Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, on June 12, television broadcasters will finally transition from analog TV signals to an all-digital system and in doing so begin a new chapter of innovation. In addition to providing higher quality video and sound, the DTV Transition will allow broadcasters to offer new services such as interactive TV and content multicasting. The benefits consumers will reap will be significant so we must make sure that they are clearly aware of this transition and the steps necessary to be prepared. Delaying the switchover till June has afforded us the opportunity to improve these efforts. However, there are several geographic areas across this nation that will be plagued by a particular problem that isn't a result of lack of consumer awareness or availability of converter boxes but because they will receive a weak digital signal or no signal at all. The DTV ``cliff effect'' occurs when the broadcast signal is so weak that all that appears on a viewer's TV is a blank screen. Unlike an analog broadcast, where a weak signal means a viewer would receive a grainy or snowy picture, a weak digital broadcast would mean no picture at all--you either get it or you don't. The DTV cliff effect occurs because of the different propagation characteristics that the new digital broadcast signals have compared to traditional analog signals. The terrain, distance from the broadcast tower, and the sensitivity of existing antennas, and even the weather all play a part in the strength of a broadcast signal and contribute to the cliff effect. Recently, a market-research firm estimated that more than 9 million households could experience some digital TV reception problems. In addition, many households in Wilmington, North Carolina, which participated in a DTV Transition trial run last fall, and about a thousand homes in Hawaii, which transitioned early, experienced reception and cliff effect problems, so this is a very real threat that will disrupt a significant number of households. That is why I rise today with my colleague Senator Collins to introduce legislation to directly address this problem by creating an assistance program for the construction of new digital translators to fill the gaps in the digital coverage of full-power stations. Specifically, the bill would provide $125 million in reimbursements for the construction of digital repeater or translator towers, which run approximately $80,000 to $100,000 each to build. These repeaters are essential in filling the dead zones that will result from the switchover. The FCC recently released a report estimating that ``approximately 18 percent of stations--319--are predicted to lose coverage of 2 percent or more of the existing population they reached with their analog signals.'' One of the recommendations the Commission suggested to alleviate this problem was for affected stations to build translators. The FCC also provided a partial remedy in releasing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would allow stations to install digital translators immediately under Special Temporary Authority. However, in this poor economic climate many broadcasters do not have the resources to construct these expensive towers. This legislation supplies some of the funding necessary to meet the challenges posed by this significant problem. It also should be noted that these towers can be used to co-locate wireless broadband facilities or other advanced communications services, which means an easier expansion of broadband in many areas that currently are without. Fully addressing the DTV cliff effect problem will ensure the transition in June is as seamless and undisruptive as possible for all Americans. That is why I hope my colleagues will join Senator Collins and me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 currently before the Senate. This legislation, which is long overdue, will take critical strides toward enabling the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate and prosecute the mortgage and securities fraud that have played such a large role in bringing our economy to the brink of collapse. I would like to commend Senators Leahy, Grassley, and Kaufman for introducing this bill that I am proud to cosponsor and hope that the Senate will pass it as quickly as possible. The fact is that the current recession stands apart from others we have experienced since the end of World War II, and not just because it is the longest and deepest. Although many downturns are the result of a decline in the business cycle, this recession was in significant part brought about by two factors that could well have been avoided had mortgage brokers and their associates and financiers set aside greed and outsized profits in favor of responsible lending, financial practices, and sustainable, but nonetheless healthy, rates of return. First, during the most recent housing boom, as are all aware, many homebuyers were placed into predatory, subprime loans that they could not be reasonably expected to repay. Indeed, while unscrupulous lenders, including private mortgage brokers and lending businesses that were not subject to the type of oversight and regulations that have traditionally prevented fraud, profited from a quick short-term fee in exchange for underwriting an irresponsible mortgage with little due diligence, homebuyers were left with loans that began with low interest rates and affordable payment but that morphed into significantly higher interest rates and payments. In other cases, the New York Times has reported that circles of appraisers delivered inflated appraisals on demand, while lawyers paid by the seller, but holding themselves out as representing the buyer, and mortgage brokers conspired to persuade buyers to take on overpriced and often dilapidated homes. And the scams continue to this day. The Times reports that deed thieves are currently approaching distressed owners and offering to ameliorate financial difficulties by temporarily taking over deeds. Then they refinance and flee with the owners' equity in tow. The result of the fraudulent loans and scams has been nothing short of a disaster that has devastated communities nationwide. RealtyTrac, the leading online marketplace for foreclosure properties, in January reported that Americans received 3.2 million foreclosure filings on 2.3 million properties during 2008. That represents a staggering 81-percent increase in total properties from 2007 and a 225 percent increase in total properties from 2006. Unfortunately, mortgage brokers and related parties are not solely to blame for the economic calamity that has befallen the nation. Large Wall Street investment banks thought they saw a profit opportunity and decided to package and sell risky subprime mortgages in largely unregulated markets. They believed that they could reduce risk by placing mortgage securities into such bundles but were in many cases dishonest with themselves and investors about the potential for losses. Although paper profits soared so long as housing prices increased, once they began to tumble, the value of these securities did as well. It is now estimated that in the past year, U.S. banks and financial institutions lost more than $500 billion as a result of their investments in subprime mortgages. Some of this Nation's most recognizable companies, including Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers have been wiped away due to collapse of the mortgage-backed securities market, while Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been taken over by the Federal Government. While other financial institutions have not shuttered their doors, they have absorbed significant losses. This has caused banks to all but cease to lend, which has led to untold difficulties for businesses and individuals seeking credit. Consumers could not obtain car and student loans, and business owners, and small business owners in particular, could not acquire capital to expand operations or, in many cases, make payroll. In short, the staggering 5.1 million job losses we have witnessed since the onset of the recession in December 2007 are in large part attributable to the collapse of housing and financial markets. To ameliorate the situation, Congress was last October forced to pass the $700 billion Emergency Economic Stabilization Act that created the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, to rescue financial markets. Combined with other actions taken by the Federal Reserve Board, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Treasury Department, the Congressional Oversight Panel on April 7 reported that the total value of all direct spending, loans and guarantees provided in conjunction with the federal government's financial stability efforts now exceeds $4 trillion. In addition to this unprecedented exposure, Congress also passed the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in February to assist those displaced by the recession and sow the seeds for recovery. Notably, as Congress passed the $700 billion financial rescue package last October, I insisted that our obligation did not stop with the enactment of that legislation. Indeed, I called on Congress to demand accountability for the massive malfeasance that has been perpetrated on the American people and specifically made the point that those responsible for our Nation's economic meltdown must be investigated and subsequently prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Frankly, it would be inconceivable to me to devote anything less than 100 percent of our resources to investigating those responsible for this crisis. It is for these reasons that on February 25, I, joined by Senator Whitehouse, introduced the FBI Priorities Act of 2009, S. 481, to augment FBI investigations of financial crimes. Turning to specifics, this bill authorizes $150 million for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2014 to fund approximately 1,000 Federal Bureau of Investigation field agents in addition to the number of field agents serving on the date of enactment. This extra manpower will help enable the FBI to develop and fully investigate, as well as bring responsible parties to justice. There is simply no question that this additional manpower is an absolute necessity to combat fraud given rising caseloads and a wholly inadequate level of resources. Consider the following facts: In the last 6 years, suspicious activity reports alleging mortgage fraud that have been filed with the Treasury Department have increased nearly tenfold to 62,000 in 2008. In the last 3 years, the number of criminal mortgage fraud investigations opened up by the FBI has more than doubled to exceed 1,800 at the end of 2008. Moreover, the FBI anticipates a new wave of cases that could double that number yet again in coming years. Finally, despite increases in caseloads, the FBI currently has fewer than 250 special agents nationwide assigned to these financial fraud cases. At current levels, these agents cannot individually review, much less thoroughly investigate, the more than 5,000 fraud allegations received by the Treasury Department each month. Although the details of the legislation I have introduced differ from those in the measure currently before the Senate, I believe the impact on