Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would expand and strengthen the guaranteed home loan program administered by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This action is particularly timely given the many readjustment challenges faced by our veterans and their families in this time of war, challenges that have been compounded for veterans by the current subprime mortgage market crisis and credit crunch. Mr. President, this legislation is intended to be the companion legislation to H.R. 4884, Helping Our Veterans Keep Their Homes Act of 2008, introduced in the House by Chairman Filner of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. For some time, we have heard from many veterans that the current structure of the VA Home Loan guarantee program has not been responsive to the needs of veterans in today's market. For example, the current home loan limit is $417,000. Unfortunately, in many states with the largest population of veterans, reservists, and active duty personnel, the average home price is well above the national average and above the current loan ceiling. In contrast, the Federal Housing Authority home loan program constrains the loan dollar value by State and county. I strongly believe that veterans and service members should not be penalized for geographic differences in the housing market-- particularly when, for many, where they live is not of their own choosing but directed by the military organization in which they are serving in the defense of the Nation. We have also learned that for veterans and lenders, the VA loan process can be costly, both with respect to personal finance and time. The fees that are required for participation in the program impose costs on the veteran and family that reduce the financial attractiveness of the VA loan. In fact, it has been suggested that those fees, the bureaucratic red-tape, and the loan dollar value constraints that I previously noted, contributed to the conditions that resulted in far too many veterans being steered toward subprime loans in the first place. Equally disturbing are reports that veterans and reservists did not have access to prime rate loans because of the tumult created in their lives due to repeated deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, or both. Unbelievably, despite their wartime service, these patriots were assessed to have less than the desired level of personal financial stability sought by prime rate lenders and received low credit scores. With access to prime loans limited, subprimes became an option of necessity for many veterans. What has become a point of frustration for veterans now trapped in the mortgage debacle is that the guaranteed home loan program is limited in its ability to provide relief for veterans who have fallen victim to unscrupulous lenders who prey on military families. Given the sacrifices of our veterans and their families, and the disruption in their lives created when they patriotically answer their Nation's call to service, we must do better by our veterans by providing a readjustment benefit that reflects the realities of today's housing market. The legislation that I am introducing today would provide for the following: (1) increase the maximum home loan guarantee amount to $729,750; (2) decrease the equity requirement to refinance a home loan; (3) require the VA Secretary to review and streamline the process of using a guaranteed home loan to purchase a condominium; (4) eliminate the home loan funding fees; (5) reduce the home loan refinance fees to one percent; (6) extend the adjustable rate mortgage demonstration project to 2018; (7) extend the hybrid adjustable rate mortgage demonstration project to 2012; (8) raise the maximum loan guarantee for refinancing a home to $729,750; and (9) authorize the VA to offer a 30 percent guaranty for loans made on homes determined by VA and HUD to be affordable housing. Clearly, this is the right thing to do. I should note that this legislation is supported by the veterans' services organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion. I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join me and offer their support for this important legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I recognize a small business from my home State of Maine that recently hosted the 2008 U.S. ProMiniGolf Association's U.S. Open Tournament. Dolphin Mini Golf, an 18-hole, par 50 miniature golf course located in the charming Midcoast town of Boothbay, is the first location in the Northeast to host this exciting annual event. Dolphin Mini Golf is no ordinary miniature golf course. A nautical theme pervades the landscape, with each hole having a unique decoration. Laden with challenging obstacles, from a fisherman's house to a whale's eye, and dotted with dolphins, lighthouses, and anchors, the course is a taxing test for even the most advanced miniature golfer. Additionally, the rotating ship's wheel and spinning lobster buoys provide the course with an added level of difficulty. A perfect attraction for tourists to the Maine coast and locals alike, Dolphin Mini Golf has earned its reputation as one of the country's premier miniature golf entertainment complexes. In fact, Dolphin has been rated as one of the top 10 mini golf courses nationwide by several professionals on multiple occasions in USA Today. This made Dolphin Mini Golf an ideal location for the recent 11th annual U.S. Open Tournament, which was held on May 17 and 18 and organized by the U.S. ProMiniGolf Association, which promotes the increased play of miniature golf and sanctions several tournaments each year. This year's U.S. Open featured entrants from across the United States and Europe and consisted of six separate events, including a junior tournament, as well as senior and amateur divisions. Dolphin's owner, Lee Stoddard, decided to use the opportunity of hosting the event to highlight something bigger than sports. He selected Operation Recognition, a non-profit organization that recognizes America's servicemembers by providing them with a week of relaxation in Maine, to receive proceeds from the U.S. Open. Operation Recognition was founded in May 2007, and its vacations provide military families with all-expense-paid trips, including lodging, scenic boat tours, and, naturally, passes to play at Dolphin Mini Golf. In addition to this year's U.S. Open, Dolphin Mini Golf hosts its own tournament each September. This 14-year tradition draws players from near and far to benefit a good cause: the tournament raises money for Shriners Hospitals for Children in New England. These crucial facilities provide treatment for children with a variety of illnesses and ailments, including burn victims, orthopedic care, and spinal cord injury rehabilitation. Mr. Stoddard's commitment to the welfare of the region's neediest children is truly admirable. Dolphin Mini Golf is a fitting symbol of Maine's creative entrepreneurship. But under Lee Stoddard's leadership, it also represents a sincere kindness and compassion. Through sheer hard work and dedication, Mr. Stoddard has turned Dolphin into an exemplary miniature golf course and a standout small business. I congratulate everyone at Dolphin Mini Golf for earning the honor of playing host to this year's U.S. Open Tournament and thank them for their considerable generosity to our Nation's veterans and children.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in support of the legislation that is pending and the substitute that will be offered by the chair of the committee, Senator Boxer, to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, which is obviously a historic measure that is a benchmark for America in confronting the pressing and pervasive threat of global climate change. This is not a Democratic issue; it is not a Republican issue. It is not a conservative or liberal issue. This is a human issue. It is a planetary issue. It is a moral issue. It is a matter and a question of stewardship, of responsibility not only to ourselves and the world in which we live but, most critically, to a future we will never inhabit but will largely determine based on decisions we make now. In that light, I express my profound gratitude to the chair of the committee, Senator Boxer, without whom, obviously, this simply would not have been possible. I thank her for her longstanding advocacy and leadership, bridging the partisan divide which I think is what this legislation that is pending before the Senate does--the substitute that will be offered by her tomorrow--because I think it is critical we begin this process in developing the United States' leadership with respect to one of the most pressing and transformational issues not only facing this country but the world community. I also express my profound gratitude to Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner for their outstanding and longtime leadership as well, and for their advocacy in developing those solutions to stem global climate change. It is certainly one of the most consequential issues of this century. I thank them for their vision and courage--and Senator Boxer-- for doing all they could to bring this legislation to this point in the Senate to have the first ever debate on a monumental issue that will reverberate for generations. I have heard much here in the debate. Hopefully, I will be able to offer some of the counterpoints later on in the debate. I want to lay out my own views with respect to this issue because I think it is so critical for the future of this country. I do not think we can afford the option of inaction any longer. I think this is the time in which we have to engage in global leadership and to lead the way on this critical issue, and not to forfeit what is essential, for the United States to position itself on one of the major environmental issues of all time. I thank the Senator from Virginia, for whom leadership has been the hallmark of his 29 years of service in the Senate. That ennobling quality is now on display yet again today on this vital and timely issue before this body. We have arrived at this day, as this issue of global warming should no longer be open to serious skepticism. This past week, the U.S. Government released a report that concluded that climate change is affecting the Nation's ecosystems, causing significant changes, such as increasing incidences of severe storms in some areas, and water scarcities from the lack of rain and snowpack in others, along with insect outbreaks and forest fires. Looking to the future, in the words of the U.S. Department of Agriculture report, ``Even under the most optimistic carbon dioxide emission scenarios, important changes in sea level, regional and super- regional temperatures, and precipitation patterns will have profound effects.'' The bottom line is, this debate is no longer a question of science. It is now a question of our political will to provide solutions to these problems. I believe the substitute bill we will be debating later on this week, with an approach that mirrors closely what Senator Kerry and I called for in the Global Warming Reduction Act that we introduced in the last two Congresses, offers a measure that anyone who has analyzed the science and is honestly committed to addressing global warming can support. It establishes a Federal program to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions as much as 66 percent by 2050, through a mandatory cap-and- trade program that provides companies with both the flexibility and certainty necessary for their continued viability and growth, while allowing the United States to lead the world in reducing damaging CO2 emissions for the generations to follow. It presents us with a watershed opportunity that our obligation to the future dictates we must seize now. I have not come lightly or lately to this debate, having cosponsored the Lieberman and McCain Climate Stewardship Act in the 108th and 109th Congresses, as well as the Global Warming Prevention Act as far back as 1988, when I was a Member of the House of Representatives. So I am left to wonder exactly how far down the road we would be now if we had acted then. That was 20 years ago, when one of the first pieces of climate change legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives and Senate, and here we are, in 2008, and yet we have not engaged this issue in a proactive way as a nation. Indeed, it has been my concern regarding global climate change that led me to accept an invitation in 2004 to be the cochair of the International Climate Change Taskforce, established by three respected ``think tanks''--the Institute for Public Policy Research in the United Kingdom, the Center for American Progress in the United States, and the Australian Institute. In working with my cochair, the Right Honorable Stephen Byers of the United Kingdom, our goal was to develop recommendations to blaze a trail for engaging all countries to forge an international consensus for action on climate change, including the United States, China, and India, which are not bound by the Kyoto Protocol, as we all know. Subsequently, our task force published a series of recommendations in January 2005, ``Meeting the Climate Challenge.'' Right at the top of our list, based on scientific consensus, was the necessity of preventing global temperatures from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or 2 degrees Celsius, over the course of this century. Beyond that 2-degree Celsius increase, the planet would arrive at a tipping point--a potential abrupt climate change that would have catastrophic effects on our ecosystems and our society. Already, we have witnessed the early warning signals, with the loss of Arctic Sea ice, for instance, that appears to be accelerating faster than scientific models only recently predicted. So what will it require to ensure we remain below the 2-degree Celsius tipping point? Well, currently, there exists a concentration of 380 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the world's atmosphere. An increase of 2 degrees Celsius correlates with a carbon dioxide concentration at 450 parts per million. Therefore, ensuring we do not exceed this concentration level is absolutely essential. An additional recommendation in our report calls for the G8 and other major economies, including from the developing world, to form a G8+ Climate Group, to involve major CO2-emitting countries in the climate change debate to ultimately develop a blueprint for moving forward in the carbon dioxide reduction program. As a result, the G8+5 Ministerial Level Group was established with the five major developing countries of China, India, Mexico, Brazil, and South Africa. President Bush has expanded upon this idea as the basis for his current Major Economies Meeting. The current G8 president, the Japanese Prime Minister, is employing the same guidance at this summer's G8 Summit. The point is, we have established we cannot risk an increase of more than a 2-degree Celsius increase in global temperatures. We further know that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming. There is no doubt this is an international problem requiring an international solution that must include action on behalf of the world's highest CO2 emitters if the effort is to be effective. Indeed, our task force specifically recommended that all developed countries introduce national mandatory cap-and-trade systems for carbon emissions, and construct these systems so they may be integrated into a single global market. And that, of course, is the linchpin of the bill before us: a mandatory domestic carbon cap-and-trade system for the United States that would achieve an actual 71 percent emissions reduction by 2050 for the 87 percent of the Nation's emitters that are capped under the bill, with a 66 percent reduction of total U.S. emissions by 2050. Now, I fully understand this bill represents a major new initiative for the United States. Therefore, I want to underscore that this is not, as some have asserted, a proposed solution to a problem that does not actually exist. We are not being compelled by guesswork or by unsubstantiated theory or by popular perception. We are being led by the facts. This past year, the scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--who shared in the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize--recently completed the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, which was 6 years in the making, and drew on the work of more than 2,500 scientists, 800 contributing authors, and 450 lead authors. As the ranking member of the Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, which oversees the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, I wish to congratulate the 120 NOAA scientists--NOAA scientists, I add--who were part of Working Group I, the Physical Science Basis of the International Panel on Climate Change, who shared in the Nobel Peace Prize. You can see all the names listed on this poster I have right here: 120 of our own scientists who reached the same conclusions. I ask unanimous consent that the names of these exceptional Federal scientists be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to claim the 30 minutes that was previously reserved for Senator Carper.

