Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues today to express my profound and heartfelt sadness on the passing of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a universally acknowledged ``lion of this institution''--an unsurpassed colleague, a legislator's legislator, and political icon of incalculable, landmark significance to the U.S. Senate and the Nation and a good friend to me and to so many others in this body through the years. Like all of my colleagues here today, I want to first and foremost offer my most sincere condolences to Ted's extraordinary wife Vicki, who has been such a tower of strength, courage, and faith; as well as to Ted's three children Kara, Ted, Jr., and Patrick Kennedy and two stepchildren Curran and Caroline Raclin; Ted's sister, Jean Kennedy Smith, and to his entire family who have done so much to shape the course of our Nation. My heart goes out to Senator Kennedy's numerous grandchildren, nieces, and nephews whose participation in his funeral mass could not have been more moving. I also extend my deepest sympathies to the people of Massachusetts, who have lost a legendary champion and fierce advocate for nearly half a century. And how powerful and poignant was the remarkable outpouring of respect and affection for Senator Kennedy by the American people--from the streets of Boston, outside the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, and near the Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help, to congressional staff assembled on the Senate steps and mourners and well-wishers on the Capitol grounds or along the route to his final resting place at Arlington National Cemetery. On an occasion of such a large and historic loss, summoning the appropriate words to capture the immense depth and breadth of this moment as well as the magnitude of its meaning represents the most daunting of challenges. Like every Senator fortunate enough to serve in this esteemed chamber during the span of the last 46 years, I have never known a Senate without Ted Kennedy, and it is difficult to comprehend that this hallowed Chamber will never again resound with Senator Kennedy's booming voice that would literally shake these walls. As I look around this Chamber, I know I am far from alone in saying I will miss Ted's oratorical command of rhetoric and argumentation as well as his passion-filled gestures that punctuated his statements, and of course I will never forget those occasions when Ted would really get wound up as only Ted could, and his glasses would come off, and he would swing them around and around, faster and faster as his polemic reached a crescendo. And so, there is a highly personal and inescapable void among all of us that is at once acutely palpable, indescribable, and unforgettable. I can still remember entering the Senate in 1995 having served in the U.S. House of Representatives and looking to my fellow New Englander, Senator Kennedy, as a model legislator, the best of his generation even then, for what can be achieved in the Senate with passion and devotion and an almost peerless ability to simply ``get things done.'' I always profoundly admired Ted for his commitment to this country and the steadfast, immutable determination he exhibited each and every day as he sought to better our Nation to the benefit not just of his constituents in Massachusetts but to all Americans. And he did so with uncommon civility and candor, facility and efficacy, partisanship and bipartisanship, as well as the most seriousness of purpose and irrepressible good humor. In short, Ted Kennedy combined legislative craftsmanship and legendary statesmanship that were the marvel of his time and that represented a pinnacle of leadership. And part and parcel of his historic and overarching legacy is not just the results produced by his hard-fought labors, which have reached every corner of our country, but how he legislated and conducted the demanding task of advancing the public policy process. Where there was a divide, he saw an opportunity to repair the breach. Where there were opposing forces, he resolved to find a point of alliance. As my colleagues here can attest, Senator Kennedy was ever-cognizant that your adversary today could, and frankly often would be, your ally tomorrow--the staunch opponent you encounter on one occasion may well support you on another down the road. Because for Ted, common ground was not simply a plot of earth he tilled, cultivated, or nourished, it was soil he intuitively knew was meant to be shared and that would be improved through collaboration. And he understood keenly that the most powerful light was not the spotlight, but reflected light that shone first on someone else. And if Ted Kennedy put into practice the idea that politics in the often-cited words of German Chancellor Bismarck was indeed ``the art of the possible,'' he was also equally adept at implementing the notion that leadership was the catalyst for accomplishing the impossible. Not, however, by going it alone but rather by enlisting the active support of others. The fact is, like so many of my colleagues in this Chamber, I was privileged to work with Senator Kennedy on several memorable measures, and one recent endeavor in particular exemplifies his collaborative spirit--the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. That experience for me represented a microcosm of Ted's unrivaled political and public policy acumen. To begin with, Senator Kennedy, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions or HELP, ordinarily would have been the lead sponsor on legislation being reported out of his committee. But, as all of us in this Chamber know, there was nothing ``ordinary'' about Ted Kennedy, and he graciously deferred the lead sponsorship to me and instead joined as lead Democratic sponsor of our measure, a gesture of incredible generosity and good will that I will never forget. And so, after already twice garnering Senate passage, we began a third attempt to achieve Senate enactment of vital reforms to protect Americans from both health insurance and workplace discrimination based on their genetic makeup. Beginning in November of 2006, we embarked on what was to be a second 18-month-long effort to systematically address every issue which opponents raised. Senator Kennedy's remarkable capacity to build consensus with both his colleagues and stakeholders, spoke to his consummate skills as a legislator and negotiator. And Ted never tired in this undertaking, and his knowledge and skills and those of his superb and dedicated staff helped ensure our success when, on May 21 of last year, we at last witnessed the enactment into law of this landmark civil rights protection. Our victory was tempered, however, by the fact that due to his illness, even then, Ted could not join us at the White House that day for the signing. And yet it speaks enormous volumes that Senator Kennedy chose to devote his remaining energies in the past 15 months prior to his passing to ensuring that health reform advance ever forward. As anyone who has come into contact with Ted Kennedy can tell you, he possessed and exuded a contagious joy and exuberance that permeated all he did. I well recall a few years ago being in Boston for a Base Closure and Realignment--BRAC--Commission hearing, and we were waiting for an elevator. As many in this Chamber will recall, this was a very anxious and uncertain period for a number of us. But I will always remember seeing the elevator doors open and who should appear but Ted Kennedy, alongside a large group of his constituents, fighting the closure of a facility in Massachusetts. And without missing a beat, he roared with his sonorous voice: ``You go fight them Olympia with everything you've got!'' The whole crowd with him cheered. That moment reflected so much of what Ted exemplified, encompassed, and meant to so many, and he approached his causes with a ferocity of spirit and feeling that was unmatched. It is true, as all of us in this institution know all too well, if Ted Kennedy were opposite you in a debate, and sometimes I was, it could be rough going and you had better be prepared! But if he were with you, let's just say your chances for victory increased exponentially! And Ted never lost that gusto--not in legislating and not in life. Who could forget witnessing Ted throwing out the first pitch for New England's beloved Boston Red Sox at this year's home opener at Fenway Park? Or his zeal for his beloved Massachusetts or, for that matter, the Maine coast which he loved so much where he sailed every summer. Indeed, one year he and Vicki visited an inn near our family place at Hancock Point. And I will always remember the excitement and anticipation he exhibited as he showed me his map of the journey he and Vicki were preparing to undertake, sailing along the beautiful Maine coastline. As my colleagues know above all, this greatest of deliberative bodies has lost a giant and a legislative standard-bearer who was tirelessly devoted to its history, its stewardship, and its purpose, and his ardor and love for this most august institution and the Nation it serves will never be extinguished. Senator Kennedy now ranks among a rarefied, pantheon of legendary Senators such as Daniel Webster and Henry Clay. He was, to evoke the title of the Pulitzer-Prize winning book by his brother, John, truly a ``profile in courage.'' The great American poet, Carl Sandburg, once wrote: ``I see America not in the setting sun of night . . . I see America in the crimson light of a rising sun. I see great days ahead, great days possible to men and women of will and vision.'' Those days are indeed possible for this Senate, this Congress, and our country precisely because of the indefatigable will and limitless vision of public servants such as Senator Ted Kennedy. We honor his memory and his legacy best by striving every day to make this process work for the U.S. Senate and for the American people. And what Maine's own Henry Wadsworth Longfellow penned about another Senator from Massachusetts, Charles Sumner, we say today about Senator Kennedy: So when a great man dies, For years beyond our ken, The light he leaves behind him lies Upon the paths of men. So it will forever be with Senator Edward M. Kennedy. We will not see his like again. He will be sorely missed.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise on this most solemn of occasions as our Nation pauses to commemorate the horrific September 11 terrorist attacks that were perpetrated against our country 8 years ago. With utmost reverence for the unimaginable loss experienced on that fateful morning at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in a field near Shanksville, PA, we remember with the heaviest of hearts all of those tragically taken too soon. And in my home State of Maine, we join families who pay tribute to victims they knew and loved--Anna Allison, Carol Flyzik, Robert Jalbert, Jacqueline Norton, Robert Norton, James Roux, Robert Schlegel, and Stephen Ward. Their lives were deplorably cut short, but they will be eternally etched in our memory. Indeed, this is a heartbreaking anniversary--one of inconsolable sorrow and anguish that recalls vicious and inhuman attacks against our fellow citizens and our nation. But this is also a time when all that may divide us is set aside to focus on everything that unites us as we coalesce together as a single and unconquerable voice against the forces of treachery and terror that sought to destroy us and break our spirit. We share in the grief borne by those with family and friends who perished in these heinous acts of cowardice, and we join with them in paying homage to their memories and the legacies they leave behind. And we recognize that even the march of time can never fully diminish the litany of emotions we experience as we strive to comprehend how such malice could exist in the world and could be committed so ruthlessly against innocent people. Yet amid the trials and tribulations that this date in our history evokes, we take solace in the sacred truth that none of us grieves alone, that there are no strangers among us--only Americans. We recall that, during one of the darkest days in our Nation's extraordinary and storied history, we also witnessed our Nation's mettle and solidarity, the inexhaustible courage and undaunted bravery that provided us with boundless inspiration and hope that sustained us then and inspires us today. And nowhere was that more evident than with the first responders who, in the face of unspeakable adversity and peril, heroically ran toward the very dangers others were desperately trying to escape, placing their lives in harm's way in the most courageous and valiant of endeavors to save others without regard for their own safety. The noble devotion of the firefighters, police officers, and rescue workers has forever established a selfless example of seemingly ordinary Americans performing extraordinary deeds in the service of others. Those men and women of valor illustrated the lasting and powerful truism that the benevolent forces that seek to uplift humankind will ultimately prevail over those base elements that would conspire to bring it down. We also honor all who, in the days following September 11, searched for survivors and worked in the devastation at Ground Zero, the Pentagon, and in the wreckage of United flight 93. Many--indeed, far too many--of these fearless responders paid with their own lives or now live with the indelible effects of having worked so closely to the rubble and ruin. They gave their all so that we could heal as a Nation and we will never forget their exceptional contributions. Their service and sacrifice are also a vivid reminder of the exceptional men and women who have donned our country's uniform to safeguard and defend our Nation. Whether on our shores or soil here at home or around the globe, their steadfast sense of duty and love of country are an inspiration to us all, their commitment fortifies our determination, and their professionalism steadies our hands in an uncertain world. Like every American, the details of the morning of September 11, 2001, are powerfully seared in my mind from how it originated with beautiful and clear blue skies to its conclusion with a grief-stricken Nation in mourning and stunned disbelief. I watched the images on the television along with the rest of the world, and later that day as the Sun set over the National Mall--still capped by the billowing smoke from the wound in the side of the Pentagon--I joined my colleagues in the House and Senate on the U.S. Capitol steps in singing, ``God Bless America.'' It was an unmistakable message of unity and one that demonstrated to the country and to the world that we would never be deterred--that our freedoms could never be crushed by the blunt and tortuous instruments of terror that are no match against a resilient people certain in the knowledge that good ultimately triumphs over evil. The unending pain of loved ones lost does not ease with the passing of years, and yet out of the horrors of these atrocities emerged heroes who were then and will forever be shining testaments to the very best of who we are as a nation. And so, today, we memorialize those whose lives were stilled on September 11, and at the same time, we cannot help but extol the unbounded courage and indomitable spirit exhibited on that day and during the aftermath that continues to be the hallmark of this great land. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, 8 years ago today, we witnessed the horrendous attacks of September 11, 2001. Since that time, we have been engaged in a global fight against terrorism, and our Nation's military men and women have defended our country admirably and bravely. As we rely on them for our Nation's protection, they, in turn, rely on hundreds of businesses nationwide to provide them with state-of-the-art safety products. Today, as we mark this painful anniversary, I rise to recognize a small Maine company that is working every day to keep our military personnel safe by producing intricate textiles used to make body armor. Tex Tech Industries, headquartered in Portland with an additional facility in the town of Monmouth, has been manufacturing textiles since 1902. Several years ago, Tex Tech began transitioning itself from a traditional textile mill into a dynamic, cutting edge leader in its field, and the company presently makes over 7,000 different unique products involving textiles, in part due to its remarkable research and development capabilities. Of note, Tex Tech is the world's largest producer of tennis felt, the green material used to cover tennis balls. It is Tex Tech's work with high-tech fabrics, however, that has been most impressive. From durable and well-engineered fireblocking protection for mattresses, aircraft hulls, and school bus seats, to small and precise components found in specialized machine parts like rollers for X-ray processing, Tex Tech's products have a functional, everyday use to them. I am most grateful to Tex Tech for its stellar and critical work developing specialized body armor used to protect our Nation's servicemembers. Tex Tech's ground-breaking Core Matrix Technology is used to produce hard and soft armor, safety products, and hard composites for ballistic structural reinforcement. This distinctive invention effectively protects our Nation's law enforcement officers and military personnel facing danger. In particular, it is employed to create the body armor that is used on outer tactical vests worn by our country's soldiers in Iraq. For its outstanding work and dedicated service, Tex Tech Industries has received prestigious national recognition. In particular, the Small Business Technology Council honored Tex Tech with its 2006 Tibbetts Award as a result of the company's work with the Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR, and Small Business Technology Transfer, STTR, programs, which provide critical seed funding for small businesses developing our Nation's next generation of innovations. The award specifically highlighted the company's contributions to the Maine economy and research and development field in the State. The SBIR-STTR programs are critical to the growth of thousands of companies nationwide, and I am proud of Tex Tech's success story. Tex Tech has left an indelible mark on dozens of products we use every day; but on a larger scale, it has also contributed to improving safety for millions of Americans facing danger day in and day out. As our service men and women fight tirelessly to keep our country safe-- and prevent another 9/11--I thank Tex Tech Industries for doing its part to keep them safe. Their commitment to our State and Nation are extremely laudable, and I wish them continued success in their multiple endeavors.