Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill with Senator Whitehouse to extend the reach of the Federal Bureau of Investigation into financial crimes that may have helped precipitate last year's economic meltdown. We must investigate and scrutinize this financial crisis as we would a terrorist attack in order to determine its causes and how to preempt another economic collapse in the United States. Following the September 11 attacks, the FBI redirected approximately 1,000 agents to counterterrorism and counterintelligence activities. Without a doubt, there is no argument that our country has benefitted from the dedicated efforts of the men and women of the FBI who are performing this valuable work. Over a 10-year period, from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2008, Congress has increased direct appropriations for the FBI from $2.993 billion and 26,693 positions to $6.658 billion--122 percent increase-- and 30,211 positions--13 percent increase. Most of these new resources were provided in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, as the FBI redirected its resources toward combating domestic and international terrorism by improving its intelligence gathering and processing capabilities. As a consequence, for fiscal year 2008, about 60 percent of FBI funding and staffing is allocated to national security programs, including counterterrorism and counterintelligence. In view of the breadth and severity of the economic crisis brought on by events in U.S. financial markets, however, I am very concerned that criminal wrongdoing may have played a significant role in crippling some of America's largest companies. Criminal activity, such as fraud, misrepresentation, self-dealing, and insider trading may have instigated or exacerbated the financial industry upheaval of 2008-2009. In order to augment FBI investigations of financial crimes, the FBI Priorities Act of 2009 authorizes $150 million for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2014 to fund approximately 1,000 Federal Bureau of Investigation field agents in addition to the number of field agents serving on the date of enactment. It is my hope that this extra manpower will enable the FBI to develop leads on unlawful actions, dig deeply into those leads, and bring responsible parties to justice. The American public deserves no less.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill with Senator Whitehouse to extend the reach of the Federal Bureau of Investigation into financial crimes that may have helped precipitate last year's economic meltdown. We must investigate and scrutinize this financial crisis as we would a terrorist attack in order to determine its causes and how to preempt another economic collapse in the United States. Following the September 11 attacks, the FBI redirected approximately 1,000 agents to counterterrorism and counterintelligence activities. Without a doubt, there is no argument that our country has benefitted from the dedicated efforts of the men and women of the FBI who are performing this valuable work. Over a 10-year period, from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2008, Congress has increased direct appropriations for the FBI from $2.993 billion and 26,693 positions to $6.658 billion--122 percent increase-- and 30,211 positions--13 percent increase. Most of these new resources were provided in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, as the FBI redirected its resources toward combating domestic and international terrorism by improving its intelligence gathering and processing capabilities. As a consequence, for fiscal year 2008, about 60 percent of FBI funding and staffing is allocated to national security programs, including counterterrorism and counterintelligence. In view of the breadth and severity of the economic crisis brought on by events in U.S. financial markets, however, I am very concerned that criminal wrongdoing may have played a significant role in crippling some of America's largest companies. Criminal activity, such as fraud, misrepresentation, self-dealing, and insider trading may have instigated or exacerbated the financial industry upheaval of 2008-2009. In order to augment FBI investigations of financial crimes, the FBI Priorities Act of 2009 authorizes $150 million for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2014 to fund approximately 1,000 Federal Bureau of Investigation field agents in addition to the number of field agents serving on the date of enactment. It is my hope that this extra manpower will enable the FBI to develop leads on unlawful actions, dig deeply into those leads, and bring responsible parties to justice. The American public deserves no less.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the High School Sports Information Collection Act. I am pleased to be joined again this year by my colleague from Washington, Senator Murray. Since the 108th Congress, we have introduced this bill to require that high schools, like their collegiate counterparts, disclose data on equity in sports, making it possible for student athletes and their parents to ensure fairness in their school's athletic programs. Since my first day in Washington in 1979, I have been a stalwart supporter of Title IX. And there should be no mistake what this 37- year-old landmark civil rights law is all about--equal opportunity for both girls and boys to excel in athletics. Obviously, athletic participation supports physical health, but sports also impart benefits beyond the playing field. For girls who engage in sports, half are less likely to suffer depression and breast cancer, 80 percent are less likely to have a drug problem, and 92 percent are less likely to have an unwanted pregnancy. Athletic competition helps cultivate the kind of positive, competitive spirit that develops dedication, self-confidence, a sense of team spirit, and ultimate success later in life. So it's not surprising that, according to several studies, more than eight out of ten successful businesswomen played organized sports while growing up! Without question, Title IX has been the driving factor in allowing thousands of women and girls the opportunity to benefit from intercollegiate and high school sports. Indeed, prior to Title IX, only 1 in 27 high school girls--fewer than 300,000--played sports. Today, the number is more than 2.9 million, that's an increase of over 900 percent! Moreover, our country is celebrating the achievements of our women athletes now more than ever. Just a few weeks ago, tennis player Serena Williams became the all-time prize-money leader in women's sports by reaching both the doubles and singles finals in the Australian Open--not to mention that she won both titles! I am particularly pleased that Ms. Williams expressed appreciation for Title IX, proving how impactful this policy has been in giving her, and many other women, the opportunity to play sports. So while we celebrate this remarkable progress, we cannot allow ourselves a ``time-out'' or rest on past success. That is why I am pleased to work with Senator Patty Murray--who has been a tireless advocate for women's sports--to reintroduce the High School Sports Data Collection Act of 2007. Our bill directs the Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics to collect information regarding participation in athletics broken down by gender; teams; race and ethnicity; and overall expenditures, including items like travel expenses, equipment and uniforms. These data are already reported, in most cases, to the state Departments of Education and should not pose any additional burden on the high schools. Further, to ensure public access to this vital information, our legislation would require high schools to post the data on the Department of Education's website and make this information available to students and the public upon request. For nearly 40 years, Title IX has opened doors by giving women and girls an equal opportunity to participate in student athletic programs. This bill will continue that tradition by allowing us to assess current opportunities for sports participation for young women, and correct any deficiencies. With this new information, we can ensure that young women all over the country have the chance not only to improve their athletic ability, but also to develop the qualities of teamwork, discipline, and self-confidence that lead to success off the playing field.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, this week marks the Consortium of Entrepreneurship Education's 3rd Annual National Entrepreneurship Week, a time to celebrate the history of American entrepreneurship and to highlight new and upcoming entrepreneurs and small business owners. As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am all the more aware of the countless contributions entrepreneurs have made to the success of this Nation. In that vein, I rise today to recognize Grover Gundril- ling Inc., a small business in my home State of Maine that brings a very unique and critical skill to the Northeast. A second generation family-owned small business, Grover Gundrilling, or GGI, specializes in precision deephole drilling. With nearly 60 skilled employees, GGI has developed the capability to drill smooth, finished holes ranging from .045 of an inch to 2 inches in diameter, from 1 ounce to 6,000 pounds, at a depth of 1 inch to 10 feet in every material from Teflon to mold steels to exotic high-temperature alloys. Founded in 1983 by Rupert and Suzanne Grover, Grover Gundrilling now has three facilities in Oxford County, including a 40,000-square-foot manufacturing facility in the town of Norway. And as former teachers, the Grovers like to hire employees with no background as machinists, but with strong math and science skills, to train them in their own particular fashion. Given its remarkable growth, considerable capacity, and small company size, GGI prides itself on being ``small enough to listen and large enough to handle production.'' Grover Gundrilling has become a critical supplier for industries as diverse as aerospace engineering and nuclear power, and its components are used in products as varied as medical devices and semiconductors. To care for its staff, Grover Gundrilling generously provides its employees with full family medical coverage, flexible scheduling, and the company encourages its workers to pursue higher learning by offering educational reimbursement. And the company offers a multitude of incentives to stellar employees, including family snowmo- biling trips and tickets to a variety of area events. GGI is also dedicated to supporting its community in a variety of ways. The Grovers donate significant time and energy to the Oxford County Fair, a fun-filled annual tradition for the families of Oxford County and western Maine. They also created the Boxberry School, a nonprofit independent elementary school for K through sixth graders that combines multiage classes, individual attention, and an integrated art curriculum with the Maine Learning Results standards. The Grovers also volunteer in various capacities with the 4-H Club, Androscoggin Home Health, the Oxford Food Pantry, and Aspire Higher, and Suzanne Grover serves on the board of directors of the Growth Council. Carving out a niche in the machine tool world, Grover Gundrilling has excelled as a leader in precision deephole drilling. It is entrepreneurs like Suzanne and Rupert Grover who are going to revitalize our economy, and I am proud to call them constituents. I wish Rupert and Suzanne Grover, as well as Garth, their son, and GGI's president, their daughter Jessica, and everyone at Grover Gundrilling Inc. a successful year.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the High School Sports Information Collection Act. I am pleased to be joined again this year by my colleague from Washington, Senator Murray. Since the 108th Congress, we have introduced this bill to require that high schools, like their collegiate counterparts, disclose data on equity in sports, making it possible for student athletes and their parents to ensure fairness in their school's athletic programs. Since my first day in Washington in 1979, I have been a stalwart supporter of Title IX. And there should be no mistake what this 37- year-old landmark civil rights law is all about--equal opportunity for both girls and boys to excel in athletics. Obviously, athletic participation supports physical health, but sports also impart benefits beyond the playing field. For girls who engage in sports, half are less likely to suffer depression and breast cancer, 80 percent are less likely to have a drug problem, and 92 percent are less likely to have an unwanted pregnancy. Athletic competition helps cultivate the kind of positive, competitive spirit that develops dedication, self-confidence, a sense of team spirit, and ultimate success later in life. So it's not surprising that, according to several studies, more than eight out of ten successful businesswomen played organized sports while growing up! Without question, Title IX has been the driving factor in allowing thousands of women and girls the opportunity to benefit from intercollegiate and high school sports. Indeed, prior to Title IX, only 1 in 27 high school girls--fewer than 300,000--played sports. Today, the number is more than 2.9 million, that's an increase of over 900 percent! Moreover, our country is celebrating the achievements of our women athletes now more than ever. Just a few weeks ago, tennis player Serena Williams became the all-time prize-money leader in women's sports by reaching both the doubles and singles finals in the Australian Open--not to mention that she won both titles! I am particularly pleased that Ms. Williams expressed appreciation for Title IX, proving how impactful this policy has been in giving her, and many other women, the opportunity to play sports. So while we celebrate this remarkable progress, we cannot allow ourselves a ``time-out'' or rest on past success. That is why I am pleased to work with Senator Patty Murray--who has been a tireless advocate for women's sports--to reintroduce the High School Sports Data Collection Act of 2007. Our bill directs the Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics to collect information regarding participation in athletics broken down by gender; teams; race and ethnicity; and overall expenditures, including items like travel expenses, equipment and uniforms. These data are already reported, in most cases, to the state Departments of Education and should not pose any additional burden on the high schools. Further, to ensure public access to this vital information, our legislation would require high schools to post the data on the Department of Education's website and make this information available to students and the public upon request. For nearly 40 years, Title IX has opened doors by giving women and girls an equal opportunity to participate in student athletic programs. This bill will continue that tradition by allowing us to assess current opportunities for sports participation for young women, and correct any deficiencies. With this new information, we can ensure that young women all over the country have the chance not only to improve their athletic ability, but also to develop the qualities of teamwork, discipline, and self-confidence that lead to success off the playing field.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I join today with Senator Dorgan to address the growing problem of beneficiaries who exceed their lifetime cap on health care coverage. Today, many Americans responsibly purchase a health plan to cover themselves and their loved ones in case of illness. Tragically, some of these individuals become stricken by illness that is extremely expensive to treat, and too often exceeds their policy's lifetime cap provision. After doing all you can to act responsibly and avoid becoming a burden on society, an overly restrictive lifetime cap on benefits can cause one to go bankrupt--and ultimately shifts costs to public programs such as Medicaid. We have seen that even beneficiaries who acquire health insurance with seemingly hefty lifetime caps have found that the high cost of modern treatments--combined with medical inflation which exceeds the consumer price index by two to threefold--has greatly deflated the true value of the lifetime cap. The legislation offered today addresses this issue by setting a higher minimum cap. It has been estimated the cost of this improved protection--spread over many insurance purchasers-- will increase premiums by approximately $8 per year. This reinforces the principle of insurance--spreading high risks over many purchasers-- in order to assure adequate protection should a protracted and expensive illness befall an individual. This bill will also assure that costs are not inappropriately shifted onto the government programs, such as Medicaid--where taxpayers will feel the brunt of financial responsibility for costly treatment. As I work with my colleagues and the administration to grapple with how to make health care more affordable to the millions of Americans struggling to pay their premiums, coinsurance and copays--raising the floor on lifetime caps will provide the immediate financial relief to families so that they will have access to health care should a costly, chronic disease occur.