the company's principals. Above all other techniques, John Calvin Stevens is known as a pioneer and promoter of the quintessentially New England ``shingle'' style. Most often associated with the Maine coast and the Boston area, the practice is essentially an adaptation of the Victorian-era Queen Anne architectural style with the additional of shingles. The cottage-like houses built in the style frequently feature wide porches, broad gables, graceful and distinct profiles, and, of course, wooden shingles lining the roofs and sides. Because of Mr. Stevens' diligent efforts, this style became a mainstay of seaside and residential homes across the region. As the continuation of Mr. Stevens' multidisciplinary brainchild, SMRT--previously known as Stevens Morton Rose & Thompson to represent the last names of the company's partners--is a widely recognized expert in the areas of architecture, engineering, planning, and interior design. SMRT designs and constructs functional spaces and aesthetically pleasing edifices for its plentiful clientele. The company now has additional offices in Manchester, NH; North Andover, MA; and Albany, NY. Throughout its lengthy history, SMRT has been responsible for designing, building, altering, or restoring countless landmark buildings across the State of Maine. SMRT lent its architectural talents to the new Dorothy Walker Bush Pavilion at Southern Maine Medical Center in Biddeford, as well as the Eastern Maine Medical Center pediatrics wing in Bangor. The company has also had a hand in a diverse range of interior design projects at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Fairchild Semiconductor in Portland, and the Burton M. Cross State Office Building in the State capital of Augusta. Additionally, the firm has completed projects for other companies in a variety of industries, including: bioscience and healthcare, food and beverage, as well as clean manufacturing and electronics. One area where SMRT has distinguished itself is in green design, particularly as a member of the U.S. Green Building Council, which oversees the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, LEED, accreditation process. The LEED, green building certification system aims to provide energy savings through building design that reduces carbon dioxide emissions and improves overall indoor environmental quality. SMRT offers its clients the opportunity to engage in the LEED certification process, and consistently keeps energy concerns at the forefront when planning new buildings by utilizing natural daylight and employing cutting-edge technologies. In fact, the Maine General Medical Center's Harold Alfond Center for Cancer Care in Augusta, which was designed by SMRT, recently received a LEED silver certification, and is the first health care facility in Maine to achieve the status. In short, John Calvin Stevens is responsible for much of the way Portland looks today--from the Old Port to the houses of the Western Promenade--and his legacy is carried on today in the company he founded, SMRT, and the intricate and stunning work they do. I am proud that John Calvin Stevens saw it fitting to choose Portland for his company's home 125 years ago, and I am delighted that it has remained a bedrock of our State's architectural heritage through all of these years. Congratulations to everyone at SMRT on this monumental anniversary, and best wishes for continued success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I commemorate the Capitol Hill screening of ``The Way We Get By'', a deeply moving and powerful documentary film about the iconic Troop Greeters of Bangor in my home State of Maine. On this wonderful occasion, I join with my colleagues in the Maine Delegation--Senator Collins, and Representatives Michaud and Pingree--in expressing my tremendous gratitude not only to the USO--the indispensable ``home-away-from-home'' for our more than 2.5 million men and women exceptional enough to wear our Nation's uniform, so admirably led by USO president and CEO Sloan Gibson--but also to Operation Homefront as well as HandsOn Network--cofounded by Michelle Nunn--who is forging her own path within the longstanding, Nunn family history of commitment to service as CEO of Points of Light Institute. A part of President Obama's United We Serve initiative, all three of these stellar organizations are presenting this magnificent film in the U.S. Capitol at the wonderful Capitol Visitor Center, and we couldn't be more grateful to them--as well as to the Professional Services Council and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting--and others too numerous to mention for helping bring this documentary to fruition. And I would like to especially thank Simon Kilmurry, executive director of American Documentary, and Aron Gaudet, the film's director, for their stalwart leadership and dedication on this exemplary project. And it couldn't be more fitting to have Dr. Jill Biden, the wife of Vice President Biden, introduce this well-deserved tribute to the Bangor Troop Greeters at today's screening--especially as Beau, the Vice President's son and Delaware's attorney general, has just returned from his deployment in Iraq as a member of the Delaware Army National Guard's 261st Signal Brigade. We commend Beau and all of those returning in his brigade, and we cannot thank them enough for their courageous service and heroic sacrifice to our Nation. And of course, expressing our admiration and thankfulness to those who have placed themselves in harm's way on our behalf is the driving impetus behind this superb endeavor to capture on film the incredible generosity of spirit and good will unflaggingly exemplified by the Bangor Troop Greeters. For these extraordinary individuals, three of whom are showcased in the movie and attended today's screening, meeting our service men and women at the Bangor International Airport is an undeniable labor of love and a heartfelt expression of their devotion to our country and all who defend her. In chronicling the selfless, patriotic and frankly larger-than-life actions of three amazing Mainers--Bill Knight, Joan Gaudet, and Jerry Mundy, director and Old Town native, Aron Gaudet--in tandem with Gita Pullapilly, the film's producer and interviewer, deftly brings to this undertaking the venerable tradition of extending handshakes and hugs to our brave soldiers, dating back to the first gulf war and Operation Desert Storm. And to document the humanity underpinning this monumental outpouring of support for our troops--which occurs 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, rain or shine--is a marvelous achievement and one which instills enormous pride in us all. On a personal note, I can't tell you how many of our soldiers I have encountered who have expressed their immense appreciation to the world- renowned Bangor Troop Greeters. In fact, I well recall one soldier coming up to me specifically to convey just how remarkable the troop greeters were and that fellow soldiers shared the same sentiment. We echo that very sensibility today. Congratulations to all who have been involved in the continuing success of this highly-acclaimed film documenting a phenomenal story of giving back to those who have given us all so much--our service men and women!