the government's ability to root out and prosecute fraud would be similar. In particular, the legislation now under consideration authorizes $165 million a year for hiring fraud prosecutors and investigators at the Justice Department in 2010 and 2011. This includes $75 million in 2010 and $65 million in 2011 for the FBI to hire 190 additional special agents and more than 200 professional staff and forensic analysts to nearly double the size of its mortgage and financial fraud program. With this funding, the FBI can expand the number of its mortgage fraud task forces nationwide from 26 to more than 50. Notably, the funding authorized in the bill also includes $50 million a year for U.S. Attorneys' Offices to staff those fraud task forces and $40 million for the criminal, civil, and tax divisions at the Justice Department to provide special litigation and investigative support in those efforts. In addition, the bill authorizes $80 million a year for 2010 and 2011 for investigators and analysts at the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the U.S. Secret Service, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of Inspector General to combat fraud in Federal assistance programs and financial institutions. In addition to adding critical funds necessary to identify and prosecute fraud, this legislation makes several vital improvements to fraud and money laundering statutes to strengthen prosecutors' ability to combat a growing wave of fraud. Specifically, the bill amends the definition of ``financial institution'' in the criminal code to extend Federal fraud law to mortgage lending businesses that are not directly regulated or insured by the Federal Government. Responsible for nearly half the residential mortgage market prior to the economic collapse, these companies inexplicably remain largely unregulated and outside the scope of traditional Federal fraud statutes. This provision would apply the Federal fraud laws to private mortgage businesses, just as they pertain to federally insured and regulated banks. Furthermore, this legislation amends the false statements in mortgage applications statute to make it a crime to make a materially false statement or to willfully overvalue a property to influence any action by a mortgage lending business. Currently, these strictures apply only to Federal agencies, banks, and credit associations and do not necessarily extend to private mortgage lending businesses. This provision would ensure that private mortgage brokers and companies are held fully accountable under this Federal fraud provision. Finally, I would like to point out that this bill would modify Federal law to protect funds expended under TARP and the economic stimulus package. Specifically, the legislation would amend the Federal major fraud statute to include funds flowing pursuant to TARP and the stimulus package. The change will give Federal prosecutors and investigators the explicit authority they require to protect taxpayer funds, which could not be more critical with $4 trillion at risk as part of TARP and related programs and $787 billion at stake as part of the stimulus package. It is absolutely vital that every dollar we have put at stake go toward economic stabilization and revitalization and not to line the pockets of those who seek to defraud taxpayers.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, to once again introduce legislation that seeks not only to rectify an impediment to international commerce flowing through Maine, but more importantly, will offer a measure of safety and security that many of my constituents in Maine do not currently possess. As many of our colleagues know, expanding upon the current federal truck weight limitation of 80,000 pounds is often looked upon as too dangerous, flaunting the safety of drivers who may be faced with a truck weighing as much as 145,000 pounds. While my record reflects my long commitment to safety on our roadways, I ask my colleagues not to overlook the safety of pedestrians as well. Take the situation we face in Maine, where we currently have a limited exemption along the southern portion of the Maine Turnpike. Many trucks traveling to or from the Canadian border or into upstate Maine are not able to travel on our Interstates as a result of the 80,000 pound weight limit. This forces many of them onto secondary roads, many of which are two-lane roads running through small towns and villages in Maine. Tanker trucks carrying fuel teeter past elementary schools, libraries, weaving through traffic to reach locations like our Air National Guard station. Not only is it an inefficient method of bringing necessary fuel to Guardsmen that provide our national security, but imagine if you will one of those tanker trucks rupturing on Main Street, potentially causing serious damage to property, causing traffic chaos, and most importantly, killing or injuring drivers and pedestrians. This is not a far-fetched scenario. In fact, two pedestrians were killed last year in Maine as a result of overweight trucks on local roadways, one tragic instance occurring within sight of the nearby Interstate. So I ask you, is the so-called safety argument truly a legitimate reason for opposition as my constituents and many others across small American communities are taking their lives in their hands when merely crossing Main Street? What is the result of redirecting such traffic onto local roads? According to study conducted by the Maine Department of Transportation, traffic fatalities involving trucks weighing 100,000 pounds are 10 times greater on secondary roads in Maine than on the exempted Interstates. Serious injuries are seven times more likely. Not to mention the exorbitant cost of maintaining these secondary roads, forced to handle these massive trucks. These roads were not designed to handle this kind of traffic. Our Interstates were, yet these trucks are consistently prevented from traveling on them. As you can see, safety is indeed the issue. Unfortunately, I believe the opponents of such legislation who continually cite safety as the reason behind their opposition are missing the point. Another argument against allowing such trucks access to these Interstates is the classic ``slippery slope'', that if you allow one State to have such an exemption, pretty soon you'll have to give EVERY State such an exemption. Well, I would like to remind the opponents of this bill that we're already almost there. A total of 46 States possess some type of variance, already have some type of exemption, and 4 States allow trucks weighing over 130,000 pounds on some roads within their State! To offer a clear picture of this, if you are driving a truck weighing 100,000 pounds, you can leave Gary, Indiana, just outside of Chicago, and can operate that vehicle all the way to Portland, ME. There, of course, they have to unload the additional weight--this case, 20,000 pounds--to continue on the Interstate, or travel the remainder of the way through the State on these local roads, endangering the populace and other drivers. Conversely, you can operate a truck weighing 90,000 pounds from Kansas City, Missouri and travel to Seattle, WA. So I ask you, is this truly a legitimate reason for opposition while my constituents are taking their lives in their hands when merely crossing Main Street? Perhaps, for the sake of fairness, every State should rescind their current variances, instead requiring that all States operate at the present federal level of 80,000 pounds. I suspect if that were the case many of our opponents would no longer be so stalwart in their reluctance to support waivers. Lastly, and most importantly, I would especially like to thank Senator Collins for her steadfast effort as, side-by-side, we continue to seek a resolution to this issue so vital to our State's economic competitiveness and to the safety of Maine's people.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, in our present economic situation, small businesses are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain their current operations, let alone expand their facilities, add new employees, or make significant improvements. Despite that, some firms are attempting to move forward on planned expansions, hoping to see a greater return on their investment in the future. I rise today to recognize Micro Technologies, a small company in my home State of Maine that is pushing ahead to expand its business and bring new jobs to Midcoast Maine. Founded in 1996, Micro Technologies, located in the rural town of Richmond, serves a very specialized niche in the world of science. Focusing on aquatic animal health, Micro Technologies provides critical research and testing, diagnostics, and veterinary services related to the health of various aquatic marine species to a wide range of clients, from government agencies to small farms. The company presently has 13 employees, most of whom are graduates of Maine universities and colleges. Approved by Department of Agriculture, USDA, for export testing, Micro Technologies works with companies across the United States, Central and South America, as well as Europe. The company's innovative research aids scientists in their quest to explain and solve a plethora of complicated health problems of aquatic animals, from common finfish like salmon and cod, to bivalves such as oysters and clams, to crustaceans like the Maine lobster. For instance, Micro Technologies' work has centered on studying viruses that affect shrimp and the causes of shell disease among lobsters. Additionally, the company tests various species for the presence of harmful viruses, ensuring that firms involved in the shipment of these species have the safest product possible. This, in turn, promotes expedient shipping, and reduces negative environmental impacts. While the current economic insecurity poses problems to businesses large and small, Micro Technologies is moving forward on a plan to expand its facilities, add employees, and broaden the scope of its work. The company recently received a $200,000 grant from the Community Development Block Grant Program, which is aimed at helping communities across the country build affordable housing and retain businesses seeking to grow. Richmond's full board of selectmen unanimously endorsed the company's proposal before submitting the application to the Maine Department of Economic and Community Development, which approved the grant. Partnering with the town of Richmond, Micro Technologies will use this grant to make renovations to its existing facility, purchase a nearby building, add seven quality new positions, and expand its manufacturing capabilities. Micro Technologies also hopes to begin an apprenticeship program to introduce students interested in science to the unique work the company does. American entrepreneurs have strengthened our country and its economy in good times and bad. As Micro Technologies seeks to grow, it will provide a positive impact on the local community as well as the aquatic animal health industry, which is crucial in Maine. I wish everyone at Micro Technologies best wishes and much success in their planned expansion.