Olympia Snowe

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 rise today in support of the passage of a truly bipartisan amendment to the budget resolution that Senator Cardin and I are introducing. This vital amendment would address the Government Accountability Office's, GAO, recent recommendations to improve the Small Business Administration's, SBA, management and oversight of the Historically Underutilized Business Zone, HUBZone Program and ensure that only eligible firms participate in this crucial program. As former chair and now ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have long championed critical small business programs such as the HUBZone Program, which provides Federal contracting assistance to small firms located in economically distressed areas, with the intent of stimulating economic development and job creation. According to the GAO, as of February 2008, 12,986 certified businesses have participated in the HUBZone Program, since its inception in 1997. And in fiscal year 2007 alone, over 4,200 HUBZone firms obtained approximately $8.5 billion in Federal contracts. During these troubling financial times, the HUBZone Program is an essential tool in helping small businesses drive our national economic recovery. Unfortunately, the GAO recently found in its three reports--Small Business Administration: Additional Actions Are Needed to Certify and Monitor HUBZone Businesses and Assess Program Results, GAO-08-643; HUBZone Program: SBA's Control Weaknesses Exposed the Government to Fraud and Abuse, GAO-08-964T; and HUBZone Program: SBA's Control Weaknesses Exposed the Government to Fraud and Abuse, GAO-08-964T--that the mechanisms that the SBA uses to certify and monitor HUBZone firms provide limited assurance that only eligible firms participate in the program. The GAO report found that of 125 applications submitted in September of 2007, the SBA only requested supporting documentation, which helps to clarify the eligibility of the business, for 36 percent of the applications and only conducted a single site visit for all 125 applicants. While the SBA's policies and procedures require program examinations, the agency only conducts them on 5 percent of certified HUBZone firms each year. This is a glaring lack of oversight that must be rectified. The amendment we introduce today would take immediate steps to correct the lack of effective administrative oversight by incorporating all recommendations that GAO provided for improving the HUBZone Program. This measure would require more routine and consistent supporting documentation during the program's application process. In its report, the GAO found that the SBA relies on Federal law to identify qualified HUBZone areas, but the map it uses to publicize HUBZone areas is inaccurate, and the economic characteristics of designated areas vary widely. Our amendment would require that the SBA take immediate steps to correct and update the map that the SBA uses to identify HUBZone areas and implement procedures to ensure that the map is accurately updated with the most recently available data on a more frequent basis. The GAO also found that the mechanisms that the SBA uses to certify and monitor firms provide limited assurance that only eligible firms participate in the program. It reported that more than 4,600 firms that had been in the program for at least 3 years went unmonitored. This amendment would require the SBA to develop and implement guidance to more routinely and consistently obtain supporting documentation and conduct more frequent site visits, as appropriate, to ensure that firms applying for certification are indeed eligible. These commonsense, achievable steps would help to eliminate participant fraud and misrepresentation and ensure that firms applying for HUBZone certification are truly lawful and eligible businesses. In its reports, the GAO illustrates the SBA lack of a formal policy on how quickly it needs to make a final determination on decertifying firms that may no longer be eligible for the HUBZone Program. According to the GAO, of the more than 3,600 firms proposed for decertification in fiscal years 2006 and 2007, more than 1,400 were not processed within 60 days--the SBA's targeted timeline. As a result of these weaknesses, there is an increased risk that ineligible firms have participated in the program and had opportunities to receive Federal contracts based on their HUBZone certification. This failure in oversight hurts new and deserving firms in their quest to receive assistance through the HUBZone Program, which is the last thing we need during these challenging and perilous economic times. Our amendment would require the SBA to formalize and adhere to a specific timeframe for processing firms proposed for decertification in the future, as well as require further developed measures in assessing the effectiveness of the HUBZone Program. Moreover, the Federal Government must strive to continue to provide additional contracting opportunities to those who are legitimate HUBZone firms. I am dismayed by the myriad ways that Government agencies have time and again egregiously failed to meet most of their small business contracting goals. I am alarmed that only one Federal small business contracting program--the Small Disadvantaged Business Program--has met its statutory goal and that the three other small business goaling programs have all fallen drastically short. For example, in fiscal year 2007, the HUBZone Program met only 2.2 percent of its 3 percent Government-wide goal. The Federal Government can and must provide more to our country's hard-working small businesses, and I am confident that this amendment will pave the way for more qualified firms to receive HUBZone assistance. In my home State of Maine, only 127 of 41,026 small businesses are qualified HUBZone businesses. HUBZones represent a tremendous tool for replacing lost jobs across all industry sectors in distressed geographic areas--clearly, this program should be better utilized.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce legislation to increase access for our Nation's children to affordable, quality tutoring. The Affordable Tutoring for Our Children Act would enable middle-class families to purchase supplemental instructional services on a pre-tax basis, ensuring greater utilization of critical educational tools. I would like to thank my good friend, Senator Nelson of Florida, for cosponsoring this bill. A sound education for every American child is fundamental to the well-being and prosperity of our society, both now and in the future. Yet, as we are all acutely aware, not every child learns at the same pace, nor in the same manner, and some face unique challenges that cannot be overcome simply in a typical classroom setting. Many children require--and greatly benefit from--additional help in academics. Regrettably, our Nation's middle-class families are increasingly unable to afford this essential ancillary support for their children. Indeed, according to education market research company Eduventure, the average amount spent annually by a family on private tutoring for a student is $1,110. Unfortunately, given the considerable and ever-increasing financial strains facing middle-class families, with more and more income going to pay for gasoline, health care, groceries, and a multitude of other expenses, tutoring is often out of reach. In fact, according to a 2007 report from Demos and the Institute on Assets & Social Policy at Brandeis University, more than half of middle-class families have no financial assets, or worse, their debts exceeds their assets. At present, employees may set aside a portion of their earnings to establish a flexible spending account, or FSA, allowing them to pay for qualified medical or dependent care expenses free from income and payroll taxes. Our legislation would permit employees to use their dependent care FSAs to cover supplemental instructional expenses, thereby saving themselves up to 40 percent of their cost. Critically, this bill is targeted to middle-class families, those who most necessitate our assistance. Indeed, only those employees making $110,000 or less per year would be able to exclude amounts paid for these services from their taxable income. Additionally, supplemental instructional expenses would be subject to a combined $5,000 cap with other dependent care expenses. This bill would help more middle-class children to receive extra assistance for a host of subjects ranging from English and mathematics to science, government, and foreign languages. At a time when graduates who attain a bachelor's degree earn roughly 96 percent more than high school graduates, according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, it is vital that our Nation's children get the help they need to succeed. With middle-class families feeling the squeeze from every angle, our legislation would provide essential relief for those parents seeking to ensure that their children have the best educational experience possible. I urge my colleagues to consider the dramatic advantage our children will gain from this crucial bill, and look forward to its passage in a timely manner. 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 to reintroduce legislation to increase access for our Nation's children to affordable, quality tutoring. The Affordable Tutoring for Our Children Act would enable middle-class families to purchase supplemental instructional services on a pre-tax basis, ensuring greater utilization of critical educational tools. I would like to thank my good friend, Senator Nelson of Florida, for cosponsoring this bill. A sound education for every American child is fundamental to the well-being and prosperity of our society, both now and in the future. Yet, as we are all acutely aware, not every child learns at the same pace, nor in the same manner, and some face unique challenges that cannot be overcome simply in a typical classroom setting. Many children require--and greatly benefit from--additional help in academics. Regrettably, our Nation's middle-class families are increasingly unable to afford this essential ancillary support for their children. Indeed, according to education market research company Eduventure, the average amount spent annually by a family on private tutoring for a student is $1,110. Unfortunately, given the considerable and ever-increasing financial strains facing middle-class families, with more and more income going to pay for gasoline, health care, groceries, and a multitude of other expenses, tutoring is often out of reach. In fact, according to a 2007 report from Demos and the Institute on Assets & Social Policy at Brandeis University, more than half of middle-class families have no financial assets, or worse, their debts exceeds their assets. At present, employees may set aside a portion of their earnings to establish a flexible spending account, or FSA, allowing them to pay for qualified medical or dependent care expenses free from income and payroll taxes. Our legislation would permit employees to use their dependent care FSAs to cover supplemental instructional expenses, thereby saving themselves up to 40 percent of their cost. Critically, this bill is targeted to middle-class families, those who most necessitate our assistance. Indeed, only those employees making $110,000 or less per year would be able to exclude amounts paid for these services from their taxable income. Additionally, supplemental instructional expenses would be subject to a combined $5,000 cap with other dependent care expenses. This bill would help more middle-class children to receive extra assistance for a host of subjects ranging from English and mathematics to science, government, and foreign languages. At a time when graduates who attain a bachelor's degree earn roughly 96 percent more than high school graduates, according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, it is vital that our Nation's children get the help they need to succeed. With middle-class families feeling the squeeze from every angle, our legislation would provide essential relief for those parents seeking to ensure that their children have the best educational experience possible. I urge my colleagues to consider the dramatic advantage our children will gain from this crucial bill, and look forward to its passage in a timely manner. 