Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with respect to the unprecedented financial rescue legislation that is before us in the U.S. Senate. And let me begin by first applauding Senator Dodd, Senator Gregg, Senator Bennett and Senator Corker for their perseverance in negotiating and developing a package, as well as the Republican and Democratic leaders' bipartisan work in what are most assuredly the most difficult of circumstances. Where we stand today is at the precipice of a financial crisis, the magnitude of which is already of historic proportions--threatening future economic growth, jobs for hardworking American families, retirement savings for our seniors, and the ability of Americans throughout the country from all walks of life to access credit for attending college, purchasing a house or automobile, and running their small businesses. Indeed, the very underpinnings of our economy are imperiled. This is where we are. The options we face looking forward are not ones that any of us here would choose--far from it. The American people are angry--and I share that anger. Indisputably, the dimensions of greed that precipitated this crisis are unconscionable and outrageous-- and there should be no debate whatsoever that those responsible must be held fully accountable. The question before us now is, Should the Federal Government intervene in our financial institutions? Does the current situation's gravity necessitate an action that would, under almost any other circumstance, run counter to our fundamental economic tenets? Or do we allow this current crisis of confidence, liquidity and solvency to continue, with the attendant fear it perpetuates, undermining the functional future of our economy? What would be the consequences if we failed to attempt to stem the financial hemorrhaging when we had the opportunity to do so, before the sequence of corrosive events truly becomes unstoppable and irreversible? So, it is little wonder that people in my home State of Maine and in every State in the Union are rightly asking, How could this have happened? How could some possess such a voracious appetite for wealth combined with a stunning lack of moral fiber that they would so cavalierly allow their wanton financial wagers to cripple our economy-- to the extent that every American family is now steeped in anxiety and fear about our future? And how exactly could nearly $3 trillion worth of toxic financial securities that were previously rarely used and little known have been swapped around like betting parlor wagers--with no transparency, no oversight, and no questions being asked by those who should have an obligation to do so? We have already witnessed the dramatic beginnings of the dangerous tailspin this investment shell game has produced. The recent bankruptcy of the 158 year old institution Lehman Brothers, the Federal takeovers of American International Group and Bear Stearns, the implosion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their entry into Federal conservatorship, the $557 billion in losses and write-downs on subprime investment worldwide, the single largest bank failure in the history of the United States with Washington Mutual following the collapse of IndyMac, the firesale of nearly insolvent Wachovia--the fourth largest bank in the country--to Citigroup all demonstrate the expansive reach of the crisis. They illustrate at the very least a catastrophic failure to accurately calculate the risk of these investments and the resulting, paralyzing lack of confidence and solvency currently crippling our financial system. According to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, this is the first time we have ever had the failure of AAA-rated bonds--the most highly rated bonds outside of Treasury bonds. This is unheard of, and has sent shockwaves throughout the markets, leading everyone from large corporations to the retirees living on their interest payments to ask, what can they trust if they can't trust AAA-rated bonds? But we now know that many of those bundled, subprime securities were passed-off as high, investment grade securities when in fact they were anything but. So we must ask where were the rating agencies in fulfilling their vital role in accurately identifying these risks? Moreover, as the instability and loss of value in mortgage securities has become crushingly apparent, investment firms have now ceased extending short-term loans to investment banks--which sounded the ultimate death knell for those firms that have already gone under. And because subprime assets can no longer be valued or sold, banks continue to carry these nonperforming loans on their books--and therefore they cannot move forward in generating the credit that is the lifeblood of our economic growth. Small firms--which have generated 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually over the last decade, are finding it difficult to access credit as existing credit lines are shut down and loans canceled. One owner of a small firm had his business credit card limit severely reduced the day before payday. This reduction may force him to temporarily close his business, leaves him unable to pay his workers, and in arrears to the IRS for $20,000. Further, the National Small Business Association just released their findings that, this past February, 55 percent of small business owners believed their business had been affected by the credit crunch--and as of August, that number had jumped to 67 percent. The crunch is even affecting the ability of States to implement transportation projects that enhance economic competitiveness and create jobs--at a time when America is already suffering under a 6.1 percent unemployment rate, with 605,000 jobs so far this year and another 100,000 estimated lost in September. Last week, incredibly, my home State of Maine was unable to sell a $50 million, AA-rated transportation bond because frozen credit left officials with no market for these bonds. And I am told that when Maine is finally able to issue the bond, the liquidity crunch will have driven up rates compelling Maine taxpayers to pay millions of dollars in extra interest payments on these necessary road projects. As further evidence our capital markets are clogged, one need look no further than the London interbank offered rate, LIBOR, which is the benchmark rate at which banks will loan unsecured funds to one another. Prior to yesterday, the LIBOR had reached 3.93 percent--near an 8-month high. Then in the last 24 hours, the LIBOR surged more than four percentage points to 6.9 percent--to the highest level ever! This is more than three times the percentage that would prevail under normal market conditions and means that financial firms are reluctant to lend to one another under reasonable terms. Moreover, community banks play an especially important role in providing credit and capital to small businesses; 48 percent of small businesses are customers at banks with less than $1 billion in assets. If the nonperforming loans remain with the community banks, it could decrease the banking system's lending capacity by as much as $450 billion. Given what we have already experienced this September--that regular investors pulled $335 billion out of money market funds, that the cost of overnight lending between banks jumped 116 percent, that capital has evaporated, that major banks have failed, that small firms--as well as large--have been suddenly denied access to existing credit lines, never mind new loans--that on this Monday alone the U.S. stock markets lost $1.2 trillion, it is difficult to conclude there won't be serious and systemic consequences for our economy--for household finances, for American jobs--when the full impact of this meltdown truly manifests itself and we face the imminent threat of a severe recession. And so we return to the original and central question--are circumstances compelling enough to warrant government intervention? Regrettably, given this travesty of unfathomable proportions for American taypayers and families, they are. In the words of Treasury Secretary Paulson: These illiquid assets are clogging up our financial system, and undermining the strength of our otherwise sound financial institutions. As a result, Americans' personal savings are threatened, and the ability of consumers and businesses to borrow and finance spending, investment, and job creation has been disrupted. To restore confidence in our markets and our financial institutions, so they can fuel continued growth and prosperity, we must address the underlying problem. And Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has warned: This is the most significant financial crisis of the postwar period. When our government's financial leadership employs words such as ``undermining,'' ``threatening,'' ``most significant financial crisis,'' it must be considered with the utmost seriousness that it is time to move from the ad hoc approach of assisting companies only at the point they are failing and act prescriptively, now, to stem the tide of a looming financial meltdown. I well recall the savings and loans crisis, from when I served in the U.S. House of Representatives. During that time, 747 savings and loan institutions went bankrupt, leading to the loss of $160.1 billion in depositor assets. Yet it was only after these failures that Congress finally established, in 1989, the Resolution Trust Corporation to sell off assets of these already failed financial institutions. Today, it is imperative we act before a similar but far more pervasive cascade of financial failures paralyses our markets and destroys the value of $5.6 trillion in retirement and private pension investments that are imperiled by this ongoing market turmoil. Again, I commend the tireless work of Senators Dodd and Gregg for crafting legislation that ensures that this rescue process will not be open-ended, ambiguous, or unfettered for placing taxpayers front and center for repayment and building in strong taxpayer protections throughout the proposal, for clamping down on executive compensation with tough restrictions that will prevent corporate managers from profiting on the backs of taxpayers for providing necessary, timely, and crucial mortgage relief to families facing foreclosure, for calming banks and depositors by increasing deposit insurance to $250,000, and by including the extension of critical tax incentives and a patch for the alternative minimum tax to ensure millions of middle-class American taxpayers do not fall victim to this onerous levy. With the passage of this legislation comes the forceful responsibility to recover all of the costs of this program for taxpayers. To fulfill this mandate taxpayers are given an ownership stake in participating companies which ensures they will be first to profit when these companies recover. If, after 5 years, taxpayers have not been made whole, for the costs of this rescue, the President is required to act to recoup any shortfall from the companies which benefited from the Treasury's actions. Importantly, in addition to provisions limiting executive compensation, are measures addressing so-called retirement ``golden parachutes,'' payments that are often extremely generous and disconnected from performance. Under this bill, for participating financial institutions, the Secretary of the Treasury would be empowered to set compensation standards to exclude incentives for excessive risk taking, recover bonuses paid based on inaccurate earnings statements; and prohibit future golden parachute payments. For companies selling more than $300 million of the toxic securities to the government, tax deductible executive compensation would be limited. To guarantee strong and comprehensive oversight, I supported provisions championed by Senators Baucus and Grassley to establish an independent inspector general that will focus solely on the Treasury's purchase and sale of illiquid assets. I also championed the inclusion of provisions that require Federal agencies to cooperate with the Federal Bureau of Investigations to investigate fraud, misrepresentation, and malfeasance with respect to development, advertising, and sale of the financial products which created this systemic crisis. This became section 127 of the bill. Passing this legislation--to stabilize markets and restore American's confidence in their financial firms in order to return to the normalcy necessary for credit and commercial activity to revive--must be the first phase of our action to restore the system for American taxpayers, but it can by no means be the last. The second phase of our obligation is for Congress to demand accountability for the massive malfeasance that has been perpetrated on the American people. The congressional pursuit--through hearings that Senator Dodd has indicated he will hold--must occur in tandem with the legal investigation and prosecution of those responsible for this meltdown. Both must receive the same rigorous attention we have applied to this rescue package--and not subsumed by the routine of day-to-day legislative process moving forward. Therefore, I will introduce legislation to form a dedicated office within the Justice Department whose sole mission is to ferret out the rout causes of this catastrophe and bring to account those who are criminally responsible for bringing our financial system to its knees. It would be inconceivable to me to devote anything less than 100 percent of our resources to investigating those responsible for this crisis. No one should reap rewards from this colossal failure. And frankly, any Wall Street individual who is found criminally responsible must follow the Enron executives to prison! Finally, as the third phase of congressional action, as we have an iron-clad obligation to ensure that this calamity is never repeated, we are required to reform and rebuild our financial regulatory structure. Congress must demand the restoration of accountability and transparency from all of our financial products, including complex securities such as mortgage backed investments or credit default swaps, whose risk characteristics largely have been black boxes in the past. It is essential that people must know--and the federal government is aware of--the level of financial risks that companies are taking. We must understand whether firms are creating systemic risks that could undermine the foundations of our financial system. It is essential we must utilize the remainder of this year to develop the fundamental reforms necessary to fix this systemic problem. Again, Senator Dodd has announced hearings over the next couple of months to examine the root causes of this catastrophe. Congress must also consider all proposals for reform, such as the ``Blueprint for a Modernized Regulatory Structure'' that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson put forward in March. As Secretary Paulson's plan concludes, ``the existing functional regulatory framework no longer provides efficient and effective safeguards against poor prudential behaviour of financial services firms.'' Indeed, as we have unmistakably learned, the current regulatory structure, which has been largely knitted together over the past 75 years, can not protect us from the type of systemic risks that are ravaging our financial markets and economy. Financial institutions have developed products and complex risk-hedging strategies that today's regulatory structure has failed to properly evaluate and oversee--with disastrous results. We can never again allow the U.S. financial industry to act with impunity, and make the highly speculative investments that have today put in jeopardy the health, stability, and growth of our economy. The bottom line is that we do not have a moment to lose in developing a regulatory oversight structure that keeps pace with whatever new financial instruments may be developed in the future. We can never again find ourselves in the position of having to vote for another financial rescue package. Instead, we must take the weeks ahead to draft bipartisan and bicameral legislation to eliminate systemic risk in financial markets and protect our economy over the long term.