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to support this legislation I introduced with Senator Lincoln, Senator Collins, and Senator Chambliss, which would officially recognize this Nation's largest veterans' service organization, The American Legion, and its vital role in communities across the Nation, by designating September 16, 2009, as ``The American Legion Day.'' Nothing describes the role of The American Legion more beautifully than its preamble to its constitution which is recited by its members at the beginning of every official meeting. For God and Country, we associated ourselves together for the following purposes: To uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America; to maintain law and order; to foster and perpetuate a one hundred percent Americanism; to preserve the memories and incidents of our associations in the Great Wars; to inculcate a sense of individual obligation to the community, state and nation; to combat the autocracy of both the classes and the masses; to make right the Master of Might; to promote peace and good will on earth; to safeguard and transmit to Posterity the principles of justice, freedom and democracy; to consecrate and sanctify our comradeship by our devotion to mutual helpfulness. I think we all would agree that these are extremely lofty goals for any organization, but amazingly The American Legion continues to work towards these objectives--not for themselves, but for America. Most people are surprised to learn that The American Legion was actually founded in Paris, France. You see World War I veterans remembered the challenges facing other wartime veterans from previous generations and vowed not to let their fellow comrades face the same hardships, especially those with service-connected disabilities. They were concerned with employment opportunities for returning combat veterans. They were concerned about the survivors of combat veterans who had paid the ultimate sacrifice in service to their country. They were concerned about medical care for the wounded and ill returning service members. Now, as at its founding, The American Legion remains focused on supporting military service members and their families. Since December, The American Legion's Operation Comfort Warrior raised over $170,000 to buy merchandise for Wounded Warriors in military treatment centers around the country. The American Legion also established the ``Heroes to Hometowns'' program which helps local communities prepare ``welcome home'' events when wounded warriors are finally released from military or veterans' affairs medical centers. Since the first Gulf War, The American Legion has maintained its Family Support Network which assists deployed service members and their families, especially members of the National Guard and Reserves. Some requests are for financial assistance, but other requests are simply for household chores, such as lawn work or car maintenance, that would normally be done by the soldier, sailor, airmen, Marine, were they not deployed. No request is too large or too small. Many Legionnaires can be found in public schools on Veterans' Day or Memorial Day talking about their military service in periods of armed conflict to make sure the next generation of Americans understands the sacrifices and hardships of previous generations of wartime veterans. Legionnaires also teach students about the proper display and care of the Flag of the United States. The American Legion works closely with the American Red Cross--the largest organization of blood donors and a working partner in disaster assistance. Many American Legion Posts serve as Red Cross and FEMA work centers in areas hit by natural disasters. The American Legion is also proud of its membership's spirit of volunteerism. Each year, Legionnaires volunteer over a million hours of services in VA and military medical facilities, State veterans' homes, and other such community volunteer opportunities. And one of the most solemn of functions is providing burial details for fallen comrades of every generation. The American Legion Color Guards, Buglers and Rifle Squads perform thousands of burials in veterans' and private cemeteries around the Nation. As all of us in this chamber know, The American Legion remains today an active and vigorous advocate for service members, veterans and their families here on Capitol Hill. Among its greatest legislative achievements was the enactment of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, the GI Bill of Rights. The initial draft of the GI Bill was written by Legionnaires at the Mayflower Hotel here in Washington, DC. Many consider the GI Bill as one of the greatest pieces of legislation ever enacted. Congress presented The American Legion its Federal charter on September 16, 1919; therefore, I think it only fitting that we proclaim September 16, 2009, ``The American Legion Day.'' I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this well-earned measure, demonstrating our mutual esteem and reverence for this outstanding organization.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation that I introduced, the Expanding Building Efficiency Incentives Act of 2009, which would expand the tax incentives for building and put our country on course to reduce energy consumption in a sector that currently consumes 40 percent of our total energy. I am pleased to have worked with Senator Feinstein and Bingaman, two longtime leaders on energy efficiency, on this proposal and look forward to discussing this bill with my Finance Committee colleagues. One inexcusable legacy of this housing crisis is that the vast majority of homes constructed over the last 10 years during the housing boon have been inefficient. While an inefficient vehicle purchased today may guzzle gasoline for an average of 10 years, an inefficient building will require elevated levels of energy for as long as 50 years. Therefore, whenever we create inefficient buildings, generations to come will be saddled with our wasteful energy decisions. Last week McKinsey and Company in a report, ``Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the US Economy,'' concluded that a major investment in energy efficiency could save $1.2 trillion and cut consumption 23 percent by 2020. This legislation serves as a cornerstone to realizing these opportunities. The Expanding Building Efficiency Incentives Act builds on current tax incentives that have worked to move the market toward energy efficiency. While the marginal costs of constructing an energy- efficient building may be higher than an inefficient building, the long-term energy savings have environmental and energy dividends, as well as ultimate cost savings. These tax incentives provide an incentive to correct this market failure and obtain these long-term benefits. Specifically, the bill includes an extension of the current energy- efficient new homes tax credit for 3 years, which requires new homes to be 50 percent better than current code with respect to heating and cooling. In addition, this bill will create a new tier for a $5,000 tax credit if a building consumes 50 percent less total energy than a comparable building. The current tax credit system for new homes has been very successful. According to the Residential Energy Services Network, 4.6 percent of all new homes met these rigorous standards in 2008, which adds up to nearly 22,000 homes being at the cutting edge of energy efficiency. This tax credit is working and not only should we extend this tax credit, but we must build on this to encompass additional energy consumption in a new home. In addition, the bill would provide a $500 tax credit for individuals to become professional energy auditors, experts that can reduce our country's demand for oil, reduce carbon emissions, and save our struggling families money on their energy bills. In addition, a $200 tax credit is established for homeowners to hire these professional energy auditors and analyze the deficiencies of an existing home and propose investments that will save the taxpayer money. As we move forward with dedicating significant resources to energy efficiency in this legislation it is critical that we ensure that this funding is utilized effectively by a professional energy efficiency industry and this amendment will accomplish this critical goal. Finally, the amendment increases the tax credit for energy-efficient commercial buildings by increasing the deduction from $1.80 cents per square foot to $3.00 per square foot. The original version of the commercial buildings tax deduction as passed by the Senate set the deduction to $2.25 per square foot, with the critical support of the current Finance chairman and ranking member. Adjusting for inflation, this corresponds to $3.00 per square foot today with partial compliance increased to $1.00 per square foot. These changes would return the deduction to viability as it was originally designed and ensure that commercial building developers are provided an adequate incentive to pursue energy efficiency. Earlier this year, a New York Times editorial pointed out that we are an extremely energy inefficient economy--the 76th best country in the world. This must change if we are to retain our leadership in this world, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve our ranking and increase our country's energy efficiency.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Cleaner, Secure, and Affordable Thermal Energy Act, which I introduced with Senator Bingaman. This bill will add diversity to the fuel usage of Americans who are forced to use home heating oil, a heating source that has gone through wild price swings and last year reached historic prices. While I strongly believe that we must invest in weatherization and energy efficiency, I also believe that we must create diversity for thermal energy. In my home State of Maine, roughly 80 percent of the population utilize heating oil to keep warm in the winter. In New England, 40 percent of homes use heating oil. As a result, on average nearly 4.7 billion gallons of heating oil are consumed by New England. This is not only an enormous cost to families across the region, but it creates massive greenhouse gas emissions and increases our country's demand of foreign oil. This is not merely a regional issue, this is a national issue and it should be a priority of Congress to reduce heating oil use in New England. This bill builds on the current credits for nonbusiness energy property to provide an additional credit for conversion of homes using home heating oil to natural gas or biomass. Specifically, the bill provides a tax credit of $3,500 for natural gas conversion and $4,000 for biomass conversion. While natural gas is not available throughout the United States and is not widely available in Maine, I am hopeful that these incentives will provide an additional incentive to expand usage in regions that have access to natural gas supplies. In regions that the rocky geology does not allow natural gas to be utilized, the bill includes a tax credit for biomass for thermal energy, such as wood pellets. Just this past July, International WoodFuels announced plans to construct a 100,000 ton per year pellet plant in Burnham, ME. This is from wood product that is harvested in Maine and can be used to replace home heating oil in the State. While I strongly believe that we must carefully develop policies to ensure that the expanded use of wood pellets will undermine existing forest industries, I strongly believe that we must encourage additional diversity of our home heating oil energy sources and wood pellets provide a viable pathway to energy diversity for the State of Maine. I strongly believe that reducing the current consumption of home heating oil in the State of Maine, New England, and the country should be a major priority as we move forward with overhauling our energy policy, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the Cleaner, Secure, and Affordable Thermal Energy Act into law.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to my good friend and colleague an extraordinary public servant and tireless advocate for the people of his cherished State of Minnesota, Senator Norm Coleman. I want to express my most sincere gratitude for his longtime friendship and my enormous admiration for him and his impressive litany of accomplishments. And although I am saddened by his departure from this esteemed Chamber, I know with utmost certainty that Senator Coleman's exceptional contributions to Minnesotans and the American people will continue well into the future. I am proud to say that Senator Coleman and I served together over his 6 remarkable years in the Senate, and I would like especially to express my immense gratitude for his pivotal role on the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship over that span of time, where I served first as chair and now as ranking member. Senator Coleman was always a reasoned and passionate voice on the committee, and his indelible impact is indisputable. Whether it was our work together on The Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2005, The Small Business Disaster Response and Loan Improvements Act of 2006, or a number of other measures and issues, Senator Coleman, true to the founding tradition of the U.S. Senate, continually addressed the concerns of his constituents, while at the same time making the best decisions for this Nation. And I especially well recall our joining forces over the winter of 2006 when natural gas and home heating oil prices had skyrocketed in Maine, Minnesota, and numerous other cold weather States, turning a crucial problem of years past into an urgent crisis that required immediate congressional attention. With the level of funding allocated in the budget, states could not maintain the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, an initiative I have long championed which provides vital funding to our country's low-income families and elderly. Recognizing both the plight of Minnesotans and all affected Americans from the beginning of this crisis, Senator Coleman and I, among others, battled to shed light on this emergency early by calling for the passage of a bill to provide additional LIHEAP funding to states. Senator Coleman was an instrumental catalyst in our successful effort to pass this bill to the benefit of countless Minnesotans, Mainers, and other untold Americans across this land. And for that, I will be forever grateful! With a career in public service of more than 30 years, begun in 1976 when he was chief prosecutor for the Minnesota Attorney General's office, Senator Coleman possessed an unfailing determination to advocate on behalf of the people of Minnesota that has never faltered or waned. Prosecuting cases around the State while further developing a growing concern for community issues, Senator Coleman was eventually named Minnesota State solicitor general. And his outstanding trajectory of leadership was just taking off, for it was then--in 1993--that Norm became mayor of St. Paul, during which time, with his hallmark optimism, he steered the course of the capital city through a transformational revitalization effort. And so, it came as no surprise that Norm Coleman, after he was sworn in as a U.S. Senator, hit the ground running. And let me say from the outset, Senator Coleman's was a welcomed voice in an era of increasing partisanship, especially at a time when ideology has been held in greater value by many of our Nation's elected officials than service to the American people, when too often the slogans and sound bytes of campaigning never stop, and the governing all too frequently never begins, and where public disenchantment with politics runs high. Senator Coleman's desire to look beyond this regrettable status quo, embracing instead the long-held tenets of collaboration and cooperation, could not have been more central as our chamber sought to enact laws to genuinely improve the lives of Americans. As I reflect on my friend's illustrious tenure in the Senate, I cannot help but recall in instance after instance on imperative matters of far-reaching consequence how Senator Coleman was able to transcend party politics and seek solutions and results for the betterment of his State and country. For example, Senator Coleman, along with Senators Durbin and Lincoln, was a leading proponent, supporting The Small Business Health Options Program Act or The SHOP Act which would once and for all finally level the playing field for American small businesses and the self-employed and allow them to pool together nationally to receive a host of new, affordable, and quality coverage options. Norm, like the rest of us, understood all too well that health insurance market reform and coverage policies in The SHOP Act must be included in broader health reform legislation. We will miss his voice as the health care debate moves forward and as we strive to build a consensus on landmark, health care legislation. But make no mistake, Senator Coleman was integral in helping lay the foundation for achieving meaningful and sustainable health care reform. Placing his country and constituents above political expediency, Senator Coleman and I joined together in support of passage and eventual enactment of The Fair Equity Act, bipartisan legislation aimed at increasing pay equity in America and protecting victims of wage discrimination into law. We have labored to extend key, renewable energy tax credits to expand the indispensable State Children's Health Insurance Program or S-CHIP. We stood side by side in the fight to allow Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices, and we joined together to help block proposed cuts in Medicaid. I want to thank Norm, who has truly been a stalwart soldier in arms, for his resolve and will on a cross-section of issues that have defined his term in the Senate as a model of governance that ought to be more prevalent. In that vein, I cannot convey enough what a privilege it was to serve in the Republican Main Street Partnership with Senator Coleman--an organization that my husband, Jock, formerly chaired. Founded in 1998 to promote thoughtful leadership in the Republican Party and to join with individuals, organizations, and institutions that share centrist values, the partnership has unfortunately witnessed a decline in our ranks in recent years. But the message and impact of the organization are intrinsically connected to our capacity to truly achieve bipartisanship and garner results on behalf of those who elected us, and Senator Coleman embodied that ethos with integrity and distinction. In fact, Senator Coleman characterized the Main Street's message well when he said, ``this isn't about marching to a single tune. This is about being able to listen and work with like-minded colleagues, bring those perspectives, and hopefully play a role in the resolution of things that bottom line are good for the people of Minnesota.'' Well, his actions not only aided Minnesotans, but also Mainers and Americans of every stripe and background across this great land. And yet, despite all of his exemplary achievements, his greatest accomplishment is undeniably his wonderful family and the love and devotion he has for his wife Laurie, and their two children, Jacob and Sarah. So, it is with a profound honor that I join with his family, and his many friends, in praising Norm for his tireless stewardship of the common good and phenomenal commitment to public service, and for a tenure that enfolds his legacy into the rich, longstanding Senate tradition of Minnesota. And so to my colleague and good friend, Norm, let me say, you have been a shining example of bipartisanship and comity that transcends politics, and you will be sorely missed. As you embark on this next chapter and as you consider your next endeavors be they public or private, I urge you, in the immortal words of the poet Alfred Lord Tennyson, ``to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.''