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as we emerge from this lengthy recession, companies small and large are seeking to grow their businesses and become increasingly more innovative. Many are seeking to be leaders in some of the world's foremost emerging technologies. I wish to recognize a small firm in my home State of Maine that has been at the cutting edge of the composites industry since its founding 6 years ago, positioning itself well for continued future success. Harbor Technologies, located in Brunswick, was founded during the summer of 2003 to fill the demand for environmentally friendly composite building products used for marine infrastructure. In particular, Harbor Technologies' composites are utilized in the manufacturing of docks, piers, marinas, sea walls, pilings, and other similar structures. Additionally, Harbor Technologies is using its composites to build bridge beams as an alternative to heavy steel. As we seek to improve and upgrade our Nation's roads and bridges, Harbor Technologies' distinctive fiberglass bridge beams should be at the forefront. What makes composites so unique is its durability. While steel rusts and wood is subject to rotting, composites last longer and are easily maintained, leading to huge cost savings for both the supplier and the purchaser. Composites are also lightweight and compact; a large composite beam weighs 4,000 pounds, while similar concrete beams weigh 63,000 pounds. This allows Harbor Technologies to save on shipping costs, and reduce its carbon footprint in the process. Just last year, Harbor Technologies tripled the size of its manufacturing space to 30,000 square feet, and added state-of-the-art pultrusion machinery to produce pilings of any length. This has allowed the company to take on considerable new work and hire additional employees, even during these difficult economic times. Significantly, Harbor Technologies has played a critical role in developing an advanced composites cluster in the Maine midcoast region. Additionally, Harbor Technologies' president Martin Grimnes, is the founder of the Maine Composites Alliance, an organization that seeks to promote the State's leadership in several composites industries, including marine, aerospace, and automotive. Clusters, which are geographic concentrations of companies and organizations that collaborate to create specific products, represent proven tools in our Nation's innovation agenda, and Mr. Grimnes is to be commended for his steadfast determination to advance their effectiveness and utilization throughout Maine. As a national leader in the composites industry, Harbor Technologies has made a name for itself as a reliable and trustworthy company that produces innovative, cost-effective, and environmentally sound products. And it is small businesses like Harbor Technologies that represent the brightest lights for our economy's future. I congratulate president Martin Grimnes and everyone at Harbor Technologies on their outstanding work and wish them continued success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, Midcoast Maine is a special place for Mainers and tourists alike. With its beautiful harbors and quintessential Maine villages, the region is a remarkable cross-section of our State. Nestled on route 27 in the heart of this striking area is Edgecomb Potters, a veritable gem in Maine's art world. I rise today to recognize this superb Maine company and the innovative spirit of its founders. Located in the town of Edgecomb, Edgecomb Potters was started in a small one-room schoolhouse by owners Richard and Chris Hilton in 1976. Before starting the business, Richard had been planning on entering the broadcasting industry, while Chris was an art teacher. Since that time, Edgecomb Potters has crafted over 1.3 million unique pieces of gorgeous pottery, and it averages 200,000 pieces each year. Additionally, the company has expanded to its present day 28-acre complex, where it has eight kilns, and added satellite retail locations in Freeport and Portland. Edgecomb Potters has also grown to a team of more than 30 employees in that time, and over 150,000 people visit the company's three locations each season. Beyond its own pottery, Edgecomb's stores showcase the work of over 400 different artisans, many of them Mainers, specializing in jewelry, sculpture, and glass. The Hiltons work together on each design. Richard Hilton serves as Edgecomb's master potter, studying the organic composition and history of ceramic glazes from all over the world, and Chris lends her extensive art background to the output of beautiful pieces of pottery. They are consistently producing new and creative glazes and patterns which lend a unique rarity to the company's many pieces. All glazes and porcelains are made on site with glazes named by the colors they evoke, such as Lady Slipper Pink, Apple Green, and Honey Green. In addition to these inventive colors, the potters frequently add golden flecks, shimmering crystals, and flowing artistic tones to give a distinctive finish to each piece. During the company's 33-year history, Edgecomb Potters has rightfully gained significant national recognition. The Hiltons' passion for glaze development has led them to be considered national leaders in this field, and has propelled their company to be recognized by the Boston Globe, Ceramics Monthly, American Style and numerous other publications. Edgecomb Potters also garnered international attention when trade representatives from Taiwan purchased one of their large vases for that country's president in 2001. The vase was made using Kyoto Forest, a unique glaze Mr. Hilton concocted based on a 17th century Chinese glaze. The company has also been named one of America's ``Best of the Road'' companies by Rand McNally. The global atlas producer lists Edgecomb Potters as ``one of the most highly acclaimed art potteries in America,'' and cites the ``one-of-a-kind'' pottery as an incentive for people to visit this extraordinary facility. Edgecomb Potters continues to expand because of the Hiltons' constant and abiding passion for art and pottery, and the number of new customers they continuously attract worldwide is impressive. Indeed, Edgecomb's presence in Maine's art scene has placed our State on the national map as a destination for lovers of stunning and matchless pottery. I congratulate Richard and Chris Hilton, and everyone at Edgecomb Potters, for their pioneering spirit, and offer my best wishes for their continued success.