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, although long overdue, I am very pleased that the Senate has incorporated a bipartisan agreement to renew expiring tax provisions in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. These tax provisions are critical to families across America, and provide incentives for the production of clean energy and conservation that could create 100,000 new jobs. As working families are struggling to put food on the table and gas in their cars, I am especially grateful that the package assists the least fortunate among us by including a proposal to lower the income threshold for the refundable child tax credit that Senator Lincoln and I have championed. I would especially like to thank Senators Baucus and Grassley as well as their staffs for working days, nights, and weekends in forging this agreement. These two leaders exemplify the bipartisan tradition of the Senate and how this body can get its work done if Members are willing to reach across the aisle to find the middle ground. Unfortunately, partisan gridlock too often ties the hands of even these Senate stalwarts. I find it hard to fathom that, in what could potentially be the closing hours of this Congress, we are only now moving a step closer to enacting this legislation. At a time when renewable energy projects are being mothballed because of this uncertainty and Americans are demanding action on energy policy, I cannot believe that we have been abrogating our duty to serve the American people by our inaction on this time-sensitive issue. It seems to me that these tax extensions should have been the low-hanging fruit that we could have done much sooner. We could have unleashed sooner renewable energy projects creating jobs, provided targeted tax relief to low-income working families struggling to pay the high cost of food and fuel, encourage an infusion of capital into rural and urban communities, provide tax incentives for retail businesses looking to grow their business, and help keep the jobs associated with film production within our borders. This is occurring at a time when our economy teeters on the brink of recession; when we have seen the collapse of a banking institution founded in 1850, when the U.S. government has seen no other way but to take over major financial institutions; when unemployment surged to 6.1 percent last month--the highest rate since 2003; when gasoline at the pump is near $4 a gallon; when oil costs remain at $100 per barrel; and when foreclosures have hit historic levels, do we really want to say that we can't extend a renewable energy tax credit that caused 45 percent growth in wind energy production last year and that we can't adopt energy efficiency tax credits that create necessary incentives to reduce energy demand? Consider the economic impact of inaction. Dr. Mark Cooper of the Consumer Federation of America estimates that from 2002 to 2008 annual household expenditures on energy increased from about $2,600 to an astonishing $5,300! In my state of Maine, where 80 percent of households use heating oil to get through winter, it's going to be even worse. Last year at this time, heating oil prices were at a challenging $2.70 per gallon--for a Mainer who on average uses 850 gallons of oil, that is $2,295. With current prices at $3.80 per gallon, the cost per Mainer to stay warm will be at least $3,230, and that is not even considering gasoline costs. That is the difference between a burden and a crisis. Now is not the time to allow energy efficiency tax incentives and the renewable production tax credit to expire. But that is what we are doing unless we pass this bipartisan package today. Energy efficiency is by far the most effective investment that our country can make to address the calamity of an absent energy policy. Jerry Howard with the National Association of Home Builders states: Our members build homes that are significantly more energy efficient than those of a generation ago. But in today's economic climate, home builders need incentives to spur them to even more action. It constitutes a dereliction of duty if Congress allows energy efficiency tax credits to expire. In fact, some tax credits already have expired, and as a result, there are currently no incentives to purchase efficient furnaces. At a time when Americans are worried about paying heating bills this winter, we must provide the assistance to encourage investment in energy-efficient products that will reduce our collective demand for energy, and save Americans money. Yet we have jettisoned a $300 tax credit to purchase high-efficiency oil furnaces, which would produce more than $430 in annual savings for an average home--according to calculations based on Department of Energy data and recent home heating prices. We have sidelined an extension of a tax credit for highly efficient natural gas furnaces that would save an individual $100 per year. However, this tax credit ended at the beginning of this year--when oil prices began their historic rise. That is why it is so critical that the extenders package that earlier passed the Senate included a significant portion of my EXTEND Act, which I have championed with Senator Feinstein. This legislation, supported by a sizeable group of businesses and environmental advocates, would revolutionize our building infrastructure and save our country expensive energy. My legislation included a long-term extension for energy-efficient commercial buildings, as well as an extension for energy-efficient residential buildings and new homes, investments that will reduce energy consumption for generations. This legislation would save our country $25 billion annually in utility bills by 2018. I also wish to highlight the important provision that provides a tax credit for biomass stoves, a proposal initially introduced by Senator Sununu. When the costs of other heating sources are excessively high we should be providing options to consumers. I look forward to publicizing this tax credit to ensure that it can be utilized by homeowners this winter. And for businesses that are competing against countries that subsidize oil, the situation is untenable. Earlier this summer, Katahdin Paper Company in my State announced that the cost of oil used to operate its boilers has caused the company to consider closing the mill's doors. Talks are underway to find alternative solutions to restart the mill's operations and revive its 208 jobs, but it is undeniable that these jobs hang in the balance because of unprecedented energy costs. One remedy would be to create more renewable energy jobs that would help right a listless economy and boost investment in a secure energy future. Indeed, more than 100,000 Americans could have been put to work this year if clean energy production tax credits had been extended. We earlier could have unleashed renewable energy projects creating jobs, but instead, projects currently underway may soon be mothballed. Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Industries Association, says ``It is scaring away investment, just as our industry is beginning to get a toehold.'' Can you believe that? We are actually ``scaring away investment'' during these unprecedented economic times. Gregory Wetstone of the American Wind Energy Association said recently: If Congress fails to act, it's a real blow to renewable energy. It means that fewer wind turbines will be used to generate pollution-free power in the United States. Clean energy incentives for energy-efficient buildings, appliances, and other technologies, as well as additional funding for weatherizing homes, would similarly serve to stimulate economic activity, reduce residential energy costs, and generate new manufacturing and construction jobs. It is irresponsible to allow a bright spot in our economy, the renewable energy industry and energy efficiency industries, to falter when the output of these industries is so essential to the future of this country. Extending these expiring clean energy tax credits will ensure a stronger, more stable environment for new investments and ensure continued robust growth in a bright spot in an otherwise slowing economy. I am encouraged by the bipartisan agreement that is before us today. We must not lose yet another opportunity to raise the bar for future domestic energy systems and energy efficiencies, benefiting our economy, our health, our environment, and our national security. I hope that the House of Representatives will quickly take up and pass this package. Some may argue this is an election year and we must lower our expectations for getting things accomplished. I could not disagree more. And I met a remarkable woman from Maine earlier this year who could not disagree more--because time is quickly running out on this Congress to take necessary steps to help Americans like her. She told me she had three jobs--the first to pay for the mortgage, the second to pay for heating oil, and the third to pay for gas to be able to drive to her other two jobs--and this was back in April. Solving this crisis is not about party labels. It is not about Republicans or Democrats--or red States or blue States. It is about what is good for America, and what unites us as Americans under the red, white, and blue. We must move in that direction as a country. But, there is much more in this package beyond energy tax incentives. The legislation before us will extend the New Markets Tax Credit through 2009. Based on the New Markets Tax Credit Extension Act of 2007, which I introduced with Senator Rockefeller, this provision will help to ensure that investment dollars continue to flow to underserved communities. Additionally, the tax extenders package will enable retailers who own their properties to depreciate over 15 years, instead of 39 years, improvements to those structures. Based on my legislation, this Main Street-friendly provision levels the playing field between owner- occupied and leased retail space and will help to generate additional construction and renovations to stores nationwide by lowering the cost of capital in a tightening credit market. Also included is a provision that will allow companies to claim accelerated depreciation for the purchase of recycling equipment. This provision is based on my Recycling Investment Saves Energy, RISE, Act and will save energy, create jobs, strengthen local recycling programs, and improve the quantity and quality of recycled materials. So as you can see, this package is more than just extending expiring tax provisions. This legislation will create jobs, move us closer to energy independence, encourage investment in low-income communities, and provide much-needed relief to low-income families struggling to meet basic needs. For these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues in the House to swiftly take up this legislation and finally send it to the President for his signature. I hope that when the Second Session of the 110th Congress adjourns, we can say we extended this critical tax package. I would also hope that at the beginning of next year, when a new Congress is sworn in, we will commit ourselves to serving those who have entrusted us with their votes, where reaching across the aisle is the norm, not the exception-- where looking for consensus is viewed as the answer, not an aberration.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I recognize Fishman Realty Group of Portland, a 12 person real estate firm providing vital assistance to naval personnel transitioning from Brunswick Naval Air Station in my home State of Maine as a result of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure round. In this effort, Fishman Realty Group manages the Army Corps of Engineers' Homeowners' Assistance Program, a crucial initiative that enables departing Navy personnel to sell their homes to the Federal government. In turn, service members and their families are able to purchase homes elsewhere without missing a step in not only their service, but also their livelihood. Given the housing crisis our country is currently facing, fostering a smooth transition for our service members is an absolute necessity. With the Brunswick Naval air Station slated for closure in 2011, the prospect that our current precarious housing market would hinder naval families from selling their homes is certainly unsettling. For instance, service members reassigned to another base could potentially face large losses on their homes--impeding the ability of these men and women to purchase homes elsewhere and continue their duties. That is why Fishman Realty Group has proven to be a beacon in combating markets depressed by crumbling housing prices. Through the Homeowners' Assistance Program, Fishman Realty Group is responsible for maintaining and listing the properties that the government has acquired from the departing personnel, preventing financial loss for their families, and protecting an already depressed market from further economic turmoil. As the sailors of Brunswick Naval Air Station depart, they need not fear that their homes will become financial burdens. The effort of Fishman Realty Group is a shining example of how small businesses can make a tangible and tremendous difference during an economic downturn. Founded by Alan Fishman in 1987, Fishman Realty Group offers full service real estate brokering and property management throughout the greater Portland area. Additionally, the firm couples these offerings with local appraisers, lenders, and engineers; and facilitates transactions within and around the Portland community. In these challenging times for the housing market, it is a testament to Fishman Realty Group's business integrity that it reaches out to help military families, demonstrating that their business ethic is fundamentally grounded in putting others first. In 21 years of service to Portland communities, Fishman Realty Group has transformed landscapes and expanded opportunities for hundreds of businesses and families. I wish Fishman Realty Group and its employees continued success, and I thank them for their commitment to the community of Brunswick Naval Air Station.