Ms. SNOWE. At the same time, the bill also allows us to respond to the complex issues of curbing greenhouse gas emissions while squarely confronting the argument that reducing carbon dioxide emissions will damage our economy. To the contrary, funds generated for the Federal Government from this auction of carbon emission allowances that are established under this legislation can be held, purchased, or sold in the program's first 18 years so that it can generate $1 trillion for clean technology, in worker training and retraining programs. Moreover, the bill provides funding to help industry meet the new emissions targets not just in the short term but all the way through 2050. So it has a long-term view and also accepts the long-term responsibilities and obligations that accompany this legislation. It also encourages low and zero carbon technologies that would change as the technologies are developed and come on line by placing a cost on greenhouse gas emissions. But it also offers the private sector the certainty they require with respect to the laws they must comply with well into the future before they invest in low and zero carbon technologies. That is important so that businesses not only understand the standards that will be established for the next 40 to 50 years; it also is logical for them in terms of making their decisions, their financial investments, and understanding what the long term will prescribe. In addition, this bill provides a range of funding incentives from manufacturers of high efficiency consumer products, manufacturers with zero and low carbon generation technology, advanced coal technology, fuel from cellulosic biofuels, electric vehicles, hybrid or plug-in electric cars, fuel-cell-powered cars, and advanced diesel--all areas of potential future economic growth that should put America well on its way toward developing the alternative technologies that are so essential to making us independent of fossil fuels. The substitute legislation to the Climate Security Act also adds $800 billion through 2050 for a tax relief package to help consumers with energy costs that will be developed by the Senate Finance Committee. It also will provide $250 billion in funding through 2050 from auction revenues for States to assist them in protecting against possible future effects of climate change such as storm surges and rising sea levels in coastal States. In addition, $566 billion will be provided through 2050 for States that take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that the funding can be used for specific State purposes such as the LIHEAP program and energy efficiency programs as well. I am also pleased that the Climate Security Act has included language from a bill that Senator Klobuchar and I introduced establishing a robust tracking system to inventory greenhouse gas emissions from significant sources across this country. This was a critical first step that the European Union did not have in place when instituting their emissions training system, and as a result of this lack of accurate data, they gave away too many allowances to industry that could be traded, and the carbon market bottomed out. The substitute further includes strong market oversight provisions from legislation that Senator Feinstein and I introduced to ensure price transparency and prevent market manipulation and other abusive practices when carbon emission allowances are sold in the carbon market created by this legislation. This bill is not perfect, but in fact it does go hand in hand with robust economic growth. The science of the matter tells us that business as usual certainly is not an option. Adhering to the status quo will continue current U.S. job losses to other countries that must be brought under the same umbrella for greenhouse gas reductions as we are attempting to do with this legislation through international mechanisms and partnerships. There should be no reason for good U.S. jobs to move overseas and be lost to those countries with no checks on their lax environmental laws. The only other alternative which some of my colleagues and economists have called for is a carbon tax. Yet those in favor of a carbon tax and not a free market cap-and-trade system cannot guarantee that a tax will achieve the necessary environmental protection. If a tax is set too low, companies will simply pay the tax without reducing emissions. If a tax is set too high, unnecessary costs will be imposed upon businesses and consumers, especially on low-income Americans. A flexible but mandatory cap and trade allows market forces to find the lowest cost solutions for the desired level of environmental protection. Additionally, according to the Government's own Energy Information Agency, under this legislation the U.S. gross domestic product will continue to grow. In 2003, the EIA finds that the GDP would be just 3 percent lower than under a ``business as usual'' scenario. At the same time, the largest proportion of revenues--hundreds of billions of dollars that this legislation will generate through the transaction of carbon credits--will be designated to develop and deploy technologies to transform existing energy sectors and to create entirely new green industries such as solar, wind, renewable industries, cellulosic biofuels, hybrid, plug-in cars, as I mentioned previously, as well as high-paying jobs and to wean us off carbon dioxide-polluting fossil fuels. As we look to the future, we must also be reminded that reducing our carbon emissions means reducing our use of oil. When we spend more than $500 billion purchasing imported oil, helping to finance the radical ambitions of radical leaders, do we really want to say we are unable to summon the innovative can-do spirit on which this country was built to break our dependence on fossil fuel and foreign oil? This legislation is a monumental step forward in severing that bond and advancing our energy security and our national security, and we must not wait a moment longer. Mr. President, I would prefer that the Substitute bill contain measures to update the means by which the U.S. prioritizes its scientific research . . . reports this research to stakeholders and Congress to assist in decisionmaking . . . and transmits this information to planners who must establish mitigation and adaptation plans at local, state, and regional levels. The Global Change Research Improvement Act I have introduced with Senator Kerry that has already passed out of the Commerce Committee addresses this issue and should be considered in the context of this bill. Moreover, Senator Kerry and I have an amendment requiring the National Academy of Sciences to advise Congress to act if future scientific research demonstrates that changes must be considered to meet percentage emissions reductions goals. Ultimately, however, there should be no misunderstanding-- thissubstitute bill represents the defining opportunity of this 110th Congress for reversing the unmitigated damage that climate change continues to cause, and to assist every State in its ability to adapt. And if the UnitedStates is to meet its commitments made under the Bali Roadmap to reach an international agreement among all countries for greenhouse gas emissions reductions for common but differentiated obligations by December of 2009, we should also say ``yes'' to the amendment Senator Biden will offer to set us on the right course for this process. This week and next, over 2,000 U.N. delegates from around the world are meeting in Bonn, Germany, to take the next steps forward for the Bali Roadmap--and what we do right here and right now is enormously critical in their planning for moving forward. Let us not allow this opportunity to slip out of our grasp--the world is watching and waiting to see what the world's richest country--and its biggest emitter--has the fortitude to do. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. The IPCC's key findings were agreed to unanimously by more than 130 governments, including those of the United States, China, India, and the European Union, and now are forming the basis for international policy. For the first time since its first assessment in 1990--and I repeat, 1990--the IPCC concluded that there is at least a 90-percent chance that manmade activities, through the burning of fossil fuels, are the major cause of global warming. Now, if we were told in any sphere that we had at least a 90-percent chance of diverting a disaster through changes we ourselves could make, would we not take action? Is the IPCC finding not a compelling reason to assume reasonable steps when climate change is occurring, even beyond the projections that were outlined just decades ago? So here on these charts we have some illustrations of just what the science is referring to: Arctic sea ice from NASA's images taken in 1979, 2005, and again in 2007 displaying the increase in the melting of the polar ice in September when the sea ice is usually at a minimum each year. So you can see the differences. In 1979, when we can see the sea ice, we can see the masses of the sea ice, and then, of course, you look progressively and see what has happened in 2005 and 2007 and you see the demonstrative difference and discrepancies of what is happening with the melting process just since 1979. When you look at the amount of sea ice noted in September, it looked like this massive amount in 1979; and here we are progressively to 2007: Obviously, we have a serious problem that the global community needs to recognize and we need to address. That is why we cannot forfeit our leadership in this process. It is quite obvious that more of the sea ice has melted than ever before. When you look at the 2007 picture, it obviously indicates how alarmingly the sea ice has diminished, even opening the Northwest Passage. This is some of what the U.S. Department of the Interior looked at when listing the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, as its habitat is literally melting away. The May 29 U.S. Climate Change Science Program called ``The Scientific Assessment of the Effects of Global Change in the United States'' stated that the 2007 Arctic sea ices were 23 percent below the previous all-time minimum observed in 2005. I will repeat that because that is significant. By our own report that was issued just last week saying that Arctic sea ices were 23 percent below the previous all-time minimum observed in 2005, in just 2 years we see a decline of more than 23 percent. Some models suggest that the Arctic Ocean is likely to be free of summer ice as soon as 2040. Closer to home, the report stated that the energy sector will be subject to the effects of climate change through direct impacts from increased intensity of extreme weather events. Increasingly, global temperatures, rising sea levels, and changing weather patterns will pose significant challenges to the Nation's roads, airports, railways, transit systems, and ports. What we are talking about is our energy and transportation network that is vital not only to the entire U.S. economy but to our quality of life. The new facts just keep on coming. Just last month a study was published in the Journal of Science called ``Expanding Oxygen Minimum Zones in the Tropical Ocean,'' warning that marine zones where fish and other sea life can suffocate from lack of oxygen are spreading across the world's tropical oceans. Scientists warn that if global temperatures keep rising, there could be dramatic consequences for marine life and for humans and communities that depend on the sea for a living. So let's move beyond the question of should we act, as many of our own States have chosen to do. Maine, California, Hawaii, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington have all had mandatory climate laws on the books that mandate limits on greenhouse gas emissions. At least 23 States have joined one of the three regional partnerships that will require greenhouse gas and just carbon dioxide emission reductions. Set to take effect in 2009, the Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, known as RGGI, is a partnership of 10 Northeast and Mid- Atlantic States, including my own State of Maine, that creates a cap- and-trade system to limit carbon dioxide emissions from powerplants. Yet while the States have moved out on the vanguard as their citizens have demanded, Congress has delayed, hiding behind the red herring of arguments of scientific uncertainty rather than considering the truth that peer-reviewed science has revealed. The legislation before us has been crafted to respect the courageous initiative of these States while recognizing that a patchwork of State- to-State regulation is a serious impediment for U.S. businesses and industry. It does not preempt existing State policy or State authority to limit or to avoid greenhouse gas emissions but, rather, authorizes transition funds to assist the Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative partners, for instance, in meshing with the new Federal program if they so choose. We have worked to make additional improvements to the bill that was passed out of the Senate Environment Committee to garner the breadth of support necessary to get this bill passed. But I think it is illustrative of the States' leadership that 23 States have already been willing to take action, to be progressive, to understand the dimensions of this problem, and that they are willing to accept the challenges and also the costs of being able to move forward independently and separately because the Federal Government has failed to take action; that the Congress has failed to take action for so long that 23 States across this country have been prepared to do it. So this legislation recognizes that. That is why it is important to give the certainty of a Federal standard so that businesses can operate knowing what regulations