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation that will increase the trustworthiness of our Nation's mortgage security market by creating the Federal Board of Certification for mortgage securities. I would like to thank Senator Cardin for cosponsoring this vital measure. The necessity of enacting last fall's Troubled Asset Relief Program, along with the collapse of Lehman Brothers, and the bailouts of American International Group, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Bear Stearns, combined with the huge losses suffered throughout the financial industry, demonstrates a catastrophic failure to accurately assess the dangers of imprudently made subprime mortgages to the American public and our financial markets. In hindsight, it appears that it was the inability to gauge risk in mortgage-backed securities that caused much of this financial turmoil. For markets to operate properly, it is imperative that they have effective metrics for calculating the level of risk securities pose to investors. The secondary mortgage market has been a largely unregulated playground where poorly underwritten, low-quality loans were sold as high-quality investment products. Although mortgage-backed securities can be a positive market force, which increases the available pool of credit for borrowers, without an accurate picture of the risk involved in each mortgage security, buyers have no idea whether they are purchasing a high-risk investment or a safe, secure investment. The legislation that I am reintroducing today would work to curb the excesses of the secondary market, combat future attempts at deception, and protect investors by making scrutinized mortgage investments more reliable and trustworthy. The inability of major corporations to properly assess the risk of the mortgage securities they were trading is a problem whose effects have not been confined to Wall Street. To put it simply: when big banks sneeze, the rest of America gets a cold. This year, more than $1 trillion of the subprime mortgages originated during the housing boom will reset to higher interest rates. In my home State of Maine, we are struggling with falling home prices and a record number of foreclosures. During the first half of 2009 alone, there were 1,696 filings in Maine, a number putting the State on pace to surpass the 2,851 foreclosure filings registered in 2008. Moreover, some Maine borrowers, with rising monthly payments, are unable to refinance out of their predatory loans. Small business owners, many already hurt by the economic downturn, are also finding credit tight. Finally, despite gains in recent weeks, the poor economic climate caused by the subprime credit crunch has also roiled the stock market, causing Americans to lose billions in their IRAs and retirement funds. We must address crisis and make sure it never happens again. Turning to specifics, my bill creates the Federal Board of Certification, which would certify that the mortgages within a security instrument meet the underlying standards they claim in regards to documentation, loan to value ratios, debt service to income ratios, and borrowers' credit standards. The purpose of the certification process is to increase the transparency, predictability, and reliability of securitized mortgage products. Certification would aid in creating settled investor expectations and increase transparency by ensuring that the mortgages within a mortgage security conform to the claims made by the mortgage product's sellers. The proposed Federal Board of Certification would not override any current regulations and would not in any way stifle any attempts by private business to rate mortgage securities. This legislation would, however, create incentives for improving industry rating practices. Open publication of the Board's certification criteria would augment the efforts of private ratings agencies by providing incentives for increased transparency in the ratings process. The Board's certification would also serve as a check on the industry to ensure that ratings agencies carefully scrutinize the content of mortgage products before issuing evaluations of mortgage backed securities. Significantly, the Federal Board of Certification would also be voluntary and funded by an excise tax. Users could choose to pay the costs for the Board to rate their security, or they could elect not to submit their product to the Board. We must quickly restore confidence in mortgage securities if we are to stabilize our housing markets. To do so, we must certify the quality and content of our mortgage securities to enable housing markets to generate liquidity and spur lending. This is why it is urgent to create the Federal Board of Certification for mortgage securities. This legislation would create a ``good housekeeping seal of approval'' for the mortgage security industry and certify that the mortgage products are in fact what they claim to be. Accordingly, I call on Congress to take up and pass this commonsense legislation as expeditiously as possible, particularly as part of a comprehensive overhaul of our financial markets that Congress must consider in short order to ensure that the calamitous events of the past year are never again repeated. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the state of small business lending in the United States is still dire, as was shown during CIT's recent close brush with bankruptcy. One area of lending which has historically helped small firms has been Small Business Administration backed lending, but while the SBA traditionally guarantees $20 billion in loans annually, before the passage of the stimulus, new lending this year was on track to fall below $10 billion. In fact, in the first quarter of fiscal year 2009, the number of SBA 7(a) loans dropped by 57 percent when compared with the first quarter of fiscal year 2008. Last year, to help address the frozen credit market and the drop in SBA lending I introduced the 10 Steps for a Main Street Economic Recovery Act. Many of the provisions in 10 Steps were included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and several have already been credited with helping to increase SBA volume. These include fee reductions for 7(a) and 504 loans and allowing for the refinancing of 504 loans. To ensure that SBA lending remains a critical source of capital for small businesses, we must continue to bolster this program and help it to evolve and grow. In order to maintain this momentum we must take steps to further reform and improve SBA-backed lending. The legislation I am introducing, the Next Step, builds on the 10 Steps for a Main Street Economic Recovery Act and makes the SBA's lending programs more vital and responsive to the needs of today's small business borrower. The Next Step includes provisions that would allow borrowers to take out larger 7(a) and 504 loans up to $5 million. This bill would help satisfy the capital needs of small businesses, looking to start or expand their operations. The bill would also allow for the refinancing of 7(a) loans. Finally, SBA borrowers must have the ability to shop and compare SBA loan rates online. My legislation would establish an online platform through the SBA that would allow borrowers to compare SBA loan rates and make an informed choice, giving borrowers a chance to save time and money. These targeted reforms included in the Next Step for Main Street Credit Availability Act of 2009 will help bring SBA lending into the future, make the SBA's lending programs competitive with traditional small businesses' borrowing, and help to increase SBA lending volume. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation to help improve small business lending. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, with summer in full swing, I wish today to recognize a small family-run Maine business that has been outfitting customers with all of their outdoor needs for over 70 years. The Kittery Trading Post, located in Maine's southernmost town of Kittery, offers outdoor enthusiasts a shopping experience that is nearly as enjoyable as their outdoor activities. The Kittery Trading Post holds a special place in the hearts of Mainers and tourists alike as it is one of the first visible landmarks upon entrance into our State from New Hampshire. The Trading Post was established by Philip Adams in 1938 and began small as a one-room, 360 square-foot retail location cohabitating with a gas station. Mr. Adams initially started his business by swapping gas for pelts, supplies for cars, and beef for ammunition. While the Trading Post has grown and much has changed over the years, it remains a family-owned and operated business to this day. In 1961 Phillip Adams sold the trading post to his 21-year-old son, Kevin. Under Kevin's leadership, the Kittery Trading Post was voted Independent Specialty Retailer of the Year in 1979 by the United State Sporting Goods Industry. Kevin operated the company until his retirement in 1986, when the reins were passed on to Gary, Phillip, Kevin F., and Kim Adams. During this period, the Trading Post was presented with the Governor's Award for Business Excellence in 1995, a celebrated honor given to businesses that make generous contributions in the areas of community, employment, and service. Phillip and Gary retired in 1999 and 2001 respectively, leaving the family business under the able leadership of Kevin F. and Kim. In 2001, the Trading Post earned yet another prestigious and coveted award, when the Maine Merchants Association named the Kittery Trading Post the Retailer of the Year. Since its inception, the Kittery Trading Post has grown exponentially, resulting in its current size of 90,000 square feet of retail space. Spread out across three spacious levels, each area containing products appealing to a variety of customers, including quality and affordable provisions for hunting and archery, camping and travel, food and lodging, and fishing and marine activity, among others. The camping, rock climbing, water and winter sports divisions reside on the upper floor. Below that is the largest shooting sports department in New England, including over 3,000 used firearms in stock. And on the lower level is Kittery Trading Post's expansive fishing section. In addition to the retail space, the Trading Post has two off-site warehouses, providing the firm with an additional 94,000 square feet of space to help increase the distribution of its products and keep up with the demands of online customers via the company's user-friendly website. The Kittery Trading Post offers free shipping on orders over $50, and also assures each customer that if they are not completely satisfied with their purchase they may return it for a full refund or replacement. As a vibrant and active member of the local community, the Kittery Trading Post hosts a variety of seminars and events throughout the year. These events include weekly community bicycle rides, fly fishing lessons for children, and classes for gun owners on firearm reloading safety. Over the course of its lengthy history, the Kittery Trading Post has expanded into a singular name in Southern Maine's outdoor sports outfitting arena. A true Maine gem, the Trading Post is an impressive destination for the amateur and the experienced outdoorsman alike. I commend everyone at the Kittery Trading Post for their exceptional work in providing quality and friendly service to tens of thousands of visitors each year, and wish them continued success for future decades.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation that will increase the trustworthiness of our Nation's mortgage security market by creating the Federal Board of Certification for mortgage securities. I would like to thank Senator Cardin for cosponsoring this vital measure. The necessity of enacting last fall's Troubled Asset Relief Program, along with the collapse of Lehman Brothers, and the bailouts of American International Group, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Bear Stearns, combined with the huge losses suffered throughout the financial industry, demonstrates a catastrophic failure to accurately assess the dangers of imprudently made subprime mortgages to the American public and our financial markets. In hindsight, it appears that it was the inability to gauge risk in mortgage-backed securities that caused much of this financial turmoil. For markets to operate properly, it is imperative that they have effective metrics for calculating the level of risk securities pose to investors. The secondary mortgage market has been a largely unregulated playground where poorly underwritten, low-quality loans were sold as high-quality investment products. Although mortgage-backed securities can be a positive market force, which increases the available pool of credit for borrowers, without an accurate picture of the risk involved in each mortgage security, buyers have no idea whether they are purchasing a high-risk investment or a safe, secure investment. The legislation that I am reintroducing today would work to curb the excesses of the secondary market, combat future attempts at deception, and protect investors by making scrutinized mortgage investments more reliable and trustworthy. The inability of major corporations to properly assess the risk of the mortgage securities they were trading is a problem whose effects have not been confined to Wall Street. To put it simply: when big banks sneeze, the rest of America gets a cold. This year, more than $1 trillion of the subprime mortgages originated during the housing boom will reset to higher interest rates. In my home State of Maine, we are struggling with falling home prices and a record number of foreclosures. During the first half of 2009 alone, there were 1,696 filings in Maine, a number putting the State on pace to surpass the 2,851 foreclosure filings registered in 2008. Moreover, some Maine borrowers, with rising monthly payments, are unable to refinance out of their predatory loans. Small business owners, many already hurt by the economic downturn, are also finding credit tight. Finally, despite gains in recent weeks, the poor economic climate caused by the subprime credit crunch has also roiled the stock market, causing Americans to lose billions in their IRAs and retirement funds. We must address crisis and make sure it never happens again. Turning to specifics, my bill creates the Federal Board of Certification, which would certify that the mortgages within a security instrument meet the underlying standards they claim in regards to documentation, loan to value ratios, debt service to income ratios, and borrowers' credit standards. The purpose of the certification process is to increase the transparency, predictability, and reliability of securitized mortgage products. Certification would aid in creating settled investor expectations and increase transparency by ensuring that the mortgages within a mortgage security conform to the claims made by the mortgage product's sellers. The proposed Federal Board of Certification would not override any current regulations and would not in any way stifle any attempts by private business to rate mortgage securities. This legislation would, however, create incentives for improving industry rating practices. Open publication of the Board's certification criteria would augment the efforts of private ratings agencies by providing incentives for increased transparency in the ratings process. The Board's certification would also serve as a check on the industry to ensure that ratings agencies carefully scrutinize the content of mortgage products before issuing evaluations of mortgage backed securities. Significantly, the Federal Board of Certification would also be voluntary and funded by an excise tax. Users could choose to pay the costs for the Board to rate their security, or they could elect not to submit their product to the Board. We must quickly restore confidence in mortgage securities if we are to stabilize our housing markets. To do so, we must certify the quality and content of our mortgage securities to enable housing markets to generate liquidity and spur lending. This is why it is urgent to create the Federal Board of Certification for mortgage securities. This legislation would create a ``good housekeeping seal of approval'' for the mortgage security industry and certify that the mortgage products are in fact what they claim to be. Accordingly, I call on Congress to take up and pass this commonsense legislation as expeditiously as possible, particularly as part of a comprehensive overhaul of our financial markets that Congress must consider in short order to ensure that the calamitous events of the past year are never again repeated. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the state of small business lending in the United States is still dire, as was shown during CIT's recent close brush with bankruptcy. One area of lending which has historically helped small firms has been Small Business Administration backed lending, but while the SBA traditionally guarantees $20 billion in loans annually, before the passage of the stimulus, new lending this year was on track to fall below $10 billion. In fact, in the first quarter of fiscal year 2009, the number of SBA 7(a) loans dropped by 57 percent when compared with the first quarter of fiscal year 2008. Last year, to help address the frozen credit market and the drop in SBA lending I introduced the 10 Steps for a Main Street Economic Recovery Act. Many of the provisions in 10 Steps were included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and several have already been credited with helping to increase SBA volume. These include fee reductions for 7(a) and 504 loans and allowing for the refinancing of 504 loans. To ensure that SBA lending remains a critical source of capital for small businesses, we must continue to bolster this program and help it to evolve and grow. In order to maintain this momentum we must take steps to further reform and improve SBA-backed lending. The legislation I am introducing, the Next Step, builds on the 10 Steps for a Main Street Economic Recovery Act and makes the SBA's lending programs more vital and responsive to the needs of today's small business borrower. The Next Step includes provisions that would allow borrowers to take out larger 7(a) and 504 loans up to $5 million. This bill would help satisfy the capital needs of small businesses, looking to start or expand their operations. The bill would also allow for the refinancing of 7(a) loans. Finally, SBA borrowers must have the ability to shop and compare SBA loan rates online. My legislation would establish an online platform through the SBA that would allow borrowers to compare SBA loan rates and make an informed choice, giving borrowers a chance to save time and money. These targeted reforms included in the Next Step for Main Street Credit Availability Act of 2009 will help bring SBA lending into the future, make the SBA's lending programs competitive with traditional small businesses' borrowing, and help to increase SBA lending volume. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation to help improve small business lending. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a great fellow Mainer and a wonderful friend who passed away recently-- Rebecca Jane Dalton Weinberger. Today, I would like to take a few moments to offer a few reflections of my own on Jane's life, as well as include some of the thoughts that her exceptional son, Caspar Weinberger, Jr., has shared regarding his beloved mother--and I will ask that Mr. Weinberger's statements upon Jane's passing be printed in the Record in their entirety. Born in Milford, ME, Jane was a notable figure in our State. A writer and publisher of outstanding children's stories, a tireless community volunteer, a woman who in 1942 met--on a troop ship bound for Australia--a man then referred to as U.S. Army CAPT Caspar W. Weinberger, who would become her husband for 63 years not to mention Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan!--and above all, an extraordinary mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother Jane Weinberger was truly beloved by many and will be profoundly missed by all of us who were fortunate to know her. Inseparable throughout their 63 years of marriage, Jane and Caspar are indisputably now reunited--together once again--their rightful state of being given all that they meant to each other not only in love but in life, and all of its trials and triumphs. Jane and Cap were passionately devoted to one another--each drawing strength and inspiration from the other's indomitable spirit. In fact, her son tells of how, and I quote, ``it was my mother who . . . almost literally pushed him into his first political campaign as the Republican candidate for the State Assembly from San Francisco's 21st Assembly District . . . she did all the campaign things: running the campaign office, calling on potential voters, handing out bumper stickers and posters. Jane was a great organizer, and innovator.'' And, I would add that they both served as each other's closest confidante and friend--as well as being husband and wife. And it was Jane who did Caspar the tremendous favor of introducing him to the great State of Maine. Of course, since Jane was a native Mainer through-and-through, as I mentioned at the memorial service for Cap Weinberger in 2006, many back home still referred to him as ``Jane's husband!'' After all, as anyone familiar with Maine understands, you can never get ``top billing'' unless you were actually born there--even if you were pivotal in the downfall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War! And Jane was a force of nature in her own right. In the words of Caspar Weinberger, Jr., ``My mother . . . helped her family hold together and prosper often under the most trying conditions that can only be truly understood by those who achieve fame and the scrutiny which go with holding high office in America. She was down to earth and sensible, and she was also a woman of great dignity, beauty and courage . . . She was instrumental in helping her husband win elective office . . . and later (was) a well-known and admired Washington, DC hostess, while Cap was serving in cabinet positions to three different U.S. presidents throughout the 1970's and 80's.'' Jane was not only unfailingly dedicated to her family--raising her sons, Caspar and Arlin--but also to her community and the world around her. Again, to quote Mr. Weinberger, she was ``certainly civically minded--she was a volunteer in many an organization for the poor and needy.'' She ``volunteered for many civic duties and charities and writing children's stories,'' and was a former chairwoman of the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, DC; served on the board of Amherst College in Massachusetts; and for many years served on the Board at Jackson Laboratories in Bar Harbor. As Cap Weinberger, Jr. wrote, she believed ``that it was most important to contribute to their good efforts in attempting to defeat cancer in every form once and for all.'' Once the Weinbergers had arrived back in Maine after their years in Washington, Jane also started a publishing business she had long envisioned, which was chiefly focused on children's books and which she ran for more than 20 years with more then 120 titles. And her company came to be acknowledged, as her son put it, as ``not the biggest but among the very best.'' On a more personal note, certainly, my husband Jock McKernan--Maine's former Governor--and I have deeply treasured our friendship with Jane and Cap. Every time we drive by the home they cherished on Somes Sound, called ``Windswept House'' in Mount Desert, ME, I am reminded of the 80th birthday party that Jane threw for Cap. And what a wonderful night that was--under the stars of a spectacular Maine summer sky--with Secretary Colin Powell and so many others joining in the festivities and the laughter. In Caspar Weinberger, Jr.'s words. She arranged for a startling and magnificent round of fireworks in his honor. Strangely, twelve years later on the night before her passing, my wife and I witnessed another stunning display of fireworks put on just across the inlet to Somes Sound by a neighbor celebrating a wedding or other special event. While these lights were not really designed in her honor, to us it was highly symbolic, as if her time of respect had come and was recognized. In my view, as well it should have been, for she was most definitely the power that guided my father to the heights of American government. Mr. President, Jane Weinberger achieved her own formidable heights throughout her remarkable lifetime, and we have truly lost a leading light in Maine. My profound sympathies go out to Caspar and Arlin as well as Jane's sister, Virginia, and her three grandchildren and five great-grandchildren at this most difficult of times. Jane will always be in the hearts of those whose lives she touched so deeply. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record Mr. Weinberger's statements to which I referred. The information follows: Mrs. Caspar W. (Jane) Weinberger Dies Jane Dalton Weinberger, 91, wife of former President Ronald Reagan's Secretary of Defense, the late Caspar W. Weinberger, died last night, July 12, 2009 in Bar Harbor, Maine. For the last six months, she had been in declining health and was living in a nursing home near her home known as ``Windswept House'' in Somesville, Maine on Mount Desert Island. Born Rebecca Jane Dalton in Milford, Maine, on March 29, 1918, Mrs. Weinberger became an Army nurse at the outbreak of World War II. While aboard a troop ship headed to Australia in 1942, she met her husband-to-be, U.S. Army Captain Caspar

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. After a careful and considerate review of her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee and her overall record, her distinguished judicial background, and a personal meeting with her in June, I have concluded she should be confirmed as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. I have not arrived at my decision lightly. It has been said that, of all the entities in government, the Supreme Court is the most closely identified with the Constitution--and that no other branch or agency has as great an opportunity to speak directly to the rational and moral side of the American character; to bring the power and moral authority of government to bear directly upon the citizenry. The Supreme Court passes final legal judgment on the most profound social issues of our time. The Court is uniquely designed to accept only those cases that present a substantial and compelling question of federal law; cases for which the Court's ultimate resolution will not be applied merely to a single, isolated dispute--but, rather, will guide legislatures, executives, and all other courts in their broader development and interpretation of law and policy. In the end, ours is a government of both liberty and order, State and Federal authority, and checks and balances. The remarkable challenge of calibrating these fundamental balance points is entrusted ultimately to the nine Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. To help meet this extraordinary challenge, any nominee for the Court must, as I stated during the confirmations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Sam Alito, have a powerful intellect, a principled understanding of the Court's role, and a sound commitment to judicial method. A nominee must have the capacity to engender respect among the other justices in order to facilitate the consensus of a majority. And to warrant Senate confirmation, the nominee must have a keen understanding of, and a disciplined respect for, the tremendous body of law that precedes her. It is with these high standards that we should evaluate the record of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Reviewing her professional credentials, it is clear that Judge Sotomayor is well qualified. She has served for nearly 11 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit where she has participated in over 3,100 cases. The judge also previously served on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for six years where she decided over 400 additional cases. She also worked for 8 years in private practice and 4 years in the highly respected office of the district attorney for the County of New York. According to the White House, if confirmed, Judge Sotomayor would bring more Federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any Justice in 100 years, and more overall judicial experience than anyone confirmed for the Court in the past 70 years. So I applaud the President for selecting an individual who clearly possesses the professional credentials to serve on the Court. In reviewing her personal credentials, Judge Sotomayor's accomplishments are equally noteworthy. If confirmed, she will become the first Hispanic and only the third woman ever to serve on our Nation's highest Court. Along the way, she has ascended from modest means to excel in our country's most prestigious schools and our judiciary's highest offices. In doing so, she now stands as a model for others to follow in summoning their own courage to break barriers and pursue dreams. And she does so with a personal manner that I find to be refreshingly candid and forthright. This brings us to the more particular factors we must consider when providing our consent on a President's nominee for Associate Justice-- judicial temperament, methodology, integrity and philosophy. By their very nature, these attributes are often challenging to measure, but they can be ascertained through a careful analysis of a nominee's complete record. With regard to the first consideration, judicial temperament, we all agree that it is absolutely essential that a judge be fair, open- minded, and respectful. Our citizens simply must have confidence that a judge who weighs their legal claims does so with an even temperament. A judge must be truly committed to providing a full and fair day in court, while projecting a sincere equanimity and respect for the law. When these attributes are not clearly present in our judges, the public justifiably begins to lose faith in the integrity of our courts. This issue has been rightly explored and satisfactorily answered with Judge Sotomayor. For example, both the New York City and American Bar Associations who reviewed the nominee on all key criteria gave the judge their highest ratings. Robert Morgenthau, the judge's former employer and highly regarded district attorney of New York County since 1975, testified that the judge is ``fair,'' ``non-political,'' and ``highly qualified for any position in which a first-rate intellect, common sense, collegiality and good character would be assets.'' And former Federal judge, colleague, and FBI Director Louis Freeh, has called Judge Sotomayor ``fair, neutral, nonpartisan [and] open-minded . . .'' And, indeed, I believe that the Judge's professional manner was in evidence during all aspects of her 4-day appearance before the Judiciary Committee. We look next at the nominee's judicial methodology which directly reflects her commitment to the essential tenets of care, discipline and fairness. Here, the judge was very clear and direct in our June meeting. Her approach to all cases is to carefully identify the facts-- what she characterized as a prized skill that she learned as a successful young prosecutor--and then follow the law: What it says; what end was meant to be accomplished; what legislative intent it was meant to advance; and how, if at all, other courts have answered those questions. As the judge elaborated, she believes that the law can and should develop, but that such development should occur only ``incrementally'' through the measured development of analogous cases. And when I asked her which opinions best reflect her judicial method, Judge Sotomayor candidly replied, ``Read any of my opinions and you will see my structure.'' And the record supports that assertion--the structure of her opinions shows a consistent, methodical and careful approach to deciding cases. As she testified at her hearing, her methodology is to ``apply the law to the facts at hand'' and keep a ``rigorous commitment to interpreting the Constitution according to its terms; interpreting statutes according to their terms and Congress's intent; and hewing faithfully to precedents . . .'' She stated further her view that the ``process of judging is enhanced when the arguments and concerns of the parties to the litigation are understood and acknowledged. . . . That is why,'' she explained, ``I generally structure my opinions by setting out what the law requires and then by explaining why a contrary position, sympathetic or not, is accepted or rejected. That is how I seek to strengthen both the rule of law and faith in the impartiality of our justice system.'' Indeed, the integrity of the judge's methodology can be measured in a variety of ways. First, the judge has a low reversal rate. Research on Judge Sotomayor's performance on the trial court demonstrates she was overruled in only 6 of her over 400 trial bench decisions. Westlaw