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation that I am introducing today to make sure that those responsible for the financial meltdown of recent days are brought to justice. Joining me on the bill is my distinguished colleague, Senator Feinstein. While I congratulate the congressional leadership, especially Chairmen Dodd and Frank, and Senators Reid, McConnell, and Gregg, in crafting the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, one issue continues to deeply disturb me and many of my constituents. Specifically, I refer to accountability and the importance of bringing criminals to justice. In my view, today's economic turmoil did not happen by pure chance, and I am troubled that certain greedy individuals may have crossed the line into criminal activity. Clearly, no one should reap rewards from this colossal failure, and those responsible on Wall Street should follow the Enron criminals straight to jail. The pursuit and prosecution of those liable for this meltdown must receive the highest possible level of attention, and this legislation dedicates a Special Task Force on Financial Crimes within the Justice Department whose sole mission is to ferret out those directly involved in engineering this catastrophe. The congressional pursuit of answers--through hearings that Senator Dodd has indicated he will hold--should occur in tandem with the legal investigation and prosecution of those responsible for this debacle. Both must receive the same rigorous attention applied to this rescue package--and not be subsumed by the routine of the day-to-day legislative and criminal investigation process moving forward.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation that I am introducing today to make sure that those responsible for the financial meltdown of recent days are brought to justice. Joining me on the bill is my distinguished colleague, Senator Feinstein. While I congratulate the congressional leadership, especially Chairmen Dodd and Frank, and Senators Reid, McConnell, and Gregg, in crafting the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, one issue continues to deeply disturb me and many of my constituents. Specifically, I refer to accountability and the importance of bringing criminals to justice. In my view, today's economic turmoil did not happen by pure chance, and I am troubled that certain greedy individuals may have crossed the line into criminal activity. Clearly, no one should reap rewards from this colossal failure, and those responsible on Wall Street should follow the Enron criminals straight to jail. The pursuit and prosecution of those liable for this meltdown must receive the highest possible level of attention, and this legislation dedicates a Special Task Force on Financial Crimes within the Justice Department whose sole mission is to ferret out those directly involved in engineering this catastrophe. The congressional pursuit of answers--through hearings that Senator Dodd has indicated he will hold--should occur in tandem with the legal investigation and prosecution of those responsible for this debacle. Both must receive the same rigorous attention applied to this rescue package--and not be subsumed by the routine of the day-to-day legislative and criminal investigation process moving forward.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to increase access for our Nation's children to affordable, quality tutoring. The Affordable Tutoring for Our Children Act would enable middle-class families to purchase supplemental instructional services on a pre-tax basis, ensuring greater utilization of critical educational tools. A sound education for every American child is fundamental to the well-being and prosperity of our society, both now and in the future. Yet, as we are all acutely aware, not every child learns at the same pace, nor in the same manner, and some face unique challenges that cannot be overcome simply in a typical classroom setting. Many children require--and greatly benefit from--additional help in academics. Regrettably, our nation's middle-class families are increasingly unable to afford this essential ancillary support for their children. These families find themselves under considerable and ever-increasing financial strain, with more and more income going to pay for gasoline, health care, groceries, and a multitude of other expenses. Furthermore, according to a 2007 report from Demos and the Institute on Assets & Social Policy at Brandeis University, more than half of middle-class families have no financial assets, or worse, their debts exceed their assets. At present, employees may set aside a portion of their earnings to establish a flexible spending account, or FSA, allowing them to pay for qualified medical or dependent care expenses free from income and payroll taxes. Our legislation would permit employees to use their dependent care FSAs to cover supplemental instructional expenses, thereby saving themselves up to 40 percent of their cost. Critically, this bill is targeted to middle-class families, those who most necessitate our assistance. Indeed, only those employees making $105,000 or less per year would be able to exclude amounts paid for these services from their taxable income. Additionally, supplemental instructional expenses would be subject to a combined $5,000 cap with other dependent care expenses. This bill would help more middle-class children to receive extra assistance for a host of subjects ranging from English and mathematics to science, government, and foreign languages. At a time when graduates who attain a bachelor's degree earn roughly 96 percent more than high school graduates, according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, it is vital that our Nation's children get the help they need to succeed. With middle-class families feeling the squeeze from every angle, our legislation would provide essential relief for those parents seeking to ensure that their children have the best educational experience possible. I urge my colleagues to consider the dramatic advantage our children will gain from this crucial bill, and look forward to its passage in a timely manner. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to increase access for our Nation's children to affordable, quality tutoring. The Affordable Tutoring for Our Children Act would enable middle-class families to purchase supplemental instructional services on a pre-tax basis, ensuring greater utilization of critical educational tools. A sound education for every American child is fundamental to the well-being and prosperity of our society, both now and in the future. Yet, as we are all acutely aware, not every child learns at the same pace, nor in the same manner, and some face unique challenges that cannot be overcome simply in a typical classroom setting. Many children require--and greatly benefit from--additional help in academics. Regrettably, our nation's middle-class families are increasingly unable to afford this essential ancillary support for their children. These families find themselves under considerable and ever-increasing financial strain, with more and more income going to pay for gasoline, health care, groceries, and a multitude of other expenses. Furthermore, according to a 2007 report from Demos and the Institute on Assets & Social Policy at Brandeis University, more than half of middle-class families have no financial assets, or worse, their debts exceed their assets. At present, employees may set aside a portion of their earnings to establish a flexible spending account, or FSA, allowing them to pay for qualified medical or dependent care expenses free from income and payroll taxes. Our legislation would permit employees to use their dependent care FSAs to cover supplemental instructional expenses, thereby saving themselves up to 40 percent of their cost. Critically, this bill is targeted to middle-class families, those who most necessitate our assistance. Indeed, only those employees making $105,000 or less per year would be able to exclude amounts paid for these services from their taxable income. Additionally, supplemental instructional expenses would be subject to a combined $5,000 cap with other dependent care expenses. This bill would help more middle-class children to receive extra assistance for a host of subjects ranging from English and mathematics to science, government, and foreign languages. At a time when graduates who attain a bachelor's degree earn roughly 96 percent more than high school graduates, according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, it is vital that our Nation's children get the help they need to succeed. With middle-class families feeling the squeeze from every angle, our legislation would provide essential relief for those parents seeking to ensure that their children have the best educational experience possible. I urge my colleagues to consider the dramatic advantage our children will gain from this crucial bill, and look forward to its passage in a timely manner. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, growing and maintaining a successful small business is often challenging, but in the end, many find that the rewards are beyond measure. Even more difficult can be forming a successful and environmentally conscientious business, but with the extra trials come even greater benefits. I wish to honor a small business from my home State of Maine that has risen to the top and has been recognized for its unsurpassed efforts in sustaining an environmentally friendly business. For 35 years, Wilbur Yachts of Southwest Harbor has helped to set the standard in the field of custom motorboat construction, and for the last several years, the firm has become an unparalleled leader in helping to challenge Maine's marine industry to protect the State's pristine environment. In 1973, Lee Wilbur left the field of education to become a boat builder. Over the next 28 years, because of Mr. Wilbur's stalwart resolve and unrelenting desire to effect positive change, he transformed Wilbur Yachts into a company that is widely respected both in Maine and nationwide for its high-quality boats and commitment to environmental excellence. For years, Mr. Wilbur collaborated with other boat makers, building vessels for a diverse array of clients ranging from the Smithsonian Institution to pop singer Billy Joel. In 2001, Mr. Wilbur and his wife Heidi sold the business to their daughter Ingrid and her husband John Kachmar, who have embraced the longstanding tradition of providing unrivaled products while remaining globally aware. Under their leadership, the company has soared to even newer heights. This year, Wilbur Yachts celebrated its 35th anniversary, hosting owners of boats which the firm has built for a traditional Marine lobster bake. Coming from every corner of the globe, the owners of this impressive international fleet are a testament to the exceptional nature of Wilbur's yachts. Over the years, the firm's remarkable crafts have been lauded by the likes of Power Cruising, Power & Motoryacht, and Motorboating magazines. Just as impressive as the company's proud history and enduring commitment to excellence is Wilbur Yachts' dedication to protecting the environment in which it works. The State of Maine recently awarded Wilbur Yachts the gold certification in its Maine Clean Boatyards and Marinas Program. The program identifies and highlights companies that meet or exceed Federal and State environmental standards in five specific areas of evaluation, including waste disposal and storage, and boat sewage and pump-outs. This honor is truly unparalleled, as to date no other boatyard has been acknowledged with this designation, the program's highest level of recognition. While Wilbur Yachts had previously held the silver certification, the most recent evaluation by an independent panel gave the company perfect ratings in all five groups. Second-generation owners Ingrid and John Kachmar have led Wilbur Yachts to improve safety and reduce environmental impact while simultaneously cultivating a company where, according to its motto, ``Maine Tradition Meets Modern Technology.'' I applaud both the company's owners and its employees for all of their efforts in producing yachts in an environmentally responsible manner and wish them the best of luck for the future.