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 in support of the National Lighthouse Stewardship Act, which will create a 3-year competitive grant program to be administered by the Department of the Interior that will help preserve and rehabilitate historic lighthouses across the country. In my State of Maine, we are lucky to be home to 83 lighthouses. Further, there are approximately 740 lighthouses in 31 other States. The Coast Guard has not traditionally had the resources to maintain the lighthouses which are now being transferred under the National Lighthouse Preservation Act from Federal ownership to non-profit historical societies who have taken on the responsibility. Helping to provide the resources necessary to ensure these lighthouses are not lost would be a boost to both tourism and jobs. Failure to do so would potentially harm not only the existence of an historic emblem of my State and our Nation--but also a key economic catalyst for tourism that is part and parcel of my home State and the livelihood of many of her citizens. Each lighthouse tells a different story and each one is as integral to the history and narrative of our State as the magnificent landscapes on which they proudly stand. That is why in 1995, I introduced a bill that would later become law to establish the Maine Lights Program. We succeeded in preserving this significant component of American heritage through collaboration among the Federal Government, the State of Maine, local communities, and private organizations, while at the same time, relieving what had become a costly strain on the U.S. Coast Guard. Across the country, responsibility for the care of our lighthouses has been assumed by non-profit historic societies--many of which are struggling in these uncertain economic times. This bill would authorize $20 million for a three-year competitive grant pilot program that would provide grants to stewards of historic lighthouses to help them preserve and rehabilitate the lighthouses under their care. I believe that the essential word in my previous sentence is ``stewards''--because the structures are still federally owned property. It is not private property; it is not city or town property, or even state property; but federal property. It is also imperative to note that these lighthouses are operable aids to navigation. Lighthouses may seem a quaint relic of a bygone era, however they are not. Daily, lighthouses lead our nation's mariners and fishermen away from danger. Given that the maintenance of lighthouses is now being transferred under the National Lighthouse Preservation Act from Federal ownership to non-profit historical societies, the task of providing the required resources to ensure the longevity and viability of these lighthouses would also represent a welcomed economic boost both to tourism and to job creation. The fact is, tourism has become increasingly crucial to Maine's economy, as manufacturing jobs have fled our State, not to mention our Nation. In fact, in 2006, the most recent year for which statistics are available, approximately 1/5 of State sales tax revenues were attributable to tourism, and, when income and fuel taxes are added, the Maine State government collected $429 million tourism-related tax dollars in that year. The Maine State Planning Office, which has quantified more precisely the pivotal role tourism plays in the Maine economy, found that in 2006, tourism generated $10 billion in sales of goods and services, 140,000 jobs, and $3 billion in earnings. Tourism accounts for one in five dollars of sales throughout Maine's economy and supported the equivalent of one in six Maine jobs. The planning office also discovered that an estimated 10 million overnight trips and 30 million day trips were taken that year in Maine, with travelers spending nearly $1 billion on lodging, $3 billion on food, and $1 billion on recreational activities. But those statistics are from 3 years ago . . . before the economy began to unravel at an accelerating rate, and so given these economic times confronting all of us, the financial necessity of our lighthouses, especially to tourism, has grown, not dissipated. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and send a message not only that historic preservation of our Nation's prominent buildings and structures--like our lighthouses--continues to be in the national interest, but also that tourism--especially international tourism--is an industry we should be striving to support as a key component of reviving our ailing economy.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the National Lighthouse Stewardship Act, which will create a 3-year competitive grant program to be administered by the Department of the Interior that will help preserve and rehabilitate historic lighthouses across the country. In my State of Maine, we are lucky to be home to 83 lighthouses. Further, there are approximately 740 lighthouses in 31 other States. The Coast Guard has not traditionally had the resources to maintain the lighthouses which are now being transferred under the National Lighthouse Preservation Act from Federal ownership to non-profit historical societies who have taken on the responsibility. Helping to provide the resources necessary to ensure these lighthouses are not lost would be a boost to both tourism and jobs. Failure to do so would potentially harm not only the existence of an historic emblem of my State and our Nation--but also a key economic catalyst for tourism that is part and parcel of my home State and the livelihood of many of her citizens. Each lighthouse tells a different story and each one is as integral to the history and narrative of our State as the magnificent landscapes on which they proudly stand. That is why in 1995, I introduced a bill that would later become law to establish the Maine Lights Program. We succeeded in preserving this significant component of American heritage through collaboration among the Federal Government, the State of Maine, local communities, and private organizations, while at the same time, relieving what had become a costly strain on the U.S. Coast Guard. Across the country, responsibility for the care of our lighthouses has been assumed by non-profit historic societies--many of which are struggling in these uncertain economic times. This bill would authorize $20 million for a three-year competitive grant pilot program that would provide grants to stewards of historic lighthouses to help them preserve and rehabilitate the lighthouses under their care. I believe that the essential word in my previous sentence is ``stewards''--because the structures are still federally owned property. It is not private property; it is not city or town property, or even state property; but federal property. It is also imperative to note that these lighthouses are operable aids to navigation. Lighthouses may seem a quaint relic of a bygone era, however they are not. Daily, lighthouses lead our nation's mariners and fishermen away from danger. Given that the maintenance of lighthouses is now being transferred under the National Lighthouse Preservation Act from Federal ownership to non-profit historical societies, the task of providing the required resources to ensure the longevity and viability of these lighthouses would also represent a welcomed economic boost both to tourism and to job creation. The fact is, tourism has become increasingly crucial to Maine's economy, as manufacturing jobs have fled our State, not to mention our Nation. In fact, in 2006, the most recent year for which statistics are available, approximately 1/5 of State sales tax revenues were attributable to tourism, and, when income and fuel taxes are added, the Maine State government collected $429 million tourism-related tax dollars in that year. The Maine State Planning Office, which has quantified more precisely the pivotal role tourism plays in the Maine economy, found that in 2006, tourism generated $10 billion in sales of goods and services, 140,000 jobs, and $3 billion in earnings. Tourism accounts for one in five dollars of sales throughout Maine's economy and supported the equivalent of one in six Maine jobs. The planning office also discovered that an estimated 10 million overnight trips and 30 million day trips were taken that year in Maine, with travelers spending nearly $1 billion on lodging, $3 billion on food, and $1 billion on recreational activities. But those statistics are from 3 years ago . . . before the economy began to unravel at an accelerating rate, and so given these economic times confronting all of us, the financial necessity of our lighthouses, especially to tourism, has grown, not dissipated. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and send a message not only that historic preservation of our Nation's prominent buildings and structures--like our lighthouses--continues to be in the national interest, but also that tourism--especially international tourism--is an industry we should be striving to support as a key component of reviving our ailing economy.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today marks a truly cherished day for the Greek people, Greek-Americans and for all the friends of Greece around the globe. It is the 188th anniversary of the day in 1821 when the people of Greece declared independence from the Ottoman Empire, signaling the beginning of the end of centuries of political, religious, and cultural repression of their proud and ancient culture. It took a further 8 years of heroic struggle before Greece secured its full independence. Americans have long recognized that the ideals which guided our own struggle for independence--liberty, democracy, and human dignity--were also the foundation for Greece's declaration of sovereignty. The United States and Greece were thus destined to become not only faithful allies but close friends. Nearly two centuries after the rebirth of Greek independence, our two nations and their citizens are bound by ever- strengthening bonds which link us through both a shared heritage of democratic values and a modern alignment of strategic interests. Just as there is much to celebrate in the 188 years of modern Greece's independence, there are many challenges which it faces in the 21st century. Ongoing provocations by Turkey in the Aegean and irredentist actions by the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia thwart Greece's quest for a stable southeastern Europe free of past centuries' often cataclysmic territorial adventurism. Ankara's continuing persecution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople--the leader of Greek Orthodox Christians around the world--and illegal occupation of the north of Cyprus remain an outrageous affront not only to Hellenes but to people everywhere who believe in human rights. Therefore, on this anniversary of Greek independence, let us not only celebrate and congratulate our friends in Greece but also rededicate ourselves to strengthening the relationship that exists between our two great nations, so as to defend its foundational principles and ensure its vitality in the centuries to come.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of critical legislation that I am introducing, along with Senators Kohl, Stabenow, Brown, and Lieberman, to reduce the cost share amount that the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, or MEP, faces in obtaining its annual funding. The MEP is a nationwide public-private network of counseling and assistance centers that provide our nation's nearly 350,000 small and medium manufacturers with services and access to resources that enhance growth, improve productivity, and expand capacity. The MEP's contribution to sustaining America's manufacturing sector is indisputable. In fiscal year 2008 alone, MEP clients created or retained 57,079 jobs; provided cost savings in excess of $1.44 billion; and generated over $10.5 billion in sales. At present, individual MEP centers must raise a full two-thirds of their funding after their fourth year of operation, placing a heavy burden on these centers. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, at the Department of Commerce, in turn, provides \1/ 3\ of the centers' funding. MEP centers can meet their portion of the cost share requirement through funds from universities, State and local governments, and other institutions. In today's tumultuous economy, these centers are experiencing increased difficulties finding adequate funding from both private and public sources. As economic concerns weigh down on all of us, States, organizations, and groups that traditionally assist MEP centers in meeting this cost share are reluctant to expend the money--or do not have the resources to do so. Our bill is simple and straightforward. It would reduce the statutory cost share that MEP centers face to 50 percent for all years of the centers' operation. Frankly, the Nation's MEP centers are subject to an unnecessarily restrictive cost share requirement. It is inequitable, as the MEP is the only initiative out of the 80 programs funded by the Department of Commerce that is subject to a statutory cost share of greater than 50 percent. There is no reason for this to persist, particularly not during this trying economy when so many manufacturers are trying to remain afloat. The MEP is an essential resource for small and medium manufacturers nationwide. With centers in all 50 States, as well as Puerto Rico, its reach is unmatched and its experience in counseling manufacturers is unrivaled. It is my hope that my colleagues will support this legislation as a direct way to bolster an industry that is indispensable to our Nation's economy health.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as we heard in testimony before the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship last week, auto dealerships are struggling to sell cars in this difficult economy. One of our witnesses remarked that in a healthy economy, auto sales make up approximately 20 percent of our country's retail spending. Clearly, a healthy automobile industry is critical to our economic success. I rise this week to recognize Hartley Chrysler Dodge Jeep GMC, an outstanding auto dealership from my home State of Maine that has remained true to its longstanding commitment to serving its customers and its community, regardless of economic conditions. Located in the central Maine town of Newport, Hartley's Chrysler Dodge Jeep GMC is a second-generation family-owned small business. Hartley's opened its doors in 1946, when Perley Hartley began selling used vehicles from a filling station in the neighboring town of Corinna. In 1960, the dealership started selling new cars, adding Chrysler and Plymouth as its first automobile lines. A year after graduating from Eastern Maine Community College in the early 1970s, Steven H. Hartley, now the company's president, went to work for his father in the sales department at Hartley Motors in the town of Dexter. He eventually bought the original dealership from his uncle Perley and took over operations in 1983, when he moved the business to its current location in Newport. Since then, Steven Hartley has ensured that the dealership is profitable every year. For the company's dedicated work, Hartley's received Daimler/Chrysler's five- star elite dealership status in 2005, an honor held by only two dealerships across Maine. Mr. Hartley donates his time to promoting the well-being of the entire auto dealer industry throughout Maine and New England. He is a former director of the New England Chrysler Ad Association, and presently serves as a director on the New England Dodge Ad Association. Mr. Hartley also contributes his time and talents as a Director at the Maine Auto Dealers, and a trustee for the Maine Auto Dealers health and insurance trust. In addition to his business and professional accomplishments, Steven Hartley is a Master Mason and a member of the Shriners. Additionally, Mr. Hartley has served for 20 years as a volunteer firefighter for the Corinna Fire Department, even attaining the rank of department chief. Late last year, he was one of just 49 automobile dealers out of more than 19,500 nationwide that were nominated for the TIME Magazine Dealer of the Year award. Through this nomination, he garnered national recognition at the National Automobile Dealers Association Convention and Exposition in January, where he was honored by TIME and the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company for his honorable community contributions and his service to the auto dealer industry. Driving his dealership to a whole new level of success, Steven Hartley has led Hartley's Chrysler Dodge Jeep GMC to the top of the industry and the forefront of the community. Entrepreneurs like Mr. Hartley are striving to ensure that our Nation's auto dealerships are here to stay, and we owe them a debt of gratitude. Congratulations to Steven H. Hartley on his most recent accolades, and I wish everyone at Hartley's Chrysler Dodge Jeep GMC a prosperous year.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of critical legislation that I am introducing, along with Senators Kohl, Stabenow, Brown, and Lieberman, to reduce the cost share amount that the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, or MEP, faces in obtaining its annual funding. The MEP is a nationwide public-private network of counseling and assistance centers that provide our nation's nearly 350,000 small and medium manufacturers with services and access to resources that enhance growth, improve productivity, and expand capacity. The MEP's contribution to sustaining America's manufacturing sector is indisputable. In fiscal year 2008 alone, MEP clients created or retained 57,079 jobs; provided cost savings in excess of $1.44 billion; and generated over $10.5 billion in sales. At present, individual MEP centers must raise a full two-thirds of their funding after their fourth year of operation, placing a heavy burden on these centers. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, at the Department of Commerce, in turn, provides \1/ 3\ of the centers' funding. MEP centers can meet their portion of the cost share requirement through funds from universities, State and local governments, and other institutions. In today's tumultuous economy, these centers are experiencing increased difficulties finding adequate funding from both private and public sources. As economic concerns weigh down on all of us, States, organizations, and groups that traditionally assist MEP centers in meeting this cost share are reluctant to expend the money--or do not have the resources to do so. Our bill is simple and straightforward. It would reduce the statutory cost share that MEP centers face to 50 percent for all years of the centers' operation. Frankly, the Nation's MEP centers are subject to an unnecessarily restrictive cost share requirement. It is inequitable, as the MEP is the only initiative out of the 80 programs funded by the Department of Commerce that is subject to a statutory cost share of greater than 50 percent. There is no reason for this to persist, particularly not during this trying economy when so many manufacturers are trying to remain afloat. The MEP is an essential resource for small and medium manufacturers nationwide. With centers in all 50 States, as well as Puerto Rico, its reach is unmatched and its experience in counseling manufacturers is unrivaled. It is my hope that my colleagues will support this legislation as a direct way to bolster an industry that is indispensable to our Nation's economy health.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Kerry, to introduce legislation that initiates the first step toward comprehensive spectrum policy reform, which is long overdue and paramount to achieving the long-term telecommunications needs of this nation. In addressing comprehensive spectrum reform, the first thing we must do is to have a clear understanding of how the spectrum is currently being utilized, which is called for by the Radio Spectrum Inventory Act. Specifically, the Radio Spectrum Inventory Act directs the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Federal Communications Commission, with assistance from the Office of Science and Technology, to create a comprehensive and accurate inventory of each spectrum band between 300 Megahertz to 3.5 Gigahertz. The information collected would include the licenses assigned in that band, the number and type of end-user devices deployed, the amount of deployed infrastructure, as well as any relevant unlicensed end user devices operating in the band. This information is fundamental to constructing a comprehensive framework for spectrum policy. The Radio Spectrum Inventory Act also provides more transparency related to spectrum use by creating a centralized website or portal that would include relevant spectrum and license information accessible by the public. Given that radio spectrum is a public good, we are obligated to provide the public more clarity and accountability on how it is being utilized by both federal and non-federal licensees. It should be noted that this bill does make certain disclosure exceptions for spectrum being used or reserved for national security. The ultimate goals this legislation sets the path towards achieving are to implement more efficient use of spectrum and to locate additional spectrum that could be auctioned and used for advanced communications and data services in order to meet the growing demand. Currently, there are more than 270 million wireless subscribers in the US, and consumers used more than 2.2 trillion minutes of use from July 2007 to June 2008--that is more than 6 billion minutes of use a day! While voice communications is the foundation for wireless services, more and more subscribers are utilizing it for broadband due to new emerging wireless technologies. More specifically, the FCC reported that from December 2005 to December 2007, mobile wireless high-speed subscribership grew nationwide by more than 1,500 percent, and added 15.6 million subscribers in the second half of 2007 alone. The report also shows that new wireless broadband subscribers accounted for 78 percent of the total growth in broadband during that same time. So it is clear this once nascent service, which was initially thought of as a luxury, has blossomed into a tool that millions of consumers and countless businesses use on a daily basis. Increased mobility, access, and productivity are all tangible results of wireless technology. It is estimated that the productivity value of all mobile wireless services was worth $185 billion in 2005. But with all this growth, we are seeing constraints--spectrum is already a scarce resource--there is no new spectrum to allocate, only redistribute. This problem is also compounded by issues such as Shannon's Law, which defines the maximum possible data speed that can be obtained in a data channel of a communications network. So with wireless, in order to achieve greater bandwidth speeds and capacity, more channels have to be assigned, which means more spectrum has to be allocated. Therefore, finding additional spectrum is essential to meeting the growing demands and needs of consumers and businesses alike. Just as with the Internet, we have only scratched the surface on what the future of wireless will bring to all areas of life. That is why we must be proactive in advancing supportive spectrum policy and spectrum availability. And this begins with the first step--complete an accurate inventory of what is out there and how it is being used. Once we have that information, we can then perform the necessary analysis of where additional spectrum could be found and allocated toward broadband and advanced communications services. That is why I sincerely hope that my colleagues join Senators Kerry, Nelson, Wicker, and me in supporting this critical legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Kerry, to introduce legislation that initiates the first step toward comprehensive spectrum policy reform, which is long overdue and paramount to achieving the long-term telecommunications needs of this nation. In addressing comprehensive spectrum reform, the first thing we must do is to have a clear understanding of how the spectrum is currently being utilized, which is called for by the Radio Spectrum Inventory Act. Specifically, the Radio Spectrum Inventory Act directs the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Federal Communications Commission, with assistance from the Office of Science and Technology, to create a comprehensive and accurate inventory of each spectrum band between 300 Megahertz to 3.5 Gigahertz. The information collected would include the licenses assigned in that band, the number and type of end-user devices deployed, the amount of deployed infrastructure, as well as any relevant unlicensed end user devices operating in the band. This information is fundamental to constructing a comprehensive framework for spectrum policy. The