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, to once again introduce legislation that seeks not only to rectify an impediment to international commerce flowing through Maine, but more importantly, will offer a measure of safety and security that many of my constituents in Maine do not currently possess. As many of our colleagues know, expanding upon the current federal truck weight limitation of 80,000 pounds is often looked upon as too dangerous, flaunting the safety of drivers who may be faced with a truck weighing as much as 145,000 pounds. While my record reflects my long commitment to safety on our roadways, I ask my colleagues not to overlook the safety of pedestrians as well. Take the situation we face in Maine, where we currently have a limited exemption along the southern portion of the Maine Turnpike. Many trucks traveling to or from the Canadian border or into upstate Maine are not able to travel on our Interstates as a result of the 80,000 pound weight limit. This forces many of them onto secondary roads, many of which are two-lane roads running through small towns and villages in Maine. Tanker trucks carrying fuel teeter past elementary schools, libraries, weaving through traffic to reach locations like our Air National Guard station. Not only is it an inefficient method of bringing necessary fuel to Guardsmen that provide our national security, but imagine if you will one of those tanker trucks rupturing on Main Street, potentially causing serious damage to property, causing traffic chaos, and most importantly, killing or injuring drivers and pedestrians. This is not a far-fetched scenario. In fact, two pedestrians were killed last year in Maine as a result of overweight trucks on local roadways, one tragic instance occurring within sight of the nearby Interstate. So I ask you, is the so-called safety argument truly a legitimate reason for opposition as my constituents and many others across small American communities are taking their lives in their hands when merely crossing Main Street? What is the result of redirecting such traffic onto local roads? According to study conducted by the Maine Department of Transportation, traffic fatalities involving trucks weighing 100,000 pounds are 10 times greater on secondary roads in Maine than on the exempted Interstates. Serious injuries are seven times more likely. Not to mention the exorbitant cost of maintaining these secondary roads, forced to handle these massive trucks. These roads were not designed to handle this kind of traffic. Our Interstates were, yet these trucks are consistently prevented from traveling on them. As you can see, safety is indeed the issue. Unfortunately, I believe the opponents of such legislation who continually cite safety as the reason behind their opposition are missing the point. Another argument against allowing such trucks access to these Interstates is the classic ``slippery slope'', that if you allow one State to have such an exemption, pretty soon you'll have to give EVERY State such an exemption. Well, I would like to remind the opponents of this bill that we're already almost there. A total of 46 States possess some type of variance, already have some type of exemption, and 4 States allow trucks weighing over 130,000 pounds on some roads within their State! To offer a clear picture of this, if you are driving a truck weighing 100,000 pounds, you can leave Gary, Indiana, just outside of Chicago, and can operate that vehicle all the way to Portland, ME. There, of course, they have to unload the additional weight--this case, 20,000 pounds--to continue on the Interstate, or travel the remainder of the way through the State on these local roads, endangering the populace and other drivers. Conversely, you can operate a truck weighing 90,000 pounds from Kansas City, Missouri and travel to Seattle, WA. So I ask you, is this truly a legitimate reason for opposition while my constituents are taking their lives in their hands when merely crossing Main Street? Perhaps, for the sake of fairness, every State should rescind their current variances, instead requiring that all States operate at the present federal level of 80,000 pounds. I suspect if that were the case many of our opponents would no longer be so stalwart in their reluctance to support waivers. Lastly, and most importantly, I would especially like to thank Senator Collins for her steadfast effort as, side-by-side, we continue to seek a resolution to this issue so vital to our State's economic competitiveness and to the safety of Maine's people.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to recognize the 5 years of outstanding service that Lindsey Jewell has provided to me in various capacities in both my personal office, and on the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, of which I am ranking member. Ever since Lindsey began working in my office in 2004, I have been consistently impressed with her dedication, professionalism, and hard work, and I am sad to see her leave the Senate. While still a student at the University of Maine Orono, my alma mater, Lindsey began her Senate career as an intern in my Washington office and thereafter as a staff assistant in my Bangor office. There, she served as a key liaison between my office and Maine constituents, assisting them in solving their problems and concerns with the Federal Government. Lindsey's work on behalf of Mainers proved to be her true passion, and after graduating in 2005 with a B.A. in political science, she came back to Washington, DC, to join my staff here. Upon arriving in Washington, Lindsey hit the ground running as a legislative correspondent, handling a hefty portfolio of issues ranging from taxes, budget, and banking to agriculture, immigration, and foreign affairs. Lindsey's stellar stand-out performance in dealing with these issues led to her earning a promotion to Director of Constituent Correspondence in 2006. In this role, she oversaw all of my office's legislative correspondents, helping me ensure that mail was responded to in a thoughtful and timely manner. Through this position, Lindsey gained immense experience dealing with a vast array of issues the Senate faces. She also proved to be a capable, talented, and amicable leader, who was a tremendous supervisor. During the summer of 2007, Lindsey left my personal office and moved three floors up in the Russell Building to serve as Senior Research Analyst on the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. As ranking member of that committee, I continued to benefit from Lindsey's wisdom and insight. That said, her departure certainly left a large void in my personal office. As Lindsey continued to provide me with detailed and thorough materials on a range of small business issues, she once again earned a well-deserved promotion to Professional Staff Member early in 2008. In that capacity, Lindsey advised the committee on matters relating to women-owned businesses, small business energy concerns, entrepreneurial development programs, and military base redevelopment initiatives. Lindsey was instrumental in my recently introducing the Defense Communities Assistance Act of 2009, a key bill aimed at providing immediate economic development benefits to all base communities, for both closed and active military installations across the country. Additionally, Lindsey helped me prepare an amendment to the fiscal year 2010 budget resolution to ensure that small businesses receive adequate funding under the Energy Star program. Lindsey's versatile nature and willingness to assist her colleagues in any way possible led to her drafting statements and press releases for a variety of committee hearings, bill introductions, and small business events, covering a host of issues. Lindsey's sense of humor and easy-goingness make her instantly likeable. But more crucially, her responsible nature and advanced analytical skills make her indispensable to anyone she is working for. And Lindsey is a true team player, never considering any task beneath her. Indeed, she was a key member of my office's softball team this past summer, someone equally feared and respected by opponents! That is why I am deeply saddened that Lindsey will be leaving us this week. But I am thrilled for Lindsey's future, as she will be marrying her long-term boyfriend, Patrick Hughes, in just a few weeks in Portland, ME. Pat, a Marine officer, and Lindsey will be moving to the San Diego area shortly thereafter, where Pat will be stationed at Camp Pendleton. I wish them both the best in married life, and hope that they enjoy the beautiful California sunshine! A native born Mainer, Lindsey Jewell is an incredibly talented person. Coming from hard-working, community-oriented roots in the Aroostook county town of Monticello in northern Maine, Lindsey displays the classic values of our State: solidly dependable, intellectually curious, and immensely industrious. I am proud to have had someone like Lindsey on my staff, and even prouder to have gotten to know her over the past several years. Her sincerity, thoughtfulness, creativity, and consideration of others will be sorely missed. Lindsey, thank you for your service to Maine and America, and best wishes for your bright future.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to provide the Congressional Oversight Panel, COP, with subpoena authority so that it can more effectively conduct oversight on behalf of American tax payers. Created as part of last fall's Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, EESA, to be Congress' watchdog over the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, it has become apparent that a lack of subpoena authority is actively preventing the COP from obtaining all necessary information to safeguard rescue fund dollars. I would like to thank Senator Wyden for cosponsoring this legislation that would grant the COP subpoena power should three of the Panel's five members feel it is appropriate. One of three organizations charged with overseeing TARP, the COP's role is to ``review the current state of the financial markets and the financial regulatory system'' and to report to Congress every 30 days. Through regular reports, COP must oversee Treasury's actions; assess the impact of spending to stabilize the economy; evaluate market transparency; ensure effective foreclosure mitigation efforts; and guarantee that Treasury's actions are in the best interest of the American people. Notably, Congress provided the COP in EESA the explicit power to secure information from any government agency upon the request of its Chair. Unfortunately despite the yeoman efforts of COP Chair Elizabeth Warren and her four colleagues, the Panel is having difficulties discharging its duties. In particular, the Panel appears to be having problems obtaining necessary information from the Treasury Department, which is administering the TARP. Indeed, Ms. Warren told the Senate Finance Committee on March 31 that she feels as though the Panel and its requests for information are simply not a priority for the Department. Unfortunately, the facts appear to bolster Ms. Warren's conclusion. Ms. Warren's written testimony before the Finance Committee notes, ``The Oversight Panel has repeatedly called on Treasury to articulate a clear strategy for its use of TARP funds; the absence of such a vision hampers effective oversight. In fact, our first report outlined a series of ten basic questions, starting with the question, `What is Treasury's strategy?' Months later, Congress and the American people have no clear answer to that question. The ongoing uncertainty has hindered recovery efforts. I have sent two letters to Treasury Secretary Geithner asking for clarification on this specific point. I am disappointed to report that the Oversight Panel has not received a substantive response.'' In addition to a letter the Panel sent to Secretary Geithner on March 5 asking him to outline a strategy for TARP and respond to questions regarding the approach taken by the recently announced Financial Stability Plan, Ms. Warren asked that Mr. Geithner testify before the COP on March 12 or March 19. Although Ms. Warren reports that Secretary Geithner replied to her March 5 letter on April 2, nearly two weeks after the requested response date of March 20, a COP hearing with Mr. Geithner as a witness will only now take place on April 21, a delay that has only further impeded the Panel's effectiveness. Furthermore, other COP members have also noticed Treasury's apparent pattern of failing to respond to critical questions. Deputy Chair Damon Silvers testified before the Joint Economic Committee, JEC, on March 11 about the Panel's attempt to answer the critical question of whether taxpayers are receiving assets commensurate in value with TARP dollars being expended. Unfortunately, the Treasury Department appears to have been less than helpful in assisting the Panel in its analysis. In fact, Mr. Silvers told JEC the following: ``Our valuation report relied entirely on publicly available data. The Panel did make a broad document request of the Treasury Department pursuant to our authority under Section 125 of the EESA on December 17, 2008. Our purpose was to obtain any non-public information that Treasury possessed that would go to issues of valuation, in addition to contributing to our general ability to oversee the TARP program. In a letter dated December 24, 2008, the Treasury Department declined to provide the material we requested, and raised concerns about our newly formed Panel's internal controls over the confidential documents. Despite extensive discussions between our staff and the Treasury Department, Treasury has only produced a small number of the documents the Panel requested.'' With $700 billion in TARP funds at stake, providing the Congressional Oversight Panel with the tools and resources it requires to conduct effective oversight is absolutely essential. The fact is that we in Congress are duty bound to correct TARP inadequacies but can only do so with reliable information from its overseers. Clearly, the examples I have just cited demonstrate that providing the Panel subpoena authority is warranted so that it can compel Treasury and any other entities to provide all requisite information. For this reason, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation that would do just that so that it can be quickly sent to President Obama for his signature. Mr. President, I ask unanimous Consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to provide the Congressional Oversight Panel, COP, with subpoena authority so that it can more effectively conduct oversight on behalf of American tax payers. Created as part of last fall's Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, EESA, to be Congress' watchdog over the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, it has become apparent that a lack of subpoena authority is actively preventing the COP from obtaining all necessary information to safeguard rescue fund dollars. I would like to thank Senator Wyden for cosponsoring this legislation that would grant the COP subpoena power should three of the Panel's five members feel it is appropriate. One of three organizations charged with overseeing TARP, the COP's role is to ``review the current state of the financial markets and the financial regulatory system'' and to report to Congress every 30 days. Through regular reports, COP must oversee Treasury's actions; assess the impact of spending to stabilize the economy; evaluate market transparency; ensure effective foreclosure mitigation efforts; and guarantee that Treasury's actions are in the best interest of the American people. Notably, Congress provided the COP in EESA the explicit power to secure information from any government agency upon the request of its Chair. Unfortunately despite the yeoman efforts of COP Chair Elizabeth Warren and her four colleagues, the Panel is having difficulties discharging its duties. In particular, the Panel appears to be having problems obtaining necessary information from the Treasury Department, which is administering the TARP. Indeed, Ms. Warren told the Senate Finance Committee on March 31 that she feels as though the Panel and its requests for information are simply not a priority for the Department. Unfortunately, the facts appear to bolster Ms. Warren's conclusion. Ms. Warren's written testimony before the Finance Committee notes, ``The Oversight Panel has repeatedly called on Treasury to articulate a clear strategy for its use of TARP funds; the absence of such a vision hampers effective oversight. In fact, our first report outlined a series of ten basic questions, starting with the question, `What is Treasury's strategy?' Months later, Congress and the American people have no clear answer to that question. The ongoing uncertainty has hindered recovery efforts. I have sent two letters to Treasury Secretary Geithner asking for clarification on this specific point. I am disappointed to report that the Oversight Panel has not received a substantive response.'' In addition to a letter the Panel sent to Secretary Geithner on March 5 asking him to outline a strategy for TARP and respond to questions regarding the approach taken by the recently announced Financial Stability Plan, Ms. Warren asked that Mr. Geithner testify before the COP on March 12 or March 19. Although Ms. Warren reports that Secretary Geithner replied to her March 5 letter on April 2, nearly two weeks after the requested response date of March 20, a COP hearing with Mr. Geithner as a witness will only now take place on April 21, a delay that has only further impeded the Panel's effectiveness. Furthermore, other COP members have also noticed Treasury's apparent pattern of failing to respond to critical questions. Deputy Chair Damon Silvers testified before the Joint Economic Committee, JEC, on March 11 about the Panel's attempt to answer the critical question of whether taxpayers are receiving assets commensurate in value with TARP dollars being expended. Unfortunately, the Treasury Department appears to have been less than helpful in assisting the Panel in its analysis. In fact, Mr. Silvers told JEC the following: ``Our valuation report relied entirely on publicly available data. The Panel did make a broad document request of the Treasury Department pursuant to our authority under Section 125 of the EESA on December 17, 2008. Our purpose was to obtain any non-public information that Treasury possessed that would go to issues of valuation, in addition to contributing to our general ability to oversee the TARP program. In a letter dated December 24, 2008, the Treasury Department declined to provide the material we requested, and raised concerns about our newly formed Panel's internal controls over the confidential documents. Despite extensive discussions between our staff and the Treasury Department, Treasury has only produced a small number of the documents the Panel requested.'' With $700 billion in TARP funds at stake, providing the Congressional Oversight Panel with the tools and resources it requires to conduct effective oversight is absolutely essential. The fact is that we in Congress are duty bound to correct TARP inadequacies but can only do so with reliable information from its overseers. Clearly, the examples I have just cited demonstrate that providing the Panel subpoena authority is warranted so that it can compel Treasury and any other entities to provide all requisite information. For this reason, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation that would do just that so that it can be quickly sent to President Obama for his signature. Mr. President, I ask unanimous Consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Bill Nelson, to introduce legislation that would curb a growing nuisance that millions of wireless customers experience on a daily basis-- unsolicited text messages or mobile spam. Spam has long been loathed by email users around the world. It is for good reason--percent of all email sent worldwide is considered spam, which means close to 200 billion spam messages are sent every day. The vast majority of the spam sent on the Internet is done so illegally through the use of botnets, which are ``networks'' of hijacked or compromised computers. One botnet, Srizbi, which consists of more than 450,000 compromised PCs is able to send on average more than 60 billion spam messages per day. Many of these spam messages include viruses, malicious spyware, or are phishing attacks. With more data functionality and improved user interfaces with wireless devices, it is expected that mobile spam will grow over the next several years. Those viruses and malware that are so prevalent on a user's computer could and most likely will show up on their cell phones through m-spam. So a very significant threat to wireless users looms. While the FCC and the FTC have adopted rules to prohibit sending unwanted commercial e-mail messages to wireless devices without prior permission, text messages are not covered by their rules so it is not having the desired effect of deterring distribution of mobile spam, let alone email spam. The m-SPAM Act would provide more government attention to this growing problem and makes modifications to existing law in order to improve efforts to restrain mobile spam--before it becomes more than an annoyance. More text and voice spam are steadily invading handsets. Wireless users in the U.S. received more than 1.1 million spam text messages in 2007, up 38 percent from 2006. Mobile spam not only clutters a wireless user's inbox, but it also unduly increases the monthly wireless bill-- wireless subscribers typically are charged for sending and receiving text messages--sometimes as much as 20 cents per message. Some telephone companies have been proactive in preventing spam-- wireless carriers already block up to 200 million unsolicited text messages per month, but many times the senders cannot be located and brought to justice without Government help. In May 2007, Verizon Wireless sued telemarketers that had inundated the company with more than 12 million mobile spam messages. The carrier was able to block most of them but the inundation still hit consumers with unwanted charges and the carrier with a congested network. So more can be done to prevent this aggravating practice and relieve consumers of having to resolve these charges on their bills. Even the wireless industry recently has urged government to do more to catch and prosecute spammers. That is why I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join Senator Bill Nelson and me in supporting this critical legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in response to the devastating job losses resulting from the current economic crisis. Figures released this week show that U.S. companies shed more than 740,000 jobs in March, a 5 percent increase over the 706,000 jobs lost in February. Our country has now lost nearly 4.5 million jobs since the onset of the recession--the most since 1945. Tomorrow's release of government- compiled employment figures is certain to confirm the dismal state of the U.S. job market--a tragic reality that millions of hardworking Americans and the families they support know all too well. As a senior member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, I believe it is essential for the Department of Commerce to respond to this dire situation by focusing its efforts on expanding employment opportunities for Americans. With its statutory mission ``to foster, promote, and develop the foreign and domestic commerce,'' the Department of Commerce has a clear mandate to defend and grow the U.S. economy through job preservation and creation. Yet the disparate agencies that comprise the department have little or no occasion to coordinate their efforts toward maximizing its job maintaining and creating potential. While divisions such as the Economic Development Agency and the Minority Business Development Agency each have their own programs to increase employment in their respective target communities, there is the potential for even greater job creation through the coordination of their efforts with the core functions of other department components, such as the export-promotion activities of the International Trade Administration, the economic analysis of the Economics and Statistics Administration, and the stewardship of technological innovation by the National Telecommunications & Information Administration. That is why I am today introducing bipartisan legislation with my Commerce Committee colleague Senator Begich to establish a Job Creation Coordinator at the department. Answering directly to the Secretary of Commerce, the Coordinator would not only ensure that each agency is carrying out its primary mission in a way that maximizes U.S. employment, but also would identify and implement opportunities to link separate programs being carried out by the agencies in a way that ensures that department resources are being spent in a manner which guarantees the utmost job creation per dollar appropriated. Specifically, the Jobs Coordinator would be responsible for making an initial assessment of the private sector jobs currently being maintained or created by Commerce Department programs; formulating an action plan for improving these figures under existing statutory authority; liaising with Congress about additional authority which would enhance the job maintaining and creating abilities of Commerce Department programs; and, overseeing the implementation of new department policies or statutory authorities intended to enhance the department's job maintenance and creation potential. The millions of Americans who have lost their livelihoods to the economic downturn, or whose jobs are at risk amidst the turmoil, deserve the utmost effort by their government to put an end to the lay- offs and get people back to work. I urge my colleagues to join me in this vital effort by supporting this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, America's economy is continuing in recession. Companies that have been profitable for years are finding their balance sheets awash in red ink. The economic stimulus bill, the American Recover and Reinvestment Act or ``ARRA,'' helped some small companies with a provision that allows them to take losses from 2008 and carry them back for up to five years rather than carry them forward for up to 20 or back only two. This net operating loss, NOL, carryback provision gives formerly profitable companies the ability to get a quick infusion of cash by recouping taxes paid when they were profitable in the recent past. The cash from a 5 year carryback of NOLs allows companies to keep employees on payroll, and stabilize operations during the most trying time businesses have faced in at least a generation. The House and Senate and the Obama Administration all acknowledged the importance of permitting NOL carrybacks during the debate on the economic stimulus with provisions that generally allowed any company to carryback losses incurred in 2008 and 2009. Unfortunately, the final agreement on that law did not contain the sweeping provision that is necessary to help as many companies as are in need of this tax relief. Companies are permitted to take these losses against future income, for up to 20 years from now. However, that carryforward of losses does nothing to help companies weather the current recession in fact some of these companies might never be able to take these losses because they'll go out of business as a result of this recession. Permitting carryback of losses will help to prevent employees from being laid off today as a result of the credit crunch that continues to exacerbate the downward spiral of our economy. We can help lessen the credit crunch and increase cash flow in companies by permitting companies to carryback losses for 5 years. Today I am honored to introduce the NOL Carryback Act with the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus, and a distinguished group of colleagues from the Finance Committee. This bill mirrors the Senate-passed NOL carryback provision that was passed in ARRA. The Senate-passed bill allowed carrybacks for losses incurred in 2008 and 2009, for any sized business, but it prevented companies that receive cash from the Troubled Asset Relief Program from also receiving this cash infusion.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to enhance the availability of information to the public concerning the programs funded pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 enacted in February. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Casey in introducing this bill. In a recent meeting that I had with constituents from the Maine Municipal Association, several questions arose regarding application deadlines and when funding will be distributed under the act. Additionally, because there is no centralized location listing the opportunities available, some Mayors and First Selectmen had little idea of all the programs for which they may be eligible. Indeed, the officials spoke of finding out about various programs either through meetings or colleagues, and they noted that a regularly updated online database of catalogued programs would be extremely useful. This modest bill would require that the administration's recovery.gov website be expanded so that States and localities can easily ascertain stimulus funds for which they may be eligible. Cities and towns could benefit greatly if they could use Recovery.gov to quickly learn about funding for which they may be eligible, application deadlines, and who to contact for more information. An enhanced website or ``clearinghouse'' would facilitate the timely distribution of economic stimulus funds and ensure that they will be used as quickly and efficiently as possible to help restore economic growth throughout the country. I urge prompt consideration of this bill.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Bill Nelson, to introduce legislation that would curb a growing nuisance that millions of wireless customers experience on a daily basis-- unsolicited text messages or mobile spam. Spam has long been loathed by email users around the world. It is for good reason--percent of all email sent worldwide is considered spam, which means close to 200 billion spam messages are sent every day. The vast majority of the spam sent on the Internet is done so illegally through the use of botnets, which are ``networks'' of hijacked or compromised computers. One botnet, Srizbi, which consists of more than 450,000 compromised PCs is able to send on average more than 60 billion spam messages per day. Many of these spam messages include viruses, malicious spyware, or are phishing attacks. With more data functionality and improved user interfaces with wireless devices, it is expected that mobile spam will grow over the next several years. Those viruses and malware that are so prevalent on a user's computer could and most likely will show up on their cell phones through m-spam. So a very significant threat to wireless users looms. While the FCC and the FTC have adopted rules to prohibit sending unwanted commercial e-mail messages to wireless devices without prior permission, text messages are not covered by their rules so it is not having the desired effect of deterring distribution of mobile spam, let alone email spam. The m-SPAM Act would provide more government attention to this growing problem and makes modifications to existing law in order to improve efforts to restrain mobile spam--before it becomes more than an annoyance. More text and voice spam are steadily invading handsets. Wireless users in the U.S. received more than 1.1 million spam text messages in 2007, up 38 percent from 2006. Mobile spam not only clutters a wireless user's inbox, but it also unduly increases the monthly wireless bill-- wireless subscribers typically are charged for sending and receiving text messages--sometimes as much as 20 cents per message. Some telephone companies have been proactive in preventing spam-- wireless carriers already block up to 200 million unsolicited text messages per month, but many times the senders cannot be located and brought to justice without Government help. In May 2007, Verizon Wireless sued telemarketers that had inundated the company with more than 12 million mobile spam messages. The carrier was able to block most of them but the inundation still hit consumers with unwanted charges and the carrier with a congested network. So more can be done to prevent this aggravating practice and relieve consumers of having to resolve these charges on their bills. Even the wireless industry recently has urged government to do more to catch and prosecute spammers. That is why I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join Senator Bill Nelson and me in supporting this critical legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, my amendment would create a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the tax cuts of 2001 to extend those tax rates to small businesses that earn 50 percent of their income from small business. If we fail to do that, we can expect small businesses to see their taxes rise by 9 percent by allowing those rates to go up from 33 percent to 36 percent, and 36 percent to 39.6 percent. Why would we want to impose a tax on the very entities that we are depending upon to lead us out of this economic morass by increasing their taxes? Just this week, the Joint Tax Committee indicated there are 6.5 percent of those small businesses that earn over $250,000, which is three times the original estimate by those who were opposed to this amendment. Let me say that the Small Business Administration said 93 percent of all small business owners file an individual tax return. The Treasury Department has indicated that 9 percent earn 70 percent of the income in this country.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 773.