reports that, in her 11 years on the appellate court, the judge has participated--as I referenced earlier--in over 3,100 cases and, of those cases, the White House reports that the Judge has only been reversed another six times. In each of those circuit cases she was part of a unanimous three-judge panel, and the cases involved the interpretation--not of important constitutional provisions--but of very technical statutes that, in several instances, had created clear divisions of opinion among several of the circuit courts. Moreover, three of the six circuit cases created 5-4 opinions in the Supreme Court, one created a 6-3 split, and one produced this unusual alignment: Justices Ginsburg and Scalia together in the majority, and Justices Breyer and Alito together in dissent. These facts combine to show the relative difficulty of, and the reasonable room for debate in, these appellate cases. Next, there is the measurement of the judge's concurrence and dissent rates. There, the data demonstrate that the judge's method of deciding cases is consistent with that of her colleagues on the Second Circuit. For example, research sources indicate that, despite the thousands of her appellate opinions, Judge Sotomayor has only dissented in 21 cases, and has written separate concurring opinions in only 22 others. Finally, there is the degree to which other courts and scholars find the judge's method of decision worthy of citation. There, data compiled by law professors and students from three universities reveal that, between 1999 and 2001, the judge's opinions were cited by other courts and scholars at meaningful rates--4.4 court citations and 4.6 law review citations per opinion. And between 2004 and 2006, those rates rose to 8.5 court citations and 4.8 law review citations per opinion. These more recent rates are not only higher than the percentage of citation rates for other distinguished Federal appellate judges, they underscore the increasing respect that Judge Sotomayor's work is garnering. I turn now to the third qualification: judicial integrity. Here, there are those who have suggested that the judge will use her office to engage in ``judicial activism'' and advance a certain social or political agenda that suits her personal preferences. Principally, these critics point to the New Haven firefighters' case and her Berkeley and Duke speeches as examples of such activism, and I believe these instances have warranted strict scrutiny. At the outset, it bears noting the White House report that, in her 11 years on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has agreed with the result favored by the Republican appointees in 95 percent of the published panel decisions where the panel included at least one judge appointed by a Republican president. This statistic is evidence of a nonpartisan or nonideological approach to judging. At the same time, I have shared the concerns expressed specifically about the New Haven firefighters' case--as many have voiced opposition to both her decision as well as the curt and summary opinion that was used to dismiss the complaint. I sympathize with the plaintiffs, who were told the rules for qualifying for a promotion, who believed they were participating in a fixed process for determining their future career advancement, who did what was asked of them, and then, when it was all over, were informed that what they had done wasn't good enough. So I understand the frustration. I approached Judge Sotomayor's handling of this case by looking at both the merits--that is, what was decided in the case, as well as the process, or how, the case was decided. As regards the process, as we all well know, the panel that included Judge Sotomayor wrote only a three-paragraph opinion concluding that, ``We affirm, for the reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion of the court below.'' Now, it may well be that the district judge's opinion was ``thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned.'' But the confidence of the litigants and public alike in any court relies on their opportunity to explore a judge's rationale. And the panel's summary affirmance, albeit adopting verbatim the long opinion of the court below, simply failed to meet that expectation. When I asked Judge Sotomayor in our June conversation--and when she was queried before the Judiciary Committee--she stated that she and her colleagues gave the case their full attention and review, and that only after that full and fair consideration did they determine that their own written opinion was not necessary, given the district court's exhaustive 48-page opinion applying the seemingly clear ``four-fifths rule'' of the EEOC regulations and the seemingly settled precedent of what the Judge referred to in her testimony as the Bushy line of cases--this is Bushy v. New York State Civil Service Commission, Kirkland v. New York State Department of Correctional Services, and Hayden v. County of Nassau. In reviewing a petition for rehearing in Ricci, six of the Judge's own colleagues were not persuaded by that argument. Yet, another six of her colleagues were so persuaded. Additionally, the judge testified before the Judiciary Committee that ``the practice is that about 75 percent of circuit decisions are decided by summary order, in part because we can't handle the volume of our work if we were writing long decisions in every case; but more importantly, because not every case requires a long opinion if a district court opinion has been clear and thorough on an issue . . .'' Yet, the bottom line is, in my view, this particular case was simply too sensitive and complex--with significant societal implications--to leave to a summary order. And, therefore, the three-judge panel should have issued its own, comprehensive opinion and explanation. On the matter of the merits of the case, Judge Sotomayor ruled that the city acted lawfully in trying to meet its obligations under Federal employment discrimination law to avoid disparate impact discrimination when making certain employment promotions. And I understand some believe this decision evinces the judge's predisposition to rule for minority litigants. One well-respected DC law firm, however, has found that the judge has decided nearly 100 race-related cases in her 11 years on the Second Circuit, and has effectively rejected such race- related claims by a margin of ``roughly eight to one.'' Others have suggested that the Supreme Court's reversal of the Second Circuit raises questions of the judge's qualifications to serve. In evaluating that possibility, I have taken into account that the Supreme Court took this action with a 5-4 vote, with four complex and nuanced opinions, as well as an admission from Justice Scalia that the underlying question presented by the case--when affirmative action becomes unlawful discrimination--is ``not an easy one.'' And I have considered that the High Court reached its decision only by identifying and applying an entirely new standard. Indeed, both the trial and Sotomayor courts applied the then-existing ``four-fifths rule'' of the EEOC title VII regulations and the seemingly settled circuit precedent of the ``Bushy line of cases'' in determining that a significant disparity in the results of an employment test is itself adequate evidence of unlawful disparate impact discrimination. On appeal, the Supreme Court changed the rule, saying in essence that such a significant disparity in test results is no longer itself adequate evidence. Importing anew from 14th amendment jurisprudence, the Court said that the new rule for interpreting the title VII statute demands a ``strong[er] basis in evidence,'' such as evidence that the test was ``not job related and consistent with business necessity, or if there existed an equally valid, less discriminatory alternative that served the city's needs but that the city refused to adopt.'' Therefore, based on the record, it would appear the district and circuit judges fulfilled their assigned job of applying existing precedent to the existing rule. And in weighing all of the facts, given Judge Sotomayor's assurance to me and the committee that she gave the case her full consideration, given her established reputation for careful decision-making, and given the daily reality of the Second Circuit's burgeoning caseload, particularly with the surge of post- September 11 immigration cases, I cannot conclude that the decision in Ricci should itself disqualify this nominee. Mr. President, I was also concerned--like many Americans--by Judge Sotomayor's speech at Berkeley in 2001, and specifically by the following line that appears to suggest that the judge decides cases more by personal identity than by fidelity to the law: I would hope that a wise Latina woman . . . would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male. . . . To thoroughly examine this question with regard to the judge's qualifications, I believed it was necessary to review both the entirety of her speech, as well as her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, to understand to the fullest extent possible her intention behind those comments, because I agree that they are disconcerting. In that light, I note that the judge, in answering a question from the committee, offered that it is the job of a judge to apply the law, and that it is the law, rather than one's own sympathies, that ``compels conclusions in cases.'' I also recall the judge's response when I asked her specifically about this speech during our opportunity to meet one-on-one. I said that commentators had criticized that portion of her speech because it suggested that gender and ethnicity enable her to make ``better'' decisions than a male judge of a different ethnicity. Judge Sotomayor, in replying, suggested that those who have concerns must ``read the whole speech;'' that she was only trying to say--she admits now inartfully--that ``judges are human beings and they necessarily will be affected by who they are. But this only makes them attuned to certain case aspects; it does not replace following the law.'' In evaluating these responses, I recalled prominent judges in our history who also raised this issue. Indeed, this was the subject to which Justice Felix Frankfurter referred to when he said, long ago, that one of the greatest challenges for all judges, because they are all human, is to recognize their own personal views and develop the patience, insights and discipline to compensate for them. When I raised Justice Frankfurter's comments personally with Judge Sotomayor, she agreed and asserted that was ``exactly'' the point she was attempting to communicate in her Berkeley speech. She also asserted in our meeting, and reaffirmed in her committee testimony that, ``no racial or ethnic group has a market on sound judgment.'' She explained that some judges, like many lay people, have ``tin ears'' on certain matters, and that is why the collegial decision-making is so vital--because sharing different perspectives and blending them into consensus opinions serves as both a ``spotlight and a filter.'' She spoke of how judges, like all people, are inescapably affected by their own life experiences, but that those experiences only affect how ``attuned'' judges are to certain aspects of cases. They do not replace the requirement to follow and apply the law consistent with the limited role and specific oath of their office. A review of Judge Sotomayor's decisions and her resulting affinity, dissent and reversal rates that I described earlier bolster the judge's statements that she understands this imperative--and that she decides cases based not on personal identities or classifications, but by ``fidelity to the law.'' A final question about the judge's judicial integrity has been raised from her remark in 2005 at Duke University that the ``Court of Appeals is where policy is made.'' This comment has understandably raised the specter of a commitment to judicial activism, and is therefore a legitimate cause for examination. When I raised this issue with the judge she responded that she was referring to the educational difference between trial and appellate court clerkships--how a trial court clerkship focuses primarily on resolving limited factual disputes and how an appellate court clerkship focuses primarily on cases involving broader questions of how the law ought to be interpreted. An essential component of weighing the competing interpretations proffered by appellate advocates is for the court to understand the practical effect of the advocates' competing arguments. It is this understanding that defines the scope and reach of the possible interpretations. I believe it is therefore legitimate to read and understand her comments within this context. It has also been argued that--as the Supreme Court only accepts and decides about 80 of approximately 8,000 cases per year, Federal circuit courts of appeal often do, as the judge noted in her testimony effectively become the final decisionmaker on what the law--and by necessary extension, the policy it advances--is. Given all of these factors, again, in considering the entirety of her record, it is fair to conclude that the Duke University speech is not evidence that Judge Sotomayor would practice judicial activism on the Supreme Court. Finally, we have a fourth and final qualification--judicial philosophy, judge's sense of limits and horizons and great promises of our Constitution and the nominee's view of the proper role of the Supreme Court in deciding whether to take cases and, once taken, the underlying philosophy used to rule upon them. On this point, I note first the judge's answer when asked whether she subscribes to one or another school of constitutional interpretation. She said: ``I don't use labels.'' I also recall the study by the New York University Law School's Brennan Center for Justice which analyzed over 1,100 constitutional cases decided during Judge Sotomayor's tenure on the second circuit and found as an appellate judge, she voted with the majority in over 98 percent of constitutional cases and that 94 percent of her constitutional decisions have been unanimous. Such figures argue strongly that the judge's constitutional approach is squarely in the mainstream. The inquiry into any nominee's judicial philosophy is particularly significant for those of us who value the Court's landmark rulings. Decisions protecting the rights of privacy, civil rights, and women seeking equal protection in the workplace--to name a few--comprise a crucial and settled body of the Court's case law. Entire generations of Americans have come to live their lives in reliance upon the Court's rulings in these key areas, and overruling these precedents would simply roll back decades of societal advancement and impose substantial disruption and harm. Therefore, central to the question of this nominee's judicial philosophy are her views on one of the cornerstones of jurisprudence, and that is judicial precedent. In our June meeting, I asked whether she agreed with Chief Justice Rehnquist's observation in Dickerson v. United States which upheld the famous decision Miranda v. Arizona. There, the Chief Justice wrote there are situations where constitutional precedent--that a Justice might have believed had been wrongly decided--should nevertheless be upheld because the people have accepted the principle of the decision as an ``embedded . . . part of our national culture.'' Judge Sotomayor agreed with that position. This expressed adherence to applying precedent has achieved significance in many passionately contested areas of the law, such as the second amendment, which brings me to the concerns raised with respect to Judge Sotomayor's decision in Maloney v. Cuomo. I happen to be a strong, long-time defender of second amendment rights, as evidenced by my amicus support for Mr. Heller in his recent case before the Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller. Accordingly, I am very well aware the issue of whether second amendment protections are to be construed as incorporated against acts of a State government--as opposed to the Federal Government--has assumed renewed importance and visibility since the Court's recent landmark decision ruling in Heller. I also understand that several longstanding Court precedents have been widely construed by State and Federal courts around the country, including the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, not to incorporate the second amendment. Judge Sotomayor in Maloney v. Cuomo, and her two panelists, have stated that those consistent interpretations of the Supreme Court's precedent were binding upon