Radio Spectrum Inventory Act also provides more transparency related to spectrum use by creating a centralized website or portal that would include relevant spectrum and license information accessible by the public. Given that radio spectrum is a public good, we are obligated to provide the public more clarity and accountability on how it is being utilized by both federal and non-federal licensees. It should be noted that this bill does make certain disclosure exceptions for spectrum being used or reserved for national security. The ultimate goals this legislation sets the path towards achieving are to implement more efficient use of spectrum and to locate additional spectrum that could be auctioned and used for advanced communications and data services in order to meet the growing demand. Currently, there are more than 270 million wireless subscribers in the US, and consumers used more than 2.2 trillion minutes of use from July 2007 to June 2008--that is more than 6 billion minutes of use a day! While voice communications is the foundation for wireless services, more and more subscribers are utilizing it for broadband due to new emerging wireless technologies. More specifically, the FCC reported that from December 2005 to December 2007, mobile wireless high-speed subscribership grew nationwide by more than 1,500 percent, and added 15.6 million subscribers in the second half of 2007 alone. The report also shows that new wireless broadband subscribers accounted for 78 percent of the total growth in broadband during that same time. So it is clear this once nascent service, which was initially thought of as a luxury, has blossomed into a tool that millions of consumers and countless businesses use on a daily basis. Increased mobility, access, and productivity are all tangible results of wireless technology. It is estimated that the productivity value of all mobile wireless services was worth $185 billion in 2005. But with all this growth, we are seeing constraints--spectrum is already a scarce resource--there is no new spectrum to allocate, only redistribute. This problem is also compounded by issues such as Shannon's Law, which defines the maximum possible data speed that can be obtained in a data channel of a communications network. So with wireless, in order to achieve greater bandwidth speeds and capacity, more channels have to be assigned, which means more spectrum has to be allocated. Therefore, finding additional spectrum is essential to meeting the growing demands and needs of consumers and businesses alike. Just as with the Internet, we have only scratched the surface on what the future of wireless will bring to all areas of life. That is why we must be proactive in advancing supportive spectrum policy and spectrum availability. And this begins with the first step--complete an accurate inventory of what is out there and how it is being used. Once we have that information, we can then perform the necessary analysis of where additional spectrum could be found and allocated toward broadband and advanced communications services. That is why I sincerely hope that my colleagues join Senators Kerry, Nelson, Wicker, and me in supporting this critical legislation.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Bingaman to introduce legislation to rectify a long standing problem for community health centers and the millions of Americans who depend on them for primary care access. Health centers serve as the medical home for over 18 million underserved patients. Annually, over 1.2 million of those patients are Medicare beneficiaries and 8.5 million patients are living below the Federal poverty level. Health centers are known for providing high quality, comprehensive care to some of our nation's most vulnerable populations. Over 17 years ago, Congress created the Federally Qualified Health Center, FQHC, Medicare benefit to ensure that health centers were not forced to subsidize Medicare payments with Federal grant dollars. Therefore, Congress required that centers be paid their reasonable costs for providing care to their Medicare patients. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, later established a per visit payment cap in regulations based on a payment cap applicable to rural health clinics. CMS applied the cap to FQHCs with the promise of future reviews to guarantee that health centers were adequately reimbursed. However, CMS has failed to update payments. Today, the majority of health centers are losing money serving Medicare beneficiaries, causing them to use their Federal grant dollars, intended for care for the uninsured, to supplement Medicare payments. These losses exceed $50 million annually according to an analysis completed by the National Association of Community Health Centers. We have repeatedly requested that CMS review this antiquated payment structure with little success. So I rise today again with Senator Bingaman to see that FQHCs receive payment for services they provide. This bill will establish a prospective payment system for FQHCs, based on the actual cost of providing care to health center patients. This new mechanism mirrors the successful Medicaid FQHC prospective payment system. By reforming the payment structure at FQHCs, we will ensure that health centers are able to dedicate their Federal grant dollars for their originally intended purpose--providing care to the uninsured. This legislation is long overdue. I ask my colleagues to join me in strengthening the Medicare FQHC program to make certain that health centers can continue to provide high quality, affordable primary and preventive care to our Nation's seniors and people with disabilities.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Bingaman to introduce legislation to rectify a long standing problem for community health centers and the millions of Americans who depend on them for primary care access. Health centers serve as the medical home for over 18 million underserved patients. Annually, over 1.2 million of those patients are Medicare beneficiaries and 8.5 million patients are living below the Federal poverty level. Health centers are known for providing high quality, comprehensive care to some of our nation's most vulnerable populations. Over 17 years ago, Congress created the Federally Qualified Health Center, FQHC, Medicare benefit to ensure that health centers were not forced to subsidize Medicare payments with Federal grant dollars. Therefore, Congress required that centers be paid their reasonable costs for providing care to their Medicare patients. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, later established a per visit payment cap in regulations based on a payment cap applicable to rural health clinics. CMS applied the cap to FQHCs with the promise of future reviews to guarantee that health centers were adequately reimbursed. However, CMS has failed to update payments. Today, the majority of health centers are losing money serving Medicare beneficiaries, causing them to use their Federal grant dollars, intended for care for the uninsured, to supplement Medicare payments. These losses exceed $50 million annually according to an analysis completed by the National Association of Community Health Centers. We have repeatedly requested that CMS review this antiquated payment structure with little success. So I rise today again with Senator Bingaman to see that FQHCs receive payment for services they provide. This bill will establish a prospective payment system for FQHCs, based on the actual cost of providing care to health center patients. This new mechanism mirrors the successful Medicaid FQHC prospective payment system. By reforming the payment structure at FQHCs, we will ensure that health centers are able to dedicate their Federal grant dollars for their originally intended purpose--providing care to the uninsured. This legislation is long overdue. I ask my colleagues to join me in strengthening the Medicare FQHC program to make certain that health centers can continue to provide high quality, affordable primary and preventive care to our Nation's seniors and people with disabilities.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize a Maine small enterprise that epitomizes the values and commitment necessary to excel not only as a business, but also as a leader in the community. Bancroft Contracting Corporation, located in the western Maine town of South Paris, is one of the leading general contractors in Maine, and does superb work in industrial and commercial markets throughout New England. I am extremely proud to report that the Small Business Administration has named Bancroft's president, Mark A. Bancroft, the 2009 Maine Small Business Person of the Year. Bancroft Contracting is a second-generation, family-owned company that provides a wide range of construction and industrial maintenance services to an array of diverse markets. Founded in 1977 by Al Bancroft, the firm's customers include pulp and paper manufacturers, power-generating companies, State transportation departments, and cement and plastics manufacturers. Additionally, Bancroft Contracting supplies thousands of cubic yards of reinforced concrete every season for a variety of projects that include dams, bridges, and large commercial foundations. The company employs more than 130 construction professionals in the winter months and upwards of 200 in the summer. Bancroft's employees represent a wide spectrum of construction professions, from structural welders and pipe fitters, to riggers and ironworkers, and they all possess an extraordinary level of expertise in their specialized areas. Bancroft Contracting prides itself on relationship-based customer service, and the company responds diligently to all customer requests in a prompt and efficient manner. In a similar vein, Bancroft takes care to contribute significantly to the well-being of the western Maine community. Organizations and institutions that have benefited from Bancroft's generous contributions and services over the years include the University of Maine, the area school department, the Boy Scouts, various local sports teams, Kiwanis, and the Rotary Club. As Bancroft's president for the past 7 years, Mark Bancroft has had a significant impact on the company's direction. He is a graduate of the construction management technology program in the School of Engineering Technology at the University of Maine. Notable, he started his tenure at Bancroft Contracting at the age of 14 and continued working for the company throughout high school and college. Mr. Bancroft learned the business at an early age and received critical training from many of the company's skilled craftsmen. Mr. Bancroft's desire to roll up his sleeves and his ability to understand the business from the ground up has earned him the respect of both his employees and customers alike. Before becoming president in 2002, he worked in a variety of capacities throughout the years, serving as a project manager, human resources manager, operations manager, and vice president of operations. It is this intricate knowledge of the business, along with his distinguished leadership, that has resulted in Bancroft's tremendous 19 percent growth over the last 3 years, defying the downward trend of too many firms during these difficult economic times. Additionally, Mr. Bancroft serves on several boards of trustees and directors, including, the Paris Utility District, University of Maine Construction Management Technology Industrial Advisory Council, Associated General Contractors of America Education Foundation Trust, and Self Insured Workers Compensation Group Trust. And just last week, Mr. Bancroft was elected chair of the Associated General Contractors of Maine. On a personal note, in the winter of 2008, Mr. Bancroft donated the use of a crane and several employees to the town of Bethel to help the community construct Olympia SnowWoman. This architectural feat is now in the ``Guinness Book of World Records'' as the largest snowwoman at 122 feet and 1 inch tall--and what a record to hold! I am proud that Mr. Bancroft played such an integral part in a project that brought a great sense of community pride to Bethel and to Maine. It is my distinct honor to congratulate Mark Bancroft, an immensely deserving individual, as the SBA's 2009 Small Business Person of the Year in Maine, and I extend my best wishes to everyone at Bancroft Contracting for their continued success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today