will be in play. In fact, businesses have joined together with environmental organizations to reach an agreement, understanding that it is in the national interest to work in concert and to understand as they prepare to make the investments for 40 and 50 years beyond. That is the point of having a national standard. That the States have been prepared to assume that leadership irrespective of the failure of the Congress to address it certainly illustrates their willingness and their courage to move forward on this critical issue. For those who have expressed concerns about the impact to the Federal budget, this new substitute is now deficit neutral, according to a June 2 CBO report. I ask unanimous consent to have this CBO report printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to commend my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, in introducing legislation critical to rectifying not only a serious impediment to the movement of international commerce, but more importantly, will improve safety on our secondary roads and sustain a commercial trucking industry suffering from an astonishing rise in diesel prices. There are some of our colleagues who believe that expanding upon the current Federal truck weight limitation of 80,000 pounds is dangerous, compromising the safety of passenger vehicles driver who may be faced with a truck weighing as much as 143,000 pounds, the limit on Interstates in Massachusetts and New York. I certainly concur that safety of such drivers is very important, and I have the record to back that up. Yet, in some areas the imposition of this outdated patchwork of weight limits puts the safety of pedestrians and the motor carrier operators themselves at risk. Take the situation we face in Maine, where we currently have a limited exemption along the southern portion of the Maine turnpike. Many trucks traveling to or from the Canadian border or into upstate Maine are not able to travel on our Interstates as a result of the 80,000 pound weight limit. This forces many of them onto secondary roads, many of which are two-lane roads running through small towns and villages in Maine. Tanker trucks carrying fuel teeter past elementary schools, libraries, and weaving through traffic to reach locations like our Air National Guard station. Not only is that an inefficient method of bringing necessary fuel to Guardsmen that provide our national security, but imagine if you will one of those tanker trucks rupturing on Main Street, potentially causing serious damage to property, causing traffic chaos, and most importantly, killing or injuring drivers and pedestrians. This is not a far-fetched scenario. In fact, two pedestrians were killed last year in Maine as a result of overweight trucks on local roadways, one tragic instance occurring within sight of the nearby Interstate. So I ask you, is the so-called safety argument truly a legitimate reason for opposition as my constituents and many others across small American communities are taking their lives in their hands when merely crossing Main Street? As laid out in this legislation, it is obvious Senator Collins has a clear understanding of this safety issue, crafting a strategy that quantifies any potential risks to safety, and places the gathering of that data in the hands of the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. It is my expectation that, like earlier studies that have indicated traffic fatalities involving trucks weighing 100,000 pounds are ten times greater on secondary roads than on exempted Interstates, the data collected by the GAO will point the way to a permanent solution that will enable America to harmonize the myriad weight limits across our Nation's highways. This legislation also exhibits a true sensitivity to one of the greatest problems facing the domestic trucking industry, particularly our smaller operators: the cost of fuel. This is a problem that cannot be ignored. The price of diesel nationally as I make this statement is four dollars and 49 cents. One year ago today, it was two dollars and 82 cents! We must act. As a result of this legislation, motor carriers will be able to expand their ability to carry loads when the price of diesel surpasses three dollars and fifty cents per gallon. While this will only affect some states that face a federal interstate system without a weight exemption, it will greatly facilitate the movement of goods across this country. Given that volume of goods projected to enter this country is forecast to increase by over 100 percent, we need a forward-thinking, intermodal plan in place. Having a greater synergy in terms of our weight limits will not only assist our Nation's struggling trucking industry, but will simplify the flow of goods moving across our country and augment our Nation's economy. I would like to thank Senator Collins for her steadfast efforts and innovative thinking on this legislation as, side-by-side, we will continue to seek a resolution to this issue, which, to my eyes, is a simple matter of fairness.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Nevada, Majority Leader Reid. I originally authored this legislation in 1997, and I stand today to resolve the issue of inequity in prescription drug coverage and to make certain that all American women have access to contraception methods. Without question, we have made remarkable progress in the number of employer sponsored health plans covering contraception. According to a study released in 2004, between 1993 and 2002, contraceptive coverage in employer-purchased plans covering the full range of reversible contraceptive methods tripled from 28 percent to 86 percent. Conversely, the proportion of employer plans covering no method at all dropped dramatically, from 28 percent to 2 percent. Yet despite these gains, women of reproductive age currently spend 68 percent more in out-of-pocket health care costs than men. Not surprisingly, this discrepancy is due in large part to reproductive health-related costs. Women whose health plans do not cover the full range of reversible contraceptive methods often face high out-of-pocket costs. Yet covering prescription contraceptives results in cost-savings not only for women, but for society as a whole. There are three million unintended pregnancies every year in the United States, and almost half of these pregnancies result from women who do not use contraceptives. Equal treatment of prescription contraceptives will reduce costs to Americans by preventing these unintended pregnancies, which can range anywhere from $5,000 to almost $9,000 in medical costs. The Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act will eliminate the disparate treatment of prescription contraception coverage. Simply put, if an employer provides insurance coverage for all other prescription drugs, they must also provide coverage for FDA approved prescription contraceptives. Our bill will ensure that women have comprehensive reproductive health coverage, and lower costs to society by preventing unintended pregnancies and thus reducing the need for abortion. I urge my colleagues to join with me in fixing the inequity in prescription contraception coverage to make certain that all American women have access to this most basic health need.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Nevada, Majority Leader Reid. I originally authored this legislation in 1997, and I stand today to resolve the issue of inequity in prescription drug coverage and to make certain that all American women have access to contraception methods. Without question, we have made remarkable progress in the number of employer sponsored health plans covering contraception. According to a study released in 2004, between 1993 and 2002, contraceptive coverage in employer-purchased plans covering the full range of reversible contraceptive methods tripled from 28 percent to 86 percent. Conversely, the proportion of employer plans covering no method at all dropped dramatically, from 28 percent to 2 percent. Yet despite these gains, women of reproductive age currently spend 68 percent more in out-of-pocket health care costs than men. Not surprisingly, this discrepancy is due in large part to reproductive health-related costs. Women whose health plans do not cover the full range of reversible contraceptive methods often face high out-of-pocket costs. Yet covering prescription contraceptives results in cost-savings not only for women, but for society as a whole. There are three million unintended pregnancies every year in the United States, and almost half of these pregnancies result from women who do not use contraceptives. Equal treatment of prescription contraceptives will reduce costs to Americans by preventing these unintended pregnancies, which can range anywhere from $5,000 to almost $9,000 in medical costs. The Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act will eliminate the disparate treatment of prescription contraception coverage. Simply put, if an employer provides insurance coverage for all other prescription drugs, they must also provide coverage for FDA approved prescription contraceptives. Our bill will ensure that women have comprehensive reproductive health coverage, and lower costs to society by preventing unintended pregnancies and thus reducing the need for abortion. I urge my colleagues to join with me in fixing the inequity in prescription contraception coverage to make certain that all American women have access to this most basic health need.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to commend my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, in introducing legislation critical to rectifying not only a serious impediment to the movement of international commerce, but more importantly, will improve safety on our secondary roads and sustain a commercial trucking industry suffering from an astonishing rise in diesel prices. There are some of our colleagues who believe that expanding upon the current Federal truck weight limitation of 80,000 pounds is dangerous, compromising the safety of passenger vehicles driver who may be faced with a truck weighing as much as 143,000 pounds, the limit on Interstates in Massachusetts and New York. I certainly concur that safety of such drivers is very important, and I have the record to back that up. Yet, in some areas the imposition of this outdated patchwork of weight limits puts the safety of pedestrians and the motor carrier operators themselves at risk. Take the situation we face in Maine, where we currently have a limited exemption along the southern portion of the Maine turnpike. Many trucks traveling to or from the Canadian border or into upstate Maine are not able to travel on our Interstates as a result of the 80,000 pound weight limit. This forces many of them onto secondary roads, many of which are two-lane roads running through small towns and villages in Maine. Tanker trucks carrying fuel teeter past elementary schools, libraries, and weaving through traffic to reach locations like our Air National Guard station. Not only is that an inefficient method of bringing necessary fuel to Guardsmen that provide our national security, but imagine if you will one of those tanker trucks rupturing on Main Street, potentially causing serious damage to property, causing traffic chaos, and most importantly, killing or injuring drivers and pedestrians. This is not a far-fetched scenario. In fact, two pedestrians were killed last year in Maine as a result of overweight trucks on local roadways, one tragic instance occurring within sight of the nearby Interstate. So I ask you, is the so-called safety argument truly a legitimate reason for opposition as my constituents and many others across small American communities are taking their lives in their hands when merely crossing Main Street? As laid out in this legislation, it is obvious Senator Collins has a clear understanding of this safety issue, crafting a strategy that quantifies any potential risks to safety, and places the gathering of that data in the hands of the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. It is my expectation that, like earlier studies that have indicated traffic fatalities involving trucks weighing 100,000 pounds are ten times greater on secondary roads than on exempted Interstates, the data collected by the GAO will point the way to a permanent solution that will enable America to harmonize the myriad weight limits across our Nation's highways. This legislation also exhibits a true sensitivity to one of the greatest problems facing the domestic trucking industry, particularly our smaller operators: the cost of fuel. This is a problem that cannot be ignored. The price of diesel nationally as I make this statement is four dollars and 49 cents. One year ago today, it was two dollars and 82 cents! We must act. As a result of this legislation, motor carriers will be able to expand their ability to carry loads when the price of diesel surpasses three dollars and fifty cents per gallon. While this will only affect some states that face a federal interstate system without a weight exemption, it will greatly facilitate the movement of goods across this country. Given that volume of goods projected to enter this country is forecast to increase by over 100 percent, we need a forward-thinking, intermodal plan in place. Having a greater synergy in terms of our weight limits will not only assist our Nation's struggling trucking industry, but will simplify the flow of goods moving across our country and augment our Nation's economy. I would like to thank Senator Collins for her steadfast efforts and innovative thinking on this legislation as, side-by-side, we will continue to seek a resolution to this issue, which, to my eyes, is a simple matter of fairness.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I congratulate the Baker Company, a cutting-edge small company from my home State of Maine that has earned tremendous recognition as the Maine International Trade Center's 2008 Exporter of the Year. The award will be presented to the company at the Maine International Trade Day dinner this Thursday, May 22. The company's leadership on a host of safety issues--and the loyal customer base it has earned around the world, including in Europe, Asia, and Africa--make the Baker Company most deserving of this award. Founded in 1949, the Baker Company, headquartered in Sanford, has consistently been a leader in designing and manufacturing biological safety cabinets, fume hoods, and clean benches. These products make laboratories worldwide safer, more efficient, and better equipped to focus on essential scientific research. From its beginnings, the Baker Company has always been at the forefront of crafting new and unique products to lead the industry. In 1951, the company unveiled the very first clean air cabinet. The firm's solid commitment to craftsmanship and its stellar reputation gained the Baker Company significant acknowledgement over the years. In 1979, Lockheed Aircraft Biosystems chose the company to build a biological safety cabinet for a NASA shuttle flight. Since that time, the firm has only increased its ingenuity and has worked with enterprises worldwide to make improvements to their technological safety. To best promote its role at the vanguard of laboratory safety, the Baker Company founded the Eagleson Institute in 1989. Dedicated to the memory of the firm's longtime president, John M. Eagleson, the nonprofit institute promotes the practice of lab safety through a variety of mediums, including seminars, lectures, and interactive CD- ROMs. The seminars comprise a vast array of topics, from fundamentals of laboratory safety to safety cabinet technology. The seminars are delivered through a variety of instructional techniques, including role playing, problem solving, and demonstrations. While the firm hosts frequent sessions at its Sanford headquarters, it occasionally offers them at various locations across the globe. The Eagleson Institute is the Baker Company's distinctive way of making a difference in the industry and of sharing the trade's most critical asset--safety--with others. The Maine International Trade Center, which is presenting the Maine Exporter of the Year Award to the Baker Company, is Maine's small business link to the world. The center is a public-private partnership between the State of Maine and the businesses that play such a crucial role in expanding the State's economy. The center's goal is to increase international trade in Maine, and, in particular, to help Maine businesses export goods and services. Clearly, it sees in the Baker Company the entrepreneurial spirit and innovation that make Maine's small businesses among the best in the world. Throughout the decades, the Baker Company's name has been synonymous with unmatched quality and exceptional safety. From its early days, the firm has possessed a commitment to the pharmaceutical, life science, and biotechnology sectors and a determination to create a safer working environment for people in those industries. I congratulate everyone at the Baker Company for their impressive accomplishment in garnering the Maine International Trade Center's 2008 Exporter of the Year Award and wish them lasting success both here and abroad.