them. And while a panel in the ninth circuit in Nordyke v. King bypassed such precedent, a seventh circuit panel, led by Judge Shakley, sharply criticized the Nordyke decision for doing so, and instead in NRA v. City of Chicago agreed with Judge Sotomayor's opinion because they, too, concluded that the Supreme Court's precedent was binding upon them. Last week, the full ninth circuit itself agreed to reconsider its decision in the Nordyke decision. The Supreme Court may well revisit this issue soon. But the issue before us in the Senate right now is whether the judge has demonstrated, as she describes, ``fidelity to the law'' and precedent as we would expect--because several longstanding Supreme Court precedents have been widely construed by State and Federal courts alike not to incorporate the second amendment, and because the Supreme Court in footnote 23 of the Heller majority opinion expressly said the Court was not deciding the incorporation question. Moreover, given her demonstrated adherence to stare decisis, while no one can predict the future with certainty, it is reasonable to conclude she will continue to follow precedent, as also evidenced by her testimony to the Judiciary Committee in which she stated: The Supreme Court did hold that there is in the second amendment an individual right to bear arms. And that is its holding, and that is the Court's decision. I fully accept that. Finally, what a powerful and profound message it will send to have Judge Sonia Sotomayor join with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the highest Court in the land. The fact is, it does make a difference who women and girls see at the pinnacles of government, just as it matters in all fields of endeavor. As Justice Ginsburg has said recently: My base concern about being all alone was the public got the wrong perception of the Court. It just doesn't look right in the year 2009 . . . It matters for women to be here at the conference table to be doing everything that the Court does . . . Women belong in all places where decisions are being made. Given the totality of the record before us, I have concluded from Judge Sotomayor's testimony regarding both her judicial methodology and her judicial philosophy that she is not predisposed to overturning settled precedent. Obviously, none of us can know with certainty how Judge Sotomayor would vote on any particular case. But we can assess her methodology and analysis in approaching cases by reviewing her responses to the committee and to other Members throughout this process. In that light, in evaluating the essential qualifications as I have outlined them, and reviewing the entire judicial record of Judge Sotomayor, I find a fairminded judge with a deep respect for the rule of law and the independence of the courts, and a judicial method committed to stability in the law. It is, therefore, my conclusion that based on the totality of the record and her distinctive qualifications, Judge Sonia Sotomayor has earned the distinction of serving as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, residents in Aroostook County took part in the 62nd Annual Maine Potato Blossom Festival, a weeklong celebration of the indispensible role agriculture has played in Northern Maine's economy. Indeed, early in the 20th century, Northern Maine was known as the Potato Capital of America. While the times have changed and varieties of crops have expanded, potato farming remains a prevalent way of life in rural Aroostook County. With this in mind, I wish to recognize a fifth-generation family-owned small potato company from Mars Hill, County Super Spuds, whose owners, the McCrum family, have been harvesting potatoes in Northern Maine since the mid- 1880s. It was Lemuel McCrum who, in 1886, moved across the border from New Brunswick, Canada, to the small town of Mars Hill in order to establish a future for his family in potato farming. Lemuel and his wife Ada had 14 children, teaching them the value of good stewardship of the land and work ethic, thus ensuring that future McCrums would harvest bountiful crops on the same land. In the 1960s, Dana McCrum, a member of the family's third generation, moved to a new location in Mars Hill, where County Super Spuds has been situated ever since. The fourth generation of McCrums Jay and David began their farming in the early 1970s, and they were joined by their sister's husband, Bobby Lunney, in 1981. By 2004, the family's fifth generation, Jay's sons, Darrell and Wade, and David's sons, Nicholas and Jonathan, began cultivating their own futures at County Super Spuds. Since its founding, County Super Spuds has grown into a thriving business that now encompasses three subsidiaries: JDR Transport, a family trucking firm launched in 1992; Penobscot McCrum, LLC, a potato processing plant in Belfast that supplies spuds to customers and restaurants around the world; and Sunday River Farms, a 500-acre farming operation in Rumford Point. McCrum family members all operate and manage these firms, which stretch across the State of Maine. Additionally, the McCrum principle of seeking and finding resolutions to issues of quality assurance with their crops was epitomized by their decision in 2006 to begin utilizing a new GPS system. This technique assists the McCrums in accurate equipment placement within its fields in order to maintain the highest quality product for the Nation's dinner tables. A proud family with a rich tradition of potato farming, the McCrums have been lauded with prestigious awards on numerous occasions. Jay McCrum was named Young Farmer of the Year in 1986 by the Maine Potato Board, the State's foremost advocate for the potato industry, and a decade later was also named as the Farmer of the Year. And in 2001, County Super Spuds received the Maine Potato Board's highest honor, as they were recognized as the Farm Family of the Year. These awards exemplify that this family has been and continues to be an example of the dedication and determination of the McCrum spirit to succeed within this prestigious profession through every season and every economic and environmental trial and tribulation. However, many across Maine, and indeed the Nation, may know County Super Spuds best for its most recent work. The company was one of five potato growers selected from farms across the Nation by FritoLay to star in a nationwide advertising campaign for Lay's Potato Chips, including television and print media, as well as on-pack and in-store displays. In fact, County Super Spuds has been working with Lay's for 23 years, and in that time, the firm has sold approximately 2,300 trailer loads of its delicious potatoes to FritoLay. In the television advertisement, Darrell McCrum, manager for the company's Northern Maine Farm Operations, states that, ``We grow potatoes in New England, and Lay's makes potato chips in New England, so that's a pretty good fit.'' As part of the ad campaign's rollout, Darrell was invited to New York City in mid-May to join the four other farmers and ring the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange. This was a well-placed honor for a truly distinguished family-owned business with such deep roots in the local community. He simultaneously discusses a photograph showing nearly two dozen family members, once again showcasing that Lemuel and Ada McCrum planted their feet firmly in Aroostook County in 1886 with high hopes for their future and their family and over 12 decades later a legacy of 5 generations stand firmly on the foundation they built. With annual growth of between 11 and 18 percent in recent years, County Super Spuds and the McCrum family have certainly made a positive impact not only within the Maine economy but across this Nation. Their high business acumen and work ethic have distinguished them as a profitable and trusted company. As the McCrum family continues in the footsteps of their forefathers, they remain an invaluable asset in one of Maine's most prestigious and vital industries. I congratulate the McCrums and everyone at County Super Spuds for their work to promote Maine potatoes across the country, and I wish them continued success in the decades to come.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak regarding the Energy and Water Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010 and voice my strong support for the inclusion of resources for the National Deepwater Offshore Research Center at the University of Maine, which Senator Collins and I jointly requested. In a time of economic distress, I believe it is even more important for Congress to focus on short-term relief as well as on a long-term comprehensive energy strategy that reduces America's dependence on foreign oil, creates jobs, embraces renewable and alternative sources of energy, and, most importantly, makes energy prices affordable for consumers. Developing deep water offshore wind technology can transform the way we generate energy to power the planet, and Maine is uniquely poised to be a leader in this effort. In fact, within 50 miles of the coast of Maine lie wind resources that can generate the energy equivalent to approximately 40 nuclear powerplants. This is exactly the type of investment that our country must make, and I am pleased that this Appropriations bill includes $5 million for this critical research. Without question, as President Obama stated in his speech to Congress in February, the United States must not simply follow in the wake of other nations as they develop the new clean energy technologies of the 21st century and monopolize the jobs and financial rewards that will inevitably follow. But already countries such as China, Germany, South Korea, Norway, and Denmark are boldly adopting plans to develop these technologies: energy efficiency, solar, hybrid engines, and offshore wind. In fact, a Norwegian company is now moving forward with deployment of the first deepwater offshore floating turbine, which will be located in more than 328 feet of water. Clearly, our competitors are rapidly moving forward to position themselves at the forefront as we exit this economic morass. We must expand our research into offshore wind, and Maine is uniquely positioned to be successful in the U.S. development of offshore wind energy. The oceanographic conditions in Maine's own State waters, within 3 miles of shore, provide excellent wind resources and water deep enough to deploy floating turbines. These are ideal conditions for the installation, testing, and maintenance of deepwater offshore wind turbines. In fact, Maine is the only State on the east coast with the appropriate oceanographic and meteorological conditions for such testing inside State waters. Additionally, there has been strong support by both the Governor and the Maine Legislature in their commitment to developing and deploying this technology in Maine by passing legislation earlier this summer that will allow this research off our shores. Considering that the majority of the U.S. population lives in coastal States, offshore wind energy could be a significant part of our Nation's energy future. The U.S. has nearly 2,500 gigawatts, GW, of offshore wind potential within 50 nautical miles, but more than half of this resource, about 1,500 GW, is in waters deeper than 200 feet. Unlocking this vast energy potential requires the development of next generation fixed foundation offshore wind turbine technologies, as well as testing of floating platform prototypes. With 80 percent of homes using heating oil, Maine is extremely vulnerable to rising crude oil prices. By 2018, the cost of energy, the sum of gasoline plus heating oil plus electricity, could consume as much as 40 percent of the average Maine household's income. Maine has, however, abundant natural resources to generate clean renewable energy, particularly wind energy. In fact, the wind is so powerful off the coast of Maine, on average, a wind turbine in the gulf of Maine can generate twice the energy that the same turbine will generate in the Kansas-Texas wind corridor. I would like my colleagues to be aware that the Department of Energy recently released a report, ``20 percent Wind Energy by 2030,'' which recommended seven key long-term offshore development research priorities, including the need to develop low-cost foundations, anchors, and moorings and increase the economic viability of large- scale, deepwater offshore wind turbines. The University of Maine is in a unique position to provide this critical research assistance. During the past several years, the University of Maine's Advanced Engineered Wood Composites, AEWC, Center has been solving challenges driven by the energy crisis, focusing on the vast potential of Maine's offshore wind resource and the need for expertise and innovation in advanced structures and noncorrosive composite materials to harness the wind resource in the gulf of Maine. In fact, this facility has also developed blades for wind turbines using composite materials that are stronger, lighter, and more durable than today's commercially available technology. The University of Maine is well poised, with the research and technology capabilities already in place, to ensure that offshore wind development becomes a success along the east coast. The goal of the National Deepwater Offshore Wind Research Center would be to enable the design and testing of a large-scale, floating, offshore wind platform that could serve as the basis of a large-scale offshore wind industry. This would be an opportunity for Mainers to use their skills and experience, specifically in deep water relatively close to shore, to lead the Nation in developing a new source of clean and renewable energy.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, in 2005, the Base Realignment and Closure-- the so-called BRAC--Commission released a final report recommending the closure of 33 military installations and the realignment of 29 other bases. While many of us in Congress and communities across the country fought against these closures, the report was approved in September 2005--an approval that resulted in dozens of cities and towns nationwide facing a new overwhelming, onerous burden in redeveloping these shuttered bases. According to the data contained in the 2005 base-closing round, nearly 33,000 civilian jobs will be lost in base closures and realignments, 6,500 of which are projected to occur at the Brunswick Naval Air Station, BNAS, in my home State of Maine. These communities must be equipped with tools--not hamstrung by obstacles--to recover from such a dramatic event as a base closing. And so, I rise today to advocate that when this bill goes to conference, the conferees should retain language included in the House Armed Services Committee's, HASC, version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 which would encourage the use of no-cost economic development conveyances, EDCs, when disposing of excess military property, in order to assist these communities with the difficult process of base closures. This language was based on a provision I originally authored in the Defense Communities Assistance Act of 2009, which was cosponsored by Senators Pryor, Collins, Cochran, and Cornyn. Undeniably, base closures have a devastating impact on local economies. In the wake of a closure, communities that have invested so much over the years to integrate servicemembers and their families invariably confront a sudden and sharp reduction in the number of townspeople. The children who have gone to their schools leave, threatening to lower the amount of funding their districts are eligible for and, in some cases, leading to layoffs of teachers who would no longer be required. Friends who have attended the same church, banked at the same financial institutions, and shopped at the same grocery store are gone. Tax revenues decrease and community programs suffer. The consequences of these changes are dramatic enough in even the best of economic times. No-cost EDCs mitigate this harm by providing land in the hands of communities faster--and by transferring property at no cost to the community. By accelerating the transfer process, the Department of Defense--DOD--will be turning property over to communities faster, allowing them to redevelop and create jobs more quickly. This approach benefits everyone involved. The DOD saves both time and money that would otherwise be spent maintaining these facilities during protracted negotiations; communities receive the property at no cost to them and can begin the critical work of economic development and job creation in less time; the taxpayers spend less because the land does not remain in Federal