we face growing concerns about infectious disease which few could have anticipated. Over a half century ago, following the development of modern antibiotics, Nobel Laureate Sir McFarland Burnet summed up what many experts believed when he stated, ``One can think of the middle of the twentieth century as the end of one of the most important social revolutions in history, the virtual elimination of infectious diseases as a significant factor in social life''. How things have changed! Today many of the world's greatest killers are infectious diseases--including HIV, tuberculosis, malaria--and increasingly our Nation is susceptible. We have concerns about both natural pandemics--such as those caused by influenza--as well as manmade threats. At the same time that the threat has grown, we have seen an alarming trend as existing antibiotics are becoming less effective in treating infections. We know that resistance to drugs can be developed, and that the more we expose bacteria to antibiotics, the more resistance we will see. So it is critical to address preserving the lifesaving antibiotic drugs we have today so that they will be of use in treating disease when they are needed. Today over 9 out of 10 Americans understand that resistance to antibiotics is a problem. Most Americans have learned that colds and flu are caused by viruses, and recognize that treating a cold with an antibiotic is inappropriate. Our health care providers are more careful to discriminate when to use antibiotics, because they know that when a patient who has been inappropriately prescribed an antibiotic actually develops a bacterial infection, it is more likely to be resistant to treatment. When we overuse antibiotics, we risk eliminating the very cures which scientists fought so hard to develop. The threat of bioterrorism amplifies the danger. We have supported increased NIH research funding, as well as bioshield legislation, in order to promote development of essential drugs, both to address natural and manmade threats. It is so counterproductive to develop antimicrobial drugs and see their misuse render them ineffective. Yet every day in America antibiotics continue to be used in huge quantities when there is no disease present to treat. I am speaking of the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in agriculture. Simply put, the practice of feeding antibiotics to healthy animals jeopardizes the effectiveness of these medicines in treating ill people and animals. Recognizing the public health threat caused by antibiotic resistance, Congress in 2000 amended the Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act to curb antibiotic overuse in human medicine. Yet today, it is estimated that 70 percent of the antimicrobials used in the United States are fed to farm animals for nontherapeutic purposes including growth promotion, poor management practices and crowded, unsanitary conditions. In March 2003, the National Academies of Sciences stated that a decrease in antimicrobial use in human medicine alone will not solve the problem of drug resistance. Substantial efforts must be made to decrease inappropriate overuse of antibiotics in animals and agriculture. Four years ago five major medical and environmental groups--the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, Environmental Defense, the Food Animal Concerns Trust and the Union of Concerned Scientists--jointly filed a formal regulatory petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration urging the agency to withdraw approvals for seven classes of antibiotics which are used as agricultural feed additives. They pointed out what we have known for years--that antibiotics which are crucial to treating human disease should never be used except for their intended purpose--to treat disease. In a study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found 17 percent of drug-resistant staph infections had no apparent links to health-care settings. Nearly one in five of these resistant infections arose in the community--not in the health care setting. While must do more to address inappropriate antibiotic use in medicine, the use of these drugs in our environment cannot be ignored. Most distressingly, we have seen the USDA issue a fact sheet on the recently recognized link between antimicrobial drug use in animals and the methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureas, MRSA, infections in humans. These infections literally threaten life and limb! So it should be clear why I have joined with Senator Kennedy in again introducing the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act. Senator Kennedy is truly a champion of public health and understands how critical it is to preserve the drugs we must have in our arsenal to combat infectious diseases. I am honored to join with him in an effort to preserve vital drugs and reduce the development of drug-resistant organisms which threaten human health. This bill phases out the nontherapeutic uses of critical medically important antibiotics in livestock and poultry production, unless their manufacturers can show that they pose no danger to public health. Our legislation requires the Food and Drug Administration to withdraw the approval for nontherapeutic agricultural use of antibiotics in food-producing animals if the antibiotic is used for treating human disease, unless the application is proven harmless within 2 years. The same tough standard of safety will apply to new applications for approval of animal antibiotics. This legislation places no unreasonable burden on producers. It does not restrict the use of antibiotics to treat sick animals, or for that matter to treat pets and other animals not used for food. As we are constantly reminded, the discovery and development of a new drug can require great time and expense. It is simply common sense that we preserve the use of the drugs which we already have, and use them appropriately. I call on my colleagues to support us in this effort.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today we face growing concerns about infectious disease which few could have anticipated. Over a half century ago, following the development of modern antibiotics, Nobel Laureate Sir McFarland Burnet summed up what many experts believed when he stated, ``One can think of the middle of the twentieth century as the end of one of the most important social revolutions in history, the virtual elimination of infectious diseases as a significant factor in social life''. How things have changed! Today many of the world's greatest killers are infectious diseases--including HIV, tuberculosis, malaria--and increasingly our Nation is susceptible. We have concerns about both natural pandemics--such as those caused by influenza--as well as manmade threats. At the same time that the threat has grown, we have seen an alarming trend as existing antibiotics are becoming less effective in treating infections. We know that resistance to drugs can be developed, and that the more we expose bacteria to antibiotics, the more resistance we will see. So it is critical to address preserving the lifesaving antibiotic drugs we have today so that they will be of use in treating disease when they are needed. Today over 9 out of 10 Americans understand that resistance to antibiotics is a problem. Most Americans have learned that colds and flu are caused by viruses, and recognize that treating a cold with an antibiotic is inappropriate. Our health care providers are more careful to discriminate when to use antibiotics, because they know that when a patient who has been inappropriately prescribed an antibiotic actually develops a bacterial infection, it is more likely to be resistant to treatment. When we overuse antibiotics, we risk eliminating the very cures which scientists fought so hard to develop. The threat of bioterrorism amplifies the danger. We have supported increased NIH research funding, as well as bioshield legislation, in order to promote development of essential drugs, both to address natural and manmade threats. It is so counterproductive to develop antimicrobial drugs and see their misuse render them ineffective. Yet every day in America antibiotics continue to be used in huge quantities when there is no disease present to treat. I am speaking of the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in agriculture. Simply put, the practice of feeding antibiotics to healthy animals jeopardizes the effectiveness of these medicines in treating ill people and animals. Recognizing the public health threat caused by antibiotic resistance, Congress in 2000 amended the Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act to curb antibiotic overuse in human medicine. Yet today, it is estimated that 70 percent of the antimicrobials used in the United States are fed to farm animals for nontherapeutic purposes including growth promotion, poor management practices and crowded, unsanitary conditions. In March 2003, the National Academies of Sciences stated that a decrease in antimicrobial use in human medicine alone will not solve the problem of drug resistance. Substantial efforts must be made to decrease inappropriate overuse of antibiotics in animals and agriculture. Four years ago five major medical and environmental groups--the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, Environmental Defense, the Food Animal Concerns Trust and the Union of Concerned Scientists--jointly filed a formal regulatory petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration urging the agency to withdraw approvals for seven classes of antibiotics which are used as agricultural feed additives. They pointed out what we have known for years--that antibiotics which are crucial to treating human disease should never be used except for their intended purpose--to treat disease. In a study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found 17 percent of drug-resistant staph infections had no apparent links to health-care settings. Nearly one in five of these resistant infections arose in the community--not in the health care setting. While must do more to address inappropriate antibiotic use in medicine, the use of these drugs in our environment cannot be ignored. Most distressingly, we have seen the USDA issue a fact sheet on the recently recognized link between antimicrobial drug use in animals and the methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureas, MRSA, infections in humans. These infections literally threaten life and limb! So it should be clear why I have joined with Senator Kennedy in again introducing the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act. Senator Kennedy is truly a champion of public health and understands how critical it is to preserve the drugs we must have in our arsenal to combat infectious diseases. I am honored to join with him in an effort to preserve vital drugs and reduce the development of drug-resistant organisms which threaten human health. This bill phases out the nontherapeutic uses of critical medically important antibiotics in livestock and poultry production, unless their manufacturers can show that they pose no danger to public health. Our legislation requires the Food and Drug Administration to withdraw the approval for nontherapeutic agricultural use of antibiotics in food-producing animals if the antibiotic is used for treating human disease, unless the application is proven harmless within 2 years. The same tough standard of safety will apply to new applications for approval of animal antibiotics. This legislation places no unreasonable burden on producers. It does not restrict the use of antibiotics to treat sick animals, or for that matter to treat pets and other animals not used for food. As we are constantly reminded, the discovery and development of a new drug can require great time and expense. It is simply common sense that we preserve the use of the drugs which we already have, and use them appropriately. I call on my colleagues to support us in this effort.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with my colleague, Senator Pryor, the Building a Stronger America Act. This bipartisan legislation is a vital step toward recognizing the value of ``science parks''--which are concentrated high-tech, science, and research-related businesses--in strengthening America's global competitiveness. Through the development of new innovative technologies, competing and complementary companies working within close quarters are able to build upon each other's ideas when entering the national and global marketplace. Unlike well known industrial parks, science parks focus primarily on innovation and product advancement. These parks are a vital part of the Nation's economy, creating 2.57 jobs for each core job in a science park. As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and a senior member of the Senate Commerce Committee, I adamantly encourage increased investment in new and existing science, research, and technology parks throughout the United States as it is vital in the creation of new jobs. Our legislation would allow the Secretary of Commerce to guarantee up to 80 percent of loans exceeding $10 million for the construction of science parks. Additionally, the bill would provide grants for the development of feasibility studies and plans for the construction or expansion of science parks. This bipartisan measure would drive innovation and regional entrepreneurship by enabling science parks to renovate or build, while also encouraging rural and urban States to undertake studies on developing their own successful clusters. On August 9, 2007, the President signed into law, the America Competes Act legislation authorizing $43 billion of new funding over the next three fiscal years that will boost Federal investment in math and science education programs. The bill we are introducing today would help to ensure that this workforce is provided with avenues in which to operate, building on the efforts of the America Competes Act by increasing research funding and education for our innovative workforce. In my home State of Maine, we simply do not have the population density in any given area to support traditional science parks. However, Maine is a national leader in providing business ``incubation'' services. Incubators are critical to the success of new companies. To help startup entrepreneurs in Maine, incubation centers around the State provide business support tailored to companies in their region. The benefit of business incubators in Maine has been nothing short of monumental, with 87 percent of all businesses that graduate from incubators remaining in business, surviving, and creating new jobs. The seven technology centers located throughout Maine play a pivotal role in promoting technology-led economic development by advancing their own regional competitive advantages. Under the Building a Stronger America Act, both science parks and business incubators will be eligible for its vital assistance. Residency in science parks provides businesses with numerous advantages, including access to a range of management, marketing, and financial services. At its heart, a science park provides an organized link to local research centers or universities, providing resident companies with the constant access to the expertise, knowledge, and technology they need to grow. These innovation centers are specifically geared toward the needs of new and small companies, providing a controlled environment for the incubation of firms and the achievement of high growth. It is also vital to point out that the jobs science parks reflect the needs of a high-tech, innovative, and global marketplace. Science parks have helped lead the technological revolution and have created more than 300,000 high-paying science and technology jobs, along with another 450,000 indirect jobs, for a total of 750,000 jobs in North America. Our Nation's capacity to innovate is a key reason why our economy continues to grow and remains the envy of the world. Through America's investments in science and technology, we continually change our country for the better. 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, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation that Senator Pryor and I have introduced, the Defense Communities Assistance Act of 2009. As base communities nationwide struggle with a host of issues--from the tumultuous economy, to closures as a result of the latest Defense Base Closure and Realignment, BRAC, round, to an influx in service personnel--the Federal Government must provide assistance to its base communities to effectively implement the various initiatives of the Department of Defense and to spur economic growth. This legislation, which is supported by the Association of Defense Communities, ADC, seeks to accomplish that goal by providing immediate benefits to all base communities, for both closed and active military installations across the country. During even the best of economic times, the closure of a military base can devastate a local economy. Today, with our economy in a troubling recession, the outlook is even more grim, with communities facing overwhelming challenges in redeveloping a former military installation. For instance, the closure of the Naval Air Station Brunswick, NASB, in my home State of Maine will create profoundly negative economic consequences with an estimated loss of 6,500 jobs. Given these trying economic times, we must ensure that every effort is made to foster redevelopment in communities affected by base closures. There is no question that the negative effects of base closures are disproportionately and unfairly borne by the communities where bases have closed. At the same time, communities surrounding active bases must cope with realignments, global repositioning, and grow the force initiatives to accommodate service personnel influxes at their own expense. That is why this comprehensive measure includes key provisions to assist not only bases facing closure, but active base communities absorbing growth impacts. Accordingly, this legislation would grant permanent authority for the military departments to exchange real property deemed excess to the DOD, in return for the construction of new facilities, or to limit encroachments, at other active installations. This authority provides military departments with greater flexibility in real estate asset management and has previously only been available to property on an installation that had been closed or realigned. In recent years, the Army has engaged in pilot programs at installations to procure municipal services, such as water and electricity, from a city or county government. These municipal service agreements have been successful, saving the Army several million dollars and providing significant benefits. In the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008, this authority was extended to the other two military departments and allowed each service to purchase municipal services for three installations. This legislation builds on that success and greatly extends the military departments' authority to purchase, from a county government or other local government, municipal services for military installations across the country. Additionally, this bill would address the Defense State Memorandum of Agreement, DSMOA, program which was established to facilitate and fund State oversight of contaminated DOD sites, including BRAC sites. DOD has recently interpreted DSMOA in a manner that has severely impaired state budgets, which has in turn reduced State oversight at these sites. The Defense Communities Assistance Act would ensure that funding under DSMOA may be used for state BRAC property transfer activities while also preventing withholding DSMOA funds when States exercise their enforcement authority. Additionally, section 330 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1993 was originally adopted with the intention of protecting parties involved in base redevelopment from liability for undiscovered pre-existing pollution conditions at closed military installations. Regrettably, recent court decisions have been inconsistent in interpreting section 330 creating uncertainty that has left base closure property holders with difficulty in obtaining environmental insurance among other problems. This bill provides vital clarification to ensure the original intention of protecting parties involved in base redevelopment from unnecessary liability at closed military installations. Furthermore, the national economic problems that our country currently faces demand swift and efficient action to avert a deeper and more intractable recession. That is why this legislation would repeal section 3006 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002, thereby encouraging the Secretary of Defense to provide no-cost Economic Development Conveyances, EDCs, to base communities as a preferred property disposal mechanism. This provision would help to spur job generation and economic development immediately. As a result of five BRAC rounds, hundreds of military installations have been decommissioned or downsized with the expectation that the properties would be available for local reuse and economic development. At the same time, an inconsistent and time consuming transfer process by the military departments has left thousands of acres of former installation property in Federal ownership, with the fallow acreage hampering the host community's economic recovery. There is tremendous risk that in the current economic climate, with property values at their lowest position in the past decade, these properties will sit fallow for years without the use of no-cost EDCs. This measure is stimulative in nature by getting property off the books of the Federal Government and into the hands of developers to be redeveloped quickly so that displaced workers in the community will once again become employed. Encouraging expedited free, or less than fair market value, property transfers would result in incentives for private investment, significant infrastructure and public benefits, and the potential generation of tens of thousands of jobs. That is why it is a responsible course of action for the Government to provide these communities with the tools and resources, such as no-cost EDCs, needed to recover from a closure. The timeframe and uncertainty of the BRAC transfer process is the single greatest obstacle to redevelopment of the underutilized lands. Expediting transfer of these former military bases would stimulate both private and public investment in infrastructure and redevelopment, resulting in job creation and economic development activity, the rebuilding of inadequate local infrastructure funded by the redevelopment project, and local, State, and Federal tax generation. Moreover, the Federal Government would be relieved of its property management responsibilities, saving hundreds of millions of dollars annually. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Pryor and me in support of this legislation. 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 in support of legislation that Senator Pryor and I have introduced, the Defense Communities Assistance Act of 2009. As base communities nationwide struggle with a host of issues--from the tumultuous economy, to closures as a result of the latest Defense Base Closure and Realignment, BRAC, round, to an influx in service personnel--the Federal Government must provide assistance to its base communities to effectively implement the various initiatives of the Department of Defense and to spur economic growth. This legislation, which is supported by the Association of Defense Communities, ADC, seeks to accomplish that goal by providing immediate benefits to all base communities, for both closed and active military installations across the country. During even the best of economic times, the closure of a military base can devastate a local economy. Today, with our economy in a troubling recession, the outlook is even more grim, with communities facing overwhelming challenges in redeveloping a former military installation. For instance, the closure of the Naval Air Station Brunswick, NASB, in my home State of Maine will create profoundly negative economic consequences with an estimated loss of 6,500 jobs. Given these trying economic times, we must ensure that every effort is made to foster redevelopment in communities affected by base closures. There is no question that the negative effects of base closures are disproportionately and unfairly borne by the communities where bases have closed. At the same time, communities surrounding active bases must cope with realignments, global repositioning, and grow the force initiatives to accommodate service personnel influxes at their own expense. That is why this comprehensive measure includes key provisions to assist not only bases facing closure, but active base communities absorbing growth impacts. Accordingly, this legislation would grant permanent authority for the military departments to exchange real property deemed excess to the DOD, in return for the construction of new facilities, or to limit encroachments, at other active installations. This authority provides military departments with greater flexibility in real estate asset management and has previously only been available to property on an installation that had been closed or realigned. In recent years, the Army has engaged in pilot programs at installations to procure municipal services, such as water and electricity, from a city or county government. These municipal service agreements have been successful, saving the Army several million dollars and providing significant benefits. In the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008, this authority was extended to the other two military departments and allowed each service to purchase municipal services for three installations. This legislation builds on that success and greatly extends the military departments' authority to purchase, from a county government or other local government, municipal services for military installations across the country. Additionally, this bill would address the Defense State Memorandum of Agreement, DSMOA, program which was established to facilitate and fund State oversight of contaminated DOD sites, including BRAC sites. DOD has recently interpreted DSMOA in a manner that has severely impaired state budgets, which has in turn reduced State oversight at these sites. The Defense Communities Assistance Act would ensure that funding under DSMOA may be used for state BRAC property transfer activities while also preventing withholding DSMOA funds when States exercise their enforcement authority. Additionally, section 330 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1993 was originally adopted with the intention of protecting parties involved in base redevelopment from liability for undiscovered pre-existing pollution conditions at closed military installations. Regrettably, recent court decisions have been inconsistent in interpreting section 330 creating uncertainty that has left base closure property holders with difficulty in obtaining environmental insurance among other problems. This bill provides vital clarification to ensure the original intention of protecting parties involved in base redevelopment from unnecessary liability at closed military installations. Furthermore, the national economic problems that our country currently faces demand swift and efficient action to avert a deeper and more intractable recession. That is why this legislation would repeal section 3006 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002, thereby encouraging the Secretary of Defense to provide no-cost Economic Development Conveyances, EDCs, to base communities as a preferred property disposal mechanism. This provision would help to spur job generation and economic development immediately. As a result of five BRAC rounds, hundreds of military installations have been decommissioned or downsized with the expectation that the properties would be available for local reuse and economic development. At the same time, an inconsistent and time consuming transfer process by the military departments has left thousands of acres of former installation property in Federal ownership, with the fallow acreage hampering the host community's economic recovery. There is tremendous risk that in the current economic climate, with property values at their lowest position in the past decade, these properties will sit fallow for years without the use of no-cost EDCs. This measure is stimulative in nature by getting property off the books of the Federal Government and into the hands of developers to be redeveloped quickly so that displaced workers in the community will once again become employed. Encouraging expedited free, or less than fair market value, property transfers would result in incentives for private investment, significant infrastructure and public benefits, and the potential generation of tens of thousands of jobs. That is why it is a responsible course of action for the Government to provide these communities with the tools and resources, such as no-cost EDCs, needed to recover from a closure. The timeframe and uncertainty of the BRAC transfer process is the single greatest obstacle to redevelopment of the underutilized lands. Expediting transfer of these former military bases would stimulate both private and public investment in infrastructure and redevelopment, resulting in job creation and economic development activity, the rebuilding of inadequate local infrastructure funded by the redevelopment project, and local, State, and Federal tax generation. Moreover, the Federal Government would be relieved of its property management responsibilities, saving hundreds of millions of dollars annually. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Pryor and me in support of this legislation. 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, with my colleague, Senator Pryor, the Building a Stronger America Act. This bipartisan legislation is a vital step toward recognizing the value of ``science parks''--which are concentrated high-tech, science, and research-related businesses--in strengthening America's global competitiveness. Through the development of new innovative technologies, competing and complementary companies working within close quarters are able to build upon each other's ideas when entering the national and global marketplace. Unlike well known industrial parks, science parks focus primarily on innovation and product advancement. These parks are a vital part of the Nation's economy, creating 2.57 jobs for each core job in a science park. As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and a senior member of the Senate Commerce Committee, I adamantly encourage increased investment in new and existing science, research, and technology parks throughout the United States as it is vital in the creation of new jobs. Our legislation would allow the Secretary of Commerce to guarantee up to 80 percent of loans exceeding $10 million for the construction of science parks. Additionally, the bill would provide grants for the development of feasibility studies and plans for the construction or expansion of science parks. This bipartisan measure would drive innovation and regional entrepreneurship by enabling science parks to renovate or build, while also encouraging rural and urban States to undertake studies on developing their own successful clusters. On August 9, 2007, the President signed into law, the America Competes Act legislation authorizing $43 billion of new funding over the next three fiscal years that will boost Federal investment in math and science education programs. The bill we are introducing today would help to ensure that this workforce is provided with avenues in which to operate, building on the efforts of the America Competes Act by increasing research funding and education for our innovative workforce. In my home State of Maine, we simply do not have the population density in any given area to support traditional science parks. However, Maine is a national leader in providing business ``incubation'' services. Incubators are critical to the success of new companies. To help startup entrepreneurs in Maine, incubation centers around the State provide business support tailored to companies in their region. The benefit of business incubators in Maine has been nothing short of monumental, with 87 percent of all businesses that graduate from incubators remaining in business, surviving, and creating new jobs. The seven technology centers located throughout Maine play a pivotal role in promoting technology-led economic development by advancing their own regional competitive advantages. Under the Building a Stronger America Act, both science parks and business incubators will be eligible for its vital assistance. Residency in science parks provides businesses with numerous advantages, including access to a range of management, marketing, and financial services. At its heart, a science park provides an organized link to local research centers or universities, providing resident companies with the constant access to the expertise, knowledge, and technology they need to grow. These innovation centers are specifically geared toward the needs of new and small companies, providing a controlled environment for the incubation of firms and the achievement of high growth. It is also vital to point out that the jobs science parks reflect the needs of a high-tech, innovative, and global marketplace. Science parks have helped lead the technological revolution and have created more than 300,000 high-paying science and technology jobs, along with another 450,000 indirect jobs, for a total of 750,000 jobs in North America. Our Nation's capacity to innovate is a key reason why our economy continues to grow and remains the envy of the world. Through America's investments in science and technology, we continually change our country for the better. 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, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the manufacturing sector of our Nation's economy is facing incredible hardships that are only amplified by the global economic downturn. In fact, Maine's manufacturing industry has shed an alarming 23,600 jobs in the past 10 years, which represents nearly 30 percent of the State's manufacturing employment. Despite these challenges, some manufacturers, like New England Castings, the company I rise today to recognize, have been able to adapt, expand, and succeed. Founded in 1985, New England Castings is an investment casting foundry located in the western Maine town of Hiram. Considered the most ancient form of metal casting, investment casting allows the firm to specialize in producing specific castings that many conventional shops often find too difficult or intricate to fill. New England Castings prides itself on the timely creation of prototypes for customers to review, allowing it to produce customers' orders in a shorter timeframe. The firm was certified as a historically underutilized business zone, or HUBZone, business in 2002, allowing it access to a wide variety of Federal contracting opportunities. The HUBZone program, managed by the Small Business Administration, assists small firms in rural and disadvantaged areas in attracting contracts to benefit their businesses and grow their companies. Castings, which are the solidified materials made after pouring a liquid into a mold, have a number of practical uses, and New England Castings' work is easily suited to supply a number of diverse industries. From medical and dental instruments to gas turbine components, New England Castings' products run the gamut from small to large, slim to heavy. For instance, New England Castings can provide sturdy turbine powered tank combustor cover assemblies for Abrams M1 tanks, or more delicate window latches or sconces for architects seeking to beautify their buildings. The company's more innovative pieces can be seen at Carnegie Hall in New York City and the Smithsonian's Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC. Although times are difficult for most small businesses, manufacturers have been hit particularly hard by a confluence of challenges, including foreign competition, finding skilled workers, and rising energy costs. But to remain competitive, New England Castings had to transform the way it operated, and followed through by improving its practices and becoming a leaner company with increased productivity. Seeking to secure a major contract to supply components to a railroad hardware manufacturer, New England Castings' president and owner, Walter Butler, decided that his company needed to become more efficient to earn the contract. After working with the Maine manufacturing extension partnership, MEP, a public-private partnership that assists small and medium manufacturers, New England Castings was able to double its sales, maximize the productivity of its workspace, and add 13 new employees. As cochair of the Senate Task Force on Manufacturing, it is heartening to see small manufacturers like New England Castings utilize the tremendous resources that the MEP has to offer, and I am certain that the company will continue to benefit for years to come from the training and advice it has received. I congratulate Walter Butler and everyone at New England Castings for their dedication to creating quality products, and extend my best wishes for a productive and successful year.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I filed an amendment that would help millions of small businesses that receive valuable technical assistance and support through the Small Business Administration's, SBA's, technical assistance and business development programs. The challenges facing America's small businesses are real. In today's economic climate, small businesses are fighting for survival. A December 2008 CNN survey found that 49 percent of small business owners expressed serious concerns about going out of business. To that end, I humbly request my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the measure I am offering to provide essential resources to the Small Business Administration's crucial technical assistance and business development programs. This effort will help ensure that small businesses--our Nation's true job generators--will not be shortchanged at a time when the economy is struggling to grow and create jobs. My amendment would direct that a small fraction, $16.8 million of the existing funding provided in the omnibus appropriations bill for the SBA, be used to increase funding levels for vital SBA programs, including Veterans Business Outreach Centers, VBOCs, Small Business Development Centers, SBDCs, Women Business Centers, WBCs, SCORE, the Historically Underutilized Business Zone, HUBZone, program, and the Agency's international trade programs. These programs are some of the most successful job creators within the Federal Government, but they were woefully underfunded under the previous administration. Now is the time to reverse that trend, by ensuring that SBA devotes sufficient resources to support small business technical assistance and business development. The SBA's programs are proven job creators--just look at the statistics! In 2006, clients of the SBDC program generated a total of approximately $7.2 billion in sales and 73,377 new full time jobs as a result of the assistance received. The average cost of generating each job was a paltry $2,658. Moreover, based on SBDC client assessments, an additional $8.8 billion in sales and 93,449 jobs were saved due to SBDC counseling in that same year. My amendment would direct that $6.5 million in SBA funding be used to fund SBDC veterans and energy grants, in addition to the $110 million for core funding provided in the bill to support SBDCs nationwide. Furthermore, the SCORE program has proven time and again to be one of the most cost-effective programs within the Federal Government. In fiscal year 2008 SCORE received $4.95 million from the Federal Government and provided 357,637 clients with free technical assistance. Entrepreneurs assisted by SCORE created 25,000 new jobs in 2006, and one in seven new clients created a job. SCORE also provides American taxpayers with a great buy, as it is operated by volunteers--all of which are retired business experts. In fact, in fiscal year 2008 these volunteers donated 1.3 million hours valued at $195 million when using a standard hourly consulting fee of $150. My amendment would direct that an additional $2 million be directed to the SCORE program for a total of $7 million. Additionally, my amendment would direct an additional $1.1 million to SBA's Veterans Business Outreach Centers, a modest increase to account for additional responsibilities taken on from the Vets Corps Centers, which no longer receive Federal funding. An additional $3.35 million would be directed to the WBC program, one of SBA's most diverse, far- reaching entrepreneurial development efforts. In 2007, WBCs trained and counseled 148,123 clients who reported 8,751 new jobs and 3,304 new businesses. My amendment also would direct additional funds to two programs, which I consider to be important business development programs, the SBA's International Trade programs and the HUBZone Program. With exports being one of the few bright spots in our economy last year, exporting by small firms has considerable room for growth. The amendment would direct that $8 million in SBA funds be used for these export assistance programs, an increase of $2 million over the current omnibus level. For the HUBZone program, which provides contracting preferences to small firms in economically disadvantaged areas, the amendment provides an additional $1.85 million for urban and rural development under this program. To reiterate, under my amendment, the increased funding for these programs comes from amounts already provided in the omnibus appropriations bill for the SBA. No additional funding is required; it simply directs the SBA to allocate adequate resources to these programs. For more than 50 years, the SBA has been a vital resource to small businesses, helping millions of Americans start, grow, and expand their businesses. I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this amendment to provide the SBA's technical assistance and business development programs with the resources to expand their proven success and economic value during this economic crisis.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, at a time when our Nation is involved in a global war on terrorism, thousands of lives are disrupted as members of our armed services head off to war. One aspect that is often overlooked is the profound impact a deployment can have on a servicemember's civilian career. I wish today to commend a small business from my home State of Maine that has made a veritable commitment to ensuring that those serving our country are seamlessly reintegrated into the workforce upon their return from Active Duty, and their families taken care of while they are gone. Maine Oxy is an Auburn-based company that specializes in welding, as well as industrial and specialty gases. A third generation family managed firm, Maine Oxy was founded in 1929 by Joseph W. Albiston as Maine Gas Service, which at that time provided sales and service to home propane customers. Six years later, Maine Oxy began providing welding supplies and industrial gases for customers throughout Androscoggin County, in central Maine. Since that time, Maine Oxy has expanded to serve three States in eight locations, including a state- of-the-art acetylene production facility. It has also established a cutting-edge Spec Air gas manufacturing laboratory, as well as the New England School of Metalwork, with programs in welding and blacksmithing, as part of its sustained growth. As a company that truly looks after its own, Maine Oxy has excelled in assisting its employees who serve in the military. Three such members from Maine Oxy's Auburn facility--Robert Smith, Kirby Touchette, and Scott St. Pierre--were all recently called up to Active Duty as combat engineers. During their deployment, Maine Oxy assisted the servicemembers by sending them care packages, and also aided their families by helping them with various chores, including chopping firewood for one the families that needed it. Even now, Maine Oxy continues to send dozens of care packages to troops in Iraq. Upon their return, the three deployed employees were encouraged to make use of their maximum allocated 90-day entitlement of time off before returning to work. Moreover, the company was flexible in allowing for follow-up medical appointments. Finally, the firm rehired the employees and promoted them to new positions, thereby allowing their replacement workers to maintain employment as well. Maine has one of the highest percentages of veterans in the country at roughly 16 percent of the State's population. Our State is seeing hundreds of new veterans each year returning from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. As such, it is heartening to see companies like Maine Oxy standing ready to assist its veteran employees in such a broad and altruistic manner. Thank you to Bruce Albiston, Maine Oxy's Chief Executive Officer, and everyone at Maine Oxy for their selfless support of their colleagues, and best wishes for their future success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Coburn amendment No. 610, which will eliminate, among other appropriations requests one that my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, and I had submitted that would help preserve and rehabilitate historic lighthouses along the Maine coast. At a time when our economy continues to cascade downward with unemployment at record highs, I do believe it is critical to scrutinize the size and scope of spending measures which is frankly what we did in regard to the recently enacted stimulus package--so I understand the impetus behind my colleague's amendment. At the same time, regrettably, his amendment would potentially harm not only the existence of an historic emblem of my State and our Nation, but also a key economic catalyst for tourism that is part and parcel of my home State and the livelihood of many of her citizens. Each lighthouse tells a different story and each one is as integral to the history and narrative of our State as the magnificent landscapes on which they proudly stand. That is why, in 1995, I introduced a bill that would later become law to establish the Maine Lights Program. We succeeded in preserving this significant component of American heritage through collaboration among the Federal Government, the State of Maine, local communities, and private organizations, while at the same time, relieving what had become a costly strain on the U.S. Coast Guard. Across the country, responsibility for the care of our lighthouses has been assumed by nonprofit historic societies--many of which are struggling in these uncertain economic times. That is why this bill would appropriate $380,000 to the American Lighthouse Foundation, stewards of 11 of Maine's 83 historic lighthouses. I believe that the essential word in my previous sentence is ``stewards''--because the structures are still federally owned property. It is not private property, it is not city or town property or even State property, but Federal property. It is also imperative to note that these lighthouses are operable aids to navigation. Lighthouses may seem a quaint relic of a bygone era, however they are not an anachronism. Daily, lighthouses lead our Nation's mariners and fishermen away from danger. Given that the maintenance of lighthouses is now being transferred under the National Lighthouse Preservation Act from Federal ownership to nonprofit historical societies like the American Lighthouse Foundation, the task of providing the required resources to ensure the longevity and viability of these lighthouses would also represent a welcomed economic boost both to tourism and also to job creation. The fact is, tourism has become increasingly crucial to Maine's economy, as manufacturing jobs have fled our State, not to mention our Nation. In fact, in 2006, the most recent year for which statistics are available, approximately one-fifth of State sales tax revenues were attributable to tourism, and, when income and fuel taxes are added, the Maine State government collected $429 million tourism-related tax dollars in that year. The Maine State Planning Office, which has quantified more precisely the pivotal role tourism plays in the Maine economy, found that in 2006, tourism generated $10 billion in sales of goods and services, 140,000 jobs, and $3 billion in earnings. Tourism accounts for one in five dollars of sales throughout Maine's economy and supported the equivalent of one in six Maine jobs. The Planning Office also discovered that an estimated 10 million overnight trips and 30 million day trips were taken that year in Maine, with travelers spending nearly $1 billion on lodging, $3 billion on food, and $1 billion on recreational activities. But those statistics are from 3 years ago--before the economy began to unravel at an accelerating rate, and so given these economic times confronting all of us, the financial necessity of our lighthouses, especially to tourism, has grown, not dissipated. And so, I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and send a message not only that historic preservation of our nation's prominent buildings and structures--like our lighthouses--continues to be in the national interest, but also that tourism is an industry we should be striving to support as a key antidote to our ailing economy.