Ms. SNOWE. I am.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senate amendment No. 876, which I have cosponsored with my colleague Senator Lincoln. Our bipartisan amendment would simply clarify that a deficit-neutral reserve that would transform the health system will specifically address the needs of small businesses and the self-employed. More than half--52 percent--of our nation's uninsured either work for a small business or are dependent on someone who does. Yet remarkably, this budget resolution fails to even mention the crucial priority of small business health insurance reform. As former chair and now ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, one of the top issues facing small business continues to be access to affordable health insurance. Since 2000, health insurance premiums have increased by 89 percent--far outpacing inflation and wage gains, and only 49 percent of our Nation's smallest employers, with less than 10 employees, are now able to offer health insurance to their employees as a workplace benefit. Further compounding the crisis, small businesses are trapped in dysfunctional markets that possess little, if any, meaningful competition among insurers. Just last month, the Government Accountability Office released a report that I requested, along with Senators Bond, Durbin, and Lincoln, which highlighted an alarming trend of consolidation in the state small group insurance markets. For example, the combined market share of the five largest carriers represented 75 percent or more in 34 of 39 States surveyed, compared to 26 States in 2005. Large insurers dominated over 90 percent of the market in 23 States, including Maine, where five insurers now control 96 percent of the market. The sad truth remains that small business insurance markets continue to lack competition among insurers. No competition means higher costs, and higher costs translate to no health insurance. That is why I will soon reintroduce, with Assistant Majority Leader Durbin and Senator Lincoln, the Small Business Health Options Program-- SHOP--Act, a bipartisan measure that has generated a broad array of support, including NFIB, the National Association of Realtors, SEIU, AARP, and Families USA. Our bipartisan measure would inject competition into reformed state insurance markets, allow small businesses and the self employed to pool together nationally, and provide a targeted tax credit to small business owners. I firmly believe that the policies in the SHOP Act, including fairer insurance ``rating'' rules that are not based on an individual's health status, must be included in the broader health reform debate that is underway in Congress. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of aisle to support this non-controversial amendment, which would clarify that when Congress passes broader health reform and universal coverage this year, it will fully consider the issue of small business health insurance reform. Amendment No. 899 I rise as a cosponsor to support amendment No. 899 introduced by my colleague Senator Blanche Lincoln that creates a deficit neutral reserve fund to promote financial security through financial literacy, retirement planning, and savings incentives, including individual development accounts and child savings accounts. I am proud that we have worked together on the issue of financial security and financial literacy over the last several years, in particular on the issue of individual development accounts, IDAs, that will allow low-income individuals to pay for education expenses, first-time homebuyer costs, and business capitalization or expansion costs. I join Senator Lincoln in support of this crucial amendment because we must boost savings in the United States, as a sound national savings policy is essential to helping Americans build a better future for themselves. Higher rates of saving can also strengthen the national economy. A paradox of the current economic recession is that our national savings rate has risen as Americans prepare for possible bad times ahead. Personal saving, as a percentage of disposable personal income, was 4.2 percent in February. It was 4.4 percent in January. The last time the saving rate exceeded 4.0 percent two straight months was August and September 1998, up 4.3 percent and 4.2 percent, respectively. It was more than 10 years ago the last time we had a savings rate above 4 percent. I am glad to see it happening, but we need to increase education on financial security so that Americans have a cushion to get through difficult economic times. I thank the new Chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions and Family Policy for adding me as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and as a longstanding steward of the environment, I have continuously requested increased funding for the Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star for Small Business Program, which has documented how voluntary action by small business owners can reduce energy costs by 30 percent or more. The Snowe-Landrieu amendment would require that a minimum of 2 percent of the EPA's Energy Star Program's total budget be allocated to the Energy Star for Small Business Program. This critical program provides free unbiased information and technical support for small businesses to improve their company's financial performance by reducing energy waste and energy costs, while protecting the Earth's environment. Regrettably, in the past, less than 2 percent of Energy Star's annual funding has been allocated to the Small Business program which is responsible for reaching the entire small business community, thereby restricting its tremendous potential impact. This inadequate percentage grossly underestimates the critical role small businesses can play in improving our Nation's energy efficiency and reducing our carbon footprint. Through efforts to increase energy efficiency, small businesses can contribute to America's energy security, help to combat global warming, while strengthening their competitive advantage all at the same time. With 27 million small businesses in the U.S. comprising 99.7 percent of all domestic employer firms and producing approximately half of all the commercial and industrial energy in the United States, the role small businesses can play in forging a solution to global climate change and rising energy prices is undeniable. This amendment would provide small businesses with the funding, technical assistance, and resources necessary to improve small business energy efficiency. Every effort must be made at the Federal level to ensure the connection small businesses can engage in clean and renewable energy. I appreciate the support of my colleagues on this amendment. Amendment No. 810 Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by Senator Brown, which I am cosponsoring, to create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to support funding for critical workforce strategy programs that help individuals seeking specialized training for emerging industries. This reserve fund will help highlight the need for resources to grow new employment opportunities that are critical to economic recovery by supporting workforce strategy programs that help those in need of training. Any effort to further stabilize our careening economy must include consideration of job training and transformation. Improving and reauthorizing the Workforce Investment Act, WIA, to help the millions of unemployed--and millions more underemployed--must be a critical element of bolstering our economy. Much has been made of the phenomena of ``green jobs'' and a ``green technology.''At a recent speech in Atlanta, author Tom Friedman urged America to retake the lead in the world through innovation in ``ET''-- Energy Technology. Friedman said the United States needs to ``invent a source of abundant, cheap, clean, reliable electrons.'' He compared the ``ET'' movement to the ``IT''--Information Technology--movement of the last decade. There are thousands of entrepreneurs who are developing the next energy concept that will revolutionize our energy policies, and those concepts will need a highly educated and prepared workforce to make them a reality. The job training programs already in place under the Workforce Investment Act can help activate Americans, and expedite the transformation into a new energy economy. I believe this amendment will help ensure funding for our workers to get the best training and pave the way for just such a revolutionary shift in the future of this country. Throughout the Nation, workforce strategy programs, like those within WIA, are being used to promote the long-term competitiveness of industries and to advance employment opportunities. For example, the State of Maine has created a program called the North Star Alliance Initiative. The Alliance has brought together Maine's boat builders, the University of Maine's Advanced Engineered Wood Composites Centers, Maine's marine and composite trade association, economic development groups, and investment organizations for the purpose of advancing workforce training. In order to promote programs like the North Star Alliance Initiative, Senator Brown and I introduced the SECTORS Act, S. 777, which provides grants to industry clusters--interrelated group of businesses, service providers, and associated institutions in order to establish and expand sector partnerships. By providing financial assistance to these partnerships, this legislation would create customized workforce training solutions for specific industries at a regional level. A sector approach is beneficial because it can focus on the dual goals of promoting the long-term competitiveness of industries and advancing employment opportunities for workers, thereby encouraging economic growth. Existing sector partnerships have long been recognized as key strategic elements within some of the most successful economic development initiatives throughout the country. Unfortunately, current federal policy does not provide sufficient support for these critical ventures. This amendment will help ensure that critical funding will be made available for the SECTORS Act if it is passed into law. Amendment No. 969