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, although long overdue, I am very pleased that the Senate has come to an agreement to renew expiring tax provisions critical to families across America, as well as to provide incentives for the production of clean energy and conservation that could create 100,000 new jobs. As working families are struggling to put food on the table and gas in their cars, I am especially grateful that the package assists the least fortunate among us by including a proposal to lower the income threshold for the refundable child tax credit that Senator Lincoln and I have championed. I urge my colleagues to support this responsible and balanced package. And, I would like to especially thank Senators Baucus and Grassley as well as their staffs for working days, nights, and weekends in forging this agreement. These two gentlemen exemplify the bipartisan tradition of this Senate and how this body can get its work done if Members are willing to reach across the aisle to find some middle ground. Unfortunately, partisan gridlock too often ties the hands of even these Senate stalwarts. Frankly, it is unconscionable that in what could potentially be the closing hours of this Congress, we are only now moving a step closer to enacting this legislation. At a time when renewable energy projects are being mothballed because of this uncertainty and Americans are demanding action on energy policy, I cannot believe that we have been abrogating our duty to serve the American people by our inaction on this time-sensitive issue. It seems to me that these tax extensions should have been the low-hanging fruit that we could have done much sooner. We could have unleashed sooner renewable energy projects creating jobs, provided targeted tax relief to low-income working families struggling to pay the high cost of food and fuel, encourage an infusion of capital into rural and urban communities, provide tax incentives for retail businesses looking to grow their business, and help keep the jobs associated with film production within our borders. This is occurring at a time when our economy teeters on the brink of recession; when we have seen the collapse of a banking institution founded in 1850; when the U.S. government has seen no other way but to take over and buy the assets of other major financial institutions; when unemployment surged to 6.1 percent last month the highest rate since 2003; when gasoline at the pump is near $4 a gallon; when oil costs are have risen to over $120 per barrel; and when foreclosures have hit historic level, do we really want to say that we can't extend a renewable energy tax credit that caused 45 percent growth in wind energy production last year and that we can't adopt energy efficiency tax credits that create necessary incentives to reduce energy demand? Consider the economic impact of inaction. Dr. Mark Cooper of the Consumer Federation of America estimates that from 2002 to 2008 annual household expenditures on energy increased from about $2600 to an astonishing $5300. In my state of Maine, where 80 percent of households use heating oil to get through winter, it is going to be even worse. Last year at this time, heating oil prices were at a challenging $2.70 a gallon--for a Mainer who on average uses 850 gallons of oil that is $2,295. With current prices at $3.80 per gallon, the cost per Mainer just to stay warm will be $3230, and that is not even considering gasoline costs. That is the difference between a burden and a crisis. Now is not the time to allow energy efficiency tax incentives and the renewable production tax credit to expire. But that is what we are doing unless we pass this bipartisan package today. Energy efficiency is by far the most effective investment that our country can make to address the calamity of an absent energy policy. It constitutes a dereliction of duty if Congress allows energy efficiency tax credits to expire. In fact, some tax credits already have expired, and as a result, there are currently no incentives to purchase efficient furnaces. At a time when Americans are worried about paying heating bills this winter, we must provide the assistance to encourage investment in energy efficient products that will reduce our collective demand for energy, and save Americans money. Yet, we have jettisoned a $300 tax credit to purchase a high efficiency oil furnace, which would produce more than $430 in annual savings for an average home--according to calculations based on Department of Energy data and recent home heating prices. We have sidelined an extension of a tax credit for highly efficient natural gas furnaces that would save an individual $100 per year. However, this tax credit ended at the beginning of this year--when oil prices began their historic rise. And for businesses that are competing against countries that subsidize oil, the situation is untenable. Earlier this summer, Katahdin Paper Company in my state announced that the cost of oil used to operate its boilers has caused the company to consider closing the mill's doors. Talks are under way to find alternative solutions to re- start the mill's operations and revive its 208 jobs, but it is undeniable that these jobs hang in the balance because of unprecedented energy costs. One remedy would be to create more renewable energy jobs that would help right a listless economy and invest in a secure energy future. Indeed, more than 100,000 Americans could have been put to work this year if clean energy production tax credits had been extended. We could have already unleashed renewable energy projects creating jobs, but instead, projects currently underway may soon be mothballed. Clean energy incentives for energy efficient buildings, appliances, and other technologies, as well as additional funding for weatherizing homes, would similarly serve to stimulate economic activity, reduce residential energy costs, and generate new manufacturing and construction jobs. It is irresponsible to allow a bright spot in our economy, the renewable energy industry and energy efficiency industries, to falter, when the output of these industries is so essential to the future of this country. Extending these expiring clean energy tax credits will ensure a stronger, more stable environment for new investments and ensure continued robust growth in a bright spot in an otherwise slowing economy. I am encouraged by the bipartisan agreement that is before us today. We must not lose yet another opportunity to raise the bar for future domestic energy systems and energy efficiencies, benefiting our economy, our health, our environment, and our national security. I hope that the House of Representatives will quickly take up and pass this package. Some may argue this is an election year and we must lower our expectations for getting things accomplished. I couldn't disagree more. And I met a remarkable woman from Maine earlier this year who couldn't disagree more--because time is quickly running out on this Congress to take necessary steps to help Americans like her. She told me she had three jobs--the first to pay for the mortgage, the second to pay for heating oil, and the third to pay for gas to be able to drive to her other two jobs and this was back in April. Solving this crisis isn't about party labels. It isn't about Republicans or Democrats--or red states or blue states. It is about what is good for America, and what unites us as Americans under the red, white, and blue. We must move in that direction as a country. But, there is much more in this package beyond energy tax incentives. The legislation before us will extend the New Markets Tax Credit through 2009. Based on the New Markets Tax Credit Extension Act of 2007, which I introduced with Senator Rockefeller, this provision will help to ensure that investment dollars continue to flow to underserved communities. Additionally, the tax extenders package will enable retailers who own their properties to depreciate over 15 years, instead of 39 years, improvements to those structures. Based on my legislation, this Main Street-friendly provision levels the playing field between owner- occupied and leased retail space and will help to generate additional construction and renovations to stores nationwide by lowering the cost of capital in a tightening credit market. Also included is a provision that will allow companies to claim accelerated depreciation for the purchase of recycling equipment. This provision is based on my Recycling Investment Saves Energy, RISE, Act and will save energy, create jobs, strengthen local recycling programs, and improve the quantity and quality of recycled materials. So as you can see, this package is more than just extending expiring tax provisions. This legislation will create jobs, move us closer to energy independence, encourage investment in low-income communities, and provide much-needed relief to low-income families struggling to meet just their basic needs. I would hope that when we finally adjourn, we can say we extended this critical tax relief. I would also hope that at the beginning of next year, when a new Congress is sworn in, we will commit ourselves to serving those who have entrusted us with their votes, where reaching across the aisle is the norm, not the exception--where looking for consensus is viewed as the answer, not an aberration.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that will increase the trustworthiness of our Nation's mortgage security market by creating the Federal Board of Certification for mortgage securities. The recent collapse of Lehman Brothers, and the Federal Reserve's bailout of American International Group, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Bear Stearns, along the huge losses suffered throughout the financial industry, demonstrates a catastrophic failure to accurately assess the dangers of imprudently made subprime mortgages to the American public and our financial markets. In hindsight, it appears that it was the inability to gauge risk in mortgage-backed securities that caused much of this financial turmoil. For markets to operate properly, it is imperative that they have effective metrics for calculating the level of risk securities pose to investors. The secondary mortgage market has been a largely unregulated playground where poorly underwritten, low-quality loans were sold as high-quality investment products. Although mortgage backed securities can be a positive market force, which increases the available pool of credit for borrowers, without an accurate picture of the risk involved in each mortgage security, buyers have no idea whether they are buying a high-risk investment or a safe, secure investment. My legislation would work to curb the excesses of the secondary market, combat future attempts at deception, and protect investors by making scrutinized mortgage investments more reliable and trust-worthy. The inability of major corporations to properly assess the risk of the mortgage securities they were trading is a problem whose effects have not been confined to Wall Street. To put it simply: when big banks sneeze, the rest of America gets a cold. By 2009, more than a trillion dollars of the subprime mortgages originated during the housing boom will reset to higher interest rates. Currently, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association, 43 percent of subprime adjustable rate mortgages are already in foreclosure. In my home State of Maine, we are struggling with falling home prices and a record number of foreclosures. Some Maine borrowers, with rising monthly payments, are unable to refinance out of their predatory loans. Small business owners, many already hurt by the economic downturn, are also finding credit tight. The bad economic climate caused by the subprime credit crunch is roiling the stock market causing Americans to loose billions in their IRAs and retirement funds. We need to fix this crisis before it gets any worse and make sure it never happens again. Francis Bacon said that ``knowledge is power.'' My bill would give investors the knowledge to make intelligent calculations of risk and as a result, it would give them the power to decide how much risk they could collectively handle. Turning to specifics, my bill creates the Federal Board of Certification, which would certify that the mortgages within a security instrument meet the underlying standards they claim in regards to documentation, loan to value ratios, debt service to income ratios, and borrowers' credit standards. The purpose of the certification process is to increase the transparency, predictability, and reliability of securitized mortgage products. Certification would aid in creating settled investor expectations and increase transparency by ensuring that the mortgages within a mortgage security conform to the claims made by the mortgage product's sellers. The proposed Federal Board of Certification would not override any current regulations and would not, in any way, stifle any attempts by private business to rate mortgage securities. This legislation would, however, create incentives for improving industry rating practices. Open publication of the Board's certification criteria would augment the efforts of private ratings agencies by providing incentives for increased transparency in the ratings process. The Board's certification would also serve as a check on the industry to ensure that ratings agencies carefully scrutinize the content of mortgage products before issuing evaluations of mortgage backed securities. Significantly, the Federal Board of Certification would also be voluntary and funded by an excise tax. Users could choose to pay the costs for the Board to rate their security, or they could elect not to submit their product to the Board. We must quickly restore confidence in the U.S. mortgage securities if we are to stabilize our housing markets and enable families to refinance their expensive loans. To do this, we must certify the quality and content of our mortgage securities and enable those markets working again to create liquidity and lending. This is why it is urgent to create the Federal Board of Certification for mortgage securities. This legislation would create a ``good housekeeping seal of approval'' for the mortgage security industry and certify that the mortgage products are in fact what they claim to be. Accordingly, I call on Congress to take up and pass this common-sense amendment as expeditiously as possible. I encourage my colleagues to strongly support the creation of the Federal Board of Certification. This legislation will restore trust in U.S. financial markets and mortgage securities which will help American businesses and ultimately, most crucially, American families. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE. Today I rise with Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa to introduce bipartisan legislation aimed at reducing disability in our Nation. As the Congress moves this week to ensure the strength of the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act, we must continue to work to ensure that every American has the means to overcome physical impairment. I am honored to be joined today by Senator Harkin--who has long championed the ADA--as well as Senators Daniel Inouye, and Russ Feingold--as we act to ensure that those with group health insurance are able to access needed prosthetic care in order to lead full and independent lives. This year over 130,000 individuals will undergo amputation procedures, often as a complication of diabetes or other chronic disease. For such individuals an appropriate prosthetic limb reduces disability and allows them to maintain employment and lead more productive lives. Today many amputees receive prosthetics through their coverage by the VA, Medicare, Medicaid, or S-CHIP. Yet too often individuals without such coverage find that their private plan requires copayments for a needed prosthetic which they simply cannot afford, or imposes a ``lifetime cap'' which prevents them from replacing an existing prosthetic when needed. So with an estimated two million individuals living with limb differences or loss in the United States, the impact of severely- restricted prosthetic coverage can be devastating. This is even more so for the estimated 70,000 amputees under the age of 18. Sadly, we see those children particularly affected as their growth increases the frequency with which a prosthetic requires replacement. That can quickly exceed a parent's ability to meet copayment requirements--a coverage cap may deny access to a replacement prosthetic. So it is easy to see why 11 States--including my own State of Maine-- have enacted legislation to assure reasonable coverage of prosthetics, and why more than half of the States are now examining parity for prosthetics. Studies in different States have reported that the imposition of parity can be expected to raise monthly health plan premiums by approximately 12 to 50 cents a month. That low cost helps keep amputees productive, and avoids shifting health costs to public programs--simply because the needed prosthetic could not be obtained, and the individual saw their function and productivity decline until they had to rely on public assistance. That is so unnecessary and inappropriate. The legislation which we are introducing today--the Prosthetics Parity Act of 2008--will ensure that group health plans treat coverage of such prosthetic devices on par with other essential medical care covered by health insurance. It does not mandate coverage, but it does assure than when it is offered, it is not so restricted or capped that it does not assure an amputee of the prosthetic they require. As we move forward to ensure greater opportunity and accommodation for Americans with disabilities, it is so timely that we ensure the appropriate access to prosthetics to help reduce disability. I call on my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation to further the vision of greater opportunity for those with disabilities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Today I rise with Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa to introduce bipartisan legislation aimed at reducing disability in our Nation. As the Congress moves this week to ensure the strength of the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act, we must continue to work to ensure that every American has the means to overcome physical impairment. I am honored to be joined today by Senator Harkin--who has long championed the ADA--as well as Senators Daniel Inouye, and Russ Feingold--as we act to ensure that those with group health insurance are able to access needed prosthetic care in order to lead full and independent lives. This year over 130,000 individuals will undergo amputation procedures, often as a complication of diabetes or other chronic disease. For such individuals an appropriate prosthetic limb reduces disability and allows them to maintain employment and lead more productive lives. Today many amputees receive prosthetics through their coverage by the VA, Medicare, Medicaid, or S-CHIP. Yet too often individuals without such coverage find that their private plan requires copayments for a needed prosthetic which they simply cannot afford, or imposes a ``lifetime cap'' which prevents them from replacing an existing prosthetic when needed. So with an estimated two million individuals living with limb differences or loss in the United States, the impact of severely- restricted prosthetic coverage can be devastating. This is even more so for the estimated 70,000 amputees under the age of 18. Sadly, we see those children particularly affected as their growth increases the frequency with which a prosthetic requires replacement. That can quickly exceed a parent's ability to meet copayment requirements--a coverage cap may deny access to a replacement prosthetic. So it is easy to see why 11 States--including my own State of Maine-- have enacted legislation to assure reasonable coverage of prosthetics, and why more than half of the States are now examining parity for prosthetics. Studies in different States have reported that the imposition of parity can be expected to raise monthly health plan premiums by approximately 12 to 50 cents a month. That low cost helps keep amputees productive, and avoids shifting health costs to public programs--simply because the needed prosthetic could not be obtained, and the individual saw their function and productivity decline until they had to rely on public assistance. That is so unnecessary and inappropriate. The legislation which we are introducing today--the Prosthetics Parity Act of 2008--will ensure that group health plans treat coverage of such prosthetic devices on par with other essential medical care covered by health insurance. It does not mandate coverage, but it does assure than when it is offered, it is not so restricted or capped that it does not assure an amputee of the prosthetic they require. As we move forward to ensure greater opportunity and accommodation for Americans with disabilities, it is so timely that we ensure the appropriate access to prosthetics to help reduce disability. I call on my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation to further the vision of greater opportunity for those with disabilities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that will increase the trustworthiness of our Nation's mortgage security market by creating the Federal Board of Certification for mortgage securities. The recent collapse of Lehman Brothers, and the Federal Reserve's bailout of American International Group, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Bear Stearns, along the huge losses suffered throughout the financial industry, demonstrates a catastrophic failure to accurately assess the dangers of imprudently made subprime mortgages to the American public and our financial markets. In hindsight, it appears that it was the inability to gauge risk in mortgage-backed securities that caused much of this financial turmoil. For markets to operate properly, it is imperative that they have effective metrics for calculating the level of risk securities pose to investors. The secondary mortgage market has been a largely unregulated playground where poorly underwritten, low-quality loans were sold as high-quality investment products. Although mortgage backed securities can be a positive market force, which increases the available pool of credit for borrowers, without an accurate picture of the risk involved in each mortgage security, buyers have no idea whether they are buying a high-risk investment or a safe, secure investment. My legislation would work to curb the excesses of the secondary market, combat future attempts at deception, and protect investors by making scrutinized mortgage investments more reliable and trust-worthy. The inability of major corporations to properly assess the risk of the mortgage securities they were trading is a problem whose effects have not been confined to Wall Street. To put it simply: when big banks sneeze, the rest of America gets a cold. By 2009, more than a trillion dollars of the subprime mortgages originated during the housing boom will reset to higher interest rates. Currently, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association, 43 percent of subprime adjustable rate mortgages are already in foreclosure. In my home State of Maine, we are struggling with falling home prices and a record number of foreclosures. Some Maine borrowers, with rising monthly payments, are unable to refinance out of their predatory loans. Small business owners, many already hurt by the economic downturn, are also finding credit tight. The bad economic climate caused by the subprime credit crunch is roiling the stock market causing Americans to loose billions in their IRAs and retirement funds. We need to fix this crisis before it gets any worse and make sure it never happens again. Francis Bacon said that ``knowledge is power.'' My bill would give investors the knowledge to make intelligent calculations of risk and as a result, it would give them the power to decide how much risk they could collectively handle. Turning to specifics, my bill creates the Federal Board of Certification, which would certify that the mortgages within a security instrument meet the underlying standards they claim in regards to documentation, loan to value ratios, debt service to income ratios, and borrowers' credit standards. The purpose of the certification process is to increase the transparency, predictability, and reliability of securitized mortgage products. Certification would aid in creating settled investor expectations and increase transparency by ensuring that the mortgages within a mortgage security conform to the claims made by the mortgage product's sellers. The proposed Federal Board of Certification would not override any current regulations and would not, in any way, stifle any attempts by private business to rate mortgage securities. This legislation would, however, create incentives for improving industry rating practices. Open publication of the Board's certification criteria would augment the efforts of private ratings agencies by providing incentives for increased transparency in the ratings process. The Board's certification would also serve as a check on the industry to ensure that ratings agencies carefully scrutinize the content of mortgage products before issuing evaluations of mortgage backed securities. Significantly, the Federal Board of Certification would also be voluntary and funded by an excise tax. Users could choose to pay the costs for the Board to rate their security, or they could elect not to submit their product to the Board. We must quickly restore confidence in the U.S. mortgage securities if we are to stabilize our housing markets and enable families to refinance their expensive loans. To do this, we must certify the quality and content of our mortgage securities and enable those markets working again to create liquidity and lending. This is why it is urgent to create the Federal Board of Certification for mortgage securities. This legislation would create a ``good housekeeping seal of approval'' for the mortgage security industry and certify that the mortgage products are in fact what they claim to be. Accordingly, I call on Congress to take up and pass this common-sense amendment as expeditiously as possible. I encourage my colleagues to strongly support the creation of the Federal Board of Certification. This legislation will restore trust in U.S. financial markets and mortgage securities which will help American businesses and ultimately, most crucially, American families. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I join my colleague, Senator Lincoln of Arkansas, to introduce the Medicare Home Infusion Coverage Act, which will help us improve care and reduce costs. Today we know that the average Medicare beneficiary must shoulder nearly half their health care costs. At the same time Medicare faces serious fiscal challenges. Currently, the Part A, hospital, Trust Fund faces insolvency in 2019, when expenditures will exceed projected contributions and require additional taxpayer support to maintain the care our seniors and so many disabled Americans require. There is another way, and that is to reform care delivery to emphasize high quality, lower cost care. Today the many serious conditions--including some cancers and drug-resistant infections-- require the use of infusion therapy. Such treatment involves the administration of medication directly into the bloodstream via a needle or catheter. Specialized equipment, supplies, and professional services (such as sterile drug compounding, care coordination, and patient education and monitoring) are part of such therapy. The course of infusion treatment often lasts for several hours per day over a six-to- eight week period. The unfortunate fact is that Medicare patients requiring infusion therapy must either bear that cost themselves, or endure hospitalization in order to receive coverage. Though Medicare pays for infusion drugs, it does not pay for the services, equipment, and supplies necessary to safely provide infusion therapy in the home. Not surprisingly, even though home infusion therapy may cost as little as $100 a day, too few seniors can bear that cost. The result is that patients are hospitalized needlessly, driving costs of treatment as much as 10-20 times higher than treatment in the home. That is wasteful to Medicare and may even place the patient at risk. That is because unnecessary hospitalization places individuals at risk of acquiring a health care-acquired infection--one which is frequently drug resistant and can be life-threatening. Private health plans have long understood that home infusion therapy is not only less costly, but safer as well. Thus private coverage for home infusion therapy is common. Private plans also recognize that patients benefit from avoiding hospitalization. At home they have familiar, comfortable surroundings, and family conveniently at hand--no small concerns when fighting a serious illness. It is clear we must change the status quo, and achieve safer, most cost-effective treatment. By extending coverage of infusion therapy to the home, we will correct this unintended and unnecessary gap in Medicare coverage. I hope my colleagues will join us in support of this legislation so we may further the goals of improving patient safety and reducing our escalating health care costs.