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the resolution of disapproval that repeals the recent Federal Communications Commission's media ownership rulemaking. As an original cosponsor of this measure, I applaud Senator Dorgan for once again taking the lead in introducing critical legislation to overturn a misguided attempt by the commission to relax crucial media ownership rules--a move that will only lead to further consolidation within the industry that will ultimately harm consumers. As my colleagues are well aware, consolidation in the media market has led to fewer locally owned stations, and less local programming and content. Indeed, it speaks volumes that the number of independent radio owners has plunged in the past 11 years by 39 percent. Just in 1996 and 1997 alone, more than 4,400 radio stations were sold following the first round of consolidation following passage of The Telecommunications Act of 1996. Between 1995 and 2003, ownership of the top 10 largest television stations increased from 104 owners to 299 owners. At the same time, we know that locally owned stations aired more local news and programming than non-locally owned stations--and that is not just me talking. That is according to the FCC's own studies, which also found that smaller station groups overall tended to produce higher quality newscasts compared to stations owned by larger companies. So there should be no mistake--fewer independent, local stations mean less local content and programming. Minority and women-ownership of media outlets are also at perilously low levels--currently only 6 percent of full-power commercial broadcast radio stations are owned by women and 7.7 percent are owned by minorities. Ownership of broadcast television is even lower--5 percent for women and only 3.3 percent for minorities. Instead of being a catalyst promoting localism and ownership diversity, the FCC's action will actually hasten the decline in these crucial areas. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation last fall held a hearing to consider these very issues, and the actions required for improvement. During that hearing, I and several of my colleagues voiced strong concern about Chairman Martin's intent to ease current media ownership rules, particularly because of the potential impact on localism and diversity in broadcasting. That is why I, along with many committee members, joined Senators Dorgan and Lott in introducing The Media Ownership Act of 2007, which was reported out of the committee favorably in December. This constitutes yet another step in the mounting opposition to the loosening of these crucial rules. We had hoped that Chairman Martin would heed not only our urgings, but the concerns expressed by the American public, and complete the 4-year-old rulemaking on localism. However, on November 13, less than a week after that hearing, the Chairman issued a new proposal to lift the 32-year-old newspaper- broadcast cross-ownership ban in the top 20 media markets. Worse still, the FCC allowed only 28 days for the public to comment on the proposal when it has historically provided 60 to 90 days on pivotal matters such as this. Clearly, the FCC's actions demonstrate a litany of highly-misguided priorities that neglect to consider the full impact of the FCC's rule change on the American people. Therefore, this resolution of disapproval is necessary to rescind this haphazard approach. I must say it feels a little like deja vu all over again, when nearly 5 years ago the FCC attempted a similar effort to relax another set of media ownership rules. And fittingly, the opposition to the commission's attempt then mirrors the opposition that is coalescing now. And the action we are considering now is reminiscent of the joint resolution passed by the U.S. Senate in September 2003, which I cosponsored, condemning the Commission's efforts to rewrite those rules. So that naturally begs the question--why would the commission continue to attempt to weaken media ownership rules when the American public has vociferously opposed these efforts time and again? When the U.S. Congress in 2004 enacted a statute prohibiting the FCC from raising national ownership limits above 39 percent? When the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected as arbitrary and capricious this attempt at revising the rules after finding the FCC had no factual basis for the limits it set? We deserve an answer. Many proponents for relaxing media ownership rules have pointed to the precipitous decline of the newspaper industry as the reason change is mandatory. They have even cited a recent report by the Newspaper Association of America, NAA, which found print ad revenue for the industry fell by 9.4 percent last year--the biggest decline since it started keeping records in 1950. However, what these proponents are neglecting to mention is that the NAA also found that online newspaper advertising revenue increased 19 percent last year. Furthermore the NAA president and CEO John Sturm stated ``newspaper publishers are continuing to drive strong revenue growth from their increasingly robust Web platforms.'' This hardly sounds like an industry in irreversible peril if this longstanding rule remains in place. Opponents of this resolution will also argue that the FCC crafted a very narrow revision, lifting the cross-ownership ban for only the top 20 media markets, so this resolution is unnecessary. However, the FCC also adopted ``four factors'' and two broad ``special circumstances'' that would allow this ban to be lifted for a station in any media market. These scenarios and factors include evaluating financial condition, possible increased local news, as well as existing market media concentration, and news independency. Given the vagueness and loopholes that exist with the rulemaking, the ``high hurdle'' that the Commission has supposedly set for proposed combinations could be easily cleared by using only a stepladder. Preventing further media consolidation has been a bipartisan effort, and the resolution before us today is no different. We must not allow the indispensable role the media plays in promoting diversity and localism to be further marginalized and miniaturized by unchecked consolidation within the industry. We owe it to the American people to restore confidence in the FCC's commitment not only to uphold the public interest but to advance it and strengthen it. That is why it is undeniably incumbent upon the commission members to revisit these rules and establish a set of standards that will effectively promote localism and minority and women-ownership, not more media consolidation. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, over the past week, the Jewish people and their friends around the world have celebrated the historic and proud occasion of the 60th anniversary of the founding of the modern State of Israel. I rise to join my colleagues in again congratulating and honoring the Israeli people in reaching this monumental milestone, and to recognize the enduring and unwavering relationship between our two countries. During my tenure in public service, it has truly been an honor to consistently stand with Israel. Throughout my 29 years in Congress-- begun the same year, 1979, when I attended the signing of the Israeli- Egyptian peace treaty at the White House--I have fought for Israel's absolute right to exist in peace, and I have understood Israel's enduring value as a strategic ally to America. And for twice as long as I have been privileged to help enhance this relationship in Congress, Israel has proven itself time and again not only to be a true ally of the United States in terms of our shared security interests, but also in terms of upholding democratic ideals. In its first 60 years, the modern State of Israel has proven itself to be a bastion of democracy in a region rife with authoritarianism. Israel is the only country in the Middle East whose citizens enjoy the right to vote, speak, and pray freely. As notable as it is that Israel has successfully brought these critical elements of western-style democracy to the region, it is even more remarkable that it has been able to guarantee these freedoms while under constant threat from terrorists and countries along its borders. In this way, Israel has proven itself to be a true democracy--a paragon of political openness and liberty. As the first woman to serve in both houses of a State legislature and both Houses of the U.S. Congress, I regard Israel's inclusion and empowerment of women in politics as an especially inspiring feature of its democratic triumph. Highlighted by the election of Golda Meir as Prime Minister in 1969, Israeli women played as central a role in the founding and flourishing of the State of Israel as their male counterparts. Meir's legacy is proudly continued today by countless Israeli women in top government positions in Israel, including Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Speaker of the Knesset Dalia Itzik, and Justice Dorit Beinish, who serves as the President, or Chief Justice, of the Supreme Court. Again, Israel's proud record of outstanding participation by women in the governance of their country stands in stark contrast to the disenfranchising of women from public life elsewhere in the Middle East. And while many of its neighbors suffer from a high illiteracy rate among women, Israel has achieved educational parity for men and women, with 57 percent of all academic degrees in the country being earned by women. By advancing the causes of political inclusiveness and freedom, the State of Israel has done more than provide a vibrant homeland for the Jewish people, it has emerged a beacon of modernity and hope in an ancient and still troubled region. And there should be no doubt that the people and Government of United States continue to stand alongside Israel as it seeks peace even as it endures daily rocket attacks against its citizens and vile, hate-filled rhetoric from radical and dangerous strongmen who speak of its destruction. In supporting Israel against these threats, we support the dignity of all peoples against those who would prefer the oppressions of humanity's past to the promise of its future. And so, on the occasion of its 60th anniversary, I rise not only to commend the State of Israel and its people, but also to thank them, for their friendship, for their bravery, and for their defense of that which is righteous in the world.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution on the oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, ICANN. This resolution is the result of the National Telecommunications & Information Administration, NTIA, recently concluding the mid-term review of its Joint Project Agreement, JPA, with ICANN, which is a contract between them for the purpose of transitioning the Internet domain name and addressing system, or Domain Name System, DNS, to a private sector, multi-stakeholder model of leadership. The JPA required NTIA to conduct this mid-term review to assess the transition and ICANN's progress towards becoming a more stable organization with greater transparency and accountability in its procedures and decision-making. While ICANN has made notable progress in meeting the responsibilities outlined in the JPA, additional improvement and enhancement in specific areas can and should be made. As a result, it is necessary for Congress to voice the importance of continued U.S. oversight of ICANN. This oversight has provided a strong foundation for ICANN's development and is critical for greater progress in areas such as accountability, transparency, and contract compliance. At the same time, it is imperative that the U.S. as well as other governments maintain a ``hands off'' approach to ICANN so the private sector can continue to lead in the management and coordination of the DNS. While ICANN, for the mid-term review, detailed the progress it has made in meeting its commitments under the JPA, it is somewhat premature for the organization to suggest the JPA is ``no longer necessary'' and it should become independent of U.S. oversight. In addition, numerous organizations submitted comments to NTIA expressing serious concerns about risks that might develop if the JPA and U.S. oversight of ICANN were terminated. In particular, uncertainty could arise with resolving legal or contract disputes if ICANN relocated to an unknown legal jurisdiction. Also, ICANN could be unduly influenced by a country or group of countries that do not embrace innovation or freedom of expression--basically usurping the private sector's leadership, which would deter critical investment and jeopardize the openness of the Internet. This resolution provides the required assurance to these concerned organizations and to all businesses around the world in regard to maintaining the security, integrity, and stability of the DNS through continued oversight of ICANN's responsibilities. Specifically, this resolution details key points about the formation of the Internet and domain names, ICANN's efforts, concerns about the growth of domain name abuses, and the United States' transitioning of the DNS to the international community. The resolution then calls for additional improvement to be made by ICANN in areas of transparency, accountability, and security for improved stability of the DNS, as well as more effective contract compliance to ensure the private sector's ongoing success with developing the Internet and industry self- regulation. Additionally, the resolution voices how vital a tool WHOIS databases are for consumers, businesses, and law enforcement--these publicly accessible databases provide contact information and data on registered domain names, which can assist in establishing trust, resolving disputes, and pursuing online crimes. The resolution also calls for increased participation in ICANN processes by international private sector organizations, and states that all governments should apply a ``hands off'' approach to ICANN so the private sector's leadership with the DNS can continue unabated. The resolution concludes by stating the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, IANA, functions contract should physically remain in the U.S. and that NTIA should maintain oversight of this contract. IANA is the entity responsible for coordinating the Internet's number resources, domain names, and protocol parameters--it is operated solely by ICANN. As well, the resolution states ICANN should continue to manage the operation of the DNS and remain responsive to all Internet stakeholders. Without question, the Internet's vast impact on the world and this Nation is profoundly indelible and undeniable--there are currently more than 1.3 billion Internet users and more than 165 million websites worldwide. And the Internet is poised to have another remarkable chapter written about its future. The private sector and ICANN have played an essential role in the development of the Internet and they will continue to do so. The private sector has and continues to make significant investments in the Internet infrastructure as well as with content and applications. Additionally, ICANN may introduce hundreds of new Top Level Domains, TLDs, over the next several years--TLDs are basically domain name suffixes such as .com, .net, .edu, .us, and .mobi that signify a particular class of organizations or country. These possible new TLDs coupled with the migration from Internet Protocol version 4 to version 6, IPv6, which supplies an exponentially larger address space, provides a large expanse for the Internet to grow and for the innovation that will follow. While the potential of the Internet and the benefits it will provide are infinite, if the stability, integrity, and security of the DNS are compromised in any way, it could be detrimental to the future of the Internet and all its users. That is why it is paramount the U.S. continue to have a watchful eye with ICANN to ensure that those critical areas are not hampered. Therefore, I hope my colleagues will join Senators Thune, Hutchison, Bill Nelson, Coleman, Stevens, Smith, and me in supporting the critical resolution.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate the remarkable achievements of a small Maine company that is doing business in an incredibly forward-thinking way. Safe Handling, Inc., of Auburn, is a cutting-edge transporter of industrial products, and both the firm and its president, Ford Reiche, have earned significant recognition, culminating in Mr. Reiche being named the U.S. Small Business Administration's 2008 Maine Small Business Person of the Year. Founded in 1989, Safe Handling offers businesses the convenience of both bulk product transportation and logistics, as well as toll processing, to enable them to more efficiently move their goods. Significantly, Safe Handling is responsible for both sensitive and hazardous materials. To safely handle these products, the firm runs the largest rail-to-truck transloading facilities in both New England and western Pennsylvania, where it has an additional transload yard and warehouse. Safe Handling presently manages roughly a half million tons of products every year which translates to nearly 4,000 railcars and 12,000 truckloads of raw materials annually. It also operates the only ethanol terminal in Maine. Transporting such perilous materials requires Safe Handling to be mindful of many concerns, and the company has risen to the top as a leader in environmental safety by exceeding Federal and State requirements on a regular basis. Most recently, the company became the first Maine-owned business to earn both the ISO14001 and Responsible Care certifications, which address a host of health, safety, environmental, and security concerns. Of all its initiatives, Safe Handling has most visibly led the way in reducing transportation emissions. The company ships dry products that it transfers into liquids, uses tri-axle trucks, provides long-haul rail services, and utilizes biodiesel fuel, all of which reduce discharge. Not surprisingly, the firm placed first in the Governor's Carbon Challenge, by voluntarily reducing its carbon emissions by 75 percent. Safe Handling has additionally instituted an Employee Green Idea Reward Program that gives $100 to each employee who saves the company money through an environmentally friendly idea. Because of its innovative practices and proven track record, Safe Handling has garnered three prestigious awards this year alone. In March, Mainebiz magazine declared Ford Reiche its Executive of the Year in its large business category. Less than a month later, the Maine International Trade Center recognized Safe Handling as its Maine Innovative Company of the Year Award for the company's energy saving methods and customer savings. Additionally, the U.S. Small Business Administration presented Mr. Reiche with its prestigious 2008 Maine Small Business Person of the Year for his ``business expertise, commitment, creativity and community involvement.'' Mr. Reiche's dedication and knowledge inspire the nearly 100 employees of Safe Handling, and the company is a better place for his profound leadership skills. Safe Handling is truly a company of which all Mainers can be proud. Consistently seeking greater energy efficiency while never sacrificing its loyalty to its customers, Safe Handling promises to make the Lewiston-Auburn area--and Maine--a better place in every way. I am particularly impressed with the passion and enthusiasm of Mr. Reiche, who I was fortunate enough to meet with just a few weeks ago. His desire to create jobs and opportunities in Central Maine truly shined through during our time together. I congratulate Ford Reiche and everyone at Safe Handling for their amazing accolades and pioneering enterprises, and wish them more of the success that they have already demonstrated.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I celebrate the outstanding achievements of two brothers from Portland, ME, who recently won the U.S. Small Business Administration's Young Entrepreneurs of the Year Award on the local, regional, and national levels. John and Brendan Ready are the founders and owners of Ready Seafood and Catch a Piece of Maine, two highly successful firms that have transformed the Maine lobster market. I had the pleasure of meeting with the brothers just 2 weeks ago, and they are a true reflection of the dedication and zeal of Maine's legendary lobstermen. The Ready brothers grew up in Cape Elizabeth, on Maine's picturesque coast, where they quickly grew fond of the sea. Venturing out with their uncle to catch lobsters, the pair learned the intricacies of the trade before their teenage years, and they continued to fish throughout high school. Attentive to their lifelong passion for lobstering, the brothers returned from college during summer breaks and even weekends to lobster. Additionally, John spent an extra year at Boston University to participate as a lobsterman in a co-op program. When they arrived back in Maine following college--John from Boston University and Brendan from Stonehill College--the duo immediately sought to enter the Maine seafood market. In 2004, they opened Ready Seafood, a thriving wholesaler of fresh lobster and other seafood to domestic clients, as well as customers as far away as Italy, China, and Japan. To promote Maine's rich history of lobstering, the firm provides both internships and unique educational opportunities to high school and college students in the region, including an inside look at how Portland's waterfront works. The brothers have visibly transformed the company into a $10 million business in just 4 short years. In October 2007, seeking to create a one of its kind company in the crowded seafood industry, the Ready brothers launched Catch a Piece of Maine, a remarkable and innovative company that allows individuals and corporate clients alike to purchase lobsters caught especially for them. The buyers pay an annual fee, which entitles them to have their own personal lobsterman set their traps and collect their lobsters. The company began with 400 traps for 2008, all of which were in place by last Thursday, and each is guaranteed to garner a minimum of 40 lobsters throughout the remainder of the year. The lobsters are shipped at intervals scheduled by the client, and each shipment includes one pound of mussels and clams, a Maine dessert, and the traditional bibs and utensils essential to enjoying Maine's famed crustacean. The program includes some additional distinctive features. Customers keep in touch with their personal lobstermen through the Internet by logging onto an individualized and regularly updated summary, including how many lobsters have been caught and when the traps were checked. Moreover, clients can have their lobsters shipped anywhere in the continental United States, making a great holiday gift, corporate thank you, or special anniversary dinner. Ever mindful of the future of Maine's gorgeous coast and those who rely on it, the Ready brothers send 10 percent of their profits to the Gulf of Maine Research Institute for marine ecosystem education programs for schoolchildren throughout the State. The fundamentally forthright business philosophy of the Ready brothers is truly impressive. They represent the next generation of Maine lobstermen, and as such they continue and share the heritage of the State's prized tradition. Through both Ready Seafood and Catch a Piece of Maine, the brothers have already taken great steps to doing just that. I commend both Brendan and John for their originality and dedication--and for garnering the U.S. Small Business Administration's Young Entrepreneurs of the Year Award--and wish them well in their extremely bright futures.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the immeasurable contributions of a small Maine company both to its industry and community. Trans-Tech Industries is an innovative manufacturer of aluminum tanks and trailers which are used to transport fuel and petroleum products. In addition to leading its field, Trans- Tech has given back to the city of Brewer, ME, in countless ways. Trans-Tech is a shining model for companies seeking to compete in the demanding global marketplace. Founded in 1984, the company set out with a simple goal: strengthen existing models of aluminum tanks to become safer and more convenient for the operator. Trans-Tech originally began operations in a converted storage unit in the seaside town of Southwest Harbor. During its early years, Trans-Tech manufactured tanks and trailers as well as aluminum boats. But company president Ken Peters found it difficult to produce the number of tanks for which he had hoped, and he continually increased efforts to make more tanks. In 1999, Trans-Tech finally moved to a location in Brewer's East-West Industrial Park that better suited the company's needs. Since relocating to Brewer, Trans-Tech's tank production has soared. The company presently makes between 400 and 500 tanks each year, as opposed to the less than 100 it previously produced, and revenues have increased threefold. Moreover, the company continues to improve and expand. Besides its state-of-the-art 43,000 square foot production facility, Trans-Tech added an adjacent 7,200 square foot building in 2004, allowing it to focus on the manufacturing of specialty trailers. Trans-Tech was additionally able to realize its goal of developing aircraft refuelers that range from 1,000 to 10,000 gallons each which are now in use at airports across the country, showing how Trans-Tech has made the most of its new opportunities. While Trans-Tech certainly produces high quality tanks and trailers, the firm and its over 60 employees are also a good neighbor, donating time and resources to many area organizations and charities. Trans- Tech's commitment to the community is visible with its assistance to The Salvation Army; the company's sponsoring a youth hockey team; and its major participation in the Brewer Days and Brewer Winterfest, two well-attended annual community events. One of Trans-Tech's most recognizable efforts is its involvement with the Bangor Area Homeless Shelter. Mr. Peters serves on the shelter's board of directors, and he and Trans-Tech constantly provide the shelter with needed supplies such as furniture and food. They even donated a new air conditioner for the hot summer months. Mr. Peters also serves as a board member on the Brewer Economic Development Corporation and he is a founding member of the Penobscot Landing Committee, which is aimed at revitalizing the historic Brewer waterfront. He is also the 2008 recipient of the Governor's Service Award as chosen by the Maine Commission for Community Service, a fitting acknowledgement of the devotion he and Trans-Tech have shown to improving the well-being of Brewer. Through its unyielding pledge to both business and community, Trans- Tech sets a high bar for companies seeking to succeed in all facets. Ken Peters inspires his employees, and they in turn help make Brewer a better community in which to live. He also gives back to his employees in numerous ways, including providing them with a raise to help them manage rising gas prices. The firm's magnanimous spirit truly flows from the top, and it is something to be celebrated. I congratulate Trans-Tech Industries on all it does, and wish the company well in the future.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Medicare Access to Complex Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology Act of 2008. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow. Today, we unite to ensure access to medical equipment for severely disabled Medicare beneficiaries who seek to lead independent and productive lives. In the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, Congress directed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to proceed with a durable medical equipment competitive bidding demonstration project. The purpose of this demonstration was to determine whether competitive bidding can be used to provide quality medical equipment at prices below current Medicare Part B reimbursement rates. The bidding will result in a new fee schedule for some selected DME services, replacing Medicare's current fee schedule. In other words, competitive bidding will change how Medicare covers medical equipment and also determine which suppliers may participate in providing such equipment to beneficiaries. It is critical to note that the Medicare competitive bidding program was designed to produce cost savings--both for Medicare and for beneficiaries in the form of lower copayments for medical equipment. The competitive process of submitting bids to supply particular services and products would reduce the price Medicare currently reimburses for these items. Although competitive bidding may reduce the cost of some health services, this system will likely prove unworkable in certain circumstances. For example, many rural areas across the country may not have the health care infrastructure to support a competitive acquisition program. Small suppliers who service individuals residing in areas of low population density may be outbid by larger, distant providers, leading to limited access to medical equipment for Medicare beneficiaries living in these locations. Another unique circumstance for which competitive bidding is inappropriate regards complex rehabilitation and assistive technology for individuals with significant and distinctive needs. Under the competitive acquisition program, thousands of individuals who require customized medical equipment may be forced to use ill-fitting products that will inevitably increase discomfort, further limit functional ability, and may even cause loss of function for these individuals who seek independence and mobility in their lives. Let me give an example of how the competitive bidding program will hamper the ability of Medicare beneficiaries to access necessary rehabilitative and assistive technology. If a Medicare beneficiary has been diagnosed with muscular dystrophy and uses a power wheelchair due to the loss of muscle tone in the body, a wheelchair that is tailored to the individual is imperative for several reasons. Power wheelchairs that are not adapted to the particular needs of the individual lead to more than mere discomfort, but also can further worsening health. For instance, individuals with muscular dystrophy may have wheelchairs that allow them to change positioning in order to breathe more comfortably. In addition, these wheelchairs may also be adapted to accommodate other necessary medical equipment, such as breathing ventilators. Yet with Medicare competitive bidding, the process will likely yield more uniform wheelchairs, leaving severely impaired beneficiaries with limited options to meet their needs. Our bill will remove complex rehabilitation and assistive technology products from the Medicare competitive bidding program. In a program intended to reduce costs through competition among suppliers providing medical products, it is simply untenable to include such sophisticated and personalized equipment. We all agree that we must address Medicare spending, but restricting access to necessary products for the beneficiaries that most require them is not the way to approach this issue--and may in fact increase costs. I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Stabenow and myself in supporting the Medicare Access to Complex Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology Act of 2008 to support Medicare beneficiaries in receiving the specialized medical equipment they so critically need.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Medicare Access to Complex Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology Act of 2008. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow. Today, we unite to ensure access to medical equipment for severely disabled Medicare beneficiaries who seek to lead independent and productive lives. In the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, Congress directed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to proceed with a durable medical equipment competitive bidding demonstration project. The purpose of this demonstration was to determine whether competitive bidding can be used to provide quality medical equipment at prices below current Medicare Part B reimbursement rates. The bidding will result in a new fee schedule for some selected DME services, replacing Medicare's current fee schedule. In other words, competitive bidding will change how Medicare covers medical equipment and also determine which suppliers may participate in providing such equipment to beneficiaries. It is critical to note that the Medicare competitive bidding program was designed to produce cost savings--both for Medicare and for beneficiaries in the form of lower copayments for medical equipment. The competitive process of submitting bids to supply particular services and products would reduce the price Medicare currently reimburses for these items. Although competitive bidding may reduce the cost of some health services, this system will likely prove unworkable in certain circumstances. For example, many rural areas across the country may not have the health care infrastructure to support a competitive acquisition program. Small suppliers who service individuals residing in areas of low population density may be outbid by larger, distant providers, leading to limited access to medical equipment for Medicare beneficiaries living in these locations. Another unique circumstance for which competitive bidding is inappropriate regards complex rehabilitation and assistive technology for individuals with significant and distinctive needs. Under the competitive acquisition program, thousands of individuals who require customized medical equipment may be forced to use ill-fitting products that will inevitably increase discomfort, further limit functional ability, and may even cause loss of function for these individuals who seek independence and mobility in their lives. Let me give an example of how the competitive bidding program will hamper the ability of Medicare beneficiaries to access necessary rehabilitative and assistive technology. If a Medicare beneficiary has been diagnosed with muscular dystrophy and uses a power wheelchair due to the loss of muscle tone in the body, a wheelchair that is tailored to the individual is imperative for several reasons. Power wheelchairs that are not adapted to the particular needs of the individual lead to more than mere discomfort, but also can further worsening health. For instance, individuals with muscular dystrophy may have wheelchairs that allow them to change positioning in order to breathe more comfortably. In addition, these wheelchairs may also be adapted to accommodate other necessary medical equipment, such as breathing ventilators. Yet with Medicare competitive bidding, the process will likely yield more uniform wheelchairs, leaving severely impaired beneficiaries with limited options to meet their needs. Our bill will remove complex rehabilitation and assistive technology products from the Medicare competitive bidding program. In a program intended to reduce costs through competition among suppliers providing medical products, it is simply untenable to include such sophisticated and personalized equipment. We all agree that we must address Medicare spending, but restricting access to necessary products for the beneficiaries that most require them is not the way to approach this issue--and may in fact increase costs. I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Stabenow and myself in supporting the Medicare Access to Complex Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology Act of 2008 to support Medicare beneficiaries in receiving the specialized medical equipment they so critically need.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support of the Fair Pay Restoration Act, S. 1843,--and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bipartisan measure, introduced by Senator Kennedy and supported by 40 of my colleagues in the Senate. This bill would rightly provide victims of workplace gender discrimination with the reasonable timeframe they deserve to file discrimination suits under Federal law--while restoring longstanding precedent that was regrettably reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court last year. I firmly believe that America should be a global leader on issues related to gender discrimination and equal pay, but with its decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., the Supreme Court telegraphed entirely the wrong message to the rest of the world about the value of equal pay for equal work--and ignored the realities of pay discrimination. Furthermore, with the economy in crisis, gas prices sky-high, and housing values falling, it is all the more critical we not lose vital ground on fair pay. It is no secret that women play a substantial leadership role in our Nation--we are business leaders, entrepreneurs, politicians, mothers, and much more. But regrettably, wage discrimination still exists and has remained constant for many years. In 1963, the year of the Equal Pay Act's passage, full-time working women were paid 59 cents on average to the dollar received by men. In 2004, more than 40 years later, women were only paid 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. What is even more troubling is that, according to a National Academy of Sciences report, between one-third and one-half of the wage disparities between men and women cannot adequately be explained by differences in experience, education, or other legitimate qualifications. And notably, this wage discrimination exists despite the passage of the Equal Pay Act that made it illegal to pay women less than men for performing equal work. Wage discrimination also continues to exist despite the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlawed discrimination in employment and wages on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, and national origin. This pernicious injustice continues despite Congress passing the 1991 Civil Rights Act, which I strongly supported, along with most of my colleagues on both sides of the political aisle. As a former cochair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, I have been a longtime advocate in the pay equity debate. As some of my colleagues may remember, in 1984, Representative Claudine Schneider, R- RI, Representative Nancy Johnson R-CT, and I wrote to the Reagan administration asking that it prevent the Justice Department from weighing in against AFSCME v. Washington, which supported the concept of pay equity. And as a Member of the House of Representatives, I repeatedly introduced bipartisan resolutions that would have established a commission to study compensation practices in Congress from 1984 to 1993. It is therefore simply unconscionable to imagine that in this day and age, wage-setting practices are still being affected by historical gender biases resulting in the undervaluation of work and low pay for women. Sadly, the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter will make it virtually impossible for women workers to close the wage gap and to receive the remedies they deserve when they are discriminated against. This decision represents an enormous step backward for women and for any person alleging pay discrimination. Lilly Ledbetter's story poignantly coupled with this unfortunate ruling reminds us that wage discrimination persists across our Nation. It is therefore long past time we reversed the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter and clarified that laws against pay discrimination apply to every paycheck or other compensation a worker receives. And Senator Kennedy's Fair Pay Restoration Act would reestablish a fair rule for filing claims of pay discrimination based on race, national origin, gender, religion, age or disability. This bipartisan measure would also impose a reasonable time limit for filing pay discrimination claims and would start the clock for filing pay discrimination claims when compensation is received, rather than when the employer decides to discriminate. Each discriminatory paycheck would restart the clock for filing a pay discrimination claim and as long as workers file their claims within 180 days of a discriminatory paycheck, their charges will be considered timely. This measure would restore the precedent applied by nine courts of appeals and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in pay discrimination cases until the Supreme Court's May 29, 2007. It would also maintain the current limits on the amount employers owe. The bill would also restore congressional intent, by mirroring language prohibiting discriminatory seniority systems, which was included in the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1991. The bill was signed by President George H. W. Bush in 1991, and I was pleased to support this measure which passed with overwhelmingly bipartisan support. Some contend this bill would ``exacerbate the existing heavy burden on the courts by encouraging the filing of stale claims'' . . . that it would allow employees to bring a claim of pay or other employment- related discrimination years or even decades after the alleged discrimination occurred. That is simply an exaggeration. The fact is-- employers would not have to adjust for salary differences that occurred decades ago. Current law limits back pay awards to 2 years before the worker filed a job discrimination claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and this bill would not change this 2-year limit on back pay. I cannot overstate my support for the Fair Pay Restoration Act, and I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to vote for this legislation tomorrow to ensure equal pay for women and minorities in the workforce. Discrimination of any kind in the workplace should not be tolerated. It is time the law reflected that. Thank you. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that a copy of my remarks be included in the Congressional Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that I believe is vital to the survival and competitiveness of our nation's trucking industry. For too long, our small business motor freight carriers, who struggle every day to make ends meet, have had their concerns ignored and neglected. Today, as the entire trucking industry faces monumental economic challenges spurred by skyrocketing, record- breaking oil prices and exorbitant and volatile fuel costs, not to mention a detrimental slow-down in the hiring of new drivers, our independent operators are having to contend with a devastating economic downturn and enduring business failures--the likes of which this country has not seen since 2000. During the first quarter of 2008, nearly one thousand motor carriers failed, and they were not just trucking companies with two or three trucks, but the average number of vehicles numbered 45 trucks! As you can imagine, the financial impact is enormous, especially given that the Bureau of Transportation Statistics projects freight to grow by more than 70 percent by 2020. Forestalling action is not an option if we are to sustain our trucking industry which is an undeniable, economic lifeline of this nation. That is why I have taken this opportunity to join with Senator Brown in introducing the Trust in Reliable Understanding of Consumer Costs (TRUCC) Act which would provide our small business operators and carriers with the long-denied fairness that is owed to them. It is time that these hard-working men and women free from stranglehold of unscrupulous brokers and middle-men who charge shippers for fuel costs, but refuse to pass on those costs to operators who actually pay for the fuel. Our bill would provide not only a clear line-item delineating the fuel surcharge in the contracts provided to our small business carriers, but also would guarantee that the entity in the transaction-- whether a shipper, broker, or driver--who absorbs the consistently- rising cost of fuel will become the recipient of the fuel surcharge. To our measure's detractors who mischaracterize it, calling it among other things--outrageous, I want to remind them that our focus is on small business motor carriers which comprise more than 90 percent of the truck industry, and that these individuals continue to traverse the country, carrying consumer goods and propelling our economy forward in the process. And they do so, despite the constant challenges that are part and parcel of this occupation . . . brokers who obfuscate the amount or even existence of fuel surcharges to the benefit of their own coffers, the escalation of fuel prices, maintenance costs for their vehicles, the long days or weeks of travel--sacrificing time away from their families in order to make a living, feed their families, and finance the education of their children. And so, Mr. President, I ask, how can we afford to turn a blind eye to the plight of these Americans whose livelihood is so integral to commerce in the great country? Merely wishing the problem away or simply keeping it out of sight and out of mind is neither tenable nor acceptable. Make no mistake, not all brokers are bad actors, nor are all small business operators being exploited. That is precisely why the legislation Senator Brown and I are offering today does not place onerous burdens on the logistics industry. We merely seek to ensure that an industry under siege on several fronts receives what its purveyors are rightfully entitled to--equitable treatment and a modicum of transparency. Is it too much to ask that they may see for themselves in a transaction who, if anyone, is receiving a fuel surcharge, and how much is being paid out for the cost of fuel? Is it too much to ask for an assurance that, if the motor carrier is willing to pay the high cost of fuel at the pump while transporting goods across this nation, that carrier will be reimbursed? The answer to both questions is a resounding, ``No!'' The solution to addressing this regrettable situation is our common-sense legislation the consideration of which is long overdue. I urge all my colleagues who have small business motor carriers in their state to consider seriously this issue and lend their strong support to this welcomed legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It certainly has been an exceptionally long journey to reach this point where we are today in the Senate. We are at least in sight of enactment of this watershed legislation to prevent genetic discrimination. In fact, it will open an entirely new universe of infinite possibilities for Americans for years to come. I commend the majority leader for making this legislation a high priority for the Senate's consideration today, as well as the minority leader, Senator McConnell, for his concurrence and support, and my colleague, Senator Kennedy, the lead Democratic cosponsor and chairman of the HELP Committee. He has labored passionately and tirelessly so that every American can realize the protections embodied in the legislation. He marshaled this bill through committee, and we have endeavored to work together throughout this Congress on both sides of the aisle, in both bodies, to ensure that we would be able to be in a position in the Senate to vote on this legislation. Senator Enzi has been absolutely crucial, as well, to our success. He is the former chairman of the HELP Committee and is now the ranking member. He helped to obtain an array of support from so many Americans across this country, as well as organizations that include health providers, businesses, and health plans, which are central to providing a strong coalition for support. Similarly, Senator Gregg, former HELP Committee chairman in 2003, has worked to further the cause of defending Americans from genetic discrimination as well. Together, these colleagues--and more--helped the Senate on two separate occasions to overwhelmingly pass this legislation, in both 2003 and 2005. It has been a long effort to realize this fruition today. It was a dozen years ago when I first introduced this legislation to protect individuals from discrimination in health insurance based on genetic information. At that time, there were several of us who recognized the tremendous threat posed by this practice, including those I have mentioned and former Senate majority leader, Senator Frist, and former minority leader, Senator Daschle, who at the time certainly foresaw that the misuse of genetic information would create a new form of discrimination. Yesterday, we attended the unveiling of the portrait of Senator Daschle. One of his former staffers indicated that it is appropriate that the time of that unveiling coincides with this legislation pending before the Senate. It was so important to him. Today, I am certain many colleagues, past and present, are delighted that we are in a position today to pass this legislation. We are on the brink of forestalling this discrimination before it becomes firmly entrenched. It is also important, as Senator Kennedy cited yesterday, given that this Friday is National DNA Day, which will mark the 55th anniversary of the publication of the landmark paper describing the structure of DNA. Since that breakthrough, our understanding of genetics has expanded exponentially. Over the past decade, our progress in understanding genetics has been moving at a dizzying pace, particularly following the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003. That knowledge can work either for the benefit or harm to individuals, as we know. Today, my colleagues are dedicated to ensuring the meaning of the words of the Hippocratic Oath to ``do no harm.'' Today, the Senate will, for the third time, ban discrimination based on genetics. Passage of this legislation by the House of Representatives was 1 year ago, where Representative Slaughter and others worked to shepherd this legislation through three committee markups to an overwhelming House passage of 420 to 3. The President has called for enactment of the legislation to prevent this discrimination. Ninety percent of Americans believe insurers and employers should not be allowed to discriminate based on genetic information. Now it is the Senate's turn. We now have an agreement between the Senate, the House, and the President. Indeed, this bill represents a triumph of bipartisan collaboration and truth. Although there was broad agreement in principle to protect individuals from discrimination, some debated the language in our bill, taking issue with whether it would affect the policy that was intended. We have listened to the concerns, and we worked with them and responded. I thank, in particular, Senator Coburn for working with us in a collaborative fashion to resolve these issues and to allow the debate to proceed and finally vote on final enactment of the legislation. Too much is at stake to create uncertainty and ambiguity. The protections we enact must be effective. Having worked closely with both House and Senate colleagues, the legislation is nearly identical to the legislation passed in the House. We have addressed the remaining concerns that were raised by many, including the administration. I think it did not change in any way. The fundamentals of this legislation, in fact, probably acted to improve it in some categories. We have clarified that entities could communicate genetic information consistent with the HIPAA privacy regulations, the Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act. We worked to ensure that health plans may continue to utilize the presence of actual manifested diseases and issue rating coverages. That is the case today. We don't change that. We are at the threshold of a new era, without question. For the first time, we act to prevent discrimination before it has taken firm hold. That is why this legislation is unique and groundbreaking. In the past, Congress has acted to address discrimination, but with this bill we are making a statement and taking a stand and saying that we look to the future, and genetic discrimination will not be allowed to flourish, take root, and stand between Americans and the vast potential that genetic information can provide for the greater quality of life. Genetic discrimination is based on the unchangeable. By its nature, the basis on which one discriminates, with respect to genetics, is not readily apparent. In fact, the individual discriminating must search for information on which to act. So there is no question that it is a deliberate and willful effort. For example, if you see the breast cancer gene information on women, in order to deny women health insurance or raise the cost of that coverage, the question of your intent seems indisputably clear. It is not inadvertent but a willful discrimination against women with greater risk of breast cancer--women who should benefit from that knowledge and intervention, they should not be punished for it. Because these data must be available for such discrimination to take place, it is clear why this legislation not only prohibits the act of discrimination but rightly respects circumstances in which one may request a genetics test or possess an individual's genetic information. That is all the more critical today because there is an ever-expanding universe of such genetic data, information which could be utilized to improve health, reduce costs, and to extend lives. But it is absolutely useless if it, instead, discourages individuals from either participating in vital research or realizing the remarkable benefits that research is producing. Just a few years ago, it was virtually impossible to find genetic information on which to discriminate. You might be asked if you had a family history of a disorder. Today, the medical and scientific landscape has changed dramatically, and our laws must change with it. We have long known about a small number of genes that play a role in some diseases, such as Huntington's disease and the early onset of Alzheimer's. Yet the progress of discovery and study was maddeningly slow and tedious. The Human Genome Project changed all of that. Today, with new technology, we are witnessing an explosive increase in our understanding of genetics and human health. That growing genetics knowledge offers the historic potential of cures and customized therapies. Even more promising, genetic advances will enable us to actually prevent the development of diseases. But this potential and the billions spent in discovering genetic relationships and the development of treatments and preventive agents will certainly be in vain if Americans don't choose to access these advances. To do so, Americans must agree to undergo genetic testing. There are more than 1,100 genetic tests today. So that only tells you the exponential growth that will be created and occur in the future. Would you undergo that testing if you knew the information about your genetic makeup could be used against you to deny you employment or health coverage? Mr. President, some say that kind of discrimination is but a future possibility, that we can afford to wait until genetic discrimination becomes manifest. But it already has done so. We have a veritable litany of examples of heartbreaking circumstances where individuals chose not to seek and utilize genetic information for fear of discrimination. I learned this from the real-life experience of one of my constituents more than 10 years ago. Her name is Bonnie Lee Tucker. Bonnie Lee wrote me about her fear of having the BRAC test for breast cancer, even though she has nine women in her immediate family who were diagnosed with breast cancer and she herself is a survivor. She wrote to me about her fear of having the BRAC test because she worried it would ruin her daughter's ability to obtain insurance in the future. Bonnie's experience certainly demonstrated how our expanding knowledge of genetics could truly be both beneficial and harmful. I recognize we simply must act to prevent the latter. Bonnie Lee is not the only one who has had that fear, as we all learned. Most disturbingly, when the National Institutes of Health offered women genetic testing, nearly 32 percent of those who were offered a test for breast cancer declined to participate, citing concerns about health insurance discrimination. That is a sad commentary today when we cannot maximize the value of scientific progress, we cannot apply it to those who would benefit most. We have documented cases where some attempted to mandate genetic testing. Even when this is designed to improve the delivery of health care, it must be recognized that once that information is disclosed and is unprotected, a future employer or insurer may not necessarily apply that information in such a benign way, as we have all learned. Yet we have recognized that if an individual accepts a genetic test, they may be able to take action as a result--preventing disease or premature death in the process or also reducing the burden of high health care costs. I recall the testimony before Congress, as Senator Kennedy, of Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the National Human Genome Institute. He has been such an extraordinary leader in helping us realize the critical role genomics will play in human health and the arena beyond. In speaking of the next step for those involved in the genome project, he explained that the project scientists were engaged in a major endeavor ``to uncover the connections between particular genes and particular diseases to apply the knowledge they had just unlocked.'' In order to accomplish this, Dr. Collins said: We need a vigorous research enterprise with an involvement of a large number of individuals so we can draw the most precise connections between a particular spelling of a gene and a particular outcome. It is undeniably evident that this effort cannot be successful if people are fearful of possible repercussions from their participation in genetic testing. The bottom line that given the advances in science, there are two separate issues at hand. The first is to restrict discrimination by health insurers. The second is to prevent employment discrimination based simply on an individual's genetic information. Some of us saw this danger and the harm it can pose to millions of Americans, and that is why more than a decade ago, Representative Louise Slaughter and I introduced legislation in our respective bodies to ban discrimination in health insurance. At that time, the completion of the human genome seemed to be in the very distant future. But the science has certainly outpaced congressional action. As we know and as mentioned in the Senate on two different occasions, we passed this legislation unanimously on the floor of the Senate. Unfortunately, we could not get it beyond. So here we are today on the verge of doing it once again. This legislation does reflect the bipartisan bicameral efforts we are entering into: a new era of human health, that we have engaged in this process mightily over the last 16 months to forge an even stronger consensus on the fundamental agreements of genome. Since the time of the introduction of our first bipartisan bill in the Senate, we have worked to reiterate the agreements on which this legislation is based and to build an even stronger foundation for this legislation, for fundamental to this bill is establishing strong protections, both in health coverage and in employment, without unraveling established law. With regard to health insurance, the issues are clear and familiar. The Senate debated them previously in the context of consideration of larger privacy issues. Indeed, as Congress considered what is now the Health Insurance Accountability and Portability Act of 1996, we also addressed the issues of privacy of medical information. Moreover, any legislation that seeks to fully address genetic discrimination must consider the interaction and new protections with HIPAA. In fact, our legislation uses the exact same framework. As this bill makes clear, we do not create an onerous burden in recordkeeping. Specifically, we clarify the protection of genetic information, as well as information on the request or receipt of genetic tests from being used by an insurer against an individual. That is key because we must recognize that genetic information only detects the potential for genetically linked disease or disorder and does not equal a diagnosis of a disease. At the same time, it is also credible that this data be available to doctors and other health care professionals when necessary to diagnose or treat an illness. This is a distinction that begs our acknowledgment as we discuss protecting patients from potential discriminatory practices by insurers. On the subject of employment discrimination, unlike our legislative history on debating privacy health matters, the record regarding protecting genetic information from workplace discrimination is not as extensive. To that end, our bipartisan bill creates these protections in the workplace, and there should be no question that great harm can occur when genetic information is used inappropriately. As demonstrated by the Burlington Northern case, the threat of employment discrimination was very real and, therefore, it was essential that we take this information out of the realm of employers' reach before the use of this information becomes more widespread. In that instance, employees were tested without their knowledge of what the testing was going to be used for. Ultimately, it turned out it was for carpal tunnel syndrome. But there was no way they were required, mandated by the employer to undergo that testing. In this aspect, the Congress has to provide the protections to ensure that these discriminatory actions do not become widespread. On this aspect, the Congress has substantial employment case law and legislative history on which to build. Indeed, as we consider the remarkable growth in genomics and the harm which could result with its use, we agree we must extend current law discrimination protections to genetic information. We reviewed the current employment discrimination code and decided what remedies would be available for instances of genetic discriminations and if they would differ for those available in other instances under current law, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, which are enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. As a result, the pending legislation creates new protections by paralleling current law and clarifying the recent remedies available to victims of discrimination. Ensuring that regardless of whether a person is discriminated against because of their religion, their race, or their DNA, individuals will all receive the same protections under the law, as they should. Some have been concerned that despite clear prohibitions and reasonable remedies and penalties in disputes, there will be incentives to seek greater or lesser penalties justified under statute, and the legislation defines those boundaries. It will be the presence of these prohibitions and penalties which will ensure we do not see a growth in genetic discrimination. Indeed, I believe some who have questioned the necessity of this legislation may continue to do so, pointing to no overwhelming problem before us, that it is essentially a solution in search of a problem. The bottom line is this legislation will prevent and preempt harm. They will recognize in the final analysis, given the open-ended, infinite possibilities that will be created by genetics, that if we provide these protections, individuals will have the incentive to increasingly avail themselves of medical knowledge which will not only improve their health, but actually reduce health care costs. The fact is, for employers who have had concerns about this legislation, they should also recognize how it will significantly reduce health care costs. Isn't it essential to utilize our investments in advancing medical knowledge to prevent disease, disability, or even death? To the contrary. The fact is we need the incentives to ensure individuals will use genetic testing. So to that end, IBM pledged a few years ago not to use genetic information in hiring practices and deciding eligibility for health insurance coverage. This, again, demonstrated admirable understanding of how such discrimination can harm both the individual and business, and IBM has found that policy works. It has been more than 6 years since the completion of the working draft of the human genome. Like a book which is never opened, the potential of our expanding genetic knowledge will not be realized unless individuals can take advantage of it without adverse consequences. The pending legislation is a shining example of what we can accomplish when we set aside our partisan differences. In fact, we achieved remarkable success in this endeavor. I stated this earlier. The House of Representatives passed it by 420 to 3. That is an extraordinary tally reflecting, I think, the broad-based support this legislation enjoys. Today 46 Members of the Senate--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--are sponsors of this legislation and a broad coalition of the Genetic Alliance that includes more than 600 member organizations. We are at a historic crossroads on a paramount issue that can make the difference between life and death for countless Americans. People deserve to have protections from genetic discrimination, and this legislation deserves swift enactment in the Senate. As science and medicine hurl headlong into the 21st century, we have a responsibility to ensure our laws keep pace to ensure the benefits of this extraordinary era of advancements that can be realized by everyone without penalty. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms SNOWE

Ms SNOWE. Mr. President, this week is National Small Business Week, a time to celebrate the critical role small businesses play in powering our economy. Indeed, as ranking member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am constantly reminded of how crucial small businesses are to maintaining our economic vitality. Nationally, small firms represent 99.7 percent of all businesses and have generated 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs over the past decade. On occasion, one of these small businesses goes above and beyond the call of social responsibility with an act of true thoughtfulness and generosity. Michael Costigan and the employees of the Waukesha Home Design Center in southeastern Wisconsin recently answered this call to action and made a difference in their community. The story begins several weeks ago, when a selfish individual posing as a worker stole a television from the Zablocki Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Milwaukee, WI. This was a cowardly and despicable act, and I hope that the perpetrator is brought to justice. After the theft, elderly and sick veterans at the center were preparing to adjust to watching their favorite movies, TV shows, and Milwaukee Brewers games on an older and smaller television, until a local businessman heard what had happened on the radio. Michael Costigan, the general manager of the Waukesha Home Design Center and a veteran himself, was incensed by this incident, and decided to take action. He and the company's 25 employees, many of whom are also veterans, immediately made arrangements to donate a 52-inch flat-panel high-definition television to the Veterans Center. Just this morning, Mr. Costigan and other employees personally delivered the television to a group of ecstatic veterans, who will no longer suffer because of the inconsideration of another. I am pleased to hear that the residents have already set up their Nintendo Wii to play bowling. I am highlighting this compelling story on the Senate floor today because of the example it sets for each and every one of us. The company has only been in business since November of last year, but they have already made a lasting impression on their local area. While we in Congress must do all that we can to support our nation's heroic and patriotic veterans, it is good to see that there are individuals and businesses caring for those who have given so much to defend our country's freedoms. My heartfelt gratitude and appreciation goes out to Michael Costigan and the Waukesha Home Design Center's employees for their work of selflessness and charity, and I wish them a bright future in all of their endeavors.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that I believe is vital to the survival and competitiveness of our nation's trucking industry. For too long, our small business motor freight carriers, who struggle every day to make ends meet, have had their concerns ignored and neglected. Today, as the entire trucking industry faces monumental economic challenges spurred by skyrocketing, record- breaking oil prices and exorbitant and volatile fuel costs, not to mention a detrimental slow-down in the hiring of new drivers, our independent operators are having to contend with a devastating economic downturn and enduring business failures--the likes of which this country has not seen since 2000. During the first quarter of 2008, nearly one thousand motor carriers failed, and they were not just trucking companies with two or three trucks, but the average number of vehicles numbered 45 trucks! As you can imagine, the financial impact is enormous, especially given that the Bureau of Transportation Statistics projects freight to grow by more than 70 percent by 2020. Forestalling action is not an option if we are to sustain our trucking industry which is an undeniable, economic lifeline of this nation. That is why I have taken this opportunity to join with Senator Brown in introducing the Trust in Reliable Understanding of Consumer Costs (TRUCC) Act which would provide our small business operators and carriers with the long-denied fairness that is owed to them. It is time that these hard-working men and women free from stranglehold of unscrupulous brokers and middle-men who charge shippers for fuel costs, but refuse to pass on those costs to operators who actually pay for the fuel. Our bill would provide not only a clear line-item delineating the fuel surcharge in the contracts provided to our small business carriers, but also would guarantee that the entity in the transaction-- whether a shipper, broker, or driver--who absorbs the consistently- rising cost of fuel will become the recipient of the fuel surcharge. To our measure's detractors who mischaracterize it, calling it among other things--outrageous, I want to remind them that our focus is on small business motor carriers which comprise more than 90 percent of the truck industry, and that these individuals continue to traverse the country, carrying consumer goods and propelling our economy forward in the process. And they do so, despite the constant challenges that are part and parcel of this occupation . . . brokers who obfuscate the amount or even existence of fuel surcharges to the benefit of their own coffers, the escalation of fuel prices, maintenance costs for their vehicles, the long days or weeks of travel--sacrificing time away from their families in order to make a living, feed their families, and finance the education of their children. And so, Mr. President, I ask, how can we afford to turn a blind eye to the plight of these Americans whose livelihood is so integral to commerce in the great country? Merely wishing the problem away or simply keeping it out of sight and out of mind is neither tenable nor acceptable. Make no mistake, not all brokers are bad actors, nor are all small business operators being exploited. That is precisely why the legislation Senator Brown and I are offering today does not place onerous burdens on the logistics industry. We merely seek to ensure that an industry under siege on several fronts receives what its purveyors are rightfully entitled to--equitable treatment and a modicum of transparency. Is it too much to ask that they may see for themselves in a transaction who, if anyone, is receiving a fuel surcharge, and how much is being paid out for the cost of fuel? Is it too much to ask for an assurance that, if the motor carrier is willing to pay the high cost of fuel at the pump while transporting goods across this nation, that carrier will be reimbursed? The answer to both questions is a resounding, ``No!'' The solution to addressing this regrettable situation is our common-sense legislation the consideration of which is long overdue. I urge all my colleagues who have small business motor carriers in their state to consider seriously this issue and lend their strong support to this welcomed legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today during National Small Business Week I wish to commend a local auto dealership from Downeast Maine that recently won the Top Drawer Award from the Ellsworth Area Chamber of Commerce. Morrison Chevrolet of Ellsworth has been selling automobiles in Hancock County for nearly 80 years, and it shows no signs of slowing down. The Top Drawer Award is presented annually to either a business or person that makes a lasting contribution to the development and improvement of the greater Ellsworth region. The award was founded in 1980 to commemorate the late Tom Caruso, who established Bar Harbor Airlines to ``Link Maine With The World.'' It is clear that, through Morrison's solid and intelligent commitment to the customer and the community, it is highly worthy of this recognition. Founded in 1930 by the present co-owner Bud Morrison's grandfather, Harry, Morrison Chevrolet began its storied history in Winter Harbor, about 25 miles east of its present location. The dealership has moved over time first to Bar Harbor and then to several locations in Ellsworth, finally settling on a new 23,000-square-foot facility on Route 1 in Ellsworth in 2005. Although it may have relocated, the company has always been owned and run by a member of the Morrison family. Morrison Chevrolet has always stayed on the cutting edge, positioning itself to best survive in a competitive industry. To keep current in providing the best possible service to their customers, Morrison's technicians attend training and certification classes, frequently via the Internet. Workers often use the company's conference room to link in to classes online. Morrison's also makes use of technology to augment its sales by continually increasing its Internet advertising. In fact, Mr. Morrison says that roughly one-third of his sales leads come from the Internet, and the firm ships cars-- even Corvettes--across the country. Additionally, the dealership's Web site is a handy tool for the consumer, allowing clients to search available new and used automobiles, schedule service and maintenance requests, prequalify for purchasing a car, and calculate whether it is wiser for them to buy or lease a vehicle. In addition to providing their customers with convenient options and caring service, Morrison's employees always find time for community involvement. Dave Keep, the used car sales manager, serves as an officer of the Ellsworth Masons, and P.J. Davis, who works in the sales department, is a member of the chamber of commerce's board. And Morrison's general manager Clyde Lewis is a member of the board of directors of the James Russell Wiggins Downeast Family YMCA, which has been assisting Ellsworth area families since 1961. A staple of the local business scene for decades, Morrison Chevrolet is most deserving of the immense honor of the Top Drawer Award. By serving the customer and the community at the same time, Morrison's 47 employees exhibit the generosity and kindness of Downeast Mainers. Furthermore, by continuing to innovate its business practices, Morrison Chevrolet is well-positioned for future success and additional accolades. I commend Bud Morrison and everyone at Morrison Chevrolet for their accomplishments and wish them well in their continuing endeavors.