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to enhance the availability of information to the public concerning the programs funded pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 enacted in February. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Casey in introducing this bill. In a recent meeting that I had with constituents from the Maine Municipal Association, several questions arose regarding application deadlines and when funding will be distributed under the act. Additionally, because there is no centralized location listing the opportunities available, some Mayors and First Selectmen had little idea of all the programs for which they may be eligible. Indeed, the officials spoke of finding out about various programs either through meetings or colleagues, and they noted that a regularly updated online database of catalogued programs would be extremely useful. This modest bill would require that the administration's recovery.gov website be expanded so that States and localities can easily ascertain stimulus funds for which they may be eligible. Cities and towns could benefit greatly if they could use Recovery.gov to quickly learn about funding for which they may be eligible, application deadlines, and who to contact for more information. An enhanced website or ``clearinghouse'' would facilitate the timely distribution of economic stimulus funds and ensure that they will be used as quickly and efficiently as possible to help restore economic growth throughout the country. I urge prompt consideration of this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in response to the devastating job losses resulting from the current economic crisis. Figures released this week show that U.S. companies shed more than 740,000 jobs in March, a 5 percent increase over the 706,000 jobs lost in February. Our country has now lost nearly 4.5 million jobs since the onset of the recession--the most since 1945. Tomorrow's release of government- compiled employment figures is certain to confirm the dismal state of the U.S. job market--a tragic reality that millions of hardworking Americans and the families they support know all too well. As a senior member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, I believe it is essential for the Department of Commerce to respond to this dire situation by focusing its efforts on expanding employment opportunities for Americans. With its statutory mission ``to foster, promote, and develop the foreign and domestic commerce,'' the Department of Commerce has a clear mandate to defend and grow the U.S. economy through job preservation and creation. Yet the disparate agencies that comprise the department have little or no occasion to coordinate their efforts toward maximizing its job maintaining and creating potential. While divisions such as the Economic Development Agency and the Minority Business Development Agency each have their own programs to increase employment in their respective target communities, there is the potential for even greater job creation through the coordination of their efforts with the core functions of other department components, such as the export-promotion activities of the International Trade Administration, the economic analysis of the Economics and Statistics Administration, and the stewardship of technological innovation by the National Telecommunications & Information Administration. That is why I am today introducing bipartisan legislation with my Commerce Committee colleague Senator Begich to establish a Job Creation Coordinator at the department. Answering directly to the Secretary of Commerce, the Coordinator would not only ensure that each agency is carrying out its primary mission in a way that maximizes U.S. employment, but also would identify and implement opportunities to link separate programs being carried out by the agencies in a way that ensures that department resources are being spent in a manner which guarantees the utmost job creation per dollar appropriated. Specifically, the Jobs Coordinator would be responsible for making an initial assessment of the private sector jobs currently being maintained or created by Commerce Department programs; formulating an action plan for improving these figures under existing statutory authority; liaising with Congress about additional authority which would enhance the job maintaining and creating abilities of Commerce Department programs; and, overseeing the implementation of new department policies or statutory authorities intended to enhance the department's job maintenance and creation potential. The millions of Americans who have lost their livelihoods to the economic downturn, or whose jobs are at risk amidst the turmoil, deserve the utmost effort by their government to put an end to the lay- offs and get people back to work. I urge my colleagues to join me in this vital effort by supporting this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, America's economy is continuing in recession. Companies that have been profitable for years are finding their balance sheets awash in red ink. The economic stimulus bill, the American Recover and Reinvestment Act or ``ARRA,'' helped some small companies with a provision that allows them to take losses from 2008 and carry them back for up to five years rather than carry them forward for up to 20 or back only two. This net operating loss, NOL, carryback provision gives formerly profitable companies the ability to get a quick infusion of cash by recouping taxes paid when they were profitable in the recent past. The cash from a 5 year carryback of NOLs allows companies to keep employees on payroll, and stabilize operations during the most trying time businesses have faced in at least a generation. The House and Senate and the Obama Administration all acknowledged the importance of permitting NOL carrybacks during the debate on the economic stimulus with provisions that generally allowed any company to carryback losses incurred in 2008 and 2009. Unfortunately, the final agreement on that law did not contain the sweeping provision that is necessary to help as many companies as are in need of this tax relief. Companies are permitted to take these losses against future income, for up to 20 years from now. However, that carryforward of losses does nothing to help companies weather the current recession in fact some of these companies might never be able to take these losses because they'll go out of business as a result of this recession. Permitting carryback of losses will help to prevent employees from being laid off today as a result of the credit crunch that continues to exacerbate the downward spiral of our economy. We can help lessen the credit crunch and increase cash flow in companies by permitting companies to carryback losses for 5 years. Today I am honored to introduce the NOL Carryback Act with the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus, and a distinguished group of colleagues from the Finance Committee. This bill mirrors the Senate-passed NOL carryback provision that was passed in ARRA. The Senate-passed bill allowed carrybacks for losses incurred in 2008 and 2009, for any sized business, but it prevented companies that receive cash from the Troubled Asset Relief Program from also receiving this cash infusion.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Enchantment Wedding Services, a small business in my home State of Maine that is led by an innovative and caring entrepreneur who is using her talents to lighten the burden for those struggling with breast cancer. Enchantment Wedding Services is the brainchild of Ellie Bowie, a notary public who has been officiating wedding ceremonies for over a decade. She recently opened a shop on Main Street in Lisbon Falls, where she began selling wedding gowns, in addition to offering wedding services. Aside from its dresses, Enchantment Weddings sells tiaras, gloves, and veils, and Ms. Bowie hopes to soon carry bridesmaid dresses at her shop. Enchantment Weddings purchases both new and vintage wedding gowns from the Making Memories Foundation, a group that focuses on granting the wishes of terminal breast cancer patients, as well as providing education about the disease and resources available to these patients. The dresses are all elegant Victorian or Edwardian styles, many of which were donated to the organization by high-end bridal boutiques nationwide. Committed to helping the Making Memories Foundation in its efforts, Ms. Bowie returns 5 percent of the price of each gown's sale to the Brides Against Breast Cancer program, an initiative of the Making Memories Foundation that raises money to help breast cancer patients and their families. She was inspired to engage in this partnership by her grandmother, a breast cancer survivor who lived to be 96, as well as a close friend's mother who is fighting the disease. What makes Ms. Bowie's business all the more impressive is that it is, in essence, her second job. Ms. Bowie works fulltime for a local trucking company, and operates Enchantment Weddings during evenings and weekends. Ms. Bowie's commitment to her business is remarkable, and her passion for making a difference in the lives of the hundreds of thousands suffering with this disease is nothing short of inspiring. Mr. President, too many women and men will find out this year that they have breast cancer. But fortunately for them, our country has people like Ellie Bowie, who will ensure that America's greatest strengths--its benevolent nature and kindhearted spirit--never fade. I thank Ms. Bowie for her thoughtful, creative, and compassionate efforts, and wish her and her business the best of success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Selecting Employment Clusters to Organize Regional Success, SECTORS, Act which Senators Brown and I are introducing. This legislation would amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to establish a new industry or sector partnership grant program administered by the Department of Labor. The SECTORS Act provides grants to industry clusters--interrelated group of businesses, service providers, and associated institutions--in order to establish and expand sector partnerships. By providing financial assistance to these partnerships, this legislation would create customized workforce training solutions for specific industries at a regional level. A sector approach is beneficial because it can focus on the dual goals of promoting the long-term competitiveness of industries and advancing employment opportunities for workers, thereby encouraging economic growth. Existing sector partnerships have long been recognized as key strategic elements within some of the most successful economic development initiatives throughout the country. Unfortunately, current Federal policy does not provide sufficient support for these critical ventures. As Co-Chair of the bipartisan Senate Task Force on Manufacturing, one of my key goals is to ensure that manufacturers have access to a capable workforce. Unfortunately, manufacturers across the country have raised significant concerns about whether the next generation of workers is being trained to meet the needs of an increasingly high-tech workplace. In fact, in my home State of Maine, the manufacturing sector has shed an alarming 23,600 jobs in the past 10 years; nearly 30 percent of the State's manufacturing employment. It is thereby critical that we as a Nation provide unemployed manufacturing workers the training needed to excel as our manufacturing sector becomes increasingly technical. This legislation provides a crucial link between establishing worker training programs and fostering new employment opportunities for those who have been affected by the manufacturing industry's decline. By promoting this innovative partnership we will take a crucial step toward rejuvenating our economy. Throughout the country, sector partnerships are being used to promote the long-term competitiveness of industries and to advance employment opportunities. For example, the State of Maine has created the North Star Alliance Initiative. The Alliance has brought together Maine's boat builders, the University of Maine's Advanced Engineered Wood Composites Centers, Maine's marine and composite trade association, economic development groups, and investment organizations for the purpose of advancing workforce training. Our Nation's capacity to innovate is a key reason why our economy continues to grow and remains the envy of the world. Ideas by innovative Americans in the private and public sector have paid enormous dividends, improving the lives of millions throughout the world. We must continue to encourage all avenues for advancing this vital sector if America is to compete at the forefront of innovation.

Ms. SNOWE

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

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I plan to offer an amendment tomorrow that I would like to discuss this evening very briefly because I do think it is an important matter as we consider the economic climate in which we find ourselves. My amendment would create a deficit-neutral reserve fund that would extend the 2001 tax cut rates for small business owners so this tax increase does not subtract from the pool of capital that is going to be available to small business. As the Ranking Member of the Small Business Committee and senior member of the Finance Committee, I rise on this critical issue of taxation because I am deeply concerned about how proposed tax rate increases will harm small business capital formation. There has been a significant debate about the effect on small business of raising tax rates on those making over $250,000. I do not disagree with some of those efforts, but I do have a deep concern about the impact and the implications that it will have on small businesses and their ability to access affordable capital in this current economic downturn. The expiration of these tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 for couples making over $250,000 will directly and indisputably affect small businesses. Hiking taxes from 33 to 36 percent and from 35 to 39.6 percent results in a 9-percent tax increase for either tax rate. So if the Government is subtracting 9 percent from small business owners, obviously, that suggests fewer resources will be available to reinvest in business. As we know, access to capital is a constant struggle for America's small businesses, particularly at this time of a continuing credit crisis. We have seen the credit crunch that has had a direct effect on small businesses. Lines of credit have been denied. Access to capital is simply not available. Time and time again, we have heard from small businesses, and certainly that was true at a hearing we held recently in the Small Business Committee, because small business owners are saying repeatedly they have had considerable difficulty in being able to access credit from banks. So we have a serious crisis because if we depend on small businesses to generate the jobs, which they do--70 percent of all the net new jobs in this country; half of all the private-sector employers, 70 percent of the nonfarm gross domestic product--then clearly we have to be concerned about the response of small businesses when we are raising the tax rates for those making over $250,000. We simply cannot increase taxes by 9 percent on small businesses and not expect that this tax hike will have an immediate effect on the amount of capital they re-invest in their business. I fear that in lieu of investing their own funds, small businesses will have to, obviously, turn to the frozen credit markets which clearly has impeded any ability of small businesses to secure capital. Most recently, a Federal Reserve study demonstrated that 70 percent of banks have tightened loans to small businesses. Well, Chairman Landrieu of the Small Business Committee and I have been working to free up lending for small business owners. Recently, the President conducted a small business summit at the White House, and we heard directly from small business owners who said their lines of credit have simply dried up. I know some of the banks have said, some of the TARP recipients said: Well, we are lending money. But the truth is, it is simply not happening. So there are numerous provisions in the stimulus package that I and Chair Landrieu had worked to insert because we thought it was important to make sure we took the steps to ensure a Main Street recovery, some of which were in the flagship SBA programs, the 7(a) and 504 programs, to reduce or eliminate the lenders' and borrowers' fees which are going to be instrumental to allowing banks to more freely loan money to small businesses because these are the key lending programs. We also provided for a 90-percent guarantee under the 7(a) program for any of the loans that are issued. In the stimulus package, I was able to secure a provision that will allow small businesses to make quarterly estimate tax payments of 90 percent of their 2008 tax liability rather than 110 percent estimated tax payments. That is important to ensure there is available capital for small businesses, to ease the credit flow for small businesses so they can survive in this very serious economic downturn. So we have done a number of things that are going to be so essential for the preservation and survival of small business in this very serious recession, which is the worst since the Great Depression. We included a stabilization loan fund that will provide up to $35,000 for small businesses that otherwise have been viable businesses but are having difficulty making their payments. So we want to ease the flow of capital on a monthly basis. So it gives them a life line, a bridge until they will be able to find a better economic climate in which to do business. The fact is, credit is essential. Small businesses are vital because they are the job generators in America. Our economy is wholly dependent on the well-being and the health of small businesses. That is why the President--and I recommended and endorsed this idea--is going to use some of the TARP funds to buy small business loans in the secondary market, again, freeing up the capital, easing the pressures on many of the banks, so they can issue those loans in the secondary markets. And up to $15 billion in TARP funds would be used. So again, it is another way of easing the credit restraints, but also to provide more liquidity in the markets so that small businesses are able to go about and continue to do their business. We have to avert not only job losses in this economy, but primarily to make sure if we are going to do so, that we prevent small business owners from shutting their doors on Main Streets all across America. The vast majority of businesses in this country are known as ``flow- through'' or ``pass-through'' businesses, meaning that the income from a business is taxable to the individual owner and is not taxed at the business unit level. The forms of ownership that fall into the definition of flow-through businesses are sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations. According to the Small Business Administration, flow-through businesses represented 93 percent of all small businesses in 2004. And specifically, there were 19.2 million sole proprietorships, representing 72 percent of all businesses; 2.3 million partnerships, representing 9 percent of businesses; and 3.3 million S corporations, representing 12 percent of businesses. And we consider this to be an incomplete snapshot of all small businesses because there are roughly another 2 million small C corporations, representing 7 percent of small businesses, that pay taxes both at the business level and individual level when profits are distributed. The point is, that small businesses are critical. They pay the individual tax rate. That is the problem with allowing the tax rates to expire from the 2001 and 2003 tax bills, for those small businesses that are earning more than $250,000. The data provided earlier this week from the Joint Committee on Taxation shows that 6.5 percent of business owners--as defined by individuals receiving flow-through income, as I mentioned earlier, who pay the individual tax rate--will see their taxes increased as a result of this major tax hike. This is in stark contrast to those critics who have said it is only going to be 2.2 percent of taxpayers who will be affected by this tax increase. But yet Joint Tax shows it is almost three times what they indicated. But more importantly, it is the amount of income that these small businesses generate in our Nation's economy. The Joint Committee on Taxation data reinforces a 2007 Treasury study that demonstrated among taxpayers whose flow-through income amounted to at least 50 percent of their wages--clearly indicating the primary business owner--that 9 percent earned 69 percent of total flow-through income but paid 81 percent of the taxes on it. So 9 percent earned 69 percent of this small business income and they paid 81 percent of the taxes on it. That is the problem because we are going to directly increase taxes on those small businesses that generate the preponderance of the income from small businesses in America. Now, I drew on this Treasury study to help craft my amendment which targets not the passive investor in small business but the individual who is really earning their keep from small businesses. My amendment uses the definition of ``small business'' as determined by the Small Business Administration. I want to highlight one form of business ownership in particular, and that is the S corporation because this form of ownership represents small firms that have graduated past the ``kitchen table'' stage of business and have employees. Again, the Joint Committee on Taxation data indicates that in 2006, 22 percent of taxpayers who earned income from S corporations were making more than $250,000. Furthermore, a new study--a very recent study--from the SBA Office of Advocacy demonstrated there were roughly 3.3 million S corporation returns filed for 2004 and by the industry sector, the most prevalent, were wholesale and retail trade. So, in essence, these are the Main Street businesses, the retailers, the construction firms, the manufacturers, the job generators of this economy. We cannot subtract another 9 percent from their income and think it is not going to affect--not only them but our Nation's economy. We have to do everything we can to nurture and cultivate an environment in which small businesses can survive during this economic crisis. We need to be fostering that environment, not increasing taxes on small businesses at the very time when they need more capital just to get by. A recent SBA study noted that half of all small business income is earned by businesses organized either as a partnership or an S corporation, despite the fact that they constitute only about 20 percent of business units. So it is critical that we evaluate this particular provision. When we are talking about allowing the expiration of the tax rates in 2001 and 2003, we have to consider and evaluate it specifically on how it will affect the health and the well-being of small businesses in America's economy. Small businesses as job generators have been underappreciated and unrecognized. They have been the unsung heroes of our economy, even prior to this recession. I think we have to be wholly attentive to the role they play in our Nation's economy. After all, there are 27 million small businesses in America today. We have to ensure their survival. The way we can do it is to consider the policies enacted and how they directly have an effect on small businesses, whether it is by increasing regulation, diminishing the availability of credit, or by raising taxes, all of which have a collective effect on the well-being and effectiveness of small business. I think it is rather ironic that on one hand we are doing everything we can through the stimulus, through the TARP funds to make credit available, and then on the other hand we are subtracting from it by raising the tax rate. Some say we are only deferring that; it is 2 years away. But small businesses have to plan for the future. The net effect will be that they will constantly retrench in anticipation that their tax rates are going to rise, which only stands to reason. It is a logical response. It certainly will change their behavior today as a result of what they can expect in the future. So suggesting that somehow deferring it 2 years out will make it better is not an answer. We don't have any prognostications in terms of what this economy is going to look like in 2 years, we still will have high rates of unemployment. It is going to be a slow path forward toward recovery, and we will be depending on small businesses to ultimately lead the way out of this recession and to pave the way forward toward a recovery. So because we are dependent on small businesses, then we have to consider very carefully the impact that raising tax rates will have on small businesses in America. So when some say that tax increases would not have an impact today, but it will in 2 years, I answer that it will have an impact today because business owners will just defer investment in a plant. They will defer other investments. They will defer hiring. They may lay off, given the current climate, to be sure, but also in anticipation of the future, knowing that they will have to pay increased taxes. A tax increase of this magnitude alters economic behavior. It alters capital formation indisputably. So on this issue alone I think it is very critical that we be circumspect and cautious in terms of how we approach it. That is why the amendment I will offer tomorrow will create a deficit-neutral fund so we can be sure that we do not have these sorts of tax increases that will be directly imposed on small businesses. I hope the Senate will support this amendment. It is specific and targeted toward small business owners so this tax increase doesn't affect them, it doesn't affect their behavior, either now or into the future, and ensures that there is a pool of capital so they can continue to do business and, hopefully, be able to survive and overcome the hurdles this economic climate represents. The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council recently stated the higher the marginal tax rate, the higher the relative price for additional work and risk taking, and that high tax rates discourage economic activity. I know a number of organizations have conducted their own surveys, and I think it is illustrative again of the problems that will confront small businesses as a direct result of this specific tax increase. There was a poll conducted by Gallup for the National Federation of Independent Businesses, otherwise known as NFIB. When surveyed, 21.7 percent of small business owners who employ 220 to 249 employees responded that the income earned from their businesses would be greater than $250,000. That bears reiterating. More than 20 percent of small businesses stated that they would have income greater than $250,000. This data certainly comports with the data provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation regarding partnership income and S corporation income. Even more striking was the response from other small businesses where they indicated it would certainly have a detrimental impact when they were asked about their total household income from all sources, and 40 percent of these entrepreneurs, with 20 to 249 employees, responded that their household income would be greater than $250,000. In either survey question, this cohort was the largest response group of any income group or size of employer and is indicative that successful small businesses are precisely the group that is most likely to face increased taxes if the top two marginal tax rates again rise to 36 and 39.6 percent because the net result is they will pay a 9-percent tax increase. So I hope the Senate will endorse my amendment when I offer it tomorrow. I yield the floor.