ownership for a period of years--even a decade; and economic redevelopment helps diminish the number of unemployed. Indeed, in 1999, with the help of the Clinton administration, we added no-cost EDCs to the DOD's property disposal toolbox. A January 2005 Government Accountability Office, GAO, report indicated that the change in policy to no-cost EDCs had yielded successful gains. The report stated that, according to Department of Defense and community officials, the use of economic development conveyances ``. . . had gained in popularity with the adoption of the no-cost provision, which, in addition to saving money for the new user, virtually eliminated the delays resulting from prolonged negotiations over the fair market value of the property and accelerated economic development and job creation.'' In other words, the change in policy garnered the desired effect. In fact, the rate of property transfer increased nearly 200 percent during the years following the no-cost provision. Yet regrettably, in 2001, some in this body added a requirement to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act that stipulated that the Department of Defense, when using an EDC, should seek ``fair market value'' in return for the land being transferred. In the past four base-closure rounds, we have had 97 major base closures, along with 235 smaller closures and 55 major realignments, and we never asked for fair market value. Why we took steps backward to this requirement of ``fair market value'' when we succeeded in clearing the logjam makes no sense to me. It is unfair to now begin placing such a high premium on fair market value for EDCs after four rounds that have spurred significant savings to the Department of Defense. Recognizing this problem, I introduced an amendment in 2005 to the Defense authorization bill that was far more stringent than the current House language. It would have essentially required all excess real and personal property to be transferred to communities at no-cost, with exceptions for national security reasons. That amendment received 36 votes then--even in its rather rigid form. In fact, then-Senator Obama voted for my amendment--an amendment that would have gone much farther in its scope than the language in the HASC bill. Earlier this year, to once again stand up for these base communities, I introduced the Defense Communities Assistance Act of 2009. As I mentioned before, this vital legislation includes a provision to strike existing language stating that the DOD shall seek fair market value when disposing excess military property, and encourage the transfer of closed military installations to communities quickly by placing the no- cost economic development conveyance on a level playing field with other methods of disposal. I am pleased a modified version of my provision was included in the House Armed Services Committee's bill. The Senate Armed Services Committee, SASC, meanwhile, has included language in its version of the DOD authorization bill reiterating the Department's ability to use a range of property transfer options, including the no-cost EDC. Regrettably, the Sense of the Senate language, even as improved by the amendment Senator Pryor and I have introduced, does not go far enough. That is why, moving forward, I urge my colleagues to support the House provision in conference. Redeveloping base properties today and in the near future, our defense communities must address an economic landscape that is unlike any other we have witnessed in decades. The unemployment rate stands at 9.5 percent--the highest level in nearly 26 years. The economy shed 467,000 jobs in June alone. More than 14.7 million Americans are presently without jobs, and 6.5 million payroll jobs have been lost since the beginning of this recession in December 2007. We are in the worst economy since the Great Depression, one that contracted 5.5 percent in the first quarter of 2009. As such, there is much concern--particularly among those communities enduring impending base closures--that without increased use of no-cost EDCs, communities will not be able to quickly bring back the jobs that will be lost and acres upon acres of property will sit fallow, more a hazard to the community than a benefit. They fear that time-consuming, costly delays will hamper their effective and meaningful redevelopment efforts as the DOD attempts to play realtor. As former DOD Deputy Under Secretary for Installations, Randall Yim, summarized in 1999, ``The No- Cost EDC authority provides an opportunity for a collaborative relationship by assisting communities with creating new jobs on the former installation and relieving the Department of needless caretaker expenses.'' And that is what the crux of the matter is--working with communities affected by the closure of a military installation to mitigate devastating economic consequences, and doing so in a timely manner that curbs the waste of taxpayer dollars. I also would like to add that the House Armed Services Committee's provision would not eliminate the Department's ability to use other methods of disposal presently available in the toolbox--such as public auctions, public benefit conveyances, disposal for use by the homeless, negotiated sales, transfers to other Federal agencies, and leases of land. Instead, it would put the no-cost EDC on a level playing field with these other essential disposal mechanisms, so that communities may begin the urgent process of creating good, high-paying jobs while simultaneously saving the Defense Department from needless costs and waste of taxpayer dollars. The No. 1 complaint I have heard over and over again from communities with BRAC-closed bases is the time-consuming, lengthy, and inefficient process with regard to property transfer. The House provision would take a giant step toward reversing these trends and help get communities back on their feet faster, particularly during the economic conditions our Nation presently faces. I hope we would respect the interests of the community that is directly affected. After all, they are the ones who are disproportionately bearing the costs of the base closure. In closing, I want to again cite Secretary Yim, who, in reference to the job losses facing communities with base closures, eloquently wrote that, ``. . . these jobs were an economic engine . . . of enormous power for these communities, and these communities contributed in many ways to our mission, from building roads, schools, utility systems, to making educational and business and consumer and recreational opportunities readily available for our military. Some communities even went so far as to give us the property for free. We have an obligation to help mitigate the impacts caused by our base closure decisions.'' He continued by saying that, ``We view it as an investment, not a give- away, and a continuation of the tradition of taking care of our people before, during, and after our time of need.'' And, frankly, isn't that how we should view our defense communities that have time and again sacrificed so much for the good of the Nation? I certainly believe it is.

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise in support of Senator Lieberman's amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, which would eliminate funding for an alternate engine for the F- 35 Joint Strike Fighter, JSF. President Obama singled out the alternate engine as wasteful government and he specifically did not request funding for an alternative engine in his budget proposal to the Congress. On May 7, President Obama said that ``we're going to save money by eliminating unnecessary defense programs that do nothing to keep us safe--but rather prevent us from spending money on what does keep us safe. One example is a $465 million program to build an alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. The Defense Department is already pleased with the engine it has. The engine it has works. The Pentagon does not want--and does not plan to use--the alternative version. That's why the Pentagon stopped requesting this funding two years ago.'' In fact, the administration has already stated its intention to veto a defense authorization bill that is presented to the President that includes funding for an alternative engine. The June 24, 2009 Statement of Administration Policy on HR 2647, the House Defense authorization bill, which also includes funding for development of an alternative engine, noted that ``. . . the Administration objects to provisions of [HR 2647] that mandate an alternative engine program for the JSF. The current engine is performing well with more than 11,000 test hours. Expenditures on a second engine are unnecessary and impede the progress of the overall JSF program. Alleged risks of a fleet-wide grounding due to a single engine are exaggerated. The Air Force currently has several fleets that operate on a single-engine source.'' In addition, the Secretaries and Chiefs of the Air Force and Navy have all said that they do not need or want a second engine for the JSF. When Air Force Chief of Staff General Schwartz testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 21, 2009, he said that if he were asked where he would put his next available dollar for the F-22 program, ``it would not be in a second engine.'' Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead is also opposed to the second engine, stating, ``. . . keeping parts for two engines on the decks of aircraft carriers is not advisable. Therefore you can put me solidly in the one- engine camp.'' It has been suggested that competition for these engines would be good for the military. Quite simply, there has already been a competition and it was won by Pratt & Whitney. In 1996, the Pratt & Whitney engine was the engine of choice for two of three competitors for the Joint Strike Fighter: Boeing and Lockheed Martin. The third competitor, McDonnell Douglass, selected the General Electric engine. When McDonnell Douglass was not selected for a key milestone in the JSF development, concept demonstration, while Lockheed Martin and Boeing were selected, the General Electric engine was eliminated as a future engine for the JSF. In fact, the P&W engine was well positioned for this competitive success in the JSF competition by previously besting competing engines in 1991 for use in the F-22. Moreover, the only other aircraft in the U.S. military inventory that has a dual source for engines is the F-16. All other military aircraft have a single source engine, and it is a strategy that works. Single source jet engines are the rule, not the exception. In terms of the industrial base, the leaders of the potential alternate engine teams would suggest that without an alternate engine they might be shut out of the military aircraft engine business. However, these teams already provide engines for multiple military aircraft platforms. In contrast, Pratt & Whitney will only make aircraft engines for the Joint Strike Fighter with the closing of the C-17 and F-22 lines. In a sense, the reverse would be more accurate. This is especially important to me since much of the JSF engine work will go through the Pratt & Whitney facility in my home State of Maine. The 1,375 highly skilled employees at the P&W North Berwick facility should not have their jobs jeopardized for an unnecessary competition. A competition that they already won. This debate should not even be occurring. The President and the U.S. military say they do not want or need this alternate engine. There is no reasonable justification for spending on a second engine when the first engine is performing admirably. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Lieberman's amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the outstanding service Jacob Triolo has provided to the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship in his capacity as a professional staff member. When Jacob--known to most as Jake--joined the committee staff in the spring of 2007, I knew that I had selected a top-notch staffer who cared deeply about making a difference in peoples' lives. We will miss his dedication and insight when he leaves Capitol Hill next month to pursue a law degree at Washington & Lee University in historic Lexington, VA. A native of Oregon and a 2004 dean's list graduate of the University of Oregon, Jake came across the country to Capitol Hill in the summer of 2004 to begin working for my good friend and former colleague, Senator Gordon H. Smith. Starting out in the front office as a staff assistant, Jake immediately sought out additional responsibilities and was promoted to the position of legislative correspondent in less than a year's time. In 2007, when I was looking to hire a new staff member to handle a wide-ranging portfolio of issues for the Small Business Committee, I was immediately impressed by Jake's ability to multitask and his willingness to tackle a variety of issues simultaneously. His astute research, concise analysis, and willingness to accept new challenges made him an ideal candidate to represent the committee on a variety of small business initiatives, including entrepreneurial development programs, disaster oversight, science and innovation, and funding for the Small Business Administration. Additionally, those who know Jake, including Senator Smith, spoke glowingly of his professionalism and creativity. Jake immediately hit the ground running, compiling intelligent and thoughtful background memoranda and hearing materials that contained tremendous insight and detailed analysis. One of his first endeavors as part of my staff was playing a leading role in developing legislation that would overhaul the SBA's disaster response program. In the wake of the devastation wrought by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita back in 2005, Jake helped me to identify the causes of the Federal Government's substandard response by working on the Small Business Disaster Response and Loan Improvement Act of 2007. Early in his tenure, Jake came into the office over several weekends, on his own volition, and successfully advocated to include these key provisions into the farm bill conference. As a result of his diligence and persistence, I successfully worked with a number of my Senate colleagues in advocating for private lending institutions to have the option of making private disaster loans following large-scale disasters. This change, which was passed into law, will greatly improve our country's ability to respond to natural disasters. As a responsible and trusted member of the committee team, Jake has also traveled to the gulf region to monitor progress and attend critical field hearings focused on rebuilding communities devastated by hurricanes. Additionally, as ranking member of the Senate Small Business Committee, I am charged with fully considering the concerns of entrepreneurs and small firms nationwide. As such, Jake labored extensively on the Patent Reform Act of 2007, helping me to ensure that small businesses retained their voice in the process by preparing me for negotiations with the Judiciary Committee on provisions that would protect their unique interests. While this legislation did not pass, his efforts helped guarantee that entrepreneurs will be taken into account during discussions of policy changes, such as modifications to the post-grant review process--work that will provide a solid foundation as the Senate continues its attempt at patent reform this Congress. Jake's command of individual subject matters and appreciation for collaboration has been a direct result of his tenacious study and exposure to the legislative process. In large measure, his success as a Hill staffer is due to his ability to cultivate lasting professional relationships with staffers from other offices in the Senate, House, and at Federal agencies. His sense of humor and easygoing personality make him easily likeable, and many of his colleagues have become close friends throughout the years. Jake is also a tremendously caring individual, and his family plays a central focus in his life. That is why when his sister, Renata, came to Washington for an internship, Jake was certain to look after her as she followed in her big brother's footsteps. Jake is fond of saying that the classic movie ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'' has influenced his career, and provided him the impetus for attending law school. Well, Mr. President, Jake Triolo has gone to Washington, and he is now headed into a vast frontier where, with his knowledge, resilience, and passion, he has a bright future with no bounds. I fully expect that in 3 years' time, Jake will be back in Washington, serving our Nation's people in one capacity or another. A dedicated public servant who has demonstrated a capacious appetite for learning and a true talent for public policy, Jacob Triolo has been an asset to me and to the committee staff during his nearly 2\1/2\ years here. I wish him luck at Washington & Lee and in every endeavor he pursues.