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise on this occasion to speak on the economic stimulus conference report that is before this chamber--at a time when we face the longest and deepest recession since World War II, and a moment of economic peril not seen since the days of the Great Depression almost 80 years ago. There has been a great deal of healthy and vigorous debate about this stimulus package--here in the Congress and certainly throughout America--and rightfully so, given the magnitude of the legislation we have deliberated upon over the past few weeks. And let me say, I well recognize this process got off to a less than stellar start. And yet, especially given that people look to the Senate to temper the passions of politics--to provide an institutional check that ensures all voices are heard and considered--should we have allowed that inauspicious beginning to establish a permanent detour from ultimately passing an economic stimulus package that economists from across the political spectrum have said is urgently required? I believe the answer to that question is no. And in that light, I extend my gratitude to Majority Leader Reid for bringing us together in forging the much improved package we consider today. I thank Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley of the Senate Committee on Finance, Chairman Inouye and Ranking Member Cochran of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, as well as Senators Collins, Specter, Nelson, and Lieberman for their yeoman leadership in yielding this consensus-based solution. I also thank those who argued against this package--because, frankly, I agreed with a number of their arguments, and ultimately the concerns expressed have helped to improve this final product. Indeed, we lost 3.6 million jobs since the onset of the recession, the most since 1945. The Department of Labor has reported the number of people receiving unemployment benefits has reached 4.8 million, an all- time high since record keeping began in 1967--and that doesn't include the nearly 1.7 million getting benefits through an extension last summer. At the end of January, we learned that the economy shrank at its fastest pace in nearly 27 years in the fourth quarter of 2008. Our gross national product dropped at a 3.8 percent annual rate, worst since 1982. And with more than 11 million jobless Americans today, inaction has, frankly, never been a viable option. In fact, economist Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com--who advised both Presidential candidates McCain and Obama, I might add--projects an even higher unemployment rate of a remarkable 11.1 percent--should we fail to pass a vigorous economic stimulus package. That is 11.1 percent--and that is unacceptable. We cannot stand on the sidelines. That is why I have said from the outset--as I stated on the Senate floor at the beginning of last week--that I wanted to support a stimulus package. But at the same time as I also said, I could not support just any package. The fact is, we are confronting a multidimensional crisis that requires a multidimensional approach, and we can ill afford to get it wrong. Our approach must be successful, as it must also go hand-in-hand with monetary policy to ensure that vital credit--that is the lifeblood of our economy--is flowing to American individuals and businesses. Already Congress passed a rescue plan for financial institutions, but the lending expected to free up our credit markets has yet to take effect. Already, the Treasury Department has issued a second component to the rescue plan, which I might add is regrettably long on aspirations and short on details. And already the Federal Reserve has essentially exhausted its options to improve the economy through monetary policy, having reduced interest rates to zero--something else that hasn't happened since the 1930s--and lent more than $1 trillion to stabilize the financial and credit markets. So, as I said during the mark-up in the Senate Finance Committee, we ought to remember that for us, in crafting fiscal policy to meet this historic challenge, there are no ``do-overs.'' That is why I have said repeatedly that this isn't about how much we label as ``tax relief' and how much we label as ``spending.'' Rather, in the final analysis, it's been about the merits of the individual measures in this legislation, and whether the totality of a package can deliver job creation and assistance to those who have been displaced-- because both elements are essential to turning the economic tide and aligning our nation for a more prosperous future. In short, the challenge has been to fashion a measure that meets the ``what works'' test. Critical to that test is whether a stimulus measure is timely, targeted, temporary, and achieves the critical equilibrium of creating jobs and assisting those displaced by this economic crisis through no fault of their own. There has been widespread agreement, even from the harshest critics of this bill, that economic stimulus must meet this standard. That is exactly what a Washington Post editorial called for when it advocated a focused stimulus as the most viable approach. And after a week of intense, bicameral negotiations and compromises, this economic stimulus package--while not what everyone may have wanted-- while not everything I would have wanted--meets that threshold. It has not been easy arriving at this point. At the beginning of deliberations on the floor and throughout the amendment process, I was deeply concerned this bill more closely resembled omnibus legislation rather than emergency stimulus legislation. Indeed, as the Senate considered and adopted amendments on the floor, this package had actually ballooned to $920 billion. Let me repeat that--$920 billion. Let's look at the House-passed bill. The House bill was voted out at $819 billion. And then the Senate bill ultimately passed at $838 billion. But now, with our efforts over the past week, this package has emerged as a $787.2 billion conference report that is not only more narrowly tailored toward stimulus, but actually has a lower overall cost than either the House-passed bill at $819 billion or the Senate- passed bill at $838 billion. And that is no insignificant achievement. At the same time, the package isn't only right--it is right sized. As the President has stated, we will lose $2 trillion in consumer demand this year and next--demand, I might add, that must be ``backfilled'' in our economy with a substantial investment in both tax relief and targeted, effective expenditures that will create jobs. The fact is, given the monumental level of this recession, we can't just be throwing pebbles in the pond. Rather, we require the ripple effect of a boulder--while at the same time ensuring that this is not an open-ended passport to spending in perpetuity. I know that there are those who criticize the top-line number on this package. And given this legislation is deficit-financed, the cost and the stimulative affect of each of the elements of this bill should be of concern to all of us. I said on the floor at the beginning of this process that we cannot overload this bill with items that are not within the strictures of stimulus. We must ensure that programs that may well be worthwhile policy but not economic stimulus are not considered in this package, and instead are vetted through the budget and regular legislative process. We cannot, under the auspices of stimulus legislation--open the door to permanent spending that exceeds the life and purpose of what is before us today. But in terms of the actual size of the package, let's consider for a moment the economic stimulus packages passed in 2001 and in 2003--and compare the cost of those measures with the cost of this package, and the economic conditions at those times, with the far worse economic conditions of now. In June 2001, when the economy was in recession as well, we responded with a $1.35 trillion package. In the quarter when that bill passed, the economy grew by 1.2 percent, and unemployment was at 4.5 percent. In 2003, we passed a bill that was essentially a trillion dollar package masquerading as a $350 billion bill. During the spring of 2003, when that bill passed, the economy grew by 3.5 percent and unemployment was at 6.1 percent. Fast forward to today with this $787 billion package on the floor. The economy shrank at an annual rate of 0.5 percent in the third quarter of 2008, and 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008. The unemployment rate is currently at 7.6 percent. Furthermore, over the past 13 months alone, as I mentioned earlier, the economy has lost 3.6 million jobs. By comparison, we lost a total of 2.7 million total jobs in the 2001 recession. The bottom line is this package is not by any means out-sized for the times--it is right-sized. When we began our deliberations in the Senate, the spending in the Senate package reached $366 billion. Fortunately, through our bipartisan efforts, we were able to trim that spending by an additional $55 billion in nonstimulative items. Today, this package contains a total of $286.5 billion in tax provisions, $311 billion in discretionary spending appropriations, and $192.4 billion in nondiscretionary spending items more narrowly focused on job creation and assistance to those displaced. On the spending side of the ledger, we demonstrated our commitment to job creation by investing in infrastructure. For example, the compromise accelerated the timeline for spending out 50 percent of the money for roads and bridges from 180 days to 120 days--with the remaining 50 percent required to be obligated within one year--to further frontload the stimulative effect. Right now, the U.S. Conference of Mayors has a list of nearly 19,000 shovel-ready projects nationally, totaling almost $150 billion. Moreover, the Federal Highway Administration projects that for every one billion dollars spent, 28,500 jobs are created, and with the 7.5 billion contained in this Conference Report for highways alone. That is 783,750 jobs just for roads and bridges. We included $40 billion for enhancing unemployment insurance as CBO said last year that the cost-effectiveness of such a policy for stimulative effect is ``large''. . . the length of time for impact is ``short''. . . and recently, Moody's Economy.com estimated that every dollar spent on unemployment benefits generates $1.63 in near term GDP. I thank Chairman Baucus for including in this conference report my provision to exclude the first $2,400 of unemployment benefits from taxation, to further maximize the provision's stimulative impact. And as increasing food stamps is also among the most immediate and effective stimulative steps we can take--we provided $19.9 billion to do just that. I am also particularly pleased, as ranking member of the Small Business Committee, that we included such critical job-creation funding as $730 million for the Small Business Administration's lending programs. This spending is targeted toward increasing access to capital and lowering the cost of capital for our Nation's small businesses that have created fully two-thirds of America's net new jobs, that created or retained 770,000 jobs in FY 2008 alone, and will unquestionably be at the forefront of leading us out of this crisis. The bill contains many of Chair Landrieu's and my priorities, such as ones to slash fees for SBA borrowers and reduce them for lenders; increase funding for the microloan program; and a new program targeted toward small businesses struggling to make loan payments. Additionally, on the spending side we provided vital Medicaid assistance to the states--and I have heard the arguments against it. But does anyone seriously believe that with 45 states currently experiencing a shortfall and a projected, combined budgetary gap of $350 billion over the next 2 years won't have a profound impact on our national economy, as States grapple with raising taxes or slashing spending to balance their budgets? We also included $28 billion for adoption of Heath Information Technology by health care providers. This would not only actually result in an eventual $10 billion in savings, but also improvements in care and costs, while creating an additional 40,000 jobs that will endure. As we grapple with the gravity of our economic circumstances, doesn't it make sense to simultaneously create transformational, well- paying jobs that, rather than looking to the past, will endure and ensure that America is competitive in the global economy of the 21st century? As I mentioned earlier, this package also contains more than $286 billion in tax relief--with many provisions I was proud to ensure were included as a member of the Senate Finance Committee--that will directly result in job creation and retention, and bolster our economy. The President's signature making work pay tax credit, which the President agreed to trim in this conference report, will provide additional money in every paycheck to more than 95 percent of working families in the United States, which Mark Zandi has said will be ``particularly effective, as the benefit will go to lower income households . . . that are much more likely to spend any tax benefit they receive.'' I am pleased to have helped retain in this legislation relief from the alternative minimum tax as it will not only boost the value of the making work pay credit but will also ensure that around 30 million Americans won't be ensnared by this onerous levy. We increase eligibility for the extraordinarily successful refundable portion of the child tax credit that I originally spearheaded to reach low-income families earning between $3,000 and $9,667 a year. I have heard the arguments before against refundability, but this program reaches people who may not earn enough to have federal tax liability but who work and contribute local taxes and payroll taxes and will, therefore, get additional money into the pockets of those most likely to spend it. When it comes to tax relief and America's greatest job generators, our Nation's 27.2 million small businesses, this package contains provisions I authored to help them sustain operations and employees. This includes enhanced section 179 expensing for 2009, allowing small businesses throughout the Nation to invest up to $250,000 in plant and equipment that they can deduct immediately, instead of depreciate over a period of 5, 7, or more years. The conference report also contains a provision to extend to 5 years the carryback period of net operating losses for small businesses with up to $15 million in gross receipts which will help small businesses sustain operations with a cash infusion during these trying times. This modification was the result of a last-minute negotiation, and I very much appreciate the personal efforts of Chairman Baucus. This agreed-upon measure makes a welcomed, commonsense change to reduce to 90 percent the requirement that small business owners prepay 110 percent of their previous year's tax liability. The purpose of quarterly prepayments is to ensure that the Government gets every penny owed. Because of the recession and the credit crunch, the overpayment of quarterly income taxes by America's small business owners is unnecessary, because few businesses are experiencing 10 percent growth, and harmful because it drains vital cash flow away from an ongoing business. The conference report also retains a provision I joined Senators Lincoln and Hatch in spearheading to lessen the impact of the built-in gains tax on small businesses. This change is absolutely essential at a time in which our Nation's credit markets remain frozen and small businesses are struggling to meet their financing requirements. This provision will benefit up to 900 small businesses in my home state of Maine and hundreds of thousands across the country. We must not neglect our Nation's distressed and rural communities. This conference report rightly recognizes that imperative by including an additional $1.5 billion in each 2008 and 2009 allocation authority for the new markets tax credit. And my understanding is that the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, which administers the incentive, can allocate the augmented 2008 credit authority within 90 days, which will create 11,000 permanent jobs and 35,000 construction jobs. This agreement also contains tax credits for renewable energy that I have long fought for that will create more than 89,000 jobs. Frankly, if we had not dithered last year and opted to pass the extension of the renewable tax credits at the beginning of 2008, we would have already been on the road to creating 100,000 new jobs. I know in my home State, there are a number of wind farm projects, for example, that could be ready to move forward right now. I am also pleased that the stimulus bill contains a provision I helped to draft that will allow base communities across the Nation that have been significantly affected by a closure or realignment to qualify for vital recovery zone economic development bonds. Finally, I am pleased this bill includes a provision I wrote to expand the definition of ``manufacturing'' as it pertains to the small- issue Industrial Development bond, or IDB, program to include the creation of ``intangible'' property. For example, this would allow the bonds to be used to benefit companies that manufacture software and biotechnology products by helping them get the financing necessary to assist their operations in innovating and create new jobs. Knowledge- based businesses have been at the forefront of this innovation that has bolstered the economy over the long-term. For example, 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. There will be those who say the cost of this package is too much, and others will say it is too little. Some will say it should have higher levels of tax relief, others that we should focus almost entirely on spending. There are 535 Members between the House and the Senate who all have their own legitimately held beliefs about this legislation. There are millions of Americans with their own, differing views, questions, concerns, and expectations. At the end of the day, I must return to my own evaluation--again, shared by so many across the political spectrum--that inaction is not an option and, frankly, time is of the essence. I also return to my standard for evaluating a stimulus: Is it sufficiently focused on creating jobs and assisting those who have been displaced. In that light, this package deserves to be passed now and signed into law. It is supported by organizations such as the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Institute of Building Sciences, because they also believe it will create jobs. On balance, this is the right approach at the right time that offers us the best course for economic recovery and, therefore, I will be supporting this conference report. sales tax

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I join today with Senator Dorgan to address the growing problem of beneficiaries who exceed their lifetime cap on health care coverage. Today, many Americans responsibly purchase a health plan to cover themselves and their loved ones in case of illness. Tragically, some of these individuals become stricken by illness that is extremely expensive to treat, and too often exceeds their policy's lifetime cap provision. After doing all you can to act responsibly and avoid becoming a burden on society, an overly restrictive lifetime cap on benefits can cause one to go bankrupt--and ultimately shifts costs to public programs such as Medicaid. We have seen that even beneficiaries who acquire health insurance with seemingly hefty lifetime caps have found that the high cost of modern treatments--combined with medical inflation which exceeds the consumer price index by two to threefold--has greatly deflated the true value of the lifetime cap. The legislation offered today addresses this issue by setting a higher minimum cap. It has been estimated the cost of this improved protection--spread over many insurance purchasers-- will increase premiums by approximately $8 per year. This reinforces the principle of insurance--spreading high risks over many purchasers-- in order to assure adequate protection should a protracted and expensive illness befall an individual. This bill will also assure that costs are not inappropriately shifted onto the government programs, such as Medicaid--where taxpayers will feel the brunt of financial responsibility for costly treatment. As I work with my colleagues and the administration to grapple with how to make health care more affordable to the millions of Americans struggling to pay their premiums, coinsurance and copays--raising the floor on lifetime caps will provide the immediate financial relief to families so that they will have access to health care should a costly, chronic disease occur.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, this Saturday, we celebrate Valentine's Day, when couples across the world take a moment to slow down and show each other their appreciation and love. Along with ``Be My Valentine'' cards and boxes of chocolate, one of the symbols most connected with this special day is a beautiful bouquet of red roses. With that in mind, I rise to recognize a small florist in my home State of Maine that continually provides customers with quality flowers and gifts--and at this time of year, makes Valentine's Day a sweet event. Bangor Floral Company, founded in 1925, is a historic floral shop located in downtown Bangor. Housed in a converted, turn-of-the-century church, Bangor Floral prides itself on fresh flowers, creative arrangements, and responsive customer service. From red and pastel roses, to bright lilies, chrysanthemums, and snapdragons, Bangor Floral expertly prepares beautiful bouquets for any occasion. Bangor Floral also organizes a variety of fresh fruit baskets and gift baskets that include cookies, candies, stuffed animals, and balloons. To keep his flowers fresh, Phil Frederick, owner of Bangor Floral Company, purchases his flowers locally whenever possible, and does not pass any additional costs onto the customer. Mr. Frederick, a third generation florist, also offers his clients a 50 percent discount off all cut flowers from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. each afternoon, fashioning this sale a ``happy hour.'' Around Valentine's Day, Mr. Frederick engages in a creative and humorous television and radio advertising campaign for his flowers that residents from across the region will recognize. In his television ad, Mr. Frederick dresses as a doctor and carries a stethoscope, calling himself ``Doctor Valentine.'' The popular ad has run in the Bangor area for several years, bringing smiles to the faces of his customers and increasing Mr. Frederick's sales. Mr. Frederick is also very committed to the local community. A member of the Bangor Rotary Club, Mr. Frederick gives flowers to fellow Rotarians for their birthdays. He also donates flowers to various organizations across Bangor for fundraising purposes. Mr. Frederick is currently president of the Husson Alumni Board, as well as a board member of the Oncology Support Foundation, which provides resources and information to cancer patients and their families throughout Maine. The latter is a cause near and dear to Mr. Frederick, who is a cancer survivor himself. Additionally, the Bangor Rotary Club has honored Mr. Frederick by naming him a Paul Harris Fellow, as someone who has truly exhibited the creed of ``service above self'' in his everyday life. In the era of online and telephone-based florists, Bangor Floral Company allows customers the opportunity to see and discuss the proper arrangement, and to truly ``smell the roses.'' My sincerest thanks to Phil Frederick for all of his generous efforts, and my best wishes to everyone at Bangor Floral for a pleasant Valentine's season and a successful year.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Baucus, Senator Lincoln, Senator Burr, and Senator Collins to introduce the Keeping Our Promise to America's Military Veterans Act. Quite simply, my colleagues and I strongly believe that Congress must remain focused on fully supporting our veterans and their families in the 111th Congress. As we begin this new Congress, our legislative priorities should reflect the unending gratitude of the American people for the sacrifices of our veterans and their families in defending the Nation and our way of life. To date, the war on terrorism has already generated nearly 1 million discharged veterans and their ranks will grow with nearly 300,000 new veterans per year. The Congress must not waver in our commitment of support for their service, as well as the service and sacrifices of each of our citizens who have taken that extra step and donned the uniform of this great Nation. The bill that we are introducing would express the sense of Congress that legislation should be enacted in the 111th Congress to improve the lives of our Nation's veterans and their families and provide them with the opportunity to achieve the American dream, including legislation to assure funding for medical care and for timely and accurate adjudication of all benefit claims, to assure accesses to high quality treatment for PTSD and TBI conditions, and to assure a seamless transition for veterans and their families from military to civilian life. As we consider legislation for this Congress, I point out, for example, the problem of providing the VA health care system with funding in a timely and predictable manner. With the exception of last year, VA appropriations have historically not met this simple standard. To correct this problem, I have supported, and will continue to support measures to make VA appropriations mandatory, or to provide advance appropriations to the VA. Neither are new budget concepts, but rather a means of achieving timely, predictable, and sufficient funding of VA health care via the current annual appropriations process. I joined with a number of senators in the last Congress, including then-Senator Barack Obama, on legislation to provide advance appropriations to the VA, and will continue to work to this end in the 111th. Of the many challenges on which this Congress must act in the weeks and months ahead, we believe that it is imperative that we not waver in our support for our Nation's veterans and their families. I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join Senator Baucus, Senator Lincoln, Senator Burr, Senator Collins, and me and offer their support for this important legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Baucus, Senator Lincoln, Senator Burr, and Senator Collins to introduce the Keeping Our Promise to America's Military Veterans Act. Quite simply, my colleagues and I strongly believe that Congress must remain focused on fully supporting our veterans and their families in the 111th Congress. As we begin this new Congress, our legislative priorities should reflect the unending gratitude of the American people for the sacrifices of our veterans and their families in defending the Nation and our way of life. To date, the war on terrorism has already generated nearly 1 million discharged veterans and their ranks will grow with nearly 300,000 new veterans per year. The Congress must not waver in our commitment of support for their service, as well as the service and sacrifices of each of our citizens who have taken that extra step and donned the uniform of this great Nation. The bill that we are introducing would express the sense of Congress that legislation should be enacted in the 111th Congress to improve the lives of our Nation's veterans and their families and provide them with the opportunity to achieve the American dream, including legislation to assure funding for medical care and for timely and accurate adjudication of all benefit claims, to assure accesses to high quality treatment for PTSD and TBI conditions, and to assure a seamless transition for veterans and their families from military to civilian life. As we consider legislation for this Congress, I point out, for example, the problem of providing the VA health care system with funding in a timely and predictable manner. With the exception of last year, VA appropriations have historically not met this simple standard. To correct this problem, I have supported, and will continue to support measures to make VA appropriations mandatory, or to provide advance appropriations to the VA. Neither are new budget concepts, but rather a means of achieving timely, predictable, and sufficient funding of VA health care via the current annual appropriations process. I joined with a number of senators in the last Congress, including then-Senator Barack Obama, on legislation to provide advance appropriations to the VA, and will continue to work to this end in the 111th. Of the many challenges on which this Congress must act in the weeks and months ahead, we believe that it is imperative that we not waver in our support for our Nation's veterans and their families. I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join Senator Baucus, Senator Lincoln, Senator Burr, Senator Collins, and me and offer their support for this important legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, one other issue that is critical, which Senator Landrieu and I both share, is that of elevating the Small Business Administration to Cabinet-level status. As I have said before, this will underscore the critical role that small businesses play in our economy. I know Chair Landrieu shares and supports such an initiative. It is long overdue and unquestionably should be done. We should elevate the status of the agency to give it the prominence and profile it deserves on behalf of the men and women of our Nation's small business community. There should be far more focus upon the role that they can serve in not only our domestic marketplace, but the global marketplace as well. I will continue to call for the elevation of this critical position. I have advocated it for years. In light of where we are today in the economy, and the increase in unemployment, it is even more imperative that we increase the prominence of small businesses in the President's cabinet because, again, doing so will provide the attention and resources they require to survive and be prosperous.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I appreciate that Senator Landrieu has raised for discussion the tremendous credentials that are offered by Karen Mills. There is no question that she has a tremendous background both in manufacturing and venture capitalism and in understanding the role that small businesses play in our Nation's economy. She has had firsthand experience, not only through her family's business endeavors, but also through her work in venture capitalism in helping to shape and rebuild various businesses. She understands and appreciates the resources that are necessary and essential to rebuilding businesses and the access to capital that is required. Also, she played a pivotal role in Maine's economy, in encouraging the use of cluster development. She has worked extensively with the Brookings Institute on how to nurture cluster development in various small and rural communities, to help rebuild and reshape their local economies. What we have recognized, and what she has certainly demonstrated time and again through her own personal firsthand experience, is that it does not take a lot of resources to nurture and create small businesses as a foundation for a local economy. It is that type of experience she will bring to the Small Business Administration. In fact, I had the opportunity to meet with her this afternoon as she prepares for the confirmation hearing. There is no question that she has widespread knowledge on what it will take to rebuild the Small Business Administration helping it to be far more responsive and receptive to small businesses, to understand what they need, to link them up with lenders, to provide the technology required to make the agency much more effective and responsive to the needs of small businesses across the country. I am looking forward to working with Ms. Mills and the chair of the Small Business Committee because I believe that Ms. Mills is outstanding in her capabilities and truly appreciates the role small businesses play in America's economy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a biography of Ms. Mills printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I commend my colleague, Senator Landrieu, from Louisiana, the new chair of the Small Business Committee. I am confident that she is going to champion small businesses and the critical role they play in our Nation's economy. I look forward to joining forces with the Senator from Louisiana. She is going to be an effective and eloquent advocate on behalf of the men and women who make up the millions of small businesses across this country, which are the lifeblood of our Nation's economy. One of the things we learned during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is that over 85 percent of businesses in Louisiana were small businesses. Similarly, in my home state of Maine, over 97 percent of all businesses are small businesses. So we understand the imperative of doing everything we can to reinforce and leverage the resources we have at the Federal level to support the engine of our economy; and that is, of course, America's small businesses. They are too often overlooked, Mr. President, in the role they play in our Nation's economy and in their job creation potential--creating two-thirds of all net new jobs in America. At a time of cataclysmic job loss, we have to look to small businesses to spur economic growth. I am concerned because I have taken many street tours across my State, and have seen first hand what we are seeing unfold all across America, small businesses closing their doors. So I know that we must do everything conceivable to reinforce, and bolster the resources of the Small Business Administration, to help it make a difference in creating jobs. Frankly, all too often small businesses are overlooked, unrecognized, and not acknowledged for the indispensable role they play in driving our Nation's economy. Nationally, unemployment is at 7.6 percent. In the past 4 weeks, more than 2.3 million people have filed new claims for jobless benefits. Those losses will only cascade even further if small businesses are unable to access the capital needed to help them start, grow, and expand their operations. It is one of the issues I am working on as we speak. Certainly, through the Troubled Asset Relief Program and with the respective Federal agencies, I think we should have a phone line so small businesses can call to find out how we can match up their needs for lending with banks and financial institutions across this country. As we speak, we are finding that more and more small businesses are unable to get the lines of credit they need to continue to carry on their business. Certainly, in a multiseason State such as Maine, people cannot do some things during the course of the winter, but they want to maintain their workforce and are unable to because they cannot access the line of credit that is indispensable to survival. There are a number of things we can do at the Federal level, much of which is included in this stimulus plan pending before the Senate. I agree with my colleague, Senator Landrieu that we must focus upon initiatives that are crucial to creating jobs. After all, when everybody talks about the stimulus plan, how to evaluate it, as I said last week, we need to create a rigorous standard by which we measure job creation in this legislation. It is absolutely essential in building the confidence that this stimulus plan will work. The way to do that is to look at some of the provisions targeted toward the small businesses, which will play a key role in our economy. When you realize that firms with fewer than 500 employees comprise 99 percent of all businesses in America. And according to the SBA, small businesses have greater potential to recover faster than larger businesses during the course of a recession. But small businesses are fighting for survival. That is why Senator Landrieu and I worked to ensure that key initiatives were included into this bill, which will be critical for small business success during these very difficult economic times. We collaborated on these initiatives because we know that they are paramount to securing a robust future for small businesses. SBA lending numbers are in a free fall. That is demonstrated in several of the charts I have here. The 7(a) loan volume has dropped from over $3.2 billion to under $2 billion, respectfully, compared to the same quarter last year. In terms of percentage impact, that is a 43-percent decline. For startup 7(a) loans, the numbers are just as bad. Nationally, startup loans are down over 40 percent, when compared to the first quarter of fiscal year 2008 to the current fiscal period. In Maine, for example, if you look at 7(a) lending, it has declined by nearly 69 percent for the first quarter of fiscal year 2007, compared to this quarter of fiscal year 2009. That is why it is absolutely urgent that we make sure the initiatives that are included in the Senate-passed version of the stimulus plan are maintained and preserved in conference. They will go a long way toward addressing and minimizing many of the problems small businesses face. For example, Senator Landrieu and I worked in tandem on some of these key initiatives, which include those to reduce or eliminate fees for 504 and 7(a) loans, for instance. This is a departure from the approach taken in the House but, frankly, reducing these fees will provide a greater incentive for both small businesses and lenders to participate in the program, rather than just increasing the guarantee, which is reflected in the House-passed version of the stimulus plan. We will also be able, through supporting these programs, to reduce the cost of SBA loans for borrowers. These SBA loans will help to create or retain 750,000 jobs. Additionally, we have included provisions to increase funding, as Senator Landrieu indicated, for the SBA's vital microloan program. These microloans are not only easy to process, they are effective and accessible to small businesses. Again, these loans have demonstrated time and again their job creation value and potential. We have improved the venture capital program and increased the size of loans that small businesses can take under the SBA's 7(a) and 504 lending programs. Another key component is the automation of the SBA's loan processing, which must be improved. It would be easier for lenders, particularly small ones and those in rural areas, to participate in the loan programs because, increased automation will result in increased usage of these key programs. Most critically, this automation would reduce the regulatory burden on small businesses. In fact, the SBA Office of Advocacy has determined that the cumulative annual cost of Federal regulations to small businesses is more than $1 trillion. So automation would take a step toward reducing that burden, and it would make a tremendous difference for many in my State, in Louisiana, and across the country. As a member of the Finance Committee, I also want to highlight key tax provisions in the stimulus plan. Again, I express my gratitude to Senator Landrieu for her advocacy of these initiatives because they are essential. The first is an extension of Section 179 Small Business Expensing at the $250,000 level for 2009 and 2010. That has demonstrated--repeatedly in the past--to create jobs. We need to use proven programs, like this, in the stimulus that have job creation value. I am very pleased that level of $250,000 will be extended both in 2009 and 2010 so that small businesses can make investments in plant and equipment that they can deduct immediately. In 2005, the most recent year for which data was available, according to the IRS, more than 4.5 million small businesses claimed the section 179 expense deduction. These are 4.5 million job-creating engines, which this provision could assist at this difficult time in America. The other provision, of course, is the 5-year net operating carryback of losses which will allow companies to use these losses against prior- year profits to gain immediate tax refunds. Thank you, Mr. President, for allowing me to speak about these key small business provisions in the stimulus bill. As we focus our attention on this stimulus package, we have to measure each and every initiative by its job-creation capabilities and as a catalyst for creating those jobs. As Senator Landrieu indicated, there is no greater catalyst for job creation in this country than small businesses. I have often stated that we have ignored and overlooked their tremendous potential. The stimulus package, which is pending before the Senate, will bolster small businesses through a variety of initiatives. I am pleased we were able to incorporate these provisions, through the support of Senator Landrieu and many members of the Senate Finance and Appropriations Committees and particularly Senators Baucus and Grassley, Finance Committee chair and ranking member, and Senators Inouye and Cochran, Senate Appropriations Committee chair and ranking member. Thank you to all of those who realized how vital these initiatives will be to creating jobs. I hope that in the conference committee these initiatives will be preserved because at the end of the day, this package will be measured in terms of its ability to jump- start this economy. And we know that small businesses will be on the front lines of job recovery, if given the resources and the ability to do so. Again, I thank my colleague from Louisiana for being such a critical advocate and for her leadership on the Small Business Committee. I am looking forward to working with her in the future. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I wish to to speak to my amendment that expands the eligible participants of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, NTIA, Broadband Technology Opportunities Program. This program will be very valuable toward increasing broadband availability and access nationwide. The current language unduly limits private sector participation to that of only public-private partnership. And while I have been a long supporter of these efforts as an additional way to roll out broadband service and have cosponsored legislation in the past to that effect, I believe it is necessary to expand their eligibility in the program in order to more effectively and immediately increase the availability and access to broadband service, mainly in this economy. While many States have established very useful initiatives that have advanced broadband deployment in rural communities where the digital divide existed, other States unfortunately haven't. So by requiring a public-private partnership, it could hinder achieving the fundamental goal established by the program if there is lack of interest or resources from the public entities. In addition, this provision imposes a 20-percent match requirement for these grants, which may be satisfied by the grant applicant or any third-party partnering with the grant applicant, and only may be waived under special circumstances. With at least 45 states facing budget shortfalls, which the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates for the current and next two fiscal years could surpass $350 billion, it may be difficult or impractical for States and local government to engage in these endeavors at this time. The last thing we need to do is to put States or local governments in position to have to find additional funds or possibly incur future costs to participate in this program. Over the past 5 years, the private sector has led the way in investing billions of dollars to build out communications networks in order to meet the growing demand for speed to due the flood of Internet content and applications. Through technologies such as DOCSIS 3.0, ADSL2+, and Fiber-to-the-Home, consumers can now achieve download speeds of more than 20 megabits-per-second and in some cases exceeding 50 megabits-per-second. Wireless broadband, such as Wi-Fi and Wi-Max, is playing an increasingly significant role by providing valuable mobility--making the Internet portable. In order to achieve these speeds in rural areas and to meet the goals prescribed by this provision, it is central that we allow the private sector to continue its leadership. If the private sector is willing to make the investment then they should be able to participate in this beneficial program, with or without a public-private partnership. At the same time, States must play a significant role with this program by working with NTIA and the industry to determine the areas in most need of broadband investment--unserved areas. Doing so will provide a targeted effort toward erasing the digital divide that continues to exist in many rural communities and inner cities. These are the areas that have the most to gain from its availability. Without question, broadband has a significant impact to our economy. The availability of broadband in communities adds over 1 percent to the employment growth rate and a 0.5-percent in business growth to that area. With the poor state of our economy, we must look at all opportunities that will not just create jobs but will create 21st century jobs to make our Nation more competitive in this global digital economy, not limit them. This is why I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Broadband Madam President, I wish to also speak to my amendment that builds upon a beneficial provision in this legislation that will advance the investment and deployment of broadband. It does so by providing companies an incentive to build broadband infrastructure by using a targeted tax credit. I am very supportive of this measure but believe we can do more in order to have a greater impact. Specifically, this amendment increases the tax credits made available for current generation and next generation broadband deployment to make the provision more attractive; it establishes an ``intermediate generation'' broadband tier with speeds of 50 megabits per second downstream and 5 megabits per second upstream to set a migration path between the current and next generations speeds and have more carriers participate in the program. Also, the amendment refines the definitions of areas to provide a greater focus on building out in the areas that need it most--communities where the digital divide continues to exist. It is estimated that 9 to 10 million American households that use the Internet still lack access to broadband. And many areas that do have ``broadband'' lack sufficient bandwidth speeds to utilize the full potential and benefits the Internet has to currently offer. These areas, typically rural communities, are the ones that have the most to gain from broadband. The availability of broadband in communities adds over 1 percent to the employment growth rate and 0.5 percent to business growth in that area. Also, the Brookings Institute estimates that $5 billion increase to broadband investment would successfully increase broadband penetration by 7 percent and result in 2.4 million new jobs throughout the economy. So it is clear that broadband is increasingly becoming a principal anchor to our economy. Over the past 5 years, the private sector has led the way in investing billions of dollars to build out communications networks in order to meet the growing demand for speed due to the flood of Internet content and applications. Through technologies such as DOCSIS 3.0, ADSL2+, Fiber-to-the-Home, and Wi-Max, urban and suburban consumers are achieving bandwidth speeds that were only available or affordable to businesses and corporations. But rural communities are unfortunately being left out in many cases. So we cannot sit idly by while the digital divide continues to exist. If we do not act, millions of Americans without access to modern technology will also find themselves unable to realize the educational and employment opportunities of the future. I take personal interest in this endeavor because approximately 10 percent of Mainers still do not have any access to broadband. In addition to the creation of construction, engineering, and information technology jobs that will result from these tax credits, it will help revitalize local economies that have been disseminated by job loss. With a computer, a broadband connection, and an idea, a displaced worker can start his or her own business or take continuing education courses online to improve their skill set in order to reenter the workforce. With Internet broadband access, rural small business can connect to a global marketplace. With the poor state of our economy, we must look at all opportunities that will not just create jobs but will create 21st century jobs to make our Nation more competitive in this global digital economy. This is why I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Amendment No. 537 Madam President, Amendment No. 537 to the recovery package will ensure that all regional electricity planners are eligible for funds for transmission development under this proposal. Under the proposal developed by the Appropriations Committee, the language clearly benefits Western States' development of transmission lines to population centers. This not only unfairly benefits this particular region, but it fails to reflect the proximity of the renewable resources in rural New England to population centers. I strongly recommend that this language remain silent on what region or what entity should receive funds for transmission planning, and allow the Department of Energy to determine the merits of each region's plan. My amendment would simply expand the types of technical assistance grants under the Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Program that shall be provided to all regional transmission organizations, regional reliability entities, States, and other transmission owners and operators. Currently, the language inequitably limits the types of funds provided to western entities. I strongly believe that this language must be expanded upon to provide my State of Maine, and the independent system operator of New England to develop the critical renewable energy sources that exist in New England and construct the transmission lines to bring this power to population centers. I strongly recommend that we adopt this language and I look forward to working with my colleagues from New England, the Appropriations Committee, and the Department of Energy, to ensure that this funding is distributed in a regionally equitable manner. Amendment No. 553 Madam President, amendment No. 553 will provide dedicated funding for homeowners to replace inefficient fossil fuel heating systems with renewable energy sources. Although there is near unanimity in Congress with regard to the disastrous consequences of our failed energy policy, there still remains to be a bold effort to address this issue. Madam President, I believe that the consensus will ultimately build to reach a substantive change in our energy policy, but I believe it is critical that we begin these critical steps within this recovery package and dedicate resources to homeowners to utilize renewable energy sources to heat their homes, rather than foreign oil. Madam President, in my home State of Maine, roughly 80 percent of the population utilizes heating oil to keep warm in the winter. In New England, 40 percent of homes use heating oil. As a result, on average nearly 4.7 billion gallons of heating oil are consumed by New England. This is not only an enormous cost to families across the region, but it creates massive greenhouse gas emissions and increases our country's demand of foreign oil. This is not merely a regional issue, this is a national issue, and it should be a priority of Congress to reduce heating oil use in New England. Last week, I introduced an amendment that would dedicate $100,000,000 of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program to homeowners who replace their current heating system with a renewable energy system. These can include solar energy systems, geothermal energy systems, and wood pellet systems. These are all alternatives that should be pursued with boldness. While I continue to believe that significant investments must be made into energy efficiency, we should also work to reduce the percentage of homeowners who use heating oil. I believe that this is a critical downpayment to addressing our energy policy, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to dedicate funds to replacing fossil fuel systems. Health Care Madam President, the bill before us includes critical funding and infrastructure to at last move our health care system out of the pen and paper era so that we may realize the promise of modern technology to reduce the toll of medical errors, improve care, and reduce costs. In doing so, it has been estimated that we will create from 40,000 to as many as 200,000 new jobs. To make this effort a full success, patients must be willing to trust their health records to a secure system which protects privacy. That is why I am pleased that Senator Kennedy has joined with me in my effort to achieve that. Today the public's confidence has been shaken by a dramatic growth in breaches of medical records. Such events--affecting over 42 million in the past 4 years carry serious and irreversible consequences. The impact just in the areas of employment and health coverage can be devastating. That is why I am pleased to see a number of provisions provided in this legislation to assure our constituents that greater data security and privacy protections will be used to protect their health information. Foremost among these, I note that the provision I authored on breach notification has largely been incorporated and extended. Yet a serious problem remains. Because the fact is that the provisions regarding breach--that notice is provided that the HHS Secretary reports on the problem and progress in addressing it--that measures are instituted to assure compliance . . . these will simply be ineffective. And that is because they will seldom be applied. That is because, in defining a breach, and providing some exceptions for inadvertent acts, the language actually excludes unintentional disclosures. An unintentional disclosure--the cause of the overwhelming number of breaches--simply would no longer be considered a breach! We all appreciate that exceptions may be made for some unintentional access. For example, a health care worker might inadvertently call up the wrong record on a computer. But the fact is, there are technical measures to prevent that in nearly every case. Yet the current language states that breach does not include any unintentional acquisition, access, use, or disclosure of such information by an employee or agent of the covered entity or business associate involved if such acquisition, access, or use, respectively, was made in good faith and within the course and scope of the employment. So if one should lose a laptop containing data, or transmit information to an unauthorized party, or perhaps leave a patient's on- line medical history exposed for anyone to see . . . under the language in this bill that disclosure is not a breach, and the breach provisions simply do not apply. Since the vast majority of breaches are unintentional, we won't see the measures of this bill employed to secure and protect health records. It would apply only to intentional acts--and these are currently already addressed in current law as criminal acts. So without a conforming change in this overly broad exclusion, we will do little to address one of the public's greatest concerns about Health IT. Our amendment makes the necessary conforming change to the exception--simply removing the term disclosure as an exception. Unauthorized disclosures of protected health information are breaches-- and we all know that. Our amendment ensures that we will actually take the steps outlined in this bill to protect Americans from abuse of their medical data. In addition, we have heard from providers of their concern that the language in the bill may not properly extend reasonable exceptions to some health care workers--such as physicians with admitting privileges--who may be neither an employee of the hospital nor an ``agent'' of that entity. The language of our amendment makes clear that such individuals who are authorized by the entity or business associated to handle protected health information would fall under the reasonable exception for inadvertent acts, with the same qualification that further ``acquisition, access or use'' does not occur. We also have added clarity to the bill's definition by stating that breach does not occur when an unauthorized individual simply could not reasonably have been able to retain protected health information. That makes it indisputable that many ``no foul'' situations will not be swept into breach reporting, such as unopened mailings by covered entities which are returned as undeliverable. Once again, I thank Senator Kennedy for his cooperation and support. The product of our bipartisan work ensures that Americans will be better protected from medical data breaches--and more critically--that we will see a reduction in this perilous threat. Madam President, I now will speak to the substitute to the stimulus package we are considering today--against the backdrop of a moment in time in which our Nation lost 600,000 jobs last month alone, we are suffering under a 7.6 percent unemployment rate, and the number of Americans receiving unemployment benefits has reached 4.8 million--the highest since recordkeeping began in 1967. Indeed, the landscape facing us is so grave that economists of all persuasions--Republicans, Democrats, Independents--indisputably agree that inaction is not an option and that the question which has been before this Chamber since last week and before that in the Finance Committee is, What will actually work to jump-start this economy? Yet even the best economic minds are not in agreement or accord on what is the optimal stimulus to pursue--and what it would achieve. Business Week, in its January 28 issue, asks ``how much does boosting government spending or cutting taxes help the private sector? Can massive fiscal stimulus create jobs and increase economic output?'' David Leonhardt, economics columnist for the New York Times, stipulated in an article on January 29, 2009, that such a ``bill should help the economy in both the near term and the long term. But the government doesn't go out and spend about $800 billion every day. The details matter.'' He is absolutely right--the details do matter. That is why we have been engaged in this necessary, vigorous debate. And then there are economists such as Alan Viard, formerly of the Bush administration and now with the American Enterprise Institute, who questioned the idea of a stimulus initially who now agree that one, although limited, is required. As I said last Monday here on the floor, I want to support a stimulus package, but I cannot support just any package. We are confronting a multidimensional crisis that requires a multidimensional approach, and we cannot afford to get it wrong. Already Congress passed a rescue plan for financial institutions, but the lending expected to free up our credit markets has yet to transpire. Already the Federal Reserve has essentially exhausted its options to improve the economy through monetary policy, having reduced interest rates to zero--something else that hasn't happened since the 1930s--and lent more than $1 trillion to stabilize the financial and credit markets. So, as I said during the markup of the Senate Finance Committee's portion of this package, we ought to remember that for us in crafting fiscal policy to meet this historic challenge, there are no do-overs. We only have so many arrows in our fiscal quiver. So the question at this point isn't if an economic stimulus is called for. And it isn't about how much we label as ``tax relief'' and how much we label as ``spending.'' In the final analysis, it is about the merits of the individual measures in this legislation and whether the totality of the package can--in the timely, temporary, and targeted fashion we have employed on stimulus measures in the past--deliver job creation and assistance to those who have been displaced. Because both elements are essential to turning the economic tide and aligning our Nation for a more prosperous future. I know this process got off to a less than stellar start. The House of Representatives, frankly, did not put its best bipartisanship foot forward by closing the door on House Republicans with an end result of the House bill receiving zero Republican votes. I like to think that there is a more constructive dynamic here in the Senate--a belief I will look to substantiate further in the coming days once we move to conference. So I recognize and share the frustration of my fellow Republicans. At the same time, we are no longer in control of this Chamber, and we should embrace our role as a minority to do all we can to exercise our rights to make constructive changes to this legislation. That is what many of my colleagues have been doing, and that is what this debate is all about. I have been in the Senate long enough to know that in a process like this there has to be give and take. And, in fact, the American people look to the Senate to temper the passions of politics, to provide an institutional check that ensures all voices are heard and considered, because while our constitutional democracy is premised on majority rule, it is also grounded in a commitment to minority rights. The bottom-line challenge is crafting a package that is effective-- and that means forging a measure that doesn't confuse stimulus with omnibus. And on that score I believe the Finance package--which ultimately came to comprise 65 percent of the combined legislation we are now considering, and with its tax provisions comprising more than 40 percent of the overall package--set an appropriate standard as right-sized, properly targeted, and timely--thanks to Chairman Baucus holding 10\1/2\ hour markup and working through the issues. Under the leadership of Ranking Member Grassley, we included relief from the alternative minimum tax--which bolsters the President's make work pay provision I might add. We included a health information technology provision I championed that will create 40,000 new jobs as well as renewable tax credits I have long fought for that will create more than 89,000 more. Frankly, if we had not dithered last year and opted to pass the extension of the renewable tax credits at the beginning of 2008, we would have already been on the road to creating 100,000 new jobs. We also included significant tax relief that could be available to small businesses, the true job generators of our economy. We extended unemployment compensation benefits which, as we heard last year from the Congressional Budget Office, is a preeminent stimulus tool with a cost-effectiveness that is ``large,'' a length of time for impact that is ``short,'' and an uncertainty about the policy's effects that is ``small.'' And we provided vital Medicaid assistance to the States--and I have heard the arguments against it, but does anyone seriously believe that a projected, combined budgetary shortfall of $350 billion for the States over the next 2 years won't have a profound impact on our national economy, as States grapple with raising taxes or slashing spending to balance their budgets. Our package also contains a payroll tax credit for more than 95 percent of working families in the United States--which Mark Zandi has said will be ``particularly effective, as the benefit will go to lower income households . . . that are much more likely to spend any tax benefit they receive.'' And it increases eligibility for the extraordinarily successful refundable portion of the child tax credit that I originally spearheaded--to reach low-income families earning between $8,100 and $14,767 a year. Now, I have heard the arguments before against refundability, but this program reaches people who may not earn enough to have Federal tax liability but who work and contribute local taxes and payroll taxes--and will therefore get additional money into the pockets of those most likely to spend it. Before I go on to describe additional critical tax provisions in the Finance portion, I should note that although an extension of the suspension of required minimum distribution rules applicable to IRA, 401(k), 403(b), and 457 plans is not included, I appreciate that Chairman Baucus has agreed to work with me to address this issue. While Congress provided critical relief to retirees by suspending these rules for 2009, Congress must go further and waive the rules for 2010. Equities markets have not recovered after a disastrous 2008, and our Nation's seniors will require considerable time to recoup their substantial losses. I trust that the Finance Committee will act to continue relief in a forthcoming pension or tax extenders bill. As ranking member of the Small Business Committee, I am also pleased the bill before us contains tax provisions I authored to help them sustain operations and employees, as part of my Small Businesses Stimulus Act of 2009. Our package extends enhanced section 179 expensing for 2009, allowing small businesses throughout the Nation to invest up to $250,000 in plant and equipment that they can deduct immediately, instead of depreciate over a period of 5, 7, or more years. Our package also lengthens the carryback period of net operating losses to 5 years to provide businesses facing unprecedented losses due to the economy with a $67.5 billion infusion of capital in 2009 and 2010. But crucially, this proposal also ensures that those receiving Federal bailout funds from the TARP program will not be allowed to take advantage of these additional taxpayer resources. That is why I also appreciate the chairman's inclusion, at my request, of an initiative based on a bill that Senator Kerry and I have introduced to eliminate the taxation of gain on small business stock--a proposal President Obama had also made. Under current law, section 1202 provides a 50-percent exclusion--a 14-percent effective tax rate--for the gain from the sale of certain small business stock held for more than 5 years. This provision is limited to individual investments and not the investments of a corporation. As a 14-percent effective tax rate provides little incentive to hold small business stock, given that Fortune 500 company stock is taxed at 15 percent if held for only 1 year, the provision allows a 75-percent exclusion--7 percent effective tax rate--for individuals on the gain from the sale of certain small business stock field for more than 5 years. This change is for stock issued after the date of enactment and before January 1, 2011. Furthermore, I was pleased to see that the chairman included a provision I joined Senators Lincoln and Hatch in spearheading to lessen the impact of the built-in gains tax on small businesses. By reducing the period from 10 to 7 years that S corporations converting from C corporation status must hold appreciated assets before they can be sold at lower tax rates, this proposal will enable small businesses to unlock capital that is currently frozen. This change is absolutely essential at a time in which our Nation's credit markets remain frozen and small businesses are struggling to meet their financing requirements. This provision benefit up to 900 small businesses in my homes State of Maine. We must neither neglect nor forget our Nation's distressed and rural communities. The Finance package rightly recognizes that imperative by including an additional $1.5 billion in 2008 and 2009 allocation authority for the new markets tax credit. I am told that the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, which administers the incentive, can allocate the augmented 2008 credit authority within 90 days, which will create 11,000 permanent jobs and 35,000 construction jobs. Moreover, I am pleased the chairman agreed to my provision--based on legislation I introduced in January--to expand the definition of ``manufacturing'' as it pertains to the small-issue Industrial Development Bond, or IDB Program to include the creation of ``intangible'' property. For example, this would allow the bonds to be used to benefit companies that manufacture software and biotechnology products by helping them get the financing necessary to assist their operations in innovating and create new jobs. With this change, State and local financing authorities could use IDBs to raise capital to provide low-cost financing of manufacturing facilities with the jobs of the future, helping to attract new employers and assist existing ones to grow. Notably, knowledge-based businesses have been at the forefront of this innovation that has bolstered the economy over the long term. For example, 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 package also includes, at my request provisions from legislation Senator Kerry and I introduced to keep the alternative minimum tax from eroding the value of private-activity bonds, which are used to promote infrastructure and student loans. Congress repealed the AMT for use against housing private activity bonds as part of last summer's housing bill, and this proposal extends that beneficial treatment to other types of private-activity bonds. This should help spur demand for these types of bonds in a time in which the Nation is experiencing a credit crunch. I also appreciate the fact that the chairman agreed in a colloquy with me to address the critical issue of energy efficiency in the 25C tax credit. I am deeply concerned that our package fails to include modernizations to the efficiency standards, and I am alarmed that this provision, which I authored in 2005, may not propel our country forward to the truly advanced energy efficiency products. In addition, I am troubled that the stimulus proposal seems to address energy efficiency merely through appropriations. The Finance Committee has been on the vanguard of developing an energy efficiency industry through the Tax Code, and I am deeply concerned that we have failed to complement the Appropriations Committee proposal. In regard to the high-tech agenda ahead of us, the Finance measure establishes a tax credit for broadband infrastructure investment in rural and underserved areas that I coauthored with Senator Rockefeller. The purpose of our proposal is to drive job creation and to stimulate broadband deployment, particularly in areas where the digital divide continues to exist. Specifically, this proposal promotes broadband deployment in rural areas by providing a two-tiered tax incentive to stimulate new broadband investment. The provision contains a 10-percent tax credit to companies expanding their ``current generation'' broadband services-- defined as a download speed of 5 megabits per second--to rural and low- income areas and a 20-percent tax credit to companies deploying ``next generation'' broadband services--defined as download speeds of 100 megabits per second. Any provider installing broadband service in the targeted areas, whether by standard telephone wire, cable, fiber optics, terrestrial wireless, satellite or any other medium, would be eligible. The data is abundant and clear on the significant impact that broadband plays in communities--the availability of broadband in communities adds over 1 percent to the employment growth rate and 0.5- percent in business growth to that area. Businesses locate operations and hire employees in urban locations that have adequate broadband infrastructure, rather than in rural or inner-city locations that are otherwise more efficient due to the location of their customers or suppliers, a stable or better workforce, and cheaper production environments. It is not an understatement to say that the deployment of technology could fundamentally transform the future of rural and inner city America. Finally, today there are 45 States which face budget shortfalls over the next 2 years which will result in a combined budget ``gaps'' of $350 billion--would anyone suggest that this would not have a profound impact on our national economy? Because States, which unlike the Federal Government, are required to balance their budgets, they will have to raise taxes or reduce spending or both. And right now, States are struggling to serve even their current Medicaid enrollees, never mind facing the growing demand for Medicaid care--as with every 1- percent increase in unemployment an additional 1 million Americans will qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP assistance, under current enrollment criteria. So we should further assist their ability to serve their current Medicaid enrollees without imposing unacceptable tax increases or extending recent benefit cuts even further. At the same time, I thank the chairman for including provisions I championed to ensure States cannot use the increased Federal match monies to expand eligibility and to ensure prompt payment to providers--as delays in payments can threaten their continued operation, limit their ability to invest in new technology, or hire new employees--just the type of activity we want to encourage. I also thank the chairman for extending this requirement for nursing homes, which is crucial to better supporting long term care in this country. We then came to this debate on the floor, having combined the finance package--which had fully $325 billion in tax relief, and $198 billion toward truly stimulative spending--with the appropriations portion at $365.6 billion. And as I stated on the floor last week, I share the deep concerns that while more than 98 percent of the finance package would spend out over the next 2 years, just 12 percent of the discretionary spending portion of the original, overall package would spend out in the first year--and just 49 percent over the 2 next years. Further, as the President said last Wednesday in our one-on-one Oval Office meeting, getting this not only right--but also right-sized--is also imperative. As he stated, we will lose $2 trillion in consumer demand this year and next--demand, I might add, that must be ``backfilled'' in our economy with a substantial investment in both tax relief and targeted, effective expenditures that will create jobs. The fact is, given the monumental level of this recession that's about to become the longest and deepest since World War II, we can't just be throwing pebbles in the pond, Mr. President--we require the ripple effect of a boulder while at the same time ensuring that this is not an open-ended passport to spending in perpetuity. We heard the President say last week essentially that stimulus is spending. But let us remember, not all spending is stimulus. In order to help address the various concerns that have been expressed, I worked with Chairman Baucus to scale back the finance package by $25 billion, to contribute to the overall level of reductions necessary in combination with cuts on the appropriations side to trim more than $100 billion from the package--which was a number I had suggested in my meeting with the President last week. Overall, on the appropriations side, $83 billion has been excised from the package, and that is progress--as is the fact that more than 40 percent of the Senate bill contains tax relief, whereas that ratio drops to about 33 percent in the House bill. And we shouldn't stop there, we should also require a specific listing of the numbers of jobs being created by each title in this act, and also rescind any unobligated balances of any program in the act that are not currently creating--or cannot be reasonably expected to create--jobs or help those displaced by the current recession. Which brings us to today, Mr. President. We have now considered a week's worth of amendments. And we have come to a compromise on both the spending and tax portions of the package at about a ratio of more than three to one. Is this compromise perfect, Mr. President? No. Is it everything that I personally would agree with? No. But it is, in fact, improvement and progress--and it is critical that these improvements are preserved in conference with the House following final passage of this bill. Looking forward, Mr. President, this must be a two-way street between Republicans and Democrats--and between the Senate and the House--if we are to craft a package commensurate with the times. I will support this compromise, but I will also continue to work throughout the conference committee process to ensure the individual elements of the final package will actually deliver job creation and assistance to people in need to the best of our ability. That is my bottom line--this process is far from complete, our work is far from complete, and make no mistake, my support at the end of the day will be predicated on the demonstrable ability of the elements of the final package to provide a vitally necessary stimulus to our economy through rapid job growth. That must be the yardstick by which we measure the value of any final version of this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I wish to speak to amendment No. 390 which would hold recipients of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, funds accountable for the promises they have made to American taxpayers. This amendment would require that financial institutions, without major capital shortfalls, that receive TARP funds, must increase lending to individuals and businesses--including small businesses--above their lending levels at the time they received Federal assistance. This is a timely and vital amendment for those who are still unable to get financing for home and car purchases, business expenses, student loans and credit lines, including credit cards. Despite an investment of $700 billion in taxpayer funds for the purpose of addressing our country's major capital shortfalls, our citizens are still struggling to access capital. Recent reports from the Government Accountability Office and TARP's Congressional Oversight Panel have indicated that banks are not using TARP funds for lending, and more specifically, that lending to businesses and individuals has not experienced a noticeable increase since Congress passed TARP late last year. Further, the Federal Reserve's Senior Loan Officer Survey for January indicated that U.S. lending institutions have further tightened their business lending stance in the past 3 months. Congress's intent was for TARP to restore credit and liquidity to the financial system so that individuals and businesses can access the capital upon which our system of commerce depends. It is vital to our country's economic recovery that TARP funds be used to spur lending and get capital flowing through our economy quickly, effectively and transparently. On January 29, 2009, I sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to express my concerns about TARP recipients not using Federal funds for its intended use. I also expressed to Secretary Geithner my disappointment in the Department's opposition to explicitly requiring firms that received Federal funds in the first tranche of TARP distributions to increase lending above baseline levels. The Treasury Department has refused to apply these conditions to TARP fund recipients retroactively, despite an assurance by National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers in a January 15, 2009, letter to Congress that, ``As a condition of federal assistance, healthy banks without major capital shortfalls will increase lending above baseline levels.'' By taking Federal dollars and not adhering to Congress's intent, recipients are adding to an already dire economic situation. We must demand that TARP funds be used to spur new lending. Our amendment will mandate that as a condition of receiving TARP funds, financial institutions without major capital shortfalls must increase their lending above baseline levels. Additionally, the amendment contains a provision requiring such financial institutions to immediately repay assistance provided under the TARP if the Secretary of the Treasury determines that they have not made sufficient progress toward achieving these requirements. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to have this amendment included in the stimulus bill to help ensure that taxpayer funds are used to judiciously rebuild our Nation's economy. Amendment No. 525

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, at this most consequential of times, in support of the amendment that I have submitted, together with Senator Pryor, on behalf of our Nation's struggling communities that are negatively affected by base closures or realignments. During even the best of economic times, the closure or realignment of a military base can devastate a local economy. With the gravity of our economic circumstances--the most dire we have witnessed since the Great Depression--it is more difficult than ever for these communities to redevelop and stem job losses. My amendment would recognize that communities affected by base closures and realignments face particular challenges in this dismal economy and therefore special consideration should be given to provide assistance and relief under this stimulus act to those communities. I must point out that this amendment would not create a preference or entitlement, but would remind all of the critical need to help communities impinged by the closure or realignment of military installations. For instance, with the closure of Naval Air Station Brunswick, NASB, in my home State of Maine, the entire midcoast region of Maine will experience profoundly negative economic consequences attributable to an estimated loss of 6,500 jobs and $140 million in annual income. Given these challenging economic times, it is imperative that we make every effort to foster redevelopment in communities affected by base closures. I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. President, I wish to speak about an issue of regional equity with regard to the recovery package and specifically about our forestry programs. I strongly believe that in order for our forest economies to work we must collaborate on national forestry whether it is Federal lands, or private lands. I am concerned that this proposal will strongly benefit one region with Federal lands over those with private lands and strongly urge leadership to overhaul the structure of this proposal with regard to our forest economies. Our Nation's forests are a strategic national resource which span from Maine to California and Alaska to Puerto Rico. Over 60 percent are in private ownership. In order to provide regional equity, it is important that within the broad categories of construction and wildland fire management, flexibility will be provided to address a wide range of actions all aimed at stimulating the Nation's economy. These include maintaining and enhancing the Nation's forest products industry; hazardous fuels reduction; improvements in forest health; wood-to- energy grants; rehabilitation and restoration activities on Federal, State, and private lands; assisting State and local fire agencies responsible for wildfire preparedness and suppression, and urban and community forest enhancements. These activities can be accomplished through existing State and private forestry authorizations and programs. In order to address current economic conditions, I believe this economic stimulus bill should not require any matching funds and shall seek to maximize economic activity, job retention, and creation. I look forward to working with the Appropriations Committee chair on this critical issue. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I wish today, with Senator Landrieu, to file this bipartisan and commonsense amendment that would strengthen the innovative opportunities of small businesses who participate in the Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR, and Small Business Technology Transfer, STTR, programs and help them receive funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, H.R. 1. Our amendment would require that any qualifying participating Federal agency allocate a percentage of its research and development funding gained from this economic stimulus bill to their respective SBIR or STTR programs. The SBIR and STTR programs award Federal research and development funds to small businesses to encourage them to innovate and commercialize new technologies, products, and services. These programs provide more than $2 billion in Federal research and development funding each year to small businesses, and the benefit to my State of Maine cannot be overstated. According to the most recent data, in fiscal year 2005, Maine's technology-based small businesses received more than $4.5 million in SBIR total awards. Since the SBIR program was created, small hi-tech firms have submitted more than 250,000 proposals, resulting in more than 60,000 awards worth approximately $19 billion. At a time when our national economy is flagging due to failing financial markets and a correcting housing market, the SBIR program is more essential than ever, if we are to capitalize on the groundbreaking capacities of our Nation's pioneering small businesses. Now, more than ever, we in Congress must do everything within our power to help small businesses drive the recovery of our economy. It is imperative that we do everything we can to stimulate our economy and the small-tech firms of this Nation can help lead the way. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment and to provide all innovative small businesses with opportunities to grow our Nation's innovative infrastructure. Mr. President, the Tax Code currently requires small business owners to prepay their income taxes on a quarterly basis. To determine what is owed, the owners calculate 110 percent of the previous year's tax liability and then pay one-fourth of that amount each quarter of the following year. The purpose of requiring businesses to pay 110 percent of the previous year's tax liability is so that the government is sure to collect the taxes owed, even when businesses are growing. Unfortunately, our economy has been in a recession and climbing out of it is not likely to be quick. We are in a credit crunch and the cash flow of American businesses is slow. Because of the recession and the credit crunch, the overpayment of quarterly income taxes by America's small businesses is both unnecessary and harmful. It is unnecessary because in this recession there will be few businesses that meet the hurdle of a 10-percent rate of growth to match a 10-percent overpayment of taxes. Perhaps bankruptcy lawyers will be able to meet or exceed this growth target, but having the Tax Code push more customers their way is what I would like to avoid. Having small business owners pay 110 percent of their 2008 tax liability imposes one more cash flow burden that I fear could push small businesses into dire straits. Paying 10 percent more taxes than were owed for 2008 imposes a significant cash flow burden on small business. This additional tax is likely to end up as an interest free loan to the U.S. Government because the excess tax will be refunded after the 2009 return is filed. It makes no sense for small businesses to be floating the government an interest free loan at a time when we are trying to find ways to alleviate their cash flow troubles and find ways to create or maintain jobs. I will offer an amendment to help small businesses with their cash flow and not require them to give the government an interest-free loan in 2009. The amendment is written so that on a quarterly basis, individuals who earned less than $500,000 in 2008 and, earned more than half of their income from a business with 500 or fewer employees, would certify to this information on their quarterly return. Then they would be allowed to make quarterly payments of only 75 percent of their 2008 tax liability, rather than 110 percent. There are small business owners who make less than $150,000 who are required to prepay 100 percent of the previous year's liability who will also be allowed to make quarterly payments of 75 percent of the previous year's liability. Small business owners are most often taxed as sole proprietorships, subchapter S corporations or partnerships. In any of these forms of ownership, the business income is reflected on each individual owner's taxes. The amendment helps small business cash flow by not forcing the business to make bigger distributions to help pay bigger quarterly tax bills. Not every investor in a partnership or a subchapter S corporation is making their living running the business but this amendment tries to get to those who need it most by requiring more than half of a taxpayer's income must be from businesses that have fewer than 500 employees. For businesses, like bankruptcy lawyers, who know they are having a banner year, my amendment is silent. I do not require that they withhold only 75 percent. They are free to continue voluntarily sending more to the IRS to cover their expected good earnings and increased tax liability. I do not have an estimate of the cost of this amendment from the Joint Committee on Taxation. However, I would expect the revenue estimate to be modest since this is a 1-year cash flow difference between taxes due quarterly during 2009 and the final tax bill that is due in 2010. Since the 110 percent payments would have likely resulted in tax refunds in 2010, I wouldn't expect there to be much revenue lost. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. President, I wish to speak on amendment No. 539 I am offering which could help to steer our economy toward economic recovery. There is no question that America's small businesses are the engine that drives our Nation's economy, constituting 99.7 percent of all employer firms, employing nearly half of the private sector workforce, and create three-quarters of net new jobs annually over the last decade. If an economic stimulus plan is to succeed, it must include a sharp focus on job creation by small businesses. To that end, I humbly request that my colleagues support this noncontroversial amendment that will ensure 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. Mr. President, my amendment builds upon this initiative to underscore the economic value of small businesses in Federal agencies across the board. This measure would mobilize existing Federal loan guarantee programs by requiring the heads of key agencies, including the Department of Agriculture; the Department of Energy; the Department of Homeland Security; the Department of Labor; and the Environmental Protection Agency, to work with the Administrator of the SBA to the maximum extent practicable, to guarantee robust small business participation in each agency's respective loan programs. As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I wholeheartedly believe that small businesses play a central role in our economy and that the Federal Government should foster a nurturing entrepreneurial environment that fully equips our small businesses with the tools not just to mitigate and stem this economic crisis, but to be a catalyst for helping to address and ultimately solve it. That is why Senator Landrieu, the new chair of the Small Business Committee, and I have called on President Obama, in a joint letter we sent on January 29, 2009, to sign an Executive order to elevate the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, SBA, to Cabinet- level status within the first 100 days of his administration. This designation will send a clear signal that small business will drive our Nation out of this recession. The SBA is the primary agency within the Federal Government tasked with the responsibility of assisting small businesses, and it should have a seat at the table when it comes to revitalizing the economy, a top national priority. Frankly, in the past, the Federal Government has neglected to place enough emphasis on the resources and programs that could benefit America's 26 million small businesses. The present economic crisis presents an opportunity to get capital now to small businesses so they can create jobs now. This amendment would take the swiftest path by mobilizing presently existing, presently funded Federal programs that have already been authorized by Congress, to include the interests of small business in their loan programs. I respectfully ask my colleagues on both sides of the political aisle to support this amendment to facilitate the strength of small businesses in helping our Nation create jobs and grow during this economic crisis. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.) Health Information Technology

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of an amendment to the stimulus bill that Senators Kohl, Brown, Levin, Sanders, Stabenow, Whitehouse, and I are introducing. The amendment will restore funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, to the level included in the House-passed bill. It ensures that $30 million currently contained in the bill for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, go specifically to the MEP to continue its critical operations on behalf of small and medium-sized manufacturers nationwide. This would not increase the size of the stimulus bill; rather, it would simply reallocate funding to the MEP. If our goal in this stimulus is to create and retain jobs, then there is no better program to fund than the MEP. Administered by NIST and with centers in every State, the MEP provides our Nation's nearly 350,000 small manufacturers with services and access to resources that enhance growth, improve productivity, and expand capacity. At a time when our economy is suffering its worst downturn since the Great Depression, the MEP's work is crucial to helping those manufacturers be stronger long-term competitors both domestically and internationally. This will, in turn, allow them to create good-paying high-skill jobs. As co-chair of the Senate Task Force on Manufacturing, I have seen firsthand the effect our country's manufacturing industry has on the vitality of our economy. By directing $30 million to the MEP, we will be sending a clear signal to small manufacturers that they will continue to play a vital role in reinvigorating our economy. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak to an amendment to the stimulus proposal with Senator Feinstein and Senator Kerry that would increase tax incentives for energy efficiency and ensure that we invest in the area that can transform our energy policy. Given the state of our country, I believe that we must be resolute and visionary in our commitment to energy efficiency, an investment that provides both short-term benefits and long-term dividends. As a result, today I am offering an amendment that will facilitate a revolution toward energy- efficient buildings. One inexcusable legacy of this housing crisis for our future generations will be that the vast majority of homes constructed over the last 10 years during the housing boom have been inefficient. While an inefficient vehicle purchased today may guzzle gasoline for an average of 10 years, an inefficient building will require elevated levels of energy for as long as 50 years. Therefore, whenever we create inefficient buildings, generations to come will be saddled with our wasteful energy decisions. My amendment today would create and expand tax incentives for efficient buildings to levels that would equal the additional construction costs for the higher efficient buildings. The amendment would raise the tax credit for the construction of a new home from $2,000 to $5,000, a provision that the National Association of Home Builders estimates could provide 100,000 jobs. In fact, the association has written the Finance Committee stating that this amendment would ``provide much needed and meaningful expansions to two existing tax incentive programs that are helping to improve residential energy efficiency in both new and existing homes.'' This amendment would build on Congress's landmark energy efficiency tax credits established in the 2005 Energy Policy Act and continue to foster the burgeoning energy efficiency industry to work for homeowners who are struggling with energy bills. Specifically this amendment would provide a $500 tax credit for individuals to become professional energy auditors, experts that can reduce our country's demand for oil, reduce carbon emissions, and save our struggling families money on their energy bills. In addition, a $200 tax credit is established for homeowners to hire these professional energy auditors and analyze the deficiencies of an existing home and propose investments that will save the taxpayer money. As we move forward with dedicating significant resources to energy efficiency in this legislation it is critical that we ensure that this funding is utilized effectively by a professional energy efficiency industry, and this amendment will accomplish this critical goal. Finally, the amendment increases the tax credit for energy efficient commercial buildings by increasing the deduction from $1.80 per square foot to $3.00 per square foot. The original version of the commercial buildings tax deduction as passed by the Senate set the deduction to $2.25 per square foot, with the critical support of the current Finance chairman and ranking member. Adjusting for inflation, this corresponds to $3.00 per square foot today with partial compliance increased to $1.00 per square foot. These changes would return the deduction to viability as it was originally designed and ensure that commercial building developers are provided an adequate incentive to pursue energy efficiency. We must not overlook that an exacerbating factor in the collapse of our economy was our exposure to the historic price of foreign oil. With estimates that every 1 percent increase in energy prices results in a .15 percent drop in aggregate consumer spending, clearly, the United States must address this situation with boldness, clarity, and foresight and invest in energy efficiency--the low-hanging fruit of a new energy era. We must seize this historic opportunity. Two weeks ago, a New York Times editorial pointed out that we are an extremely energy inefficient economy--the 76th best country in the world. This must change if we are to retain our leadership in this world. It is a burden to our citizens as well as our small business, and unsurprisingly, the Chamber of Commerce wrote to Congress on January 14 indicating that energy efficiency should be our first priority. We have an opportunity to do that today, and I believe it is a serious absence in this recovery package. energy efficiency Mr. President, I rise to speak to an amendment with Senators Feinstein, Bingaman, and Kerry to improve upon the efficiency standards of residential tax credits. As a leader on energy efficiency tax credits, I am encouraged to see roughly $4.3 billion in incentives for the residential home energy efficient purchases through the 25C tax credit. As a longtime leader on efficiency, and as the one who spearheaded this landmark energy efficiency tax credits with Senator Feinstein, I have strong concerns about the stimulus proposal, which must be overhauled to ensure that only the most efficient products qualify for this tax credit. Of primary concern, the mark extends the 25C tax credit for residential property for an additional year through end of 2010 and raises the individual cap from $500 to $1500. However, the mark critically fails to overhaul the tax credits to reflect technological developments that have occurred since we passed this into law four years ago. Quite simply, during this period, products have become more energy efficient, yet the proposal fails to reflect this indisputable point. For example, as a result of technological change nearly all new windows, roughly 87 percent, now qualify for this credit. As a result, all of these windows will continue to receive a tax credit if this mark becomes law. My amendment is very simple in that it raises efficiency levels to reduce the types of products to only the efficient residential property that is available today. I am pleased that Senator Bingaman, the chairman of the Energy Committee, as well as Senator Feinstein, a longtime leader on transforming our energy policy, will make the tax credit more functional and reduce the overall score of the tax provision. As the sponsor of this provision in 2005, I can say that I believe this amendment returns the tax credit to the original intent of this committee when we enacted this credit into law in 2005. Without this amendment, I am concerned this tax credit will fail to facilitate a transformation to more energy efficient products that will cut energy demand and reduce carbon emissions. I look forward to working with Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley on this issue and appreciate their continued efforts to work with me on energy efficiency tax incentives.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of this amendment I have cosponsored with Senators Cardin and Landrieu. This amendment would reinvigorate the Small Business Administration's, SBA, Surety Bond Guarantee Program, to ensure that small businesses are able to secure the surety bonds they need to compete for contracts, grow, and hire more employees. In our current economic recession, small businesses are finding it even more difficult to secure the credit lines necessary to get bonds in the private sector. As a result, the SBA surety bond program is more important than ever. Surety bonds are critical to small companies' survival and competitiveness. Our bipartisan amendment would increase, on a temporary basis, the limits on the SBA Surety Bond Guarantee Program from $2 million to $5 million for contracts awarded under the SBA program. This amendment would also raise the current small business size standards for state and local contracts in order to update and modernize the surety bond guarantee eligibility. I encourage my colleagues to support this crucial small business surety amendment. This amendment was written after consulting with small business owners across the country, the SBA, and surety bonding companies on how best to revitalize this critical program. Without these changes, fewer small businesses will have the opportunity to participate on the plethora of construction and infrastructure projects that are likely to occur across the nation because of this stimulus package. Without these bonds many small businesses will be unable to compete for contracts and government work. For new companies, obtaining a surety bond will become a barrier to entry and competition they are unable to overcome. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, our Nation witnessed history when Barack Obama was sworn in as President of the United States. I am proud to say that the Sanford High School marching band, from my home State of Maine, was able to participate in the remarkable parade following the inauguration. This would not have been possible without the generosity of many individuals and businesses across southern Maine. I rise today to recognize one of the companies that made a significant donation toward the band's trip, Genest Concrete. A family-owned small business manufacturing architectural, landscaping and masonry products, Genest Concrete was founded over 70 years ago by Hermangilde Genest. The company started simple, producing hand-pressed concrete blocks with materials mined from Mr. Genest's gravel pit. Over the years, four generations of the Genest family have continually strived to make their company more innovative and cutting edge, eventually becoming one of the largest manufacturers and distributors of masonry products in New England. Headquartered in Sanford, Genest also has locations in Biddeford and Windham, with authorized dealers throughout northern New England and Massachusetts. Genest Concrete provides landscape contractors, homeowners, masons, architects and engineers with dozens of durable and superior concrete and masonry products. From stormwater brick to a variety of paving and wall stones, Genest has all the essential tools for producing unique driveways, patios, paths, and freestanding and retaining walls. More than just a company, Genest is like a family. In fact, it recently launched an inventive effort designed to keep its staff and their families healthy. Performed in coordination with the Worksite Stars of York County program at Goodall Hospital, Genest brings nurses to the company to perform staff health risk assessments. These assessments allow the company to target physical activity and nutritional assistance to their employees. So far, an astounding 90 percent of employees have participated. And as part of the next phase, Genest plans to hold an on-site physical activity program this spring. All employees that complete the 12-week course will be given an additional vacation day. This is on top of the partial reimbursement the firm already offers toward gym memberships. Genest also hopes to make financial wellness and other classes available to its employees later this year. In addition to helping sponsor the Sanford marching band's trip, Genest has made many other generous contributions to the community throughout the years. In 2001, Genest provided materials for David Hopkins to build a skate park in South Berwick as his Eagle Scout project. In 2006, the company donated concrete to Habitat for Humanity in York County for its Blitz Build, when the group constructed a new house in Shapleigh. Genest Concrete also actively sponsors the Sanford Mainers, part of the New England Collegiate Baseball League, as well as teams in the Sanford-Springvale Youth Athletic Association basketball league. And among many other efforts, Genest serves as part of the Maine Children's Alliance Business Advisory Group, as well as supports Day One, an initiative aimed at reducing substance abuse by Maine youth. While rising to the top of its field, Genest has never forgotten the community that helped it get there. Its consistent and dedicated endeavors to serve the community have not gone unnoticed. Thank you to everyone at Genest Concrete for all of your philanthropic efforts, and best wishes for your continued success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Moreover, we must calibrate even more carefully the imperative for speed against the ironclad necessity of getting this legislation right--given this bill in its current form would add nearly $900 billion to our national debt--and that is before any interest payments--on top of the $10.6 trillion debt that exists. And that means, we cannot open the door to permanent spending that exceeds the life and purpose of what is before us today. In fact, Alice Rivlin, former Director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Clinton administration, offered the following fiscal reality-check in her testimony before the House Budget Committee last week, ``because we're doing this outside the budget process, it means no one has to talk about what the long-term effects of any of this might be.'' Well, let us talk about the long term effects here and now. As my colleagues are well aware, CBO has projected a staggering $3.1 trillion budget deficit over the next 10 years, and that's before we pass this bill that will add $900 billion to that total. And as we all know, CBO assumes that any additional funding levels added for Federal spending will be added to the budget baseline and extended in perpetuity with an inflation adjustment. In other words, this bill may exist entirely outside the normal budget process, but it will now be in CBO's baseline--meaning any future reductions will be considered by some to be ``cuts.'' Therefore, we must ensure that programs that may well be great policy but not economic stimulus are not considered in this package and instead are vetted through the regular budget and legislative process. And that spending authorized in this bill ends when its emergency, stimulative function ends--with any continuation again only considered in the future through the normal process. As the Concord Coalition among others has called for, we must have an exit strategy to ensure that we don't create unintended consequences down the road that will cause additional economic hardship and harm. On that note, I believe that we deserve from the proponents of this bill a breakdown in each of the different titles of this legislation such as what are the job-creation expectations for each, or how precisely will they assist those displaced by the current recession and will that assistance itself also bolster our economy in the near term? Further, I am working on an amendment that will require the new Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board created in this legislation to include, in its quarterly reports, a specific listing of the numbers of jobs being created by each title in this act. But most critically, the amendment will direct the Board to recommend for rescission the unobligated balances of any program in the Act that are not currently creating--or cannot be reasonably expected to create-- jobs or help those displaced by the current recession. These provisions will hopefully shine a spotlight on the efficacy of the new law in creating badly needed jobs. Again, the bottom line question for us must not be exclusively whether a particular proposal in this package is a good idea. The bottom line question is, as I conveyed to Vice President Biden in a conversation between us recently, will this package work in terms of jump-starting the economy? Columnist Robert Samuelson spoke directly to that challenge when he wrote in The Washington Post today, ``...the immediate need is for the stimulus package to stimulate--now. It needs to be frontloaded.'' I do think it is positive that the legislation contains some measures to move money out quickly and effectively, such as shortening the normal deadline for Federal agencies to commit funds, and setting deadlines on Federal awarding of formula grants, among others, so States, communities, or agencies are not sitting on the money. They will be required to expend it within a given period of time in order to impact the economy. In addition, as we heard last year from CBO, extending unemployment benefits is a preeminent stimulus tool, as it concluded its cost- effectiveness is ``large'' . . . the length of time for impact is ``short'' . . . and the uncertainty about the policy's effects is ``small.'' Now we have Moody's Economy.com estimating that every dollar spent on unemployment benefits generates $1.63 in near term GDP. So I am pleased the finance package I supported in committee included about $39 billion to extend unemployment insurance. And I thank the Finance Committee Chair Baucus for including my measure to exclude the first $2,400 of unemployment benefits from taxation, to further maximize the provision's stimulative effect. On the tax side, the Finance package also includes a payroll tax credit, known as the making work pay tax credit for more than 95 percent of working families in the United States--which Mark Zandi has said will be ``particularly effective, as the benefit will go to lower income households...that are much more likely to spend any tax benefit they receive.'' I am also pleased that Senator Grassley was able to insert an absolutely vital provision to middle-income taxpayers in America that addresses the alternative minimum tax, which is an egregious and onerous tax on so many millions of taxpayers across this country, and, if left applied, would make the tax credit of $500 and $1,000 less effective. I am very pleased that was included to add another $70 billion worth of tax relief to middle-income America. The finance portion also includes increasing eligibility for the refundable portion of the child tax credit that Senator Lincoln and I have advocated and championed over the years. We have included this child tax credit going back to 2001 in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. This incentive would reach low-income families earning between $6,000 and $12,667 a year. I have heard arguments before about refundability, and people will say we should not provide funding to those families who don't have a Federal income tax liability. I would point out that although these people may not earn enough to have a Federal income tax liability, they do work and contribute to local taxes and payroll taxes and, the refundable child credit will get additional money into the pockets of those most likely to spend it. After all, I don't think that anybody would deny that low-income families earning between $6,000 and $12,667 on an annual basis should have some benefits under this legislation. I don't think anybody can deny that they will not be spending that money and that it will not be stimulative in the final analysis. I do believe they deserve to be part of this stimulus plan. I also believe that preserving and creating jobs over the short term that will also endure for the long term are not mutually exclusive goals. To the contrary. As ranking member of the Small Business Committee, I am very pleased the Finance Committee package included tax provisions to assist small businesses to sustain operations and employees. In particular, we extend small business expensing to $250,000 to promote investment. After all, small businesses are going to be the lifeline to job creation, as they have been in the past. In fact, small businesses create two-thirds of all net new jobs in America. They will be the lifeblood of this economic recovery. It is important to extend the expensing provision of $250,000, as well as provide a 5-year net operating loss carryback to firms, giving them an immediate tax refund they can use to sustain operations and hire new employees, among other priorities. But above all--and I underscore this point--those receiving Federal money under the rescue plan under TARP will not have access or be allowed to take advantage of these additional taxpayer resources. In addition, we must neither neglect nor forget our Nation's distressed and rural communities. Our bill recognizes that imperative by including an additional $1.5 billion in 2008 and 2009 allocation authority for the New Markets Tax Credit. I am told that the community development financial institutions fund, which administers the incentive, can allocate this 2008 credit authority within 60 days, which will create 11,000 permanent jobs and 35,000 construction jobs. Since the only thing we don't want to be temporary in this package is the jobs it creates, this legislation will place Americans on the vanguard of the jobs of the future with the extension of the renewable energy tax credit to promote green technology, which will be absolutely crucial as nations compete to emerge from this global economic downturn. In fact, if we had not dithered last year and opted to pass the extension of the renewable tax credits at the beginning of 2008, we would have already been on the road to creating 100,000 new jobs. I have heard a lot of arguments against renewable energy tax credits, saying they are not stimulative. We are in the midst of a global downturn, and every country on Earth is going to be competing for jobs in the 21st century. Determining what is the best path to creating those jobs and investments in green technology is on the forefront of job creation. I want to be sure this country is in the vanguard when it comes to creating jobs of the future. Certainly making investments in renewable energy sources is going to be so critical and so essential to job creation and to competing with other nations as they attempt to emerge as well from this global downturn. In fact, these renewable tax credits will create more than 89,000 more jobs by giving certainty to companies that can start now on projects and count on these important incentives to take risks and grow. In fact, there are a number of projects in my own State of Maine that have been postponed and placed on hold because they cannot receive the benefits from the tax credits or financial institutions have suspended their loans and their lending opportunities. That has prevented these companies from moving forward on projects that they have wanted to pursue over the last few months. These are major projects that will create thousands of jobs in my State, and the same is true in so many States across the country. That is why this investment in renewables is going to be essential to job creation. Considering the entirety of the stimulus package, both tax and spending, and its ability to have an immediate impact, CBO has now reported that of the current $884 billion size of the bill, $694 billion, or 78 percent, spends out in 2009 and 2010. That is a significant portion of this stimulus plan. Yet on the purely appropriations side, the spendout over the next 2 years is only 49 percent, and I believe we can and must do better. Furthermore, I must say that there are allocations that simply do not belong in the stimulus package. Do we need to include $575 million for renovation and research at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in this legislation? Or $2 billion for advanced battery manufacturing? Or $135 million for the management of lands and resources? Again, there are many more examples in this legislation that certainly should be identified as ones that should go through the normal budgetary process. There are other provisions that are unequivocally worthy of strong support. But again, we have to identify them as to whether this is the appropriate vehicle for their consideration, and I would say not. I am hopeful in the final analysis that we can further address this pivotal matter of nonstimulative provisions through the amendment process over the coming days. As the New York Times columnist David Brooks recently wrote, the package, as currently constituted, ``is part temporary and part permanent, part timely and part untimely, part targeted and part untargeted.'' And he also deftly pointed out, ``leadership involves prioritizing.'' I think we will have to work in the days ahead on both sides of the political aisle to offer amendments to bring accountability to this process, to bring both sides together, and to develop the kind of consensus that is going to restore the integrity and confidence in the package we ultimately pass. Mr. President, finally, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business, I am pleased that the Senate Appropriations Committee also included multiple small business lending provisions that I think are critical to the overall objective of this legislation which, of course, is to create jobs. Let me also address one provision that I think is critical and that has been part of the finance package--and that is expanding the Medicaid Program to assist States all across this country. I have heard that many have suggested that somehow this is not stimulative, and that it is not appropriate to include additional funding for Medicaid assistance to the States. There are 45 States that are facing significant budget shortfalls with a combined budgetary gap of $350 billion. Are we suggesting it would not have a profound impact on our national economy if all 45 States, which are going to have to make some drastic decisions under any circumstances, had to make even more difficult choices if we did not provide the $87 billion that is included in the Finance Committee package to assist them? In fact, I think it is going to be critically important that we do so because otherwise they will have to raise taxes and cut spending dramatically, which obviously will have a tremendous and consequential impact on the state of the economy, leading to more job losses and a more severe downturn. As we know, States are required by their constitutions to balance their budgets. So, obviously, they will have to resort to raising taxes or reducing spending. I think we have an obligation to be a strong Federal partner and provide assistance when it comes to Medicaid because, after all, not only are States having difficulty with their existing caseloads and increases in cost, but they are also facing a burgeoning caseload due to job losses. In fact, for every 1 percent increase in unemployment, an additional 1 million Americans will qualify for Medicaid or the children's health insurance program under the current enrollment criteria. All that said, I also think we should impose some conditions on the States. First, they should not be able to expand their current benefits. They should maintain their existing benefits coverage. Second, we should require prompt payment, so that states cannot sit on payments, but rather within a timely fashion of 30 days have to reimburse providers for care because delays in payments to providers ultimately threaten their operations, limit their ability to make investments to take care of their patients, or put them at risk of ultimately having to cut back substantially, which will have a tremendous impact on the overall economy. Time is of the essence and so is the obligation to get this right to the best of our ability. Hopefully, we can achieve a bipartisan bill, one that is going to achieve the legitimate objectives of job creation, of stimulus and assisting those who have been displaced as a result of the downturn in this economy. These goals are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I think they are ones that could easily be accomplished as we go through this process, if we all agree in the final analysis that we need to move forward with a package that will meet the times and to accommodate the enormity of the challenge we are facing in this country today. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the devastating job losses we are currently seeing across our economy have reaffirmed my conviction that Congress must redirect U.S. international trade policy toward preserving American jobs through stringent enforcement of U.S. trade rights, rather than endlessly pursuing new free trade agreements. Shifting the focus of U.S. trade strategy to job preservation is particularly essential in the manufacturing sector, which since 1994--the year NAFTA came into effect--has lost over 4.2 million jobs. The economic downturn over the past year has further decimated U.S. manufacturers, which have shed over 600,000 jobs in 2008 alone. It is no coincidence that this withering of our country's once- unparalleled manufacturing base took place during a decade-and-a-half of record trade liberalization and increases in imports from large, often poorly regulated low-cost producers like China and India. In Maine, my constituents have seen this down-side of trade, with over 20,000 manufacturing jobs lost since 2000, mainly in paper and wood- working industries that have suffered from unfair competition from Asian imports. To stem the outflow of American manufacturing jobs due to trade competition with countries that manipulate their currencies, exploit their workers or wantonly degrade their environment, it is essential that we decisively enforce the trade agreements we already have in place. Yet our Government has often failed to take this basic but crucial step when confronted with egregiously unfair trade practices. While foreign governments engage in market-distorting currency manipulation, refuse to protect intellectual property rights and turn a blind eye to labor exploitation--each a violation of trade obligations to the United States--ours all too frequently demurs with communiques and consultations, rather than formal enforcement action. What makes this abdication of duty to defend the U.S. economy from unfair foreign practices especially troubling is that the tools to do so already exist in the dispute resolution provisions of various trade agreements. The distressing reality is that U.S. industry and labor groups are often rebuffed in attempts to petition the United States Trade Representative to initiate a formal investigation or bring a dispute resolution action under the relevant multilateral or bilateral trade agreement, as there seems to be considerable institutional momentum among senior officials at USTR and elsewhere in the bureaucracy against bringing formal enforcement action against key trade partners. Indeed, it is a troubling fact that every single one of the petitions brought by business or labor groups in the last 8 years under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974--the statute setting forth the process by which members of the public can request that the government enforce of U.S. trade rights--has been rejected by USTR, in some instances on the same day they were filed! It is to prevent further disregard for U.S. businesses and workers seeking a fair and consequential hearing of their concerns with foreign trade practices that Senators Rockefeller and Conrad and I today introduce the Trade Complaint and Litigation Accountability Improvement Measures Act, or the Trade CLAIM Act. The Trade CLAIM Act would amend the Section 301 process to require the United States Trade Representative to act upon an interested party's petition to take formal action in cases where a U.S. trade right has been violated, except in instances where: the matter has already been addressed by the relevant trade dispute settlement body; the foreign country is taking imminent steps to end or ameliorate the effects of the practice; taking action would do more harm than good to the U.S. economy; or taking action would cause serious harm to the national security of the United States. The bill would also grant the U.S. Court of International Trade jurisdiction to review de novo USTR's denials of Section 301 industry petitions to investigate and take enforcement action against unfair foreign trade laws or practices. Such jurisdiction would include the ability to review USTR determinations that U.S. trade rights have not been violated as alleged in industry petitions, and the sufficiency of formal actions taken by USTR in response to foreign trade laws or practices determined to violate U.S. trade rights. The Trade CLAIM Act would thus give U.S. businesses and workers a greater say in whether, when and how U.S. trade rights should be enforced. As Ranking Member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I believe this bill would also be particularly beneficial to small businesses, which--like other petitioners in Section 301 cases--currently have no avenue to formally challenge the merits of USTR's decisions, and are often drowned out by large business interests in industry-wide Section 301 actions initiated by USTR. By providing for judicial review of USTR decisions not to enforce U.S. trade rights, the bill provides for impartial third party oversight by a specialty court not subject to political and diplomatic pressures. In de-linking discreet trade disputes from the mercurial machinations of USTR's trade liberalization agenda, this Act would end the sacrifice of individual industries on the negotiating table, and allow trade enforcement claims to be decided on their merits. We owe no less to the millions of American workers whose jobs depend on the level international playing field that can only be guaranteed by their Government consistently standing up for them against unfair foreign trade practices.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the devastating job losses we are currently seeing across our economy have reaffirmed my conviction that Congress must redirect U.S. international trade policy toward preserving American jobs through stringent enforcement of U.S. trade rights, rather than endlessly pursuing new free trade agreements. Shifting the focus of U.S. trade strategy to job preservation is particularly essential in the manufacturing sector, which since 1994--the year NAFTA came into effect--has lost over 4.2 million jobs. The economic downturn over the past year has further decimated U.S. manufacturers, which have shed over 600,000 jobs in 2008 alone. It is no coincidence that this withering of our country's once- unparalleled manufacturing base took place during a decade-and-a-half of record trade liberalization and increases in imports from large, often poorly regulated low-cost producers like China and India. In Maine, my constituents have seen this down-side of trade, with over 20,000 manufacturing jobs lost since 2000, mainly in paper and wood- working industries that have suffered from unfair competition from Asian imports. To stem the outflow of American manufacturing jobs due to trade competition with countries that manipulate their currencies, exploit their workers or wantonly degrade their environment, it is essential that we decisively enforce the trade agreements we already have in place. Yet our Government has often failed to take this basic but crucial step when confronted with egregiously unfair trade practices. While foreign governments engage in market-distorting currency manipulation, refuse to protect intellectual property rights and turn a blind eye to labor exploitation--each a violation of trade obligations to the United States--ours all too frequently demurs with communiques and consultations, rather than formal enforcement action. What makes this abdication of duty to defend the U.S. economy from unfair foreign practices especially troubling is that the tools to do so already exist in the dispute resolution provisions of various trade agreements. The distressing reality is that U.S. industry and labor groups are often rebuffed in attempts to petition the United States Trade Representative to initiate a formal investigation or bring a dispute resolution action under the relevant multilateral or bilateral trade agreement, as there seems to be considerable institutional momentum among senior officials at USTR and elsewhere in the bureaucracy against bringing formal enforcement action against key trade partners. Indeed, it is a troubling fact that every single one of the petitions brought by business or labor groups in the last 8 years under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974--the statute setting forth the process by which members of the public can request that the government enforce of U.S. trade rights--has been rejected by USTR, in some instances on the same day they were filed! It is to prevent further disregard for U.S. businesses and workers seeking a fair and consequential hearing of their concerns with foreign trade practices that Senators Rockefeller and Conrad and I today introduce the Trade Complaint and Litigation Accountability Improvement Measures Act, or the Trade CLAIM Act. The Trade CLAIM Act would amend the Section 301 process to require the United States Trade Representative to act upon an interested party's petition to take formal action in cases where a U.S. trade right has been violated, except in instances where: the matter has already been addressed by the relevant trade dispute settlement body; the foreign country is taking imminent steps to end or ameliorate the effects of the practice; taking action would do more harm than good to the U.S. economy; or taking action would cause serious harm to the national security of the United States. The bill would also grant the U.S. Court of International Trade jurisdiction to review de novo USTR's denials of Section 301 industry petitions to investigate and take enforcement action against unfair foreign trade laws or practices. Such jurisdiction would include the ability to review USTR determinations that U.S. trade rights have not been violated as alleged in industry petitions, and the sufficiency of formal actions taken by USTR in response to foreign trade laws or practices determined to violate U.S. trade rights. The Trade CLAIM Act would thus give U.S. businesses and workers a greater say in whether, when and how U.S. trade rights should be enforced. As Ranking Member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I believe this bill would also be particularly beneficial to small businesses, which--like other petitioners in Section 301 cases--currently have no avenue to formally challenge the merits of USTR's decisions, and are often drowned out by large business interests in industry-wide Section 301 actions initiated by USTR. By providing for judicial review of USTR decisions not to enforce U.S. trade rights, the bill provides for impartial third party oversight by a specialty court not subject to political and diplomatic pressures. In de-linking discreet trade disputes from the mercurial machinations of USTR's trade liberalization agenda, this Act would end the sacrifice of individual industries on the negotiating table, and allow trade enforcement claims to be decided on their merits. We owe no less to the millions of American workers whose jobs depend on the level international playing field that can only be guaranteed by their Government consistently standing up for them against unfair foreign trade practices.