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I join my colleague, Senator Lincoln of Arkansas, to introduce the Medicare Home Infusion Coverage Act, which will help us improve care and reduce costs. Today we know that the average Medicare beneficiary must shoulder nearly half their health care costs. At the same time Medicare faces serious fiscal challenges. Currently, the Part A, hospital, Trust Fund faces insolvency in 2019, when expenditures will exceed projected contributions and require additional taxpayer support to maintain the care our seniors and so many disabled Americans require. There is another way, and that is to reform care delivery to emphasize high quality, lower cost care. Today the many serious conditions--including some cancers and drug-resistant infections-- require the use of infusion therapy. Such treatment involves the administration of medication directly into the bloodstream via a needle or catheter. Specialized equipment, supplies, and professional services (such as sterile drug compounding, care coordination, and patient education and monitoring) are part of such therapy. The course of infusion treatment often lasts for several hours per day over a six-to- eight week period. The unfortunate fact is that Medicare patients requiring infusion therapy must either bear that cost themselves, or endure hospitalization in order to receive coverage. Though Medicare pays for infusion drugs, it does not pay for the services, equipment, and supplies necessary to safely provide infusion therapy in the home. Not surprisingly, even though home infusion therapy may cost as little as $100 a day, too few seniors can bear that cost. The result is that patients are hospitalized needlessly, driving costs of treatment as much as 10-20 times higher than treatment in the home. That is wasteful to Medicare and may even place the patient at risk. That is because unnecessary hospitalization places individuals at risk of acquiring a health care-acquired infection--one which is frequently drug resistant and can be life-threatening. Private health plans have long understood that home infusion therapy is not only less costly, but safer as well. Thus private coverage for home infusion therapy is common. Private plans also recognize that patients benefit from avoiding hospitalization. At home they have familiar, comfortable surroundings, and family conveniently at hand--no small concerns when fighting a serious illness. It is clear we must change the status quo, and achieve safer, most cost-effective treatment. By extending coverage of infusion therapy to the home, we will correct this unintended and unnecessary gap in Medicare coverage. I hope my colleagues will join us in support of this legislation so we may further the goals of improving patient safety and reducing our escalating health care costs.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as our Nation and our world become increasingly complex and fast paced, it may seem easy to lose track of the simple but essential ties that bind us to those in our communities. It is with pleasure that I recognize a small family business from my home State of Maine that has succeeded in ushering a timeless classic into the modern world. Congdon's Doughnuts in Wells has been a York County institution for well over 50 years, providing tasty treats and community support for generations of locals and tourists. For the early riser among us, few indulgences are more appealing than a sticky sweet doughnut and a fresh-brewed cup of coffee. Congdon's Doughnuts has provided just that to thousands of customers as it has churned out up to 10,000 homemade doughnuts a day for three generations. Founded in 1945, and located at its current site since 1955, the company has undergone many of the trials and tribulations that often challenge America's small businesses. Yet through the hard work and unwavering dedication of the Congdon family and their employees, the business has transformed itself from a small wholesale doughnut operation to a three-meal-a-day restaurant and bakery. Under present managers Gary Leech, son of Eleanor Congdon, and his wife Diane Leech, Congdon's also added a convenient drive-thru in 2002 for those on the go. The firm has been so successful that this past March, the Best Independent Restaurants Association awarded Congdon's Doughnuts its highest level of recognition, the prestigious Best Family Restaurant Platinum Plate Award. While known for providing plentiful options for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, the centerpiece of the Congdon enterprise remains its timeless and highly acclaimed doughnuts. With dozens of tempting and delicious varieties of the traditional breakfast morsels, from cinnamon and coconut to chocolate honey and apple fritter, Congdon's has something to satisfy any doughnut eater and has garnered acclaim both locally and nationally. Indeed, Portland Magazine, a regional publication, has placed Congdon's doughnuts on its list of ``101 of Maine's Guiltiest Guilty Pleasures,'' and in 2007 Congdon's was included on the Doughnut Honor Roll of seriouseats.com, the Web site of famed food critic Ed Levin. While Congdon's has long been involved in local charitable and community efforts, for the last 2 years it has institutionalized the commitment to its neighbors by joining other local businesses to host weekly benefit barbeques. Every Wednesday in July and August, community members come together for fun-filled tropical-themed parties. Ticket sales for these popular events have raised money for local and national charities and organizations including the American Heart Association, Southern Maine Parent Awareness, and Trolley for Togus, which provides transportation for York County veterans to Maine's VA hospital. Additionally, last December Congdon's offered its guests holiday cards to sign for our Nation's soldiers, and then sent over 500 of them to men and women serving in Iraq. Congdon's Doughnuts exemplifies the best qualities of being both a prosperous business and a caring neighbor. It is with great pride that I congratulate Condgon's on its decades of successes and I wish them the best of luck for the future as they continue to reach new heights as a purveyor of delectable treats and old-fashioned American cuisine.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I congratulate Mark Millar on receiving the 2008 Angels in Adoption Award, a tremendous honor that highlights his tireless commitment to achieving permanent family connections for children in foster care in Maine. What a well-deserved accolade for such an ennobling endeavor. Mark Millar began his career as a protective services worker and has been a critical part of Casey Family Services in Portland for more than 20 years. In that time, he and his dedicated staff have helped transform the lives of countless families, by promoting kinship care, providing counseling and other services to strengthen families postadoption, and helping Maine reduce the amount of time required to reach legal permanence when a child enters foster care. Undoubtedly, we as a nation can and must do more to better equip families who sacrifice so much to provide safe, loving homes for children in foster care. For many families, the decision to open their home to a child is easy, but it can also be emotionally trying and financially taxing. That's why Mark Millar's work at Casey Family Services is so indispensable and profoundly worthy of this distinction. At a time where Federal dollars for child welfare services are regrettably too few, Mark Millar and Casey Family Services offer families a support system that is dependable and viable. Mark Millar has also performed remarkable work in helping teens prepare for the challenges of adulthood, whether though his efforts with the First Jobs program, which provides initial and transitional employment opportunities at Hannaford for youth aged 15-21, or Casey's outdoor work-readiness and skill development program. And he has been selfless in his extraordinary contributions and inspiring through the power of his benevolent example. In short, Mark understands and lives out what American novelist, Herman Melville, once eloquently described in words . . . ``We cannot live for ourselves alone. Our lives are connected by a thousand invisible threads, and along these sympathetic fibers, our actions run as causes and return to us as results.'' Championing the cause of children and garnering tangible results that effect the everyday lives of many Mainers are the true measure of Mark's phenomenal trajectory of accomplishment in helping others. And so, we couldn't be more grateful to Mark for what has given and continues to give back to Maine, and I couldn't be more pleased about this tribute bestowed upon him which is a fitting recognition of all he has achieved on behalf of all whom he has served.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I recognize Firefly Restorations of Hope, ME, a company whose tribute to the fallen firefighters of September 11 stands as a symbol of our Nation's resolve and exemplifies the selfless spirit of Maine's small businesses. Firefly Restorations is one of a small number of businesses that restore and rebuild antique fire apparatus. Firefly's owner, Andy Swift, is a Mainer with a life-long love of firefighting and fire engines. Mr. Swift, a firefighter of over fourteen years, has been restoring fire engines for two decades. In his words he has been: ``. . . immersed in this world of fire.'' On September 11, 2001, Mr. Swift watched from his television as his brethren entered the Twin Towers and sacrificed their lives so that those trapped inside might live. It was at that moment that Mr. Swift resolved to do something, anything, to assist or to commemorate the events of that tragic day. At first, Mr. Swift felt a visceral pull to Ground Zero. As he said, ``When you're a fireman, you have a firefighter's heart.'' But instead, he found a different and unique way to show his gratitude for the sacrifices of the fallen firefighters of the New York City Fire Department. Mr. Swift made an offer to the New York City Fire Department. He said, provide me with a fire engine, any fire engine, and I will restore it for free. Shortly after the offer was made, the New York City Fire Department asked him to restore a nineteenth century hose wagon, and Mr. Swift was more than happy to oblige. Restoring fire engines is a costly and time consuming task. Firefly Restorations typically takes 2 years to refurbish an engine, but with Maine firefighters raising $3,500 for materials and Mr. Swift and his employees donating over 2,500 hours of free labor, the hose wagon was completed within 6 months. On October 12, 2002, 1 year, 1 month, and 1 day after September 11, the fire hose Firefly Restorations refurbished made its debut at the fallen firefighter's memorial service in Madison Square Garden. Amidst the tributes and memorial services the antique hose wagon stood as a silent reminder of the links between generations of brave men and women who rush into buildings when others rush out. In his own way, Mr. Swift put the ceremony into perspective when he said, ``It was probably one of the most moving things that I've been involved with. I think it was a healing process, and I think it was important for me to go through . . . I was brokenhearted like many, many other people were, and I just thought it was part of the stage of healing.'' Seven years after September 11 Mr. Swift and his business are still in Maine and continue to restore fire engines. After the October 2002 memorial service, the hose wagon returned to Maine, and, today, it can be found at the Owls Head Transportation Museum in Owls Head, Maine. On the seventh anniversary of September 11, we take this day to grieve and commemorate the extraordinary acts preformed by ordinary Americans like Andy Swift and his employees at Firefly Restorations. I thank Andy Swift and Firefly Restorations for this gift to our country, our Nation's firefighters, and to those brave heroes who gave their lives on September 11.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, on this solemn occasion in our national life, we pause with deep-seated reverence to remember and honor those who perished in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and we do so profoundly mindful of those families and loved ones whose lives have been forever altered by the heinous events of 7 years ago. At this time, we share in the grievous anguish that will always exact an unbearable toll on those convening to pay homage to family and loved ones lost at Ground Zero in lower Manhattan, in Shanksville, PA, and in the Pentagon, where today there will be a ceremony, marking the official dedication of the Pentagon Memorial which will pay tribute to the 184 lives lost in the Pentagon and on American Airlines flight 77. Amid the arduous trial and pain that this date in our history evokes, we find mutual solace in the revelation that none of us grieves alone that, on this day, those whom we will never know are kept in our thoughts and prayers and that there are no strangers among us only Americans. While we will never escape the unspeakable horror and inconsolable devastation that this anniversary represents to each and every one of us, at the same time, we cannot help but recall the countless remembrances of the indomitable spirit of the American people, who have, time and again, demonstrated a collective resilience and resolve to battle back despite inexpressible sorrow, and who have displayed a courageous summoning of purpose to move forward in the face of wrenching desolation. And so this year, as in times past, we face the indescribable inhumanity of those dark morning hours, but we are renewed and buoyed by the unfolding story from 2001 to the present of a resurgent nation that will overcome any adversity, no matter how perilous or daunting. And nowhere is that inspiration, heart, and character more prevalent than in our recollection of the heroic sacrifice and noble devotion of firefighters, police officers, and rescue workers. The fearless and selfless example of seemingly ordinary Americans performing extraordinary deeds in the service of others will serve through time immemorial as an enduring and powerful testament that good will triumph over evil and that those benevolent forces that would seek to uplift humankind will ultimately prevail over those treacherous elements that would conspire to bring it down. Time can never diminish the cavalcade of emotions we experience as we strive to comprehend how such vicious savagery could exist in the world and could be perpetrated so ruthlessly against innocent people. And those feelings only intensify when we put faces with names, and they become especially personal when we reflect upon Mainers whom we have lost--Anna Allison, Carol Flyzik, Robert Jalbert, Jacqueline Norton, Robert Norton, James Roux, Robert Schlegel, and Stephen Ward. Their lives were tragically cut short, but their memory is eternally etched upon our hearts. As we confront once again these unforgivably grave and wicked injustices, we are also gratefully sustained by the supreme service and unfailing contribution of our exceptional men and women in uniform who protect and defend our way of life. Whether on shores or soil here at home or around the globe, their steadfast sense of duty and bravery are an inspiration to us all, their commitment steels our determination, and their valor and professionalism steady our hand in an uncertain world. Like every American, I vividly remember every detail of the morning of September 11, 2001, and how the day began with such beautiful blue skies, only to end with a nation grief-stricken and stunned in utter disbelief. In Washington, DC, I watched the images along with the rest of the world. Later, as the Sun set over the National Mall still capped by smoke billowing from the wound in the side of the Pentagon I joined my colleagues in the House and Senate on the Capitol steps in singing, ``God Bless America.'' We sang to send a message to the country and to the world that we would never be deterred that freedom is forged by something far more resolute than any act of terror a conviction that has only strengthened with each anniversary. While we extol those whom we have lost, we hold fast to the belief that the greatest memorial is to embrace all that we have retained as a nation from our inception and that the principles of liberty and justice and the primacy of self-government cannot be extinguished that we as a people will endure as long as we persevere shoulder-to-shoulder as Americans. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to offer a drastically simplified alternative for home-based businesses to benefit from the home office tax deduction. The U.S. Small Business Administration's, SBA's, Office of Advocacy designated reforming the home office tax deduction as one of its top ten Regulatory Review and Reform initiatives for 2008. By establishing an optional home office deduction, the Home Office Tax Deduction Simplification and Improvement Act of 2008 would take a strong step toward making our tax laws easier to understand. I thank Senator Conrad for joining me to introduce this critical bill. As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I continually hear from small enterprises across Maine and this nation about the necessity of tax relief and reform. Despite the fact that small firms are our economy's real job creators, the current tax system places an entirely unreasonable burden on them as they struggle to satisfy their tax obligations. Notably, according to the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the American public spends approximately 9 billion hours each year to complete government-mandated forms and paperwork. A staggering 80 percent of this time is consumed by completing tax forms. What's even more troubling is that companies that employ fewer than 20 employees spend nearly $1,304 per employee in tax compliance costs, an amount that is nearly 67 percent more than larger firms. Turning to the legislation I am offering today, the Internal Revenue Code presently offers qualified individuals a home office tax deduction if they use a portion of their home as a principal place of business or as a space to meet with their patients or clients. That said, although recent research from the SBA indicates that roughly 53 percent of America's small businesses are home-based, few of these firms take advantage of the home office tax deduction. The reason is simple: reporting the deduction is complicated. A 2006 survey conducted by the National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB, Research Foundation found that approximately 33 percent of small-employer taxpayers try to comprehend the tax rules governing the home office tax deduction, but only about half of those respondents believe that they actually have a good understanding of the rules. As Dewey Martin, a Certified Public Accountant from my home State of Maine, so aptly said in recent testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, ``Many small business owners avoid the deduction because of the complications and the fear of a potential audit.'' With a morass of paperwork attributable to the home office deduction, the time-consuming process of navigating the tangled web of rules and regulations makes it unsurprising that so many small business owners forego the home office deduction. So to encourage the use of the home office tax deduction, the bill we are introducing today would establish an optional, easy-to-use incentive. Turning to specifics, our bill would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a method for determining a deduction that consists of multiplying an applicable standard rate by the square footage of the type of property being used as a home office. The proposal would also require the IRS to separately state the amounts allocated to several types of expenses in order to reduce the burden on the taxpayer. It is vital that the IRS clearly identify the amounts of the deduction devoted to real estate taxes, mortgage interest, and depreciation so that taxpayers do not duplicate them on Schedule A. Finally, the bill makes two changes designed to ease the administration of the deduction: First, to reflect an economy in which many business owners conduct business or consult with customers through the Internet or over the phone versus face-to-face, our legislation takes these entrepreneurs into account by allowing the home office deduction to be taken if the taxpayer uses the home to meet or deal with clients regardless of whether the clients are physically present. Second, our bill would allow for de minimis use of business space for personal activities so that taxpayers would not lose their ability to claim the deduction if they make a personal call or pay a bill online. I would be remiss not to note that the bill we are introducing today is the result of the dedicated efforts of various groups and organizations, which have worked with Senator Conrad and me on a consensus approach to improve the current law home office tax deduction. In particular, it is significant to note that the IRS Taxpayer Advocate Service strongly backs this bill. In fact, the National Taxpayer Advocate, Nina E. Olson, sent my office the following statement regarding our legislation: ``In my 2007 Annual Report to Congress, I made a similar proposal to simplify the home office business deduction. I am pleased that Senator Snowe and Conrad's proposed bill reflects the gist of my legislative recommendation. Reducing the burdensome substantiation requirements for employees and self-employed taxpayers who incur modest home office costs would make the home office business deduction simpler and more accessible to them.'' My office also received an endorsement of the bill from the National Federation of Independent Business. Dan Danner, the organization's Executive Director, said the following: ``Currently only a small percentage of home-based businesses in the U.S. take advantage of the home-office deduction because calculating the deduction is unnecessarily complicated. NFIB small business owners have advocated for a simpler, standard home-office deduction for years. The Snowe- Conrad legislation gives home-based businesses the option to deduct a legitimate business expense with minimum hassle. This commonsense change to the tax code will reduce tax complexity and help many home- based businesses take advantage of this deduction.'' Additionally, the SBA's Office of Advocacy added: ``The SBA Office of Advocacy reviewed the legislation and supports it.'' In closing, according to the SBA's Office of Advocacy, America's home- based sole proprietors generate $102 billion in revenue annually. With this in mind, it is absolutely critical to endow these small firms with as much relief from burdensome tax constraints as possible so that they can focus their efforts on developing the products and services of the future, as well as creating new jobs. The confusion over the home office business tax deduction, in my estimation, can be easily solved by passing this legislation. I urge all Senators to consider the benefits this bill will provide to thousands of small business owners, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact it in a timely manner. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to offer a drastically simplified alternative for home-based businesses to benefit from the home office tax deduction. The U.S. Small Business Administration's, SBA's, Office of Advocacy designated reforming the home office tax deduction as one of its top ten Regulatory Review and Reform initiatives for 2008. By establishing an optional home office deduction, the Home Office Tax Deduction Simplification and Improvement Act of 2008 would take a strong step toward making our tax laws easier to understand. I thank Senator Conrad for joining me to introduce this critical bill. As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I continually hear from small enterprises across Maine and this nation about the necessity of tax relief and reform. Despite the fact that small firms are our economy's real job creators, the current tax system places an entirely unreasonable burden on them as they struggle to satisfy their tax obligations. Notably, according to the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the American public spends approximately 9 billion hours each year to complete government-mandated forms and paperwork. A staggering 80 percent of this time is consumed by completing tax forms. What's even more troubling is that companies that employ fewer than 20 employees spend nearly $1,304 per employee in tax compliance costs, an amount that is nearly 67 percent more than larger firms. Turning to the legislation I am offering today, the Internal Revenue Code presently offers qualified individuals a home office tax deduction if they use a portion of their home as a principal place of business or as a space to meet with their patients or clients. That said, although recent research from the SBA indicates that roughly 53 percent of America's small businesses are home-based, few of these firms take advantage of the home office tax deduction. The reason is simple: reporting the deduction is complicated. A 2006 survey conducted by the National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB, Research Foundation found that approximately 33 percent of small-employer taxpayers try to comprehend the tax rules governing the home office tax deduction, but only about half of those respondents believe that they actually have a good understanding of the rules. As Dewey Martin, a Certified Public Accountant from my home State of Maine, so aptly said in recent testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, ``Many small business owners avoid the deduction because of the complications and the fear of a potential audit.'' With a morass of paperwork attributable to the home office deduction, the time-consuming process of navigating the tangled web of rules and regulations makes it unsurprising that so many small business owners forego the home office deduction. So to encourage the use of the home office tax deduction, the bill we are introducing today would establish an optional, easy-to-use incentive. Turning to specifics, our bill would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a method for determining a deduction that consists of multiplying an applicable standard rate by the square footage of the type of property being used as a home office. The proposal would also require the IRS to separately state the amounts allocated to several types of expenses in order to reduce the burden on the taxpayer. It is vital that the IRS clearly identify the amounts of the deduction devoted to real estate taxes, mortgage interest, and depreciation so that taxpayers do not duplicate them on Schedule A. Finally, the bill makes two changes designed to ease the administration of the deduction: First, to reflect an economy in which many business owners conduct business or consult with customers through the Internet or over the phone versus face-to-face, our legislation takes these entrepreneurs into account by allowing the home office deduction to be taken if the taxpayer uses the home to meet or deal with clients regardless of whether the clients are physically present. Second, our bill would allow for de minimis use of business space for personal activities so that taxpayers would not lose their ability to claim the deduction if they make a personal call or pay a bill online. I would be remiss not to note that the bill we are introducing today is the result of the dedicated efforts of various groups and organizations, which have worked with Senator Conrad and me on a consensus approach to improve the current law home office tax deduction. In particular, it is significant to note that the IRS Taxpayer Advocate Service strongly backs this bill. In fact, the National Taxpayer Advocate, Nina E. Olson, sent my office the following statement regarding our legislation: ``In my 2007 Annual Report to Congress, I made a similar proposal to simplify the home office business deduction. I am pleased that Senator Snowe and Conrad's proposed bill reflects the gist of my legislative recommendation. Reducing the burdensome substantiation requirements for employees and self-employed taxpayers who incur modest home office costs would make the home office business deduction simpler and more accessible to them.'' My office also received an endorsement of the bill from the National Federation of Independent Business. Dan Danner, the organization's Executive Director, said the following: ``Currently only a small percentage of home-based businesses in the U.S. take advantage of the home-office deduction because calculating the deduction is unnecessarily complicated. NFIB small business owners have advocated for a simpler, standard home-office deduction for years. The Snowe- Conrad legislation gives home-based businesses the option to deduct a legitimate business expense with minimum hassle. This commonsense change to the tax code will reduce tax complexity and help many home- based businesses take advantage of this deduction.'' Additionally, the SBA's Office of Advocacy added: ``The SBA Office of Advocacy reviewed the legislation and supports it.'' In closing, according to the SBA's Office of Advocacy, America's home- based sole proprietors generate $102 billion in revenue annually. With this in mind, it is absolutely critical to endow these small firms with as much relief from burdensome tax constraints as possible so that they can focus their efforts on developing the products and services of the future, as well as creating new jobs. The confusion over the home office business tax deduction, in my estimation, can be easily solved by passing this legislation. I urge all Senators to consider the benefits this bill will provide to thousands of small business owners, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact it in a timely manner. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, with Senator Sherrod Brown, to introduce the Selecting Employment Clusters to Organize Regional Success, SECTORS, Act. This legislation would amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and establish a new industry or sector partnership grant program administered by the Department of Labor. As Co-Chair of the bipartisan Senate Task Force on Manufacturing, one of my key goals is to ensure that manufacturers are able to find a capable workforce. Unfortunately, many manufacturers across the country have raised significant concerns about whether the next generation of workers is being trained to meet the needs of an increasingly high-tech workplace. It is critical that we ensure that our Nation has a sufficient workforce to meet the needs of the U.S. manufacturing sector. This legislation provides grants to help industry clusters--which are interrelated group of businesses, service providers, and associated institutions--establish and expand industry partnerships. Existing partnerships, which are similar to those created by this bill, have long been recognized as key strategic elements within some of the most successful economic development initiatives throughout the country. Unfortunately, current Federal policy does not provide sufficient support for these critical ventures. In my home State of Maine, the number of manufacturing jobs has dropped dramatically over the past decade. Between 1998 and 2008, manufacturing employment in Maine went from 81,000 to 59,000, a 27 percent decrease! A key reason manufacturing job losses have dramatically affected Maine is that the average manufacturing salary is $10,000 more than the average annual State wage. The statistics for the whole of New England are no better. From January 1998 through December 2006, the region witnessed a decline of roughly 25 percent of its manufacturing workforce. For those who have lost manufacturing jobs, it is vital to help improve their skills, preparing them for available U.S. jobs. This legislation provides a crucial link between establishing worker training programs and fostering new employment opportunities for those who have been affected by the manufacturing industry's decline. By promoting this innovative partnership we will take a crucial step toward rejuvenating our economy. Groups, such as the National Governors Association, the Aspen Institute, and the National Network of Sector Partners have promoted and documented the success of sector partnerships. Throughout the country, sector partnerships are being used to promote the long-term competitiveness of industries and advancing employment opportunities. For example, the State of Maine has recently created the North Star Alliance Initiative. The alliance has brought together Maine's boat builders, the University of Maine's Advanced Engineered Wood Composites Centers, Maine's marine and composite trade association, economic development groups, and investment organizations for the purpose of advancing workforce training. Out Nation's capacity to innovate is a key reason why our economy continues to grow and remains the envy of the world. Ideas by innovative Americans in the private and public sector have paid enormous dividends, improving the lives of millions throughout the world. We must continue to encourage all avenues for advancing this vital sector if America is to compete at the forefront of innovation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, with Senator Sherrod Brown, to introduce the Selecting Employment Clusters to Organize Regional Success, SECTORS, Act. This legislation would amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and establish a new industry or sector partnership grant program administered by the Department of Labor. As Co-Chair of the bipartisan Senate Task Force on Manufacturing, one of my key goals is to ensure that manufacturers are able to find a capable workforce. Unfortunately, many manufacturers across the country have raised significant concerns about whether the next generation of workers is being trained to meet the needs of an increasingly high-tech workplace. It is critical that we ensure that our Nation has a sufficient workforce to meet the needs of the U.S. manufacturing sector. This legislation provides grants to help industry clusters--which are interrelated group of businesses, service providers, and associated institutions--establish and expand industry partnerships. Existing partnerships, which are similar to those created by this bill, have long been recognized as key strategic elements within some of the most successful economic development initiatives throughout the country. Unfortunately, current Federal policy does not provide sufficient support for these critical ventures. In my home State of Maine, the number of manufacturing jobs has dropped dramatically over the past decade. Between 1998 and 2008, manufacturing employment in Maine went from 81,000 to 59,000, a 27 percent decrease! A key reason manufacturing job losses have dramatically affected Maine is that the average manufacturing salary is $10,000 more than the average annual State wage. The statistics for the whole of New England are no better. From January 1998 through December 2006, the region witnessed a decline of roughly 25 percent of its manufacturing workforce. For those who have lost manufacturing jobs, it is vital to help improve their skills, preparing them for available U.S. jobs. This legislation provides a crucial link between establishing worker training programs and fostering new employment opportunities for those who have been affected by the manufacturing industry's decline. By promoting this innovative partnership we will take a crucial step toward rejuvenating our economy. Groups, such as the National Governors Association, the Aspen Institute, and the National Network of Sector Partners have promoted and documented the success of sector partnerships. Throughout the country, sector partnerships are being used to promote the long-term competitiveness of industries and advancing employment opportunities. For example, the State of Maine has recently created the North Star Alliance Initiative. The alliance has brought together Maine's boat builders, the University of Maine's Advanced Engineered Wood Composites Centers, Maine's marine and composite trade association, economic development groups, and investment organizations for the purpose of advancing workforce training. Out Nation's capacity to innovate is a key reason why our economy continues to grow and remains the envy of the world. Ideas by innovative Americans in the private and public sector have paid enormous dividends, improving the lives of millions throughout the world. We must continue to encourage all avenues for advancing this vital sector if America is to compete at the forefront of innovation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish to celebrate the centennial of a treasured institution within Maine's Lewiston-Auburn community. Simones' Hot Dog Stand has been located on Chestnut Street in Lewiston since 1908, and by the looks of things, it will be there for at least another hundred years. A third- and fourth-generation family-owned small business, Simones' Hot Dog Stand has been immensely popular since its founding. Back then, Simones' was truly a ``small'' business, constructed of wooden soda crates with just four stools for customers. Luckily, Simones' had a walk up take out window as well. Hot dogs at the time cost a nickel, with the bargain price of a quarter for six hotdogs. Over the years, various members of the Simones family have operated and worked at the stand, and its present proprietor, Jimmy Simones, has been a steadfast employee since 1973. With time, the hotdog stand has faced challenges and undergone changes. During the Great Depression, with the price of meat skyrocketing, Simones' turned to chopped bologna as a substitute for hotdogs. During World War II, when meat became scarce on the homefront, SPAM was used in its place until the daily ration was employed. In 1966, realizing the need for additional space, Simones' moved across the street, from 98 Chestnut Street to No. 99, where it has been since. Over the years, Simones' menu has expanded to include other lunch items, such as subs, salads, and even homemade soups from scratch during the cold winter months. It is also open for breakfast. But what will catch the visitor's eye most, aside from the fast and friendly service, is its signature bright neon red hotdog. Simones' famed hotdogs are truly unique, with a complement of red food coloring in their casings. Many customers prefer the traditional presentation of a steamed hotdog in a steamed bun topped with mustard, ketchup, or relish. For those of different culinary persuasion, Simones' offers chili, cheese, and sauerkraut to top their hotdogs. Simones family members are also charitable neighbors, helping to make Lewiston a better place to live. Simones' donates their hotdogs to the scholarship foundation of the MAINEiacs, Lewiston's junior ice hockey team, as well as Leavitt Area High School's Project Graduation and other local nonprofit groups. Current owner Jimmy Simones serves on the Central Maine Community College Foundation board of directors and has volunteered at Lewiston's Sexual Assault Crisis Center. Additionally, Jimmy's wife Linda is a member of the St. Mary's Hospital Federally Qualified Health Care Board in Lewiston and a graduate of the hospital's nursing school. The Simones family is also active in the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church parish. Jimmy is a past president of the church, and son George, who works at the stand, serves as a chanter for services. And all three Simones are familiar faces during the church's annual Greek Festival, volunteering their time to enhance the experience of the hundreds who attend. From the regulars who come in daily for a hotdog, to Maine's political figures who make it a must-stop on the campaign trail, Simones' is truly the place to take the local pulse of the Lewiston- Auburn community. It is no wonder that Simones' has established itself as a pillar in central Maine. I wish Jimmy, Linda, George, and everyone at Simones' a wonderful celebration of 100 successful years and look forward to many more years--and hotdogs.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Kerry to introduce the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2008. This measure is truly bipartisan in scope, and is the product of 9 months of negotiation. I am pleased that we have come to an agreement on a package that will further strengthen these programs--making them even more beneficial to small businesses. This bill would reauthorize the crucial Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR, and Small Business Technology Transfer, STTR, programs--which were last reauthorized in 2000. 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. We simply cannot and must not allow these programs to expire at the end of this coming September. The legislation before us today which would provide key improvements to the SBIR and STTR programs are based on a comprehensive SBA Reauthorization bill that I introduced last Congress when I served as chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. This Congress, our committee has held two roundtables, with Federal agency heads and key interested stakeholders, in developing this measure. Specifically, our bill would increase the size of Phase I program awards from $100,000 to $150,000, and Phase II awards from $750,000 to $1 million. It would also tie future award increases to inflation. These pivotal reforms represent a well-spring of indispensable technological-fuel to the small business engines that drive our Nation's innovation. 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. By doubling the percentage of Federal research and development dollars that the STTR program receives each year, and increasing the SBIR percentage by 1 percent over 10 years, we will infuse another $1 billion into the small business economy. At a time when our national economy is flagging due to skyrocketing energy prices and a correcting housing market, the SBIR program is more essential then ever, if we are to capitalize on the groundbreaking capacities of Nation's pioneering small businesses. While innovation in areas such as genomics, biotechnology, and nanotechnology present new opportunities, converting these ideas into marketable products involves substantial funding challenges. Many small businesses simply cannot afford the exorbitant cost of developing and bringing a product into the marketplace. In order to confront this challenge, our legislation offers a compromise solution to the venture capital or ``VC'' issue that has recently divided members of this committee and the SBIR community. This bill would allow limited involvement by majority-owned venture capital firms in the SBIR program which could receive only a maximum 18 percent of SBIR funding at the National Institutes of Health and 8 percent at all other qualifying agencies. These percentages correspond to the most recent Government Accountability Office data regarding VC investment in the SBIR program. Additionally, we leave in place well- established SBA rules designed to limit participation in the SBIR program to small businesses. Other key provisions in this vital legislation include the reauthorization and enhancement of my SBIR Defense Commercialization Pilot Program. Senator Kerry and I created this program in 108th Congress to encourage the award of contracts to SBIR firms. The bill also includes a provision to reauthorize and increase funding to the Federal and State Partnership, FAST, program which would allow each state--including Maine--to receive funding in the form of a grant to make available an array of services in support of the SBIR program. 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 reauthorize the SBIR and STTR programs, particularly before the program terminates at the end of this fiscal year--fewer than 2 months away. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this vital measure in the full Senate, and then negotiating with the House Small Business Committee, so that the President can sign this package into law.