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, tourism represents Maine's largest economic sector, and as a result, many of my State's nearly 150,000 small businesses are seasonal. But this year, between the deepest economic recession our country has faced since the Great Depression and a streak of unfortunate weather throughout Maine, these boutiques, shops, and restaurants are in many cases not experiencing the level of business they would traditionally. Despite these disparaging factors, one small restaurant in the town of Ogunquit, Katie's Cafe on Shore Road, recently undertook a significant and bold expansion to attract new customers. While Katie's Cafe on Shore Road is a new restaurant on the scene, having opened just last year, it has already taken noteworthy steps towards establishing itself as a preeminent member and integral part of the local community. Katie's is owned by Rich Yurko; Donna Andersen; Rob Leary; and Katie Yurko, Rich and Donna's mother for whom the restaurant is named. An Alberta, Canada, native, Katie and her husband Mike, along with their six children, are known for their abundant energy and hospitality. The Yurko family's first foray into the hospitality business occurred in 1999, when they purchased Breakfast on the Connecticut, a luxurious bed and breakfast in Lyme, NH. Although a new establishment, Katie's boasts a knowledgeable staff with years of experience in the restaurant industry. The cafe is run by David Carme, who brings with him a plethora of experience from some of Boston's finest restaurants, including Teatro, an upscale Italian restaurant in Boston's theatre district, and Mistral, a trendy French Mediterranean establishment in the city's south end. Katie's also added executive chef Jason Grant to the team in May. An experienced cook, Grant brings 20 years of culinary experience to this new position. Following a successful first year of operation last year, Katie's Cafe used the winter to expand its facilities, adding 40 new seats including a new porch seating area. Additionally, Katie's increased its kitchen space as well as the size of its lounge. With this recent expansion, Katie's Cafe serves as the perfect meeting place where customers are assured that they will receive a five star dining experience in a welcoming, relaxed social environment. With its expanded capacity, Katie's provides a unique locale for special events such as birthdays, weddings, receptions, and family holiday gatherings. Additionally, the cafe hosts ``Lounge Socials'' every Saturday and Sunday, complete with complementary appetizers and drink specials. In its short time on Shore Road, Katie's has already taken the initiative to join with other area businesses in making several community events successful. In particular, the restaurant helped sponsor last December's Christmas by the Sea festivities, and took part in the town's Cinco de Mayo weekend this past May. These annual celebrations are a true example of community spirit, and they draw new faces from across the region to explore Ogunquit and the surrounding towns of York County. A noteworthy seasonal small business that has quickly made a name for itself, Katie's Cafe has taken several concrete steps to ensure that it has a bright future beyond these tumultuous times. I congratulate everyone at Katie's Cafe for their vision and creativity, and wish them many more successful seasons.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution recognizing Lieutenant Commander Chris Cassidy, space shuttle mission specialist of the STS-127 space shuttle mission and the Expedition 19 International Space Station mission, for becoming the 500th person to fly into space. While Lieutenant Commander Chris Cassidy is a native of Salem, Massachusetts, he considers York, ME, his hometown, where he attended York High School. Chris has a very impressive academic background earning a bachelor of science in Mathematics from the U.S. Naval Academy, and a Master of Science in Ocean Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Even more impressive is his ongoing service to his country. Chris spent 10 years as a U.S. Navy SEAL, which includes two tours in Afghanistan. During that time, he received numerous awards including the Bronze Star with the combat `V' and the Presidential Unit Citation for leading a 9-day operation at the Zharwar Kili cave complex. This operation was a national priority objective directly on the Afghan/ Pakistan border. Lieutenant Commander Cassidy received a second Bronze Star for combat leadership service in Afghanistan in 2004. Chris was also a Quest speaker at the U.S. Naval Academy's 2003 and 2004 Combat Leadership Seminars. Upon returning from his service, Chris was selected by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to begin astronaut training in 2004 at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston. The space shuttle STS-127 mission is Lieutenant Commander Cassidy's first time in space. As this Nation celebrates the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission and the first man on the moon, Chris Cassidy becomes the 500th person to travel to space on the Space Shuttle Endeavor. The STS-127 mission's primary goal is to deliver the final components of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency's Kibo laboratory to the International Space Station, which will be essential to allowing astronauts to perform valuable science experiments that are exposed to the vacuum of space. In order to install those components, five space walks are scheduled for the 16-day mission and Chris is expected to perform three of them. This resolution recognizes Space Shuttle Mission Specialist Navy Lieutenant Commander Chris Cassidy of STS-127 space shuttle mission and the Expedition 19 International Space Station mission and for becoming the 500th person in history to fly into space; and also commends him and the rest of the STS-127 Mission crew for risking their lives in the advance of science and human understanding. I hope my colleagues will join Senator Collins and me in supporting this resolution.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in commemoration of a deeply tragic anniversary for the Cypriot-American community, their friends and relatives in Cyprus, and for the respect of human rights and international law. Thirty-five years ago this week, the armed forces of Turkey violated the sovereignty and territory of the Republic of Cyprus by illegally invading and occupying the north of the island state. The international community, speaking through resolution after resolution by the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly, has since 1974 called for an end to the division of Cyprus and the return of refugees to their homes. Yet three and a half decades later, the military occupation of one third of our close and consistent ally's territory by Turkey remains an intolerable reality. There are more than 43,000 Turkish troops on Cyprus--that is approximately one Turkish soldier for every two Turkish Cypriots. The occupation, expropriation, transfer and destruction of Greek Cypriot- owned property in the north of the island proceeds unabated. Indeed, an estimated 7,000 to 10,000 U.S. citizens of Cypriot descent have claims to such properties. So too continues the wanton desecration of Greek Orthodox churches and religious artifacts that are not only sacred to hundreds of millions of faithful believers, but beautiful and historic sites and objects of inherent cultural value to all of humanity. Despite a generation of suffering such injustices, the Greek Cypriot community continues to demonstrate remarkable magnanimity in seeking a fair solution to the division of the island. Like many Hellenic- Americans, I applauded Cypriot President Demetris Cristofias' effort to restart the process of reuniting the island by directly engaging the Turkish Cypriot leadership. Although little progress has been made toward resolving the most significant issues--most notably the disposition of Greek Cypriots' property and the presence of Turkish troops--after 36 meetings in ten months of direct negotiations, President Cristofias remains committed to continuing his talks with Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat. An additional cause for hope came this past April, when the European Court of Justice ruled that a judgment of a court in the Republic of Cyprus must be recognized and enforced by the other EU member states even if it concerns land situated in the Turkish occupied areas of Cyprus. This ruling confirms the international right of Greek Cypriots who were forced from their property by the Turkish occupation to seek relief against those who later made use of the property illegally, providing not only a measure of justice to those able to pursue such a claim, but providing valuable leverage to the Republic's government in resolving the overall property issue. These developments should strengthen our commitment in Congress to ensuring that the United States stands by its steadfast ally, the Republic of Cyprus, to achieve a resolution to the tragic division of the island that is fair to Greek Cypriots. As was conclusively demonstrated by the wholly justified rejection of the Annan Plan by Greek Cypriots in 2004, the Cyprus question is one that can only be resolved through mutual agreement on a solution, not the imposition of one. In the context of the current talks, that means the United States must encourage Turkey to give the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community the leeway and authority to negotiate a solution that is truly in the interests of the communities on the island, rather than seeking to continue its military presence. The vocal support of the United States for a fair, freely negotiated outcome between the communities is as much a moral as it is a geopolitical necessity, given that it is not just the rights of the Greek Cypriot community that are at stake, but our solemn role as a nation that champions human rights and adherence to the rule of law. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me today in bearing witness to the 35 years of injustice wreaked upon the people of the Republic of Cyprus, and in recommitting ourselves to the urgent task of fairly and finally reuniting the island.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise in support of this vital amendment in order to correct disparities among the Small Business Administration's, SBA, small business contracting programs. Building on my efforts to bring true parity to the programs, this amendment will create a more equitable and flexible method for Federal agencies to fairly allocate Federal procurement dollars to small business contractors across the Nation. Earlier this year, I offered an amendment, cosponsored by my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, to create parity as part of S. 454, the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. Unfortunately, that amendment was not accepted. For years it has been unclear to the acquisition community what, if any, is the true order of preference when determining which small business contracting program is at the top of the agency's priority list. The SBA's regulations state that there is parity among the programs, and this had been the general practice in effect until two Government Accountability Office decisions were released on September 19, 2008, and May 4, 2009. The decisions stated that the Historically Underutilized Business Zone--HUBZone--program had preference over all other small business contracting programs. While the interpretation benefits HUBZone businesses, it comes at the expense of other vital small business contracting programs. This targeted amendment provides equity for the SBA's small business contracting programs. The amendment provides Federal agencies with the necessary flexibility to satisfy their government-wide statutory small business contracting goals. This amendment makes clear to purchasing agencies that contracting officers may award contracts to HUBZone, service- disabled veterans, 8(a), or women-owned firms with equal deference to each program. It would provide these agencies with the ability to achieve their goaling requirements equally through an award to a HUBZone firm, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business, and a small business participating in the 8(a) business development program. And of course this list will also include women-owned small businesses once the women's procurement program is fully implemented by the SBA. In addition, this amendment brings the SBA's contracting programs closer to true parity by giving HUBZones a subcontracting goal. HUBZones are the only small business contracting program without a subcontracting goal. In addition, the amendment authorizes mentor protege programs modeled after those used in the 8(a) program for HUBZones, service-disabled veteran and women-owned firms. The essence of true parity is where each program has an equal chance of competing and being selected for an award. During these difficult economic times, it is imperative that small business contractors possess an equal opportunity to compete for federal contracts on the same playing field with each other. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment. amendment no. 1500

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise to introduce this bill in order to correct disparities among the Small Business Administration's small business contracting programs. Building on my efforts to bring true parity to the program, this bill will create a more equitable and flexible method for federal agencies to fairly allocate federal procurement dollars to small business contractors across the nation. Earlier this year, I filed an amendment, cosponsored by my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, to create parity as part of S. 454, the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. Unfortunately, that amendment was not accepted. For years it has been unclear to the acquisition community what, if any, the true order of preference is for determining which small business contracting program is at the top of the agency's priority list. The SBA's regulations state that there is parity among the programs, and this had been the general practice in effect until two Government Accountability Office decisions were released on September 19, 2008 and May 4, 2009. The decisions stated that the Historically Underutilized Business Zone, HUBZone, program had preference over all other small business contracting programs. While the interpretation benefits HUBZone businesses, it comes at the expense of other vital small business contracting programs. This targeted bill provides equity for the SBA's small business contracting programs. The bill provides Federal agencies with the necessary flexibility to satisfy their government-wide statutory small business contracting goals. This bill makes clear to purchasing agencies that contracting officers may award contracts to HUBZone, Service Disabled Veterans, 8(a), or women-owned firms with equal deference to each program. It would provide these agencies with the ability to achieve their goaling requirements equally through an award to a HUBZone firm, a service- disabled veteran-owned small business, and a small business participating in the 8(a) business development program. Of course this list will also include women-owned small businesses once the women's procurement program is fully implemented by the SBA. In addition, this bill brings the SBA's contracting programs closer to true parity by giving HUBZones a subcontracting goal. HUBZones are the only small business contracting program without a subcontracting goal. In addition, the bill authorizes mentor protege programs modeled after those used in the 8(a) program for HUBZones, service-disabled veteran and women-owned firms. The essence of true parity is where each program has an equal chance of competing and being selected for an award. During these difficult economic times, it is imperative that small business contractors possess an equal opportunity to compete for Federal contracts on the same playing field with each other. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill.